Home Group Limited (202116755)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116755

Home Group Limited

21 April 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:
1. Reports of defects in her new build property.
2. Concerns about the parking arrangements, missing bins, lack of communal gardening, and cleaning services.
3. Request for a boundary to her block of flats.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a flat within a block on an estate under a shared ownership lease which began on 26 February 2021. It was a new-build property.

Legal and policy framework

The lease contained the following obligations:
1. The resident had a right to use a parking space “as the Landlord shall from time to time designate”. The property did not include any of the land which included the parking spaces.
2. The right for the resident and all persons authorised by her to park a private vehicle belonging to her.
3. The plan showed that the resident’s demise included her flat and some space outside the flat, which land adjoined communal land at the front (with indistinct annotation) and at the back.
The estate policy stated that the landlord was committed to making its neighbourhoods places its residents could be proud of and they could enjoy a well-maintained environment.
The landlord had a two-stage complaints procedure. The complaints policy applicable at the time of this complaint did not appear to provide a timescale but it is noted the landlord’s website provides a current timescale for the landlord’s responding of 10 days for stage one and 20 days at Stage two.

Chronology

According to a defects letter from the landlord dated 9 February 2021 addressed to another resident, the property had “been snagged” and only “genuine defects” would be attended to. “Cosmetic items” were not considered a defect and would not be attended to during the defect liability period.
On 11 March 2021, the resident reported what she considered to be defects as follows:
1. The shower head.
2. She could hear the neighbour’s running water which she put down to a lack of insulation in the soil stack.
3. An overflow in the kitchen sink.
4. A missing flow restrictor from the kitchen tap.
The landlord replied on the same day that it would log the first three repairs which would “fall“ within the same time frame as another job. The “aftercare” team would check whether the flow restrictor was included in the original specification and should have been installed.
On 16 March 2021, the landlord wrote asking whether the following issues had been resolved. The resident annotated some of the email with her comments as follows:
1. The resident noted that a leak to the en-suite bathroom had been repaired but the landlord’s contractor was due to make good the area on 29 March 2021.
2. The landlord had stated that the property had been signed off by NHBC. It asked whether the positioning of the shower head had “the potential to cause any defect issues”.
3. A contractor was due to attend to a leak in a pipe below a sink.
4. The landlord had forwarded the issue regarding the insulation but did not specify to where.
5. The exterior post box was leaking so that post became “soaking wet”.
On 15 or 27 April 2021, the date is not clear, the resident submitted a complaint on behalf of all the residents of her block as follows:
1. There had not been any communal cleaning or gardening.
2. A contractor had informed the resident that her toilet flush had been improperly installed.
3. No communal gardening or cleaning had taken place. The landlord had informed the resident that it would effect a refund for the services at the year end.
4. Although properties had not been cleaned to standard, the landlord had informed the residents that they would not be able to submit any further snags.
5. The three-bedroom properties were sold with a parking space but the sales team told all the buyers that they would be able to park on the estate.
6. The front doors slammed excessively loudly.
7. The resident cited inconsistent and poor customer service, a lack of response to reported defects within agreed timescales,or at all. She also cited operatives not attending or attending unannounced, and not being clear on what they were to do and poor quality workmanship overall.
8. The resident reported that she had raised a few issues when she viewed the property and reported them in writing the same day. While she was assured that they were going to be fixed before completion, this had not happened.
On 4 May 2021, the landlord replied to further reports by the resident as follows:
1. It had raised the issue of the toilet button flush.
2. It requested further details regarding the flush in the ensuite. The resident commented that she should have access to the shut-off valve. A contractor had stated that the flushes had been installed incorrectly and were to be changed.
