Hightown Housing Association Limited (202107538)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107538

Hightown Housing Association Limited

23 November 2022

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 reports of defects in the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the condition in which the property had been handed over to her.

Background and summary of events

The property is a two-bedroom, semi-detached house and the resident is a shared owner. The property was newly built by developers and was handed over to the landlord in September 2019. The lease began on 19 December 2019.
The property was covered by a 12-month defects liability period from 24 September 2019 to 24 September 2020, during which time the developer was “responsible for rectifying the failure of any fixture, fitting or workmanship”, as per the landlord’s defects procedure.
The landlord’s defects policy outlines the procedure for residents to report defects during the defects liability period, which is:
1. Residents report all defects to the landlord;
2. The landlord checks whether the reported defect is covered by the defects liability period;
3. If so, the landlord records the details on its system and allocates an appropriate response time to carry out the repair;
4. The details are passed to the developer in order to rectify the defect.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that the following defects were reported by the resident and orders were issued by the landlord to the developer between January and September 2020:
1. The shed door was not closing;
2. The bath was not properly sealed;
3. The bath was missing a handle;
4. A bathroom radiator had a defective thermostatic radiator valve;
5. The lounge door was not catching when closed;
6. There was a leak from the water cylinder (this was marked as urgent, to be done within three working days);
7. The central heating boiler was showing an error code;
8. One of the patio doors was missing a hinge;
9. There was a strong smell coming from the toilet and shower (this was marked as urgent, to be done within three working days);
10. The door seal was defective;
11. Window handles in the front and back bedrooms were defective;
12. A roof tile had slipped from the roof.
The majority of the above repairs were allocated a routine priority code (to be done within 20 working days). The exceptions were: the leak to the water cylinder and the strong smells from the toilet/shower, both of which were marked as urgent (to be done within three working days), and the defective door seal, which was marked as ‘planned’ (to be done within 365 days). The landlord’s records show that the leak to the water cylinder was reported on 3 February 2020 and the repair was completed on the same day. The job to investigate the strong smells was closed by the landlord after the contractor reported that it had not been contacted by the resident after leaving messages for her.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 September 2020 to chase the outstanding defects and advised the landlord that none of the defects had been resolved since she moved into the property in December 2019.
The landlord replied to the resident on 17 September 2020 and asked the resident to supply photos of all outstanding defects. The resident said she had already reported all of the defects, but emailed the landlord a list of outstanding defects on 22 September 2020. The list included the defects listed above, apart from the two urgent jobs, i.e. the leak from the water cylinder, which the resident acknowledged had been dealt with, and the strong smells from the toilet/shower. The resident also listed additional defects.
The resident’s email of 22 September 2020 highlighted that the plumber who attended the property to repair the leak to the water cylinder found a “live wire” from the immersion heater, which was loose and was “in the puddle of water”. The plumber’s job report sheet also showed that the wire was in water.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 and 19 October 2020 requesting an update on the outstanding defects.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 October 2020 and 3 November 2020 to request photos of the defects. The landlord explained that the developer was currently not carrying out inspections due to the Covid-19 restrictions (apart from emergencies) and instead was asking residents to submit photos of defects in order to arrange the necessary repairs.
The landlord sent an ‘end of defects’ report with photos and videos of the defects to the developer on 3 November 2020.
On the 4 November 2020, the resident reported defects to the glass in the patio doors. The resident acknowledged that the defects liability period had ended, but explained that she had not previously mentioned it, because the contractor who inspected the missing hinge on the patio door had indicated to her that the patio doors would have to be replaced.
In April 2021, the resident sent various emails to the landlord to chase progress with the defects, and on 27 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that the developer would attend the property on 10 May 2021 to carry out a full review of the defects.
The developer attended on 10 May 2021 and, as a result, the landlord wrote to the resident on the same date confirming the list of repairs that would be carried out by the landlord or the developer. The landlord noted within the email that the developer had not accepted responsibility for some of the other issues reported by the resident, because the developer did not consider them to be defects (this included issues relating to the patio doors).
The resident replied to the landlord on 10 May 2021 and said she was unhappy that the issues she had reported in relation to the patio doors were not considered to be defects. The resident said there was a problem with the security film covering the glass and one of the hinges was missing.
On 14 June 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint, in which she outlined the following points:
1. She had sent a list of the defects and photos to the landlord on 3 November 2020, and there were still various defects outstanding;
2. During the inspection on 10 May 2021, the developer did not accept responsibility for addressing the missing bath handle, the missing retaining clip on the patio doors, and the replacement of the patio door glass;
3. The immersion heater had not been wired in and a loose “live wire” had come into contact with water from a leak. The resident highlighted that this could have had serious consequences for the resident or her daughter;
4. The outstanding defects and the incident with the loose wire in the airing cupboard had made her anxious about living in the property and therefore she was seeking compensation.
