Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202308431)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202308431
Eastlight Community Homes Limited
15 October 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
- Concerns about her end of defects inspection.
- Reports of defects in her new build property.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- At the time of the complaint the resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 22 April 2022 and ended on 1 August 2024 when the resident moved to another property. The landlord has not advised whether there were any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
- The property is a 2 bedroom house. It was a new build which was handed over from the developer on 20 April 2022. There was a 1 year defect liability period in place which expired on 19 April 2023. The End of Defects (EOD) inspection took place on 6 April.
- Following the EOD the resident emailed the landlord on 6 April 2023 to express her concerns about the way in which the inspection was conducted. She was also disappointed with the developer’s decision on several defects she had raised, including the fencing, garden and kitchen sockets.
- On 6 April 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint, as follows:
- The fence posts on the right hand side of the garden were twisted. The resident asserted that the developer had used poor quality materials. However, it had said it would not carry out any further works. The twisting was causing a gap in the fence and screws were sticking out. She was concerned that the fencing was not secure & was at risk of falling on her child. The expansion joint also needed to be filled.
- The end of the garden had a fall with large dips which caused a trip hazard. The landlord had advised her to level it off with topsoil.
- She was aware that the shed on the grass had been gifted but had expected it to be placed completely on a slab or at least supplied with somewhere to put it.
- The kitchen sockets were not level, and there were several inches variation in their height. The developer had said they would not be adjusted.
- She felt the number of people that attended the EOD made the experience uncomfortable. Furthermore, she had expected the landlord to take the lead, rather than having to take developer room to room herself.
- On 2 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, the main points being:
- The issues with the fence, garden and kitchen sockets were declined by the developer which was not unusual due to the type of repairs.
- Unless there was clear evidence that the fence was installed incorrectly it was unlikely that the developer would take it on. However, it was “happy” to undertake any required repairs and had booked an inspection for 14 June. If the fencing fell or got worse the resident should call the landlord so the job could be updated accordingly.
- The handover pictures showed the shed had been situated on patio slabs. The developer would only address issues with ground being boggy within 3 meters of the home and if it was likely to cause damage to the footings of the property. Given that the garden was a reasonable length, and the shed located at the end, it did not meet the criteria. As the shed was gifted it also could not assist.
- The electrical sockets in the kitchen could be straightened up by the landlord to some degree but if they were physically located at different heights results would be limited. It booked an appointment to inspect on 5 June.
- It apologised that the resident felt uncomfortable with the number of people in the property during inspection. It set out the roles of the 3 professionals who had attended.
- Apologised that the EOD inspection did not meet the resident’s expectations but it could only assist as far as contractual responsibilities allowed.
- On 8 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm the details of her request to escalate to stage 2 of the complaints process. She felt the defects she had requested were reasonable because the landlord had paid the developer for a “poor finish.” She remained dissatisfied with the overall inspection process and time taken for the landlord to issue its stage 1 complaint response.
- On 6 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, as follows:
- It apologised that the resident was dissatisfied with the EOD inspection and would take her comments into account.
- It had inspected the kitchen sockets and found that although they were not completely aligned there was no fault and they were working correctly. As previously advised, it would not carry out further works.
- The inspection of the fencing was due to take place 14 June.
- With regards to the garden it referred to its stage 1 response. It confirmed it was not considered to be a defect therefore it would not carry out any further works.
- The resident’s stage 1 complaint of 20 April was not formally acknowledged until 1 May. It apologised for the delay, adding that it should have been acknowledged within 24 hours.
- The resident contacted this Service on 8 June 2023. She wanted the landlord to resolve the outstanding issues with the fence, garden and kitchen sockets. She was also seeking a further review of the EOD inspection. The complaint became one we could consider on 30 January 2024.
Events post internal complaint process
- In its email to this Service dated 2 October 2024 the landlord confirmed that it carried out a further inspection of the fence on 18 March 2024. It attended to replace a fence post and provided a photograph of a newly installed fence post in between 2 fence panels.
Assessment and findings
Landlord’s responsibilities, policies & procedures
- The landlord’s EOD inspection information sheet confirms that:
- Defects are defined as faults found within the internal and external parts of a building that are not performing adequately for their intended use.
- It suggests that if residents have items they’d like reviewed, they should make a list so they can be reviewed on the day.
- If any defects are identified, the contractor will contact the resident to arrange to rectify these items.
