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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202304263)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304263

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 April 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 resident’s concerns that a faulty boiler caused increased electricity bills.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom ground floor apartment and has an assured tenancy agreement for the property with the landlord. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 15 February 2023 that:
    1. Her electricity bills for the past few months were high, which she believed to be because of lack of annual servicing of her electric boiler.
    2. After a mini–service on 10 February 2023, the operative asked her if she had increased electric bills because their system showed it. The resident believed her boiler should be serviced annually; however, she said her boiler had not been fully serviced since 2019. The resident was seeking compensation for the increased bills.
    3. The landlord failed to attend 3 appointments that were arranged to service the boiler in January 2023. The resident was seeking an investigation as to why servicing was not conducted annually.
  3. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 30 March 2023, which was upheld in respect of missed appointments. The stage 1 focused and responded to the missed appointments and the resident’s request for compensation by saying:
    1. An annual service was arranged for 12 December 2022 but needed to be rearranged for 2 days later due to the operative being unavailable. It said that, when its operative attended on 14 December 2022, they noted that parts were needed because of an issue with the boiler. It further said that further appointments were made and attended to resolve the issue in March 2023.
    2. The landlord offered the resident £60 compensation as a gesture of goodwill for the missed appointment and for the delay in responding to the complaint.
  4. On the 5 May 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to advise it that her boiler had not been serviced for over 5 years, which she said was against the law. The resident said that she had a debt of £900 on her electricity account, which she said was due to the faulty boiler. The resident also later provided the landlord with evidence of a debt collector’s letter on 6 July 2023 for the outstanding debt on her energy account. The landlord responded, logged, and acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 20 September 2023. On 9 October 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to request evidence of increased electricity bills for the past few months to consider her request for compensation. The resident provided this to the landlord on 10 October 2023.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 on 18 October 2023. The response focused on the lack of servicing and the missed appointments and noted:
    1. An order was raised on its system on 29 December 2019 to provide servicing and an appointment was arranged for 19 February 2020, however the resident was unavailable and a new appointment letter was to be sent in the post. The landlord was unsure what rescheduled date had been arranged but its system noted that to be completed on 29 December 2020.
    2. A further appointment for service on 2 November 2021 was scheduled, however on arrival the landlord said there was no one home to provide access. The landlord said the resident called it on 22 November 2022 to advise it that she was unable to take extra time off work, and she had been let down previously.
    3. The next service was initially arranged for 12 December 2022, however due to staff illness this was rescheduled to 14 December 2022. It was unclear from the landlord’s records if anyone attended on this date. On 9 January 2023, it noted that an attempt was made to contact the resident to advise her that the service would not be going ahead. However, as there was no answer, the landlord wrote to the resident with a new appointment.
    4. A planned service did go ahead on 10 February 2023, and a blocked filter was removed and needed replacing. It also noted that the resident contacted the landlord on 15 February 2023 to follow up on the status of the repair and parts.
    5. The resident made a further call to the landlord on 27 February 2023 because no one had contacted her. The resident also said that her heating was not working as it should, and her energy usage had tripled. The landlord arranged for its specialist sub-contractor to test the efficiency and operation of the boiler. On 18 August 2023, the boiler was replaced.
    6. The landlord said that, while it was best practice to service a boiler annually, it was not legally bound to do so.
    7. The landlord had assessed 8 months’ electricity bills between 2022 and 2023 and found a difference of 365 kw or approximately £114, however the cost of electricity had doubled since 2019, which was outside of its control.
    8. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged its delay in dealing with her complaint at stage 1. It also acknowledged its failure to effectively communicate and update the resident, and specifically noted instances when the resident did not receive responses to her contact on 22 May 2023, 30 June 2023, and 5 July 2023. It further acknowledged that it was delayed in acknowledging the stage 2 complaint request.
    9. The landlord offered the resident a goodwill gesture payment totalling £260, broken down as £60 offered at stage 1 for complaint handling and missed appointments, £50 for the delay acknowledging the stage 2 complaint, £150 for poor communication at stage 1.
  6. The resident complained to the Ombudsman because she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, as she was left with a debt for the high electricity usage because of the faulty boiler. The resident said she was seeking compensation to make up for the debt. She also mentioned that her boiler was now fixed, and her bills were reduced as a result.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. It is noted that the resident accepted a sum from the landlord to settle a legal disrepair claim her solicitors made to it for boiler safety defects, which was based on the findings of the single joint expert instructed by the parties. Therefore, this report will not focus on that matter and will instead assess the higher electricity bills due to the faulty boiler, the lack of servicing, the missed appointments, and the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This is because, in line with the Scheme, we may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure. We do not have the authority or expertise to determine the settlements of legal claims in the manner of a court, so it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, and more effective to seek a remedy for this through the courts.
  2. The resident has mentioned that she was caused depression and anxiety because of the debt she has been left by the higher electricity bills. This is genuinely concerning. We are unable, however, to draw conclusions on the causes of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. Therefore, in line with the Scheme, the effect on the resident’s health and wellbeing is outside the scope of this investigation to consider. This is because, as described above, it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, and more effective to seek a remedy for this through the courts or an insurer.
  3. The resident has also mentioned that the landlord did not fully service her boiler for over 5 years, which is very concerning. However, under the Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising. Therefore, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering the events in the resident’s case from 12 months before her complaint to the landlord in March 2023 onwards until its stage 2 response in October 2023. This is also because, in line with the Scheme, we may not consider complaints made before the landlord’s complaints procedure has been exhausted, and there is no evidence the events in the resident’s case that happened after its stage 2 response have exhausted the complaints procedure yet.

