Home Group Limited (202103327)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202103327
Home Group Limited
17 May 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 the landlord’s:
- response to the resident’s reports of defects;
- handling of the associated complaint.
Background and summary of events
Background
- The resident has a lease with the landlord, after she purchased a detached, new build, shared-ownership house from it on 19 December 2019.
- The contract for sale between the developer and the landlord included a 12 month “rectification period”, which commenced on the practical completion date and ended on 20 March 2020. The landlord’s records show that during that period, it was expected to report all defects to the developer. However, the terms of the contract specified that there was no defects liability period, and the landlord was ultimately responsible for addressing any defects that were identified.
- The landlord took out a new build warranty policy from a building warranty provider. The warranty commenced on the date of completion and ran for two years, which took it to March 2021. The warranty offered a resolution process to determine if required standards had been met. Under the policy the builder was liable for reasonable costs should it be necessary for the resident to move out for repairs. The policy covered patent defects, that is easily detectable ones, and did not cover condensation.
- The landlord’s defects management process, in place at the time, set out the way it would handle reports of defects. The landlord introduced a new defect process in September 2022.
- The landlord’s property management policy says that new build properties will be inspected, to confirm they are in good condition and meet any necessary industry standards, when handed over from the developer. It also says the landlord provides residents with relevant and timely information to its defects procedure when they move into a new home.
- The resident was pregnant when she moved in with her spouse and young child. The resident explained she has long term medical conditions that affect her immuno-response and respiratory health, including the fact she was recovering from cancer. The resident described her concerns for her own and her family’s health due to the issues she identified with the property, and the additional distress she experienced dealing with the defects process whilst pregnant and ill.
- For the reason of context, it is noted that the period of this complaint coincided with lockdowns due to the coronavirus pandemic. These had the potential to add to the distress caused by unresolved issues regarding the resident’s home.
Summary of Events
- On 3 January 2020 the resident reported the below defects to the landlord:
- The front and back doors were poorly fitted, which resulted in draught and heat loss.
- The bath needed replacement, due to an easily dislodged plug and its uncomfortable design, which the resident argued made it unfit for purpose.
- The resident had observed flies entering the property via gaps in the vents and window seals, and dead flies had caused the loft to smell.
- On 22 January 2020 the developer visited the resident, and she confirmed the following additional defects to the landlord:
- External render around the bedroom window had crumbled.
- The windows and kitchen patio doors were ill-fitted and draughty.
- The taps in the bathroom and ensuite were loose.
- The bedroom door handle stuck.
- The extractor fans in the kitchen and downstairs WC lacked gravity vents and blew cold air into the house.
- There were electrical faults with the light in kitchen extractor hood, the hob ignition and the garage lights.
- On 27 January 2020 the landlord’s property maintenance provider rectified some defects, including the loose taps.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 4 February 2020. She said she had been notified of the “closure” of a complaint about the defects. She objected to this, and confirmed the other items listed above were still outstanding. The resident reported additional defects:
- Broken back patio door threshold.
- Window cap missing from central post.
- Damaged exterior window sills.
- The ensuite door stuck.
- The interior thresholds between the carpets and vinyl needed replacement.
- The landlord’s records show the resident wrote to it again on 10 February 2020, after she received a letter dated 30 January 2020 which confirmed her complaint was closed. The resident reiterated that she was not satisfied with this because some defects remained outstanding. The resident asked for clarity as to whether the defects would be addressed by the landlord, and whether she needed to raise a new complaint.
- On 19 February 2020 the resident chased an update from the landlord, and asked for a timescale in which the defects would be addressed. The resident referenced a call the landlord had made to her in the previous week, and a commitment it made to update her in the current week.
- On 20 February 2020 the landlord contacted the resident to confirm the developer would investigate the items she had raised. It requested photos from the resident, so that the developer could “officially authorise” the items and forward them to its contractor. With regards the hob ignition, it advised the appliance was under warranty and the resident would need to report this separately. It advised the developer would book in an appointment with the resident as soon as possible to address the garage light.
- On 3 March 2020 the landlord repeated its request that the resident send it photos of the defects. It also told the resident it would not replace the bath, because it did not consider the issues the resident had raised with it to be defects.
- On 10 March 2020 the resident emailed the landlord with the requested photos, and raised further defects:
- Poor standard of brickwork on the rear wall, vertical joints between bricks too wide at 40mm.
- The doorbell stuck and sounded continuously.
- “Various” decorating defects, including popped screws in the kitchen ceiling.
- Lumps under the carpets.
- The landlord’s records show it passed the photos to the developer on 12 March 2020, and asked for the timeframe in which it would be able to “close out” the issues that had been reported.
- The landlord chased a response from the developer on 25 March 2020, and advised it had contacted its warranty provider, which had confirmed the developer was liable for the issues reported. The landlord said it would raise a claim with the warranty provider if there was no response from the developer within the next three days.