- The landlord’s complaints and resolutions policy (complaints policy) says that it will:
- Acknowledge stage 1 complaints no later than 1 working day after the complaint is registered. Contact the resident no later than 3 working days after the complaint is received. It will provide its response within 10 working days.
- Respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the appeal date.
- Residents may be entitled to receive compensation or redress because of a service failure and as part of its remedy to put things right. This is covered by its compensation policy.
- Its compensation policy says that discretionary payments and/or gestures of goodwill are covered by its complaints and resolutions policy.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her end of defects inspection.
- In her email to the landlord on 6 April 2023 the resident sent out her concerns about the number of people who attended the EOD inspection. She was also unhappy that the landlord did not take more of a lead role.
- In its stage 1 complaint response of 2 May 2023 the landlord appropriately provided a description of those in attendance and explained their roles in the inspection. It also provided an appropriate explanation as to why the landlord usually asked the resident to facilitate the inspection with the developer.
- In response to her ongoing dissatisfaction the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 6 June 2023 apologised for her experience and noted her comments.
- There is no evidence of a failure to provide a service and therefore, this investigation concludes there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the EOD inspection.
The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects in her new build property.
- The developers EOD defects report carried out on 6 April 2023 noted that the mastic to the expansion joint behind the fence panel was missing. The report did not contain any other notes regarding the fence and none have been provided by the landlord. In her email to the landlord on the same day, 6 April, the resident described the fence as “twisting” which was creating gaps in the fence with screws sticking out. She said the fence would need to be moved in any event because the expansion joints had not been done. She said that because of the gap the fence was insecure.
- An internal email dated 11 April set out that the landlord could not see that the resident had reported the issue “anywhere” although she had said the developer knew about it. However, it noted that the developer had said it would not carry out work to the fence.
- It said it could inspect the fence if the resident felt it was unsafe. While it was appropriate that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously. Had the landlord kept detailed notes of the issues raised during the inspection, including photographs where appropriate, this may not have been necessary. The resident was caused avoidable inconvenience by having to facilitate another visit.
- In its stage 1 complaint response of 2 May 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it would inspect the fence on 14 June. It said it would undertake “any required repairs.” The landlord has not provided this Service with ‘live’ evidence of the outcome of the inspection. However, in an email to us dated 2 October 2024 the landlord confirmed that during the visit the fence was deemed to be secure.
- The landlords records state that the mastic missing from the expansion joint was raised on 18 July 2023 and completed on 1 August. It is noted that in an email to the landlord of 2 November the resident said the expansion gap had not been rectified. She said there was still a gap in between the panels so the nails were “sticking out.” While this Service does not doubt the resident there is no independent evidence to corroborate her account.
- In her email to the landlord of 6 April 2023 the resident was dissatisfied that the developer refused to accept the difference in height of the kitchen sockets as a defect.
- On 2 May 2023 the landlord raised a works order to inspect the sockets which needed straightening because they were “wonky.” In its stage 1 complaint of the same date, 2 May, the landlord said the sockets could be straightened up to some degree. It advised that it had arranged for them to be inspected on 5 June.
- However in an internal email dated 2 June 2023 the landlord’s repair team referred the matter back to its aftercare team saying it would need to be rectified under the new build warranty. The aftercare team replied to say the developer had not accepted the sockets as a defect. Furthermore, having reviewed the photographs it confirmed it would not carry out further works because they did not pose a risk to the resident or the property. This decision was reasonable in the circumstances.
- The landlord emailed the resident, also on 2 June, to set out the change in its position and confirmed that the appointment for 5 June was cancelled. The landlord raised the resident’s expectations when it offered to carry out an inspection, causing disappointment when it decided not to do so.
- In her email to the landlord of 6 April 2023 the resident raised concerns that the garden was uneven and was a trip hazard. She said the landlord had advised her to level it off with topsoil. She also said that the shed had not been positioned appropriately.
- An internal email dated 11 April 2023 confirmed that the ground was still settling and therefore the resident had been advised to level it off herself. It also confirmed that the landlord would not carry out works to the garden.
- The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 2 May 2023 failed to provide a response on the resident’s concerns about the garden being uneven. This is discussed below. However, it did provide a response about the garden being boggy. Although not seen by this investigation, it said the resident had raised concerns that this was causing the shed to sink. It provided an appropriate explanation as to why neither the developer nor the landlord would carry out further works.
