Hyde Housing Association Limited (202205250)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205250

Hyde Housing Association Limited

2 May 2024

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 is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of defects in his new build property.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident owns his property under a shared ownership lease dated 21 July 2021. The property is a new build house.

Policies and procedures

The property was handed over from the developer to the landlord on or around 17 July 2021. From that date, it was subject to a 12-month defect period during which the developer was responsible for remedying any defects (repair issues caused by poor workmanship, quality, design, or similar) reported during that period. During defect periods, residents are expected to report any defects to the landlord, who will liaise with the developer. The relevant process for this is set out in the landlord’s New Home Guide.
Following the end of the defect period, the resident became responsible for all repairs at the property under the terms of the lease. However, the property also has a 10-year structural guarantee provided by NHBC.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Stage 1 responses must be issued within 10 working days, and can be extended by a maximum of a further 10 working days. Stage 2 responses must be provided within 20 working days of an escalation request, with a maximum of a further 10 working days allowed in exceptional circumstances.

Scope of the investigation

Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. Any events which occurred after the resident made his complaint had not completed the landlord’s complaints process at the time this complaint was referred to the Ombudsman. As such, while events which occurred after the resident made a complaint to the landlord may be referred to for context, they will not form part of this investigation.

Summary of events

The resident told the Ombudsman and landlord that he reported various defects in January 2022. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence of those reports.
On 2 February 2022, the landlord recorded that the dishwasher and fridge doors needed to be reinstalled.
On 7 April 2022, the landlord inspected the property, and recorded various issues. It is has not provided any record of what issues were reported that led to the inspection, or when those issues were reported. It emailed the resident the following day to confirm whether or not each item would be accepted as a defect. It said:
1. Delamination to the wall unit to the right of the hob was accepted as a defect. The developer would contact the resident to arrange a repair appointment. The target completion date was 5 May 2022.
2. The wall unit in the corner cupboard would not be accepted as a defect. It recommended that the resident repair the unit using glue.
3. The kitchen worktop upstand showed signs of water damage. However, as the resident had removed and reapplied the mastic, it was unclear whether the water damage occurred before or after he removed the mastic bead. It asked him to provide photos of the upstand prior to the removal of the mastic, so this could be assessed further.
4. The damage to the base of the rear French door had previously been inspected by both the landlord and the developer. It had been agreed that a specified contractor would carry out an effective repair, so the landlord asked if this had been done. It advised the resident to raise the issue as part of the end of defects process.
5. It had inspected the dishwasher door 4 to 6 weeks previously and concluded the door was fit for purpose with the correct fixings. The developer had been due to make an appointment with the resident after the end of March. If he had not heard from the developer, he should let the landlord know so the issue could be escalated.
6. It was raising problems with the landscaping with the developer, and would provide an update on that as soon as possible.
On 10 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. He said:
1. He had reported issues with the kitchen upstand many times, but the issue had been ignored. The landlord had told him the issue was his responsibility to fix as sealant was a perishable material, therefore any issues with the sealant would not be considered a defect. He had already provided photos and videos before replacing the mastic on the kitchen upstand.
2. The original issue with the French door had been rectified. However, a new defect had arisen as the base had been broken and held together with tape before he had moved in.
3. He was happy to rectify the height of the path himself at no extra cost to the landlord if it gave permission for him to move the fence so the garden was rectangular rather than tapered at a corner.
On 11 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said he had previously reported blown mastic, not an issue with the upstand, and the relevant team had correctly advised that sealant was a perishable item and not a defect. It said he had only recently reported a problem with the upstand, and that the position on the issues raised had not changed as a result of his further email.
On 22 April 2022, the landlord recorded that there were water stains on the living room ceiling, and that there was an en-suite bathroom above the area. The landlord has provided no records of when the resident reported the issue.
On 28 April 2022, the resident and landlord discussed various issues in the property. The landlord has not provided any notes of that discussion. However, the resident emailed the landlord on that day to provide a copy of a snagging report, and to summarise the conversation as follows:
1. He had stopped paying rent because his snagging report had identified too many issues with the property. He did not consider the property fit for purpose.
2. He had stopped paying service charges because the services were not being provided.
The landlord responded to the resident on the same day. It confirmed it would review the report and respond to him when it had done so. It also proposed it attend the property the following week.
On 11 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to respond to each of the 86 items listed in the snagging report. Its response is summarised as follows:
1. He had confirmed he no longer wanted to raise 32 of the items as defects.
2. He had confirmed he had damaged 1 of the items.
