Sanctuary Housing Association (202228858)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228858

Sanctuary Housing Association

8 March 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that a bedroom in the property was not sufficiently insulated and was too cold to use.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant, and she moved into the property in August 2019 with her children. The property is a 3-bedroom new build and the design is such that the largest bedroom is above a carport. The bedroom has: one internal wall, one party wall to the neighbouring property, 2 external walls, a separate roof to the main house and a floor with empty space underneath. There is also one small standard window, and one larger dormer window in the room. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman and the resident that the defects warranty ended on 26 July 2020.
On 9 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that her younger daughters’ bedroom was too cold in the winter rendering it unusable. She also said that there was a small radiator on one side of the room but she did not feel it was large enough for the space and was ineffective even with the heating on. She was concerned that leaving the radiator turned on all the time would leave her in financial difficulty due to the associated energy cost. There is no record that the landlord responded to this email or took any action in respect of the concerns that had been raised
The resident emailed the landlord again on 21 April 2022 to raise the same concern and mentioned that she had spoken to a contractor who was on the estate and he said the insulation was installed in line with the architect plans. She believed the bedroom had no insulation at all and could feel a draught coming up through the floor. This email was sent by the customer care team to the department responsible for insulation queries, with a suggestion that a surveyor attend. On 28 April 2022, internal emails show that the insulation team felt this was not within its remit and contacted the maintenance surveyors for advice on how to proceed. It was confirmed that the property was out of warranty on 26 July 2020.
The resident contacted the landlord by phone on 31 August 2022 asking when the insulation would be installed as she had been told it would be completed. She made a complaint on 15 November 2022 after receiving no response to this query. She stated that her daughters could not use the bedroom in winter as it was too cold, so she had given them her bed to share and she was sleeping in the living room. The situation was causing stress to her daughters and causing her anxiety, and the house was freezing cold and expensive to heat even without insulation issues. In order to resolve her complaint, she requested a contractor attend to check the insulation levels and if it was insufficient, correct this.
On 16 November 2022, the landlord raised a request for a thermal imaging survey, and formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 17 November 2022. It gave her a date of 30 November 2022 for the complaint response. A stage 1 complaint update was sent to the resident on 30 November 2022 advising that before a full and complete response could be issued, a surveyor needed to attend the property. This could only be arranged after the thermal survey which was scheduled for that day. It advised that the resident would be contacted within 10 working days.
On 6 December 2022, an email was sent by the external contractor to the landlord, with the results of the thermal imaging and ‘moisture investigation report’ which was completed on 30 November 2022. The report stated:
1. There was no evidence of condensation, escape or ingress of water.
2. Thermal imaging of the bedroom showed a cold ceiling and cold ingress on the floor. Comparable photos taken with another upstairs room in the property showed a marked difference in temperature.
3. The room was inherently cold due to the construction style. There was possibly missing insulation in the loft space and cold air flow through the floor void entering the room between the floor and skirting. The contractor could not access the loft space so could not confirm definitively whether the insulation was sufficient.
4. The radiator was concealed by a double bed which was reducing its effectiveness.
5. The room was surrounded by external walls, roof and floor so was likely to be inherently colder than rooms in the main house.
6. Recommendations were made for:
  1. The resident to turn down the thermostatic radiator valves (TRVs) in the other rooms and leave the one in the bedroom on max.
  2. The resident to move the bed away from the radiator.
  3. Apply a seal between the skirting and the floor, to block air ingress.
  4. Cut into loft space through the ceiling to assess if the loft space was insulated.
  5. Consider gaining access to floor void and wall space to confirm insulation was installed correctly.
The landlord contacted the resident on 9 December 2022 to advise a date for the surveyor to attend had not been confirmed, and that it would update her as soon as it was. It sent a text message to the resident on 14 December 2022 to advise it was still investigating the complaint. On 5 January 2023, a job was raised for a contractor to attend the property and assess whether the radiator was an appropriate size and see whether anything could be implemented to reduce draughts. This inspection was booked for 17 January 2023.
On 1 February 2023, the notes from the survey were provided to the complaints team and stated:
1. The Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) of the property was B.
2. The resident had highlighted that the room was also too hot in summer. The surveyor felt this indicated that the insulation was functioning correctly.
3. The issues with maintaining the temperature were a result of the undersized radiator, along with the radiator being covered up.
4. The floor covering was laminate which is naturally colder, and the laminate did not have any kind of seal with the skirting.
