Home Group Limited (202123612)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123612

Home Group Limited

19 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

This complaint concerns:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noises coming from the flooring at the property.
2. The landlord’s offer of compensation.
This report has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared owner together with his partner and the lease commenced on 13 August 2018. They will be referred to as the resident throughout the report.
The property is described as a two-bedroom house comprising two floors. The bedrooms and bathroom are situated on the first floor.
The landlord’s complaints, compliments, and comments policy states that it will answer initial complaints within 20 working days and complaints escalated to the final stage within 20 working days. Following this, residents have the option to refer matters to the Housing Ombudsman Service or to the Independent Complaints panel, who may be able to assist with a solution to the matter.
The landlord’s doing it the right way, discretionary compensation policy sets out its approach to compensation payments where there has been service failure and that each case will be assessed on its merits.
The landlord’s property management policy advises that properties will be inspected to ensure compliance with industry standards and that the developer is responsible for any defective works within the defects liability period which can last from between 12 and 24 months. It also sets out in terms of new developments that “properties will be inspected to confirm that they are in good condition and meet any necessary industry standards when handed over”. The policy sets out that the landlord works closely with contractors, employer’s agents and third parties and that contractors were “responsible for any defective works that are not in accordance with the contract within the Defects Liability Period where applicable”.
The resident advised they raised issues with the landlord and the developer during the first year of the lease including at the first-year inspection of the property, some of these issues have been resolved. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from July 2019 onwards as these matters were six months prior to the time the resident raised the complaint with the landlord. Given the time that has passed, the historic aspects of the resident’s complaint fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. Any reference to them in this report is for context only.

