Accent Housing Limited (202114730)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114730

Accent Housing Limited

25 May 2023

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 handling of the resident’s reports of vibrations and cracking noises in the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The property is a two storey, two bedroom semi-detached house. The property was built in 2018.
The house is part of a larger development, within which the landlord owns six homes. The property is located close to a main road, and an acoustic fence was provided by the developers, running the length of the site, to minimise the impact of traffic noise.
The resident is a shared owner. She purchased her share and entered into a lease agreement with the landlord on 17 July 2019. This was a self-maintaining lease.

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedure

The lease agreement sets out the obligations on both the landlord and resident in regard to occupation and repair of the property (the premises). The lease defines “the premises” in schedule 1 as:
1. The plot number and address, “more particularly shown edged in red on the plan.”
2. The premises include:
  1. All buildings erections and structures on the premises from time to time.
  2. The service media within and exclusively serving the premises.
  3. Appurtenances fixtures fittings and rights granted by this lease and improvements and additions made to and fixtures and fittings and appurtenances in the premises.
Clause 3.5 of the lease sets out the resident’s repair obligations as follows:
1. To repair and keep the premises … in good and substantial repair and condition (except in respect of damage by risks insured under clause 4.2 (insure) unless the insurance money is irrecoverable by reason of any act or default of the leaseholder.
2. To keep the garden area included within the premises (if any) tidy and properly cultivated and to maintain and repair in good and substantial condition the fences marked with inwards facing ‘T’ marks (if any) on the plan.
3. Before repairing any pipes drains or wires which are shared with other premises the leaseholder must first give notice to the landlord stating the nature of the defect or damage thereto and in repairing the same will comply in all respects with the requirements of the landlord or its surveyor and of all local statutory bodies having jurisdiction in the matter.
There is no corresponding clause contained within the lease for the landlord regarding repair obligations for the premises, beyond that set out under clause 4.3 “to maintain communal facilities.”
The lease requires the landlord under clause 4.2 “to keep the premises insured against loss or damage by fire and such other risks as the landlord may from time to time reasonably determine or the leaseholder or the leaseholder’s mortgagee may reasonably require in some insurance office of repute to its full reinstatement value ….”
Under clause 4.1 Quiet enjoyment: “the landlord covenants with the leaseholder that the leaseholder paying the rents reserved by this ease and performing and observing covenants contained in this lease may peaceably enjoy the premises during the term without any lawful interruption by the landlord or any person rightfully claiming under or in trust of it.”

New homes guide

The landlord’s new homes guide provides an explanation of the Local Authority Building Control (LABC) 10 year warranty. This sets out that the resident would have been provided with a certificate of insurance and that this warranty provides cover for any structural faults that may occur within the 10 year period.
The guide further provides information around cracking and shrinkage that can be expected in new homes. This explains that the LABC warranty does not apply if cracks are less than 3mm.
Through further correspondence with this Service the landlord has advised that:

“The LABC building warranty, otherwise known as a structural warranty, ensures that any defects that are found, even several years after construction, will be fixed. The 10 year structural warranty is split into two periods. The first period lasts for two years, and the builder must correct any issues that arise during this time. The second period lasts from years three to ten. During this period, the builder or developer is only obliged to rectify major structural problems. These include the foundations of the property, external rendering, load bearing floors and walls, and the roof.”