- The issue with the shed was not raised again at stage 2. However, the resident remained dissatisfied with the level of the garden. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 6 June 2023 referred to its stage 1 complaint response. It said this confirmed the uneven surface of the garden was not accepted as a defect and therefore further works would not be carried out.
- This investigation has not been provided with any ‘live’ notes of the discussions that were held during the inspection. The landlord was present at the inspection and should therefore have made a record of the discussions around defects raised by the resident but rejected by the developer. That it did not do so was a record keeping failure.
- Had it done so the landlord would have understood, for example that the sockets were not “wonky.” They had been fitted correctly but at different heights. This would have enabled it to agree its position before unnecessarily raising the resident’s expectations. It may also have saved the need for the resident to facilitate another appointment to inspect the fence.
- It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events in case they are disputed. Furthermore, in conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on ‘live’ documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The landlord should consider how it records the interactions that take place during the EOD inspection.
- The landlord’s record keeping failures had an adverse effect on the resident. She was caused avoidable inconvenience by having to facilitate a further inspection of the fence. She was also caused avoidable disappointment when the landlord cancelled the appointment to inspect the sockets. These failures amount to service failure for which the landlord has been ordered to pay £75. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where impact on the resident was low and was of short duration.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
- The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 6 April 2023. The landlord failed to adhere to its complaints policy because it did not acknowledge the complaint and did not contact the resident within 3 working days. The resident was caused time and trouble when she completed an online form on 20 April to chase.
- The landlord emailed the resident to confirm the complaint had been logged on the same day, 20 April. It said a case manager would be in touch “in a few days.” The landlord emailed the resident on 28 April to acknowledge the complaint and appropriately set out its understanding of the issues. It said it would provide a response within 10 working days, by 5 May.
- The landlord emailed its stage 1 complaint response, dated 2 May 2023, to the resident on 3 May. This was 17 working days after the resident first made her complaint and 7 days out of time.
- The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord’s response failed to acknowledge its delay which was inappropriate. It therefore failed to identify what had gone wrong and what it would do differently. It also failed to try to put things right. This caused inconvenience to the resident who raised the delay as part of her request to escalate to stage 2.
- On 3 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process. The landlord replied on 8 May and asked for further information regarding the complaint which was appropriate in the circumstances. The resident emailed the landlord to provide this information on the same day, 8 May.
- The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 May 2023, 9 working days later. It is unclear as to the reasons for the delay therefore it was unreasonable. It set out its understanding of the complaint and said it would provide its response by 15 June. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 6 June which was appropriately within its response time.
- The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response apologised for the delay at stage 1 but only from 20 April 2023. It once again failed to acknowledge that the resident first made her complaint on 6 April which was inappropriate. It also failed to consider offering compensation as a means of putting it right.
- The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code requires landlords to address all the points in the complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 2 May 2023 failed to provide a response to the resident’s concerns about the garden being uneven, only about it being boggy. This was inappropriate, particularly because she had raised concerns about it being a trip hazard.
- The resident raised the issue again in her email to the landlord of 8 May 2023. However, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 6 June referred to its stage 1 complaint response. It said this confirmed the uneven surface of the garden was not accepted as a defect and therefore further works would not be carried out.
- This was inappropriate because the stage 1 response only referred to the shed sinking on boggy ground, not the garden being uneven. This short coming meant the landlord failed to provide a complaint response in relation to the uneven garden which was inappropriate.
- The landlord’s complaints policy says that residents may be entitled to receive compensation or redress because of a service failure and as part of its remedy to put things right. It says this is covered by its compensation policy however, that policy says that discretionary payments and/or gestures of goodwill are covered by its complaints and resolutions policy.
- It is acknowledged that there was no direct detriment caused to the resident by the confusion in the landlord’s policies. However, its position with regards to compensation was unclear and therefore inappropriate.
- The compensation policy has been reviewed and the policy on the landlord’s website dated May 2024 has rectified the failure identified above. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make an order on this matter.
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her end of defects inspection.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects in her new build property.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
- Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in the case.
- Pay the resident £175 compensation comprised of:
- £75 by the inconvenience and disappointment caused by the landlord’s response to her reports of defects in her new build property.
- £100 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures.
Recommendation
- The landlord should review its record keeping failures against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM).