Amplius Living (202226698)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226698

Grand Union Housing Group Limited

30 August 2024

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 defects in the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a two-bedroom house and is a shared owner. The lease began on 25 October 2019.
On 15 October 2020 the landlord conducted an end of year defects inspection on the resident’s new build property, and it identified defects with the front door requiring adjusting and the bathroom toilet not flushing.
The resident informed the landlord on 18 May 2022 that she had been waiting for repairs to her toilet and front door and wanted to speak to someone regarding selling her percentage of the property. The landlord stated it could see the resident had contacted it on the 12 May 2022 and that two outstanding jobs were chased up. The landlord informed the resident that it had re-chased the outstanding repairs. The landlord sent an email to its defect team on 18 May 2022 stating the toilet was still not flushing properly and the door was still stiff as it had dropped and that both issues were raised at the end of year inspection.
The resident continued to contact the landlord for updates regarding when the works would be carried out throughout July 2022 and August 2022. The repairs remained uncompleted.
On 19 August 2022 the resident called the landlord and said she was unhappy and frustrated that the repairs had been outstanding since she reported the issues and wanted a complaint to be raised.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 12 October 2022. In the response the landlord stated that despite meeting with the developer it had been unable to give the resident any further information as to what was happening and when. It did have another meeting with the developer the next day and knew the urgency to resolve the issues and it hoped that it would then be able to provide her with more information. It would monitor any agreed actions and continue to communicate with her until all were completed.
The resident requested her complaint be escalated on the same day stating she was unhappy with the service received and the time delays. She had been waiting since May 2022 for the works to be carried out so she could sell the property and to make matters worse the works were meant to have been completed over two years ago. The landlord issued an acknowledgment stating the complaint had been escalated on 13 October 2022. The landlord informed the resident she would be contacted within two working days but did not provide a date the resident should expect the formal response.
The developer emailed the landlord on 20 October 2022 and informed it that it had its contractor approved which had taken longer than normal due to delays at its end and would be commencing contact the next week with residents requiring repairs on the development and begin the works shortly after once access had been agreed with the residents.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 9 November 2022. The landlord stated that a contractor had been appointed by the developer to complete the outstanding defects works to her property and the works were booked in for 5 December 2022. It would remain in contact with both the resident and the contractor to ensure those works were completed and that she was happy with the repairs undertaken. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to get those works completed and for the inconvenience that had been caused to the resident as a result. It offered £50 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused to her.

Events after the landlord’s complaint process

The appointment booked for 5 December 2022 was cancelled by the developer and moved to 18 January 2023. The landlord’s records however indicate this was changed again to 16 December 2022. On 12 January 2023 the resident said that someone attended, but she had not heard from the developer or landlord since about the works that needed to be done. The resident was advised on 6 June 2023 that a contractor was ordering the front door and would be fitting that on the same day as completing the toilet repair but advised that could be 6-8 weeks away.
On 25 August 2023 the landlord called the resident and said it was no longer going through the developer for the door and would arrange the works itself. On 21 November 2023 the resident informed the Ombudsman the toilet repair had been completed that day, but the front door was not due to a house alarm being fitted to the door. The landlord informed this Service the door was replaced on 10 April 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation.

The resident stated to this Service she had been reporting issues with the front door and toilet to the landlord since October 2019 and this Service understands the resident’s concerns for the length of time she has been reporting the outstanding repairs. This Service would expect residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months of an issue occurring and for landlords to respond within appropriate timescales. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint with the landlord that completed the landlord’s internal complaint process until the complaint raised with the landlord in August 2022.
Under paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme this Service will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Therefore, although it is acknowledged that the resident states she had been reporting the repairs since 2019, this Service will be considering the reports made from May 2022 as these were the first evidenced reports made to the landlord that occurred within 12 months of the formal complaint being made.
As per paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints about matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Within the resident’s communication with the landlord and this Service after the landlord’s stage two response, the resident contacted the landlord for details regarding the works it would be undertaking as committed to in the stage two response, the dates those were scheduled to begin and be completed.
This investigation report cannot consider the issues which have arisen after the date of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This is because the landlord has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond to any complaint which may be raised by the resident in respect of those events. Any such issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint by the resident can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. The landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint regarding the landlord’s actions after the stage two response was issued to get those matters investigated.
However, where the landlord has made commitments as part of its final complaint response, we will consider whether the landlord has put things right and learned from outcomes in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. In this case, we have therefore assessed whether the actions the landlord proposed in its final complaint response were carried out in a reasonable timescale.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects in the property.

