Sanctuary Housing Association (202342877)

Background

1. The resident’s property is a first floor flat in a block that is served by a communal heating system. She complained to the landlord about it not resolving a report of banging sound from the pipework in the block. She also complained about the late postponement of a planned heating upgrade and for being without heating and hot water for a period up until the planned heating upgrade. The resident in her complaint noted that the landlord had not provided a 2 fob keys to the block that she had requested several months earlier. The landlord accepted failings in its handling of these issues in its complaint responses. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman after the stage 2 because at that time the landlord still had not resolved the banging noises. She also cited the time taken by the landlord to restore her heating and hot water, and to provide her with the key fobs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: 
   1. Reports of banging pipes.
   2. Reports of loss of heating and hot water.
   3. The communal heating upgrade.
   4. Requests for key fobs for communal entrances.
   5. The formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for: 
   1. Maladministration in its handling of reports of banging pipes.
   2. Service failure in its handling of the communal heating upgrade.
   3. Service failure in its handling of request for key fobs for communal entrances.
4. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the reports of loss of heating and hot water.
5. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the failings in its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord delayed in investigating the cause of the banging noises and taking steps to gain access to neighbouring properties. Its compensation offer was not fully proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
7. While the landlord did not accurately follow its compensation policy when compensating for the loss of heating and hot water, its offer was sufficient and did not cause detriment to the resident.
8. It is not clear if the landlord offered an award for distress and inconvenience regarding its handling of the communal heating upgrade.
9. The landlord delayed in acting of the resident’s request for new key fobs.
10. The landlord offered compensation for its complaint handling failings that was in line with its Compensation Policy and proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

11. The resident reports of banging of pipes within the block indicated that there may be a repair required within the block. The banging noises also caused the resident nuisance, especially as she reported to the landlord that she worked from home and had to call stakeholders. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord accept responsibility for investigating and stopping the noise. It resolved a prior complaint the resident had made in March 2023, which included this issue, by offering £1,000 on 21 April 2023.
12. However, on 24 January 2024, the resident complained that the landlord had promised to stop the noises from the pipes by June 2023, but had not done so. The landlord’s stage 1 response indicated that it would resolve the banging noises when completing an upgrade to the communal heating system in June 2023. The heating upgrade works were postponed until January 2024; however, there is no evidence that the landlord took other steps to investigate the noises. This was unreasonable as the investigation of the noise and pipework was not dependent of large-scale works being carried out.
13. The landlord accepted in the stage 2 response that it should have raised a repair in respect of the pipes. Ultimately, this was over a year after its previous complaint response during which time the resident had raised another complaint. As such, this was an unreasonable delay.
14. After the complaints procedure, the landlord ascertained that it needed to resolve an airlock issue at a neighbouring flat. The landlord raised appointments to attend the neighbouring flat for 11 June, 2 October and 25 October 2024. On each occasion, the landlord did not gain access. While the landlord is not responsible for the actions of the neighbour, there is no evidence that it took escalated action to gain access and therefore to mitigate the delay. This could have included warning the neighbour about their responsibility to provide access to the landlord for repairs, and making clear why access was necessary. This was especially unreasonable given the length of time the issue had been outstanding. Moreover, the resident when escalating her complaint stated that her mental health had been affected which added urgency to the resolution.
15. On 2 December 2024, the landlord gained access to the neighbouring flat and changed a washer. It visited the resident on 9 December 2024 who confirmed the banging had now stopped. This was around 16 months after the resident expected the repair to be carried out, in June 2023. For this reason, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint. We have considered some of the events that occurred after the end of the complaints process as they are directly linked to the matters that the landlord investigated as part of the complaint and later promised in the final complaint response.
16. The landlord offered £400 for inconvenience in the stage 2 response. This was not fully proportionate to the circumstances of the case as it also covered other issues the resident complained of. Moreover, it did not cover the further delay to investigate and stop the banging. We award the resident £640 compensation for the delay and distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of this case. This is calculated at £40 per month for the 16-month period from June 2023 to the repair.

17. The resident’s lease confirms the landlord is obliged “To maintain at all times a reasonable and adequate supply of hot water for domestic purposes to the Premises, and to keep the radiators fixed at the premises sufficiently and adequately heated in order to heat the Premises to a temperature which shall, in the Lessors opinion be reasonable throughout the year.” The Leaseholder Information Pack provided to the Ombudsman indicates the resident pays a charge for heating and hot water.
18. In her complaint of 24 January 2024, the resident advised that she had been without heating for 48 hours despite 6 phone calls. The landlord was obliged to ensure the resident had heating and hot water in her flat; however, it did not restore the heating and hot water until 19 February 2024 when it completed the heating and hot water in the resident’s flat.
19. The landlord’s Compensation Policy confirms its obligation to provide redress where it has not met its obligation to provide heating and/or hot water. It would have been more accurate for the landlord to calculate its compensation award from 23 January 2024, not 24 January 2024. This is the resident reported the loss of heating on 22 January and  under its Repairs Policy, it was required to complete an emergency repair within 24 hours, by 23 January 2024. With regards to the amount offered the landlord followed the tariff in the Compensation Policy for rented properties. This states £3 per day for loss of heating between 1 October and 30 April, and £3 per day for loss of hot water.
20. Regarding services provided through the service charge of homeowners, the policy states, “In addition to refunding charges or addressing allegations through the accounts process, Sanctuary may offer additional compensation in recognition of the impact of any services not being provided, or delays to communal repairs. This will be considered on a case by case basis, taking into account the individual circumstances of those involved.” This indicates for leaseholders such as the resident, the landlord should refund or reconcile the service charge where a service has not been provided. Instead, the landlord offered the compensation it would offer a tenant (aside from the discrepancy of a day).
21. While there were discrepancies in the calculation of the compensation award, it is not evident that this caused detriment to the resident.  The resident advised us (as of 2023-24), that she paid nearly £500 service charge for gas. Therefore, the information on file indicates that the landlord’s award was higher than if it had made a service charge refund. The landlord’s records also show that on 26 February 2024, it agreed to pay onto the resident’s account reimbursement for using 3 heaters for 31 days. Therefore, we find that the landlord offered reasonable redress that satisfactorily resolved the loss of heating and hot water.

