We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202308377)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308377

Sanctuary Housing Association

25 November 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports about the cost and efficiency of her heating system;
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The resident has Crohn’s disease.
  2. The property is a 1-bedroom semi-detached bungalow.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord to raise a new complaint on 31 January 2023. She said she was unhappy with the heating system in her house. She said this was extremely costly, costing her around £200 a month, as well as being inefficient which meant she was cold.
  4. The landlord arranged a survey of the heating system on 6 April 2023 which found all of the heaters in the property worked as they should. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 April 2023 relaying its contractor’s comments about the heating system. It said it would not be taking any further action as the system worked as it should.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 2 May 2023. She said that her heating bills remained very expensive, the heating system was inefficient and that this had begun when the landlord replaced the system several years earlier.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 7 June 2023. It said that it had discussed the complaint with the gas operations manager who was satisfied with the assessment that the system was working correctly and to a reasonable level of efficiency. It provided the resident with advice on seeking support with any outstanding debt relating to her energy bill, and awarded £75 compensation for its delays in communicating throughout the complaints process.
  7. The resident continued to raise concerns about the heating through June and July 2023, causing the landlord to reopen her complaint on 29 August 2023.It arranged for a new energy performance certificate (EPC) which found the efficiency of the heating system to be a grade E. Following this, the landlord arranged 2 surveys of the property by separate contractors both of whom recommended the installation of an air source heat pump (ASHP). The landlord eventually installed this on 11 December 2023. The new unit had several issues when it was first installed and had to be replaced, and then moved from being wall mounted to being situated on the ground.
  8. The landlord provided a new stage 2 complaint response on 27 December 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint, awarded her £650 compensation. The landlord apologised that the storage heaters had been inadequate since it had fitted these and offered £400 as a goodwill gesture towards her debts because of this. It also offered a further £250 for distress and inconvenience for her efforts across the complaint. Following further discussion, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £1,050. This consisted of £250 for time, trouble and inconvenience, £500 as a gesture of goodwill towards electric debts, £200 for redecorating costs, £50 for the initial failure of the unit and £50 for complaint handling.
  9. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 8 March 2024 to ask us to consider her complaint. She said that she had been trying for 4 years to get affordable heating and that, although the landlord had now replaced the old system, this was still going to be expensive. To resolve her complaint, the resident would like compensation to cover the increased energy usage and for the landlord to consider adding solar panels to her property to reduce the cost of heating. In a recent phone conversation, the resident told the Ombudsman that the heating system now works correctly but remains expensive.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

  1. Paragraph 41b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which ‘concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme’. As the resident’s electricity is provided by an energy supplier, the cost of this electricity is not something which could be considered by the Ombudsman. The evidence seen by this Service indicates that the resident has already raised a complaint about this to the Energy Ombudsman.
  2. The resident has also stated that her issues with the efficiency of the heating system, and its cost, date back at least as far as 2021. Paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This investigation is therefore limited to the resident’s reports in relation to this specific complaint albeit earlier events may be noted for context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the cost and efficiency of her heating system