3. It would check tolerance or seek technical guidance on 52 of the items, and provide a further update when it had done so.
4. Issues with the shower tray had been accepted as a defect, and it had asked the developer to book a repair.
On 24 May 2022, the resident spoke to the landlord regarding the issues raised. The landlord apologised for delays in resolving the issues and said it would chase up the developer regarding the accepted defects. It said it would review the relevant tolerances to determine if any of the remaining issues from the snagging report would be accepted as defects.
On 25 May 2022, the landlord provided the resident with an update on the issues raised. It said:
1. 38 of the issues raised were not accepted as defects, therefore no further action would be taken. It gave an explanation for why each item had been rejected as a defect.
2. 6 of the issues had been accepted as defects. These were rusted washers, the loft space stack, water staining from an en-suite bathroom, blocked weep holes, loose paving slabs, and a missing hinge cap.
3. 7 of the issues raised required further investigation. The landlord said it would provide an update by 30 May 2022.
4. The developer had asked which of the paving slabs were loose. The landlord asked the resident to confirm this.
On 1 June 2022, the landlord chased the resident for a response regarding the paving slabs.
On 5 June 2022, the resident responded to the landlord’s email. He said he was unhappy as the original list of repair issues was longer, and a number of defects had been rejected without explanation. He said the list did not include a number of the items he had discussed with the landlord, so it needed to be updated, and that it had not provided the promised update on 30 May 2022.
On 14 June 2022, the landlord responded to the resident. It said it would be discussing the items which needed further investigation that day, and would follow up with a call or email to the resident. It asked which items had been missed from the list, and explained that it could not guarantee all items would be fixed, but that it would provide an explanation for those items which were not accepted as defects. It also confirmed it could visit the property the following day, if the resident was available.
On 15 June 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. He said he had been going back and forth with the landlord and receiving no proper response despite chasing many times. He said there were many defects, including the pipes, a leaking shower, cracks in the staircase, and a faulty dishwasher door. On 16 June 2022, the Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the landlord.
On 17 June 2022, the landlord updated the resident. It said:
1. The issues raised with the stairs and the fence would not be accepted as defects. This was because the resident had made unauthorised alterations to the stairs, and the fence height was in line with the relevant regulations.
2. It would measure some of the gaps reported at a further site visit.
3. It would send photos of 1 issue to the developer for review.
4. It was waiting for a specific staff member to return from leave to discuss the kitchen upstand further.
5. 3 issues had been passed to the developer to rectify or provide clarification.
On the same day, the landlord spoke to the resident. The resident said that a member of the landlord’s staff went to the property in January 2022 and advised that all of the issues raised would be resolved, but only 15% of the issues had been resolved to date.
On 22 June 2022, the landlord discussed the complaint with the resident. Its notes say the resident said he had reported the issues since January 2022, however it had no records of various issues being raised.
On 29 June 2022, the landlord visited the property. It then provided the resident with a follow-up email, in which it said:
1. It had taken measurements in 3 areas, and would discuss whether the issues could be raised as a defect.
2. It was difficult to determine whether the kitchen upstand had blown as a result of poor workmanship or the property being lived in. The resident said he had been advised to replace the mastic, and would send both that email and a video showing the damage prior to mastic replacement to the landlord. The landlord would take no further action until it received that information.
3. Issues with the dishwasher door had been referred to the developer.
4. Reported issues with the kitchen floor level had already been rejected as a defect, as they were within tolerance.
5. The resident mentioned that the external paving slabs were not in line with the plans as they did not lead to the pavement. Issues with the landscaping of the property and the brickwork on a speed bump had also been raised. It would discuss the issues and go back to the resident with a response.
6. It would chase up the works for the accepted defects with the developer.
7. The resident agreed that all of the items from his snagging list had been investigated.
On 5 July 2022, the landlord told the resident that it was still working on his complaint.
On 11 July 2022, the landlord’s complaints handler requested further information regarding the issues raised, repair work, and action plan from the relevant team. The relevant staff member replied on 25 July 2022. They said:
1. They had asked the resident for a clearer photo of the cistern fixings so they could send it to the developer.
2. They had been told that the weep holes had been cleared, and had asked the resident to confirm that.
3. The developer had confirmed that the location of the damp proof course was not a defect, but part of the design. The landlord had requested drawings to confirm that. The works to the loose paving slabs were on hold pending information from the developer about the damp proof course.
4. The developer had confirmed on 6 July 2022 that they were awaiting stock before contacting the resident to book an appointment to replace the dishwasher door.
5. The developer had said they offered the resident an appointment for 19 July 2022 to resolve the water stains on the living room ceiling and were awaiting confirmation of this from him.
6. It had been told the work on the canopy was complete, and it was awaiting the resident’s confirmation of that.
7. The developer was checking specifications for the plastic manhole cover with its technical team. The target completion date was 25 July 2022.
8. The resident had been offered an appointment for the upstairs doors to be adjusted, and it was waiting for him to confirm if this was suitable.