- The developer responded to the landlord on the same day, 25 March 2020. It explained it had suspended all non-emergency work on 24 March 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic. The developer said all newly reported works would be kept on file and booked in once government guidance changed.
- On 27 March 2020 the resident contacted the landlord, upset to have received notification that her complaint had been closed again. The resident said she understood that works would not be carried out in her home during the pandemic, but expected better communication from the landlord and for it to share its plan of how the issues would be rectified. The landlord responded the same day, advising the complaint closure she had received referred to earlier issues raised and dealt with by the landlord’s property maintenance provider. It told the resident she could either escalate the complaint to stage two if she disagreed that those issues were resolved, or she could submit a new stage one complaint for the newer issues.
- On 6 April 2020 the resident confirmed the issues referred to in the complaint closure were still outstanding. The resident asked the landlord to confirm which issues it had on record and which of those it believed were resolved. The resident also reported that issues with the hot water that she said she had raised to them on 22 March 2020 had worsened, and that the family were now without hot water in the property. She reported the hot water tank had a note specifying the next service was due in October 2019, and she was concerned this had not taken place before her family moved in. The resident requested this issue be treated as urgent, and reminded the landlord she was pregnant.
- The landlord sent a response three hours later. The landlord shared a spreadsheet containing the issues recorded for the property, and told the resident that 17 of the 18 issues it had recorded as reported in the first two weeks of January 2020 had been closed down. It confirmed the only item it had as open from that period was a buzzing noise through the night, which the resident was unable to confirm the source of. It also said it did not have a record of heating or hot water issues being reported to it previously.
- The landlord’s records show it spoke to the resident the following day, 7 April 2020. The landlord then emailed the resident to confirm it would reimburse her for the cost of an engineer appointment to install a missing motor valve and service of the boiler, if she arranged this and sent it a copy of the invoice.
- The next set of correspondence the Ombudsman has seen is from 3 June 2020. The resident told the landlord the issue with the hot water had not yet been rectified, but an engineer was booked to attend the next day. The resident confirmed the previous list of defect issues she had raised were still outstanding, as well as the additional items below. The resident asked the landlord to confirm the required works would be carried out as a priority once coronavirus restrictions were lifted.
- The soffit to the rear of the garage was hanging off.
- The kitchen and bedroom window sills were missing caps.
- The manhole cover outside front of the property needed screws and was unsafe.
- The WC flush did not work properly.
- The bedroom floorboards were loose.
- The next correspondence seen by the Ombudsman is from 23 July 2020, in which the landlord acknowledged the issues the resident had raised and advised it would be back in touch with her.
- On 3 August 2020 the resident sent the landlord an email, in which she thanked it for an update and reported new issues:
- Before the family moved in, the grass in the garden was cut, and the cuttings left on the lawn. The resident said this killed most of the grass underneath. She said she had removed the grass cuttings and re-seeded the area, but due to the quality of the soil, there were bald patches where grass would not grow. The resident considered the soil dangerous, due to items she had found in it, including scaffold clips, sharp metal, broken glass, large flints and stones.
- The carpets were of poor quality, lost a lot of fluff each time they were hoovered, and the lumps under them that she had previously reported were now visible due to wear. The resident reported that the carpet grippers on the stairs were poking through and had cut her feet. The resident noted her neighbours had experienced the same issues and their carpets had been replaced.
- On 19 August 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to request an update and repeated her request that it confirm which issues it had recorded. The resident reported additional issues:
- The condition of the windows had worsened, and now one did not close. The child locks on the windows were loose and unsafe, as they prevented opening and closing the windows properly. The resident explained she was concerned her family could not escape in the event of a fire.
- The dishwasher had leaked and flooded the kitchen three times.
- The house was excessively cold in the previous winter and the family’s “breath was visible”. The resident put this down to the ill-fitted doors and windows she had raised, and said she was concerned about the upcoming winter if this wasn’t rectified.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 20 August 2020 and said it would call the resident that afternoon.
- On 21 August 2020 the landlord emailed the developer to request an update on the outstanding works the resident had listed. On 25 August 2020 the developer confirmed to the landlord that it still had a list of works for the property and would contact the resident that week to book an appointment. The landlord passed this update on to the resident and asked her to let it know if she did not hear from the developer by the end of the week, 28 August 2020.
- On 1 September 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm the list of defects she wanted to be looked at, and added:
- Rear of garage soffit not properly installed.
- The front downspout was hanging off.
- Bedroom window vents could not be opened due to plasterboard installed too low.
- The patio was covered in cement.
- No soft close on kitchen cupboard.
- Back gate fitted poorly to wall.
- Loud noise from water tank when hot taps turned on.
- There was no current gas safety certificate.
- The developer attended the property on 9 September 2020 and completed some work.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 21 September 2020 and asked the landlord to chase up the outstanding work with the developer. The resident explained the manufacturer of the hob had sent an engineer who confirmed the issue was with the installation, because no plug had been attached. The engineer waived the call out charge and fitted a plug. The resident also advised the landlord an engineer had attended twice to inspect the dishwasher but was unable to identify the fault.
