Sanctuary Housing Association (202200735)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200735

Sanctuary Housing Association

24 February 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s report of an oil leak and the level of compensation offered by the landlord.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

At the time of the complaint, the resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 23 October 2006.
The property referred to in this investigation is a two-bedroom house with a garden. It has an oil-fuelled central heating system, which was installed in 2017 and most recently serviced in July 2021.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident no longer resides at the property. For the purposes of this investigation, he is referred to as “the resident” since he resided in the property at the time.

Repairs and maintenance policy and procedure

The landlord’s repairs handbook categorises repairs as ‘emergency’ (made safe within 24 hours), ‘appointed’ (carried out within 28 calendar days) or ‘planned’ (carried out as a programme of works). Its repairs and maintenance policy identifies “heating repairs (during the winter season) where there is no other heating” as an emergency repair (section 5.3.4).
The repairs handbook states that repairs relating to boilers and leaks are the landlord’s responsibility. The repairs policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for all repairs that are required due to wear and tear, repairs to the structure and exterior of the premises, and repairs to any installations provided by the landlord (section 2a).
The repairs handbook contains diagrams and advice relating to common repairs, including “central heating not working”. With regard to oil-fuelled boilers, the handbook states: “If you smell oil in the property you should turn the boiler off, open the windows and contact us.”
The repairs policy says that the landlord will “have regard to the environmental impact of the service, both in terms of products used and the delivery of the service” (section 1.5).

Complaints policy and procedure

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a two-stage complaints process. At the ‘front line resolution’ stage (stage one), complaints are acknowledged within five working days and responded to within 10 working days. At the ‘investigation’ stage (stage two), they are responded to within 20 working days.
The complaints policy goes on to say that, if a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of their complaint at stage two, they are encouraged to contact the complaints handler to “share why they remain unhappy, provide any additional evidence, and explain what they are looking for”. The landlord will then provide a final response.

Compensation guidance

The landlord’s compensation policy provides a tariff for the amount of compensation it will pay in different circumstances. Payments of up to £400 may be made in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience of a service failure, taking the level of effort and impact on the complainant into account. Likewise, payments of up to £150 may be made for poor complaint handling, taking account of the length of any delay, quality of correspondence, and any difficulties experienced by the complainant.
The compensation policy also states that where temporary heaters are provided, the landlord will pay £4 per heater per day, with evidence being requested for amounts beyond £100.

