A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (201913356)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913356

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

15 March 2022

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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty bathroom design.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of fire doors being left open.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a malfunctioning fire alarm panel.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a one-bedroom flat in a block on a development. She had purchased a lease which began on 13 December 2018. The block comprised of 20 flats on the ground floor to the 4th floor of the building. The residents in the block had formed what appeared to be a residents’ association, whether formally or not, that appeared to have been recognised by the landlord.

Third party roles and relationships

On or around 27 October 2015, the landlord exchanged contracts with the original freeholder, which shall be referred to as F1 in this report, to purchase the lease of the block and for F1, as developer, to carry out the construction of the 20 flats, for sale at a discount pursuant to an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The target date for completion of the works was July 2017. The flats would be subject to a nomination agreement with the local authority.
At a point in February 2017, F1 sold the property to another organisation (“F2”). F1 retained its responsibilities as the developer. F1 or F2 employed a managing agent who managed the development including the block.
There was a warranty agreement between the landlord and F1, which expired one year after the date of completion of the works. It is not known when the works were completed.
F1 had the benefit of warranties between it and the contractor, engineer and project manager. It is not known whether any of those warranties were assigned to another party.
The resident had the benefit of a 10-year NHBC warranty, which included a two-year warranty on defects including fixtures and fittings and the remaining 8 years on the structure of the building.
The landlord also gave the resident a two-year warranty set out in the “New Homes Guide”, set out below.

The legal and policy framework

Under the lease, the landlord had an obligation to observe and perform the covenants it was subject to in the superior lease, except those to be performed by the leaseholder, and to use reasonable endeavours to procure that the superior landlord observed and performed its covenants in the superior lease.
Under the superior lease, F1 had an obligation to procure that the contractor made good all defects in accordance with the defects procedure set out in the superior lease, to the extent agreed under the building contract. The obligation was personal to F1 and would not bind the successor in title (F2).
The “New Homes Guide”:
1. The landlord’s guide assured the resident of an outstanding experience for its customers. It stated “People are at the heart of everything we do, and because we own and manage all our properties, our commitment to providing the best possible service for our customers never stops. Our estate management team is exceptional and has the awards to prove it. We are devoted to providing all our customers with homes which are built to the highest standards – underpinned by our mantra ‘skilfully produced’, and the very best in customer service”.
2. The guide also stated that the landlord was responsible for resolving any issues in line with the resident’s NHBC warranty for the first two years after legal completion. It invited the resident to contact it with any queries. During years three to ten, this responsibility then passed to the NHBC. It referred the resident to their own solicitor for a copy of the NHBC warranty policy. A copy of the terms of the policy was not provided to the service.
3. It offered a two-year warranty period to cover the rectification of any defects that might occur in the resident’s home. This warranty period started from the day the resident moved into their home and was valid for 24 months. It defined a defect as a fault or repair that occurred due to material failure or defective workmanship.
4. It endeavoured to ensure all defects were rectified in a timely manner. Defect response times were outlined as a guide but were not guaranteed. All minor defects and items not detrimental to health or safety had a response time of 20 working days or “referable to the end of the warranty period”.
5. It warned that drying out and the subsequent movement of components used in the construction could result in shower trays dropping slightly and the requirement of resealing around the edges with a silicone sealant.
6. It stated that the landlord was responsible for managing the communal and estate areas of the development.
The fire management policy:
1. The landlord has a statutory obligation under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety ) Order 2005 which required that a suitable and sufficient Fire Risk Assessment is provided for the common parts.
2. All fire detection systems should comply with British Standards. The landlord was responsible for the installation, commissioning, and planned preventative maintenance of fire alarm and fire detection systems.
The complaints policy and compensation policy:
1. The complaints process was a two-stage procedure. Where the outcome was “upheld” or “partially upheld”, the landlord would consider compensation.
2. In extreme cases where service failure had caused significant inconvenience to a resident, then the landlord could pay compensation “ex-gratia”. This could also apply to cases of inconvenience, where service failure was not clearly proven but the principles of this policy were applicable.
3. Where service failure had given rise to a financial loss, or severe inconvenience to the customer, the landlord would consider compensation up to the amount of £3,000.
4. Compensation for detriment, including stress/inconvenience, spanned from £50 to £240.