- On 22 September 2020 the resident asked the landlord to confirm receipt of her email regarding the dishwasher. The resident also advised the landlord that a contractor had attended to look at the windows and doors that day. The contractor told the resident it did not deal with front doors, advised the resident the back door needed to be replaced and that it would issue a quote for this and for the end cap on the bedroom window.
- On 28 September 2020 the resident contacted the building warranty provider. The warranty provider explained its service to the resident and advised it would seek the landlord’s permission to discuss the matters she had raised.
- On 9 November 2020 the resident received an email from the contractor appointed to fit a track and gaskets on the patio doors. The contractor said it had cancelled an appointment booked for 10 November 2020, because the developer had failed to pay its invoices. The resident updated the landlord, expressed her frustration at the lack of progress and asked the landlord to respond as soon as possible.
- The landlord’s internal correspondence demonstrate that it experienced difficulty in progressing the “snagging” issues it raised to the developer, which had told it all non-urgent work was put on hold due to coronavirus and many of its contractors had also shut down, on what the developer said was government guidance. In November 2020 the developer advised the landlord it had started to appoint substitute contractors to work through the backlog of work. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows it contacted the building warranty provider on 11 November 2020, seeking its intervention, with the aim of progressing the resident’s case.
- On 17 November 2020 the resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord. The resident explained she wanted compensation for the distress and inconvenience she had experienced trying to get the defects acknowledged and addressed, as well as the expense of heating the house. The resident said this was the “fourth, possibly fifth” attempt she had made to register a complaint since moving in.
- The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 November 2020 with a list summarising the issues. The resident’s list contained the following additional items. In the email, the resident said she raised these previously with the landlord in February 2020, however the Ombudsman has not been able to confirm this from the records seen.
- Damaged skirting board.
- Uneven kickboards under cupboards.
- Internal doors to the lounge stuck.
- Dented extractor hood.
- Patio doors in need of replacement.
- Moisture and mould in bedroom one due to incorrectly fitted bathroom extractor fan.
- Bedroom wall flexed.
- Crunching sound from heating system after the resident’s contractor fitted valves.
- On 19 November 2020 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had received the list of defects she had sent on 17 and 19 November 2020, it also said some of these had not been reported in the defects liability period. It did not specify which issues these were. The landlord let the resident know it had spoken to the building warranty provider, and confirmed an appointment for glazers to attend for the window defect on 9 December 2020.
- The landlord’s records show it gave permission to the warranty provider to discuss the issues with the resident on 24 November 2020, and reported that there were “numerous” outstanding issues that the developer had not attended to. It shared the list of defects reported by the resident and asked for confirmation they would be addressed in the claim.
- On 25 November 2020 an appointment was set by the developer to attend the property on 1 December 2020. The landlord’s internal correspondence showed its understanding was that the warranty provider would attempt to resolve any snags not agreed by the developer at the visit, which it relayed to the resident in a phone call.
- The landlord’s records show that it sent the resident an acknowledgement of her stage one complaint on 26 November 2020.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 1 December 2020 following the developer’s visit, and reported that the lumps under the carpet had been found to be cement and plaster.
- The resident further updated the landlord on 3 December 2020. She advised the developer was due to attend again that day to address the back door. The resident flagged her safety concerns regarding the hazard presented by the carpet grips to her baby who had started to crawl. The resident shared other observations the developer had made at its visit, including that the spacers on the bedroom wall were installed too far apart, which was why it flexed. The developer had told her the landing had insufficient supports which caused the floorboards to creak. The resident challenged a decision from the landlord that the noise from the hot water tank was her responsibility to resolve, because she had used her own contractor. The resident asserted that the landlord had told her to arrange a contractor at the time, because the landlord’s contractor was “uncomfortable” to attend due to the risk of passing covid on.
- The landlord’s records from 16 December 2020 show that the developer had attended for three days in that month, and did resolve some of the matters.
- The next available records are from 22 February 2021, when the landlord asked the resident what she had been advised by the warranty provider. On 23 February 2021 the resident responded. She advised the warranty provider needed confirmation of the issues the landlord had passed to the developer, in order to proceed with the case. The landlord let the resident know it had sent this previously, and would resend it that day to get things “moving again” by the end of the week.
- The landlord’s building maintenance provider attended in the week of 10 March 2021. It inspected the first floor flooring and identified that the joists had been installed too far apart, and referred this back to the developer. The resident advised the landlord the floorboards were observed to be crumbled, snapped and without insulation. The resident asked that in addition to the carpet, the underlay be replaced.
- The same week, the resident contacted the landlord to request a copy of her “tenancy agreement”. The resident advised the landlord the interior walls had been inspected and found to lack insulation, with the studs installed too far apart. The resident reported additional issues:
- The garage flooded when it rained. The resident said she had first reported this in January 2020 and that the warranty provider advised her she would need to speak to the landlord about it.
- An access hole was cut as part of the inspection in December 2020, and it had not been repaired.
