From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Great Places Housing Association (202325078)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325078

Great Places Housing Association

29 August 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 defects in a new build property.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of a new build, semi-detached house (the property). She moved into the property shortly after her lease began in January 2023.
  2. On 4 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord (Complaint 1) about the condition of the property. She said:
    1. There was no shower mixer tap or glass screen fitted to the bath despite the marketing material for the property indicating both items would be included. The landlord had previously told her it would install these but had not yet done so.
    2. The kitchen cabinets were the wrong colour when she moved in. She “constantly” contacted the landlord about this for 6 months before it replaced them.
    3. There were other outstanding defects on the “snag list”. She had raised these issues with the landlord “multiple times” since January 2023.
    4. She was reliant on the landlord to liaise with the company that built the property (the builder) to ensure all the outstanding defects were resolved.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to Complaint 1 on 17 August 2023. It said:
    1. It accepted the resident’s account of events and it was sorry for the “inconvenience and frustration” she had experienced.
    2. The bathroom was fitted to the correct specification but it had previously acknowledged to the resident that the marketing brochure “could have been clearer” about what would be included with the bath.
    3. It told the resident on 4 May 2023 it would fit a shower mixer tap as a “gesture” to recognise the unclear marketing material, but it had delayed in completing this work.
    4. The builder was responsible for resolving all the other outstanding defects in the property.
    5. The builder had appointed “several different site managers with no communication of the outstanding works being passed over to the new management team”. This led to a delay in the kitchen cabinets being replaced and was why items on the snag list remained unresolved.
    6. It had spoken to the builder “at length” about this and had escalated the issue with the builder’s contracts manager.
    7. To move things along, the landlord had appointed an in-house repairs contractor to complete the works instead of the builder.
    8. The contractor attended the property on 11 August 2023 and resolved 5 minor repair issues on the snag list.
    9. There was only one item remaining on the snag list (rendering above door and window heads). The contractor would return to the property to attend to this and to fit the shower mixer tap.
    10. It offered the resident £250 compensation and apologised for the delays, its “poor communication” and the “poor service” it provided.
  4. The landlord received an escalation request from the resident on 6 September 2023. She said it had not thoroughly investigated her complaint and that there remained lots of outstanding defect issues. The resident provided a detailed account of various concerns she had about the property condition and the landlord’s communications with her. She expressed dissatisfaction that the contractor had not completed all outstanding works during his visit on 11 August 2023. She asked the landlord to complete all outstanding work in the property and to reconsider its compensation offer. She said the £250 it offered at stage 1 did not reflect “the amount of stress and time” she had spent contacting it.
  5. On 16 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the complaint. It said:
    1. “The number of outstanding snags and the standard of cleanliness” on completion day was “well below the standard” it expected to deliver to residents.
    2. “The level of quality control slipped during the final stages of build, likely because of the builder trying to meet the handover target, resulting in an unacceptable level of residual defects and poor cleanliness”.
    3. It should have delayed handing the property over to the resident until it was in a more suitable condition.
    4. Defects the resident reported on 3 May 2023 were not registered on its system, which contributed to the delay in it resolving them.
    5. Another reason for the delay was the builder’s poor internal communications during site management changes.
    6. Although there was service failure by the builder in attending to the defects, the landlord acknowledged that it “could have better managed” the situation.
    7. It acknowledged there was a further delay of almost 2 months between it instructing its repairs contractor to complete the outstanding work (22 June 2023) and the contractor attending the property (11 August 2023). This was due to staff leave.
    8. Its marketing literature in relation to the finish and attachments to the bath was unclear.
    9. There were a number of other instances where its communication with the resident “fell short of [its] standards”.
  6. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord detailed service improvement measures it had implemented further to its complaint investigation findings. In relation to the resident specifically, it said it would:
    1. Contact her with a “bi-weekly update” on all repair issues she had reported.
    2. Fit a shower mixer tap and bath screen and extend the tiling around the bath.
    3. Monitor the builder’s response during the defect liability period to any further issues she reported.
    4. Repaint the render on the outside of the property.
    5. Increase its compensation offer to £730, comprising:
      1. £650 to reflect the “upset and inconvenience” she had experienced since she moved into the property.
      2. £80 as it did not provide her with updates about her complaint during its stage 2 investigation.
  7. Over the next 3 months the resident continued to liaise with the landlord about outstanding work required in the property. During this time, it installed the shower mixer tap and bath screen, and it extended the tiling around the bath. However, the resident continued to raise concern that it had not resolved all the defects in the property.