Chronology

The bathroom

On 4 January 2019, the resident raised an issue with water pooling on her bathroom floor. On the same day, an order was raised to fit a seal in order to address flooding from the bathroom into her corridor.
There is a gap in the chronology until 27 July 2019. According to the landlord, there was no specific correspondence in relation to the bathroom during that period. On 27 July 2019, the landlord wrote to another resident who was a member of the residents association. It stated that the landlord had identified that there was an issue with the run-off area for the shower, “perhaps” due to the gradient to the drain being insufficient. The wastewater did not drain fast enough. It was a “well documented problem” of water dispersal causing damage to the architrave and, in some cases, flooding and therefore the shower area needed to be enclosed. It would mean removing the existing floor, and replacing the screen to create a complete enclosure of the existing shelf space. The bathroom may seem smaller as a result. It would carry out the works and carry out any repairs to the floor and it invited any “ideas”. It offered the sum of £2,000 so that leaseholders could install a bespoke bathroom at the same time. The original installers would replace the architraves and flooring before any alterations took place. The current warranty would not apply but any new installer would provide a fresh warranty. All the residents would have to agree whether to accept the works the landlord had proposed of installing the screen, or accept the sum of £2,000.
There was further correspondence between the residents and landlord. On 28 August 2019, the landlord explained to the resident that £2,000 was in line with the costs it had been quoted for the works. The bathrooms were small spaces and the alterations were to improve the functionality of the room, not to create a full redesign. The offer would give the resident flexibility. It advised the resident to work with each other in order to achieve economies of scale.
On 11 September 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident to explain the works should prevent the problem of the damaged architrave reoccurring. It wanted to undertake the works as soon as possible and prioritise the properties most in need. It suggested that works commenced by the end of the month, regardless of whether the residents arrived at a decision, and it would start to make arrangements with the residents individually if it did not hear back from the resident after a few days. The landlord confirmed that the remedial works would proceed, regardless of what decision the residents made regarding its offer. The resident replied that the residents wanted the remedial works to take place before making a decision.
There was a further gap in the evidence, in relation to which the landlord again has informed this service that there was no further communication regarding the bathroom during that period. According to the landlord, however, there were ongoing discussions between the landlord, the project manager and the contractor but the landlord has not specified when they took place.
On 4 November 2019, the landlord wrote to the residents to state that the original contractors would carry out a final inspection of the properties on 22 November 2019, before they “left the development” to check for defects that would fall within their remit. It invited the residents to provide the landlord with a final list of defects.
A telephone conference took place on 19 November 2019 between the parties including the resident, but no notes have been provided to this service. The original project manager reported on an inspection in relation to the resident’s flat that there was a bathroom paint mismatch following remedial bathroom works, as waterproof paint for the architrave did not match rest of the bathroom.
On 29 November 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident as follows: it accepted that the initial bathroom installation was poor and required the landlord to undertake remedial work which was due to be completed. The residents considered it was a design issue, where residents had had to use mops to ensure no water lay around the shower area. The landlord did not accept that a site constrained design was a defect. It did not feel that the offer of alternatives had been a helpful process. In the circumstances, it offered £2,500 in respect of the prolonged dispute and inconvenience. It would not undertake further works. It gave the resident until 2 January 2020 to accept the offer. It also said that the resident could make a formal complaint as an alternative but the offer of £2,500 would be withdrawn in those circumstances. If there were a formal complaint, the matter would escalate to the second stage to be dealt with by a director.
The landlord wrote again to the residents on 4 December 2019 that the contractors would only be addressing the architraves and bubbling flooring in the bathroom.
On 6 December 2019, the project manager produced a schedule of defects in relation to the “end of rectification period” pursuant to accordance with the contract between F1 and the contractor. The contractor was required to make good the defects as follows:
1. Replace the bathroom door architraves and redecorate.
2. Replace the sealant between the wall tiles and vinyl floor skirting.