- The warranty provider had told the resident the policy was taken out in her name and should instead be in her landlord’s name. The resident asked the landlord to check the policy was set up correctly.
- The resident was concerned that the dust from the works could affect her family’s health, and also queried the sleeping arrangements. The resident requested that the landlord arrange suitable alternative accommodation that day.
- On 16 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord stating she had spoken to Citizens Advice and would go to the press if it did not satisfactorily progress matters that day. The landlord replied and said it would provide a further response by the end of 18 March 2021.
- On 17 March 2021 the resident asked the landlord again for a copy of her “tenancy agreement”, and it provided this on 18 March 2021.
- On 19 March 2021 the resident asked the landlord for an update on her complaint. The landlord’s records show it gained confirmation from its building maintenance provider that it had completed work to the flooring issues on 18 March 2021. In response, the landlord apologised to the resident for its level of service so far. It said it would arrange a visit to check all outstanding issues and confirm an action plan. This visit was carried out on 25 March 2021.
- The warranty provider issued a periodic inspection report to the resident. The resident advised the landlord on 26 March 2021 that the warranty provider required the landlord to accept the policy before it would proceed with the claim. At this point, the resident asked the landlord for compensation and for an independent surveyor to inspect the standard of the work carried out to date. The landlord apologised again for the service it had provided so far, and agreed to arrange a chartered surveyor to inspect.
- On 30 March 2021 the landlord notified the resident it had appointed a surveyor to survey the flooring, and that it would raise outstanding works to its property maintenance provider. It confirmed it would ask its contractor to reattend and put right the garage door and roof after repairs it had carried out. The landlord apologised that its contractor had turned up previously without an appointment and confirmed it had addressed this with the contractor.
- The landlord’s records show it confirmed the warranty cover with the warranty provider on 31 March 2021.
- On 6 April 2021 the resident reported that the building maintenance provider had damaged the bay windows when it removed the glass to fit the frame.
- The chartered surveyor appointed by the landlord carried out a survey of the property on 9 April 2021.
- On 22 April 2021 the resident reported the patio doors would not open, and had already had two adjustments by contractors. The resident asked for the doors to be replaced.
- On 26 April 2021 the resident reported that the tile ledge under the bedroom window was missing, and the gap at the bottom of the window was not sealed. The resident explained that she believed this had contributed to the excessive cold in her property.
- On 27 April 2021 the resident thanked the landlord for replacing the bath plug, and confirmed the outstanding issues:
- The carpet and grips.
- The broken bay window beading.
- The flooring.
- The patio doors.
- The garage door seal had been installed incorrectly and the resident was not confident it would prevent a flood in heavy rain.
- On 7 May 2021 the landlord asked the resident to confirm a date for the patio doors to be fitted in the following week, and asked her for comment on its surveyor’s report. The surveyor had picked up several outstanding defects, and outlined the landlord’s options to address them:
- Ask the developer to rectify defects “such as the draughty windows, bowed front door, and the chipped window sill”.
- Ask the building warranty provider “why [it] signed off on items that had not been completed and see what action [it] will take.” The surveyor argued the brickwork to the rear of the property “clearly did not conform” to the required British standard.
- The surveyor noted that “unfortunately the works undertaken by [the landlord]’s maintenance contractor to the first floor, may have invalidated the … warranty.” It advised that if that was the case, the landlord would need to decide on what works would be carried out “to provide an acceptable floor for the occupants”.
- The resident responded to the landlord on 16 May 2021, and reiterated that some issues the landlord and developer had recorded as complete, were in fact still unresolved.
- The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman during May 2021, seeking assistance due to the length of time taken to resolve her complaint. After intervention from the Ombudsman, the landlord agreed to issue a stage one complaint response to the resident.
- The landlord arranged a visit by a new contractor for 1 June 2021 to inspect the issues and book in any works identified as needed. The landlord asked it to include the blocked weep holes, large gaps at the bottom of the doors, a service of the boiler and water cylinder, the dented extractor hood, decoration in the bedroom and lounge and the chipped stone bay sill.
- The landlord issued a stage one “complaint update” to the resident on 2 June 2021:
- It listed the defects it had logged in each room, and advised it had approached the developer and been told it would not address issues it regarded as snags or not defective.
- The landlord had, therefore, asked its contractors to attend, and one contractor had carried out some work, with another due to attend on 1 June 2021 “to log and schedule the “remaining repairs”.
- The landlord noted that its appointed surveyor had confirmed “the floors [had] been built in line with regulations” and advised the resident to contact the warranty provider if she disputed this finding.
- It apologised for the delays and inconvenience the resident had experienced, and confirmed it would offer “discretionary compensation” once all issues were resolved.
- On 16 June 2021 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the back door. The landlord’s internal records show it had attempted to secure quotes from contractors. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend on 22 June 2021 to provide a quote. The resident requested the landlord to ask the contractor to check the glazing at the same time, and advised it the warranty provider had told her it was waiting for it to confirm which issues it had passed to the developer.