Summary of events

The landlord has confirmed that it no longer has a relationship with the property developer and that the majority of its staff who were involved with the matter no longer work with it. As a result it has limited records relating to the time period in question.
The resident wrote to the landlord about the issues they had faced since moving into the property. This letter was undated and the landlord has not confirmed when it received the correspondence. However based on the contents it was sometime in January 2020. In terms of the issues which were still outstanding, within the resident’s letter, these were as follows:
1. Kitchen flooring issues. This included issues with the gluing of the joints, the lifting at the edges resulting in a trip hazard and that the concrete floor beneath the flooring was also visible in parts. The resident explained that they were informed they would need to wait until the first-year inspection in August 2019 to report the matter. They added they had been given a date of 30 January 2020 that this job was due to be fixed.
2. The upstairs flooring. The resident explained this had caused a lot of disruption and that the floor “bounces, creaks extremely loudly and had been reported on multiple occasions”. The resident added:
  1. That although some work had been carried out around the time of the first year inspection in August 2019 the workmen who carried this out had informed them that “we will always have some creaking and there isn’t any more that can be done”. They felt this was unacceptable.
  2. A contractor who visited the property had informed them that the issue was caused by the floorboards being nailed down with a nail gun. They had been told the entire floorboards needed to be taken up and replaced which was an opinion not shared by the developer.
  3. They had taken multiple days off work to get the matter resolved and that whatever work was undertaken there would be further disruption including noises, moving furniture which could damage the internal decor and potential damage to the carpets. The resident did not provide details of the specific dates they had taken off work.
  4. The whole issue would affect the resale value in the event it was not fixed.
  5. Whilst the resident wished for the outstanding issues to be resolved they were worried about quick fixes being attempted especially on the flooring. They expressed confusion as to how an external contractor had suggested a greater fix than that proposed by the landlord and the developer.
Following the landlord’s visit to the property on 30 January 2020 to review the resident’s ongoing complaint, it wrote to the resident on 26 February 2020 with the stage one response. It added in the stage one response that it had attended the property on 6 February 2020 jointly with the developer to identify the proposed works which were to “cut section locally to the walls back and install timber heron bone, noggins and refit flooring”. It added that the work related to the two bedrooms and the landing.
The landlord acknowledged in the stage one response that the worked proposed following the visit on 6 February 2020 would allow the house to be liveable but that the resident would be disrupted and might need to be out of the house or take time off. It added it would look to compensate the resident for this. The landlord’s letter did not contain details of any compensation amount being offered or when exactly the proposed work was due to take place.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 February 2020. In their response:
1. They explained that they had been led to believe they would receive compensation however the letter had no reference to this.
2. They also questioned the complaint being categorised as miscommunication and the lack of a response with regards to the issues other than the flooring.
3. The resident set out their neighbours had received compensation for less issues and disruption then they had faced.
4. In terms of other costs which had been experienced the resident said this included the following although specific details to support the costs were not provided:
  1. A large amount of annual leave.
  2. There was the disruption of leaving the home for a week.
  3. Additional fuel cost
  4. The stress they had faced.
5. They confirmed that they would like to escalate the matter to the next stage of the complaint’s process.
The landlord responded to the resident on 27 February 2020, providing details of the compensation it was offering which it stated was for £250. It apologised that the amount and breakdown had not been provided on the stage one response as the wrong template had been used. It explained that the resident would receive the correct letter including the amount offered in the next couple of days. The landlord set out details of the compensation proposed which comprised:
1. £75 for disruption.
2. £75 for the time spent pursuing the matter.
3. £75 for multiple visits.
The landlord also confirmed that the complaint was more than just miscommunication and had to do with the flooring and the bad service the resident had received from the developer following the landlord contacting it about the remedial work required.
The resident provided further information which they wanted the landlord to consider at stage two. This included:
1. That five days annual leave had been taken for the latest work on the flooring, which followed the visit by the landlord and the developer on 6 February 2020 at a daily rate of £72 per day. In total the resident stated a total of 10 days of annual leave had been taken by them. However further details of when the other leave had been taken was not provided by the resident.
2. They had endured 15 months of stress and worry and “having to continuously push for the builders to acknowledge that the creaking wasn’t acceptable”. It had only been via the involvement of the landlord that the developer had agreed “that improvements had to be made”.
3. The physical impact of having to move large items of furniture on multiple occasions.
4. The disruption of having to leave the home whilst work was being carried out. As the resident did not own a car, they had needed to organise transport which was an additional expense for them.
The landlord acknowledged the information the resident had provided on 28 February 2020 and confirmed the matter would proceed to stage two of the complaint’s process. It confirmed that the formal offer that its compensation matrix allowed for was for £260 which was made up of:
1. £75 for disruption.
2. £75 for the time spent pursuing the matter.
3. £75 for multiple visits.
4. £35 for service failure.
The landlord submitted a claim for the excessive creaking of the upstairs flooring under a warranty for the property on 28 February 2020.
The insurer of the housing warranty wrote to the landlord on 1 May 2020. It noted that the warranty provided two elements of cover. These related to the defects insurance period as well as the structural insurance period. In relation to the defects insurance period this ran for the first year; from 10 August 2018 to 10 August 2019. The structural insurance period ran for the next 11 years up to 10 August 2030.
The insurer set out that it understood that the resident had initially noted the issue on 1 November 2018 and had notified the landlord of the matter on 7 January 2019. However, the claim had not been made by the landlord within six months of the expiry of the defects period. As a result, the claim had been declined by the insurer.
The landlord issued the stage two response to the resident on 5 May 2020. It explained that following discussing the matter with the resident during a site visit at the end of February 2020 it had submitted a claim to the warranty provider which had been declined. The landlord set out that it understood the resident’s outstanding issues related to:
1. The creaking flooring to the upstairs of the property.
2. The flooring of the bathroom lifting and requiring to be resealed following a leak.
3. The resident requesting a higher offer of compensation related to “various inconveniences and financial losses incurred during this time”.
