Sanctuary Housing Association (202450881)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202450881

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 July 2025

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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the resident’s storage heaters.
   2. Electrical costs due to the storage heaters not functioning.
   3. The complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1 bedroom property. His tenancy started in February 2009.
3. The landlord requested works to assess the storage heaters in the resident’s property following an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), to ensure they worked correctly on 29 January 2023. The resident’s housing officer chased the repairs raised on 27 February 2023, and the landlord said it needed to raise a new order and did so. It tried to contact the resident on 6 April 2023 but could not and left a voicemail asking that he called back in relation to an update around the heater repair it booked for 3 April 2023.
4. The resident complained on 17 April 2023. He said he first raised his concerns on 14 December 2022, and he reported faulty storage heaters in January 2023. An electrician attended on 4 April 2023 to look at the heaters, and they condemned them. The heaters ran at max power even when he adjusted the temperature down. He told the landlord this led to excessive electricity consumption and an increase in costs for 5.5 months. He wanted it to replace the heaters and reimburse him for the excessive consumption.
5. The landlord told the resident on 19 April 2023 that to consider any compensation, it needed evidence of the high usage of electricity. It asked him to provide his previous 12 months electricity bills so it could compare the difference in cost. Once it received this, it would consider compensation and write out to him with an official offer. The resident responded on the same day and said he would contact his energy supplier to see if he could get copies of his usage.
6. The landlord closed the resident’s complaint on 4 May 2023 as it did not receive a response from him. He escalated his complaint on 18 October 2023 reiterating his concerns and that the heaters remained condemned. He told the landlord he was vulnerable, explained his vulnerabilities, and his concerns about the impact of the situation with winter approaching. He then raised other concerns such as issues with his hot water, and other works as well as a rent increase. He asked for compensation for the excessive use of electricity and that it replace the heaters.
7. The landlord then provided its first stage 2 response to the resident on 30 November 2023. Within the response it acknowledged he did not receive a response to his complaint, and it closed the complaint in error and apologised for this. It provided a history of its actions around the storage heaters and the recommendation for it to replace them. It explained:
   1. It was unclear from its records whether it requested approval to replace the heaters and apologised.
   2. It arranged an appointment for an electrician to attend on 13 November 2023. Further to the visit, its records showed that the electrician recommended a replacement of the lounge, bedroom, hallway, and bathroom heaters, along with the downflow heater in the kitchen and it had requested the approval for this.
   3. It would continue to track this through to completion and to provide him with prompt updates on progress and in relation to securing an appointment for the replacement to take place. It apologised that it had not been able to provide a more definitive timescale.
   4. It apologised again for the inconvenience the resident experienced, for the times that he had to contact it for updates, the delays to the works, and for the time taken to get to that point. It said it felt some redress was appropriate under the circumstances, however as the works were still outstanding and approval of the works needed, it suggested that it would review this again once it completed the works and an appointment secured for the replacement to take place.
8. The landlord provided its second stage 2 response on 14 March 2024. It confirmed it had reviewed the complaint further and said it received notice of a housing conditions claim from the resident’s solicitor on 15 December 2023. It explained that as he had entered legal proceedings and the claim progressed, it was unable to consider the repair issues within the complaint, in line with its complaints policy. It however considered its complaints handling and apologised for the delays and inconvenience cause to the resident across both stages of its complaints process. It awarded him £300 compensation which it broke down as:
   1. £150 for the failure to provide a response at stage 1 and closing the complaint in error.
   2. £50 for the failure to provide escalation information for the Housing Ombudsman service at stage 1.
   3. £100 for the delay in investigating the stage 2 response.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s approach and told it on 19 May 2024 he would take the matter further. This was because his complaints related to excessive electricity usage and at the time of making his complaints, there was no disrepair claim in process. He believed the landlord should not allocate the funds to his account but pay them to him directly as they were for out of pocket expenses.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. We understand that the resident raised concerns about his immersion heater, and disrepair in his property, including concerns with his kitchen, leaks, damp, and mould. We will not consider these issues within this investigation as we are currently investigating these issues in case 202409928 and we will provide a response on these matters shortly.