- After intervention from the Ombudsman, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident, in which it asked the resident to advise it why she was not satisfied with its “complaint update” of 2 June 2021, and what she sought “as an outcome”. It advised it would then progress her complaint to a stage two review.
- The landlord’s internal records show that its building maintenance contractor carried out a short term fix to the back door on 18 June 2021, after the resident reported it would not open. Repairs to the window and the cooker hood were booked in for the following week.
- The resident responded to the landlord’s request regarding the reasons she wanted her complaint progressed to stage 2, on 21 June 2021. The resident disputed that “some of the closed issues” had been resolved, and asked the landlord to address the damage its building maintenance provider had caused to the carpets.
- On 24 June 2021 the contractor confirmed it had completed “all works”, including clearance of the loft, fixing the extraction system and redecoration of the walls and ceilings. It confirmed the patio doors and front doors were on order and a specialist contractor for the stone sill was booked for 31 July 2021.
- On 25 June 2021 the contractor confirmed the list of jobs it had completed:
- Kitchen hob extraction unit replaced.
- Blown plaster on ceilings and walls from screws/ nails made good.
- Paint damaged skirting board made good.
- Walls and ceilings redecorated.
- Timber fitted to bottom of doors to prevent draughts.
- Extraction system checked over.
- Dead flies removed and area cleaned.
- Mastic applied around tiles in ensuite shower.
- Weep holes cleared of render.
- Boiler serviced by competent contractor.
- Kitchen cupboard door refitted.
- On 2 July 2021 the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay with the stage two complaint, and said it was down to “current volumes”. The landlord sent the resident a further update on 16 July 2021 and said it aimed to issue a full formal update by 30 July 2021. It advised the resident would then be able to escalate the complaint externally, if she was not satisfied.
- On 20 July 2021 the resident requested clarification from the landlord regarding its position on the brickwork and flooring. The landlord sent the resident a copy of the flooring plan on 22 July 2021 and confirmed it was in the process of instructing a contractor to check that the flooring was compliant.
- On 23 July 2021 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it would carry out the recommendations its contractor had made regarding the flooring, and that it would speak to the developer regarding the brickwork.
- On 30 July 2021 the landlord acknowledged to the resident that her complaint had been open at stage two for the 20 days allowed under its policy, and some actions remained outstanding. The landlord said it would update the resident further if she wanted the complaint kept open, and supplied contact details for the Housing Ombudsman which enabled her to escalate the complaint. It also confirmed:
- It would replace the resident’s carpets as a gesture of goodwill.
- The developer had assessed the mortar and brickwork, and concluded there was not a structural issue which required it to carry out further work.
- The developer would install the missing window sill.
- At this point the warranty provider agreed it would inspect the property. It advised that as the property was now out of the two year builder liability period, the warranty provider would instruct its own contractor to carry out works if it found defects. The warranty provider confirmed it would investigate the first floor flooring joists, and whether the brickwork mortar was safe and to standard. The warranty provider advised it could attend on 22 October 2021 at the earliest.
- On 2 August 2021 the resident responded to the landlord, and explained she was concerned that the contractor’s assessment, conducted in warm and dry conditions in July, might not capture the issues that affected the property in winter. The resident acknowledged the landlord’s offer to pay for the carpets, and explained she was disappointed it had not accepted there had been anything wrong with them.
- On 5 August 2021 the landlord confirmed to the resident that its contractor had recommended replacement of the windows, but could not guarantee this would fully solve the issue with the draughts. It explained it would raise this to the developer first, and then challenge through the warranty provider if it was not satisfied with the response. The landlord advised the resident it was awaiting the outcome of a second visit the developer had conducted to assess the brickwork.
- On 6 August 2021 the resident reported the back door would not close or lock. The landlord offered to arrange an urgent repair for that day.
- The resident requested an update on the brickwork on 13 August 2021. The resident confirmed the landlord’s building maintenance contractor had attended and replaced the back door, however it was not the “best fit”. The resident was concerned that the door did not have a turn lock, and would slow down escape in an emergency. The resident explained the door had been fitted prior to the decoration of the walls being finished, and the resident asked that the landlord ensured these were made good. The landlord’s records show its contractor contacted the resident, explained its decorator was off sick and apologised for the delay. It advised the resident it would be back in contact to confirm an appointment to complete the decoration of the walls.
- On 17 August 2021 the resident asked the landlord for confirmation of when the previous back door would be removed from her driveway, and explained it had been left there for collection by its contractor.
- On 27 August 2021 the landlord confirmed its building maintenance contractor would attend an appointment on 31 August 2021 to make good and adjust the new back door. It advised the resident it was still awaiting an update from the developer regarding the brickwork.
