First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202440466)

Background

1. In July 2024, some months after moving in, the resident told the landlord the garden had poor drainage and water was pooling. The resident complained about this to the landlord in November 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of garden drainage issues.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of the garden drainage issues.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord’s communication was unclear. It also missed an opportunity for the developer to find out if the drainage had a defect.
5. The landlord included errors in its stage 2 response. It also did not review all the evidence about the permission it gave the resident to carry out work in her garden.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The landlord’s initial repair period guide explains that the defect liability period is a 12-month period when the builder remains liable under the building contract for dealing with any defects that develop. This says the defect liability period is to rectify any defects that occur in the property home in the first year. It explains the first year starts from the day the developer handed the property over to the landlord, not the day the resident moved in. The guide explains that, during the defect liability period, residents report problems to the landlord who in turn liaises with the developer/builder.
7. This guide also says that, following the defect liability period, there is a 9-year build warranty. This warranty only covers issues with structural elements of the property.
8. We cannot investigate the developer’s actions as they are not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. We have therefore focused on how the landlord responded to reports of drainage issues by the resident and how it worked with the developer. However, we have included key events involving the developer to explain what happened.
9. The resident first raised issues with the garden during a snagging appointment in February 2024. The resident repeatedly said there were drainage problems in her garden, including pooling and uneven ground. The landlord passed the issue to the developer and relied on its expertise. This was reasonable because the developer was responsible for defects arising during the defect period.
10. The landlord’s records showed that the development included land drainage and that the drainage did not sit directly in the resident’s garden but served her property. The developer said the drainage was suitable. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the developer’s expert opinion here as they were responsible for the build of the property.
11. There was confusion regarding what work would invalidate the warranty. Initially, the resident reported waterlogging at the bottom of the garden, she told the landlord the developer said that she was responsible for any work within 3 metres of the property. She added when she had asked if she could lay artificial grass, the developer then said any work carried out in the garden would void the warranty.
12. In October 2024 the landlord gave permission for the resident to carry out work. The landlord said, as the defect period was due to end in November 2024, it had agreed to the resident’s alteration request for the garden.
13. We understand the resident had engaged her own contractor to change the grass to artificial grass in November 2024. The contractor found no drainage and found waterlogging up to 3 meters from the house. While the landlord had given permission for the resident to carry out work, it decided the contractor’s actions had invalidated the warranty. The resident told us that her contractor only removed the grass, and they could not use the hired digger because the ground was too wet.
14. The landlord later said that as the resident had laid artificial grass and her contractor had done substantial digging, this work had invalidated the warranty and it was not responsible to fix any issues. The landlord appeared to have reached that view without inspecting the work undertaken by the contractor.
15. We note there was confusion about when the defect period would end. We have seen evidence the landlord believed it ended in October 2024 while the developer later said it believed it ended in November 2025 based on an “assumed 2-year defect period”. This uncertainty would have caused further frustration to the resident.
16. Despite uncertainty about the length of the defect period and awareness that the resident had engaged a contractor to investigate drainage, the landlord asked the developer to inspect the drainage. This was appropriate as this would likely have identified any defect with the drainage. However, the inspection did not take place. When the resident chased this the landlord said that the developer would not attend as per the stage 2 response as she had voided the warranty by doing work. After agreeing the inspection date, the landlord should have ensured it went ahead so it could assess whether there was a defect in the drainage. Having viewed the garden, the developer could also have reached a decision on whether the work carried out so far by the resident’s contractor had invalidated the warranty.
17. This means that the developer missed an opportunity to confirm whether a defect existed. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure this appointment went ahead to clarify if the concerns raised by the resident were valid.
18. The evidence showed the views on drainage and the defect period end date were unclear. The landlord’s responses did not address this inconsistency or the permission it had given. This reduced clarity and left key points unanswered.
19. We identified issues with the landlord’s communication and record keeping. This caused uncertainty and disruption for the resident. The resident asked this service to consider that the landlord reimburse her for the costs she paid to install a drainage system in her garden. As there is no evidence of a defect in the drainage system installed by the developer, we cannot reasonably order the landlord to reimburse her. However, due to the length of time this was unresolved for, we recognise the impact on the resident of not being able to ascertain if there was a defect in the garden.
20. The resident told us that she stopped the work at the time of submitting the complaint, following this she waited for the appointment in March 2025. When this appointment did not happen, she subsequently restarted the work. She said the landlord’s handling of her reports of drainage issues had caused her frustration and inconvenience and meant her and her family could not use the garden until she had completed the works in November 2025.
21. We have ordered the landlord to provide a written apology to the resident addressing its failings. In line with our compensation guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £350 to recognise the impact its handling of this matter caused. This included the inconvenience and frustration caused by its misadvice on the duration of the defect period, unclear communication and its failure to ensure a check was completed to see if the drainage had a defect.

22. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days and send its response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it says it will respond within 20 working days. These timescales align with our Complaint Handling Code.
23. The landlord responded within the required timescales at both stages.
24. The final response included errors. It showed an incorrect date, it said 6 January 2024 but the resident received it on 6 January 2025. After this service contacted the landlord, it corrected the date. The response also said it upheld the complaint in error. The landlord should keep clear and accurate records ensuring these are free of errors.
25. Given the impact on the resident was minimal we have ordered the landlord to send the resident a written apology addressing its failings and to review how it handled the complaint as an appropriate remedy.

Learning

26. The landlord showed good practice by arranging for the developer to visit on several occasions to inspect the garden.
27. The landlord could look at our spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership, and new builds: complexity and complaint handling. The report highlights how important it is to give correct and clear information when people ask for it. It may also help the landlord see what changes it could make to improve how it manages defect periods.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord kept detailed records and showed good practice. It recorded the full journey, including notes with the surveyor. This detail makes its process clear and transparent.
29. At stage 2, the landlord produced an internal complaint review document. It clearly set out the issues, explained what had happened in order, and referred to the relevant policies and the lease. It also included a summary and identified any lessons for the future. Overall, the document showed the steps the landlord had taken to deal with the complaint.

Communication

30. The resident replied to the final complaint response with a copy of the landlord’s email that gave her permission to carry out work. We have not seen evidence to show whether the landlord responded to this email.
31. The case shows the need for clear and consistent communication with residents. The landlord and developer gave mixed messages about the warranty period end date. Clearer explanations would have helped the resident understand the landlord’s position and how this impacted the resident when making alterations to her home.