The landlord’s stage two response confirmed that it would increase the offer of compensation to £550, split between it and the developer. It added it was unable to award compensation for loss of earning under its compensation policy. It added that shortly after the complaint had been escalated to stage two it had undertaken a site visit and confirmed that the creaking was only excessive at the top of the stairs. Specific details of when this site visit took place and what happened during it has not been provided by the landlord. It explained that “the difficulty with reinforcing certain areas of flooring is that this then makes them more rigid and moves the flex to other areas, therefore this moves the creak from one part of the house to the other”.
The landlord confirmed that having discussed the matter with the developer who had set out the work they had already done on the flooring, no further action was recommended. This was as it considered the level of creaking “is dependent on how the floor is loaded and the level demonstrated and assessed is to be expected therefore this is not classed as a defect on this basis”.
The resident wrote to the independent complaints panel on 9 June 2020. They explained that they had faced a number of issues when moving in and that “overall the standard of construction and finish of the property had been very poor”. The main issue had been the upstairs floor. The resident explained the “floor bounces and moves significantly, and creaks extremely loudly”. The resident also explained that the situation had impacted on their mental and physical health.
The resident set out details in their correspondence of their recollection of what had happened, and they set out a number of issues they wanted the panel to consider which were:
1. Why the landlord had ignored the advice of a second independent contractor who they say had inspected the property and had recommended the flooring was fully replaced.
2. Why the landlord whilst seemingly accepting the creaking noise was excessive, had not rectified it but rather closed their complaint.
3. An explanation why the defect was not covered under the warranty insurance policy.
4. Why despite the landlord saying that no further work was possible, it had advised them that work might be possible following the resident having paid the £1,000 excess under the warranty insurance.
5. Confirmation that the floor would be replaced and that they would be rehoused when this happened and compensated including for reasonable expenses as a result of this.
The independent complaints panel wrote to the resident on 29 July 2020. It made the following recommendations:
1. An independent survey to be completed by someone not connected to either party. The landlord would need to act on the recommendations made by the independent assessor.
2. That more care needed to be given at the handover inspection of new build properties to identify and resolve defects prior to handover to the owner.
3. The landlord’s aftercare team needed to provide more clarity on communicating the excess on the building insurance if any major work was carried out.
4. The panel would review the case once the independent survey had taken place.
An independent survey took place on 15 October 2020. The report concluded:
1. The noises exhibited from the floors whilst not meeting the maximum impact sound transmittance level set for floors and stairs in new builds were “noticeable when compared to the rest of the floor area”.
2. That the floor could transmit impact sound as well as airborne sound. To combat the impact sound a resilient layer material should be loosely laid over the joist before the boards were fitted. However, it noted that the resilient layer “would need to be laid over the full property which is believed to be excessive”.
3. In order to dampen the sound levels locally, insulation was installed between joists being denser than the thermal insulation quilt.
4. Noggings or bearers fixed to the joists on either side should be used to support the weight of a non load-bearing partition. Details of the size of the noggings and how they needed to be fixed were provided and this was in accordance with NHBC section 6.4.3 which related to upper floor design. Having inspected the floor “no such noggings originally existed below the partitions spanning parallel to the joists”. It recommended that additional noggings were installed below the partitions along the walls to the landing cupboard and bathroom. This would provide “additional strengthening to the floor”.
5. Following the proposed remedial work being undertaken that monitoring occurred to determine that the issue had been resolved.
The independent surveyor’s report was provided to the landlord with a covering email on 22 October 2020. This email set out that the surveyor “could not identify anything obviously wrong with the construction around the areas of louder noise”. It did recommend some additional noggings were installed, to those previously fitted. The survey accepted that as replacing the flooring would be excessive and invasive, and rather some insulation to deaden the sound was the best solution.
The independent complains panel wrote to the resident on 17 December 2020. It explained that it had received the independent survey report and had met with the landlord. It accepted the property was constructed properly and that “sound deadening insulation has been installed in the areas where noise is still noticeable”. The panel recommended the landlord:
1. Reviewed the original offer of compensation and increased the amount in lieu of the additional disruption and inconvenience experienced.
2. Provided a full explanation why it disagreed with the resident’s view that the floor was not built correctly.
3. Provided a full summary of the works carried out at the property.
The landlord wrote to the resident setting out the final response. Whilst the copy of the letter provided by the landlord was dated on 25 January 2021 the resident’s copy is dated 29 January 2021. The landlord set out:
1. It had reviewed the compensation offer of £550 and would honour this amount but not increase it any further. The landlord explained the original offer consisted of £300 covered by it, which was the maximum it could offer under the discretionary compensation policy and £250 covered by the developer. The landlord explained in relation to the developer’s contribution this had been on the basis it did not return to the property to undertake further investigations or works. As further work had taken place the developer had withdrawn the £250 it was proposing, which the landlord would instead cover itself.
2. Whilst it was unable to consider compensation for loss of earnings through the discretionary compensation policy, the resident could submit a claim directly with the insurance team in terms of disrepair or financial loss should they wish. It provided details to the resident to do this.
3. It disagreed with the resident’s view that the floor was not built correctly.
  1. The landlord confirmed it had adhered to the internal processes and procedures which were in place to ensure the houses were fit for purpose and constructed in a way to satisfy the required building standards. This had been reviewed by LABC.
  2. The landlord had paid for an independent survey for the property and it had enclosed the report to the resident.
4. Details of the work that had been carried out at the property. This included strutting in the upper part of the property, floorboards being screwed down, sound dampening insulation being installed, and extra timbers and wedges being fitted below the skirting.
5. It understood from a recent visit that the resident was stating that the area of flooring around the internal wall between one of the bedrooms and the bathroom was still noisy. It stated this “issue was the result of normal settlement and structural shrinkage due to colder periods”. The landlord added that it was “looking into possible solutions to resolve this issue”.
Since referring the complaint to this Service in January 2022 the resident has raised further issues. These relate to some of the follow up remedial work on the property including skirting issues. These issues had followed on from the partial rebuilding of a wall and the final works on the flooring which took place in June 2021. In addition the resident explained the landlord’s contractor had left bags of rubbish outside the property which were not collected for an extended period of time. These issues will not be addressed as part of this investigation as the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and there is no evidence that a formal complaint about these matters has completed the landlord’s complaints process.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reporting of the flooring including noise issues