3. Investigate paint specification and colour to replace bathroom door architraves.
4. Fill gap between the shower screen and the vinyl floor skirting to prevent water ingress into main wet room area.
5. Review floor drainage within shower area of wet room.
6. Make good bubbles within vinyl flooring and skirting.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 December 2019 to respond to a number of the resident’s questions including as follows:
1. The bathroom issues were due to both the architect design and construction.
2. The bathrooms were designed as wet rooms so while dispersal of water outside the shower area was to be expected, not so water hitting the bathroom door architraves.
3. Day-to-day use had identified an installation defect. The architraves had clearly not been sufficiently protected.
It said that the defect was being put right. The offer of £2,000 (sic) payment was from the landlord. It set out that the original and the current freeholders were aware of the issue. The first two years of the NHBC warranty covered all defects. The remaining years related to the structure of the building rather than fixtures and fittings.
The NHBC wrote to the resident on 17 December 2019, stating that if she accepted the settlement offered by the landlord, effectively that would bring its warranty as far as the bathroom was concerned to an end. It would only look at the issues that were due to works carried out by the builder or its contractors.
The resident replied on 17 December 2019 to NHBC to confirm her understanding from their conversation that the landlord’s ex-gratia payment in itself would invalidate the NHBC warranty for the bathrooms, regardless of whether the resident went on to carry out work to the bathrooms.
NHBC advised the resident to enquire whether the landlord was taking legal action against the builders or others (in which case a NHBC claim route could not be pursued). The resident wrote to the landlord accordingly. The resident was concerned that a claim against NHBC would be lengthy and suggested the decision in relation to the landlord’s offer wait for the outcome of any claim against NHBC until after Easter. The residents would not be able to provide a reply by 2 February 2020.
The landlord replied on 17 December 2019 to state that it was not intending to take any legal action against the developer in respect of the bathroom design and installation and provided its reasons. The offer was in respect of its own 2-year warranty and responsibility for the bathroom. It was not proposing to extend its offer beyond 1 February 2020. It had no liability hence it was an ex-gratia offer. It explaiend it had responded in detail on a number of issues. There were multiple hypothetical circumstances that could arise. The residents should accept the offer by 1 February 2020 or seek some other form or redress. The landlord considered that it had acted reasonably to mitigate the problems encountered.
On 6 January 2020, according to the landlord’s repair records, the resident reported a gap between the vinyl and wall in the bathroom. On 8 January 2020, the landlord raised an order to reseal the vinyl lip under the bathroom tiles that had detached from the wall. On 8 January 2020, an operative attended and reported that there was no sign of the vinyl detaching. The repairs report included what appeared to be an email from the resident stating that she was awaiting a decision from the landlord to re-do the wet room. The landlord closed the job. On or by 30 January 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord that she had decided to wait for an overall solution to the bathroom.
The landlord has informed this service that the residents contacted the local authority in relation to the matter. Presumably as a result, on 29 January 2020, the local authority inspected the bathroom and produced a survey on 7 February 2020. The purpose of the inspection was to assess any defect issues within the wet rooms and to compile a summary report outlining any repair issues identified.
1. Level/Gradient to the wet room floors – When the shower was in use, the water should drain away to the outlet under the shower head. However, there was only a small gradient around the outlet which allowed water to drain and the rest of the floor was either completely level or in some areas there was a negative fall away from the outlet allowing water to pool (mainly the corners). The water pooled by the door opening between the wet room and the hallway and water was found to seep into the hall into the resident’s flat.
2. It recommended that, as the shower area was not enclosed and the water covered the whole area of the flooring within the wet room, either an enclosure or installing a shower tray would eliminate the pooling water. As electric underfloor heating was fitted to the bathrooms, an enclosure or tray may be a better remedial option than stripping out and replacing the floor completely.
3. Upstands of vinyl flooring – The upstands in some areas did not adhere to the wall so when the shower was running and water was hitting the tiled area, the water was running down the tiles and getting behind the vinyl sheet flooring which was then either trapped or it escaped in areas where there was no sealant on the floor (mainly the door frame).