Summary of events

On 5 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that his oil tank was “leaking all over the garden”. The landlord’s operative attended the same day and stopped the leak by isolating the faulty part. This meant that the resident’s heating supply was disconnected, and the operative provided two temporary electric heaters. The boiler was then repaired and reconnected by the landlord on 10 December 2021.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 13 December 2021, stating that the leak had resulted in a loss of approximately 500 litres of oil. The resident asked the landlord to arrange for his oil tank to be refilled, to refund the costs of using the temporary heaters while the boiler was disconnected, and to address the environmental issue of oil leaking into the nearby soil and stream.
The landlord logged the resident’s complaint on its system on 15 December 2021 but did not contact the resident to acknowledge receipt. The resident contacted the landlord by telephone on 21 December 2021 and by email on 22 December 2021 to chase its response to his complaint.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 23 December 2021. The response said that:
1. It was sorry to hear of the resident’s problems with his oil tank leaking, and could appreciate his frustration.
2. The resident reported the leak on 5 December 2021. The landlord attended within its published timescales. The necessary part was ordered and installed on 10 December 2021.
3. It was unable to reimburse the resident as there had been no service failure.
4. It requested photographic evidence with regard to the environmental issue.
A system note by the landlord refers to a further telephone conversation with the resident on 23 December 2021, during which advice was sought from the landlord’s gas department. The operations manager advised that if the leak was caused by “wear and tear”, the resident would need to claim on his insurance.
The resident followed up this conversation by emailing the landlord the same day. In his email, he said that the leak could not have been caused by wear and tear as the copper pipework was relatively new; it was installed in 2017 and had an expected lifespan of 25 years. He also said that he should not have to claim on his insurance or cover the cost of the lost oil as the landlord was at fault. He asked for his complaint to be kept open, and for the landlord to refund the cost of running the temporary heaters for six days (£30) as well as refilling his oil tank as a matter of urgency.
The landlord replied to the resident’s email on 7 January 2022 and apologised for its delay in responding. Although this was not a formal response to the resident’s complaint, it offered a “goodwill gesture” of £30 for the use of the temporary heaters. It advised the resident that if he remained dissatisfied, he could escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure within 10 working days.
The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of £30 the same day. He also requested to escalate his complaint, saying that he was dissatisfied as the leak was caused by the landlord’s equipment and resulted in the loss of 500 litres of oil. The resident maintained that the landlord was responsible for the replacement of the lost oil.
The landlord replied to the resident on 14 January 2022 after the resident chased it on 13 January 2022. It apologised for its delay in responding and confirmed that it had progressed the resident’s complaint to the next stage of its complaints procedure. However, it noted that the outcome may not change.
On 17 January 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and again said that it was dealing with his complaint under the final stage of its complaints procedure. It then carried out further investigation by contacting its two operatives who had attended the resident’s property on 5 and 10 December 2021. A detailed account provided by the first operative, who attended the emergency repair and isolated the leak, stated that:
1. When the operative visited, the leak was contained by a bowl placed underneath the leaking joint.
2. He judged it to be a minor leak as there was no constant drip from it.
3. There was no visible evidence of a major leak, such as oil around the concrete base of the oil tank, damage to the surrounding area, or saturated grass.
4. He did not detect a “bad smell of oil” consistent with a major spillage.
5. Following the interim repair, his work boots were not saturated with oil and did not smell of oil.
6. If he had suspected a major oil leak he would have taken the necessary steps.
The second operative, who fitted a new valve and reconnected the resident’s heating system on 10 December 2021, also advised that he had seen no signs of an oil spillage, had not smelt oil, and had judged that the leak must have been “containable”.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 10 February 2022, stating that:
1. It sincerely apologised for the problems experienced by the resident as a result of the oil leak, and appreciated the inconvenience caused to him.
2. It noted the resident’s comments about wear and tear, and also that he was unable to provide photos as there was no longer anything to see.
3. It had consulted its gas operations manager, who concluded that there was no evidence of a major leak.
4. The fault was with the isolation valve and not the copper pipe.
5. It was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint about the landlord being responsible for a major leak, or consider his request for reimbursement for the cost of 500 litres of oil.
6. In addition to the £30 already offered, it awarded a further payment of £68, making a total of £98.
A system note by the landlord in relation to its stage two response provides a breakdown of the additional £68 offered: this comprised £50 for inconvenience and £18 for the lack of heating between 5 and 10 December 2021.
On 10 and 11 February 2022, the resident replied to the landlord’s stage two response with a number of points:
1. He had not used his garden for some time prior to noticing the leak, due to poor weather and the Covid-19 pandemic. The leak could therefore have begun at any time between 20 October 2021 (when the tank was last filled) and 5 December 2021.
2. When he noticed the leak on 5 December 2021, the leak was “dripping at a rapid rate” and there was a strong smell of oil in his garden.
3. At the time of noticing the leak, his oil tank was half empty, and he felt it was impossible that he had used half a tank of oil since October 2021.
4. His neighbours had received a visit from a local farmer who was trying to find the source of oil leaking into a nearby stream.
5. He felt it was the landlord’s fault that he was out of pocket, and so it should reimburse him.
The landlord replied to the resident on 15 February 2022, stating its final position:
1. It had reviewed the further information provided by the resident with its gas operations manager.
2. It maintained that it had found no evidence of a major leak that could have caused the loss of 500 litres of oil.
3. It could not accept responsibility for the leak, as the issue with the valve was unforeseen and not identified during the boiler’s most recent service in July 2021.
4. It was therefore unable to reimburse the resident for the cost of 500 litres of oil that he said had been lost.
5. It reiterated its previous advice for the resident to contact his insurers regarding any damages or losses.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman notes that the resident has complained to the landlord about other repair related matters during the timeframe of the current complaint. For clarity, this investigation refers only to the landlord’s response to the resident’s oil leak, including its handling of the associated complaint. The resident may choose to refer the other matters to the Ombudsman for a separate investigation once these have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of an oil leak and the level of compensation offered by the landlord

