Town and Country Housing (202447166)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447166

Town and Country Housing

27 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s defect reports.

Background

The resident holds an assured non-shorthold tenancy with the landlord. The property is a newly built 3-bedroom house and the resident and her family were the first occupants. The tenancy started on 22 July 2024.
The property had a defect liability period, meaning the developer was responsible for addressing any defects identified up until the end of defects inspection due to take place in July 2025.
On 7 August 2024 the landlord informed the developer that the resident had reported a number of defects. These were that:
1. the handrail at the bottom of the stairs had fallen off the wall and other handrails were loose and of concern.
2. the flooring upstairs was “bouncy.”
3. the water pressure was low.
On 9 December 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. In summary she:
1. said she had waited for the developer to arrange repairs, but they were not responding to her.
2. said that, because the handrails were falling out of the walls, she had fallen down the stairs, as had her partner and son.
3. listed a number of defects outstanding and asked that someone contact her to resolve the issues.
On 19 December 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. its role during the defects period was to raise any reported defects with the developer and to communicate any updates between residents and the developer.
2. the developer was obliged to complete any defect repairs.
3. it had raised the resident’s reported defects in August 2024, and it would have expected the developer to have attended to these within 30 days.
4. because the developer had not contacted the resident it had now instructed its own contractors to complete the work and would charge this back to the developer.
5. it did not uphold her complaint as it could not control the developer’s appointments. However, it understood the resident’s frustration and it was unhappy with the level of service she had received from them.
6. it was alarmed and sorry to hear of the reported incidents whilst using the stairs and would feed this back to its contractor.
On 3 January 2025 the resident requested her complaint was escalated to stage 2. In summary she said:
1. no-one had contacted her to schedule any repairs.
2. she was unhappy that the house had been signed off as being safe.
On 30 January 2025 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed the position of its stage 1 response and in summary it added:
1. that it was sorry for the lack of customer service the resident had received from the developer, and it would no longer be working with them.
2. that it had instructed its contractor to conduct the repairs on the property. It had attended on 10 January 2025 and was awaiting on a quotation to approve the required work.
3. that the resident should continue to liaise with the aftercare administrator who would update her on the progress of the repairs until the outstanding repairs were completed.
4. that it should have dealt with the health and safety issue she reported on 9 December 2024 sooner and it would like to offer £100 compensation because the resident had continued to experience a health and safety hazard in her home until early January 2025.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 21 February 2025. She said that she wanted the repairs to be completed and increased compensation for the impact the issues had on her family.

Events post internal complaints process

We are aware that some defect repairs were made to the property on 26 March 2025 by the landlord’s contractor. Additional defects were scheduled to be addressed by the developer in the end of defects inspection scheduled for July 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has told us that she has concerns regarding the quality of the completed repairs as some of the repairs have failed. This investigation report cannot consider those issues. This is because the landlord has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond to any complaint which may be raised by the resident in respect of those repairs. Any such issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s defect reports.