It is not uncommon for there to be ‘snagging issues’ with any new build property especially as some issues are not apparent at handover and will only become apparent once the property has been ‘lived in’ and subject to normal everyday use. Whilst any issue needing a fix would have caused a degree of distress and inconvenience for the resident has raised concerns about the extent of the distress and inconvenience.
The landlord has not provided many notes or repair logs for the works that it had carried out prior to the resident’s complaint in January 2020. This incorporated small remedial works which the resident stated the landlord had asked the developer to complete after the issue had initially been raised in January 2019. Details of the remedial work carried out have not been provided by the landlord. The landlord had also not provided any notes of site visits when either the developer or it had attended the property to do with the issue of the flooring.
Whilst the resident has stated a second independent contractor had visited the property and recommended that the whole of the flooring was replaced, the landlord has disputed this. It says that only the developer had attended and that there was no third party structural survey undertaken.
The landlord in its stage one response referred to having attended the property on 30 January 2020 after receiving the resident’s complaint. This was a reasonable approach to take as it allowed the landlord to see the outstanding issues which the resident had been complaining about first hand as well as clearly understanding the degree of noise emanating from the flooring. The landlord provided the resident with a dedicated contact number in relation to any further discussion about the progress of on-going work. This demonstrated that the landlord had taken the comments from the resident seriously and that it was prepared to engage with the resident over the mater.
The landlord conducted a second visit on 6 February 2020, together with operatives from the developer to highlight the remedial work which was being proposed. The landlord explained that whilst the property was liveable the disruption had required the resident to be out of the house as well as taking time off work. It confirmed that it would look at compensating the resident in respect of this and the compensation offered was set out in the stage one response.
The landlord undertook a site visit following the stage one response to the resident. The resident had made it clear that the offer of compensation made by the landlord initially was not appropriate. However, notes of what if any discussions were held with the resident were not made by the landlord. Despite this it is clear that the landlord had indicated to the resident that it would attempt to submit a claim under the warranty insurance for the property. By doing this it indicated that the landlord had accepted that the noise from the upstairs flooring was excessive and could meet the definition of a “defect” and that the actions up to that point to rectify the matter had not resolved it sufficiently.
From the warranty insurer’s letter of 1 May 2020, this confirmed that the landlord had instigated a claim under the insurance policy on 28 February 2020. The landlord had then contacted the warranty provider with further information on 8 April 2020. Ultimately the claim had been declined as the landlord had submitted the claim too late. Under the terms of the warranty, it set out that any claims for defects had to be made within six months of the end date of the defects period. In this case the defects period had ended on 10 August 2019. Six months from this date would have taken the last date for making a claim up to 10 February 2020, which was 18 days prior to the date the claim was submitted by the landlord.
As the claim was made late by the landlord it was not considered by the warranty provider. It is unknown whether the claim would have been successful and as such what, if any other work would have been carried out by the insurer to the flooring. As the landlord had informed the resident that a claim would be made under the warranty insurance, this led the resident to believe that further remedial work may be carried out on the property to resolve the noises from the flooring. However, nothing occurred at that time.
The landlord’s stage two response was sent out shortly after the letter from the warranty insurer had been received. It set out that the claim with the warranty insurer had been declined. But it did not specify that this was as the claim had been submitted late, it did provide a copy of the decision from the insurer to the resident at the time which would have explained this. The landlord’s letter set out that “if further works were to be undertaken this would be very disruptive and based on the nature and current severity of the fault no further action was recommended”. The stage two letter, therefore, indicated that the proposed work was not proportional in its opinion to the severity of the fault.
Following the resident escalating the complaint to the independent complaints panel the landlord did agree to its recommendations in instructing an independent surveyor to undertake a new survey and to undertake the findings of that survey. In terms of the independent survey, it identified remedial work including insulation to deaden the sound as well as continuous monitoring and this was carried out by the landlord, and this has continued since the resident has referred the matter to this Service. The landlord has confirmed that the final works to the flooring, which involved the partial rebuilding of an internal wall was completed at the end of June 2021.
Although the landlord eventually followed the actions suggested by the independent complaints panel which required an independent survey, there were delays in reaching this decision and this required the resident to pursue their formal complaint to the final stage of the complaints process. Whilst it completed a number of different works to the flooring to try and solve the matterthe issue has not been completely resolved. The landlord has stated that any further works would be “deemed potentially excessive, unreasonable and threatening to the structure of the property”.

The landlord’s offer of compensation

The landlord has stated that its offer of £550 included the maximum amount of £300 which it could award under its discretionary policy and that £75 represented the maximum it could award for a its highest category of “extreme”. However the compensation policy does not state this. Instead it merely says in terms of discretionary compensation that each complaint will be considered on its own merit. The landlord also failed to provide details of the compensation matrix which it referred to in its stage one response.
In terms of covering the loss of income, the landlord’s policy does not specify that cover is provided for this. It stated that it had informed the resident of this, however no detailed notes have been provided to support when it informed the resident. The resident had in several emails communicated that they wished to claim for the loss of income and had provided their value of each days lost income. The landlord has not provided evidence that it informed the resident that loss of income would not generally be covered by it. By not doing so the resident was left with an unreasonable expectation that it would be covered.
In terms of the landlord’s compensation offer of £550 it has explained that the developer’s contribution of £250 from this amount had been withdrawn as further work was required which had been undertaken by the developer. However it added that it would cover that amount of the offer itself. Whilst the landlord did this there was no allowance made for the continued disruption, inconvenience and further site visits recommended by the independent complaints panel and the ongoing remedial work on the flooring which continued until June 2021.
There have been significant delays in the remedial work being undertaken on the flooring. In addition, there was also the failure by the landlord to submit the claim under the warranty insurance in time. These failures by the landlord was sufficient to justify an increased compensation payment to that previously offered in relation to the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident. An additional award of £200 for the delay in making the insurance claim given the landlord was put on notice of the fault within the timeframe for making a claim. As well as an extra £300 for the further disruption and length of time it took to progress matters following the stage 2 response in May 2020 and its final response in January 2021. This compensation of £500 is in addition to the original award of £550.