The landlord responded swiftly and appropriately to the resident’s report of a leak from his oil tank. It correctly identified the leak as an emergency repair and attended within 24 hours to ‘make safe’. Having promptly ordered the necessary part, it then completed the repair five days later, making provision for heating of the property in the intervening period. The landlord’s quick response minimised the inconvenience caused to the resident by being without heating in December.
There is some dispute between the resident and landlord as to whether the oil leak resulted from “wear and tear” or a defect that the landlord should have identified. The landlord’s policies state that it is responsible for carrying out repairs that are caused by wear and tear, but that it will only pay compensation in relation to repairs if they are not carried out within its published timescales or if the repair is due to the landlord’s action or inaction. The landlord has provided evidence that the resident’s oil-fuelled heating system was installed in November 2017 and was serviced in July 2021. It has also responded to the resident’s point about the lifespan of copper pipework, explaining that the leak was not caused by the pipework but by an isolation valve. Based on the evidence provided, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s conclusion about the leak resulting from wear and tear was justified.
It is not for the Ombudsman to speculate as to the lifespan of the isolation valve or whether the service should have identified that the valve would soon need replacing. The landlord took appropriate steps to ensure that the heating system was in good working order and that its parts were fit for purpose by servicing the boiler. It did not identify any issues with the valve when it inspected the system five months earlier, and therefore it was reasonable for it to conclude that the leak was attributable to an “unforeseen defect” rather than poor workmanship.
Having considered the evidence provided alongside the landlord’s policies, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord has complied with its responsibilities in terms of maintaining the heating system and was right to suggest that the resident considers making an insurance claim should he choose to pursue reimbursement for the cost of lost oil. However, this advice should have been given in writing in the landlord’s stage one response (it was later included in the stage two response).
While the landlord did not offer any compensation to the resident in its stage one response, it did subsequently offer a “goodwill payment” of £30 for the cost of running the electric heaters, which the resident accepted. This amount appears to have been based on the amount quoted by the resident in his email of 13 December 2021, rather than a calculation by the landlord with reference to its compensation policy. The policy states that the payment for temporary heaters is £4 per day. The payment for running two heaters for six days (from 5 to 10 December 2021) would therefore be £48.
The landlord later offered an additional payment of £68 as part of its stage two response, bringing the total amount of compensation offered to £98. A breakdown of this amount was given in a system note seen by this Service, but not provided to the resident, which would have been good practice. The £18 for lack of heating makes up the difference between £30 and £48 set out above, and £50 for inconvenience falls within the tariff set out in the landlord’s compensation policy.
With regard to reimbursement for loss of oil, the Ombudsman has considered the information and evidence provided by the resident, namely:
1. He paid to have the oil tank refilled on 20 October 2021, and again on 1 February 2022 (receipts seen by this Service).
2. Based on average usage and his efforts to conserve energy, he believes it is impossible for his household to have used half a tank of oil in a two-month period (between October and December 2021).
3. He reports that his neighbours were visited by a local farmer in December 2021, who was trying to find the source of oil leaking into a nearby stream.
4. He noticed a “very strong smell” of oil in his garden on the day he discovered the leak, following a period during which he seldom used the garden.
The resident’s efforts to provide supporting documentation and evidence are appreciated, and it is also noted that he offered to provide a soil sample to the landlord in February 2022. While the accuracy of his information is not questioned, unfortunately it does not evidence that the oil leak resulted in the loss of 500 litres of oil. The receipts show only that the oil tank was refilled on the dates shown, and not how it came to be empty; there are other possible explanations besides the leak. The farmer’s visit is third party evidence, and any oil in the stream could have originated from various sources. Finally, the presence of a smell of oil was to be expected while the tank was visibly leaking, but an individual’s perception of the strength of a smell is subjective.
The Ombudsman has balanced the resident’s information with information provided by the landlord, including contemporaneous records, works orders and detailed accounts by its operatives. It is the Ombudsman’s view that it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the assessment of its qualified staff, who found no sign of a major leak. It was also proactive of the landlord to carry out its own investigation when responding to the resident’s stage two complaint, albeit that it could have done this at stage one.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the evidence that is available does not demonstrate the amount of oil that was lost during the leak. The landlord has therefore been reasonable in its conclusion that it is not responsible for reimbursing the resident for 500 litres of oil.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While the landlord acted reasonably in its response to the oil leak and associated award of compensation, it did not meet its expected standard in its response to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord commits to acknowledging stage one complaints within five working days, but it did not acknowledge the resident’s stage one complaint at all. While it provided its stage one response within eight working days, taking the time to acknowledge the complaint would have reassured the resident that his email had been received and was being acted upon. The resident also had to chase the landlord on two occasions before he received a response.