9. The developers had asked for further information on some of the defects.
10. It was now out of the defect period, so the developers may not accept any further requests for works.
On 26 July 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint. It said:
1. The faulty shower had not been raised on the snagging list, or with the landlord on any of its inspections. It had added it to the repairs list, and asked the resident for a clearer picture to raise with the developer.
2. The crack in the stairs could not be raised as a defect because the resident had carried out unauthorised alterations in the area, which invalidated the warranty.
3. The developer was awaiting stock of the dishwasher door.
4. The other repairs raised were with the developer, who was awaiting the resident’s confirmation for appointment dates.
5. It agreed it could have acted on the issues raised more quickly, so offered £100 compensation.
6. It had reminded its staff of the importance of keeping accurate records, and had spoken to the team about delays when the defects were initially raised. It committed to resolving the remaining issues and carrying out an inspection after works were completed.
On 26 July 2022, the resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 letter. He said he took the £100 compensation offer as an insult. He said he wanted the issues fixed without excuses, and would withhold rent until that happened.
On 29 July 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to ask if he would be available for an appointment on 22 August 2022 for the developer to readjust the upstairs doors.
On 18 August 2022, the resident told the landlord that the issues with the property had still not been resolved, and he would not pay any rent or service charges until the works were carried out.
On 1 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to chase a response to his complaint. On the same day, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that alterations under the stairs were unauthorised, had invalidated the warranty, and that as a result no repairs in that area would be picked up under the warranty.
On 23 October 2022, the landlord sent the resident an update on the issues raised. It said:
1. Of the issues the resident wished to raise as defects, works orders had been raised for 7 items which had been accepted as defects (cistern fixings and washers, margins around door frames in the landing and bathroom, the loft stack, blocked weep holes, loose paving slabs, and a missing hinge cap).
2. The rest of the issues previously raised were not defects.
3. The resident had raised further reports. Of those reports, the bath panel was not accepted as a defect, and it would look into the other issues.
On 25 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to provide an updated list of defects. He said:
1. Nobody had attended to adjust the doors as promised.
2. He disputed the decisions that the issues raised with the downlights, stairs, kitchen upstand, living room doors, bath panel, and patio door were not defects.
3. The en-suite shower tray was due to be replaced on 25 and 26 October 2022.
4. He was waiting for the contractor to contact him about the dishwasher door.
5. There was missing cupboard space under the stairs.
6. There was a cracked and moving tile over the front door which the landlord had agreed to repair.
7. He wanted proof that there was a second damp proof course membrane, as he had not been able to see it.
8. The loose paving slabs had never been resolved.
9. There were overhanging trees, and the gutters were filled with debris.
10. The front drain was loose.
On 1 November 2022, the Ombudsman chased the landlord for a response to the resident’s complaint.
On 3 November 2022, the landlord visited the property. The following day, it sent the resident a follow-up email setting out reasons a number of the issues had been declined as defects. It said works to the shower tray, paving slabs, and overhanging trees were outstanding, and it had arranged for the developer to resolve those issues. It said it would need further evidence from the resident regarding the bath panel and the patio door, and it would not be able to help with the issues without that evidence.
On 9 November 2022, the Ombudsman chased the landlord for a response to the resident’s complaint a second time. On 16 November 2022, the landlord told the Ombudsman that the complaint was at stage 2 of its complaints process, and that the resident had agreed an extension to 25 November 2022. On the same day, the resident disputed that any extension had been agreed.
On 21 November 2022, the landlord told the resident it would visit his property on 24 November 2022. It also explained that he could approach NHBC if he was unhappy with the decision made regarding the defects, that the developer would be attending on 23 November 2022 to carry out works to the shower tray, and that it would make enquiries about tree pruning, grounds maintenance and paving with the developer.
On 24 November 2022, the landlord visited the property. It sent the resident a follow-up email in which it provided updates regarding the paving, trees, guttering, foot path, and shower tray. On the same day, it produced a report on 26 issues raised by the resident at the inspection.
On 6 December 2022, the Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order to the landlord. On the same day, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
1. It had arranged a meeting at the property on 24 November 2022, during which it gave the resident the opportunity to raise any issues, not just those that were part of the initial complaint. It had produced a report based on the issues raised.
2. It was not in a position to provide a response to some of the issues, as it was awaiting a response from the developer. The report set out which of the issues raised had been rejected as defects, as well as the reasons those issues had been rejected.
3. The shower tray issues still needed to be resolved. The developer had ordered a levelling kit, and would contact the resident to arrange installation.
4. The pathway was due to be resolved that week, and the dishwasher door had been fixed.
5. It agreed it had not investigated the reports as thoroughly as it should have done initially, or responded as quickly as it should have done.
6. It offered to increase its compensation to £300, which included £100 for poor complaint handling.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 response