22. The landlord’s Repairs Handbook confirms that the landlord conducted planned repairs under a programme of works. Planned repairs include improvement works. Under the heating upgrade at the resident’s block, it would install new, more efficient hot water cylinders and temperature controls with associated pipework. There would also be new radiators for the resident.
23. The resident’s complaint confirms that she was informed works to her property would commence week starting 22 January 2024. She had spent the weekend preparing and taken a day’s annual leave. However, she stated that she only found out that day the contractor would not be coming. The landlord’s complaint responses confirmed this was due to errors in the allocation of works. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations as to when the works to her property which caused her unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
24. The landlord made a new appointment to complete the works on 18 March 2024. Following her complaint, it brought the appointment forward to 19 February 2024 which mitigated the delay. Nonetheless, the landlord needed to attend the planned works to restore the resident’s heating and hot water. Therefore, the distress and inconvenience arising from the cancelled appointment of 22 January 2024 and the need to rearrange was heightened.
25. The resident offered the resident £10 compensation for a missed appointment. This was in line with its Compensation Policy which states it will offer £10 “where it is clear residents were not informed of any changes with reasonable notice of change”. The landlord also offered an award for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience. However, as it is not clear if or how much it offered for this complaint, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure by the landlord. We also award the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the communal heating upgrade. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance where there is a finding of service failure. It applies to case where the landlord may have made an offer of action/compensation, but it does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident.

26. The landlord in the stage 2 response accepted that the resident requested additional key fobs on 24 February 2023 for communal entrances as her son would be moving in for a period. In her stage 2 complaint, the resident said the landlord informed her it could not give her a fob as the company that produced them could not do so for 9 – 10 months.
27. There is no evidence that the landlord raised an order for new fobs for the resident or made enquires with the manufacturer when it could produce one. It also did not update the resident on her request. Ultimately, it failed to take the necessary action to meet her request, which caused an unnecessary delay. This was especially unreasonable as the resident had raised the issue of the fob in her earlier complaint of March 2023.
28. It was only after the resident repeated her request on 27 February 2024 that the landlord acted on it. Its internal records show that it provided the fobs on 10 April 2024.
29. Due to the delay by the landlord in acting on the resident’s request for new fobs, we find that there was service failure by the landlord. Again, the landlord’s award for time, trouble and inconvenience did not specify an amount for this issue. We award the resident £75 compensation. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance where there is a finding of service failure.

30. Under the landlord’s complaint policy, it is required to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and to final stage complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days.
31. After receiving the resident’s complaint of 24 January 2024, the landlord advised it would respond by 6 February 2024. While it did not send the response on 6 February 2024, it sent a holding response which stated the new deadline of 21 February 2024. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which allows landlords to extend deadlines by 10 working days. The response was sent 4 working days after the revised deadline
32. After receiving the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 27 February 2024 the landlord did not acknowledge it within 5 days as required; its acknowledgement of 8 March 2024 was delayed by 3 further days. The acknowledgement advised the resident it would respond within 30 working days, by 18 April 2024, which was not in line with the procedure. It also sent a holding response on 27 March 2023 to state that it would respond by 18 April 2024. The separate acknowledgments suggest that the landlord’s complaint handling at stage 2 was confused.
33. The landlord offered £150 compensation for its handling of the complaint. This was the maximum award under its Compensation Policy for complaint handling. This reflects “delays or difficulties raising a complaint”, or “delays in giving a response leading to increased contact from the customer”. The landlord’s compensation offer for its complaint handling was in line with its policy and proportionate to its failings. We therefore determine that the landlord offered reasonable redress that satisfactorily resolved the failings in its complaints handling. This finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the landlord’s complaint handling was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were failings by the landlord, which its compensation offer acknowledges and compensates for in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord accepted there was an error in its administration of the planned repairs in the resident’s property. It may wish to consider whether better records of the programme and better communication between staff and contractors could have prevented this. It may also wish to consider whether it could have given more notice of the cancelled appointment of 22 January 2024.
35. The landlord may wish to establish why it sent separate acknowledgements to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.

Communication

36. The landlord’s communication with the resident over issues raised was inconsistent and irregular. This applies particularly to the complaint about the noisy pipes and the request for key fobs.
37. The landlord’s compensation offer in the stage 2 response was not clear. This is because it offered £400 for time, trouble, and inconvenience for the overall service the resident received, impact experienced and efforts she made to contact. However, it considered several complaints and it did not break down the award.