Greenhill Housing Association (202407829)

Background

1. The resident reported that the floor of the wet room was not allowing water to drain away soon after the tenancy began. The property is a new build and the resident is the first tenant. The resident has limited mobility and the landlord is aware of this.
2. New build properties have a ‘defects liability period,’ (the defects period) where the original developer is responsible for repairing certain issues; this period usually lasts between 12 months to two years, after the date the property was handed over to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of drainage issues in the wet room.
4. We have also looked at the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of drainage issues in the wet room.
6. We have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

7. We have found that the landlord:
   1. Correctly passed on reported defects to the developer during the defects period.
   2. Communicated clearly about the wet room floor and the steps it was taking to ensure that it was rectified for the resident.
   3. Took the resident’s concerns seriously and offered work that it was not obligated to do.
   4. Did not respond to the resident’s request for a stage 2 complaint response.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

8. This report will focus on the actions of the landlord rather than any third party who is not a member of our Scheme, we will not comment on the actions of the developer. Our investigation has looked at the landlord’s response up to its final response in December 2024. We note that the resident had provided details of conversations had in person with the landlord. We rely on contemporaneous evidence to assess the landlord’s response so that we can verify what has been said, for example emails, logs, and letters.
9. When the resident first reported an issue with the wet room floor, the landlord acted appropriately by referring the matter to the developer because the property was a new build and within the defects period. The developer and the landlord attended to inspect the floor within 4 weeks which was a reasonable time frame.
10. Given that the developer was responsible for repairing defects in the defects period, there was no requirement on the landlord to carry out any works. The landlord went above its responsibilities when it offered to complete the work itself so the resident did not need to wait for the NHBC’s decision. It said it would carry out this work even if the slope of the floor was found to be within tolerances. It outlined that it would take on the cost of completing the work even though it was not under an obligation to do so. This provided assurances that it was taking the matter seriously. It was appropriate that the landlord outlined that any work its contractor completed may invalidate the resident’s warranty because this managed the resident’s expectations.
11. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord reiterated the steps it had taken to resolve the matter and to ensure that the floor could be altered as soon as possible. This was a reasonable response. We can see that the landlord’s contractor completed work in August 2024 and cannot see that the resident reported any further issues before the landlord provided its final response.
12. We understand that the resident has since reported that he is still unhappy with the slope of the floor. It would be reasonable for the landlord to offer to reinspect the floor and outline its position on whether further works are needed and we have made a recommendation for it to do so.
13. We find no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of drainage issues in the wet room. This is because the landlord followed through on its obligation to report defects to the developer, kept the resident up to date on how it was managing the developer’s refusal to adjust the floor, and offered to complete the works itself. The landlord went above and beyond to ensure that the resident’s concerns were acted on. It demonstrated excellent customer service by absorbing the cost of these works and making sure the work was completed as soon as possible.

14. The landlord took 43 working days to respond to the stage 1 complaint which is outside of the timeframes in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s complaints policy has the same timeframes as the Code.
15. The landlord requested to meet with the resident before it issued its stage 1 response. The resident was unavailable for several weeks which caused a delay but this was outside of the control of the landlord. There was a further delay because the landlord needed more time to respond, but it mitigated the impact of this by providing a clear update to the resident and it gave a new time frame for its response .This was appropriate in the circumstances and in line with the Code. It also advised the resident he could contact this Service if he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
16. The resident first asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 before the landlord had provided its stage 1 response. The landlord acted reasonably by informing the resident it needed to provide a stage 1 response first.
17. It is noted that the resident has said he did not receive a copy of the landlord’s stage 1 response until August 2024. We cannot see that the resident chased the landlord for its stage 1 response or alerted it to the fact he had not received it. The landlord has provided a complaint response dated 28 May 2024, there is no evidence available to suggest that it did not send it on this date or had reason to believe the resident had not received it.
18. The resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage 2 in June 2024 but the landlord did not do this. The resident contacted us because the landlord had not responded. The landlord hand delivered its final response to the resident 1 working day after we requested that it respond.
19. While the delay in providing a stage 2 response did not materially change the outcome of the matter, it would have been frustrating for the resident. As a result, we find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused, this amount is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

20. Good complaint handling is vital to ensure that residents feel listened to, expectations are managed, and relationships can be maintained between parties.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s records were clear to follow and sufficiently detailed.