On 15 December 2022, following discussions with the resident and the developer, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the works needed to the trees, living room window, door gaps in the living room, bath panel, bathroom window, spotlights, shower tray, canopy tiles, drain, paving slabs and window protection, which had been accepted as defects. It told the resident that it was still in discussions with the developer regarding the works.
On 21 December 2022, the landlord emailed the resident regarding the outstanding issues. It told him that as he disputed the decision to reject various issues as defects, he could approach NHBC for them to review the issues.
On the same day, the resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the compensation awarded did not reflect the reality, as he had been raising the issues since January 2022 and was still trying to resolve the issues a year later. He disputed the decision that the cracking to the stairs, door gaps, kitchen upstand, and patches of dead grass in the garden were not defects.
From December 2022 until March 2023, the landlord spoke to both the resident and the developer on multiple occasions. Some of the works were carried out, and the landlord sent the resident updates on the various issues raised, including clarifying why some issues, such as the doors, were not accepted as defects.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of defects

The resident said there were a number of defects in the property, and that the landlord did not do anything to resolve the issues. In its complaint response, the landlord accepted that it did not respond as quickly as it should have done, and that there were some reported defects it could have investigated further. It offered the resident £200 compensation for the delays, the distress and inconvenience caused, and the time and trouble taken by the resident. The resident was unhappy with the response, as a number of reported issues had not been resolved at that stage, and he disputed the decision that some of the issues raised were not defects.
It is important to note that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to assess individual instances of workmanship, or determine whether or not an issue raised is a building defect. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord handled the resident’s reports in line with its policies and good industry practice.
The resident says he reported a number of defects in January 2022, and that the landlord took no action in response. Neither the resident nor the landlord have provided any records of the resident reporting issues with the property in January 2022. However, the landlord’s logs include an entry for 2 February 2022, in which it said that the dishwasher door needed to be reinstalled in line with manufacturer instructions. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that, despite the lack of records provided by the landlord, the resident had reported at least some of the issues with the property around January 2022.
The defect period for this property ran from 17 July 2021 to 17 July 2022. As such, the repair issues included as part of this complaint were raised during the defect period. The landlord did not have any repair obligations for the property under the terms of the lease. Its only repair obligations under the lease related to the communal estate areas, once those areas had been handed over by the developer. It was therefore not obliged to carry out any repairs at the property itself. The landlord’s responsibility during the defect period was essentially to act as a liaison between the developer and resident to track and manage the completion of repairs (by the developer) for any issues raised during that time.
While the landlord was aware that there appeared to be an issue with the dishwasher door since at least 2 February 2022, it has provided no evidence that it liaised with the developer at that stage, or explained whether or not the issue had been accepted as a defect. While the landlord referred in later correspondence to an inspection around this time, it has not provided the Ombudsman with evidence of any inspection or other action taking place. In the absence of any evidence of action being taken during that time, the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude that the landlord acted appropriately at that stage.
Following an inspection on 7 April 2022, the landlord emailed the resident the next day to explain whether each item raised had been accepted or rejected as a defect. Where it was inconclusive whether or not an issue was a defect, it requested further evidence from the resident. When the resident disputed the decision and provided further information, the landlord replied promptly to explain that the disputed decisions remained unchanged as a result of the further information, and provide some further clarification. This was reasonable and appropriate.