The developer attended the property on 14 June 2021 and wrote to the landlord on 15 June 2021 to confirm that it would be carrying out further repairs to address the outstanding defects.
On 29 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with its early stage complaint response. The main points in the letter were:
1. The defects period between the landlord and the developer was from 24 September 2019 to 24 September 2020 and there was also a National House Building Council (NHBC) new homes warranty, which was outlined in the terms of offer;
2. At the end of the defects period, the property would normally have been inspected by the landlord and the developer, with the resident present. However, the process was changed in order to meet Covid-19 guidelines, and instead, residents were asked to submit photos of any defects;
3. Properties are checked several times before handover to ensure they had been finished to a good standard, and the landlord had collated commissioning certificates from plumbers, electricians and the NHBC, who had checked the property;
4. A plumber had repaired a leak from the water cylinder, and while there the plumber also reconnected a loose wire from the immersion heater;
5. The landlord apologised for the delay in completing some of the defects in the property and said this was mainly due to Covid-19 restrictions;
6. Following an inspection of the property, additional defects had been logged and the developer had agreed to replace the glass in the patio doors;
7. The landlord mentioned that two appointments had been cancelled by the resident and therefore it had been necessary for the developer to rebook the appointments;
8. The landlord stated that according to its compensation policy, the resident was not entitled to financial compensation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 June 2021 and asked for her complaint to be escalated. The resident followed this up with an email on 5 July 2021, in which she said that she was unhappy with the way she had been treated by the landlord’s staff. The resident clarified that she had reported a leak from the water cylinder, and while on site the plumber had noticed a loose wire from the immersion heater. The plumber had therefore reconnected the wire. The resident stated that an apology was not acceptable as the incident had caused her stress and anxiety. The resident accepted that she had rearranged and cancelled appointments due to her shift work.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 July 2021 with its stage one complaint response, in which it stated:
1. The developer would be attending on 14 July 2021 to repair the front door lock and replace the glass in the patio doors, and on 29 July 2021 they would be replacing the bath handle;
2. The landlord reiterated that the resident was not entitled to compensation based on its compensation policy.
On 15 July 2021, the developer wrote to the landlord and confirmed that it replaced the barrel to the front door lock and carried out repairs to the patio door. The developer said that the only outstanding repair was the replacement of the bath handle, which had been booked for 29 July 2021.
On 3 August 2021, the resident confirmed to the landlord that all of the defects had been resolved, but she was dissatisfied with the way the landlord had dealt with the defects and with the condition the property was in when it was handed over to her on 19 December 2019.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 August 2021 with its stage two response, in which it stated:
1. All properties had been checked before handover and the landlord had received the commissioning certificates from the plumbers, electricians and the warranty paperwork from the NHBC, who also checked the property;
2. The outstanding repairs to the door and the replacement of the bath handle had been completed and, at that time, there were no outstanding defects to the property;
3. The landlord apologised if the resident felt that the service did not meet her expectations;
4. From March 2020, the landlord had to adjust the way in which it dealt with ‘end of defects’ inspections due to the Government’s Covid-19 guidance, which meant that instead of carrying out home visits, it had to ask residents to send lists of defects, along with any photos;
5. The landlord said it would not pay the compensation requested by the resident, but would consider buying back the property at the price the resident originally paid.
The following is a list of the defects that were reported by the resident, for which this Service has been able to identify completion dates within the information provided:
1. The shed door was not closing – reported on 3 January 2020 and completed on 16 June 2021;
2. The bath was not properly sealed – reported on 3 January 2020 and completed on 3 February 2020;
3. The bath was missing a handle – reported on 3 January 2020 and completed on 29 July 2021;
4. A bathroom radiator had a defective thermostatic radiator valve – reported on 3 January 2020 and completed on 7 May 2021;
5. The lounge door was not catching when closed – reported on 8 January 2020 and completed on 16 June 2021;
6. There was a leak from the water cylinder (this was marked as urgent, to be done within three working days) – reported on 3 February 2020 and completed on the same day;
7. One of the patio doors was missing a hinge – reported on 27 May 2020 and completed on 14 July 2021;
8. The door seal was defective – reported on 1 June 2020 and completed on 14 July 2021;
9. A roof tile had slipped from the roof – reported on 9 September 2020 and completed on 19 January 2021;
10. Defective glass in patio door – reported on 4 November 2020 and completed on 14 July 2021;
11. Defective window handles to front and back bedrooms – reported on 22 September 2020 and completed on 15 July 2021;
12. The boiler was showing error codes – reported on 3 February 2020 and completed on 13 March 2020.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The property was handed over to the resident on 19 December 2019 when the resident’s lease began. Although the resident reported various defects to the landlord shortly after the lease began, the information provided to this service indicates that it was not until 14 June 2021 that the resident formally complained to the landlord about the condition of the property at its handover.
As there was a gap of more than six months between the handover and the submission of the formal complaint, this service will not investigate the actual condition of the property at its handover to the resident. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…were not brought to the attention of the (landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”. However, this investigation will consider how the landlord responded to her concerns in the complaints process and its response to the reported defects.