Defects management/end of defects procedure

The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its defects management procedure, together with its end of defects inspection procedure. It has advised that these have only been in place since 2021.
The aim of the landlord’s end of defects inspections procedure is “to provide a professional end of defects inspection service to our customers.” It is also aimed at providing consistency so that all residents are treated fairly. This sets out the steps to be followed and the timeframes for arranging and carrying out end of defects inspections, raising identified works orders and ensuring the satisfactory completion of these works.
The defects management procedure sets out responsibilities for developers and contractors and the process for ensuring that identified defects are attended to within appropriate timeframes.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s complaints policy, in place at the time of the resident’s complaint, defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.”
The policy provides a three stage internal process with the following steps:
1. Early resolution – the aim is to resolve complaints at first point of contact, but where this is not possible a response setting out actions to be taken to resolve the issue should be provided within five working days.
2. Manager investigation – If the resident remains unhappy with the outcome they can seek a review by a manager, setting out why they are not satisfied and what their expectations are. A response should be provided within five working days.
3. Director investigation – The resident may seek further escalation of their complaint. A response setting out the actions to be taken to resolve the complaint is to be provided within five working days. Cases will only be closed when all agreed actions have been completed.
4. On conclusion of the internal complaints stages, the policy advises that residents may approach the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The landlord’s current policy, published on its website, was produced in April 2023 and is compliant with the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code, introducing a two stage process with revised timescales for investigating and responding to complaints.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 18 July 2019 to raise her concern about tremors she could feel within the property. She linked this to passing heavy traffic, such as lorries. She explained that the issue was with the tremors she could feel rather than the noise, which was minimal. She sought reassurance that this would not cause structural problems in the future.
In reply the landlord advised “the house has been built to building regulation standards with the large fence to the rear of the gardens being erected to assist with noise.” It further advised that “large vehicles will cause vibrations and planning would have looked at where the properties are in respect of closeness to the road.” To provide reassurance it advised the resident that the property was covered by a warranty and that the landlord also retained an interest in the property.
On 7 January 2020, the resident contacted the landlord again to advise that the issue was worsening as she could now hear “cracking type noises” within the property. She asked if this could be checked. The landlord contacted the developer to raise the resident’s concerns.
The developer told the landlord that it had “no concerns regarding the construction to this property.” It set out that the property had been passed under LABC guidelines and was compliant with all building regulations.
In an email to the resident on 3 February 2020, the landlord advised the resident of the developer’s comments and that all the necessary certifications would have been passed to her solicitor as part of the purchase. The issue was to be discussed further at the end of defects inspection, scheduled for the end of March 2020, which would be attended by both the developer and a representative on behalf of the landlord (its clerk of works).
The end of defects inspection was arranged for 25 March 2020 and appointments were arranged with all six of the landlord’s residents within the development. However, on 16 March 2020 the landlord took the decision to postpone all non-essential visits to residents in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. This included end of defects inspections. Agreement was reached with the developer to extend the defects period for all relevant properties.
Following the cancellation of the inspection, the resident emailed the landlord on 27 March 2020. She explained that she was getting more concerned about “building movements and noises.” As she was at home during the day, she was experiencing how busy the nearby road was. She went on to advise “even if this building is safe for the future, the noises and vibrations are something that I have never experienced and cannot live with long term. I would not have gone ahead with this if I had been informed that this could be the case.”
In response the landlord sought to reassure the resident, advising that it had no concerns as to the construction of the property. It advised that they could discuss her concerns with the developer at the end of defects inspection.
With the lifting of Covid-19 restrictions, the end of defects inspection was carried out on 19 August 2020. At this inspection the resident’s concerns about the vibrations and noise from the road were recorded alongside a small number of other repair issues. Of the landlord’s other five properties inspected, only one identified a similar issue with their home.
On 20 August 2020, the landlord sought further clarification on the vibration issue from its clerk of works. It advised “as far as the ‘vibration’ is concerned there is nothing that would indicate anything other than normal drying out shrinkage on all of these properties at the moment.”
Further confirmation on the issue was provided to the landlord by the clerk of works on 28 September 2020. It advised that on “the noise / vibration we would suggest it is all normal based on the proximity of the road. The shrinkage is no more than you would expect at the end of 12 months, certainly nothing to suggest any signs of movement at this stage.”
The developer confirmed on 2 November 2020 that it had completed all end of defects works identified and sign off sheets were provided. In signing off the works to the property the resident excluded the issue around vibration as she considered this to be outstanding.
The landlord emailed the resident on 26 November 2020 to advise that the developer “has confirmed there is no action to take in relation to your concern about the noise/tremors from the road.” This email went on to advise:
1. There were no signs of any damage caused to either the property, or any of the other homes (owned by the landlord) on the development, in relation to the proximity of the road, and the tremors that the resident reported experiencing.
2. All properties were passed under LABC guidelines and were compliant with all building regulations.
3. Documentation and certificates were provided to the resident’s solicitor as part of the sales process.
4. No further action was to be taken.
5. The resident would be covered by the new build warranty if there were any concerns, and evidence of issues, at any point during the warranty period.
In response the resident explained that “there are two aspects to this.” She said:
1. That any future structural issues would be covered.
2. “The vibrations and accompanying noises can be disturbing, which isn’t a huge problem until they wake you up. I’m sure you can understand that when you invest in a home, this is not something that you sign up for. If I’d known about it, I wouldn’t have. I know at least one of your other tenants/owners in this road have complained about the same thing. I’m not being awkward, but I imagine it’s not something that anyone wants to live with.”
In reply to the resident’s ongoing concern the landlord reconfirmed its position that there was no evidence of damage being caused by the noise and tremors from the road. A copy of the certificate of insurance and policy document relating to the LABC cover was provided.
On 26 April 2021, the resident submitted a claim under the LABC warranty in regard to “vibrations, tremors and cracking noises to the property caused by traffic from the nearby road.”
In a response to a request for information from the insurer, the landlord collated information from the developer, contractor, and its clerk of works. On 28 April 2021, the landlord provided information to the insurer advising:
1. Inspections had been carried out to the property as part of the end of defects process.
2. It advised no works had been carried out as no evidence of internal or external cracking had been identified, other than normal shrinkage.
3. It had been determined that, following inspection by the developer, the sounds and vibrations identified were normal.
4. It further advised that an acoustic fence had been provided at the rear of the resident’s home, which ran along the length of the site, to help with the sound from the road.
On 15 June 2021, the LABC insurer advised the landlord that it had declined the resident’s claim and notified her of the same. The claim was declined as there were no structural defects identified.
The resident spoke with the landlord on 21 June 2021 about her ongoing concerns about the property. She questioned the proximity of the development to the road and enquired if the landlord would consider buying back her share of the property. The landlord advised that the development would have been through the planning process ahead of being built. It also advised that it could not be “responsible for external influences.” It suggested that she contact “either environmental health or highways to ensure that the road surface is not the issue.”
A follow up email was sent to the resident on 29 June 2021 which advised:
1. The property had been through the full planning process and sign off by building control.
2. The landlord did not consider there were any issues with the structure of the building.
3. The landlord would not consider re-purchasing the property. It further advised that if the resident wished to move, she would need to market the property per the terms of her lease, allowing the landlord the nomination period to try to source a purchaser.
On 19 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive, enclosing photographs of cracking within the property, to raise her continued concern regarding the property. This was referred internally to be followed up and was recorded on the landlord’s complaint’s system on 20 August 2021.
On 9 September 2021, an independent surveyor, appointed by the landlord, carried out an inspection of the property. A report was provided on 16 September 2021. This concluded that the inspection had found “no issues from a structural aspect affecting the property and it is performing as designed.” The report identified cracks within the bedrooms which did not exceed 0.2mm and were consistent with thermal shrinkage cracking.
In its conclusion the report stated:
1. “There is no immediately obvious cause of the creaking/cracking sounds being experienced by the resident, but there is a possibility that this is a result of frictional movement due to expansion and contraction, possibly where the floor joists are bedded into the walls, but also where the timber spandrel panel sits on the underlying blockwork wall. It is noted that the resident reports that this is more pronounced in the front rooms which are south facing.
2. It is not practical to report on vibration being experienced by the tenant as it is a specialist area and would require suitable monitoring equipment. We can comment that the vibration which is being experienced has not caused any notable cracking, nor affecting the structural integrity of the building.”
This report was shared with the resident on 24 September 2021. In its covering email the landlord advised that the surveyor had found no issues from a structural aspect affecting the property. It concluded that there was nothing further it could offer and that it considered the matter to be closed.
The resident contacted this Service on 29 September 2021 as she remained unhappy with the response from her landlord and the outcome of the surveyor’s report. She provided a copy of the landlord’s email advising that it had closed the matter.
In reviewing the response provided by the landlord to the resident, this Service determined that it had not considered the resident’s complaint as part of its formal complaint’s procedure. Following further contact with the resident, this Service raised the resident’s complaint with the landlord on 20 December 2021, and advised that “the Ombudsman encourages residents and landlords to resolve complaints using the landlord’s internal complaint’s procedure.”
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 22 December 2022 acknowledging her complaint. It then sent an email on 6 January 2022 which set out the following:
1. It had reviewed her complaint and the issues raised.
2. The inspection carried out on the 16 September 2021 by an independent surveyor, had informed that there were no structural issues with the property and that the cracking within the property were deemed as shrinkage. A copy of the report was enclosed.
3. It had been in contact with LABC about her claim in April 2021 and provided all requested information. LABC then advised that it had declined her claim.
4. “I understand this is not the response you wish to receive; however, we are unable to resolve the cracking or vibrations you are experiencing as there are no structural issues present.”
In reply the resident emailed the landlord by return on 6 January 2021. She said that LABC had declined her claim as “it was out of their timeframe.” She further said that when she spoke to the surveyor who carried out the inspection, he had informed her that “he couldn’t get information required from the builder about materials used, which he said could be relevant.” In reply the landlord advised that it could not comment on what had been said at the inspection as it was not present. It could only make comment on the final report.
A formal response to the resident’s complaint was provided on 18 January 2022. This letter confirmed that the complaint related to “settlement cracking and noise vibrations” experienced at the property. The landlord set out the following:
1. It concluded that there were no structural faults with the property, following the independent inspection carried out by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Chartered Surveyor. A copy of the report had been provided to the resident.
2. The landlord had also communicated with the LABC regarding the claim submitted by the resident. It had supplied all requested documents. The LABC had denied the claim and advised the resident of this by letter.
3. It confirmed that the resident could submit further claims with the LABC as the warranty continued until 27 March 2029.
4. It had been in contact with the developer who advised that the end of defects inspection had found “no actual defect which would be qualified by a faulty component of the building.” The developer also advised that it had not had any other reports of any issues with any of the other properties on the development.
5. The landlord, having reviewed all the information provided, had come to the decision that it would not be carrying out any works to the property as there were no structural issues.
In contact with the resident and this Service the landlord sought to close the complaint on the basis that there was no further action it could take.
On 11 May 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord to ask it to review the resident’s complaint, in line with its complaint’s procedure, and to consider other remedies or interventions it may take to address the resident’s complaint.
The landlord provided a stage two response on 18 May 2022. This advised the resident of the following:
1. There were no structural faults with the property that were causing the issues the resident had raised.
2. It had appointed an independent RICS chartered surveyor to carry out a survey, which was completed on 16 September 2021. This found no faults with the property and a copy of the report was provided.
3. The LABC contacted the landlord on 26 April 2021, and the landlord had provided all the requested information. The claim had been rejected but the warranty remained in place until 27 March 2029.
4. Throughout the build the property was “inspected by building control officers and the landlord’s clerk of works to ensure that it was built in accordance with the approved drawings and the standards required of LABC.”
5. During the end of defects inspection on 25 March 2020 “no faulty components were found.”
6. The developer further advised on 28 April 2021 that it had no other reports relating to this issue.
7. That to find out if there could be a wider issue with the development, it had been in contact with the resident of the adjoining property. They had advised that they experienced vibration when large lorries went by, but nothing unusual.
8. That the resident’s home remained one of its assets and that this was important to it. It advised that “the safety and comfort of our customers is of the absolute importance to us. I can also assure you that we are not refusing to carry out any work, it is simply that no work has been identified that needs to be done, despite our thorough checks.”
9. “From carefully reviewing all the information gathered, I can confirm we cannot identify any structural issues which are causing the cracking and vibrating within your home, so there is no work for us to carry out at this time.”
On 15 September 2022, the landlord confirmed to this Service that its letter of 18 May 2022 was its final response, and it would be taking no further action.
The resident advised this Service on 7 October 2022 that she remained unhappy with the action taken by her landlord and its final response. She set out her complaint as:
1. The problem was first reported three years ago and has not been resolved.
2. The surveyor, whilst recording that the property was structurally sound, had advised her that he didn’t know what the cracking noises were, but “he did know that it was no longer due to settlement of the property.”
3. He had also advised the resident that he “had trouble getting information from the builders regarding the materials used in the loft area.”
4. She said, “there is something not right and it is the stress of being woken up that is a problem, not just the potential damage.” Furthermore, she reported that it sounded like it was coming from the loft/roof area and was at time quite loud.
5. She concluded “I bought a house albeit shared ownership at full market price and it’s faulty. And no one seems bothered. Please can you do something.”
In a follow up email to this Service on 11 February 2022, the resident further advised that:
1. “The noises are becoming more frequent and seem to be coming mainly from upstairs. The main noise sounds like wood shifting or cracking. I also regularly hear what sounds like a large stone hitting the kitchen window at the back of the house, which it obviously isn’t and it’s baffling. “
2. The lounge door had been vibrating badly, and she had to put something underneath it to stop this.
3. This seemed to relate to vehicles passing on the main road that runs behind the property.
4. “I absolutely love my little house, but I rarely get to sleep through the night, and I am concerned that there may be long term damage. I would also have to declare this issue to prospective buyers, which will of course, put them off.”

