Sparrow Shared Ownership Limited (202314747)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314747

Sage Housing Limited

17 April 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of defects to her property.
2. Handling of reports of a defect to the resident’s fire alarm.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of a 2 bedroom house. Her shared ownership started in February 2023. The landlord is a Housing Association and registered provider of social housing.
The resident reported several issues she believed were defects to the landlord after moving into the property in February and March 2023. These included concerns with her radiators, doors, and bathroom. On 27 March 2023, she told the landlord that it closed several of her tickets. And she did not agree. She wanted them officially reopened and dealt with. She said she expected it to do this as soon as possible. She said she wanted to know the landlord’s complaints procedure. On the same day, the landlord told her it had passed her email to the complaints department.
On 26 May 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for the delayed response. It asked her to confirm if:
1. There were any outstanding issues, if so, what they were and did she raise them on the necessary portal.
2. She still wanted to make a formal complaint, if so, what was the reason.
3. She had received any updates on any of the issues since her email of 27 March 2023.
The resident responded to the landlord on 30 May 2023 and said there were still many outstanding issues. She had reported them to it, and it marked some of them as resolved without her consent, but they remained outstanding. Based on this she wanted to make a formal complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 25 June 2023. It explained that it received the resident’s reports of defects on 8 March 2023 and explained the actions it took. It said it raised her concerns with its developer on 8 and 16 March 2023 and they said that they did not class the issues as defects but instead cosmetic issues. It said:
1. It then investigated further and provided further explanations of why they did not class a few specific issues as defects. It also gave an example of reasons why it closed some of her tickets.
2. It understood that she may have expected it to address some of the issues differently or categorise them as defects requiring immediate attention. However, based on its assessment and consultation with the developer, it found that the closure of those tickets aligned with the contractual obligations and industry standards.
3. It closed them on 23 and 27 March 2023 and she asked that it reopen them. While it reopened some of the tickets initially, after further investigation, the developer rejected the ticket nomination due to the reasons previously provided.
4. It understood her concerns about the issues and apologised for any inconvenience caused by the initial closure of the tickets. If she wanted to discuss the matter it would arrange for someone to call her.
5. It provided a list of defects and the history of actions taken. It also provided a compensation offer of £250 which it broke down as:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of effective expectation management and communication.
  2. £50 as a gesture of goodwill for the customer service experience and the unfulfilled manager phone call request.
  3. £50 to address the delay in responding to her stage 1 complaint which did not align with its complaints policy.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted the landlord on 1 July 2023. She also copied us into the email and said there were many points which it needed to readdress. She said she had provided more comments about the missing information and events since its letter of 25 June 2023. It had also admitted to her when she spoke with it that it sent out generic responses to all her defects and had not replied efficiently or correctly. She said this was another example of inconvenience caused to her and unfulfilled customer service. She also raised several other concerns, said the outcome she sought was for the landlord to fix the defect, and accepted the landlord’s compensation offer.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 July 2023 and expressed her disappointment at its lack of response to her email. It responded 2 days later, apologised, and asked her to clarify if her intention was to escalate her complaint. She responded on the same day and said whilst she appreciated its apology, she was disappointed that once again its response came after she chased it.
In August 2023, the resident chased the landlord for her stage 2 response. It also confirmed to her on 23 August 2023 that it had spoken with her, and she expressed frustration about her complaint, and apologised. It asked her which tickets it incorrectly closed so it could investigate further. She said on the same day that she called the landlord on 14 July 2023, and it assured her that she would receive a full response at stage 2 within 20 working day, but this did not happen.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 25 August 2023. It said it upheld her complaint. It acknowledged the discrepancies she raised in her response to its stage 1 response and apologised for any error or omission. It said:
1. There was a failure in its customer service as it did not provide updates promptly. It did not supervise the coordination and management of the raised issues according to its standards. The developer did not sanction the remedial steps promptly but its own internal process.
2. As such the delay in not proactively pursuing the issue was a service failure which led to delays and unnecessary contact from her, as she had to repeatedly explain the situation.
3. There were serious failures as it did not proactively pursue the developer to carry out the works swiftly. It closed tickets incorrectly without regard to any investigation or due diligence process.
4. There were delays due to the nominated developer not scheduling an inspection of the property swiftly and their lengthy process of reporting a work schedule.
5. It apologised for the service failure, delay resolving the defect, its complaint handling and customer service. It offered £200 compensation broken down as:
  1. £100 for the delays in responding to the issues she reported as well as for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. £50 for its communication failings and need for continuous follow up by her.
  3. £50 for the delay in its stage 2 response and noncompliance with its complaints policy.

