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.

Heylo Housing Registered Provider Limited (202228117)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228117

Heylo Housing Registered Provider Limited

24 February 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports that construction on the estate was disturbing him and damaging his property.
    2. Reports of defects.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident purchased a share in a new build house in May 2022.
  2. The landlord is a housing association.
  3. On 13 February 2023 the resident told the landlord he was going to stop paying his rent due to the disruption and damage from the construction site, and because the problems with the house had not been fixed.
  4. On 9 March 2023 the resident reported outstanding defects to the landlord.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 April 2023. It said:
    1. It would not buy the property back from the resident. There was no provision in the lease for this.
    2. It would not renegotiate the price paid for the property or the rent charged. The resident had agreed to these costs at the time of purchase.
    3. The resident had made claims that the construction of the property was of poor quality. It needed to see evidence to support these claims before it could take any action.
    4. New build developments are usually built in phases. There will be periods of time when properties are occupied while others are under construction. The resident should raise any issues with the construction directly with the developer and raise health and safety concerns with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
    5. It raised the outstanding issues with the developer who requested further information. The resident would need to provide this information for the developer to review and take action if necessary.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 16 June 2022. It said:
    1. It had chased the resident for further information about the outstanding issues, however, the resident had not provided this to the landlord or developer.
    2. The developer had agreed to replace the kitchen tap and had chased the supplier on 31 May 2023.
    3. The estate is owned and managed by the developer. The developer contacted the resident on 2 May 2023 and said it was doing everything legally. It said it would wait for the local authority and HSE to make contact about the resident’s complaints of noise and disruption.
    4. The resident had purchased a property in one of the areas that was completed first. The developer needed to go past his house to access the other areas of the site still under construction.
    5. The landlord would not buy back the property, refund his rent, or pay compensation for harassment, disruption or damage to the property. The resident had not evidenced these claims. And if these claims are against the developer, he should raise his concerns directly to them.
  7. The resident asked us to investigate his complaint as he said he was not happy with the outcome. He said he wanted:
    1. £100,000 compensation due to the physical and emotional distress.
    2. A refund of his rent payments.
    3. To be released from the house so he could move.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This investigation has focussed on the complaint issues the resident raised in his complaint to the landlord on 13 February 2023. This investigation will investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of these issues from February 2023 to the end of its formal complaint’s procedure in June 2023.
  2. The resident complained that ongoing development on the estate caused him disruption and damaged his house. The developer was responsible for complying with planning permission and to ensure the works did not cause disturbance. We cannot investigate complaints that relate to the conduct of the developer. The resident could raise a complaint with his local authority or the New Homes Ombudsman.
  3. We can consider whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action has caused any distress and inconvenience to the resident and his household. However, we are unable to establish whether the resident and his household’s health and wellbeing was impacted. This would be down to a court to decide.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that construction on the estate was disturbing him and damaging his property

  1. We find no maladministration for the handling of the resident’s reports that the construction on the estate was disturbing him and damaging his property. The reasons for my findings are below.
  2. On 9 March 2023 the resident told the landlord it should have made him aware that there would be further development of his estate when he purchased his house. When purchasing a property, buyers are responsible for securing their own legal representatives. As standard, conveyancing solicitors will conduct local authority land searches, which should detail planed or proposed developments in the area. If this information was not provided to the resident by their solicitor, prior to them exchanging contracts for the property, the resident should raise this as a complaint with their conveyancing solicitor.
  3. The landlord raised the resident’s concerns about the on-going construction works to the developer on 21 March 2023. The landlord asked the developer for a timeline for the construction works so it could provide this to the resident. The landlord provided the developers answer to the resident on 31 March 2023. The landlord was pro-active and provided a response quickly.
  4. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it clearly explained that the developer owned the development site and was in control of the construction. It was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident to raise a complaint with the developer if he was concerned about how the developer was managing the construction. It was appropriate that it signposted the resident to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as the resident had raised health and safety concerns.
  5. In summary the landlord showed it listened to the resident’s concerns; it supported the resident to raise these concerns with the developer. It acted reasonably by telling the resident to make a complaint directly to the developer and sign posting him to the HSE.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects

  1. We find service failure for the handling of the resident’s reports of defects. The reasons for my findings are below.
  2. As a homeowner the resident is responsible for repairs to his property. The resident’s shared ownership lease includes a 10-year initial repair period. During this time the landlord is however responsible for the cost of:
    1. Essential repairs to the outside of the building.
    2. Essential structural repairs to walls, floors, ceiling and stairs inside the property.
  3. A third-party developer constructed the property. There was a 2-year warranty from the date construction was completed. The resident told us this ended in May 2024. During this time anydefects raised are for the developer to resolve.
  4. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that residents should report defects to the developer.
  5. On 28 February 2023 the resident reported issues with his house to the landlord. This included a leak in the en-suite shower, a dripping kitchen tap and loose flooring. The landlord responded the same day and told the resident he should contact the developer directly. Although this is in line with it’s repairs and maintenance policy, it could have asked the resident if he needed support in contacting the developer.
  6. On 9 March 2023 the resident sent the landlord a list of the outstanding issues with the property. The landlord passed the list onto the developer on 21 March 2023. The developer told the landlord that the resident had signed a from in October 2022 to confirm all defects had been completed. No further issues had been reported to it. The developer told the resident that some of the reported issues were not defects as per the homeowner’s manual. It told the resident what information it needed to investigate the other issues. It was reasonable for the developer to ask for more information from the resident. It needed this to determine whether the issues would be covered under its warranty.
  7. The landlord asked the resident to provide further information about the defects 3 times between March and April 2023. The developer also asked the resident for further information several times in April 2023. There was no evidence the resident provided this information to the landlord or the developer. In its complaint responses the landlord explained clearly that it could not resolve all the issues itself, and the issues would not be resolved by the developer unless the resident provided the requested information.
  8. On 9 March 2023 the resident told the landlord his house was built with cheap materials and it had a bad design. He said the insulation was poor, which meant the house was not retaining heat and was noisy. The landlord asked the resident to provide more information and asked him to get a report from a qualified individual to support his claims. The resident would need this to evidence that the insulation and noise fell outside the developer’s acceptable tolerances as stated in the homeowner manual. It was reasonable for the landlord to say it could not help the resident to pursue the developer until he provided evidence of the poor-quality construction.
  9. In April 2023 the developer sent a plumber to look at the resident’s kitchen tap and agreed to replace it. The resident chased an update from the developer on 22 May 2023. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it confirmed that the developer had chased its suppliers for the tap replacement on 31 May 2023. Our spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds states it is a landlord’s responsibility to hold developers accountable for repairs under a defect period. There was no evidence the landlord monitored this defect to ensure the developer completed the works within a reasonable time. It did not keep the resident updated, and the landlord’s record do not show whether the tap was replaced.
  10. In summary there was a delay in the landlord supporting the resident to report defects to the developer. It communicated well with the developer and resident when trying to obtain more information about the defects and quality of the construction. It was reasonable for the landlord to say it could not help the resident further until he provided the information requested from the developer. However, once the developer had agreed to replace the kitchen tap, it failed to monitor the work and keep the resident updated.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. We find maladministration for the landlord’s complaints handling. The reasons for my findings are below.
  2. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  3. On 13 February 2023 the resident told the landlord he would not pay his rent until the issues with his house and the on-going construction were addressed. This was a clear expression of dissatisfaction. There was no evidence the landlord sent a written acknowledgement to the resident that it had accepted a complaint.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 April 2023. This was outside the landlord’s target timescale of 10 working days. The landlord contacted the resident on 3 April 2023 to discuss the complaint, however, there was no evidence it apologised for the delay or agreed a timescale on when it would respond. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident and manage his expectations.
  5. The resident approached us to help him to escalate his complaint. We contacted the landlord on 27 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation to this Service? on 2 June 2023, which was within its target timescale of 5 working days. There was, however, no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the complaint. In line with our complaints handling code the landlord should set out their understanding of the issues and the outcome the resident is seeking.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 June 2023, this was within the timescale we asked the landlord to respond by. The landlord’s response was poorly written and was not empathetic to the resident. It told the resident its response had been provided by the same person who provided the stage 1 response. The person considering the stage 2 response must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1. The landlord failed to show it carried out an effective investigation at stage 2.
  7. The landlord did not tell the resident how he could escalate the matter to the Housing Ombudsman in its stage 2 response. The landlord only included this when it re-sent its response to us in September 2023. This caused no detriment to the resident as he was already in contact with us. However, the landlord must include this in every stage 2 response to ensure residents know how to escalate their complaints to us if they remain dissatisfied.
  8. In summary, the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint. There was a delay in it issuing its stage 1 response. Its stage 2 response was poorly worded and it did not fully investigate the complaint issues. The same person provided the response for stage 1 and stage 2. And the landlord did not give details on how the resident could escalate the matter to us. The landlord did not acknowledge these failings and therefore has not shown any learning from this case.

Determination

  1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that construction on the estate was disturbing him and damaging his property (paragraph 52 of the Scheme).
  2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of defects (paragraph 52 of the Scheme).
  3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint (paragraph 52 of the Scheme).

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £150 compensation which is broken down as:
      1. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of his reports of defects.
      2. £100 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaints handling.
    3. Contact the resident and ensure the kitchen tap was replaced by the developer.

Recommendations

  1. The resident has a 10-year warranty with National Housing Building Council which covers structural issues and faults in the design, materials, or workmanship that existed when the construction was completed but were not apparent at the time. The developer may no longer consider the issues the resident reported in March 2023 due to the time that has passed and because the 2-year warranty has expired. If this is the case the landlord should consider whether any of the issues would be covered by the NHBC warranty. If so, the landlord should consider supporting the resident to make a claim.