Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited (202209244)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209244

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited

19 April 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 level of compensation offered by the landlord in relation to the resident’s reports about:
    1. Property condition issues he reported upon moving into his new build property.
    2. Roof repairs at the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident lives at the property, a two bedroom new build house owned by the landlord on an assured tenancy basis. The tenancy commenced in November 2020. Shortly after moving into the property, the resident informed his landlord of snagging issues and defects that were present when he moved into the property or which became apparent shortly thereafter. He requested repairs were undertaken to resolve these and supplied his landlord with a list of required work. The repair issues were finally resolved in September 2022.
  2. On 14 January 2021 the property was affected by flooding and the property developer attended to pump out and deliver sandbags and commenced works on 10 February 2021 to resolve the flooding issues.  Further drainage issues were reported by the resident on 21 October 2021 and by August 2022 the drainage issues were resolved by the landlord.
  3. The resident brought a complaint to his landlord on 1 March 2022 regarding the outstanding defects to his property and the delays in responding to his requests for updates. On 12 April 2022, the landlord issued its stage one response in which it confirmed the twelve month defect period for new build properties during which the developer was responsible for undertaking the repairs. The landlord explained that it had chased the developer regularly in 2021 in relation to the resident’s reports but failed to get a response. It had then decided, in October 2021, to take ownership for the outstanding defects in his home and confirmed that these works were currently progressing with an expected completion date of two months. The landlord also recognised the resident’s immediate concern to resolve the drainage to his garden and advised that element may take longer to resolve due to wider issues on the development. The landlord acknowledged it should have handled the case differently and acted more proactively in updating him on progress and should not have assumed there were no further issues after the missed End of Defect Period inspection in December 2021.
  4. In April 2022 the resident reported concerns about the roof at the property. He was dissatisfied with the standard of repairs following damage during a recent storm and stated the contractor had re-used damaged materials and had not replace cracked tiles. Following a survey on 24 May 2022 the landlord agreed that the work was below standard and arranged for the contractor to return to complete the work which was subsequently resolved on 12 July 2022.
  5. The resident raised a complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the repairs to his roof in May 2022. On 17 June 2022, the landlord issued its stage one response in relation to the resident’s complaints about repairs to his roof. It acknowledged failures in its handling of the complaint, identifying wider learning from this and offering the resident £50 in compensation in this respect. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s frustration with the standard of roof works undertaken by its contractor. It explained that whilst its surveyor had updated the resident, there was a prolonged period of time where the surveyor was absent from work, and as such, the resident had to chase for updates.  The landlord acknowledged it should have implemented measures to ensure his case was managed by other members of the team during this time.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the stage one response for both of his complaints and requested escalation to stage two citing; the lack of communication, having to take time off work continuously, concerns about whether the landlord’s responses would make a difference to its service delivery and his view that the compensation offered did not reflect the detriment he had experienced.
  7. The resident agreed to merge his complaints into a single complaints appeal hearing and on 28 July 2022 the landlord issued its stage two final response. The landlord acknowledged that the drainage and snagging issues at the property had impacted upon the household. It confirmed its plans to fully resolve these issues and confirmed its intentions to review its policies and procedures in relation to providing aftercare for new build properties in a more customer focussed manner. Regarding the roof works, the landlord again acknowledged that these had not been completed to the required standard. It accepted that scaffolding had been erected for a prolonged period resulting in a detriment to the resident, with learning identified to ensure such an issue did not reoccur. It also confirmed that new materials had been used in completing the repairs when the roof was repaired second time around.
  8. The landlord offered a total of £1,000 in compensation at the final stage of its complaints process. £850 in relation to its handling of the snagging issues, £100 in relation to the roof works and £50 in relation to complaints handling. A further £150 was offered following the completion of all outstanding repairs, resulting in a total offer of compensation of £1,150. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and believed the landlord should increase the amount of compensation it had offered because of the length of time taken to resolve the issues and for his stress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Property condition issues following tenancy start date.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy is silent on its own responsibilities to make repairs during the 12 month defect period for new build homes in relation to assured tenancies. It cited the property developer’s contractual obligations to undertake such repairs and the developer’s lack of response to its requests to undertake defects work as issued it encountered in its attempts to resolve the issues raised by the resident. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take sufficient and reasonable action to get repairs resolved in a reasonable timeframe, irrespective of any issues encountered with the developer as its obligations under the tenancy terms and under the Landlord and Tenant Act remained in place.
  2. It was essential that the landlord act in a responsive and transparent manner to the resident in following up his requests for outstanding repairs and to manage outstanding issues effectively. The landlord acknowledged that it did not do so in this case did not do so, it accepted that it failed to manage the issues appropriately, and agreed to undertake a review of its defects procedures as a consequence of the complaint. It is important for landlord’s to demonstrate learning from complaints as this will reduce the risk of similar issues re-occurring in future. Reviewing the case and putting in place a robust and effective defect management process will enable the landlord to deliver a better customer/repairs service in future. Whilst this improvement is welcome, the resident was not satisfied that the landlord had demonstrated learning and, in any case, any changes would not be of benefit to he and his household. As such, it was appropriate that further remedy was also offered by the landlord.
  3. In its Compensation and Goodwill Gesture Policy the landlord states “We will not pay a goodwill gesture directly relating to defects in new-build properties (for example, if faulty items such as lighting or doors need to be replaced)…However, we may offer a goodwill gesture if the length of time to resolve the defect is excessive. We may also offer a goodwill gesture if you experience service failure in the rectification of defects (such as failure to attend agreed appointments) or if the defect has caused additional damage or hardship. This will be considered in line with the matrix in Appendix 3.”
  4. In accordance with this policy, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had spent an unacceptable amount of time and effort chasing the outstanding defect/snagging work and it recognised the impact caused by the disruption and delays on his enjoyment of the property and garden. In its offer of compensation his landlord has recognised these factors and increased the amount of compensation awarded to reflect further delays experienced after the stage two final response.
  5. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident stated his desired outcome is to increase the level of compensation awarded due to the amount of time he has spent on the issues and stress and inconvenience experienced. This investigation has considered the lengthy delays and the impact this has had on the resident including loss of enjoyment of his home and garden and considers the increased final offer of compensation made by the landlord in respect of the property condition issues to offer a reasonable remedy to reflect the adverse effect he experienced.
  6. It is not disputed in the evidence that the issues that the resident reported have now been resolved. His outstanding concerns were that, there had been significant delays in resolving these issues, his day to day living in the property was adversely affected throughout, including long periods where he was unable to enjoy the use of his garden, and that he had cause to pursue his concerns on multiple occasions in order to progress the case. Whilst the resident’s extensive distress and inconvenience was clear, it is relevant that the landlord’s overall offer in respect of this aspect of the complaint amounted to £1,000. Such a figure is consistent with the Ombudsman’s consideration of cases involving severe maladministration, which includes cases involving significant impact on a household over a protracted period. As such, the landlord’s offer is considered reasonable.