3. It had closed the issue regarding the extractor having no filter and no outlet as the plumber had advised that the extractor did not need a filter and there was an outlet on the airbrick outside. The resident disagreed.
4. The contractors had confirmed that the shower head in the en-suite bathroom had nothing missing.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 May 2021 with a complaint as follows:
1. The three-bedroom properties were sold with exclusive parking spaces yet the landlord had informed buyers that parking was available for all. This had caused conflict, confusion, and frustration. The resident requested space markings to confirm which property they belonged to.
2. There had been no communal gardening or cleaning which costs were met by their service charges and she requested a refund.
According to the landlord’s internal email of 10 May 2021, the resident had requested that it escalated an existing complaint regarding snagging issues, a delay to her move into the property, and its £100 offer of compensation. This complaint was escalated to Stage two on 26 April 2021.
On 11 May 2021, the resident informed the landlord that the main outstanding defect was the toilet flushes in both bathrooms. On the same day, the landlord offered to inspect the property.
On 17 May 2021, the resident again reported there had been no cleaning or garden maintenance services since she moved in. She also expressed concern about the “sparse” boundary.
On 24 May 2021, the resident reported to the landlord as follows:
1. There was paint on the floors throughout the property. She would scrub the floors herself.
2. There were a number of splits and gaps in the flooring and areas of overlap.
3. The cupboard was chipped.
4. The paint was thin throughout.
5. The kitchen extractor was ineffective.
6. The hedges of her boundary line were inadequate
7. She had previously reported that the toilet flushes were still not repaired, despite attendances.
8. She understood that the post box was to be repaired on 25 May 2021.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 May 2021 and stated that it was holding weekly meetings in order to address the issues raised and would update the residents.
The landlord provided to this Service a letter headed “interim reply” and dated 3 June 2021. It appeared to be a draft however the resident appeared to refer to the letter in her email of 2021 so the Ombudsman concludes it was sent to the resident. It is referred to further below.
According to an internal email of the landlord of the same date, there was no pigeon proofing around the solar panels which was deemed to be a defect. The resident had requested to escalate the complaint on the basis that the timescales provided not being good enough and there was a lack of update.
On 17 June 2021, the landlord sent its Stage one response to the group of residents. The wording was in many ways identical to the letter of 3 June 2021.
1. It had set up fortnightly meetings with all of the relevant teams.
2. It had informed residents on moving in that they would not be able to submit or report snags further to those “noted on completion”. “Anything post completion is classed as a defect”. “Snagging” was not accepted as a defect item under the defects liability period and picking up snagging items was discretionary. It would advise its sales team to use the correct terminology.
3. It was unaware that its sales team informed buyers they could park in the spaces. It set out which properties had the exclusive right to use a parking space, including the resident’s.
4. Its contractor would provide a protective cover for the post boxes and would obtain a timescale for this to be completed.
5. The contractor had denied that the issues relating to plumbing constituted a defect. The landlord had requested an in-depth survey and would “send a legal letter” to its contractors “regarding previous communication”.
6. It had reported the front door slamming to its contractors on 2 June 2021 and the landlord had requested a survey.
7. It was addressing individual issues regarding paint jobs but “if these were not on snagging sheet or handover completion snags were rejected”. “High standard NHBC guidelines” were applied to the snagging. It would set compensation for those residents who did not want the inconvenience of further works taking place.
8. The contractor had attended reported defects “within a timely (sic)” however often “multiple appointments are needed for example when parts are required, this can then cause further delay”.
9. It would issue a “seven-day notice” to its contractors for operatives not presenting for appointments without any communication. It would “check in with residents continue to spot check.” (sic).
10. The landlord was investigating when the communal gardening and cleaning would begin and this “will all be reflected within service charge reconciliation”.
11. It was replacing the missing bins “in the coming days”.