The landlord’s handling of reported defects

The Ombudsman recognises that there may be defects and snagging in new build properties, which may not have been identified in the initial build. Shared owners are therefore protected by the defects period and the warranties that are in place. The existence of defects alone would therefore not constitute a failure in the landlord’s service.
In this case, the new build property was subject to a 12 month defects period, during which time the developer was responsible for rectifying any defects within the property. The defects period ran from 24 September 2019 to 24 September 2020. The landlord’s defects procedure provides the following target response times for dealing with defects:

Emergency repairs – 24 hours
Urgent repairs – within 3 working days
Routine repairs – within 20 working days

The landlord’s home ownership handbook contains the following provisions for the landlord to deal with complaints about defects:
1. Residents should contact the landlord’s Development Officer, who will liaise with the developer and seek to resolve the matter within 7 working days;
2. If the resident is dissatisfied, the resident can ask for the matter to be escalated to the landlord’s Development Manager who will seek to resolve the matter with the developer within 10 working days;
3. If the matter has still not been resolved, the resident can ask for the matter to be escalated to the landlord’s Head of Development who will “decide whether it is appropriate for (the landlord) to step in to carry out the work (and then recharge it to the builder) within 10 working days”.
The handbook states that the developer is responsible for addressing defects within the defects period and places a responsibility on the landlord to liaise with the developer in order to seek a resolution within prescribed timescales, and to decide whether to carry out the work itself and recharge it to the developer.
The information listed in paragraph 25 of this report shows the dates that 12 of the defects were reported and the dates they were completed. Taking into account the target timescale for each defect (in most cases 20 working days) and the Covid-19 restrictions from 28 March to 31 May 2020, nine out of the 12 defects listed were delayed. Five of the defects were delayed by over a year and two by over 30 weeks. The landlord’s records and the resident’s letter dated 5 July 2021 indicate that the resident had to rearrange or cancel some appointments in June and July 2021 due to her shift work. This had a relatively minor impact on the delays.
One of the defects highlighted by the resident in her letter dated 14 June 2021 was the loose wire from the immersion heater. The resident has confirmed that the wire was reconnected by the contractor’s plumber as soon as he noticed it on 3 February 2020. While the Ombudsman understands the anxiety that this caused the resident, this service has not been provided with any information that shows the landlord was aware of this defect prior to the plumber finding the disconnected wire.
In its letter dated 29 June 2021, the landlord accepted that there had been delays and attributed these delays mainly to the Covid-19 restrictions.
This service is able to clarify the Government guidance issued during the pandemic, which was as follows:
1. 28 March to 31 May 2020 – during this period, the Government’s Guidance for Landlords and Tenants stated that access to properties should only be for “serious and urgent issues”. This generally meant that landlords provided an emergency only repairs service;
2. From 1 June 2020 – the Government’s Guidance for Landlords and Tenants was updated to say “Where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs”. The guidance was that repairs should not be carried out if household members were self-isolating or where an individual was being shielded;
3. From 5 November to 2 December 2020 – a second national lockdown was in place. The national guidance was updated but said that landlords could still carry out repairs and safety inspections if in line with public health advice.
The above indicates that while Covid-19 will have had some impact on the landlord and developer’s ability to carry out repairs, the bulk of the delays were outside of the periods when Covid-19 restrictions applied. It is therefore unclear why the landlord advised the resident that its ability to complete the repairs during this period was mainly due to Covid-19 restrictions.
Although the works were being scheduled and undertaken by a third party, the Ombudsman would expect to see that the landlord had done all that it could to manage the situation, to proactively pursue the outstanding works, and to consider alternative solutions where resolution was being prolonged. Given that there were delays in addressing the defects, this service has not seen any evidence that the landlord advised the resident that it was escalating the resident’s complaints about defects, or that it was considering carrying out the work itself and recharging the developer, as per its homeownership handbook. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not provide the resident with clear information on how it was implementing its policy in this regard.