- The landlord’s records show it received a report from the contractor appointed by the developer to inspect the brickwork on 1 September 2021. Its opinion was that the wall was bowed and the issue was the result of “poor brick–workmanship”, but was “not structural”. It recommended the wall should be monitored once every three months for a year and if the condition worsened, remedial action should be taken.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 7 September 2021, and reported that a new front door had been fitted, but was too stiff to open and the lock did not work properly. The resident reported that she was not happy with the door or the workmanship, and that the external render had not been repaired and the hallway had not been re-painted.
- The landlord’s records show it chased the developer for action on the bowed wall and the missing sill on 16 September 2021.
- At this point, the landlord appointed its own contractor to examine the flooring, and it attended on 24 September 2021. The contractor issued a report of its findings to the landlord on 11 October 2021. The contractor found defects with the installation of the joists, and also that holes had been cut in the joists for service cables. It observed that the bath did not have a central support. The contractor recommended these issues were remedied, to bring the flooring in line with the original plans.
- On 29 September 2021 the resident asked the landlord to confirm to the warranty provider when it first reported the draughty windows to the developer. She explained the warranty provider required this information before it would agree to inspect the windows during its forthcoming inspection of the brickwork and flooring.
- On 21 October 2021 the resident advised the landlord the warranty provider had cancelled its appointment scheduled for 22 October 2021, and had told her this was the landlord’s decision. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that demonstrates this instruction came from the landlord. The resident confirmed the current position:
- The developer had fitted the window sill, but had not sealed it and so it let in cold air.
- The stone work had been repaired, and the patio doors had been installed.
- The landlord’s contractor had ordered a new front door and frame, and advised the resident there would be a 15 to 16 week wait for delivery.
- The resident was not satisfied that the issues with the windows and brickwork had been resolved.
- The resident awaited payment for the replacement carpet.
- The next correspondence the Ombudsman has seen is from 2 January 2022, when the resident requested an update from the landlord. The landlord responded on 13 January 2022, and confirmed:
- It would ensure its contractor put right damage it had caused to the window roof and fibre glass.
- It would investigate the “newly reported” issues the resident had raised regarding damp and mould.
- The window manufacturer had gone into administration, and so the landlord had now raised the draught from the windows to the building warranty provider.
- The landlord confirmed it would continue to monitor the brickwork, but that there was a “limit” to what it could do if the wall was not found to be defective or have structural issues.
- On 18 January 2022 the resident provided an update to the landlord:
- The landlord’s contractor had adjusted, realigned and toe–heeled the windows to address “severe” draughts.
- The front door was replaced satisfactorily that day.
- The landlord’s records show its contractor found the windows were “completely out of alignment to the point the gasket on the frame was barely touching the sash”. It advised that the upstairs windows had a floating mullion, which meant draughts could not be completely eliminated.
- On 27 January 2022 the warranty provider conducted an inspection of the property. It issued its report on 31 January 2022. It found:
- The developer had complied with its technical requirements, and it therefore would not ask it to complete any repairs.
- The deck board had been repaired poorly, but this did not fall under its warranty because the work had been done by the landlord’s contractor.
- No sign of ceiling movement, and excessive noise only in the living room under the section of the floor that had been investigated by the landlord’s contractor.
- The flooring may not have been constructed in line with the original plans, but the floors supported normal loads .
- On 11 February 2022 the warranty provider confirmed it would investigate the issue of draughts and heat loss from the windows.
- On 14 March 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended and found “severe” black mould behind the kitchen units and appliances.
- On 6 April 2022 the resident explained to the landlord that she was very concerned for her health and that of her baby and child, due to the mould. The resident reported that she had visited her doctor who had told her the mould was causing her to get sores.
- The resident has explained that works were booked in for 19 April 2022, but cancelled by the landlord on 14 April 2022 because it decided to appoint another contractor to test for damp.
- The landlord’s records demonstrate that it did appoint a contractor and that it did not find evidence of damp. On 20 May 2022 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it would remove the mould from the kitchen as a gesture of goodwill, but it would not replace any units.
- The landlord’s records show that it reimbursed the resident for the cost of replacing the carpets. It also intended to compensate the resident £500 once the complaint was resolved, for the delays in resolving the issues, the time and trouble caused by missed appointments and the need to raise issues several times, and its failure to fully resolve the issues within its complaints process.
- The landlord has provided evidence that it continued to monitor the area of brickwork as per the recommendations it had received. Its contractor carried out inspections on 29 March 2022, 23 August 2022 and 13 January 2023. No movement was observed at any of the inspections.
- The resident reported that the issue with mould in the master bedroom had worsened by December 2022. The landlord arranged for an inspection and continued to liaise with the resident regarding this matter.
Assessment and findings
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects
- The resident has explained that whilst most of the defects had been remedied by the point of the Ombudsman’s investigation, it is the way in which the landlord responded to her which caused her ongoing distress.
- The resident was pregnant when she first moved in, and then had a very young baby to look after during periods of national lockdown. The resident had several long-term health conditions that she feared were, or would be, adversely affected by the property condition, including the mould. The resident was concerned for her children’s safety, and drew the landlord’s attention to the hazard presented by the carpet grips. The resident explained she felt “ignored” despite raising these serious issues, and the result was additional distress caused to her.