12. It understood that many residents did not wish the landlord to rectify the paintwork and floor staining issue as it was inconvenient. It would establish a compensation figure to those residents, following the closure of the complaint.
13. It was difficult to provide timescales regarding defects as different defects had different timescales and some were not easy to address, such as plumbing. The landlord officer “has a vague road map of an action plan”. The landlord would contact each resident individually.
14. In relation to the garden maintenance, it was currently unable to provide a service, and it would “try and source an alternative contractor on an interim measure” (sic).
15. It relation to the cleaning, the letter stated “-waiting on the contract instruction” (sic).
16. The boundary to the resident’s block was being investigated.
17. It was aware that the resident was not satisfied with the complaint response and it would escalate the complaint.
The landlord wrote on 30 June 2021 that it had received the resident’s request to escalate to Stage two prior to the provision of its Stage one response and requested her reasons for escalating her complaint.
On 4 July 2021, the resident set out her reasons for requesting the complaint be escalated, including that the timescales provided were not good enough. She had raised concerns about the quality of the response and a lack of updates. The final response of 17 June 2021 did not take into consideration any of her corrections of 2 June 2021 and contained the same errors throughout. It was clear that “zero effort” had been made to take the residents’ concerns seriously.
An internal meeting took place on 6 July 2021, which minutes notes as follows:
1. Corrective covers had been installed to rectify post box leaks but that solution had failed. The developer had subsequently sent its specialist contractor to repair the post box. It would monitor the situation. No further issues had been reported since the repair was carried out.
2. In relation to the plumbing, the developer had denied these were defects and it understood that the residents may raise this with NHBC.
3. A contractor had been instructed to remedy any poor quality paintwork and flooring stains.
4. An action plan would be provided at the next meeting scheduled for 9 July 2021.
5. If the developer failed to resolve any reported defects, it would find an alternative contractor.
6. A ‘one-off’ clean had been arranged.
7. It would check the landscaping plans and raise this as a defect if appropriate.
8. It would develop written updates to improve communication.
On 8 July 2021, the resident reported a defective extractor fan and chased an update in relation to her email of 24 May 2021.
On 9 July 2021, the landlord requested an update regarding the decorative issues and the resident replied. According to the landlord, a contractor had been due to attend to the kitchen extractor fan but according to the resident, it was still defective. The resident’s reply was annotated that the incorrectly fitted floor had been fixed, as had been the flushes.
On 19 July 2021, the resident requested a small fence as a boundary.
A further internal meeting took place on 21 July 2021 to consider progress of each item. The notes were reflected the landlord’s letter of 26 July 2021.
In July 2021, there was an ongoing correspondence between the landlord and the bin contractors/local authority.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with its Stage two response as follows:
1. It noted that snags and defects were common in newly built properties. It accepted that that its communication, “processes” and management of customer expectations had fallen “significantly below the standards it would expect” and this, together with lengthy timescales to resolve some of the issues, had compounded the situation.
2. It understood that because of its poor communication, it gave the impression that it did not care. This was particularly concerning given that the landlord’s primary purpose was to help people with their housing needs and aspirations and in particular those who were seeking to establish themselves on the housing ladder.
3. On a particular officer getting involved, regular meetings involving key stakeholders had been set up to ensure that all issues were adequately documented and, more importantly progressed as quickly as possible. It tried to improve communication with residents with an update bulletin. It acknowledged this was not the perfect solution and should have been implemented sooner but was “hopefully a step in the right direction”.
4. It attached the notes of the 6 and 21 July 2021 meetings to demonstrate progress.
5. There were some outstanding actions to be completed until it had fulfilled its commitment to the residents to put things right.
6. It set out further updates as follows:
  1. The post box issue had been resolved.
  2. The front door slamming issues had been resolved.