  8. On 17 January 2024 the landlord and the builder attended the property to carry out an “end of defects inspection”. This was because the one year period during which the builder was responsible for resolving defects was soon due to end. The inspection identified 14 defects were still be resolved. These included various decorative or minor repairs, as well as:
    1. Damaged flooring in kitchen to be replaced.
    2. Carbon monoxide alarm and heat detector to be fitted in kitchen.
    3. Outside render to be repainted.
  9. On 15 February 2024 the resident raised a further formal complaint (Complaint 2). She complained that:
    1. Her kitchen was not fitted with a carbon monoxide alarm or heat detector at the point of handover.
    2. The builder and landlord only noticed the alarm and detector were missing when she queried it a year later during the January 2024 defects inspection.
    3. It took the builder a further 4 weeks before it fitted the carbon monoxide alarm, although she was concerned it was not hard wired.
    4. The builder had not yet fitted the heat detector.
    5. The landlord’s communications with her in relation to the outstanding defects remained poor contrary to the commitment it made in its stage 2 response to Complaint 1.
    6. It had still not paid her the £730 compensation it offered her for Complaint 1, even though she accepted it 2 months previously.
  10. On 27 February 2024 the landlord paid the resident the £730 compensation.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 on 16 April 2024. It said:
    1. It was sorry that neither it or the builder identified during the handover inspection in January 2023 that the carbon monoxide alarm and heat detector were missing in the kitchen.
    2. This oversight was due to the handover of the property being “more rushed” than the landlord would have liked.
    3. The builder had now fitted a battery operated carbon monoxide detector. The specification for the property did not state that this would be hard wired.
    4. It had asked the builder to install the heat detector and hoped it had now done so.
    5. It offered her £250 compensation as an apology for:
      1. Its failure to ensure there was a carbon monoxide alarm and heat detector in the kitchen at handover (£100).
      2. its delay in processing the compensation payment for Complaint 1 and its delay in issuing the stage 1 response to Complaint 2 (£150).
  12. The resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 2 on 7 May 2024. She said it told her the kitchen carbon monoxide alarm in other properties in the development were hard wired. She expressed concern that the only reason the alarm was not hard wired in her property was because, by the landlord’s own admission, completion was rushed.
  13. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to Complaint 2 on 10 June 2024. It said that the battery operated carbon monoxide alarm complied with building regulations. It confirmed it fitted the heat detector on 17 May 2024.
  14. In recognition of the “protracted frustration and concern” experienced by the resident, the landlord increased its stage 1 offer in relation to the alarm and heat detector from £100 to £200. This brought the total compensation it offered for Complaint 2 to £350.
  15. The resident referred Complaint 1 and Complaint 2 to the Ombudsman. We accepted the complaints for investigation on 5 September 2024. The resident told us she wanted the landlord to attend to all the outstanding defects and to compensate her for distress and inconvenience.
  16. We do not know the exact date, but in early September 2024 the resident raised a further formal complaint with the landlord (Complaint 3). Within this she said:
    1. She was raising the complaint as she was “always being ignored” by the landlord “for months on end” unless she put in “a mammoth amount of effort to draw some sort of communication”.
    2. The landlord had not yet paid her the £350 compensation it offered in its stage 2 response to Complaint 2, despite her accepting it 2 months previously.
    3. She had heard nothing further from the landlord about when the outstanding defects identified by the January 2024 inspection would be resolved.
  17. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to Complaint 3 on 19 September 2024. It said:
    1. It was experiencing ongoing communication difficulties with the builder which had led to delays in resolving the defects. It was sorry for the impact these delays had on the resident.
    2. It would continue to pursue the builder. However, to move things along, it would carry out a further inspection of the property with a view to its in-house contractor completing any required work.
    3. It was sorry it had not yet paid the resident the £350 compensation offered in its stage 2 response to Complaint 2. It offered her an additional £50 as an apology for this delay, bringing the total compensation to be paid to £400.
    4. It would consider if any further compensation was appropriate once it had resolved the outstanding defects.
  18. The resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 3 on 20 September 2024. She said it had used the builder as a “scapegoat” in its complaint response and had failed to acknowledge its own “lack of updates, apologies, responses and effort to get things done”.
  19. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to Complaint 3 on 22 October 2024. It said:
    1. It accepted that any issues it had with the builder should not have impacted the resident.
    2. It should have put an alternative resolution, such as use of its own contractor, in place in a timelier manner.
    3. Its communications with the resident in relation to the completion of the outstanding work was “poor”.
    4. It was attending the property that day (22 October 2024) with its contractor to agree the scope of all outstanding defects and to put an action plan in place for resolving them.
    5. In addition to the £400 offered in its stage 1 response, it offered a further £100 compensation for “delays and poor communication”.
  20. The landlord and its contractor duly attended the property on 22 October 2024 and agreed a schedule of outstanding defects with the resident. The contractor and the builder then completed most of the work in November 2024. However, it was July 2025 before all the outstanding defect issues on the schedule were resolved.
  21. We have recently spoken with the resident. She advised us that the outcome she seeks is for the landlord to be held accountable for the distress she experienced due to its handling of the defects in her property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord responded to Complaint 3 after we had accepted Complaints 1 and 2 for investigation in September 2024, but prior to our investigation commencing in August 2025. We have therefore considered it appropriate to include Complaint 3 within the scope of this investigation as it relates to the same issues raised in the previous complaints.

Handling of defects

  1. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that the property was “not completed to proper quality standards”. According to its records, there were 48 issues reported by the resident and accepted by it as being a “defect” in the 12 months after completion. These were wide ranging and included issues relating to rendering, flooring, plasterwork and other decorative repairs, a draughty patio door, faults with hardware, and many more.
  2. The builder was responsible under its contract with the landlord for completing the property to an appropriate standard and resolving any defects identified within 12 months after completion. The resident’s contract was with the landlord. She was therefore reliant on it to either enforce its contract with the builder, or to attend to any property condition and defect issues itself. It failed to do the former and delayed in doing the latter, with it taking over 2 years to resolve some defects. This was maladministration.
  3. There were a number of contributory factors to the maladministration in this case, most of which the landlord acknowledged in its responses to the resident’s 3 complaints. For example, it said within its various responses:
    1. The property was not completed to an acceptable standard and quality control during the final stages of the build “slipped”.
    2. It failed to register defects reported by the resident in May 2023.
    3. The builder’s communication internally with site management, with the landlord, and with the resident was poor. The builder was responsible for resolving the defects but failed to do so. The landlord was pursuing this but acknowledged that residents “should not fall between the cracks of a dispute”.
    4. It should have put the alternative process, whereby its in-house contractor attended to most of the defects, in place sooner.
    5. Its communication with the resident was poor throughout its handling of the defect issues.
  4. While it was appropriate that the landlord recognised the above failings, it did not provide reasonable redress to the complaints. Our dispute resolution principles require landlords to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord fairly acknowledged and apologised for its failings in each of its complaint responses and offered compensation. It said it would put things right and learn from its mistakes. However, it did not do so.
  5. The landlord delayed in paying the compensation it offered for Complaint 1 and Complaint 2. This was unfair on the resident who had to spend time and trouble chasing it for payment. It was only when she raised new complaints each time that the compensation had not been paid, that the landlord processed the payments. This was unreasonable.
  6. The landlord did not put things right after each complaint response by promptly resolving all the outstanding defects:
    1. In its stage 2 response to Complaint 1 in October 2023, the only outstanding work it referenced was the bath fittings and render painting. It is evident from the subsequent defect inspection in January 2024 that there were numerous other outstanding defects in the property. We are not sure if the resident had previously raised these all with the landlord, given it did not have a record of her May 2023 defect report. However, it is evident from the later inspection that during its Complaint 1 investigation, the landlord did not thoroughly inspect the property and devise a complete list of outstanding defects. It should reasonably have done so.
    2. Had it thoroughly inspected the property during its Complaint 1 investigation in October 2023, it could have included within its stage 2 response an action plan with timeframes for addressing all the outstanding issues. It was not until the landlord’s inspection in October 2024, which was after it had dealt with 3 formal complaints, before it produced such a plan and completed most of the work. It therefore missed the opportunity to resolve all outstanding issues a year sooner than it did. As such, some of the detriment caused to the resident could reasonably have been avoided.
    3. There was no recognition in either of its responses to Complaint 2 in April and June 2024 that most of the defects identified in the January 2024 inspection remained outstanding. This was a further missed opportunity to put things right.
    4. Although the landlord ensured most of the outstanding defects were resolved within a month of the stage 2 response to Complaint 3 in October 2024, it further delayed in resolving 2 issues. The kitchen flooring was not repaired until May 2025 and the render was not cleaned until July 2025. It took for the resident to chase the landlord before both these issues were resolved. This was unreasonable, particularly given its previous delays.
  7. The landlord’s communications with the resident continued to be poor after each complaint response. It failed to provide her with the “bi-weekly” updates it committed to in its response to Complaint 1, even after it had investigated Complaint 2 and Complaint 3. It therefore failed to “learn from outcomes”.
  8. In response to the concerns raised by the resident in Complaint 2 about the carbon monoxide alarm not being hard wired, the landlord confirmed the battery operated fitting was compliant with building regulations. It said that the specification for the property did not state whether the alarm should be hard wired or could be battery operated only.
  9. As the landlord ensured the alarm complied with building regulations, we are satisfied that it was not a failing that only a battery operated alarm was installed. However, the resident has provided us with a “sales specification” document which contains floor plans of a particular property type within the development. She said this was the specification for the property type she bought. The specification contains an “electrical legend” on the ground floor plan, and within this a ceiling mounted carbon monoxide alarm in the kitchen is listed. Given this implies the alarm should have been hard wired, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to review this.

Compensation calculation

  1. The landlord’s remedies policy sets out how it will determine if compensation is appropriate as part of the resolution to a formal complaint. It suggests that compensation should be paid according to the impact on the resident as follows:
    1. Short term impact (up to 3 months) – £50 – £150
    2. Medium term impact (3 to 6 months) – £150 – £700
    3. Long term impact (over 6 months) – over £700
  2. The policy states that long term impacts include “long delays in receiving a service, for example completing repairs or resolving the cause of a complaint” and also “significant breakdown in communication” with a resident.
  3. The resident spent considerable time and trouble for over 2 years in pursuing the landlord and asking it to resolve the defects. She repeatedly told it in her complaint correspondence this was causing her distress and inconvenience. She told it she was particularly concerned about the distress caused as she was pregnant when she first complained and then had a newborn baby by the time of Complaint 2.
  4. We have assessed whether the compensation the landlord offered the resident in each stage 2 response was reasonable in the circumstances. We have taken into account the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident and have applied its remedies policy. We have found:
    1. Complaint 1 (October 2023):
      1. The £80 it offered the resident for not providing her with updates during its complaint investigation was reasonable.
      2. It offered her £650 for the “upset and inconvenience” she had experienced since moving into the property in January 2023. Given that many of the issues with the property condition and defects remained ongoing by October 2023, the landlord should reasonably have offered compensation for long term impact (over £700) in line with its policy. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 for the distress and inconvenience its handling of the defects had caused her up to October 2023.
    2. Complaint 2 (June 2024):
      1. The £150 it offered the resident for its delay in processing the compensation payment for Complaint 1 and issuing its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 was reasonable.
      2. The £200 it offered her for its delay in fitting the carbon monoxide alarm and heat detector was reasonable. It identified these needed to be fitted during the January 2024 defect inspection. It took until May 2024 before both were fitted. This was therefore a delay falling with the medium term category as per its policy.
    3. Complaint 3 (October 2024):
      1. The £50 it offered the resident for its delay in processing the compensation payment for Complaint 2 was reasonable.
      2. The £100 it offered for its delays in resolving the defects and its poor communication was too low. Although it had previously offered her £650 for similar failings as part of Complaint 1, that compensation offer related only to its actions up to the date the offer was made (October 2023). The compensation it offered in its stage 2 response to Complaint 2 (June 2024) related specifically to the carbon monoxide alarm and heat detector, rather than its overall failings in relation to defect management. Therefore, it should reasonably have considered how much compensation was appropriate for its delays in remedying defects and communication failings between October 2023 and October 2024. It should have taken into account the impact on the resident and that a significant number of defects still remained outstanding by October 2024. In such circumstances, a compensation offer based on long term impact (over £700) would have been reasonable. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £650 for the distress and inconvenience its handling of the defects caused her between October 2023 and October 2024.
  5. The landlord has confirmed to us that it paid the resident £730 (Complaint 1 compensation) in February 2024, and £500 (Complaint 2 and 3 compensation combined) in November 2024. For the reasons set out above in our assessment of compensation, we order it to pay her an additional £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the defects.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of defects in a new build property.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It should be made by a senior member of staff.
    2. Pay the resident £750 compensation. This is in addition to the compensation it has already paid her through its complaints process.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend the landlord reconsiders whether the property specification required the carbon monoxide alarm in the kitchen to be hard wired. If it finds it should have been, it should consider replacing the existing battery operated only alarm with a hard wired alarm.