The landlord’s record keeping

During its communication with the resident the landlord has on a number of occasions referred to conversations which were held during site visits and on the telephone. It also made reference to the comments of the developer in relation to the flooring. However, despite making reference to these conversations the landlord has not provided clear notes of them to this Service. The landlord also failed to provide details of what had been discussed at the end of the defects period by the developer. It has explained that it no longer holds a relationship with the developer.
In addition, there appeared to be discrepancies in some of the communication provided by the landlord compared to the resident. The stage one response provided by the landlord on 26 February 2020 contained the amount of compensation offered however this had been omitted on the version sent to the resident. The final response letter was dated 25 January 2021 on the version provided by the landlord however it was dated four days later on the version sent to the resident.
Very little information has been provided by the landlord in relation to conversations as well as the nature of some of the work carried out by it and the developer. Although the landlord has explained that it no longer holds a relationship with the developer, this was not highlighted when the complaint was originally referred to this Service. Whilst the resident has said various site visits took place by the landlord and developer there is no indication of any notes from these including any conversations the landlord may have held with the resident. Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This includes the investigation of complaints received. This has not been the case in its management of the resident’s repair request as well as the complaints handling. These recording failures all amounts to a failing on the part of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of the defective flooring of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s offer of compensation to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The resident had raised the issue with the flooring within two months of moving into the property in early January 2019. The resident was informed by the landlord that this was settlement and to wait until the inspection at the end of the first year which was in August 2019, seven months later. Whilst the landlord says that the developer had carried out remedial work around the time of the first year inspection as well as after this time this had not resolved the matter. The landlord eventually instructed an independent surveyor and acted on their recommendations in relation to the flooring works, however, there was an unreasonable delay in deciding on and taking action to improve the situation with regard to the noisy flooring.
The landlord attempted to make a claim under the warranty insurance on behalf of the resident. Although this claim was not considered as it was made late, there was no guarantee that it would have been successful if made on time. However the landlord failed to take steps to ensure it was aware of the deadline for making the claim and its actions caused a degree of distress to the resident.
Although the landlord has made an offer of compensation, its offer did not factor in the findings by the independent complaints panel. They had made a recommendation that the landlord’s original offer of £550 was reviewed and increased to factor in the additional distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident. Whilst the landlord accepted the panel’s other recommendations it did not do so with respect to the issue of compensation. The landlord’s final response had noted that further work was required on the property which would cause disruption however it did not consider whether any further compensation was due for this.
There were record keeping failures in terms of the notes of the conversations including phone calls which took place between the landlord and the resident. The landlord also failed to keep contemporaneous records which noted what occurred during site visits. There were also issues with dates and contents of communication shared with the resident.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £200 in relation for the delay in it making the claim against the warranty insurance.
3. Pay the resident an amount of £300 for the time taken to progress repairs and for the further disruption between the stage 2 response and the final response in January 2021.
4. Pay the resident £100 for its failure in its record keeping.
5. Pay the resident the £550 compensation, if it has not already been paid, which was previously offered by the landlord in the final response letter in January 2021.
Review its record keeping processes to ensure appropriate recording of, handling of and responses to complaints and delivery of operational services.

Recommendation

The landlord reviews what happened after the final response in January 2021 and the completion of the flooring works in June 2021. It should consider whether any further compensation should be due to the resident for any disruption caused by the completion of the work, if it had not already done so.