Sanctuary Housing Association (202203991)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203991

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 September 2022


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. The complaint concerns the level of compensation offered by the landlord following the loss of heating and hot water at the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
  2. The landlord’s repairs logs state that an emergency repair was raised on 1 December 2021 following a report from the resident of a leak from the boiler. Notes left by the engineer on 2 December 2021 stated that the boiler was unable to be re-pressurised, leaving the property without heating and hot water. An emergency work order was then raised by the engineer to provide temporary heaters to the resident.
  3. Further emergency repairs were raised on 6 December 2021 to locate the source of the issue, which was suspected to be a burst pipe in a neighbouring property not owned by the landlord. On 11 December 2021, the landlord arranged for the resident’s household to be moved into temporary accommodation until the issue was resolved. The landlord’s contractor informed it on 22 December 2021 that it had located the source of the problem and the water was restored to the resident’s property on 23 December 2021. All repairs were then completed by 17 January 2022.
  4. The resident raised a complaint into how the matter was handled by the landlord on 8 December 2021. She described the elements of her complaint as:
    1. Low water pressure had been an ongoing issue since 2018, but was ignored by the landlord.
    2. The length of time it took the landlord to agree to temporarily rehouse her and her family was unacceptable.
    3. She had received poor service from the landlord when requesting updates on the status of the work.
    4. The landlord’s initial offer of £200 compensation was unsatisfactory and had not taken into account the effect on her and her family’s health, the cost of running temporary heaters in the property before being decanted, and the expenses accrued while at the temporary accommodation. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident informed that landlord that she would accept a compensation payment of £1,500.
  5. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
    1. Recognised that the length of time it took to locate and repair the source of the issue took longer that it would have liked. It explained that this was as a result of discussions with the utility provider about who was responsible for the repair, and then the availability of its contractor to complete the work. The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay.
    2. Also apologised for not informing the resident at the time the reason for the delays in completing the work, and for the delay in providing a stage two complaint response following her escalation request.
    3. Offered a total of £511 in compensation as follows:
      1. £250 compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays.
      2. £50 for the delay in providing the stage two response
      3. £15 towards fuel costs as resident was traveling from temporary accommodation back to the property for work (9.1 litres of fuel used for approximately 90 miles of travel at £1.50 per litre rounded-up from £13.65).
      4. £24 for parking costs (rounded-up from £23.40).
      5. 172 for loss of facilities and cost of running the electric heaters, broken down as: £30 for loss of hot water (£3 per day for ten days); £80 for temporary heating (two heaters at £8 per day for ten days); £62 for lack of washing facilities (30% of daily rent for ten days rounded-up from £61.80).
    4. Noted that the resident had also received a £50 shopping voucher and that this was taken into the account when it calculated its compensation offer.
  6. In referring the case to this Service, the resident stated that the outstanding issue to the complaint was the level of compensation offered by the landlord. The resident disputed the method used by the landlord to calculate the mileage and stated that it should have also compensated for the use of the heaters during the time she was still working from property, while in temporary accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. Section 2(e) of the tenancy agreement relates to the landlord’s repair responsibilities and states, in part, that it is responsible for the upkeep of “installations for the supply of gas, electricity, water and sanitation, heating and water heating equipment where provided by the Landlord”.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy prioritises its repairs as “Emergency” and “Appointed”. Emergency repairs are defined as a repair that presents “a serious threat to the health and safety of the service user, members of their household, visitors, or the structure and fabric of their home”. Examples of what would be considered an emergency include “no water supply and heating repairs (during the winter season) where there is no other heating”. The landlord states that it aims to attend and make safe an emergency repair within 24 hours of the repair request.
  3. The landlord’s decant policy states that it will consider decanting a household during emergency works in circumstances where “a situation has arisen which makes the property uninhabitable or unsafe and therefore an immediate alternative accommodation is required”.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering a complainant financial redress when it has failed to meet the level of service set out in its published standards. The landlord’s recommended payment guide has three recommended tariffs based on the impact on a complainant. The highest of these tariffs (high effort/high impact) recommends a payment of £151 to £400. Examples given for when this level of redress should be used include “excessive delays to works being carried out or issues being resolved, preventing a customer from enjoyment of their home, or delays in the customer accessing appropriate advice/support.
  5. The payment guidance recommends a payment of up to £50 for “minor delays in raising a complaint [or a] delay in responding to an issue without updating the customer”. The guidance also recommends payment for total loss of heating at £3 per day, and to pay £4 per heater per day for the use of temporary heating.