4. It recommended using an adequate adhesive to ensure that the drip detail from the tile to the upstand worked sufficiently to prevent water from getting behind the vinyl sheet flooring. It also recommended that a tile and/or PVC vinyl floor edge trim or bead be supplied and fitted.
On 24 January 2020, the landlord wrote to NHBC. It stated that it had investigated the issue of the bathrooms and considered it a design issue. As the landlord was neither the freeholder nor the original developer, it had been in conversation with them for a resolution. The local authority had also inspected the units and had made a suggestion which the freeholder/developer was considering. F1 hoped to put forward the solution to all residents at a meeting on 11 March 2020.
On 11 March 2020, a meeting was held with residents. F1 confirmed it would inspect and rectify issues. On 13 March 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it was collating the defects for each individual property. F1 would be carrying out inspections. On 20 March 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident with various lists of defects/outstanding matters. It wished to agree a comprehensive list in order to identify where the responsibility lay. Lockdown would cause a delay.
On 23 March 2020, the government announced lockdown. Guidance was issued to landlords to limit repairs to emergencies. There followed a correspondence between the parties regarding the social distancing rules and various alternatives to a site visit. FI updated the resident from time to time.
On 24 July 2020, an inspection was arranged for 21 August 2020.
On 18 August 2020, F1 wrote to confirm that the purpose of the visits was to assess the bathrooms in order to make a plan for the remedial works. There was already a defect list following the inspection in November 2019 and the consequential list by the landlord was for the purpose of collating a definitive list of defects inside the contractual time periods.
On 2 October 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord stating she was making a formal complaint on the basis of the length of time the process had taken. She deemed that the landlord’s offer was not in the residents’ best interests, in particular as it involved the warranty being invalidated by another contractor carrying out works. She considered the offer “inappropriate” in the circumstances.
On 4 November 2020, the landlord responded at the second stage of its complaints procedure.
1. It noted that negotiations were ongoing directly with F1 which had been delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. F1 was in the process of finalising its design alternative for the bathrooms. In the circumstances, it would not be looking to make any financial contributions, as F1 were the original developers, and had agreed to consider proposals from residents.
2. It acknowledged that the length of time to resolve the matter was not satisfactory, however, the final offer made on 29 November 2019, was in lieu of works to the bathrooms and reflected the delay and inconvenience at that time. That offer was rejected by all residents in favour of an agreed amendment to the existing bathroom design. The landlord had embarked on persuading F1 to consider alternatives to the bathroom design in order to resolve the issue. The offer had been time limited as it needed to consider alternate options to assist with resolving the matter. It embarked on resolving these with its partner contractors and had been updating the residents appropriately. It continued to hold regular meetings with both parties to discuss progress.
3. It explained that the block had remained empty for a year post completion of the purchase by the landlord, as the lease was not finalised with the local authority and lenders. This resulted in it losing the defects liability warranty period with the contractor which would have helped considerably. It accepted that there was a design issue. However, this only became apparent after there was full occupation. It did not accept liability, but rather made every effort to resolve the issue.
Following the conclusion of the complaints process, there were further discussions between the resident and F1. The landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that her warranty with the landlord ended on 12 December 2020 and invited her to report any fresh warranty issues. It reassured her that this did not affect the ongoing works in the bathroom. On 16 December 2020, FI wrote to the landlord with three proposals as follows:
1. Install a cubicle only plus redecoration of walls and ceilings, which would take 2 days per bathroom
2. Install a cubicle and replace the existing vinyl floor with new Karndean vinyl – 5 days per bathroom
3. Install a cubicle and replace the existing vinyl floor with a ceramic tile, 8 working days.
It commented that the third option would provide a very robust finish and had been specifically requested by the residents in preference to vinyl. It was a specification improvement but one that it felt was the best long-term solution. It requested confirmation of the landlord’s agreement and contribution.
On 16 December 2020, the proposals were agreed with the landlord.
According to an email from F1 to the landlord on 22 February 2022, the works had been completed but it has not stated when. It was not able to confirm to this service whether any interim remedial works to the bathroom were carried out as they were managed by F1’s project manager.

