Notting Hill Genesis (202007417)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007417

Notting Hill Genesis

6 October 2021

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:
1. The sale of the resident’s property and the landlord’s decision not to provide the resident with an outside tap.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its adherence to the standards set out in its Service Level Agreement (SLA).
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s defective floorboards.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been the leaseholder, under a Shared Ownership Lease, since July 2019.
The property is a new build house.
The landlord has explained to this Service that once properties at this site were released for sale, purchasers were able to reserve and exchange contracts based on viewing a show home, rather than the specific unit they intended to purchase. While buyers would usually have the opportunity to view their unit between exchange and legal completion, the landlord was unable to offer the resident the opportunity to do so due to issues with its resourcing, some internal changes, and complications with the developer. The resident subsequently had not seen his property until legal completion.
The Ombudsman can see that emails were sent to the landlord from both the resident and the resident’s partner (who is also a joint leaseholder). For the purpose of this investigation, both parties have been referred to as “the resident”.
The landlord has shared with this Service a copy of its service level expectations for its Property Management Officers (PMO). This details the standard response times for routine correspondence which staff are expected to adhere to. Of particular relevance, it explains:
1. Phone calls and voicemails from residents are to be responded to within 24 hours.
2. Complaints from residents are to be acknowledged within two working days.
3. Emails from residents are to be responded to within five working days. The guidance notes that this may not always be possible but advises that the landlord will make contact before the fifth day to manage the resident’s expectations.

Scope

The resident has asserted that he had been led to believe that an outside tap would be an installation included with his property. This was as an outside tap had been present upon viewing the landlord’s show home. He has therefore suggested that this was a misrepresentation, and that he had been sold his property on false pretences. While the Ombudsman has commented on the landlord’s approach and whether its decision not to provide an outside tap following the resident’s request was reasonable, the Ombudsman has not commented on whether the property had been mis-sold. This is because, whilst the Ombudsman can consider whether there has been maladministration or not in a landlord’s handling of a matter, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding that a property has been mis-sold or misrepresented. This is a matter to be properly decided on by the courts. The resident should therefore seek legal advice should he wish to pursue this.
The resident has also suggested that as a result of the landlord’s failure to install an outdoor tap, he and his partner have suffered back pain (from carrying buckets of water outside to maintain the plants). While this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the pains experienced. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter too, legal advice will need to be sought.
The Ombudsman has noted that the resident requested that the landlord investigate a potential GDPR breach in September 2020. This was upon receiving an unexpected email from a third party relating to the outside tap. It is unclear whether the landlord referred this to its designated Data Protection Officer and/or whether it considered this matter under its complaints policy. It would have been reasonable though, if the resident wished to pursue this matter, for him to have followed this up with the landlord. As the resident did not, and considering the length of time that has passed, it appears that he was satisfied that this was no longer of concern. In any case, if the resident is seeking further comment on this, this would be a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider. Under paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body.
Finally, the Ombudsman notes that there were several emails between the resident and landlord in relation to further defects in 2021 (such as a mould issue, issues with the shower, and several defective doors in the property). While the Ombudsman can see that the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the way that these were being handled / the workmanship, these were not matters raised within the original complaint, and it is unclear whether these issues have been formally complained about. This Service has subsequently made no comments made in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue the handling of these matters, he will need to raise this with the landlord as a formal complaint in the first instance.

Summary of events

On 30 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. He explained that he and his partner had raised concerns about the absence of an outside tap on several occasions, however nothing had been done about it. He now faced difficulty in managing the grass and plants outside as a result. He advised that as he understood it, the landlord had arranged an installation for his neighbour and therefore sought the same.
With no response, the resident followed this up on 10 July 2020 noting that 10 days had passed without contact. He explained that the plants were dying, and he had developed a backache from having to carry buckets of water outside. The resident asserted that if the landlord was unwilling to install a tap, his contract would need to be re-negotiated and compensation due for his back ache. He explained that at the time of signing the contract, he was shown a tap and upon moving into his property, had reported the absence of this. He considered this to be a breach in contract and asserted that the property was clearly mis-sold.
Further attempts were made to communicate with the landlord on 15 July 2020 and 22 July 2020. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that no response had been provided and no progress made to install the outside tap. The creaking floorboards, which had allegedly been reported, had also got worse. The resident questioned when the outstanding issues would be resolved.
On 22 July 2020 the PMO wrote to the resident. She apologised for the lack of response and stated:
1. Due to staff absences, other duties had taken priority and the resident’s messages had additionally found themselves in her junk mail. The PMO suggested that this was likely due to the number of emails sent by the resident and therefore requested that the resident reduce the correspondence to ensure that the several topics raised were not missed.
2. An outside tap would not be installed. She noted that there was an agreement in place with the resident’s neighbour to have a tap installed, however explained that this had not been instructed by herself or the previous PMO.
3. Gardeners would now be onsite once a week to carry out the maintenance of the estate’s gardens / plant beds. A walk around was also being arranged with the manager to discuss areas of concern and confirmation was being sought regarding replanting any plants required.
4. In relation to the flooring, this matter needed to be reported to the Defects Team by 31 July 2020 along with a list of any other defects, if it had not been already.