In a new build property developers retain responsibility for any defects that come to light within a certain timeframe. Most commonly this is 12 months from handover of the completed building to the landlord. Generally, developers will undertake emergency repairs during this period, with other defects remedied towards the end of the defect’s liability period.
Meanwhile, the landlord’s primary role is to communicate with the developer on behalf of the resident, monitor the progress of repairs and address any delays in rectification by the developer.
The exact date the resident reported defects is unclear, however the evidence shows that on 7 August 2024 the landlord provided the developer with a list of defects and asked it to contact the resident to address the issues. The developer assured the landlord that it would assess the defects on 12 August 2024 and would provide an update once it had been completed. The landlord had not provided any evidence that the developer conducted this assessment or that it asked the developer for an update on the outcome of this visit.
On 23 September 2024 the landlord told the developer that the defects were outstanding. It also informed them of additional defects.
On 18 November 2024 the landlord emailed the resident and asked if the defects had been resolved. The resident confirmed that the developer had not provided any date for repair and added that there were now 3 handrails which had become detached from the walls, and an additional issue had developed with the patio door.
On 19 November 2024 the landlord informed the developer the defects were still outstanding and included the additional defects. The developer assured the landlord that it would contact the resident that day to arrange repairs but later confirmed that it had not done so. The evidence shows that the landlord chased the developerdaily and on 21 November 2024 it told the developer that due to the safety issue with the handrail that it would be appointing its own contractor.
The landlord did not appoint its own contractorat this stage. It is likely this was because the developer advised that it had arranged an appointment to assess the defects on 25 November 2024.
During the defect period residents are reliant on the landlord to pursue the developer and landlords must pursue these issues effectively on their behalf. The landlord’s complaint responses to the resident draws reference to its expectations that defects reported to the developer “would usually be attended to and fixed within 30 days”.
It was, therefore, not appropriate that the landlord had not contacted the developer or resident between September and November 2024 to ensure the defects had been resolved. It is, however, noted that from 19 November 2024 onwards the landlord took a more robust approach to the developer’s responses.
Our Spotlight Report on leasehold, shared ownership, and new builds, published in September 2020 reinforces this position. It highlights that landlords must adopt a proactive approach to defect management and stresses the need for clear accountability, early intervention, and robust monitoring of defect resolution.
The evidence suggests that the developer did attend the property on 25 November 2024, however when the resident raised her complaint on 9 December 2024, she advised that she was still waiting for the repairs to be arranged and that the developer was not responding to her.
It was, therefore, positive that on the same day the landlord contacted the developer to chase the repairs. The landlord gave the developer a short deadline to make arrangements for the repair and when this passed without action it informed the developer, on 16 December 2024, that it would be arranging the repairs itself.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 19 December 2024 the landlord told the resident that it would be appointing its own contractor to carry out the repairs and would monitor this to ensure this happened.
It was positive that the landlord took ownership of the repair issues, and this showed empathy for the resident’s situation. The evidence provided shows that the landlord’s contractor attended 13 working days later, on 10 January 2025, to make an initial assessment of the defects.
On 30 January 2025 the landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to advise that the contractor “will now provide us with a report and quotation so that we can confirm the works are approved.” This was inaccurate, as the evidence provided shows that the landlord had received this on 15 January 2024. This suggests the landlord had not carried out a full and thorough investigation before issuing its response. Had it done so, it may have been able to inform the resident if the work had been authorised and updated her on the next step to resolve the issues.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 30 January 2025, the landlord offered £100 compensation. It said this was because the resident had reported a health and safety hazard in her home on 9 December 2024 and had continued to experience this until “early January 2025”.
When a landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s issue satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with our dispute resolution principles: to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The evidence shows that the resident had made the landlord aware as early as August 2024 that 1 handrail had fallen off the wall and on 18 November 2024 that 3 handrails had become detached from the wall. And at the time of issuing its complaint response the issue was still outstanding, with no date planned to repair this. It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have considered this longer period when making its offer of compensation.
We acknowledge that the landlord was not responsible for completing the reported defects during the developers defects period and we accept that it had no control over the developer’s inaction and delays. We also understand that the landlord in receipt of this type of complaint does not always have the power to investigate and resolve the issue itself and managing the relationship with the developer and resident can make these issues difficult to manage.
However, the landlord has not provided a defects policy which shows a process it should have followed when a developer does not fulfil its obligations to repair defects in the defect liability period. So, whilst it waspositive that the landlord took ownership of the issue and informed the resident it would no longer be working with the developer we have been unable to assess this against any policy and have assessed this by what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
In its complaint responses the landlord did not acknowledge that, for several months, it had not proactively monitored the defect repair requests or chased the developer on behalf of the resident. This inaction will have contributed to the overall delay in resolving the issue.
In failing to recognise this and not appropriately accounting for the period the resident had an issue with the handrails, the landlord’s level of compensation did not adequately reflect the detriment to the resident and her family, and an order has been made below to increase this in line with our guidance. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s defects reports.
Because it is unclear if the landlord has a defects policy a recommendation has been made below for its consideration. It is important that landlords are clear with residents at the beginning of the contract as to how it will respond both during the defects period and once this has expired. Our Spotlight Report on leasehold, shared ownership, and new builds, published in September 2020 advises that within that policy the following should be clear:
1. what might be considered a defect.
2. the length of the defect period.
3. whose responsibility it is to address problems during the defect period.
4. what is considered an emergency and how they will deal with emergency defects.
5. how to report a defect and how the landlord will respond.
6. the process for resolving any outstanding dispute between the resident and the developer at the end of defect period.
In light of the issue considered in this case, we recommend that the landlord considers including a section on its process for resolving any instances where a developer does not take appropriate action to resolve defects during a defect liability period.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s defect reports.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £400 compensation for the impact of the failings in the landlords handling of the defect’s reports. This includes the £100 already offered by the landlord.
3. provide us evidence that it has complied with these orders.
4. contact the resident to establish if there are any outstanding defect repairs and if so, confirm if it will be the landlord or developer completing the repairs.

Recommendation

If the landlord does not already have a defects policy in place it should consider the development of one in line with our Spotlight Report on leasehold, shared ownership, and new builds, published in September 2020.
If the landlord does have a defects policy; it should review this with consideration of having a section on its process for resolving any instances where a developer does not take appropriate action to resolve defects during a defect liability period.