At stage two, the landlord emailed the resident twice to acknowledge receipt of his request to escalate his complaint on 7 January 2022. It first acknowledged the request on 14 January 2022, after the resident chased a reply, and did so again on 17 January 2022. It appears that the landlord recorded the latter date as the start of the 20-day period within which it should respond to the resident’s stage two complaint, making its response time 18 working days. However, the escalation request was in fact made six working days earlier, making the actual response time 24 working days. While this did not constitute a significant delay, it may have contributed to the resident’s frustration.
The landlord’s stage two response offered an additional £68 compensation, but did not provide a breakdown of this. This Service has seen a system note in which the landlord explains how it arrived at the figure, but it is unclear whether this has been communicated to the resident. In the interests of transparency, it is helpful for landlords to provide a breakdown.
While the timescales for responding to stage one and two complaints are set out in the landlord’s complaints policy, conflicting information is given in its complaints leaflet. The complaints policy states that the landlord will acknowledge stage one complaints within five working days and respond within 10 working days, and respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days. However, the leaflet – which was shared with the resident by the landlord on 17 January 2022 – states that complaints will be acknowledged within two working days and responded to within 5-10 working days. The landlord’s complaints procedure does note that a recent change to the complaints process involved increasing the time taken to acknowledge a complaint to five working days, which seems more realistic. However, in this case the landlord failed to respond to the resident within the timescales given in either document.
The landlord says that it operates a two-stage complaints process, but as complainants have the option of discussing their case further with the stage two responder before receiving a “final response”, this is effectively a three-stage process. It is positive that the landlord offers multiple opportunities within its complaints process to speak personally with complainants and understand how it can put things right, but it is the Ombudsman’s view that complaints processes with more than two stages can become less effective. This is set out in this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (section 5.17). Although the landlord’s post-stage two conversation does not interfere with the complainant’s ability to further escalate their complaint, it would be more appropriate for this conversation to take place before the landlord completes its review and issues its stage two response.
The landlord’s decision to award £30 compensation, and its initial advice for the resident to consider claiming on his insurance, were both conveyed to the resident outside the landlord’s stage one and two responses. It is considered best practice for key decisions and advice to be communicated formally and in writing to someone who has made use of the formal complaints process. The documentation reviewed by this Service appears disjointed because the resident is responding to information imparted by telephone or email, rather than in the landlord’s previous written response. Clear record keeping, including detailed documentation of telephone conversations, would serve to improve the landlord’s transparency and openness.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of an oil leak and the level of compensation offered.
2. Service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord responded promptly and in accordance with its policies when the resident reported the oil leak. It went on to award an appropriate amount of compensation in relation to the leak, taking account of the time the resident was without his central heating system and using temporary electric heaters, and also the inconvenience caused to him by this. Had this amount been offered to him at stage one of the complaints process, or even at the point that the landlord first offered compensation, this may have reduced the frustration and distress caused to the resident.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, specifically:
1. Its failure to acknowledge the resident’s stage one complaint;
2. Its delay in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s stage two complaint;
3. Confusion caused by the overall complaint response, with decisions and advice being communicated both formally and informally, and verbally as well as in writing.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £198 within four weeks of the date of this report, comprised of:
1. £98 offered by the landlord in its complaint response, if it has not already done so;
2. £100 for its service failure in complaint handling.
This should be a distinct payment and not used to offset any rent arrears or other amount owed.
The landlord should confirm its compliance with the above order to the Ombudsman within four weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaints process in conjunction with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and considers removing its offer of a post-stage two response.