The PMO advised that as she was working with several residents across the development, there could be some delay. She added that moving forward, the tone of the resident’s emails would not be accepted nor tolerated.

On the same day, the resident responded to the PMO. He explained:
1. As the PMO was the only point of contact he had, all of his correspondence had been directed to her. He had previously reported his issues in a single email, however as matters were being missed, separate emails were sent for each issue to enable each to be individually tracked. He was not in a position to prevent his emails from going into the PMO’s junk mail.
2. With regards to the tone of email, he had been waiting for a response for approximately 22 days which was four times the Service Level Agreement (SLA). This needed to be taken up with a manager.
3. There was a tap in the show home he had viewed, and he had been advised that there would also be one in his property – hence the clause in the contract regarding the maintenance of the garden. He requested that the landlord either amend the contract or install the tap. He stated that this needed to be raised with management for works to be completed or for compensation to be paid. He would also be happy to contact his neighbour to establish more information on the tap that had been installed for them.
4. He had already raised the creaking floor as a defect. This was done before COVID-19 but the landlord had failed to take steps to resolve this and instead required him to keep track. He requested an update as he had not received one.
5. He was displeased with the PMO’s tone of email. It was not his fault that she had been left to deal with the entire site single–handedly. He advised that emails were sent to her mailbox as this was what had been advised. Had he been given an escalation structure or procedure to follow, this would have been done instead. He therefore recommended that the PMO speak with management if she was being given too much work. He noted that the PMO had changed 6 times and on each occasion, he had not been advised. It had also taken three months to resolve his heating issue, and this required calling every day. The resident asserted that the PMO should expected frustration after failing to uphold the SLA and to make contact until a month later. He recommended that the landlord reduce its service charges and rent until it was able to uphold its SLA.
On 23 July 2020 the landlord advised the resident that his correspondence would be treated as a complaint and it would respond officially in 10 working days.
On 6 August 2020 the resident contacted the PMO highlighting that 11 working days had passed and he had not received a response. He subsequently advised that he wished to raise a further complaint about the SLA not being adhered to.
The PMO acknowledged this on the same day and offered the resident an apology. She advised that a response would be provided on 7 August 2020.
The resident wrote further on the same day, expressing:
1. He believed he had been conned into debt for £695000. He had been lied to, not provided with responses, and was previously forced to withhold pay to the landlord in order to have issues rectified.
2. He had never received service within the landlord’s SLA.
3. 100% of the service charge and rent had been paid however, in return, the worst possible service and a defective home was received.
4. The PMO needed to include and respond to his further complaint.
On 7 August 2020 the PMO provided the stage one response. She noted:
1. She acknowledged that there had been a failure in service and the landlord had not met the 5-day SLA to respond to emails. She explained that changes had been made to the scheme to improve this service and a process had also been put in place to ensure that emails were responded to in her absence. This aspect of the resident’s complaint would be upheld.
2. While the resident may have been advised that there would be an outdoor tap, this had not been reported during the buying process or during the completion stage. The sales team therefore would not be undertaking any works to install this.
3. The creaking floor had been placed on the End of Defects (EOD) list. Once this had been reviewed, the Defects Team would advise on their position directly.

The PMO concluded that she would subsequently award £100 compensation for the failure to meet the SLA. She advised that she would ensure that progress was made on all other outstanding defects and that a member of the Defects Team would be in touch to schedule the necessary appointments.