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cracking noises and vibrations in the property.

The resident purchased a share of the property in July 2019 and holds a full repairing lease on the property which is a semi-detached house. The landlord retains no repairing obligations for the property.
The resident first raised her concerns with the landlord about the vibrations she could feel within her home shortly after she moved in and noted that this related to heavy vehicles passing by on the road behind the property. The landlord took steps to reassure her about the build quality, the planning process which would have considered the proximity of the road and advised that large vehicles will cause vibrations.
In January 2020, the resident advised the landlord that in addition to the vibrations she was also hearing cracking noises within the property. The landlord appropriately raised this with the developer and its clerk of works and again sought to reassure the resident about the construction quality and further advised of the LABC warranty. It agreed to review the issues as part of the end of defects inspection, which was appropriate given that the property was within a warranty period.
Whilst this inspection was initially delayed, this was unavoidable because of the Covid-19 pandemic, and because it involved third parties. It was completed in August 2020 and all repairs identified were completed by November 2020. The resident’s concerns were again noted but this inspection did not find any evidence of a structural issue within the property. The resident’s claim under the LABC warranty made in April 2021 was rejected as again no structural issues were found.
The resident continued to raise her concerns with the landlord and in June 2021 it advised that it could not be responsible for external influences, such as the road, and advised the resident to contact either environmental health or highways to raise her concerns. It is not known if such contact was made. The landlord once again confirmed its view that there were no structural issues with the property.
An inspection by an independent surveyor was carried out in response to the raising of a complaint with the chief executive in August 2021. This also concluded that no structural issues were present within the property. Based on this report the landlord advised that there was no further action that it could take.
The landlord actively sought to respond to each of the resident’s reports around vibration and cracking sounds within the property. These have been considered through the end of defects process, the claims assessment by LABC and by an independent surveyor. All have concluded that there are no issues with the structure of the property and that the vibration is caused by heavy traffic passing on the nearby road. The landlord’s advice to the resident that it would take no further action was based on the collective expert advice that it received. It was reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to rely on this advice to reach its conclusion that there were no further actions it could take, as no structural issues were identified.
The landlord has also considered the experience of other residents. The landlord’s records show that another of its residents reported an issue of vibration within their home at the end of defects inspection. This resident subsequently contacted the highways department of the local authority to report an issue with a pothole in the road. The landlord has confirmed that they have raised no further concerns. The developer has advised that it has received no reports of issues from other residents across their homes on the development.
In raising her concerns the resident has acknowledged the issue stems from the road. This is outside the landlord’s scope of responsibility, having confirmed that planning approval for the development was granted. The landlord provided appropriate advice to the resident to contact the local authorities’ highways department, who would be able to respond and investigate any contributory issues from the road surface, such as potholes.
In considering the steps taken by the landlord, its responsiveness and timeliness in following up contact with the resident, there was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Despite the resident’s continued contact with the landlord about this issue and its recording of a formal complaint on 20 August 2021, no formal complaint response was provided.
In response to her complaint in August 2021, the landlord arranged for an independent surveyor to inspect the property. It then provided a copy of the surveyor’s report and advised that there was no further action it could take, and that it considered the matter closed. In this response no reference was made to the resident’s complaint or advice given as to how she could escalate her complaint.