The landlord’s handling of the defects
- It is not unusual for latent defects to be identified after occupation of a new build property. However, the landlord missed the opportunity to address several patent (obvious) defects prior to the sale and occupation of the property, because they were not appropriately identified at the point of handover from the developer. The landlord’s policies set out that property inspections should take place at handovers, and it is reasonable to expect the landlord should have identified the missing sill, blocked vents and missing caps at even a superficial inspection. A thorough inspection could reasonably have identified the poor standard of brickwork, as well as damage to internal and external features. The landlord should conduct an internal review to identify how these were missed in this case, and an order has been made to that effect below.
- Once they were identified, the landlord did not always demonstrate adequate customer focus in its handling of the defects. This is evidenced by the repeated reports and requests for updates the resident felt it necessary to make. The landlord’s handling of the reports did not demonstrate an appropriate level of engagement with the issues, or acknowledgement of the impact living with a cumulation of multiple defects would have. This is potentially because its policy at the time did not give sufficient direction to staff. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have identified a way of communicating the defects it had logged, and its planned actions against these, to the resident at earlier and more regular intervals. It is noted that the landlord’s new defects management policy does now encourage this.
- There was also an unreasonably long gap between the resident’s reports and the materialisation of an action plan from the landlord. It took until September 2020 for substantial work to commence. There were several long gaps in progress, including between the developer’s visits in December 2020 and March 2021. It is notable that significant progress was made once the resident told the landlord she was minded to contact the press. The landlord’s records indicate this is because senior management became involved at that point. Progress slowed when that involvement stopped, and the landlord should conduct an internal case review to confirm the specific reasons for this and the learning it can implement.
The front and back doors
- The resident first reported the poor fitting doors to the landlord on 3 January 2020. The resident reported this caused draughts and heat loss, as well as anxiety when she experienced difficulty opening them. The back door was satisfactorily replaced and adjusted by 31 August 2021, and the front door was satisfactorily replaced on 18 January 2022. This meant the resident waited 19 months for her back door to be remedied, and two years for her front door. This is excessive given the straightforward nature of the solution required.
The windows
- The resident first raised that there was an issue with the window seals on 3 January 2020. The resident expanded on this when she reported the windows as being ill-fitted and draughty later that month, and further when she described the extent of the cold her family had experienced in her communication of 19 August 2020. The landlord did instruct some work to the windows in September and December 2020, however this did not resolve the issues with draughts. It was appropriate that the landlord organised a full inspection of the windows, which was completed in July 2021. The inspection identified that the windows were indeed poorly fitted, but also recommended replacement.
- The landlord decided to pursue the windows with the developer, having identified that the manufacturer of the windows had gone out of business. This slowed the process, and it was not until January 2022 that appropriate adjustment of the windows was completed by the landlord’s contractor, to fit them correctly.
- The warranty provider accepted the issue of the windows only after it visited the property to inspect the flooring and brickwork. The landlord’s contractor advised the design of the windows, which included a floating mullion, meant that they would never be completely draught free. It is reasonable that the landlord sought to identify whether it had liability in this case, however the process it used meant the resident experienced an unacceptable level of service. Ultimately, the landlord took too long to take reasonable steps to improve the resident’s situation, with the straightforward remedy of adjusting the windows unnecessarily delayed for two years.
Poor standard of brickwork
- Its failure identify the poor standard of brickwork prior to accepting handover of the property notwithstanding, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek intervention from the warranty provider once it became aware of the issue. What was unreasonable was the level of communication on the part of the landlord to ensure the resident was clear on the action being taken.
- The outcome of the warranty provider’s assessment is that it has now been confirmed that the wall is not structurally deficient. The landlord has followed the recommendation of the surveyor to ensure this was monitored appropriately for movement.
- In addition to an internal review of its processes to prevent this happening with future handovers of properties, it would be reasonable for the landlord to apologise to the resident specifically for its failure to identify the bowed wall in time to enable it to be addressed in a more satisfactory way.
The flooring and carpet
- The landlord did not respond swiftly enough to the resident’s safety concerns regarding the carpet grippers, which it could more reasonably have dealt with as an urgent matter. The resident indicated that the landlord accepted responsibility and replaced her neighbours’ carpet in 2020, however this is outside the scope of this investigation. Given the time taken to address the resident’s concerns regarding the carpet, it is appropriate that the landlord looked to pay for the replacement of the carpet in its stage two complaint response, which was issued 16 months after the resident first reported her concerns.
- The underlying issue with the joists and flooring installation were identified during an inspection in December 2020. The landlord caused unnecessary delays to resolving the matter, because it continued to look to the warranty provider for intervention after allowing its own contractor to carry out work to the area. Again, the warranty provider observed that the developer had not completed the installation of the flooring to plan, but it was functional and bore appropriate loads. The warranty provider placed the responsibility for the creaking floorboards with the landlord, and this resulted in the resident having waited an unnecessary 13 months for progress.