At the end of April 2022, the resident raised further issues, and provided the landlord with a snagging report which identified 86 issues. The landlord discussed the report with the resident. As part of those discussions, it identified that the resident did not wish to raise 32 of the items as defects. It emailed him on 11 May 2022 with a list of all 86 defects, and confirmation of whether each item had been accepted, rejected, was not being pursued by him, or needed further investigation. It was appropriate to provide an update at that stage. Given the number of issues raised, that update was also provided within a reasonable time.
Following that update, the resident and landlord discussed the issues in the property on 24 May 2022. The landlord acknowledged there had been delays, and confirmed it would be chasing the developer to take action regarding the accepted defects. It then told the resident there would be further investigation regarding a number of the issues raised. It was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to update the resident, and to confirm it would chase the developer to take action regarding the accepted defects. However, the landlord has not explained why there was no evidence of any action being taken regarding the remaining repair issues since 11 May 2022.
The landlord contacted the resident the following day with an update on the issues raised. It set out which of the previously undetermined issues had now been accepted and rejected, with a reason given for each item that had been rejected. It told the resident to expect a further update on 7 of the issues by 30 May 2022, but did not provide the promised update, or explain to the resident that it would not be able to do so. It was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to provide the initial update. However, when a landlord promises a further update by a specified deadline, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to stick to that deadline or, if it was unable to do so, provide the resident with an updated deadline for a response. It has not shown it did so, and its poor communication led to the resident having to chase a response.
The landlord’s records do not show any further action being taken regarding the 7 items in question until 14 June 2022, 2 weeks after the deadline for an update had already passed. It has not provided any explanation for this delay, so the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude the delay was unavoidable. It did, however, explain to the resident that it could not guarantee that all of the issues raised would be resolved, and that where a defect was rejected it would provide a reason. It would have been beneficial had it explained this at an earlier stage. However, it does show that the landlord took some steps to manage the resident’s expectations, which was appropriate.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord visited the property on multiple occasions, and provided the resident with multiple updates on whether or not repair issues had been accepted as defects (and the reason, if not). During that time, it also provided the resident with copies of its reports, said it was liaising with the developer regarding the remaining issues, and confirmed the resident could approach NHBC regarding the decisions he disputed.
The landlord has demonstrated that all of the resident’s reports were considered, that it liaised with the developer to try to resolve the issues reported, and that it clearly set out which issues had been accepted or rejected as defects, with reasons given. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the issues raised to the developer, as the developer was responsible for resolving defects during the defect period. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident disputes the decisions to reject some of the issues as defects, it is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether the disputed issues were defects. That would be a matter for NHBC, who provide a 10-year building warranty for the property, and provide a free resolution service for disputes regarding defects. The landlord referred the resident to NHBC when he disputed the decisions, which was an appropriate and reasonable response.
The landlord has accepted that there were some delays on its part, and has offered £200 compensation. The delays which can be attributed to the landlord’s actions, rather than the developer, total approximately 2.5 months. This would inevitably cause some level of distress and inconvenience. The landlord could also have been more proactive in chasing action from the developer with regard to resolving the accepted defects. However, the landlord is ultimately not responsible for delays or missed appointments caused by the developer, as those are outside of its control.
The £200 offered is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but which do not have a long-lasting or permanent impact. Having reviewed the circumstances of the case carefully, the Ombudsman considers that the compensation offered is sufficient redress for the delays on the landlord’s part.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman referred the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 16 June 2022. Under the landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord was required to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It issued its stage 1 response on 26 July 2022, which was 28 working days after the complaint. While it told the resident on 5 July 2022 that it needed more time to look into the complaint, the landlord has provided no reasons or explanation for the delay.
