Citizen Housing Group Limited (202413845)

Background

1. The resident moved into a newly built property in April 2024. During the 12-month defects liability period, included in his lease agreement, he reported a scratch on the kitchen worktop. The landlord declined to address the issue, stating it was not responsible because the defect had not been raised at the time of the property handover.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of a damaged kitchen worktop.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. There was service failure by the landlord in its response to reports of a damaged kitchen worktop.
   2. The landlord offered a reasonable redress for failings in its complaint handling.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of a damaged kitchen worktop

4. The landlord gave incorrect information to the resident about its responsibilities. It said it was not responsible because the worktop issue had not been raised at handover, rather than considering the matter in line with its defects policy.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised, and explained what it had learnt from the complaint. It offered a level of compensation which was in line with its policy and expectations set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Order

The landlord must comply with our order in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our order by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. In his correspondence to both the Service and the landlord, the resident raised a new complaint about how the landlord handled further defects in the property. These included leaks and damage to the flooring, which he said were caused by operatives during repair work. In its complaint responses, the landlord said it was addressing these issues separately from the worktop matter, under a different complaint. We have not seen evidence that these other issues have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process therefore we cannot investigate this.
7. The landlords repair policy states that the resident’s property includes a 12-month defects liability period from the start of the lease. Repairs during this period are covered by the building contractor’s warranty. However, cosmetic damage, such as scratches, chips or marks, is the resident’s responsibility.
8. The resident reported to the landlord within a few weeks of moving in that there was an issue with the worktop. In his complaint, he explained he was told by the sales representative that the worktop would be repaired. However, no evidence of that discussion has been provided.
9. In its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed that the property was still within its defects period but said it was not responsible for the worktop issue because it had not been raised at handover. However, nothing in the information provided by the landlord supports that explanation and decision. Rather, its defects and liability period and responsibility policy allow for a leaseholder to report defects which the landlord and developer will then consider. The policy is not clear on the timescale for this but refers to a 12-month inspection period.
10. In line with that policy, the nature of the repair issue reported by the resident aligned with either “routine repairs to…kitchen units” (which the landlord and developer were responsible for resolving), or “Cosmetic damage such as scratches chips or marks”, which the policy states would be the resident’s responsibility.
11. Landlords must clearly explain what they are and are not responsible for and provide accurate reasons where responsibility does not apply. In this case, the landlord’s decision did not reflect its policy. In line with the policy, it should either have resolved the repair or explained it was cosmetic damage which the resident would need to fix himself.

12. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. Its policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
13. In this case, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 30 May 2024. However, there is no evidence that it issued a stage 1 response.
14. The resident subsequently asked to escalate the complaint stating that he had not received a stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 6 June 2024 and issued a response on 10 July 2024. In its reply, the landlord acknowledged delays in its complaint handling and attributed these to a system error, which it said had been resolved. It apologised and offered £50 compensation.
15. Following the resident’s referral to the Ombudsman, the landlord issued a further response on 22 January 2025. It stated that while gathering evidence for this complaint, it had identified that it had not been handled in line with its process, as a stage 1 response was not issued. It apologised, confirmed that it had spoken to staff about complaint handling to prevent recurrence, and offered £250 compensation.
16. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy, as it failed to issue a stage 1 response after acknowledging the complaint. As a result, the resident had to chase for a response and escalate the complaint before receiving any reply to his initial concerns. This clearly caused inconvenience and frustration.
17. Nevertheless, the landlord appropriately acknowledged this failing in its January response. It apologised, explained the steps taken to prevent recurrence, and offered compensation in line with its policy for delays of this nature. These actions were reasonable remedies for its complaint handling failing.

Learning

18. This complaint highlighted that the landlord did not follow its complaints process. That meant the resident was unable to access the full procedure, which caused unnecessary inconvenience and delay.