Longhurst Group Limited (202108482)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108482

Longhurst Group Limited

8 April 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for documentation, specifically, the Insurance-Backed Guarantee (IBG), following a window installation at his property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The landlord is the freeholder of the building and has provided the original lease but not the date of the start of the resident’s occupancy.
  2. The landlord has a two-stage complaints process where it aims to investigate and respond to a complaint within 10 working days at stage one.  Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint, they may request escalation of the matter to stage two of the complaints process and the landlord aims to review the complaint and respond at this stage, within 20 working days. Where the landlord requires more time to respond to a complaint, it will let the complainant know.
  3. The landlord’s ‘Compensation Procedure’ states that compensation offers of between £50-£250 may be offered for circumstances of “service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant. [The landlord] recognises that there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”.

Summary of events

  1. On 28 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident in respect of window works which were due to go ahead the following year.  Within its letter, the landlord specifically made reference to the service provider “providing a comprehensive, insurance backed 10-year guarantee for the windows, against all defects arising from materials, workmanship, or design…”.
  2. In March 2021 new windows were installed at the property, although the resident was not given the IBG certificate.  Following installation, the resident contacted the landlord’s contractor window company by telephone on a number of occasions to ask about the IBG certificate, as well as to raise issues with the installation, but his calls were not returned. 
  3. Having been unable to contact the landlord’s contractor, on 14 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord about the matter.  He was dissatisfied that the contractor had not returned his calls and not sent his IBG certificate.  He was also dissatisfied that he had being told the window company was a member of FENSA, which would guarantee a 10-year warranty, although he could not find any evidence of this online. Additionally, he raised issues with the installation.
  4. On the same date, having spoken to the resident over the telephone, the landlord wrote to him, advising it would be looking into his complaint and aimed to respond within 10 working days but would let him know if it needed longer.
  5. On 26 July 2021 the landlord telephoned the resident with the outcome of his complaint, later writing to him at stage one of the complaints procedure. In its response, it advised that it had asked its contractor window company to contact him to arrange an appointment to complete the repair works and that it would also be monitoring this and apologised that the resident had not had his calls to the window company returned, explaining that this is not the service it expects from its contractors. The landlord also advised that the window company was a member of CERTASS and that it had asked for his certificate to be sent to him in respect of his new windows.
  6. On 30 July 2021 the majority of the remedial works were carried out, with the remaining works completed on 10 August 2021.
  7. On 27 August 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord, requesting escalation of the complaint to stage two of its complaints process. He was not satisfied that his concerns had been properly investigated and he was also dissatisfied that he had still not received his insurance backed 10-year warranty.
  8. The landlord’s records show that the following month, on 30 September 2021, it chased the window company for the IBG certificate in an email, stating it had previously asked for this and it had still not been sent.
  9. On 1 October 2021 the landlord telephoned the resident to discuss his complaint with him.  During the call, it was agreed that the landlord’s surveyor would attend the property on 5 October 2021 and would also chase his IBG certificate.
  10. On 5 October 2021 the landlord’s surveyor attended the property, along with a representative from the window company who it had also asked to attend.  Checks on the windows were carried out and assurance given that the works were compliant, leaving the resident satisfied at this stage, with the exception of the outstanding IBG certificate.
  11. On 11 October 2021 the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint. It acknowledged service failure on its part in handling the matter and offered its apologies for this, advising it would seek learning from it, for the future and offering £50 in recognition.
  12. In terms of the IBG certificate, the landlord said it would be with the resident by the end of the month, explaining the delay was due to a mix-up with CERTASS and staffing changes at the window fitting company it used as its contractor.

Post complaint

  1. On 28 October 2021 and 15 November 2021 the resident explained to this Service that the insurance certificate he had since received, was not what was originally agreed and that he believed it was only valid if the window company ceased trading. He had not received a warranty from the window company and believed the insurance certificate to be only valid with that warranty.
  2. On 24 November 2021 the resident advised this Service that he had received an amended CERTASS certificate with his correct address and installation date but that the document stated it was only valid with the installer’s written guarantee and to contact it if this has not been supplied and it still had not been.
  3. On 14 December 2021 the landlord advised this Service that the IBG certificate had been posted to the resident.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s request for documentation, specifically, the Insurance-Backed Guarantee (IBG), following a window installation at his property.