  3. The communal cleaning contract had started on 16 July 2021 and would continue weekly.
  4. It had engaged a contractor for the gardening service which would “resume” shortly and it would update the residents with a start date.
  5. It was arranging the replacement bin and would update the residents.
  6. It was exploring options regarding the pigeon issues and it would update the residents once the options were evaluated.
  7. While car parking signage was not part of the original design/specification, it would arrange for labels to mark in each of the spaces, at its cost.
  8. It had discussed the issue of the boundaries with the developer who was investigating what has been delivered against the original design plans.
  9. The majority of individual defects reported separately by residents appeared to have been resolved but there were a few individual defects outstanding. It would be liaising with individual residents to ensure these were progressed and resolved as quickly as possible.
  10. A further meeting was scheduled for 2 August 2021 and it would update the residents and would provide its final response before closing the complaint.
7. It was genuinely sorry for the lack of clear updates and the inconvenience caused. There were “valuable lessons” for it to learn.
8. The head of the directorate would remain the point of contact until all actions were fully concluded.
On 4 August 2021, the landlord wrote to all the residents requesting details of the inadequate paintwork. The resident requested it address the lounge and main bedroom. The resident would attend to the rest herself to reduce disruption.
On 6 August 2021, the landlord wrote its final complaint response as follows:
1. It had appointed a contractor to remedy any individual paintwork/staining issues with paintwork to be resolved and the areas in question to be re-painted (“touch up or repaint”) to the resident’s satisfaction and in line with the original specification. The landlord had offered the resident a carpet clean,
2. It declined offering compensation in lieu but considered that its offer to re-paint to a satisfactory standard and arrange a professional carpet clean was a fair and reasonable resolution.
3. The portal was working and the residents could also communicate by telephone and email.
4. It acknowledged there had been poor customer service. The service had been inconsistent and there was room for considerable improvement. It had taken steps to try and improve the situation and believe it had made some progress, including a regular update bulletin and the resolution of issues including the front door and post box.
5. It had 13 plumbing issues currently logged and being progressed. There did not appear to be any systemic issues or failures. It set out steps to build a full picture and conclude on whether these needed to be treated as individual or more generic issues.
6. It would oversee the outstanding plumbing works through to completion.
7. It had updated residents regarding its difficulties with cleaning and garden maintenance. It would not charge any service charges for the services. It apologised for any inconvenience. Garden maintenance was due to have begun in February 2021. It would take place fortnightly. It provided the specification of the service, however there would be an interim contractor. The grounds maintenance would commence from 16 August 2021.
8. The communal cleaning should have started in February 2021. The contract instruction/go ahead was not given until July 2021. A deep clean was requested, however as the contract instruction was given at the same time, the contractor commenced its service instead and did not charge for the deep clean. A weekly service was to start in February 2021 but was delayed for a number of reasons. The landlord was “challenging” the contractor with regards to its recent performance and the contract and would monitor this. It provided the cleaning specification.
9. It would arrange additional signage for the car park and cover the cost. It would provide updates in the weekly bulletin.
10. The landlord would replace the current boundary with more established plants.
11. It had arranged a replacement bin.
12. It agreed response times and communications “could have been better”, especially at the start of the project and this would be reviewed at a later date. It would issue a regular email bulletin. It invited feedback.
13. It would not usually award a group of residents compensation as it would assess compensation in relation to each individual. The majority of issues reported in the original complaint had affected all residents. It offered £140 to each of the 10 residents who had complained in relation to poor quality work and service, lack of access to facilities for e.g. gardens, disruption, inconvenience and delays caused by multiple visits by contractors.
14. The service had been “completely unacceptable” and it had committed to carrying out a thorough review and lesson learned exercise, once the outstanding issues had been satisfactorily achieved. It would share the key findings.
15. It repeated its apology for the frustration and inconvenience.
The landlord wrote to all the residents on 4 August 2021 with the offer to apply another coat of paint on the affected areas of their property.
The resident replied on 8 August 2021 asking the landlord to paint the main bedroom, lounge wall and ceiling. She would do the rest.
The resident wrote on 25 August 2021 requesting decoration vouchers.
According to work sheets dated 27 August 2021 and an invoice dated 28 September 2021 with photographs attached, a two-person-two-day job to paint the kitchen ceiling, patio door, hall architraves, fill “numerous dents” was carried out. The sheets were marked as “name refused” and had two identical signatures.
On 24 September 2021, an internal meeting took place with the following outcomes for the landlord:
1. It should review lessons learned more often.
2. It would benefit from a ‘pre-handover meeting’ involving all key project stakeholders and to ensure the Home User Guide was comprehensive.
3. It critiques its aspects of its service, it identified a need for a resolution matrix, to better manage customer expectations and in particular as defects/snags often happen with new build homes.
4. It assessed its contractors, staff and roles.
5. The need for a “key task” checklist and better internal collaboration.
6. It considered a “drop in” session for residents to meet key colleagues.
In August and September, there followed a number of exchanges regarding the bins and the cleaning. On 16 September 2021, another resident reported that the last time the cleaning rota was ‘signed’ was 31 August 2021. On 30 September 2021, the landlord confirmed that all four blocks had been serviced the day before. On 4 October 2021, the landlord requested a cleaning report from its contractor.
According to the resident’s email of 4 October 2021, the car parking spaces were assigned. She chased the position on the boundary line.
On 21 October 2021, the landlord investigated and established that the grounds were communal with an area outside each ground floor flat which led onto her garden but with no distinct demarcation.
On 16 November 2021, the landlord chased the contractor for updates in relation to the communal cleaning.
On 13 March 2023, the Ombudsman requested an update on the current position from the parties.
On 18 March 2023, the resident reported that:
1. She had made further complaints due to poor customer service, communication and “lack of transparency”.
2. The communal gardening and cleaning were in place but not the exterior window cleaning.
3. The poor-quality paint work was not resolved as only some paint work had been completed.
4. New plants were installed but had provided an insufficient boundary, which was advertised as a “balcony”. Most of the plants perished. She wanted to install her own boundary so that visiting children and animals could play safely.
On 31 March 2023, the landlord informed this Service that it was difficult to obtain updates and it provided an undated report which included as follows:
1. The correct procedure was to allow the original contractor the opportunity to correct any defects. As the contractor disputed most of the reports, this turned in to a much longer process than anticipated and eventually resulted in the landlord taking legal action against the contractor. Unfortunately, this had impacted on the residents.
2. It offered support to set up a Tenants and Residents Association, but there had been “no appetite” to do this.
3. The resident’s en-suite bathroom was out of action for several months. She was given inaccurate information and experienced further issues with the supply chain for tiles. Further compensation was offered. It agreed to take accountability for a warranty period, as this had expired.
4. The landlord had specific issues with contractors and recruitment and retention of skilled tradespeople in relation to the cleaning and gardening. Window cleaning was delayed in starting due to a lack of suitable contractor and refunds were given. It was in place and it was monitoring the service to ensure it was up to standard.
5. Customers were given a specific inbox to report concerns, updates were given on a regular basis, it understood inspections. It had not received further reports.
6. Services that were not delivered were refunded.
7. The boundary for the property was planted as per the specification but the planting was done at the wrong time of year meaning the plants died or did not grow. It replanted the border at the correct time of year to avoid a recurrence of the issues.
8. It had considered the resident’s request for a fence to replace the boundary but it was required to adhere to the building specification.