Repairs to the resident’s storage heaters

11. The landlord operates 2 repair categories, emergency repairs, and appointed repairs. It aims to complete emergency repairs which it aims to attend and make safe the property within 24 hours of receipt of the request. It provides examples of heating repairs during the winter season where there is no heating as an example of an emergency repair. It aims to complete appointed repairs within 28 days.
12. The resident said in his complaint that he initially raised the repairs to the storage heaters in December 2022. However, we have not seen any details of this. The evidence provided shows that the landlord raised works to assess the resident’s storage heaters on 29 January 2023 following completion of the EPC to ensure the storage heaters were set up and working correctly. It said in its stage 2 response on 30 November 2023 that it arranged for an appointment for this on 13 April 2023.
13. The landlord should have completed the works by 26 February 2023. This then appeared to remain outstanding. The resident then told the landlord that his lounge and hallway storage heaters were scalding hot when the thermostat was set to number 3. It raised another routine appointment, and an electrician attended on 4 April 2023. This means the repair to address the resident’s heating concerns remained outstanding for 8 working days. The landlord has not explained why there was a delay, and this was inappropriate. The delays were not in keeping with its policy.
14. Following the visit to the resident’s property, the contractor found that 3 out 5 of the heaters were not working. They further condemned one of them due to it being a burn risk. They recommended that the landlord replace the heaters. The landlord then said that it was unclear whether it requested approval to replace the heaters. While appropriate that it apologised for the lack of clarity, this raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. We would expect a landlord to have clear and robust records to explain the actions it has taken around repairs.
15. The failure to have such clear records in this instance has directly led to a detriment and inconvenience for the resident as the issue remaining outstanding for longer than necessary. The landlord also mentioned that the resident regularly contacted it about other repairs, but did not raise concerns about the heaters until 18 October 2023. This contributes to its record keeping failings, as it should not be the resident’s responsibility to remind the landlord of any outstanding repairs.
16. The landlord then arranged for an operative to attend on 13 November 2023. The operative recommended a replacement of the heaters. The issue then remained outstanding until 12 June 2024, a period of over 16 months and this was unreasonable. This is especially the case as the landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable and disabled.
17. The resident told the landlord in his stage 2 escalation that he was a vulnerable adult. He told it about his mental health concerns and on 23 October 2023 explained his disabilities to the landlord. He told it that he had a constantly numb leg and could not feel when the radiators were scolding hot. This meant that asides from any potential impact on his mental health, the resident also had a further vulnerability to the situation based on his physical disability. The landlord did not show that it took consideration of any of his vulnerabilities and the potential impact on the resident and this was unreasonable.
18. The landlord’s records also do not show that it tried to complete any temporary fixes to help with the situation. The resident also confirmed to us that this was the situation. This was inappropriate and demonstrates a lack of customer focus. It would have been appropriate for it to consider whether the resident’s vulnerabilities meant it needed to make any reasonable adjustments around completing the repairs in a quicker timeframe. The failure to do so was inappropriate.
19. The landlord’s evidence does not show that it took stock of the resident’s conditions until 4 April 2025, over 5 months after the resident told it about them and this was unreasonable. Based on the delays, and the landlord’s lack of consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities we find that there was maladministration.
20. The landlord explained in its response of 30 November 2023 that it would assess the situation and compensate the resident. It then said on 24 March 2024 that as the resident had raised legal proceedings, it could not consider the matter and did not compensate him due to the legal proceedings. It however confirmed to us that proceedings were never actually issued.
21. The landlord’s compensation policy says that in some circumstances, paying compensation and/or a gesture of goodwill may be appropriate to cover loss, inconvenience caused or to reflect its apologies. It can consider offering compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience due to its action or inaction, delayed or poor responses to customers complaints. It can also consider compensation for lack of, or unreasonable delay to provide services, added costs incurred due to its action or inaction and where it has not rectified the issue within published timescales once reported.
22. Based on the landlord’s policy, as there were unreasonable delays which led to inconvenience for the resident due to its lack of action, cost him time and caused him trouble as he had to raise the issue multiple times with the landlord, due to its failure to rectify the issue within its published timescales, we order the landlord to pay the resident compensation.

Electrical costs due to the storage heaters not functioning

23. In his initial complaint, the resident told the landlord that the matter led to additional electrical costs. The landlord asked the resident on 19 April 2023 to provide a copy of his utility bills for the previous 12 months. This would allow it to compare the increase in electricity usage. He then raised the matter again on 18 October 2023, and it appropriately explained that where it received claims for increased electricity usage, its procedure was that in the first instance it would require evidence or a copy of the bills to compare. This was so it could evidence the increase the resident incurred as per its policy.
24. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy at the time which said that where a resident requested compensation, it would ask for any evidence needed for it to consider the request.
25. The resident explained to the landlord in his escalation request that he provided the requested evidence. The landlord responded and said it could not see that it received the evidence. We cannot comment on whether the landlord received the information. However, we would expect the landlord to ensure that it provided the resident with proper communication around the matter before closing its file, as such highlighting it had not received the evidence it requested. It did not do so and this was unreasonable. It however acknowledged this failing in an email in October 2023 and this was reasonable.
26. Five months after he raised his concerns, the landlord provided the resident with a further opportunity to provide the evidence, and the resident explained he would struggle to do so as his energy company no longer existed.
27. The resident has also explained that the issue remains ongoing, and he has not received any redress around his excess electricity costs from the storage heaters. This means that this issue has been ongoing for over 2 years. He provided us with evidence on 24 June 2025 that he did in fact provide the landlord with the requested evidence. He did so on 2 January 2024 to a member of staff and it appears a general email inbox.
28. When we approached the landlord in 2025 it said it had not received the information from the resident. This means the issue remained outstanding for over 1 and a half years since the resident provided the evidence, and this is unreasonable. Based on this we find that there was maladministration. In line with its compensation policy, as there was a failure which led to inconvenience, and cost the resident time and trouble to raise the matter again with the landlord, we order that it pay the resident compensation.