The resident told the landlord on 26 July 2022 that he was unhappy with its response to the complaint. The landlord has provided no evidence of escalating the complaint, or seeking to clarify with the resident that he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the process. When the resident chased a response and expressly confirmed he wanted to escalate the complaint, the landlord again took no action in response.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman chased the landlord for a stage 2 response on 1 and 9 November 2022. The landlord did not respond until 16 November 2022, when it told the Ombudsman that the resident had agreed an extension until 25 November 2022. This was disputed by the resident, who advised he had received no contact regarding his complaint. It is concerning that there is a dispute as to whether an extension had been agreed, and that the landlord has produced no evidence of any such agreement. There was then a further lack of action or response by the landlord, leading to the Ombudsman issuing a Complaint Handling Failure Order.
By the time the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 December 2022, 94 working days had passed since the resident’s initial reply to the stage 1 response, and 67 working days had passed since he expressly stated that he wanted the landlord to escalate his complaint (on 1 September 2022). It is concerning that it took repeated contact from the Ombudsman for the landlord to issue a stage 2 response to the complaint. This was not in line with either the landlord’s complaints policy, or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord’s complaint handling was poor, and amounts to maladministration.
Within the resident’s email to the landlord dated 28 April 2022 he stated: ‘I will stop paying the service charge with effect on today as I think it is illegal to charge me money for a service you are not providing’. The landlord’s email dated 11 May 2022 confirmed that it had referred his query about the service charge to its Service Charge Team. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 June 2022 and noted that he had not heard from the Service Charge Team. The landlord agreed to chase a response on 14 June 2022. It is not clear that the landlord has ever provided a response to this concern. This is a further shortfall in its complaint handling.
The landlord has offered the resident £100 in compensation for its poor complaint handling. Having considered the circumstances of the case carefully, the Ombudsman does not consider that the £100 offered is adequate compensation for the landlord’s complaint handling failings in this case. There were unexplained delays in both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses, with significant and unexplained delays in issuing the stage 2 response. This led the resident to have to chase the landlord for a response, and repeatedly contact the Ombudsman for assistance. It also delayed the resident being able to seek an independent review of his complaint.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. For the avoidance of doubt, this is inclusive of the £100 already offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of reports of defects satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration by the landlord with regard to its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

There were initially unreasonable delays by the landlord in reviewing the resident’s reports, referring the issues raised to the developer, and letting the resident know whether or not the issues raised were accepted as defects. Based on the evidence provided, the landlord caused approximately 2.5 months of delays. However, the landlord largely acted reasonably overall, and the compensation it offered was adequate in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its initial delays.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint within the timescales set out in its complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, leading to a Complaint Handling Failure Order being issued. There were significant delays in issuing a stage 2 response. It has provided no explanation for the delays.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

Pay the resident £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling (inclusive of the £100 it already offered).
Log a new complaint on behalf of the resident in relation to his concern about the service charge/maintenance fee (resident’s email dated 28 April 2022 noted that he was being charged for a service that he was not receiving). The landlord should provide a written acknowledgement of the complaint and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of logging the complaint.

The landlord should reply to this Service to evidence compliance with this order.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £200 it awarded through its complaints process in recognition of the failings identified in its handling of reports of defects. The Ombudsman’s determination of reasonable redress is dependent on this payment being made.