The fire doors and fire alarm panel

There was no evidence of the resident’s correspondence with the landlord regarding the fire doors and fire alarm panels until the landlord’s letter of 29 November 2019. The letter noted that the fire alarm system printing out paper, or the beeping when the paper ran out, caused a nuisance. It explained that the fire alarm system was the responsibility of the managing agents who managed the estate. It had established that the fire alarm system in the block could not be isolated and the managing agent had contacted the fire brigade in relation to the issue. It assured the resident that it liaised with the managing agent “whenever possible”. It reassured the resident that the fire doors were kept open by design but would close automatically when the alarm went off.
The landlord referred to the matter again in its complaint response of 4 November 2020 when it stated that it had upheld the complaint regarding the fire alarm and fire door, but nothing more. The landlord has informed this service that that was an error but has not informed this service whether the error was rectified. The landlord has informed this service that it sought to relocate the alarm panel.

Assessment and findings

This investigation was somewhat hampered by the incompleteness of the documents. While it is appreciated that the landlord was communicating with multiple parties and was discussing the bathroom with a number of residents, it was apparent that correspondence was missing due to record-keeping. The Ombudsman can only base its decisions on the documentary evidence provided to it by the parties and there is an expectation that the landlord, as the professional organisation with resources available to it, should be in a position to provide adequate evidence of its actions. It has been highlighted throughout this report where there were gaps in the information, and the landlord should therefore take steps to ensure that its record-keeping practices are adequate.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty bathroom design.