Damp and mould
- The resident first reported moisture and mould in bedroom one in February 2020, which she attributed to problems with the extractor fan. The landlord organised for its contractor to remedy the extraction system 16 months later, in June 2021. It again took an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to take action, however once complete it did appear to have been successful in resolving the issue for some time.
- The resident later reported mould in the kitchen in January 2022. The landlord’s contractor confirmed the presence of “severe” black mould behind the kitchen units in March 2022, and in April 2022 the resident impressed on the landlord the health risks this presented to her family.
- The landlord organised an inspection, which did not identify a source of underlying damp, and it acted reasonably in proceeding to remove the mould.
- The resident reported the recurrence of mould in her bedroom in December 2022, and in response the landlord agreed to arrange a further inspection. The resident has explained that she thinks this may be down to problems with the construction of the property, but this has not been confirmed. The resident has also highlighted the length of time her property lost heat to the windows and doors. It is important that the landlord now keeps the resident updated in a timely way as to what action it will take regarding the mould in her bedroom, with due regard to the health and safety of her household.
Inspection hole cut for investigation
- The resident has explained she would like the investigation hole cut by the landlord’s contractor in December 2020, and raised by the resident in March 2021, to be made good. It is appropriate that the landlord make good any damage caused by its contractors, and the delay in rectifying this is unreasonable. It should now arrange this, and an order is made to that effect below.
Remedies for the landlord’s failures in its handling of the reported defects
- In relation to failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
- The resident experienced unreasonably long delays in putting things right, and this was most acute during the two winters she spent in the property before the doors and windows were satisfactorily addressed. It would be reasonable for the landlord to compensate the resident for the period of two years that she waited for this. At a rate of £50 per month across the two colder halves of the calendar year, and £20 per month across the twelve warmer months, this comes to £840.
Handling of the associated complaint
- The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it should acknowledge a complaint in two days and have an action plan in place within five days. Once the resident’s stage one complaint was recorded in December 2020, it took seven days for official acknowledgement to be issued.
- Despite the resident explicitly using the term “complaint” early on, the landlord was slow to record and address her concerns as such. The landlord missed the opportunity to use the complaints process to ensure the resident’s concerns were effectively captured and progressed at an earlier stage. As it was, one of the resident’s main drivers to go through the complaint process was to ensure the landlord had recorded each issue that she had raised, and that it had a plan to address them. There was an additional lost opportunity in the landlord’s failure to fully examine what went wrong with the handling of the reports of defects, which meant appropriate learning was not implemented and the problems continued for the resident.
- The landlord’s complaint handling did not meet the standards set out in its own complaints policy, nor did it comply with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The Ombudsman had to prompt the landlord to provide a written stage one response, and further intervention was required before it provided the resident with details of how to escalate the complaint to stage two.
- In relation to failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
- The landlord looked to offer redress by way of £500 compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident. Given the impact of the landlord’s inappropriate complaint handling, it would be reasonable to increase this. With reference to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, it would be reasonable to offer the resident a further £350 for its failure to properly recognise the exacerbating factors adding to the resident’s distress, and £100 for the delays the resident experienced at stage one.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman’s scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord, in its:
- response to the resident’s reports of defects.
- handling of the associated complaint.
Reasons
- The landlord has shared its current defects process. It now includes target timescales, quicker action expected for defects affecting health and wellbeing of residents, the identification of points of contact for residents and the use of weekly spreadsheets issued to contractors for the purpose of performance monitoring. All of these improvements could have aided in the resident’s case.
- The landlord did not recognise the level of distress the resident was experiencing, and did not appropriately respond to health and safety matters she raised. In failing to treat her dissatisfaction as a complaint, the landlord missed opportunities to progress the case earlier, and by failing to fully engage with the experience of the resident, the landlord failed to identify points of learning that could have prevented the issues from recurring.
- The landlord’s inspection before handover of the property was not reasonable. It took too long to remedy straightforward defects, and it wasted a year waiting for the warranty provider’s inspection after it allowed its contractor to carry out works to the flooring. There is evidence that senior members of staff were able to track and progress the issues more effectively than junior members of staff, and the landlord should identify what the reasons for this were.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- It is ordered that within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord directly pay the resident £1790 compensation for her time and trouble, to be comprised of:
- The £500 it previously offered, if it has not already been paid.
- £350 for failing to take proper account of the exacerbating factors adding to the resident’s distress.
- £100 for the delays the resident experienced at stage one of her complaint.
- £840 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the time taken to remedy the doors and windows.
- It is ordered that within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord make good the inspection hole cut by its contractors, including the redecoration of the affected area.
- It is ordered that within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord apologises to the resident for its failure to identify the bowed wall in time to enable it to be addressed in a more satisfactory way
- It is ordered that within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord complete a management review of its handling of this case, to identify what went wrong in the handover inspection and its management of the defects. It should provide a copy of the review to the Ombudsman and confirm any learning it implements as a result.