Hightown Housing Association Limited (202102415)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102415

Hightown Housing Association Limited

28 September 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair reports regarding the rear door and leak to the bath.
2. The landlord’s handling of concerns raised by the resident about the conduct of the developer’s subcontractor.
3. The related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a shared ownership lease that commenced on 28 November 2019. The property is described as a four-bedroom end of terrace house.
The landlord’s repairs and defects document defines a defect as any fixture or fitting that fails within the first year. It states that the defects period applies for the first 12 months of occupation. The landlord is responsible for reporting defects to the developer and the landlord and the developer will inspect the property for any defects at the end of the defects period.
The landlord’s complaints procedure advises that it has an early resolution stage, where it will respond to complaints within 10 working days. Complaints handled within its formal process will be answered within 10 working days at its first stage and within 15 working days at its final stage.
The landlord’s complaints procedure excludes any claim being dealt with by its insurers or a contractor’s insurers. It explains that if it decides that it cannot investigate a complaint, it will give an explanation providing reasons for its decisions.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the circumstances in which compensation will be paid. It will not pay compensation if it has acted reasonably and complied with its legal and contractual obligations.
The premier guarantee for social housing is an insurance policy that covers the first 10 to 12 years after the property is built. It gives information to residents on how to make a claim and advises that the builder is responsible for rectifying any defect or damage that occurs within the defect insurance period. If the builder does not remedy the defect, the matter can be referred to the dispute resolution service. The dispute resolution service provides a free conciliation service where the insurer attempts to bring both the policyholder and builder together to ensure all valid defects are rectified. If the issue is not resolved following the intervention by the dispute resolution service, the issue can be referred to another dispute resolution service.

