Beyond Housing Limited (202208513)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208513

Beyond Housing Limited

28 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the time taken by the landlord to resolve defects in the kitchen and bathroom. The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy of a newly built property which started on 29 November 2021. A developer built the resident’s property and sold it to the landlord who then allocated it to the resident. The resident identified defects in her property after moving in.
  2. The landlord had an agreement with the developer that required the developer to deal with any defects. The developer provided residents with a contact number which resulted in residents reporting defects directly to them instead.
  3. The developer became unresponsive and left defect remedial work uncompleted. The landlord then decided to appoint its own contractor to take over the outstanding remedial work.
  4. On 8 April 2022, the landlord attended the resident’s property to inspect the property and agreed on the outstanding works with the resident. It sent a copy of this list to the resident on 28 June 2022. The report highlighted the following issues with the kitchen and bathroom:
    1. the use of different paint colours in the kitchen on the moulding and base scotia
    2. the kitchen doors and worktop in the kitchen having defects
    3. an uneven kitchen floor
    4. odd and discoloured bath panels in the bathroom
    5. the bath needed levelling and re-sealing because of a drop
    6. the shower continuously dripped after use
    7. a faulty bathroom light that flickered when off
    8. holes in the rear boarding to the shower wall that needed replacing
    9. a blockage in the toilet and it not fitting around the soil and needing a flush adjustment
    10. a vanity unit needed replacing and a faulty extractor fan
    11. a shower temperature that ranged from scalding hot to freezing.
  5. The landlord told the resident it was working with the developer to get the outstanding jobs done and said it hoped this would start in July 2022. The resident complained to the landlord on 18 July 2022 that it had not given any dates for the completion of the work on the kitchen and other repairs.
  6. The resident complained again on 25 July 2022 that the contractor had not called her or visited her to do any work. The landlord told the resident that the materials needed should arrive on 1 August 2022 and the contractor would attend on that day to start the work.
  7. However, the landlord had also told the resident on 27 July 2022 that the developer had appointed a sub-contractor to start the remedial work on 6 August 2022.
  8. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 1 August 2022 and said:
    1. it apologised for the delays and inconveniences experienced by the resident
    2. it had been experiencing issues with the developer not attending to deal with the outstanding work
    3. it had been in discussion with the developer and warranty provider to try and achieve completion of the outstanding work
    4. it expected the work to start the week commencing 1 August 2022 but would inform the resident if this changed.
  9. The resident asked for her landlord to escalate her complaint on 3 August 2022. She complained her landlord promised her the remedial work would start on 1 August 2022 and alleged it had not. The resident complained to her landlord that she did not establish this until she contacted it, and this caused her stress.
  10. The landlord responded to explain that it had become aware the developer had not done the work and so it was in the process of obtaining an alternative contractor. The landlord provided the resident with regular updates throughout August 2022.
  11. On 26 August 2022 the landlord told the resident it hoped remedial work would start during the week of 12 September 2022 and complete by the end of October 2022. It also responded at stage 2 on this day and said:
    1. it apologised for the length of time the issues have remained outstanding, but it had kept the resident updated
    2. it was sorry it did not tell the resident earlier that the contractor would not attend on 1 August 2022, but it wrote to her on 3 August 2022. It accepted its communication could have been better
    3. it hoped the weekly updates had kept the resident informed and asked if there was any support the landlord might offer her.
  12. The developer had returned to complete work at the beginning of September 2022 and the landlord told the resident it would monitor the progress and standard of work. However, by 7 September 2022, the landlord informed the resident it had asked another contractor to do the work because the developer had not progressed the work. The landlord told the resident it hoped to complete the outstanding works by the end of October 2022.
  13. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not given her an exact date for when it would complete the remedial work, and she complained the delays had caused her stress.
  14. By December 2022 the landlord had completed all the outstanding work apart from placing sealant around the resident’s bath and repairing a shower board. It paid the resident £500 compensation to reflect the inconvenience the delays had caused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of defects, including its communication with the resident