Assessment and findings

The investigation was hampered to an extent due to the quality of the landlord’s records as it was sometimes difficult to track progress on individual issues, as will be highlighted by this report.

Scope of this investigation

The Ombudsman has noted that the resident had made a complaint about the delays to the purchase of the property and snagging issues. Given the evidence indicated that the landlord’s complaints procedures had concluded, but was not referred to this Service, this report has not investigated that complaint. It is also noted that the landlord stated that it offered compensation in relation to the loss of use of the en-suite bathroom. Again, while there were issues with the bathroom, the Ombudsman will take this into account that the en-suite bathroom was addressed under a different complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects.

The landlord’s explanation that there was a distinction between a “snagging period” and the defects period was reasonable. It was a reasonable position to state that the landlord would honour the snags raised and agreed during the viewing of the property and prior to completion. It was also reasonable to explain that its obligation to rectify issues was then limited to building defects, and not decorations or “cosmetic” issues and that it would contact the developer in the first instance. It was therefore also reasonable that the landlord would approach the developer as its first post of call, as it was the developer that should bear the responsibility of addressing building defects, while seeking to address the defects.
Nevertheless, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider and investigate the resident’s reports, to provide clear explanations about whether an issue constituted a defect, and to advocate with the developer.
The landlord did not provide the resident’s snagging list to this Service. However, the landlord did not ultimately dispute the issues raised. Furthermore, despite the developer not taking action in a number of areas, it acknowledged and accepted responsibility for the issues in relation to the paintwork, the plumbing, and the lack of a boundary. While it did not appear to be part of the resident’s own complaint, it also accepted that the pigeon nuisance was a defect. The landlord also accepted that its communication had been poor. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds the landlord acted reasonably in that regard.
The Ombudsman will consider whether there were any unreasonable delays to its actions and whether the landlord put matters right. The Ombudsman will also consider whether all the resident’s issues were addressed.
It was reasonable of the landlord to log on receipt of the 11 March 2011 reports of the audible running water in her neighbour’s property, the overflow in the kitchen sink, and the kitchen tap. While there was no evidence of when and whether these were addressed, there was equally no evidence that there were further reports, so it is reasonable to assume that they were resolved on 29 March 2021 as promised or later,in regards to the audible running water, given the plumbing issues were reported as to have been addressed.
There were a number of further issues where there was no clear evidence of the outcome as follows.
1. It is noted that a leak from the en-suite ceiling was repaired within a reasonable period of the resident moving in. Again, the landlord accepted responsibility in making good. While there was no evidence when it did so, equally there were no further reports, so it was reasonable to assume this was resolved, insofar as this complaint was concerned. It is also reasonable to conclude any further issues were addressed in the resident’s further complaint.
2. There was no evidence whether the landlord addressed the flow restrictor from the kitchen tap, however equally there were no further reports. Where there were no further reports of issues, it is reasonable to conclude the issues were addressed, albeit with some delay.
3. The landlord’s explanation that the shower had no missing parts and the extractor fan did not need a filter was, in the view of the Ombudsman, reasonable.
Due to the lack of clear records, it was not clear whether the extractor fan issue of 4 May 2021 was the same extractor fan referred to in the resident’s reports of 24 May 2021 and 9 July 2021. Again, there was no evidence that it was repaired but equally there was no evidence that it was an outstanding issue beyond 9 July 2021. However, there was some delay to addressing the resident’s report of 24 May 2021.
The evidence indicated that the landlord took responsibility for the issue of the flushes first reported on 27 April 2021. While there was a delay before they were resolved on or around by 9 July 2021, the landlord had attempted repairs in the meantime. As above, the evidence also showed that the en-suite bathroom was dealt with separately.
The landlord addressed the “splits and gaps” in the floor reported on 24 May 2021 on or around 9 July 2021 which, in the view of the Ombudsman was not an unreasonable delay.
The evidence showed that the front door, reported as far as the resident was concerned in April 2021, was addressed on a date before 6 July 2021. Without any evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that the repair took three months, which constituted an unreasonable but not a significant delay. There was no apparent significant impact on the resident herself, given the main inconvenience was to families in the block.
The landlord’s explanation for the delay in addressing the issue of the post box was reasonable, given it had made reasonable attempts to address the defect in the meantime.
The landlord acted reasonably in offering to paint the property. The resident asked that the bedroom and lounge be painted and she would paint the rest. The evidence showed that the kitchen and hall were painted over a period of four “man” days. The resident requested decoration vouchers, indicating she did some of the painting herself. While the invoices provided to this Service were helpful, due to the incompleteness of the records it is not clear what the exact outcome was, but it is reasonable to conclude the landlord did not do all the painting. The landlord in its response 17 June 2021 stated it would pay compensation where residents had not agreed to the landlord rectifying the painting was not carried out. While the offer was discretionary, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to abide by its promises. It is too late for decoration vouchers to be of use to the resident but this will be reflected in the Ombudsman’s orders in the context of the landlord’s complaint handling.
It was not disputed that communication and management of the new build was poor, there was some confusion about what the residents could expect and there were consequential delays which caused frustration, inconvenience and dissatisfaction in the resident’s new home.
The evidence showed that the landlord acted reasonably in offering inspections, holding weekly meetings, and carrying out an analysis of what went wrong. There was evidence of an improvement in its responsiveness and actions. It also showed that it attempted to take robust action in relation to the developer on the resident’s behalf, while taking steps to rectify the issues in the meantime. It had difficulties in resolving matters, but it sought to put matters right itself, expressed empathy and understanding of the importance of its role and accepted responsibility for the issues reported.
As the landlord itself acknowledged, delays were caused by the landlord first approaching the developer. However, in the view of the Ombudsman, the landlord’s decision to first approach the developer was reasonable as defects were the developer’s prime responsibility. There was, moreover, a debate about what constituted a defect and what did not. Overall, in the view of the Ombudsman, the landlord sought to address the issues.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds £140 sufficient compensation in relation to the landlord’s response of the reports of the defects.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of parking arrangements, missing bins, lack of communal gardening, and cleaning services.