The complaint

29. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The policy also says that it will close a complaint where there is no response from a resident after 10 working days of a request. It further states that it will not consider a complaint where legal proceedings have started, such as where a court or tribunal reviews the concern.
30. The resident raised his complaint with the landlord on 17 April 2023. As the landlord believed he did not provide the evidence it requested from him, it closed the complaint on 4 May 2023 in line with its policy. It however did not tell the resident that it was closing the complaint and this was unreasonable. It acknowledged that it should have communicated with the resident that it was closing its file in an email in October 2023 and apologised for this and this was reasonable. It however failed to provide the resident with a response at stage 1 to his complaint.
31. The resident then escalated his complaint on 18 October 2023. The landlord looked to identify whether he wanted a response at stage 1 or 2 and the resident confirmed he wanted a stage 2 response. The landlord identified it would provide its response late and appropriately informed the resident and asked for an extension. It then provided its first stage 2 response on 30 November 2023. It apologised for the delay in its response on 8 March 2024 and provided its final response on 14 March 2024 and offered the resident compensation for its failings.
32. The landlord’s compensation policy further says in relation to poor complaint handling that it will consider redress only where there was evidence that it did not handle a complaint in accordance with its complaints policy and procedures. Its offers would reflect the effort made by the resident to resolve the issue and the impact it had on the resident.
33. The policy also says it would make payments of up to £150 in recognition of time, trouble and the inconvenience of a service failure using a scale with payments ranging from £0 to £250. It says it will pay between £150 and £250 where there were significant difficulties in raising a complaint, delayed responses, and poor quality correspondence. The policy says it will offset payments for time, trouble, and inconvenience and poor complaints handling against any arrears or outstanding debt, depending on the status of the resident’s account.
34. Due to the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, the complaint handling process took over 10 months for the landlord to complete and this was unreasonable. The landlord also said it could not respond to the resident’s complaint in its last response as the matter was subject to legal proceedings. However, both the resident and landlord have confirmed that no legal proceedings were actually issued about the resident’s concerns. The only legal correspondence related to a pre-action letter, and a further settlement offer.
35. As no formal court proceedings were issued, the landlord should have provided the resident with the necessary response as it promised to do in its other response on 30 November 2023. The failure to do so was inappropriate and shows a lack of proper consideration and understanding of its policy. It however appropriately identified several failings in its approach and compensated the resident. Its actions were in line with its policy around compensating the resident for poor and delayed responses.
36. When looking at the landlord’s compensation offer, the total exceeds the amount that it its policy says it will award for complaint handling failings. It also appropriately recognised that it should have referred the resident to us at a much earlier point in the complaint handling process and compensated for this also. We note that the resident has raised concerns about the level of compensation awarded around the landlord’s complaint handling, however its offer also falls within the maladministration findings within our remedies guidance.
37. This shows that the landlord acknowledged that its failings adversely affected the resident. This would have been the finding we would have made had it not recognised its failings. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will ‘usually offset any payments for time, trouble, inconvenience, and poor complaints handling against any arrears or outstanding debt, depending on the status of the resident’s account’. The resident suggests that the landlord’s decision to apply the compensation awarded to his rent account was unfair, as he had a court ordered payment plan in place. However, in our opinion its decision to do so was reasonable.
38. This is because the landlord’s compensation policy makes provision for this to happen. We note that it could have however used its discretion to consider whether the policy should apply in the resident’s case. It could have considered the payment arrangement already in place. This would have been a discretionary decision for the landlord and, as its policy allows it to pay its compensation awards towards rent arrears, there was no service failure. Based on this we find that there was reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the resident’s storage heaters.
    2. Electrical costs due to the storage heaters not functioning.
40. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

41. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology around the failings identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £700. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident. We break this down as:
       1. £500 for its handling of the repairs to the resident’s storage heaters.
       2. £200 for its handling of the electrical costs due to the storage heaters not functioning.
    3. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.
42. Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord must consider the resident’s electricity bills we have provided. It must also speak with the resident to see if he has any other evidence for it to consider in relation to the storage heaters and electrical costs specifically. It must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with evidence of its considerations and if it decides to compensate, provide the Ombudsman with evidence of this.