Summary of events

On 29 November 2019, the resident compiled a list of repairs required to the property. The repairs relevant to this complaint concerned the back door which was not closing or locking properly.
The resident reported further defects to the front and back door on 6 January 2020 and 10 February 2020. The back door was replaced under the building warranty on 10 February 2020. Also, on 25 February 2020, the developer attended to repair the nail pops which were lifting the plaster near the front door and to resolve a leak to the bath.
Five months later, on 8 July 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that despite visits, the bath was still leaking. Also, a tile trim was coming away at the end of the bath which was contributing to the water leak. The report was passed to the developer who attended to rectify the leak.
The following month, on 20 August 2020, the resident reported that the shower screen that had been replaced was again leaking. In response, the developer attended to level the bath and resealed between the bath and the wall.
On 10 October 2020, the scheme administrator for the premier guarantee produced the technical manual report. Amongst other things, it noted that the bath needed to be levelled and installed to the bath manufacturer specification, a new bath panel should be installed and it recorded five defects to the rear door. The resolution was to replace the rear door set.
The resident chased the landlord regarding the commencement of the works stated in the report on 25 October 2020. In response, the landlord contacted the developer on 5 November 2020.
The developer informed the landlord on 6 November 2020 that they had attended the resident’s property that day to complete the door reveals. The resident has objected to the work being carried out and the developer advised that the operatives had described the resident’s behaviour as “rude, demanding and aggressive”. He advised that the operatives had refused to return to the resident’s property to carry out any further work.
On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord referencing a conversation he had with them the previous day. He confirmed that he was dissatisfied with the work carried out by the developer that morning and the way he was spoken to by the subcontractor. The resident advised that he had found the following:
1. The mastic to the rear door was not smooth, there was paint on the door, frame and the door seal.
2. The living room was covered with filler dust even though he had requested that the builder cover the items he had in the hallway.
3. He described the operative as aggressive. Furthermore, they had said that he was satisfied with the work that had been carried out when he had not been. He had later noted that there was mastic over the door frame.
4. There was a burn on the carpet from the builder using a heat gun.
5. There was a gap between the door frame and the skirting board and the plaster had not been sanded back.
6. The sub-contractor had accused him of watching over the team and finding fault.
7. He was not happy having the operatives return to his property.
Later that day, the resident complained to the landlord that it was its responsibility to ensure that the property was finished to the correct standard.
The resident requested an update on 9 November 2020 on the timetable to conclude the works outlined in the technical manual report.
On 10 November 2020, the builder wrote to the resident advising that it could not reach agreement regarding the snagging issues in the resident’s property as it had found the resident’s behaviour “unreasonable”. It offered a £2000 settlement and requested that the resident advise whether he was willing to accept the offer.
The resident made further reports regarding defects to the back door on 26 November 2020 and 21 January 2021. In response, the developer advised the landlord that the financial settlement that it had verbally agreed with the resident covered the defect to the rear door.
There appears to have been a gap in communication until there was contact from this service requesting that the landlord contact the resident regarding his complaint. The landlord contacted the resident on 1 June 2021 regarding the repair to the back door and the leak to the bath. The landlord asked the resident to clarify his complaints and his preferred outcome.
The resident responded on 3 June 2021, informing the landlord that:
1. It had not addressed the complaint he made on 6 November 2020 and 20 November 2020.
2. The builder had used a heat gun when repairing the rear door which had melted the door seals and burnt his carpet.
3. The replacement back door leaked and the front door had bowed.
4. He requested that the landlord raise his concerns with the developer for the work to be completed and repair the damage to the carpet.
5. He should receive an apology for the aggressive behaviour that he had experienced from the operatives attending his property to repair the door.
6. The leak to the bath was continuing, the shower screen had not been replaced and the bath had not been installed in accordance with the manufacturer instructions.
7. An internal email had blamed the resident for the incorrect use of the shower.
8. It should install the bath correctly.
The following day, the landlord emailed the builder regarding the resident’s complaint. The developer advised that:
1. He could not recall the resident’s concerns about the damage to the carpet.
2. The developer advised that the sub-contractor denied the use of a heat gun at the resident’s property.
3. He had spoken to the resident who had agreed that any further issues with the door to the property would be covered in the financial settlement.
4. The sub-contractors had denied that they had been rude or aggressive to the resident. The sub-contractors had made a counter allegation stating that the resident had displayed the same behaviour.
5. It had installed a large number of doors and did not understand why the resident was experiencing such problems with the doors to his property.
The landlord emailed the resident on 4 June 2021, advising that it had already responded to his concerns about the leak to the bath in another complaint response. It maintained that the leak to the bathroom/shower screen was included in the list of defects and report produced under the premier guarantee. Also, since the production of the report, the builder had attended and replaced the shower screen.
The resident responded on 9 June 2021 to advise that the developer had withdrawn the settlement agreement. He requested that the landlord confirm that it would complete the outstanding work within the next seven days.
The landlord emailed the developer on 14 June 2021 regarding the financial settlement. The landlord requested that the builder provide his opinion on the allegations about the damaged carpets.