The landlord accepted that there had been no communal gardening or cleaning and the evidence showed that it did not start till the end of August 2021. Even when it had started, the service, in particular in relation to the cleaning, was erratic. The landlord attributed the blame to its difficulties with the availability and standard of its contractors. There was little evidence to corroborate this, however, on the balance of probabilities, while the Ombudsman queries what arrangements were in place at the outset, the Ombudsman accepts that to be the case. There was some evidence that the landlord monitored the service. It was appropriate of the landlord to reassure the resident that there would be no service charges in that regard.
While the landlord did not dispute the difficulties, it was not proactive in updating the resident for some months and the delay to setting up the services was significant, in particular given its assurances in its policy. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds service failure in that regard. The resident has confirmed that apart from the window cleaning, the issue is resolved. While events which occur after the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure may now outside the scope of this investigation, the issue is linked and therefore the Ombudsman will make an order in that regard.
The evidence showed that the landlord took steps to replace the bins but there were administrative difficulties with the providers, requiring further chasing and frustration for the resident. While not significant in itself, this added to the accumulative effect of the delays and failures.
In relation to the parking, it was not disputed that the resident had exclusive use of a space. It is not possible to determine what was said at the outset regarding the parking and why other residents without that right would park in the allocated spaces, which indicated a level of confusion. However, it would be common sense to have marked the spaces in any event. There was a further delay from the date of the report April to October 2021 in doing so and again, the Ombudsman finds service failure in that regard.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a fence.

The resident raised the issue of the boundary on 11 May 2021. The evidence showed that her property included some land around it. While the resident reported that the space was described as a “balcony”, it was not possible to conclude what was intended by that. It would be for the resident or her solicitor to make the proper enquiries on buying the flat. There was no indication of a barrier on the lease plan or what enquiries were made by the resident or her solicitor during the conveyancing process. Given the land just outside her flat formed part of her property, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to consider providing some demarcation, in order to prevent misuse by others, although from a photograph, there does appear to be a border for the plants. However, it appeared that the resident was requesting a boundary round all of the land owned by leaseholders of her particular block.
While there was an initial delay before it considered the issue, the landlord’s explanation for the delay in re-establishing the planted boundary was reasonable, however. It was reasonable of the landlord to seek to remedy the issue and to consider the resident’s request for a fence. There may be good reasons for not allowing a fence. However, the landlord’s explanation that it was not permitted to allow a fence was not satisfactory in that it was not sufficiently detailed, therefore the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard. While the Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns, they does not find service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of her request for a fence.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

