Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202409994)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409994

Sanctuary Housing Association

10 January 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. The resident’s reports of issues with the storage heaters in the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a house owned by the landlord.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord in January 2024. She said it had replaced the storage heaters in the property, but they were not adequately heating it and had high running costs. She felt that as a result, there was damp and mould throughout her home.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 11 March 2024. It said operatives attended on 20 November 2023 and 12 February 2024, deeming the storage heaters to be in working order. Regarding the damp, it explained a surveyor attended in July 2023 and said the issue was condensation related. It apologised for the delay obtaining a quote to install a ventilation system. It offered the resident £75 compensation.
  4. On 12 March 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She reiterated that she felt the heating system was not efficient or heating the property.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 June 2024. It explained that following the complaint escalation, it arranged a full assessment of the heaters. The contractor recommended the replacement of 2 storage heaters and electrical work to the main board and circuits. The landlord also arranged for a housing officer to contact the resident to see if there was any financial support available. It advised her that it had included her home on a wider “Whole House Retrofit” programme, due to be completed by 2030. It stated its contractor would contact her to arrange a survey. It increased its offer of compensation from £75 to £300.
  6. The landlord completed the works as set out in its stage 2 response in July 2024. The resident remained dissatisfied and referred her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident was concerned about the impact the property conditions had on her and her family. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, her concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.
  2. In a webform submitted to this Service, the resident said the landlord had, “replaced the windows which helped the draft massively and the condensation has subsided.” She, therefore, asked the Ombudsman to investigate the issue of the storage heaters. As such, our assessment has focused on this aspect of the complaint.
  3. The resident said she had reported problems with the storage heaters to the landlord since 2020. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme that was applicable at the time of the resident’s complaint states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which the resident did not bring to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising.
  4. Taking this into account, and the availability and reliability of evidence, we have focused on the period from November 2023 onward, when the resident most recently reported these issues. This investigation considers matters up to the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response. Reference to historical and more recent events is to provide context only.
  5. Following the installation of new heaters in July 2024, the resident told this Service that the property was still cold, and the damp and mould had returned. While this follows on from her previous complaint, the landlord needs an opportunity to investigate and respond. This is in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme. The Ombudsman encourages the resident to report issues that occurred after the end of the landlord’s complaints process directly to it for consideration.