The developer responded on the same day, advising that its contractor had pictures of the work that was carried out at the resident’s property. It also maintained that it denied the allegations made by the resident about the conduct of the operatives of the sub-contractor.
The landlord and the resident exchanged emails on 18 June 2021 regarding the outstanding repairs. The resident told the landlord that it had blocked the settlement offer as it had refused to remove unfair terms from the settlement agreement. The landlord advised that the developer had referred the resident’s concerns to the dispute resolution service offered under the premier guarantee. As part of that process, the developer had decided to offer a financial settlement for the repair to the doors and the bath. The financial settlement was withdrawn by the developer in June 2021 and the dispute resolution service was arranging for the works to be progressed. It also confirmed that the developer had denied that it had caused damage to carpets and that the sub-contractors working in his property had been aggressive. Also, the builder was responsible for the competence and conduct of his contractors.
On 28 June 2021, the resident advised the landlord that he had not been previously advised of the comments made by the developer. He maintained that the landlord was responsible for the damage to the rear door and that his concerns about the contractors fell within the landlord’s complaint procedure.
The following day, on 29 June 2021, the landlord was informed by the insurers on behalf of the premier guarantee that they had discussed the insurance claim with the resident and intended to award a cash settlement. However, they requested that the landlord agree that they could negotiate a settlement and discharge the settlement to the resident.
The landlord responded to the insurers on 30 June 2021, saying that it would agree to the settlement of the claim as long as it informed the resident that the claim would be in full and final settlement of all defects identified in the October 2020 report. Also, the defects outlined in the report were considered to be rectified in full.
The following day, on 1 July 2021, the landlord was informed by the insurers for the premier guarantee that they would settle the claim on the basis that the resident discharged all liabilities for the defects identified in the technical manual report.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord was informed by the insurers for the premier guarantee that the resident had requested that the settlement amount not be disclosed to it. The following day, the landlord responded to the insurers that it would agree to a non-disclosed settlement for the resident’s insurance claim to be resolved.
On the same day, 6 July 2021, the landlord informed the resident that his complaint had been escalated to the final stage of its complaint procedure. On 16 July 2021, the resident added to his complaint the landlord’s failure to consider the complaints made in November 2020 which had caused unnecessary delays.
On 16 July 2021, the landlord responded to the resident, advising that it had reflected and it should have responded to the complaint he made on 6 November 2020. It apologised and advised that the resident would receive a complaint response by 30 July 2021. It confirmed that its position regarding the leak to the bath remained the same.
The insurance claim was concluded on 16 July 2021 and the settlement payment was made to the resident for all the valid defects listed in the technical manual report produced in October 2020.
The landlord provided its response on 30 July 2021 regarding the workmanship to the rear door, damage to the carpet and the attitude of the contractor. The key findings were:
1. It apologised for the delay in providing its complaint response.
2. It maintained that the developer had advised that its contractor denied causing damage to the door seals, putting paint on the doors and the damage to the carpet.
3. The builder’s contractor had alleged that the resident was aggressive towards them and had refused to return to his property to carry out any further work.
4. The landlord reiterated that the builder was responsible for the expertise and conduct of its sub-contractors.
5. The agreed financial settlement covered all outstanding issues with the doors.
6. It repeated that the builder was responsible for resolving the repairs to the property and any damage caused. There was no further action for it to take.
The landlord and the resident communicated on 16 August 2021 and 23 August 2021. The resident expressed that he remained dissatisfied as the information from the developer was not provided earlier and the landlord was responsible for the actions of the developer. The landlord apologised for its delayed response and confirmed that it had raised a complaint.
The landlord provided its complaint response on 1 September 2021. It set out that it was not a party to the correspondence between the resident and developer. It had requested clarification on 1 June 2021 of the outstanding complaint matters and in its complaint response on 30 July 2021, it had provided the information from the developer. It repeated that the developer maintained that the operatives of the sub-contractor had not caused any damage to his carpets and it had not received any information to contradict that position. Also, it confirmed that it did not have responsibility for the repairs required to the resident’s property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 September 2021 about the delay in escalating his complaint. He complained that the landlord had not provided support and had failed to respond to his concerns about the developer. He had copied the landlord into his correspondence with the builder in November 2020 and if the landlord required further evidence, he could have provided photos or it could have visited to assess the damage.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 September 2021 and asked the resident for his preferred outcome.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 8 October 2021. A summary of the findings are:
1. Under the premier guarantee, the resident had agreed to a settlement agreement which included the workmanship and repairs to the rear door.
2. The damage to the carpet was raised with the developer, who denied causing damage. Also, operatives from the developer’s sub-contractor had refused to reattend the resident’s property as a consequence of his behaviour.
3. The leak to the bath/shower screen were included in the settlement agreement.
4. The technical manual report and the financial settlement had been agreed under the premier guarantee and completed the end of the defects process.
5. It considered that the remaining issues raised by the resident were either “contractual”, “specification” or “snagging issues” but were not assessed as property defects that would be a responsibility of the landlord.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding the rear door and a leak to the bath