  1. The landlord’s rental home user guide states that the builder or developer was responsible for any defects reported to the landlord within 12 months of completion. This is known as the defect period.
  2. The landlord’s user guide divides defects into three categories as follows:
    1. category A- emergency defects requiring a response within 24 hours, these include a broken toilet where there is no other working toilet and major electrical faults
    2. category B-urgent defects that require a repair within 28 days which include a loose or broken toilet where there is another one working
    3. category C- are non-urgent defects and the landlord can resolve these at the end of the 12-month defect period, these include loose pipes and faulty electrical work.
  3. The landlord’s repair policy states that it must deal with urgent priority repairs within 24 hours and appointed repairs should be resolved at the next available appointment. Urgent repairs would include defects that are a risk to health and safety or the fabric of the property. The landlord’s repair policy also refers to planned work that can be resolved within 180 days.
  4. It is unclear when the defect period ended or exactly when the landlord was aware of the defects. However, as the landlord inspected the resident’s property in April 2022 it was aware of the issues then. The evidence indicates that the property was in the defect period at the time.
  5. The evidence shows that the landlord was in regular contact with the developer to complete the defects. This was reasonable as the developer was responsible for this. However, the landlord had a responsibility to take steps to ensure this happened and to enforce compliance or do the work itself, if necessary.
  6. Under section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord was also responsible for keeping the toilet and electrical wiring in repair and good working order.
  7. Most of the defects were non-urgent and the landlord could have dealt with them after the 12-month defect period. This is because they did not create a risk to health and safety or the fabric of the property, as referred to in the landlord’s repair policy. However, the landlord miscategorised the defect in the toilet and extractor fan as non-urgent when, based on its user guide, they should have been urgent. This was a failure.
  8. The landlord was responsible for repairing the faulty light within a reasonable time under section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as this involved an electrical fault in the wiring. The landlord’s repair policy suggests the rest of the defects would qualify as appointed repairs which the landlord could resolve by an appointment.
  9. The landlord told the resident in June 2022 that it was trying to get the contractor to complete the repairs. However, the evidence shows that it was unable to get the contractor to progress the work. By July 2022 the developer appointed a sub-contractor to do the work and the landlord said it would monitor the contractor’s work.
  10. This was appropriate and reasonable as the responsibility for the defects was with the developer and the landlord needed to allow the developer the opportunity to resolve them. This is because it had an agreement with the developer, and the developer had told the landlord it would sort the defects out. The Ombudsman therefore considers it reasonable that the landlord took active steps to get the work done and relied upon the developer’s representation.
  11. However, when it became evident to the landlord in August 2022 that the developer’s contractor had not progressed the works it told the resident it would appoint its own contractor. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s approach was appropriate, it sought advice and appointed its own contractor as soon as it was clear it would need to do the work itself.
  12. The landlord told the resident on 18 August 2022 that it hoped to complete all work by October 2022. It reiterated to the resident on 15 September 2022 that it would complete most of the work by the end of October 2022. The landlord did not complete the outstanding jobs until November and December 2022 which was beyond its initial projections. This was a failure that would have caused further frustration and upset to the resident.
  13. The landlord’s communications to the resident offered various dates for when it hoped the work would start and end. It also had to put back the start date on several occasions. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord was unable to give an exact date for the start and completion date of the work.
  14. The Ombudsman recognises this uncertainty will have been frustrating to the resident, there is no evidence the landlord was at fault for this. This is because of the complications caused by an unresponsive contractor, the uncertainties of the availability of materials, and the extent of the remedial work contributed to that uncertainty. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer an estimated timescale for the completion of the remedial work and to agree to regularly update her.
  15. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord did not contact the resident on 1 August 2022 to inform her in advance that the contractor would not be coming. The landlord only told the resident this when she contacted it, and the landlord wrote to her two days later. The landlord’s omission understandably caused the resident additional frustration.
  16. The evidence shows overall the level of communication from the landlord was good. The landlord regularly updated the resident in June, July, and August 2022. For example, the landlord logged that between 15 June 2022 and 26 August 2022, when it sent its stage 2 response, it had visited the resident six times and had sent her seven emails or letters and two text messages. The Ombudsman has seen multiple letters the landlord sent to the resident in August 2022 updating her. The Ombudsman cannot fault the level of engagement and communication the landlord had with the resident.
  17. The landlord’s repair log indicates that the non-urgent defects identified were all resolved in November or December 2022. This was within the timescales allowed in the landlord’s repair policy and its user guide. During the works, the landlord identified additional works involving the shower screen and bath sealant. However, these were additional to the works complained of and are outside the scope of this complaint.
  18. The landlord did not deal with the urgent repairs to the toilet, shower, extractor fan, and bathroom light within its user guide or repair policy timescale. These were all urgent repairs that the landlord should have dealt with within 28 days or a reasonable period. Despite this, the landlord’s repair records showed that it did not resolve the blocked toilet until June 2022, and it did not repair the shower until July 2022. It took until December 2022 for the landlord to deal with the extractor fan and light. The impact of these delays on the resident is unclear as she had access to bathing and sanitation facilities however, they amounted to a service failure. Nevertheless, for the reasons which follow the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident that recognises the impact of the delays on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident complained about the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s complaint policy states it should respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. The resident complained on 18 July 2022 and received a response on 1 August 2022 at stage 1. This was 11 working days.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 August 2022 and the landlord responded at stage 2 on 26 August 2022. This was 18 working days. The landlord’s responses were all made within the timescales in its complaint policies and appropriately apologised and explained to the resident that it was working to get the remedial work done.
  4. The Ombudsman expects landlords to put things right at the earliest opportunity, this can include the consideration and payment of compensation. Paragraph 5.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident.
  5. As has been determined the landlord managed the non-urgent defects appropriately and within the timescales within their policies. However, the Ombudsman considers that there was a failure by the landlord to deal with the urgent repairs as quickly as it should, and this was a service failure. The landlord was required to redress this in its complaint response.
  6. The Service notes that the landlord went on to make a compensation payment of £500 after complaint closure. The Ombudsman expects landlords to make compensation payments during a complaint process. However, the Service acknowledges there may be situations where it would be appropriate for a landlord to pay compensation after it concludes its complaint process. For example, where the landlord is still calculating losses post-complaint closure.
  7. In this instance the landlord’s overall approach to complaint handling was satisfactory, it offered an apology and acted to get the work done. It should have offered compensation during the complaint process and its failure amounted to a service failure. The landlord could have offered some redress during the complaint procedure and offered to review this once the work had been completed.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered for the handling of the defects in the kitchen and bathroom. This is because the landlord has offered redress to the resident (£500) which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, recognised the distress caused by the delay in resolving the emergency repairs. This resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because the landlord ought to have recognised the distress and inconvenience sooner.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 compensation for the delay in offering suitable redress via the complaint procedure.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord completes the outstanding works, identified during the works in December 2023, within the next 28 days.