 

Scope of investigation

  1. In raising a complaint, the resident stated that issues with water pressure were first reported to the landlord in 2018. She noted that if the issue was properly investigated and resolved by the landlord at this time, it would have prevented the need for her to be decanted in December 2021 and the inconvenience that this caused.
  2. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  3. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to June 2021, and the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in December 2021.
  4. The resident has described the adverse effect the issue has had on both her and her family’s health. The Ombudsman was sorry to hear this and does not doubt the resident’s description.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health and that of her family. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
  5. In bringing the case to this Service, the resident described an issue with her rent account whereby the landlord incorrectly took a payment for a remedial repair from the account. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the length of time the landlord took to correct the error. The resident first informed the landlord of this issue in April 2022 and the landlord opened a separate complaint into the matter in May 2022.
  6. This complaint had not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process during the time period considered in this report. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s complaint procedure. Therefore, this report will not consider this aspect as part of the complaint.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord following the loss of heating and hot water at the property

  1. Once it was informed of the loss of hot water and heating in the property, the landlord had a duty to respond to the issue in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately to the resident’s reports. It raised emergency repairs within 24 hours of the issues being reported, worked with the utility provider to determine responsibility for repairs, and reached an agreement with the freeholder of the property where the problem originated for its contractors to complete repairs and then invoice the freeholder. Its contractor was able to identify the source of the leak, restore water to the resident’s property and then complete repairs.
  2. When it received a phonecall from the resident on the evening of 10 December 2021 where she described the living conditions in the property, a manager made the decision that it was no longer safe for the resident and her family to remain in the property and arranged temporary accommodation until water was restored. This decision was made in line with the decants policy detailed above and was appropriate in the circumstances.
  3. However, the landlord recognised that there was service failure in how it handled the situation. It accepted that there were delays in completing the work due to the availability of its contractor and that the information it provided about these delays was inadequate which caused confusion as well as inconvenience to the resident, as she had to call its contact centre on several occasions to chase updates. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It looked to put things right by offering compensation for its service failures and for the costs accrued by the resident. It looked to learn from its mistakes by improving its communication. The landlord’s internal emails show that following the complaint being raised on 8 December 2021, it provided regular updates to the resident to keep her updated on the progress of the work.
  5. It was appropriate, and in line with the guidance set out in its compensation policy detailed above, for the landlord to compensate the resident for its service failures and the inconvenience that this had caused. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (with is available on our website) recommends a payment of £50 to £250 in instances of service failure resulting in some impact on a complainant (the impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved).
  6. The £250 awarded by the landlord for the inconvenience caused to the resident by delays, and the £50 awarded for the delay in providing a stage two response (40 working days outside of its published timescale of 20 working days) were made in line with this guidance. The landlord made further payments in line with the its own compensation policy for the loss of hot water and the use of temporary heaters before the resident’s household were moved into temporary accommodation. The landlord also reimbursed the resident 30% of the rent for this period due to the lack of washing facilities. This was appropriate action for the landlord to take and recognised that it was unfair for the resident to pay the full rent in a period when not all the facilities were available to the household.
  7. The landlord covered the resident’s expenses for parking and travel from the temporary accommodation back to the property  as she continued to work from home. The resident disputed the methodology the landlord used to calculate the mileage and expressed dissatisfaction that it did not take into account all of the travel that occurred during the time she was decanted.
  8. The landlord provided the resident with detailed information and explained how it calculated the distance between the temporary accommodation and the property and the fuel usage. The landlord also explained that if any discrepancies in its calculations would be covered in its rounding-up of the final figure and that it would not consider other travel made by the resident. This is a reasonable position for the landlord to take as it would only be expected to compensate for the travel caused by the resident being temporarily rehoused and not normal day-to-day travel which would have still occurred if the household had remained in the property.
  9. The resident also requested to be reimbursed for the cost of using temporary heaters in the property while she was working from home (rather than just the ten days prior to the decant).The landlord requested evidence of energy usage (such as utility bills) before considering awarding further compensation. It was reasonable for the landlord to make this request before considering payment, to allow it to compare the energy usage from the period the resident was working from home during the decant with a similar period of time previously in order to confirm an increase in costs had occurred and refund accordingly. As this evidence was not provided during the complaint process it was appropriate for the landlord not to consider this request in its compensation calculation.
  10. The resident has stated that an overall compensation payment of £1,500 would be a reasonable resolution to the complaint. The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive and we do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes account of a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s awards are generally moderate, taking into account the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord for the benefit of all its residents. Therefore, the total compensation award of £561 (including the £50 shopping voucher) represents reasonable redress from the landlord and resolves the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of the level of compensation offered by following the loss of heating and hot water at the property which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.