On the same day, the resident responded. He stated:
1. While it was very little, he accepted the £100 compensation offered and hoped that the buddy system would support the PMO’s workload and service.
2. The sales team had lied about several things. The picture he had provided also evidenced that there had been an outside tap at the show home. He noted that he had not been shown his property before moving in and so had no ability to complain at an earlier time. The sales team had also refused to acknowledge any issues and the designated PMO had left. His issues were eventually raised with the succeeding PMO who also left. He therefore requested escalation to stage two. He expressed that there was no buying process and that he was simply dumped with the keys. He noted that one of his keys was accidently given to his neighbour without his consent too.
3. He acknowledged that the flooring was on the EOD list to be addressed and so would await this.
On 13 August 2020 the PMO wrote to the resident. She thanked the resident for his comments and explained that the compensation would be processed, and the resident’s complaint escalated to stage two.
In September 2020 following an unexpected email from a third party regarding the tap, the resident contacted the landlord. Despite back-and-forth correspondence, the resident was unable to establish why the third party had made contact and believed that a GDPR breach had occurred. He suggested that this required investigation.
The resident additionally added, in the same email, that he had not heard back regarding his stage two complaint. He raised that this was again a breach of the landlord’s SLA as more than 27 working days had passed. He advised that he would be raising this matter with the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS).
The Ombudsman can see that in the absence of the PMO, the resident was advised that he would be updated on who would dealing with his complaint. He expressed frustration that he had had to deal with so many different members of staff to resolve small issues.
On 22 September 2020 the PMO wrote to the resident. She apologised again for the service that the resident had received. She reiterated that the resident’s complaint would be dealt with at stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The Leasehold Manager (LM) was also asked to look into the matter.
On 24 September 2020 the LM wrote to the resident and apologised for the delays experienced. She explained that the landlord’s service had been affected by a spate of bad health. She explained that the complaint pack to be reviewed at stage two was usually put together by the individual who responded at stage one, however she had fallen sick. She would therefore be seeking a solution. She was happy to remain the resident’s point of contact to prevent him being passed around.
The resident responded on the same day noting that over 30 working days had now passed. He said that the issue had not only been down to the spate of absences but had been ever since he had moved into his property. He felt that the SLA was pointless as this was never adhered to and despite the £100 compensation previously offered, the same issues were occurring. He now requested that the landlord provide him with a guaranteed date on which he could expect the stage two response. If the landlord was unable to meet this date, he requested that it write to him on the day in order for him to provide this as proof to HOS.
The resident chased a response on 16 October 2020. He requested that the landlord escalate the complaint to HOS or provide him with the appropriate information to do so himself.
The LM responded on the same day advising that she would chase the Sales Manager (SM) dealing with the complaint. She reminded the resident that he would be unable to escalate his complaint to HOS without having exhausted the landlord’s process first.
On 16 October 2020 the resident expressed further dissatisfaction with the delay. He explained that he could not wait indefinitely for a complaint response. He therefore requested that the landlord stop charging him rent until the issue was resolved.
The Ombudsman can see that there were further back and forth emails in October 2020.
On 19 November 2020, following encouragement from this Service, the SM provided the resident with a final response. He advised that the complaint had been reviewed by himself and two other independent reviewers and stated:
1. It had been acknowledged that there had been a failure to meet the resident’s expectation and to honour the service level promised. The SM apologised for this and advised that it had taken steps to improve service around this. He noted that the resident had accepted the £100 offered in its previous response, but explained that on review, it was agreed that this did not adequately address the number of instances.
2. The resident’s complaint regarding the outside tap would not be upheld. The SM explained that he could not comment on the alleged discussion between the resident and the appointed Estate Agent, but could find no written record to confirm that an outside tap was agreed. He explained that there were differences in the showroom that the resident viewed (such as the kitchen and bathroom specification for example). The SM apologised for the resident’s disappointment but explained that the show home was an example home, and not a replica. This was consistent with the marketing material which did not feature an outside tap. The brochure also set out that there would be differences in specification.
3. It was not agreed that the contract suggested an intention for a tap to be installed. The requirement was to build and design the layout as per the specification outlined in the marketing materials. There were additionally provisions in the contract that variations could be made to the specification under certain circumstances, relating to cost, availability of material, or availability of labour. The SM advised that it was never the landlord’s intention to add a tap and contractually, its obligation had been met. He advised that he appreciated that the resident was disappointed however, and that the resident was unable to view the property prior to exchange and completion. Compensation would be awarded in recognition of this.
4. It was acknowledged that the creaking floorboards was a defect across a number of properties and was being addressed. This would be addressed as part of the EOD inspection. The SM apologised for the resident’s experience and that he was not given the opportunity to undergo a demonstration tour prior to completion. The SM noted that while this may not have resulted in immediate rectification of the flooring, it may have resulted in the issue being resolved sooner. He also acknowledged that the resident’s experience upon completion had not been satisfactory.
5. It was wholly unacceptable that both the complaint responses were delayed. The SM noted that the stage one response was provided two days outside of the SLA and the complaint review 97 days outside. He apologised for this.

In recognition of this, the SM advised that an award of £1000 would be offered. This was made up of:

A further £150, in addition to the £100 already offered, to recognise the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint at stage one.

£250 to recognise its delay in undertaking the resident’s stage two review.
£250 to recognise the resident’s disappointment that there was no outside tap.
£250 in recognition of the resident’s poor experience.