5. With no access, he could not advise if the underlay used was thermal and suitable for that type of sub floor base. Some underlays, including the thicker mineral type, may be suitable as sound insulation but offer little thermal benefits.
6. The area highlighted by the external contractor as being cold in the loft space potentially required ventilation.
7. The internal temperature in the property was 13 degrees Celsius which was below the ‘Housing Health and Safety Rating System’ (HHSRS) recommended guideline of 18-21 degrees Celsius. The heating was on and the thermostat was set to low. The surveyor said he asked the resident to turn the heating up, however she responded that she was approaching the landlord as she should not be paying for a 3-bedroom property when she could only use 2 bedrooms.
8. No further works were scheduled as it was deemed no action was required.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 February 2023 to say she did not accept the findings of the report. She reiterated that the bedroom was too cold in winter and too hot in summer, and said she was contacting environmental health. She also felt that the windows did not provide adequate ventilation in summer which was contributing to the excess heat.
On 28 March 2023, the landlord attended to assess the radiator and determined that a larger radiator was required. The resident did not want the radiator to be replaced as she did not want exposed pipework, and the landlord advised it would need to leave pipework easily accessible for maintenance purposes.
The stage 1 response was provided on 6 April 2023 which stated:
1. The external contractor who attended on 30 November 2022 wrote a report to state there was no problem with the insulation.
2. On 17 January 2023 a contractor attended and determined that the radiator would need replacing and an appointment was booked for 29 March 2023 for this to be measured up.
3. The resident did not want the replacement radiator.
4. £200 compensation was offered, comprising of £100 for delays in the complaint response and £100 delay in the replacement radiator offer.
The resident was unhappy with this response and escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process on 11 April 2023. She declined the offer of compensation as she was unhappy with the handling of her complaint. She also felt that while installing a larger radiator may have improved the temperature while it was on, she was unable to afford to keep the heating on all the time as had been suggested by the contractor on 1 February 2023. Until the insulation was checked, she was unwilling to consent to any other works, and was unhappy with the prospect of visible pipework should a new radiator be installed.
The landlord responded on 12 April 2023 stating that the insulation had been checked and found to have been an acceptable level, and that if she wished to escalate the complaint to stage 2 she could. The resident replied stating that she was under the impression her previous email counted as an escalation request and confirmed that she did want the complaint escalating. Formal confirmation of the escalation request was sent to the resident on 13 April 2023 giving a deadline of 15 May 2023 for the final complaint response.
A final stage 2 complaint response was provided to the resident on 15 May 2023. It stated that, under normal circumstances, it was unable to investigate issues which occurred more than 6 months before the complaint was logged, however, as the resident first reported the issue on 9 January 2021 it would investigate the full time period from that date. The investigation found:
1. The EPC demonstrated that the insulation in the property was acceptable.
2. Thermal imaging supported her assertion that the room was colder than the rest of the property, however this was due to a combination of factors including an undersized radiator and a lack of beading around the edge of the laminate floor.
3. The cold spot detected in the roof space by the external contractor was very likely to be necessary roof ventilation.
4. Checks were made to another property experiencing the same issue, and it was found that the required quantities of rockwool/earth wool type material was present, and this had been approved by building control during construction.
5. As the property was too hot in summer, this demonstrated that the insulation was appropriate.
6. The complaint was partially upheld due to the complaint handling delays, and the delay in addressing the resident’s concerns about the bedroom.
7. It advised that it had done all it could to resolve the issue including:
  1. Completing thermal imaging in the property
  2. Checking the EPC to ensure insulation had been assessed.
  3. Offering a larger radiator.
8. Compensation was increased to £500 comprising of:
  1. £200 for time, trouble and inconvenience
  2. £200 for poor complaint handling
  3. £100 for poor communication.
On 25 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to state that she was unhappy with both the finding that the room was usable and the level of compensation offered. She maintained that simply installing a large radiator would not resolve the issue as she would not be able to afford to run it. Additionally, she felt that the skirting was already sealed and adding further seals to the floor would not make a difference. She also felt that there was a draught coming up through the middle of the floor on cold days, not simply from around the edges of the floor. Given the length of time taken to assess the issue, and the landlord’s assertion that the only option was a larger radiator, the resident requested a property move as she felt she was paying for a property she could not fully use. On 30 May 2023, the landlord contacted the local housing team to put the resident forward for a property move.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding insulation in a bedroom

There was over a year from the landlord’s first note of the resident reporting the temperature issue to the first action it took. It is unclear what happened to this original report, and the final complaint response confirmed that it was likely this request had not been responded to. The action taken by the landlord in April 2022 was also minimal, as it simply sent a query to the insulation team which confirmed there was nothing it could do.