Storage heaters

  1. Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
  3. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord shall maintain and where appropriate keep in proper working order heating and water equipment.
  4. The landlord’s repairs procedure explains that it will attend and make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours. It considers that heating repairs (during the winter season) where there is no other heating, is an emergency. It aims to complete appointed repairs within 45 days and major repairs within 90 days.
  5. The landlord’s records state it initially replaced the storage heaters in February 2023. Following the resident’s report of insufficient heating in November 2023, the landlord acted appropriately by sending a contractor to assess if they were working correctly. The contractor marked the job as complete on 23 November 2023. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the contractor reported any faults or issues with the heating to the landlord or that it shared comprehensive information about its assessment.
  6. Considering the resident reported “the house not heating up to temperature,” it would have been appropriate for the landlord to assess the temperature levels within the property and provide her with the results of its assessment. Its failure to do so was a shortcoming. However, it is fair to note that the EPC rating for the property is E. While this is the lowest level approved for domestic rented properties, it is still within requirements.
  7. Following the resident’s complaint in January 2024 about the same issue, it was necessary for the landlord to consider matters further. It raised an emergency work order to see if the storage heaters were working as they should. The operative reported to the landlord that the heaters were all working, but they did not submit a report or detailed notes from the assessment. Additionally, the Ombudsman has again seen no evidence that the operative checked the temperature throughout the property on this second visit or ensured the resident was using the heaters efficiently. This was a failing.
  8. After the appointment, records show the resident informed the landlord that its contractor was in the property for less than 5 minutes and did not go upstairs. Following this, it took a further 3 months for the landlord to appoint an external electric contractor to attend. In the Ombudsman’s view, while it is evident the landlord listened to the resident and acted fairly by appointing a different contractor, the delay in doing so was unreasonable. Additionally, its actions fell outside of the timescales set out for repairs in its policy.
  9. In May 2024, the external contractor identified that 2 storage heaters needed replacing, and the main electrical board and circuits required works. Before approving the works, the landlord demonstrated that it discussed options with its energy team as the resident was seeking the installation of another form of heating to resolve her complaint. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to explore this.
  10. The energy team explained that it had included the property in a retrofit programme that was running until 2030. However, it was unable to provide specific details of when works would start on this particular property and what works it was intending to complete. It explained it was composing its proposal for the next phase of the programme and could not provide any more information at this stage. From the evidence available and the nature of the programme, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord made reasonable internal enquiries in this respect.
  11. While works were not progressing under the retrofit programme, the landlord still had an obligation to ensure the current condition of the property did not pose a significant health and safety risk, and to conduct responsive repairs where necessary. As such, the Ombudsman finds it was appropriate for the landlord to approve the works recommended by the external contractor, which it completed in July 2024.
  12. Within the resident’s complaint, she stated she was paying around £400 to £500 a month on electricity and felt this was due to the storage heaters being ineffective. While the landlord acted reasonably by supporting the resident with a hardship fund application, in the Ombudsman’s view, it could have done more here. As the landlord identified issues with the storage heaters, it would have been appropriate for it to have advised her to provide evidence of her electricity usage and consider whether the issues identified with the heaters could have caused a higher energy consumption. Furthermore, the landlord could have signposted the resident to her energy supplier to ensure she was on the best tariff for storage heaters and checked whether she was using them effectively and avoiding settings such as “auto-boost,” which may use more electricity (if applicable). The landlord’s shortcoming here means it missed opportunities to deal with all aspects of the complaint and fully support her.
  13. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord said the new heaters were A rated and energy efficient, and it followed up with the resident several times following the installation. This demonstrates it took ownership of the complaint and was committed to resolving it. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident responded to the landlord when it contacted her immediately post-complaint. However, the landlord has since advised this Service that in November 2024, the resident informed it that the house gets cold as soon as she switches the heaters off, and damp and mould has returned. It made an appointment with a surveyor for 9 December 2024, which the resident rescheduled to 16 December 2024. The Ombudsman is aware the resident was dissatisfied following this appointment. As previously explained, the resident must raise any concerns about recent events directly with the landlord in the first instance. Nonetheless, as matters are ongoing, the Ombudsman has made several recommendations.
  14. In April 2024, the landlord wrote to the Ombudsman setting out its lessons learnt following a senior management review into its repairs processes and procedures, record keeping, contractor management, and complaint handling. Therefore, the Ombudsman has not made recommendations concerning the above topics but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning from this case into account.
  15. Overall, there were shortcomings in the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s reports of issues with the storage heaters. She reported issues in November 2023, and it took 3 attendances by various contractors to identify the problems which it did not remedy until July 2024. The Ombudsman appreciates that on some occasions it may take repeated visits to diagnose an issue. However, the landlord should have sought details from its initial contractor on their findings after the inspection. Further, the landlord did not evidence that it had assessed the temperatures throughout the property or considered the thermal comfort of it. Moreover, there were shortcomings when responding to the resident about her energy consumption.
  16. Within the landlord’s final complaint response, the Ombudsman recognises it apologised to the resident for the inconvenience experienced, the delays in raising and completing the works, and for the times she contacted it for updates. Additionally, it awarded £150 compensation for its response to the substantive issue. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) sets out compensation ranges we consider when determining cases. In the Ombudsman’s view, while the £150 compensation falls within our range for complaints where there were failures which adversely affected a resident, the Ombudsman is minded that an offer of £250 would have been more proportionate in the circumstances. This considers the impact on the resident and the time and trouble pursuing the matter.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 10 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  2. The resident initially complained on 15 January 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response after 40 working days on 11 March 2024. She escalated her complaint on 12 March 2024, and it issued its stage 2 response 57 working days later. The Code serves to illustrate that the landlord kept this complaint open for an unreasonable duration at both stages, however it did provide updates to the resident in the interim.
  3. The Ombudsman observes that the complaint commitments made by the landlord within its final response were tracked through to completion. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  4. Under the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. We expect a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline specific actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While the landlord recognised failings, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it could have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its complaint responses to improve its complaint handling and repairs provision. However, the Ombudsman recognises the landlord demonstrated that it reflected on this case and identified several learning points within its submission to this Service.
  5. The landlord offered £150 compensation for its complaint handling failures. In the Ombudsman’s view, this sum was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance to reflect the extent of its shortcomings and the impact its service failures had on the resident.
  6. As above, we would like to draw the landlord’s attention to its April 2024 commitment to improving its processes, including complaint handling.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the storage heaters in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident £250 compensation (inclusive of the £150 offered at stage 2 for the substantive issue, excluding complaint handling). This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    2. Assess the resident’s electricity bills for the relevant period (if she provides these) and consider whether the issues identified with the storage heaters may have had an impact on her energy consumption. Within 2 weeks of receiving the bills, it must write to her setting out its response, including whether it would be making a payment if it finds that the faults with the heaters did have an impact.
    3. Provide evidence to this Service of compliance with the orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £150 previously offered for its handling of the complaint, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure, and the reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.
  2. In view of the resident’s repeated concerns about the temperature of the property, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord completes a heat loss survey.
  3. In view of the resident’s repeated concerns about damp and mould within the property, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord appoints an independent damp and mould specialist to inspect the property.