Roof repairs

  1. The landlord did not dispute that it had completed the original roof repairs to an unacceptable standard. It accepted that its contractor had re-used materials, rather than replacing them with new materials and that this had contributed to an overall lack of quality in the work completed. It also said that its communication with the resident had been poor, with the surveyor handling the issue absent from the workplace for an extended period with no measures put in place to cover this aspect of his workload. The landlord also acknowledged that its failures had resulted in scaffolding being left in place for a protracted period and that this had caused the resident significant detriment as he was required to park his workvan elsewhere, leaving him concerned from a security perspective.
  2. It is not disputed that the landlord took action to put the issue right. It inspected, accepted that there were failures in the contractors initial works and took steps to get the works completed to a satisfactory standard. It also identified learning, including amending procedures to minimise the length of time that scaffolding would remain in place. Whilst it was also appropriate that the landlord offered compensation for this aspect of the complaint, in the Ombudsman’s view, its offer did not go far enough to put right the detriment experienced by the resident.
  3. The resident confirmed that the original works took multiple appointments and that several more were required before the works finally completed. He also experienced a protracted delay in getting the works done and reported specific concerns about the security and inconvenience of parking his work vehicle elsewhere whilst the issue remained unresolved. As such, the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation is considered insufficient. Such an amount would be consistent with the Ombudsman’s understanding of cases involving minimal or moderate impact over a relatively short time frame. In all the circumstances of the case, such an assessment is not considered reasonable here and an order for increased compensation is outlined below.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

  1. When the resident escalated both his individual stage one complaints his landlord proposed merging the complaints into one appeals panel as part of its stage two process to which the resident agreed. The Ombudsman considers this was reasonable as it meant that the resident’s overall concerns could be amalgamated and dealt with in a shorter timeframe. The landlord’s decision did not result in a failure to consider each complaint in a thorough manner, with both complaints receiving a stage one and stage two response.
  2. The Ombudsman has considered that the landlord failed to formally acknowledge the resident’s stage one complaints twice when he initially raised them as a complaint.
  3. His complaint on 1 March 2022 regarding his landlord’s handling of the defects to his property was not acknowledged as a formal complaint until 28 March 2023. In its stage one response it did not acknowledge its failure to recognise a formal complaint and therefore the landlord has not demonstrated that it has reflected on this failing including considering an offer of compensation or apology to put things right.
  4. On 4 May 2022 the resident raised an additional complaint, this time about his landlord’s handling of the repairs to his roof, it failed to formally acknowledge a complaint for a second time. The subsequent delays caused further frustration requiring him to chase his landlord for his complaint to be acted upon. Whilst this is not in line with its own complaints handling and resolution policy it apologised for this failure and awarded £50 compensation which in the Ombudsman’s opinion is fair and took steps to put things right for this complaint, however, it would be reasonable for the landlord to have applied its Compensation and Goodwill Gesture Policy in both instances.
  5. On both occasions the failure to recognise a formal complaint resulted in complaints handling delays and the landlord missing its ten working day stage one target time. It also meant that the resident was required to pursue the complaint, resulting in further inconvenience and frustration. As such, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it is reasonable to award further compensation in recognition of the further failures identified with the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident in relation toits handling of defects/snagging works at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about roof repairs at the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £350, broken down as follows:
    1. £250 in relation to the additional failures identified with its response to the roof repair issues;
    2. £100 in relation to the additional failures identified with its complaints handling.
  2. The landlord to evidence compliance with the above order to this Service within four weeks of the date of this investigation report.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the £1,150 compensation it previously offered.
  2. In its stage two response the landlord has committed to reviewing and improving its defects and aftercare service to build in a more customer focused approach, and implement new systems and processes to work more proactively to ensure customers receive an excellent service regardless of who built their home. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord publishes the outcome of this review on its website.