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord shall maintain and, where appropriate, keep in proper working order ‘heating and hot water equipment’. This means that the heating system and its efficiency is the responsibility of the landlord. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) determines that a property should have ‘a reasonable degree of thermal comfort’. It is therefore the landlord’s obligation to ensure that it is providing the resident with a heating system that provides such thermal comfort.
  2. The landlord initially received the resident’s reports at the end of January 2023. However, it took until April 2023 for it to undertake a proper survey of the system. Whilst it did perform some remedial work, such as relating to the storage heaters not working correctly on 16 and 20 February 2023, the time taken to undertake the survey was outside of what the Ombudsman would expect to see given the potential repercussions of a lack of proper heating in the property. This delay was a clear failure in service from the landlord to properly investigate the resident’s reports.
  3. Nevertheless, the survey found that the heating system was working as expected. This formed the basis of the landlord’s stage 1 and initial stage 2 complaint responses. It was fair from the landlord to rely on the report from its contractors to inform its decision on the steps it intended to take.
  4. However, throughout the complaint, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. There were several instances where the resident had to chase the landlord for updates, often receiving no updates for weeks at a time. This occurred between 22 February 2023 and 16 March 2023 as well as between 12 May 2023 and 1 June 2023. Overall, the landlord recognised its communication with the resident had been poor. The landlord does appear to have recognised its failures here, and it is reasonable to consider that these failures also make up part of the landlord’s later offer of compensation for distress and inconvenience.
  5. The landlord’s inspections identified several works which it believed would be useful in allowing the property to retain heat and allow the heating system to work more efficiently. These included replacing the kitchen floor and repointing works. Whilst the landlord replaced the kitchen floor, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out any repointing works. Whilst this was an error in service from the landlord, it is unclear if it still intends to undertake these works given the later replacement of the heating system. The landlord should outline to the resident if it does in fact still intend to complete any outstanding works in relation to the heating efficiency of the system.
  6. Following continued reports from the resident about the heating, the landlord arranged to undertake a new EPC and re–open the resident’s complaint. As a new EPC only needs to be carried out every 10 years, it was good practice from the landlord to undertake this early in order to help investigate the resident’s reports. This found the energy rating to be an EPC rating of E in August 2023. An EPC rating of E means that a property has below-average energy efficiency, but still meets the minimum standards for rented properties in England and Wales. There is no evidence provided that suggests the performance of the heating system breached any of the landlord’s legal obligations or the Decent Homes Standard.
  7. Nevertheless, the landlord agreed to install a new heating system in light of this result. Whilst this was good practice from the landlord, it took around 7 months of the resident reporting heating concerns before it took these substantive steps.
  8. The landlord subsequently arranged for 2 surveys of the heating system. Both of these recommended the installation of an ASHP. Both also noted that the resident’s property did not have potential for gas or oil-based systems and therefore the only option for the new heating system would be the ASHP. The landlord followed through on these recommendations and installed a new system in December 2023.
  9. The resident has repeatedly asked the landlord to install solar panels. The landlord told her that its properties did not have solar panels but that it was considering these moving forwards. It also informed the resident that it would consider her property for solar panels. Given the landlord does not currently provide solar panels, its answer was fair. The landlord should provide the resident with an update about its plans for installing solar panels and if her home will be receiving these. 
  10. There were some problems with the ASHP when contractors first installed this. The resident reported that the ASHP was too noisy, resulting in contractors having to relocate it. It also broke down. The resident liaised with the specialist contractors who installed this and they were able to rectify the issues. This did however take 2 months due to the availability of the necessary parts and labour. Given this, the Ombudsman cannot hold the landlord at fault for these delays. It nonetheless included these delays as part of its compensation offer that it made to the resident in February 2024. This was a fair approach on the part of the landlord.
  11. When the landlord installed the new ASHP, there is no evidence that it discussed the cost implications for the resident’s heating bills. It would have been good practice for the landlord to discuss this with the resident, as well as offering advice on the most efficient way for her to use this system.
  12. The landlord did acknowledge the resident’s reports about fuel poverty and directed her towards external support. It also said it would consider compensation if there was evidence that its installation of the previous system had resulted in an excess of electricity usage. It asked the resident to provide information about this which she has apparently since offered. The landlord however is yet to provide its position on if it will be contributing towards these costs. It should write to the resident to confirm this, setting out its position on the electricity usage and, if it does intend to, how much it will reimburse. It would also be good practice for the landlord to provide information on what support it internally can provide in relation to her financial difficulty.
  13. Overall, the landlord’s decision to replace the heating system represented good practice, especially since it was not legally obliged to do so. However, it acknowledged in its complaint responses that there were failures when dealing with the resident’s reports. For this, it awarded the resident £1,050 compensation, of which £125 was apparently due to its complaint handling failure. A total of £925 was therefore offered for its failings in the handling of the heating concerns. This included amounts towards energy costs, time and trouble, inconvenience and faults related to the installation of the ASHP. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and award compensation which is within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend for failings that had a significant impact on a resident.
  14. The landlord’s offer of £925 for its failings therefore represented a reasonable offer of redress, in line with what the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. The landlord acknowledged that its communication and performance in relation to replacing the heating system had been poor. As part of this offer, the landlord provided the resident with £500 towards her heating costs which represented a resolution-focused offer of compensation recognising her financial difficulties. It also appropriately signposted her to organisations who could provide support for any financial difficulties she was experiencing.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that at stage 1 of the complaints process, it will acknowledge complaints in 3 working days and provide its complaint response within 10 working days. At stage 2 of the complaints process, it says it will provide its response within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint. Its policy also goes on to say that there are times when it may need to extend the response times but that if this is the case it will inform residents of this.
  2. At stage 1 of the complaints process, the landlord took 59 working days to provide its complaint response, significantly outside the timescales set out in its complaints policy. At stage 2, the landlord took 24 working days, albeit this was within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. After the landlord re–opened the resident’s complaints, there were further offers of compensation, with the final one coming 205 working days after the complaint had initially been escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process.
  3. The landlord’s decision to re-open the complaint and to issue various follow-on compliant responses after the initial June 2023 stage 2 complaint response was potentially confusing for the resident. However, as this was based on new information becoming available to the landlord, it was resolution-focused for it to complete these reviews rather than requiring the resident to make a new complaint.
  4. The landlord awarded £75 compensation for complaint handling failings in its original June 2023 stage 2 complaint response, but said in February 2024 that it had awarded £50 for complaint handling. The Ombudsman therefore assumes that £125 of the landlord’s final compensation award was in recognition of its complaint handling failings. Given the delays in its communications during, and after, the complaints process, this level of compensation was a reasonable offer of redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress for the failings in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £1,050 compensation it offered in February 2024 in recognition of its failings. This landlord’s reasonable redress decisions are made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
  2. The landlord should write to the resident to confirm:
    1. its up-to-date position on installing solar panels in the property;
    2. if it intends to perform any additional repairs, such as the pointing works, to improve the energy efficiency of her property;
    3. its position on awarding additional monies toward her electricity charges.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service within 6 weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations.