Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202343725)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343725

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited

4 September 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 reported by the resident.

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease of a house. The landlord told us this started in July 2023, and the lease is for a term of 990 years. A developer built the house, and the landlord is the freeholder.
  2. The resident and landlord both agree the resident raised defects with the landlord on 25 September 2023. These related to a leaking bedroom window, damaged patio door,  defective bathroom, and kitchen extractor flaps. The resident said he reported to his landlord his garden was waterlogged on 22 January 2024.
  3. On 31 January 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about unspecified outstanding repairs. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 15 February 2024 and said:
    1. the developer attended in October 2023 and on 2 February 2024 but could not fix the patio doors and so it agreed to replace these
    2. it attempted to contact the resident in January 2024, and the developer also tried to visit then but as this was without prior notice the resident was unaware
    3. the developer attended on 9 February 2024 to fix the window extractor fan vents and applied silicone around the bedroom window but accepted the extractor flaps on the third floor needed replacement
    4. it asked the developer to send a roofer to check the window externally
    5. it acknowledged reports of a waterlogged rear garden and a defect with a living room window allowing noise into the room
    6. it apologised for any stress and inconvenience and offered the resident £100 for this
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 16 February 2024 and said the amount of compensation was insufficient. He referred to damaged towels he used to contain water ingress from the window. On 26 February 2024 the resident reported another defect relating to a garage flood, cracked bath panel, and a leaking boiler. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 13 March 2024 and said:
    1. it arranged for a glazing specialist to assess the patio door and window on 24 February 2024 and reiterated the developer agreed to replace the patio doors
    2. the developer rectified the extractor flaps on the lower floors, and it agreed the developer would replace the extractor fan “baffle flap” on the third floor with a new fan with an internal flap
    3. the developer agreed to remove the bedroom window, check the surrounding masonry opening and cavity tray before reinstalling and resealing it
    4. the developer contacted the resident to arrange a plumber to address the boiler leak
    5. it asked for images of the water ingress in the garage so the developer could assess the best solution and asked if it could visit the rear garden to assess its condition
    6. it agreed to report the bath panel to the developer to resolve
    7. it accepted its communication and management of repairs was unacceptable and offered the resident £1,000 for the delays in resolving the repairs, including £50 for damaged bath towels
  5. The resident told us on 15 July 2024 that the landlord had resolved the defects apart from those relating to the waterlogged garden, which it was due to resolve shortly. The resident said he wanted more compensation to resolve the complaint. This was to reflect time he had to take off work to allow for resolution of the defects. It is unclear if the resident received any compensation.

 

 

Assessment and findings

The scope of investigation

  1. We may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The resident complained about the standard of workmanship for patio repairs on 10 June 2024. This complaint was made after the landlord’s final response and has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process and is not part of this investigation. We also note the resident reported a defect with the living room window, but it is evident from the landlord’s final response that a complaint concerning this did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint process as the landlord has not referred to this. Therefore, we have not investigated the landlord’s handling of these defects.
  2. While the landlord’s stage 2 response refers to a defect with the resident’s front door, we have not investigated its handling of this. This is because the resident did not refer this aspect of the complaint to us for investigation.

The landlord’s handling of reported defects

  1. The resident bought the property as a new build construction. Therefore, it had the benefit of a defect liability period. This is a period in which landlords can ask the developer responsible for building the property to repair any inherent defects (a fault or defect in construction because of a fault in the design, quality of materials used or poor workmanship).This period lasted for 2 years from when the developer handed the property over to the landlord (30 June 2023 to 30 June 2025). This meant that during this time the developer was responsible for dealing with any defects which the landlord reported to it and which it accepted as a defect.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord defects to the patio doors, a bedroom window,  the bathroom and kitchen extractor flaps on 25 September 2023.The resident reported to the landlord a boiler leak, garage flood, and a cracked bath panel on 26 February 2024. The landlord was not responsible for these defects, either under the contract of sale of the property or the lease. The landlord needed to raise these defects with the developer to deal with as the resident reported them during the defect liability period.
  3. The landlord logged the patio door fault with the developer within a reasonable time (4 October 2023) of the resident reporting it on 25 September 2023 (8 working days). The landlord said the developer sent contractors in October 2023 and on 2 February 2024 to adjust or fix the patio doors. We can see on 20 February 2024 that the resident accepted that the developer had attended twice previously. The landlord also told the resident the developer had arranged a third appointment on 24 February 2024 and added in its final response that the developer had ordered a new patio door. There was a delay in the landlord contacting the resident in January 2024 and it accepted it took a long time to resolve the patio door defect (145 working days between 25 September 2023 and 19 April 2024). However, the landlord was not responsible for this defect, and it raised the defect with the patio doors with the developer, reviewed this job (on 16 October 2023 and 8 December 2023), and chased the developer appropriately on 1 February 2024.
  4. It took 24 working days to resolve the boiler leak from when the resident reported it (26 February 2024 to 28 March 2024). Although this was a delay this was to fit around when the resident could take time off from work. It also agreed to report the cracked bath panel to the developer in its stage 2 response. The developer replaced this on 19 April 2024 (38 working days after the resident reported it on 26 February 2024). While the landlord acknowledged there were delays it was not responsible for resolving these defects under the contract of sale of the property or lease.
  5. The landlord did not log the defects with the developer concerning the leaking front bedroom window until 1 February 2024 or the extractor fans until 6 February 2024. This was 91 and 94 working days respectively after the resident reported these issues (25 September 2023). Therefore, there was a delay in the landlord logging these defects with the developer between September 2023 to February 2024.
  6. The landlord said in its stage 1 response the developer subsequently attempted to repair the leaking bedroom window with silicone on 9 February 2024. We have seen the landlord contacted the developer on 7 and 8 February 2024 to ask it to send a roofer in connection with the bedroom window leak. When the resident said the bedroom window was still leaking after this repair the landlord told the resident the developer agreed to remove the window, check the surrounding masonry and cavity tray, and reinstall and seal the window. The developer completed this on 19 April 2024, 145 working days after the resident reported this (25 September 2023). While the landlord accepted this was a delay it showed it chased the developer and updated the resident.
  7. The extractor fans were all changed on 16 February 2024 apart from the fan on the third-floor bedroom which the developer resolved on 10 May 2024. The landlord took appropriate action to work with the developer to arrange work to the bedroom window and extractor fans from early February 2024 but delayed logging these defects.
  8. The resident said he first reported a waterlogged rear garden on 22 January 2024. The landlord chased the developer about this on 1 February 2024 and agreed to refer this to their groundworkers to assess on 21 February 2024. It also asked the resident if it could see the rear garden on 13 March 2024. We also note the landlord asked the resident to provide images of the water ingress into the garage. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take to assess the issue and to enable the developer to resolve it. While we have not seen evidence of the landlord taking any further action regarding the garage the resident told us on 15 July 2024 this was not outstanding. The resident said the landlord told him it planned to complete work to address the waterlogged garden in July 2024 and the resident has not told us this is outstanding.
  9. The landlord accepted in its complaint responses that there were delays in it dealing with defects and accepted its handling of these was unacceptable. These delays likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. When considering this we must have regard to whether the landlord’s offer was in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In its final response the landlord apologised for its communication and how it handled the repairs. It accepted the repairs to the patio doors and bedroom window had taken a long time and acknowledged the outstanding work. It offered the resident £1,000 and agreed to make improvements to how it monitored and responded to work. It agreed to capture and track repairs in order to challenge contractor performance and maintain service levels.
  10. The landlord showed that it had learnt from the complaint and sought to act fairly and put things right by offering compensation and agreeing to ask the developer to complete the outstanding work. The defects to the patio door, bedroom window, boiler, extractor fan on the third floor and bath panel were all resolved following the landlord’s stage 2 response. It also requested to inspect the rear garden and agreed to complete work to this in July 2024 which was reasonable. The level of compensation it offered was in line with our remedies guidance where there have been failures which adversely affected a resident.
  11. While the resident sought compensation for time off work to attend appointments neither the lease nor landlord’s compensation policy allow for this. Had the landlord failed to provide a remedy and act we would have found maladministration. Given the considered responses we have determined the landlord’s remedy amounted to reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of defects reported by the resident.

 

 

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £1,000 compensation it offered through its complaint process within 4 weeks of the date of this determination if it has not done so already. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that the landlord pays this.