The Ombudsman has recognised that the landlord contacted the developer on various occasions in order to expedite the works. However, in the view of this service, the landlord could have better managed the situation and been more proactive. Where the landlord was unable to arrange the works with the developer within a reasonable timeframe, the landlord was expected to consider whether to pursue an alternative solution.
Although the landlord accepted there had been delays in addressing the defects, it did not offer appropriate redress to the resident to recognise the inconvenience, time and trouble the resident had experienced in contacting the landlord about the delays. Appropriate redress in this case would have been an apology and an offer of financial compensation.
The landlord stated in its early stage complaint response and stage one response that the resident was not entitled to compensation under its compensation policy. The compensation policy states: “In the case of a complaint from a customer about the way that (the landlord) has dealt with a matter, where that complaint is upheld, Directors have the discretion to award a payment of up to £250. This is to cover reasonable costs that have arisen, and time, trouble and inconvenience in bringing a complaint, not otherwise covered in detail by the compensation policy”.
Although the landlord’s complaint responses did not stipulate whether or not the complaint was upheld, having accepted there had been delays, it was unreasonable for the landlord to conclude that the resident was not entitled to compensation. Therefore, the Ombudsman has ordered a sum of compensation to recognise the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of pursing the landlord. The amount ordered is aimed at putting things right and is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right”. The amount of compensation recognises that some of the defects took over a year to resolve, taking into account the periods when Covid-19 restrictions applied.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the condition in which the property had been handed over to her

The landlord operates a three stage complaints process:
1. Early stage resolution – the target timescale is 10 working days;
2. Stage one – the target timescale is 10 working days;
3. Stage two – the target timescale is 15 working days.
There were minor delays in sending out the early stage complaint response (by one day) and the stage two response (by two days). The stage one response was sent out within the target timescale. The timeliness of the landlord’s complaint responses was therefore reasonable.
In its early stage and stage one letters, the landlord stated that the resident was not entitled to compensation based on its compensation policy. However, the letters did not offer an explanation for this decision. Similarly, the landlord’s stage two letter did not elaborate on its decision not to pay compensation.
The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code makes it clear that at each stage of the complaints procedure, landlord’s should provide “the reasons for any decisions made”. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity at each stage of the complaints process to be transparent about its decision not to award compensation. The failure of the landlord to explain its decision to the resident was unreasonable.
The landlord did, however, provide information in response to the resident’s complaint about the condition of the property when it was handed over to her. The landlord confirmed in its early stage and stage two responses that all of its properties were checked before handover, and it received the commissioning certificates from the plumbers, electricians and the warranty paperwork from NHBC who also checked the property. The information outlined by the landlord provided reassurance that the properties had been checked prior to handover.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of defects in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the condition in which the property had been handed over to her.

Reasons

The defects reported by the resident were not dealt with in a timely manner, and although the landlord accepted there were delays, it did not offer appropriate redress to ‘put things right’.
The landlord took some action to chase the developer to carry out works, however, it could have better managed the situation and been more proactive. Where the landlord was unable to arrange the works with the developer within a reasonable timeframe, the landlord could have pursued an alternative solution.
The landlord did not explain to the resident the reason for its decision not to award compensation.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Pay the resident £500 compensation.
2. Remind complaints handling staff about the provisions detailed in its policy relating to compensation when responding to complaints