Given the bathrooms were eventually completed to a design agreed with the resident, the complaint was resolved. It was not in dispute, however, that there was a significant delay in resolving the matter. The resident’s initial report was made on 6 January 2019, a short time after she had moved into the property. As at the completion of the complaints procedure on 4 November 2020, while an agreement had been reached as to the resolution, the matter still had not been resolved, some 20 months later. In the circumstances, this investigation will focus on whether there was an unreasonable or inappropriate delay in resolving the matter, whether the landlord was, and if so, to what extent, responsible for the delay, and whether there was any other action the landlord could have taken to reduce the delay.
While it was agreed in September 2019 that some remedial works would be carried out, there was no evidence that any of these works were carried out. The landlord did not appear to have that information as the matter was handled by F1’s project manager. The evidence showed it had not been carried out at the time the defects schedule was completed on 6 December 2019, given the schedule showed the works to be carried out was to replace the architraves, replace the sealant and fill the gap between the shower screen and vinyl floor skirting, as well as reviewing the drainage and decorative works. There is no evidence that, even if those works had been carried out, they would have fully resolved the matter, given there appeared to be no dispute that the solution would have been outstanding. The landlord and local authority agreed an enclosure or a shower tray would be needed. The final resolution reached involved installing a cubicle.
In the circumstances, this investigation report will assume that the resident suffered the same level of inconvenience, water escape into her corridor, and needing to mop up the water after a shower, throughout the process.
The evidence showed that the first offer of a resolution was made six months after the landlord became aware of the issue of the bathrooms. It would be reasonable to expect some delay in inspecting the bathrooms and formulating a solution. Moreover, the landlord’s letter of 27 July 2019 indicated there had been some discussions with the “original installers”, which also would have taken time. However, there was no explanation why the offer of a resolution took as long as six months.
While there were no obligations under the lease to make good the shower, the landlord had given the resident a warranty. The warranty gave clear assurances to the resident that the landlord was responsible for resolving any issues for the first two years after legal completion. It invited the resident to contact it with any queries. It covered “the rectification of any defects that might occur in the resident’s home”. It defined a defect as “a fault or repair that occurred due to material failure or defective workmanship”. It was not disputed in July 2019 that there was an issue with water dispersal in that a) it hit the architrave and b) “in some cases” it caused flooding. The evidence showed that it caused flooding in the resident’s case. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the issues came under the warranty in the New Homes Guide
Moreover, under the lease, the landlord had an obligation to ensure that the superior landlord complied with its obligations to procure that the contractor made good all defects, in accordance with the defects procedure. The obligation, however, was limited to the period the warranty between F1 and the landlord was effective, and only to a limited extent.
The landlord explained to the resident that the warranty between F1 and itself expired during the period the property was vacant and prior to the sale to the resident. This was substantiated by the fact that the target date for completion of the conversion of the 20 flats was July 2017 and the overall longstop date was March 2018. One year after completion of the works would have expired in March 2019. However, the warranty appeared to be active until December 2019. The evidence showed that F1 did not “leave the site” till December 2019, hence the inspection in November 2019. It is, however, noted that the landlord made a contribution to the costs of the final works and therefore the responsibility was shared.
While the landlord was entitled to its decision not to take legal action against the developer, given the uncertainly and costs of litigation, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have progressed matters on behalf of the resident as far as it could, regardless of the parties’ legal rights.
At July 2019, the landlord had not only secured that some works would be carried out to the bathroom in any event (in relation to the architraves and sealant) but also to either create an enclosure, or pay the resident £2,000. The offer was increased to £2,500 in its letter of 29 November 2019. The solution offered in July 2019 was reasonable in that the landlord had diagnosed that the shower needed to be enclosed. Its solution was in line with that of the local authority. The proposals was also in line with the various options offered by F1.
The resident was concerned about losing her warranty with NHBC in relation to the bathroom, though, as it could be expected, she would have the benefit of a warranty by any new installer. While the resident was concerned about preserving the NHBC warranty in that regard, there was little the landlord could have done in that respect.
There was little value in the landlord approaching the NHBC on the resident’s behalf. There was no evidence that would have improved matters for the resident or added to the warranty provided by the landlord. It was likely the resident may have faced paying an insurance excess. NHBC’s warranty tends to act as a back-up when the developer does not provide a solution. It was not unreasonable that the landlord declined to extend its offer to allow time for the resident to make a claim to the NHBC. Aside from the above reasons, this would have only protracted the resolution. In any event, the issue became academic as this was when F1 became more actively involved.
In the circumstances, the delay while the resident considered the matter are not attributable to the landlord. By the time the parties were ready to move forward, the entire process was held up by lockdown. While it could be said that had the landlord been more proactive, the matter could have been resolved prior to lockdown beginning, the delay cannot be attributable to the landlord, given the resident chose to seek alternative solutions.
The events showed that the solution was reached by the involvement of the local authority and F1, the latter, it is reasonable to conclude, had its own reasons for resolving the issues for the residents.
While there was evidence of some discussions with F1 and the local authority, there was no evidence that the landlord pressed for a solution that was entirely satisfactory to the resident. Indeed, the evidence showed that the landlord took a step back from the process. There is no evidence of it keeping track of events with F1 and the resident, indeed the evidence indicated that it was not aware when the works were carried out. The evidence also indicated that the residents were content that was the position. While there is no evidence F1 would have carried out the final remedial works sooner under any pressure from the landlord, neither can the Ombudsman credit the landlord with having done what it could in terms of progressing matters.
The landlord acted reasonably, however, in having made a reasonable offer in November 2019 and in making a financial contribution to the works. While the landlord should have remained more involved even if only to keep a watching brief, blame is not attributed to the landlord for the length of time taken to achieve the concluding solution, given the resident wished to explore alternative avenues and F1 became pro-actively involved in the resolution.
Finally, the resident achieved a solution which was more aesthetically pleasing, and which the landlord was not obliged to offer. The evidence showed that it was an improvement in the specification.
While matters turned out better for the resident overall in the end, which, as well as making it a better living experience, may make the property more marketable, it is recognised that the resident had the frustration and effort of achieving that solution. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds service failure by the landlord as it could have been more proactive early on, which is likely to have speeded up the process.
In the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman has found service failure rather than maladministration, given not all the delays were attributable to the landlord. The landlord made a reasonable offer early on in the process. The delay thereafter was due to the resident considering the offer by which time F1 became involved in the discussions which resulted in an improvement. While the Ombudsman bears the resident’s frustration in mind, it would not have expected the landlord to improve the specification of the bathroom as a resolution for the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of fire doors being left open.

The landlord has informed the service that the upholding of the complaint in relation to the fire alarm panel and fire doors was an error. The resident did not include the issues in her request to make a formal complaint. However, both issues were in the landlord’s complaint response and in the circumstances, fall within the remit of this report.
The landlord’s explanation in its letter 29 November 2019 about the safety of the fire doors being left open was reassuring and reasonable.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a malfunctioning fire alarm panel.