There was a lack of clarity about the complaints procedure, no explanation of how the resident’s own complaint was being managed, all of whose issues were not subsumed in the group complaint and therefore went unaddressed. While the landlord stated it would address the residents’ issues individually, apart from one round robin letter regarding the painting there was no evidence of this. This was not satisfactory. However, the landlord’s flexible approach allowed the residents to add issues to the complaint, which was reasonable.
The language of the Stage one response was unclear, in particular the explanation regarding the snagging. Some of the outcomes were vague, described as being resolved “in the coming days”, and “a vague road map of an action plan”. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord did not have a timescale for all its actions, the landlord could have given a timescale when it would provide a more clarity and specific timings, depending on the defect, by writing to the residents individually.
It was also in part not well written, as highlighted in the chronology, which added to the lack of clarity and the resident feeling, particularly after she went to the trouble of making corrections, that the landlord “did not care”. The Ombudsman appreciates the pressures on a landlord and its staff and that it is its actions, not words, that matter most. However, it is beneficial to ensure its language and communication is clear.
However, the complaint response initiated better communication and a more proactive approach. It suggested setting up a Resident’s Association. It instigated cross team-meetings to ensure actions were taken and monitored and an exercise of self-reflection. This, in the view of the Ombudsman, was an improvement and a necessary step in putting matters right. However, while the resident’s continued dissatisfaction is noted, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
The landlord’s second response was open in acknowledging what went wrong, it set out the detail of the car parking and garden specification so the residents would know what standard to expect. It shared its meeting notes which demonstrated transparency. It set out a further set of solutions and a promise to monitor. However, it made a promise to provide compensation in lieu of decorating, which it withdrew without explanation, which was inappropriate.
Finally, both responses were delayed, if not significantly, but without explanation. While it is appreciated that responses can take longer, the landlord should also update the resident in the meantime.
While the landlord’s complaint handling had benefits as well as drawbacks, on balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects in her new build property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of parking arrangements, missing bins, lack of communal gardening, and cleaning services.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a boundary to her block of flats.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While there were delays and an initial lack of communication, the evidence indicated that the landlord took steps to address the defects and not all the delay was attributable to the landlord. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the offer of £140 was reasonable compensation.
There was no evidence that the landlord had put in place sufficiently robust arrangements for the cleaning, parking, bin, and gardening services so that there was an unreasonable delay in resolving the issues.
The landlord reasonably considered and sought to put in place arrangements to create a boundary around the block that the resident occupied, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to reconsider its view and provide a detailed explanation why it would not give permission to the resident to erect a fence in particular around her own outside space.
While the landlord’s complaint handing instigated an improvement in its responses, there was evidence that it understood a review of its services and improved the coordination between departments, the landlord’s complaint responses were not initially clear. There were unexplained delays and it withdrew its promise to provide compensation to residents who undertook their own decoration. If it had not been for other positive steps identified within the landlord’s complaint handling, the Ombudsman would have found maladministration.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £500 within 4 weeks as follows:
  1. £250 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of parking arrangements, missing bins, lack of communal gardening, and cleaning services.
  2. £250 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling to include a sum in lieu of decorating vouchers.
2. The landlord is ordered to carry out an assessment of its window cleaning service within 6 weeks of this report, to include an explanation of any issues it has encountered, confirmation to the resident it has not charged for services not provided and how it will rectify any shortcomings, with a summary to the resident.
3. Within 8 weeks, the landlord should carry out a review of the complaints the resident has made, and, in the light of this report, any similar complaints by the other residents, consider what steps it has taken to rectify its service, identify any systemic issues, and set out how it proposes to address those issues.
The landlord should provide confirmation to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders by:
1. Within 4 weeks, confirming to the Ombudsman’s satisfaction, that it has paid the resident the compensation under paragraph 83 (a) of this report.
2. Within 8 weeks, providing to the Ombudsman:
  1. A copy of the assessment pursuant to paragraph 83 (b) and its summary to the resident, if different.
  2. A copy of the review pursuant to paragraph 83 (c).

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should reconsider its plan to create a boundary, including whether to erect a fence, given the planting appears to have failed and, if it declines to erect a fence, whether around her own demise or to block A, it should provide a detailed explanation for its decision and inform the resident of its plans.
2. The landlord should confirm with detail to the Ombudsman it has implemented the steps outlined in its review of 24 September 2021.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.