Post complaint

Conversations continued between the parties around the defects. Works also took place to rectify some of them. The resident raised a new issue with the landlord in 2024 as she believed the developer incorrectly installed her fire alarm when building the property.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is known as the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme governs the complaints which the Ombudsman can consider. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
After carefully considering all the evidence, by paragraph 42.a. of the scheme, the following issue is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of a defect with the resident’s fire alarm.
Paragraph 42.a. of the scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaint which has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. This is unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure in relation to the issue.
From the evidence provided, we have not seen that the matter exhausted the landlord’s complaints process at the time of the resident’s original complaint to us. Nor can we see that there was a complaint handling failure in the landlord’s handling of the matter. As such we cannot consider the issue.

Scope of investigation

The resident raised several concerns as defects with the landlord. The landlord referred these issues to its developer who said they were not defects but cosmetic issues. Our role is not to decide whether specific issues are a defect. As such we will only look to determine if the landlord appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns.
The evidence also shows that actions to address some of the reported defects remained outstanding following the completion of the complaints process. The landlord or its developer completed some of the works around the defects in December 2024, and others remained outstanding in January 2024. We shall only investigate the matter until the completion of the stage 2 complaint.

Reports of defects to the resident’s property

The landlord’s defects policy says that its developers have an obligation to correct defects that arise within a defined period after they complete construction of the property. This is known as the defect’s liability period, and they must correct defects within a defined timescale according to the severity of the issue. This usually lasts for one or 2 years depending on the agreements it had in place with the developer. They should correct defects no later than 30 days from the report although they may extend this if there is a longer waiting time for materials.
The landlord found that there were several failings in its approach towards the resident’s concerns. It found that it failed in its communication with the resident. It acknowledged that its customer service was poor, and it failed to be proactive in its actions against the developer. It also acknowledged that the delays in rectifying the issue were because of its inaction.
Where the parties however disputed whether the matter was a defect, it could have referred her to the National House Building Council. This may have allowed for a resolution on the disputed matters. However, there is no evidence of any significant detriment to the resident as it later addressed the issues.
We believe the landlord’s actions amount to maladministration. This is due to its failure to communicate appropriately with the developer to ensure they completed any necessary repairs. It also failed to identify how it arrived at its decision that the matters were cosmetic. However, to put things right, it offered the resident compensation of £450 in total. In relation to the issue of the defects and its customer service, it offered £350.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will review the level of its responsibility for the loss and inconvenience, alongside the impact on residents. It runs 3 payments levels, and its offer falls within the High impact level. This level says it makes payments of £250 to £500 where there is a serious failure in service which could be due to the severity of the event, or a persistent failure over a prolonged period of time.
This level of payment also includes an unacceptable number of attempts in resolving a complaint. The landlord’s offer shows that it realised the gravity of its failings. Its offer is also in line with our remedies guidance for issues of maladministration, and we believe this was appropriate. Based on this we find that there was reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

The resident raised her complaint on 27 March 2023, and when the landlord responded over 1 month later, it asked her to confirm if she still wanted to raise her complaint and whether matters remained outstanding. The delay in its acknowledgement was unreasonable. It should also have robust reckons to allow it to identify if it had addressed her concerns. Its approach around the issue was inappropriate.
The landlord then provided its stage 1 response on 25 June 2023, 51 working days late. It has not evidenced that it explained the reason for the delay or kept the resident updated. Its actions were unreasonable, and not in keeping with its policy.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction at the landlord’s stage 1 response on 1 July 2023. She contacted it on 11 July 2023 as it had not responded to her email. She chased a response in August 2023, and said it assured her on 14 July 2023 that she would receive a response within 20 working days during a telephone call. We have seen no evidence of this telephone call as such we cannot comment on this.
The landlord then provided its stage 2 response on 25 August 2023. This was 15 working days later than the deadline for its response. The delay in its response was both unreasonable and not in keeping with its policy. Its inaction around the complaint saw the resident chasing it for a response.
The landlord acknowledged in both its complaint responses that there were issues with its complaint handling. It offered the resident compensation of £50 at stage 1 for the delay in its response. Its also offered the resident £50 at stage 2 for the delay in its response and noncompliance with its complaints policy.
We found the landlord’s compensation offer at stage 2 confusing, as its response suggested that it offered the resident a total of £150 for its complaint handling. This was because the letter mentioned an award of £50 for its complaint handling and customer service prior to its formal break down of its offer. It however clarified in an email to us on 2 April 2025 that its total offer of redress around its complaint handling was £100. We consider this an appropriate offer to put things right as well as its apologies.
Its actions were also in line with its compensation policy and fall within our remedies guidance for maladministration. Based on this we find that there was reasonable redress. The landlord may wish to make it clearer in the future however where it is referencing offers made previously in its stage 1 response to avoid further confusion.

Determination (decision)

By paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the landlord’s handling of reports of a defect with the resident’s fire alarm is outside of our jurisdiction.
By paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s:
1. Handling of defects to the resident’s property.
2. Complaint handling.

Recommendations

If the amount remains outstanding, pay the resident the total of £450 offered across its complaint responses.
The landlord considers any further formal complaints from the resident about the fire alarm system, and the delay in completing the works following the stage 2 response, if she raises them within its complaints timescales.