It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for a thermal survey to take place given the issue was regarding the temperature of the room, however this was not arranged until after the resident made her complaint over 6 months later.
A copy of this survey has been provided to the Ombudsman. The thermal survey recorded the temperature in each area it was scanning. Measurements were taken in the bedroom, with some comparison measurements taken in the main house and outside the property. These were:
1. Bedroom ceiling – 6.7 degrees Celsius
2. Bedroom floor – 4.1 degrees Celsius
3. Bathroom ceiling – 13.1 degrees Celsius
4. Bathroom floor – 12.5 degrees Celsius
5. External temperature – 2.2 degrees Celsius.
There was a marked difference in the temperature in the bedroom compared to that in the main house which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was cause for further investigation. The landlord has stated to the resident and this Service that the insulation levels were compliant with building regulations based on the inspections which took place at the time of construction, along with an invasive inspection of another property. There is no evidence that the landlord physically checked the insulation in this property at any point between January 2021 and the date of this report.
Considering the outside temperature on the day of the assessment was 2.2 degrees Celsius, it is reasonable to conclude that there was very little protection from the outside temperature for the bedroom given the floor was only 1.9 degrees Celsius warmer. The results of the thermal survey appear to support the resident’s assertion that the insulation was not effective, and that the room was too cold to use.
The ‘Decent Home Standard (DHS)’ states that a home should have a “reasonable degree of thermal comfort” and insulation should be appropriate to the form of heating, and the individual construction of the property. In general, properties with a Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating of 35 or less are considered to have a category 1 hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The landlord has provided evidence to the Ombudsman that, on build completion in October 2017, the property was given an SAP rating of 84 and an energy performance rating of B, which indicates good energy efficiency overall.
The HHSRS states that in relation to the category 1 hazard of excess cold “serious health risks occur below 16 degrees Celsius with a substantially increased risk of respiratory and cardiovascular conditions.” It is not possible for the Ombudsman to confirm whether the heating was in use at the time of the thermal imaging, however the temperature of the floor and ceiling would likely have resulted in an overall room temperature of below 16 degrees Celsius even if the heating was on. New build properties are designed and constructed with energy efficiency in mind and should be able to retain some heat even if the heating is switched off periodically.
The landlord did take positive action by scheduling the thermal survey however the surveyor’s recommendations were not fully followed. A recommendation was for the landlord to cut into the loft space, floor void and wall space to check insulation. This did not take place, as it had done these works at another property and found no issues. It also felt that the EPC rating and SAP report completed at build completion demonstrated that insulation was not the issue. While it is understandable that the landlord may rely on building inspections given how recently they were completed, it was clear from the results of the thermal survey that, in this case, that there was a continuing issue with heat loss and air ingress. The landlord’s surveyor noted that the temperature was 13 degrees Celsius at the time of his survey with the heating on low, which was below the HHSRS guideline of 18-21 degrees Celsius.
It was reasonable for the landlord to offer to install a larger radiator, with the aim of improving the temperature in the room. While we note the resident’s position that she did not want visible pipework, the focus for a landlord is to ensure the heating system is functional and safe. It would not consider design or aesthetics when making its decision, and the Ombudsman considers that this is appropriate.
The recommendation made by the landlord for the resident to seal the laminate was also a reasonable one, however, if there was a problem with air ingress in the underfloor this may help to block the draught not but identify the underlying cause. The landlord should have checked the underfloor, confirmed insulation levels and carried out additional tests such as an air permeability test. It was evident on the thermal imaging results that there was air entering the room and while some ventilation is required to prevent timber rot, the resulting temperature drop was excessive.
The resident expressed concern that a larger radiator would increase her energy costs, as she was having to continuously have the heating on to heat the room and this was unaffordable. Given the sharp rise in energy costs across the country over the last few years this concern is understandable. The recommendation by the landlord that the bed was moved away from the radiator, if followed, would have allowed a clear path to heat the rest of the room. However, if there was an underlying issue which went unresolved, this may not have rectified the issue and may have led to increased energy usage regardless of any added thermal benefit.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord stated that the room being too hot in summer was an indicator that the insulation was functioning correctly. However, the function of insulation is to prevent heat from travelling through a surface such as a wall or ceiling, and therefore should also minimise heat from outside the property making its way inside. The thermal survey detected cold air entering the property from under the floor, dropping the temperature considerably. The landlord should have considered that, based on this evidence, the same may happen with hot air in summer.
