From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Great Places Housing Association (202325840)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325840

Great Places Housing Association

28 August 2025

 

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. This investigation considers:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty freezer.
    2. The resident’s reports of repairs to a patio door.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder, whose lease started on 26 November 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom new build house.
  2. The lease includes a 12-month rectification period after the property is built. Repairs are covered by the building contractor’s warranty within this period. The resident is responsible for repairs once this period ends.
  3. The landlord informed the resident when the property was approaching the end of this period. On 26 July 2022, while still within the defects period, the resident submitted a list of items to be checked which included an issue with her patio door.
  4. In 2023, the resident reported faulty freezer door seals to the manufacturer. The manufacturer’s inspection in August found the issue was caused by poor installation. It advised her to report the matter to the landlord since the freezer was part of the original fixtures when the property was bought. The resident contacted the landlord, but by September, she complained that she had not received a response.
  5. The landlord responded to the complaint on 29 September 2023. It acknowledged it had not previously responded, apologised, and offered £150 compensation for its poor communication. It explained that the freezer issue was reported after the defects period had ended, so it was not responsible for resolving it.
  6. On 2 October 2023, the resident escalated her complaint with the landlord. She disagreed with its decision and requested a further investigation.
  7. The landlord responded to the escalated complaint on 27 October 2023. It reviewed its original complaint response and found it to have provided the right information and decision about the freezer. It explained how the resident could escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
  8. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She reported the issues with her freezer and patio door. She said the compensation had not yet been paid. To resolve the matter, she asked that the landlord complete the outstanding repairs and offer further compensation due to the length of time repairs have been outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of repairs to a patio door

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme explains that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
  3. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident included an issue about her patio door which she said had been raised in the defects period for her home but not resolved.
  4. However, the repair to the patio door was not raised with the landlord during the resident’s initial complaint or her escalation. Because of that the issue will not be considered in this report in accordance with paragraph 42.a.
  5. If the resident has current concerns about the matter she needs to make a formal complaint to the landlord. If she remains dissatisfied after receiving the landlord’s final complaint response, she has the option of asking us to investigate the issue.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty freezer

  1. On 16 August 2023, the resident reported that the seal on her integrated freezer was faulty, which meant the door would not stay closed. She said that as a result, the freezer was frosting up due to air getting in, leading to higher electricity bills. The manufacturer investigated the freezer and reported that the fault was due to poor installation.
  2. The landlord explained that, due to the type of occupancy, it was not responsible for repairs outside of the defects period. It said that if the freezer was reported during this period, a contractor would have fixed it.
  3. The evidence from this investigation supports the landlord’s explanation. It clarified that it held no responsibility for repairs beyond the expiry of the defects period. It said that issues reported during that time would have been dealt with. The resident’s lease is silent on the issue, and nothing in the evidence seen for this investigation suggests the landlord’s response to the matter was incorrect.
  4. Nonetheless, the resident essentially purchased the freezer from the landlord as part of her purchase of the property, and she has evidence from the manufacturer that it believes the item was installed incorrectly. Because of that she may potentially be able to use the small claims court to seek redress in line with the Consumer Rights Act 2015. That is not something we can advise on, and the resident should seek appropriate guidance if considering that course of action.
  5. The resident complained that prior to her complaint the landlord had not responded to her queries and other contact about this issue. The evidence supports her concern. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge in its responses to her complaint that its communication had been poor. It apologised and offered £150 compensation. That amount was in line with its compensation policy for a delay of this scale and nature. These were appropriate and reasonable remedies for its failing.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a formal complaints process with 2 stages. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. In this case the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 18 September 2023 and responded on 29 September (10 working days later).
  3. The resident asked to escalate the complaint as she was unhappy with the response. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 6 October and responded on 27 October (16 working days later). In its reply, it recommended that the resident contact the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
  4. Overall, the landlord managed the complaint fairly and followed the deadlines set out in its policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about patio door repairs is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports of a faulty freezer satisfactorily.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendation

  1. The resident has told us that she has not yet received the compensation offered by the landlord in its complaint responses. The landlord should make the payment now or send to the resident its evidence for having already done so. The findings in this report are partially based on it doing so.