The landlord’s defects management procedure states an end of year inspection takes place at the end of the defects liability period. If the contractor fails to execute repairs in a timely manner, the list of outstanding defects should be forwarded with a time period for completion. If there is still no response, outstanding works are to be carried out by an alternative contractor and money withheld from the retention fee. The inspection of the resident’s property took place on 15 October 2020 and identified repairs to the front door and toilet. It is not clear what repairs took place between October 2020 and the resident contacting the landlord in May 2022. However, the evidence provided showed the landlord was still in contact with the developer to complete the outstanding works.
Following the resident’s contact with the landlord on 18 May 2022 the landlord would be expected to take action on the resident’s reports of the outstanding repairs.
There was however no evidence the landlord took any action at that time including keeping the resident updated causing the resident to recontact the landlord on 4 July 2022 stating she had been chasing it for about 4-5 weeks and been waiting for repairs which should have been completed after first moving into the property and were still not done. This was a failing by the landlord that would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
On 19 July 2022 the landlord established the developer visited the resident’s property, had marked the works as completed and would not be completing any follow-on work. In response to that the landlord continued to speak with the developer to agree how to progress the repairs and it enquired internally if it should use its own contractor to assess the required works. This was a positive step taken by the landlord to try and ensure the delayed repairs would be completed. However, the decision to do this came two months after the repairs had been reported in May 2022 and after substantial chasing by the resident for the repair to be completed. This was therefore a failure by the landlord to respond within a reasonable timescale to the resident’s concerns.
There was no further evidence of the landlord’s decision regarding that course of action prompting the resident to chase the landlord again on 5 August 2022. The landlord informed the resident on 10 August 2022 that it had an external contractor in place for the outstanding works but needed to speak to the developer before it could proceed. It however failed to provide the resident with an expected response date. It was not until 22 August 2022 that the landlord recontacted the resident to inform her it was still waiting for authorisation to use its external contractor. This was a further failing by the landlord in its communication with the resident and the repairs remained outstanding.
On 24 August 2022 the landlord’s records stated it had been in contact with the resident, she was aware that if it did not manage to get the developer to do the work, it would look to get the works done by an external contractor, and it would not leave her to get it done herself, or expect her to pay for the repairs. It explained to the resident that before it asked someone else to do the work, it had to be seen as offering the developer the opportunity to carry out the work first. If the developer disputed that it had offered, it risked not being able to take it out of retention funds and the landlord would have to cover the costs, so was in its best interest to get the developer to do it if it could.
This was a positive step by the landlord and demonstrated it was aware the developer was not fulfilling its obligation, and it was taking steps to put things right for the resident itself.
While it is understandable the landlord would want the developer to carry out the repairs it was required to, once it became clear there were significant delays in the repairs being carried out, the landlord would be expected to consider alternative options. Although the landlord has evidenced it did consider other actions including completing the works itself, it did not take any further action within an appropriate timescale to resolve the repairs using its own contractors. The failure by the developer to do the works and the landlord not committing to getting the works done itself meant the repairs remained uncompleted which would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident continued to contact the landlord for updates throughout September 2022 and October 2022 and was consistently told the landlord was either waiting to meet with the developer or waiting for a response from the developer about the completion of the repairs. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident as she was no closer to having the repairs resolved.
It was not until 20 October 2022 that the developer confirmed it had a contractor approved and would be commencing contact to arrange access for the repairs. However, the landlord’s records did not show any further appointments being booked with the resident until it issued the stage two response in November 2022 which stated an appointment was arranged for 5 December 2022. This meant there was a further six-week delay for the resident. Given the resident had already been waiting since May 2022 – a period of almost seven months, the further delay without reason or explanation was not reasonable.
Given that the works reported in May 2022 were not raised as repairs appointments until 5 December 2022, the Ombudsman has found failings in the landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs.
Following the landlord’s stage two response the resident would have expected the repair to be completed as agreed on 5 December 2022. However, the landlord’s records showed the appointment originally arranged was cancelled and the repairs ultimately did not take place until 10 April 2024 for the front door – a further delay of 339 working days and the toilet on 23 November 2023 a further delay of 245 working days from the date committed to in the stage two response.
This indicates that the landlord failed to learn sufficient lessons from the outcome of the resident’s complaint and the landlord failed to fulfil the commitment it made in the stage two response within an expected or appropriate timescale. This was a further failing by the landlord.