Faulty boiler and higher electricity bills

  1. The landlord eventually took appropriate action on 9 October 2023 to request copies of the resident’s electricity bills spanning 8 months to compare the usage and associated costs. This was after she previously told it her faulty boiler increased these on 15 February 2023, 5 May 2023, and 6 July 2023. The landlord correctly noted that the cost of electricity per kw had doubled in price since 2019, which it therefore calculated the difference of £114 year to year for.
  2. The landlord considered the findings of the single joint expert’s witness report produced for her boiler safety defects legal disrepair claim mentioned above in responding to her increased electricity usage and costs claim. This concluded that the boiler was faulty, however the landlord said that there was no evidence that the lack of regular servicing was the cause of the resident’s higher electricity bills.
  3. The service would not be able to definitively conclude causation or liability for anything said to be due to the boiler safety defects because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so, as described above. We would therefore not be able to conclude that the faulty boiler was the cause of the resident’s increased electricity consumption because there is no evidence of an expert finding this for us to rely on to support that conclusion. The landlord should have therefore signposted the resident to its liability insurers for it to consider a claim for this, which may have provided a remedy for the resident.
  4. It is noted that the resident’s electricity bills may have continued to increase following the conclusion of the stage 2 complaint, but that falls outside the scope of this investigation, as explained above.
  5. In respect of the lack of annual servicing, while there is not a specific requirement for the annual servicing of electric boilers, the landlord was obliged by the resident’s tenancy agreement to ensure her heating system was maintained in good working order. This included having the system checked and serviced regularly to ensure safety and efficiency. While a specific frequency was not legally defined, it is recommended to have this serviced annually, which the landlord agreed was best practice. As described above, the service cannot definitively attribute the lack of servicing to be the cause of the higher electricity bills.
  6. The resident said that her boiler had not been fully serviced in over 5 years, although as mentioned above the scope of this investigation is limited to considering this from 12 months before her March 2022 complaint onwards. The landlord identified several dates when servicing had been arranged, including on 14 December 2022 and 10 February 2023. While the service does acknowledge that the former appointment may not have gone ahead, the landlord’s records show that it did plan to service the boiler.
  7. While the appointments were made by the landlord, for the clarity of this report, as noted above one of the above appointments may not have been attended. The landlord’s records showed the following:
    1. There was an appointment arranged for boiler servicing for 14 December 2022, however the landlord’s records are unclear and there are no entries to show if the appointment went ahead, which is inappropriate. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it contacted the resident on 9 January 2023, but there was no answer and so the landlord said it asked its compliance team to send a new appointment. The landlord’s poor record keeping is concerning. The landlord needs to ensure it is proactive in ensuring its records are accurate and up to date to avoid further failures.
    2. The service arranged for 10 February 2023 went ahead. This resulted in the identification of a blockage and the full replacement of the boiler on 18 August 2023.
  8. While there were several cancelled appointments, the landlord offered compensation of £60 for its failures. This was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation from £50 for such failures that did not significantly affect the resident. It is also notable that some appointments were also cancelled or rearranged by the resident.
  9. It was, however, unreasonable for the landlord to take almost 8 months, from 14 December 2022 until 18 August 2023, to replace the resident’s boiler. It was also unreasonable that the resident needed to chase the landlord on 15 and 27 February 2023 in order to obtain an update on the repair. In line with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure, the landlord should have identified and diagnosed the repair/replacement of the boiler within 24 hours of the resident’s call. It should have then raised a works order and possible pre-inspection, with the works taking no longer than 28 days, with any follow up works taking no longer than 10 working days. If major works are identified, these should be completed within 90 days.
  10. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident an additional £250 in recognition of the delay in the landlord replacing the boiler, and the need for the resident to chase for updates. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation from £100 for such maladministration where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord’s previous offer was not proportionate to recognise all of the failings identified by our investigation. It is also ordered to give the resident details to allow her to make a claim on its liability insurance for her increased electricity bills.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord received the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 15 February 2023. In line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) the landlord should have responded to the complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days. However, the landlord failed to meet this and did not respond to the resident until 30 March 2023, which was 21 working days later than the timescale set out in the policy and the Code. This failure was identified by the landlord at stage 1, when it offered compensation of £60 in recognition of its poor complaint handling and missed appointments, and at stage 2, when it offered compensation of £150 in recognition of its poor communication. This amount was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended compensation for maladministration starting at £100 for a failure that adversely affected the resident, which the landlord acknowledged but had no permanent effect on the resident.
  2. Additionally, the landlord also failed to acknowledge receipt of the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaint procedure on 5 May 2023. The policy and the Code say the landlord must acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. The landlord also identified this failing and offered compensation of £50, which was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended compensation for failings resulting in delays in getting matters resolved that did not significantly affect the resident. It is noted that the landlord also did not respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within the policy’s and the Code’s 20-working-day timescale but 96 working days later than this timescale on 18 October 2023, which was very inappropriate. However, the £260 total compensation it offered her for the above failings was also proportionate to recognise this in line with our remedies guidance’s above recommendations.
  3. In conclusion, the landlord offered total compensation of £260, broken down as £60 at stage 1 for its poor complaint handling and missed appointments, £50 for delay acknowledging the complaint at stage 2, and £150 for poor communication at stage 1. This amount is reasonable and falls in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation from £100 for such maladministration where there was failure that adversely affected the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy and practice in relation to responding to repairs, works by its contractors, record keeping, complaints, and all communication with residents. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider orders, so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that a faulty boiler caused increased electricity bills.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay further compensation of £250 to the resident. This amount is in addition to the landlord’s previous offer of £260.
    2. Give the resident details to allow her to make a claim on its liability insurance for her increased electricity bills.
  2. Evidence of compliance with this order must be provided to the Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £260 compensation that it previously offered during the complaints process.