The landlord’s complaint’s policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint, sets out a three stage process – early resolution, managers intervention, and directors intervention – ahead of referral to this Service. The landlord had not followed these steps after its recording of a formal complaint from the resident. This caused further inconvenience to the resident as she took the time and trouble both to raise her complaint with the landlord and to bring it to this Service.
The resident sought intervention from the Ombudsman. This Service then supported the resident in taking her complaint through the landlord’s complaint’s procedure.
The landlord provided responses to the resident’s complaint on 18 January and 11 May 2022, under stage one and two of its complaint’s procedure. In both instances the letter failed to provide advice on how the resident could escalate the complaint, leaving her unclear as to how to take her complaint forward. The landlord contacted the resident after providing the stage one response to ask her to agree to close her case. When she said no and informed it that she remained unhappy, the landlord failed to escalate appropriately to the next stage in its process. The stage two investigation and response were undertaken following further contact from this Service.
Both letters set out the actions taken by the landlord to assure itself, and the resident, that there were no structural issues with the property. At stage two it undertook further investigation in contacting the resident’s neighbour to enquire if they were also affected by vibration and cracking sounds within their home. It went on to explain that the property remained one of its assets, which was important to it. However, the landlord failed to address the concerns raised by the resident in relation to the level of information that had been provided to the independent surveyor. It further failed to provide advice to the resident about the additional actions that she could take, such as contacting highways about the road, or providing advice on selling her home. Its final response also failed to advise the resident that she could escalate her complaint to this Service.
The Ombudsman encourages landlords to consider the key principles of dispute resolution set out by this Service: Be fair, Put things right and Learn from outcomes. The landlord failed to follow its complaint’s procedure and only did so with the intervention of this Service.
In responding to the resident’s complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider and address the resident’s concern about the independent surveyor’s report, specifically her belief that it had not been provided with all relevant information. To provide this reassurance, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to undertake a further inspection, accompanied by the developer of the property.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cracking noises and vibrations in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord took steps to engage positively with the resident about her complaint relating to vibration in her home which were linked to the nearby road. It took steps to reassure her that her property had been built in accordance with building regulations and was covered by a structural warranty. Its conclusions were appropriately based on expert opinion.
The landlord’s complaints handling was poor. It failed to recognise the resident’s contact as a formal complaint until she escalated the matter to its chief executive. It then failed to provide a formal response within a reasonable period of time, and only did so following the resident’s contact with this Service. This was not recognised and put right by the landlord.
When asked by this Service to consider and respond to the resident’s complaint through its formal complaint’s process its responses failed to provide advice around the next stage or consider other options for resolving the complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident a total of £100 compensation for the failures identified with its complaints handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should address the resident’s concerns about comments she reported the surveyor made about a lack of information on building materials used in the roof area, related to cracking/creaking noises, by arranging a further inspection of the property, where possible in conjunction with the developer.

The purpose of this would be to review the resident’s concerns about the cracking/creaking noises from the roof space and provide information as to the materials used in the construction of the roof. If no structural defects are identified, this would provide a reasonable conclusion to the resident’s complaint.