The landlord’s “New Homes Guide” assured the resident of an “an outstanding experience for its customers.” Its fire alarm policy stated that it was responsible for the system, but it had delegated the responsibility to the estate-wide’s managing agent, albeit by circumstances, rather than choice. While the landlord had no contractual relationship with the managing agent in relation to the fire alarm, and the system was part of the entire estate, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make representations on the resident’s behalf. While it has not seen correspondence to that effect, on the basis of the information provided to the resident, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord made some effort to seek a solution. There is no evidence of whether the resident continued to suffer inconvenience in relation to the fire alarm panel as she did not make a formal complaint. However, it is not clear to what extent the landlord took steps in relation to the fire alarm, therefore the Ombudsman will make a recommendation to the landlord to take further steps.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord chose to escalate any complaint made by the resident directly to the second stage of the process. The landlord’s approach had disadvantages and advantages. The advantage was that the matter was escalated directly to higher up in the organisation. The disadvantage is that it deprived the resident of her response to the landlord’s letter of 4 November 2020 being addressed. The approach also led to a lack of clarity regarding the status of the resident’s “complaint” regarding the fire panel and safety doors in that the letter of 4 November 2020 stated that those complaints were upheld. There was no evidence that the landlord ever clarified its position with the resident in that regard.
Given the offer by F1 to carry out works on the bathroom, it was reasonable for the landlord to withdraw its financial offer at that stage, since the original was in lieu of works. However, the offer was also made in recognition of the delays and inconvenience. It is also noted that, under its complaint policy, the landlord would consider compensation if there was inconvenience for the resident but no service failure. Moreover, the complaint correspondence’s emphasis on its offer being ex-gratia (although having confirmed the offer was in relation to the landlord’s warranty) and the implication that if the offer was refused, any offer made in the course of a complaints procedure would be reduced to a maximum of £250, was inappropriate. While the landlord was not responsible for the original design and defective workmanship, it had obligations under the warranty. Furthermore, under its compensation policy, it could consider payments higher than £250.
The letter of 29 November 2019 gave the impression of discouraging the resident from making a complaint. While the landlord was seeking to resolve the matter by exploring alternative approaches, it should have framed its approach differently.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty bathroom design.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of fire doors being left open.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a malfunctioning fire alarm panel.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There was service failure in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about the design of the bathroom and it could have been more proactive in approaching the third parties involved. However, not all the delays were attributable to the landlord and it also made a reasonable offer early on in the process. While the Ombudsman bears the resident’s frustration in mind, the ultimate solution was an improvement in the property.
The landlord’s explanation regarding the fire doors was reasonable.
The landlord was limited as to what steps it could take in relation to the fire alarm panel.
While it is appreciated the landlord sought to resolve the matter outside the complaints process, the complaints process did not comply with the landlord’s own policy. While there was nothing inappropriate about the offer it made, the way it was framed was not appropriate. It was not appropriate to appear to discourage the resident from making a formal complaint by withdrawing its offer as a consequence of a complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £450 within 28 days as follows:
1. The sum of £250 in relation to landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty bathroom design.
2. The sum of £200 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord should confirm compliance to the Housing Ombudsman service with the above orders within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord is referred to the recommendations in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report in relation to new builds A new lease of life: Spotlight on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds: complexity and complaint handling (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) including:
1. The landlord should pursue the issues effectively on the behalf of residents.
2. The landlord should ensure effective communication between the development and operational teams.
3. The landlord should be clear at the outset of the contract how it will respond during any defects/warranty period and once it has expired, including explaining what constitutes a defect and the length of any defect period.
If the fire alarm panel is still causing issues, the landlord should make further efforts to resolve this with the managing agent, given its assurances in its New Homes Guide, and update the resident accordingly.
The landlord should take steps to ensure that its record-keeping practices and organisation are adequate, in order to ensure it can track and retain an audit trail of its actions.
The landlord should ensure that its complaint process is transparent and ensures it does not give the impression it is discouraging residents from making a complaint.