The landlord’s new build properties document sets out that the responsibility for resolving repairs to new build properties, that have been assessed as defects within the first two years, lie with the builder/developer. A warranty insurance protects the buyer from structural defects that occur in the design, workmanship or materials. The developer is responsible for remedying the defects identified in the first two years of the resident moving into the property. The landlord’s role is to act as a liaison between the resident and the developer. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to refer the snagging list produced by the resident to the developer to rectify.
The resident was unhappy with the quality of the repairs carried out to the rear doors and to the bath. In response to the resident’s report in January 2020 that the doors were defective, the landlord informed the developer and the rear doors to the property were replaced the following month. The subsequent report that the defect to the door had occurred in July 2020 formed part of the technical manual report produced in October 2020 under the premier guarantee.
With regard to the leak to the bath and the shower screen, this formed part of the resident’s initial report in November 2019. A subsequent report was made in February 2020. The developer attended to resolve the leak and five months later the resident reported that the matter remained unresolved. In August 2020, the resident reported that the shower screen was also leaking. The resident maintained that the bath was not fitted in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines and the technical manual report produced under the premier guarantee requested that the developer do so.
The developer decided that it could not rectify the doors or the leak to the bath to the resident’s satisfaction. It offered a financial settlement for those issues to the resident. Based on evidence seen by the Ombudsman, this decision was not discussed with the landlord. Furthermore, the landlord was not responsible for those repairs as they had fallen due within the first two years of the resident’s occupation of the property.
The management of new build properties has a dispute resolution service if agreement cannot be reached between the resident and the developer. The dispute resolution service was used to reach a financial settlement in July 2021 for the outstanding repairs to the resident’s property which was to include the defect to the rear door and the leak to the bath/shower screen.
This report cannot comment on the specifics of the financial settlement agreed between the resident and the premier guarantee. The landlord was not a party to the financial settlement and a copy of the settlement arrangement has not been provided to this service despite being requested. However, the landlord requested that it would consent to the financial settlement on the basis that it covered the defects to the door and to the bath and that once the settlement was paid, the repairing obligations would be discharged. This was a reasonable position to take as this enabled the resident to undertake his own repairs to the property to a satisfactory standard. Also,the landlord position remained unchanged that it was not responsible for the repairs that had been identified during the defect period.
The landlord agreed to the resident’s request that it should not know the amount of the financial settlement. The landlord was under no obligation to do this as once the defect liability period ended, it would have new repairing obligations to the property under the terms of the lease and the Housing Act 1985. However, the landlord decided that it did not want to cause further delays to the resolution of the settlement agreed with the resident under the premier guarantee. This was a reasonable approach and demonstrated that the landlord was resolution focused.

