Sanctuary Housing Association (202425583)

Background

1. The resident made a formal complaint after the landlord did not respond to his queries about an increase in his heating costs. His monthly heating charge increased from £43.98 to £129.73 in March 2024. He said that when he bought the flat in 2013, the landlord told him each flat would have an individual heating meter. He said the landlord also told him he would only pay heating costs based on his own usage. The resident asked the landlord to provide details of the actual heating costs charged by the district heating supplier. He remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses and asked us to investigate the matter.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The information the landlord gave the resident when he purchased the property in 2013.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about his heating costs.
   3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. The complaint about the information provided at the time of purchase is outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about his heating costs.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Reasons

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.

The information the resident was given when he purchased the property

4. The resident raised his complaint on 18 April 2024 about information he says he was given in 2013 when he purchased the flat. Our Service may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. The Scheme explains this would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising. The resident had the opportunity to raise this issue with the landlord from 2013 onwards. We have seen no evidence, however, that he raised this issue as a formal complaint before April 2024.
5. We therefore consider this issue to be outside our jurisdiction and will not consider the information the resident was given in 2013.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about his heating costs

What we did not investigate

6. We do not investigate complaints about the level or reasonableness of the service charge. As part of his complaint, the resident has raised that he considers the increase of the heating charges to be excessive. The tribunal or court are better placed to consider any concerns relating to the level of the service charge, given their powers and expertise.

What we did investigate

7. As part of his complaint on 18 April 2024, the resident said the landlord had charged him a fixed monthly heating cost since he purchased the property in 2013. He said this approach was for the landlord’s convenience, encouraged higher energy consumption and caused environmental damage. The resident also asked the landlord to provide copies of all district heating invoices from 2013 onwards. He further asked to be disconnected from the district heating system due to the high costs.
8. The resident’s shared ownership lease states that the resident must pay the service charge by equal payments in advance. It explains that these payments are due at the same time as the rent specified in the lease. The landlord said the lease does not include a specific clause explaining the district heating charge or how the heating charge is calculated. We note the resident has not disputed his obligation to pay the service charges or heating charges.
9. We have also considered the way the landlord responded to the resident’s queries and the explanations it provided about the heating charge calculations. On 4 March 2024, the landlord told the resident his monthly heating cost would increase from £43.98 to £129.73. This notification led the resident to ask the landlord to provide the actual costs charged by the district heating supplier. After making this request, the resident sent reminder emails to the landlord on 5 March and 6 March 2024.
10. On 6 March 2024, the landlord began investigating the resident’s concerns and sent an email internally. It was reasonable that it began investigating the issues promptly. However, it would also have been reasonable for it to acknowledge the resident’s contact and explain when it expected to respond. As the landlord did not provide any acknowledgement, the resident sent a further email and raised additional concerns on 11 March 2024. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord contacted the resident in response to his emails during this period.
11. The resident sent 7 further chaser emails between 12 March and 21 March 2024. The landlord sent internal emails on 20 March and 26 March 2024, which referred to the resident’s correspondence and stated it would respond to the resident’s queries. We have not seen evidence that the landlord provided acknowledgements or responses to all of his queries. However, it provided its draft service charge budget and invoices for the resident’s overspend query on 31 March and 5 April 2024.
12. As the landlord had not responded to all his queries, the resident sent further chaser emails on 15, 17 and 18 April 2024. The landlord responded on 18 April 2024 and said it was awaiting information from another department. It said this was consistent with what it had said previously. We have not seen any evidence of this earlier communication, but it is reasonable that it updated the resident.
13. On 18 April 2024, the resident said the landlord had ignored him, meaning he had no option but to make a formal complaint. Had the landlord communicated more effectively, the formal complaint may have been avoided.
14. After raising his complaint, the resident sent chaser emails to the landlord on 19, 22, 23, 25 and 30 April 2024. He sent a further 7 chasers between 8 May and 31 May 2024. In June 2024, he sent another 7 chaser emails between 4 June and 27 June 2024. The resident chased the landlord a further 9 times between 1 July and 29 July 2024 and on 12 August 2024. We have seen evidence that the landlord sent internal emails on 30 April, 20 May, 27 June, 18 July, 24 July and 12 August 2024. These asked for the resident to be responded to. We have not seen any evidence that the resident was contacted directly during these periods.
15. The landlord next contacted the resident after receiving a request for action from our service. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 15 August 2024 and issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 August 2024. In the response, it acknowledged the resident first contacted it by email on 4 March 2024 and apologised that it had not sent a response. It explained that the property is connected to a district heating facility and the resident pays an amount each month to the landlord to use the system. It said the meter in the resident’s property only captures the resident’s own usage for his property, which is separate from the district heating charge.
16. The landlord further explained that if the resident has a separate meter in his own property, he will only be charged for the energy he uses, separate to the charge for district heating. Based on this, the landlord said there is no reason a refund would be due.
17. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 22 August 2024. He said he felt the landlord did not understand the difference between the district heating meter and his electricity meter. He said he believed the landlord was incorrectly treating the two meters as the same and his complaint related only to the district heating metering.
18. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and its internal notes stated that the housing officer visited the building on 21 August 2024, who advised that the 2 meters were separate. The landlord explained internally that it charges residents for communal heating and any appliances installed in the resident’s own home are billed separately. The landlord also noted internally that the meter inside the resident’s property records and bills him separately for energy, which is in addition to the monthly cost for district heating.
19. The resident raised further queries with the landlord on 23 August 2024. He reiterated that his complaint related to district heating metering and not to electricity metering, which is separate. The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging these comments on 27 August 2024 and stated the concerns had been noted for review.
20. The resident sent a further chaser email to the 19 September 2024. The landlord responded on the same day and said a response was due within 20 working days of 22 August 2024. On 1 October 2024, the landlord advised internally that the service charge query should not have been recorded as a complaint, as it had a separate process. It stated that the stage 2 response would address the lack of communication since March 2024. It said the service charge enquiries would then be passed to the housing team for investigation and response. We note it also contacted the service charge team and requested a service charge schedule to advise what the charging arrangements are for the property. We appreciate that the landlord found the complaint should have been handled through a different process. However, it would have been reasonable for it to pick up on this much earlier.
21. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 1 October 2024. It said it has a specific process for residents to query or dispute service charges, which sits outside its complaints process. It apologised that it had not responded to the resident’s service charge queries. It explained that it had forwarded the queries to senior management within its housing team. While we appreciate the landlord has its own processes, it is disappointing that the resident first raised his queries in March 2024 and by October 2024, the landlord still did not address the resident’s concerns fully.
22. The resident responded to the landlord on 2 October 2024 and said he had not received any further communication or action. He contacted the landlord again on 7 October 2024 and said he wished to make a formal complaint. We note this was a duplication of the complaint he had already raised and escalated.
23. On 16 October 2024, the landlord recorded an internal email about the resident’s message of 2 October, stating that the resident was not seeking any new information or action. It stated it would acknowledge the email and advise that it would be responded to as part of the service charge query. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord acknowledged this contact.
24. Following this, the resident sent the landlord 6 chasers between 10 October and 31 October 2024. He then sent a further 8 chasers between 5 November and 27 November 2024. The resident also sent 5 chasers between 3 December and 31 December 2024. We have not seen evidence that the landlord contacted the resident during this period.
25. The next contact we have seen about the complaint was a letter from the landlord on 17 April 2025. In the letter, it acknowledged that its housing team had not contacted the resident, as outlined in its stage 2 response. It explained that heating and hot water at the property are provided via a district heating system. It confirmed it receives an annual bill for usage at the block, which it charges equally through service charges. It noted that the resident received a booklet which stated that an interface is in place to allow for individual charging. However, it confirmed there is no system currently in place that allows individual charging.
26. The landlord said it recognises individual charging is preferable and was reviewing available options. We note it also attached a copy of its invoice received for the district heating supply costs.
27. Since issuing this letter, we have seen evidence that the landlord has been in regular contact with the resident, including emails to the resident in May, June and July 2025. The landlord also confirmed to our Service on 16 October 2025 that works to install new heat meters were completed within the resident’s home.
28. We recognise that the landlord provided invoices to the resident in March and April 2024. However, the resident has said he believes he made overpayments over the last 12 years. The landlord could have done more to reassure the resident that he had not been overcharged. We recognise the landlord may no longer hold all historical invoices because of data retention requirements. Nevertheless, it would be reasonable for it to address the resident’s remaining concerns and provide copies of any invoices it still holds to show the costs incurred.
29. We note that individual charging has now been enabled following the installation of an individual heat meter in the resident’s property in September 2025. It is reasonable that, since the complaints process, the landlord has kept the resident regularly updated. Nevertheless, it caused significant delays in its contact with the resident. The resident first raised his concerns in March 2024 and by October 2024, the landlord had not fully addressed them. Although the landlord noted the resident’s contact internally, it should have provided more acknowledgements and explained more clearly when the resident could expect a substantive response. It also failed to follow up on the contact it said it would make in its stage 2 complaint response.
30. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns for several months, which required the resident to chase repeatedly. This likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. We recognise it has provided £250 compensation during its complaints process. However, we do not consider this to go far enough to put things right for the resident. We have therefore found maladministration and order the landlord to pay the resident a further £100 compensation. We also order it to address any outstanding queries the resident has about overpayments and supporting information to evidence the heating charges.

Complaint handling

31. On 7 October 2024, the resident sought to raise a further complaint which repeated issues already considered and escalated. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to this contact. However, it should have told the resident that he had exhausted its complaints process for the issues raised and signposted him to our Service.
32. The resident raised his complaint on 18 April 2024. The Service’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) states that landlords should acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days of the complaint being received. We have seen no evidence of any acknowledgement from the landlord within this timeframe, which was unreasonable.
33. As he received no acknowledgement, the resident contacted our Service for assistance. We sent the landlord a chaser on 14 August 2024, requesting a written response by 21 August 2024. This prompted the landlord to issue its stage 1 response by the deadline we set.
34. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 22 August 2024, which the landlord acknowledged the same day. The Code says stage 2 responses should be issued within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged, or an extension must be agreed before the deadline. The landlord should have issued its stage 2 complaint response or requested an extension by 19 September 2024. It provided an update on 20 September 2024, which was a minor delay. In that update, it said it would contact the resident again within 10 working days. The landlord met this timescale and provided its stage 2 response on 1 October 2024.
35. The landlord caused unreasonable delays throughout the complaints process, as it did not provide any acknowledgement when the resident first raised his complaint. This meant he had to chase the landlord repeatedly and contact our Service for assistance. The delays were likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and order it to pay the resident £150 compensation. This reflects our compensation guidance where there has been a complaint handling failure, and the landlord did not acknowledge its failings or take steps to put matters right.

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.