  1. The role of the Ombudsman, as an alternative dispute resolution service, is not to determine the intricacies of insurance or warranty agreements, as these matters would be more appropriately determined by a court.  Instead, it is the role of this Service to consider whether the landlord’s responses to the matters raised were in accordance with its policies / procedures and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
  2. The landlord’s documentation of 28 October 2020 clearly states that a ten-year IBG certificate will be provided with the fitting of the windows and so this gave rise to a reasonable expectation on the part of the resident, that this would be the case once they were fitted. 
  3. The IBG certificate was not provided on completion of the fitting of the windows however, in March 2021, nor was any information provided as to when it would be.  It is reasonable to expect paperwork such as insurance certificates, guarantees and warranties to be provided at, or close after, the installation of windows, as should have been the case here. In the absence of this and any information as to when this would be likely, or any problems or reasons for delay, the resident’s expectations were not managed and he was left in a position of uncertainty. 
  4. The landlord’s contractor acts on behalf of the landlord and is therefore responsible for ensuring that the resident receives a good service. This Service notes that the resident attempted to make contact with the contractor over several months, before going directly to the landlord on 14 July 2021.
  5. On doing so, however, the landlord responded quickly to the complaint, discussing the issue with the resident on the same day and advising it would respond within a reasonable timescale.  This Service can see that the landlord honoured the proposed timescale for response, although it gave no clarity around when the resident might receive the certificate sought, and offered no explanation or apology for the delay.
  6. Within a landlord’s complaint response, this Service expects it to provide an explanation of what has gone wrong and why (where appropriate). The landlord did not do this here, however, and did not provide any assurance that it would oversee the substantive issue of the certificate, to ensure that this was provided to the resident without any further delay.
  7. Despite the resident contacting the landlord again on 27 August 2021 to express that matters remained outstanding and that he had still not received the certificate, there is no evidence of the landlord chasing its contractor for the IBG certificate until a month later, on 30 September 2021. Its delay in chasing this up resulted in further delay for the resident.
  8. In the landlord’s stage two response, nonetheless, it recognised that it had not managed things as well as it should have. The landlord subsequently made an offer of compensation (£50) in recognition of the time taken to resolve matters. An apology was offered, and assurance was given that the certificate could be expected by the end of the month. An explanation was also provided regarding why there had been a delay in issuing the certificate. This was fair and in line with the remedy this Service might expect, as per the landlord’s compensation policy.
  9. The Ombudsman notes, however, that despite the suggestion that the certificate would be provided by the end of the month, this was not sent to the resident (as the landlord confirmed with this Service) until December 2021. This was inappropriate. Under this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, landlords are expected to honour the actions proposed in resolution of a complaint and it is clear that this was not done.
  10. This also meant that the landlord’s offer of compensation, awarded in recognition of the time taken to resolve the complaint, fell short, given that the matter was not actually resolved until December 2021. As such, an award of compensation has been made to reflect the additional delay.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints handling was appropriate insofar as it discussed the issues with the resident over the telephone each time, carried out the remedial works quickly after they were raised, and responded in accordance with the timeframe set out in its policy at stage one.  However, this Service notes that it did not honour the complaint timeframe at stage two.
  2. Given the landlord’s failure to employ its complaints process appropriately, and the subsequent impact this had, it would have been reasonable for it to have acknowledged this within its final response. While the Ombudsman can see that it noted the overall time taken to resolve matters for the resident (in acquiring the certificate, providing responses to his queries, and in its contractor failing to return calls), there was no specific recognition of the complaint handling oversight. The landlord subsequently took no steps to put matters right or to assure the resident that this aspect of its service would improve. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, a further offer of £50 compensation would have been reasonable here.
  3. Moreover, while it was appropriate that the landlord advised it would learn from the issues raised at stage one, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it also could have done more to manage the resident’s expectations better. The certificate remained outstanding until December 2021 and there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was advised it would take this long.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. A service failure in respect of the resident’s request for documentation, specifically, the Insurance-Backed Guarantee (IBG), following a window installation at his property.
    2. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for the IBG certificate insofar as there was significant delay in this being sent to the resident. While the landlord assured the resident in its final response that this would finally be resolved by the end of the month, this too was not upheld.
  2. Moreover, while the landlord’s failure to honour the timeframes set out in the complaints policy delayed the resident in obtaining answers to his questions, in establishing the landlord’s final position, and in bringing the complaint to this Service for investigation, there was no specific recognition of this within the final response. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord did offer a goodwill gesture to account for the overall time taken to resolve matters, but its offer was insufficient to account for the delay in issuing the certificate, the time and inconvenience caused to the resident, and the failure to adhere to its procedure.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation in respect of the service failures identified along with the £50 already offered. This is made up of:
    1. £25 to account for the additional delay in providing the IBG certificate, following its final response.
    2. £50 for the failure to adhere to the timeframe set out in the complaints policy.
  2. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.