The landlord’s handling of concerns raised by the resident about the conduct of the developer’s subcontractor.

The resident complained that the developer’s sub-contractor attended his property, used a heat gun and caused damage to his carpet. He also complained about the attitude of the developer’s sub-contractors towards him, describing their behaviour as aggressive.
The landlord explained in its communication to the resident that it had no management responsibility for the subcontractors appointed by the developer. This was appropriate as it outlined to the resident the limits of the action that it could take.
Nevertheless, the landlord contacted the developer regarding the resident’s reports that a heat gun had been used that had damaged his carpet, his dissatisfaction with the work that had been carried out and the allegations about the conduct of the subcontractor’s staff.
The developer initially informed the landlord that it was unaware of the resident’s reports of damage to the carpet. The landlord followed this up with the developer, advising that it had previously bought this to the developer’s attention. The developer position remained the same, that a heat gun had not been used in the resident’s property, and it said it was unaware of the damage to the resident’s carpet. In its complaint response, the landlord concluded that it did not have sufficient information to evidence the damage to the carpet. The resident raised that the landlord did not request photos of the damaged carpet neither did it attend to inspect the damaged carpet. Whilst it did not do this, any damage to the carpet from the actions of the developer’s sub-contractor remained the responsibility of the developer and not the landlord. Therefore, this was a matter to be resolved under the premier guarantee and not the responsibility of the landlord.
The resident complained about the conduct of the operatives of the developer’s sub-contractor. He described their behaviour as aggressive and that he did not want the operatives to return to his property. A counter allegation was made by the developer’s sub-contractor staff about the resident’s behaviour and they informed the developer that they would not attend his property.
According to information available to this service, there were similarities regarding the two accounts of the incident at the resident’s property. It identifies that there was a disagreement between the resident and the sub-contractor’s operatives. From the accounts, neither party say what caused the disagreement, but both parties expressed concern at each other’s attitude.
Whilst the resident wanted the landlord to intervene and resolve the situation, the landlord’s response was reasonable in that the responsibility for the operatives lay with the developer. The landlord’s role was limited to contacting the developer to inform them of the resident’s report and to ascertain what had occurred as the developer was a private company operating as a separate legal entity. The landlord response was correct in that it had no management responsibility for the staff of the sub-contractor but it nevertheless took the appropriate steps to bring the resident’s concerns to the developer’s attention.

The related complaint

The landlord’s complaint procedure has an informal stage before complaints are escalated to its formal process. The relevant complaint handling code published by this service in July 2020 informed landlords that they should manage residents’ expectations from the outset of a complaint by letting the resident know whether their preferred outcome is reasonable. Furthermore, if a landlord decides not to escalate a complaint, it should explain this to the resident. This position is also stated in the landlord’s complaint procedure.
The resident complained to the landlord on 6 November 2020 about the outstanding repairs to the door and the bath. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint within five working days in line with the complaint handling code.
The resident contacted this service in June 2021 regarding the unanswered complaint. Following intervention by this service, the landlord contacted the resident to obtain further information about the complaint and the resident provided details. Despite this, the landlord did not respond to the complaint.
In July 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it would escalate the complaint to its final stage, even though it had not provided a complaint response at its earlier stages. The landlord missed opportunities to provide the resident with its complaint response until 1 September 2021. This represents an unacceptable delay as the landlord took 207 working days to provide its early resolution complaint response.
Furthermore, as the landlord had acknowledged that the resident had experienced an inappropriate delay in receiving its complaint response, it was not appropriate that it considered the resident concerns at its early resolution stage. This was a further missed opportunity by the landlord to investigate the complaint under its formal complaint process and give reasons to the resident about the matters that he had bought to their attention.
The landlord apologised to the resident for its delay in progressing his complaint in accordance with its complaint procedure. The complaint procedure also says that if there has been a service failure, it should consider whether compensation is payable. It was unreasonable that the landlord’s complaint responses in September 2021 and October 2021 (during its formal process) did not do so.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair reports regarding the rear door and leak to the bath.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns raised by the resident about the conduct of the developer’s subcontractor.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The resident identified defects in the property to the landlord. The landlord correctly informed the developer who was responsible for carrying out the repairs. The developer decided that he could not reach an agreement with the resident regarding rectification of the defects and the dispute resolution scheme agreed a financial settlement with the resident which included the defects to the door and the leak to the bath/shower screen. The landlord reasonably agreed to the resident’s request not to be informed of the amount of the financial settlement.
The landlord contacted the developer regarding the resident’s concerns about the damage to the carpet and the conduct of the staff of the developer’s sub-contractor. This was appropriate as the landlord had no contractual relationship with the developer’s sub-contractors.
The resident experienced an unacceptable delay in receiving the landlord’s complaint responses. The landlord subsequently failed to assess whether an offer of compensation was payable for this.

Orders

The landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the service failure identified in this report.
The landlord is to pay the resident £250 for the time and trouble caused to him by its delay in providing its complaint responses.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this service within four weeks of the date of this report.