It is clear that the amount of time taken to resolve the defects was excessive and frustrating for the resident, however, although not all the delays could be attributed to the landlord as the responsibility to address the defects would have initially been with the developer, the landlord has not evidenced it took appropriate action to take responsibility for them itself once it became clear the developer was not completing the repairs within expected timescales.
From the evidence provided, although the landlord was still in contact with the developer to complete repairs to the defects identified despite it exceeding the timescales of the landlord’s defects management policy, the landlord was trying to ensure defects on multiple properties were dealt with at the same time by the developer. The landlord’s records showed this was to avoid the risk of neighbouring properties seeing it carry out works itself on individual properties and requesting the same response.
However, in doing so the landlord was relying on the developer to complete repairs at multiple properties and with it not doing so within an appropriate timescale caused the resident’s repair to remain uncompleted.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address any failings as well as any compensation offered.
The landlord offered £50 compensation to the resident for the length of time it took to get the works completed. To be clear this investigation can only consider an award of compensation for the landlord’s failures during the period covered in this investigation up to the final complaint response and its failure to do what it said it was going to do in its stage two response within a reasonable timescale. This would therefore not include the handling of the repairs after the stage two response as those would need to be considered as part of any new complaint.
Given the length of time covered in this investigation for the landlord to arrange for the appointment for the repairs to take place and the failure by the landlord to complete the repairs it committed to in the stage two response within a reasonable timescale, the landlord’s offer of redress was not appropriate and for the failures found in this investigation the landlord should pay the resident £400 inclusive of the £50 the landlord had already offered.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. It aims to acknowledge the complaint by telephone and/or in writing, preferably by email, within one working day but will acknowledge the complaint within five working days.
The landlord’s complaint procedure states it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
The complaint was made by the resident on 19 August 2022. The response would have been due no later than 2 September 2022. The landlord has evidenced it had contact with the resident to discuss an extension on 2 September 2022, but the evidence provided of the agreement to extend the complaint process did not provide the resident with an expected response date and this was a failure by the landlord.
The resident was then informed by the landlord on 8 September 2022 that a meeting with the developer regarding the works would be attempted to be booked in for the following week and she would be informed once arranged. The resident responded the next day and said that was not acceptable and wanted to take her complaint further. The landlord called the resident and explained that it would need to issue its stage one response for the complaint to be able to be taken to the next stage. The landlord’s records noted it told the resident it would issue the stage one response after it received an update following the meeting due to take place the following week.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states any extension should not exceed 10 days therefore making any agreed extension date no later than 15 September 2022.
The resident was updated on 16 September 2022 and informed that the landlord was yet to receive a date from the developer and would continue to chase for a date so that it could issue its stage one response.
Although a short extension to provide the response was agreed the landlord should not have further delayed issuing the response until a meeting had taken place as at the time of the complaint no meeting had been agreed and there was no date provided for the meeting to take place.
The landlord could have issued the stage one response and included the proposed meeting as part of its response and redress to the resident. The resident should not have been placed in the position of having to wait for the stage one response to be issued.
The stage one response was issued on 12 October 2022 and was 37 working days after the complaint was made. The stage one response was inadequate. The response failed to provide the resident with an explanation of the investigations or actions it had taken in response to her reports and failed to provide the resident with any explanation why the repairs were still outstanding.
The landlord failed to state it was responding at stage one of its complaints process and failed to apologise for the delay in issuing the response. The landlord also failed to confirm if it was upholding the resident’s complaint or offer the resident any redress for the repairs being outstanding.
The stage two response also failed to inform the resident the landlord was responding at stage two of its complaints process. Although it did inform the resident of works that were arranged to be completed and provided her with dates for those works to take place, the response failed to address the resident’s complaint and provide her with the findings of its investigation into the repair issues she had reported. By the end of the complaints process the resident had not been provided with an explanation for the delays in the repairs being completed.
The landlord’s failure to issue the stage one response within the timescales set out in its complaint policy, and the inadequacy of the responses at stage one and stage two is maladministration by the landlord and it should pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

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

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a sum of £400 inclusive of the £50 it has already offered for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects in the property.
3. Pay the resident a sum of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord reviews its processes for complaint responses to ensure its complaint responses are issued in line with the timescales in its complaint’s policy and correctly states at what stage of the complaint process it is responding.