It is understandable that the resident has been frustrated and distressed by this issue when taking into account the long period of time she had been reporting it, the effect on her children, and the knock-on effect on her heating bills when attempting to bring the room to a reasonable temperature. The landlord has taken some action, but has also relied heavily on the new build inspection reports despite the thermal survey returning findings which contradicted the EPC. Completing an invasive survey of another property experiencing similar issues is not an acceptable alternative to completing an assessment on this property in this case, and given the findings of the surveys that have been completed. While all properties of this design should be built to the same standard and specification, there is no way for the landlord to ensure they are without physically checking.
There may have been a number of contributing factors to the temperature issues in the bedroom, including how the room was being utilised. However, the landlord should have completed a thorough investigation in order to pinpoint the cause and determine which remedial actions would resolve the issue without the need for an increase in energy costs. Compensation was offered at stage 2 of £200 for time, trouble and inconvenience and £100 for poor communication however this did not reflect the length of time the issue had been ongoing, or the effect that the conditions in the home were having on the resident and her family. Two children were unable to reside in their room full time and had to share a bed, while the resident stated that she had to sleep in the living room. The resident had informed it that it was affecting her mental health and causing anxiety, and this was never addressed in any correspondence.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that a bedroom in the property was not sufficiently insulated and was too cold to use.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, it states that it will respond to the complainant within 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond by 20 working days. At both stages, if it is unable to provide a response within the deadline, it will update the resident, and, if appropriate, issue an interim response which also provides a timescale for full resolution. Residents who are unhappy with the stage 2 response are directed to the Housing Ombudsman Service for assistance.
The resident’s complaint was logged swiftly by the landlord, with a reasonable timescale given for the stage 1 response. An update was provided to the resident when it concluded that it could not provide a full response, and this was a positive step. However, the stage 1 response was issued 89 working days after the update letter. Although it was reasonable to wait until a survey was completed before issuing an update, the results of the survey were known on 1 February 2023 so the complaint response could have been issued immediately after, with a list of its planned actions to resolve the issue permanently.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was timely, and the complaint handler clearly explained the time period it had investigated and the reasons why. It explained that while it agreed that the room was colder than others in the house, this was due to the laminate not being sealed and the radiator being undersized and blocked. It said that the EPC being rated B was proof that the property was sufficiently insulated, however the thermal imaging was performed more recently than the EPC and highlighted issues with thermal bridging. This should have been considered in the complaint investigation.
Compensation of £100 was offered for poor complaint handling during stage 1 and increased in stage 2 to £200. The Ombudsman finds that the compensation offered in relation to complaint handling and its acknowledgment of its poor handling, was appropriate redress. While there were delays in the complaints process these were identified and apologised for. There was no resulting delay in the resident being able to approach the Ombudsman, as she contacted this Service for support prior to the stage 2 response being issued.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that a bedroom in the property was not sufficiently insulated and was too cold to use.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it managed the complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within the next 4 weeks, the landlord must:
  1. Pay the resident £500 compensation for the delays in addressing her concerns with the room temperature.
  2. Pay the resident £500 compensation for its failure to fully investigate her concerns and complete a physical assessment of the insulation.
  3. If the £300 compensation offered at stage 2 for “time, trouble, inconvenience and communication” has been paid, this can be deducted from this order.
  4. The landlord should confirm compliance, with evidence, to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this report.
2. Within the next 8 weeks, the landlord must:
  1. Complete a physical check of the ceiling and underfloor insulation in the bedroom in question and rectify any defects.
  2. Complete further investigations on the air ingress in the underfloor and determine if any additional insulation or underlay can be added to minimise it.
  3. Copies of any surveys, reports or work notes relating to these investigations should be provided to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of this report to demonstrate compliance.
3. Once the above orders are complete, the landlord must arrange for the completion of another thermal survey to test the effectiveness of the measures. A copy of this survey must be provided to the Ombudsman within 10 weeks of this report to demonstrate compliance.
4. Within the next 10 weeks the landlord must contact the resident to offer to install the larger radiator in the bedroom, and if she gives permission, complete this within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord should confirm compliance, with evidence, with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4, 8 and 10 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendation:
1. If the resident still wishes to consider a property move, the landlord should support her to find an alternative property in line with its policies.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding this recommendation within four weeks of this report.