On 14 December 2020 the resident wrote to the SM. He stated:
1. He believed a substantial amount of compensation needed to be paid in order for the landlord to learn to keep to its [SLA] commitments.
2. The estate agents used were appointed by the landlord and verbal assurances were made. He stated that if this meant nothing, it should stop undertaking sales via conversation, but rather should be via a recorded method. He would be happy to take the matter to court as a clear case of sale under false pretences. Additionally, as the contract required maintenance of the garden, he wished to know how this was to be done in the absence of a tap. He required that the landlord modify the contract and cover any legal fees.
3. The SM had understated the level of inconvenience experienced. He reminded the SM that he had been given a house which he had not seen and had not been given a demonstration of, as was discussed in the contract terms. He was never informed of the position of the meters; the heating had not worked for almost three months; the spare key had been held on to and then given to the neighbour without consent; and the dishwasher was non-functional.

He requested the company policy on the standard of a new-build before it was handed to a buyer.

On 16 December 2020 the resident was contacted by a different SM who confirmed that the stage two response received by the resident had been carried out in accordance with its policy. He explained that the complaint had been looked at on a point-by-point basis providing £250, the maximum available, for each point. It confirmed that £1,000 was the maximum that the landlord would offer.
On 26 February 2021 the Defects Officer (DO) wrote to the resident. She noted that the resident had recently raised concerns with the PMO that the developer’s contractor had turned up to inspect the floor issue without notification. The rooms were therefore not prepared. The DO informed the resident that this had been fed back to the developer.
The Ombudsman notes that there were several back-and-forth emails in March 2021 within which the resident raised several defects, including the outstanding flooring matter. On 29 March 2021 the DO apologised for the length of time that had passed to complete the EOD list. She advised, as previously, that the EOD needed to be reviewed by the employer’s agent. A defects surveyor would be scheduled to attend on 14 April 2021.
On 30 March 2021 the resident wrote to the DO. He highlighted that each time the landlord took the decision to undertake a survey, was another day that someone had to be home. He (and his partner) could not continue to take annual leave without being compensated. He was willing to take the hit if the matter was going to be completed on one day but could not continue to lose pay because of this. He questioned whether works would be completed to the creaking floor or whether more surveyors were required for this. He stated he had not been informed of the extent of work that would be required to the floors either.
Records suggest that the survey took place on 14 April 2021. A further inspection was undertaken on 18 June 2021.
While the landlord made several appointments, and a number of subsequent attendances, the Ombudsman can see that the works remained incomplete. It advised this Service that works were completed on 6 October 2021.

Assessment and findings

The sale of the resident’s property and the landlord’s decision not to provide the resident with an outside tap.

It is not disputed that the resident had been shown an outside tap when he viewed the landlord’s show home, prior to proceeding with his house purchase. The Ombudsman has seen a photo of the show home which clearly evidences the existence of an outside tap and as such, can appreciate that the resident would have expected a similar installation in his new home.
As the outside tap was not a fixture/fitting which the landlord intended to install at the resident’s specific property, however, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained this during the resident’s viewing and/or prior to the completion of his purchase. While the Ombudsman appreciates the landlord’s explanation that the purpose of a show home is to provide an indicative example of the unit(s) being sold, and not necessarily to provide a replica property, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make clear the features contained in the show home which would not be included in the actual purchase.
The Ombudsman has found no evidence that the landlord did this during the tour of the show home, however. While the Ombudsman was not privy to the conversations that were had on this day, and so cannot comment on what was or was not discussed verbally, the Ombudsman has seen no record that the resident was advised that the outdoor tap would not be included, even though it had been seen.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable. As the landlord had never intended to provide an outdoor tap (as it explained in its final response), it was somewhat misleading that this had been included as a feature in the show home without the appropriate accompanying information. While the landlord did explain to this Service that the outdoor tap was a feature exclusively available to those buyers who purchased 100% share of their properties, as opposed to shared owners, it does not appear that this explanation was shared with the resident at the time of his viewing / purchase, or indeed within in its complaint responses.
What’s more, although the landlord has suggested that the contract exchanged enabled it to make variations to the specification under circumstances relating to cost, availability, material or labour should it wish, if changes were to be made under this provision, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to write to the resident to advise of such changes. There is no evidence that this was done.
While it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine whether the landlord had mis-sold the property on this basis, the Ombudsman can see that there was a clear failure in communication here. It therefore would have been reasonable for the landlord to have given greater consideration to how it arrived at this misunderstanding and to have recognised the conflict in information.
With this said, there is no evidence that the landlord was obligated to install the outdoor tap. It does not appear that an outdoor tap was an included feature on the property specification list and the Ombudsman accepts that no suggestion was made to the resident that his property would be identical to the show home or that an outdoor tap would indeed be installed. The outdoor tap had not been included in any of the landlord’s marketing material.
Although the resident suggested that an outdoor tap had been agreed, the Ombudsman has also found no evidence of this and is unable to rely solely on the resident’s assertion. The Ombudsman therefore cannot see that the landlord was required to make this provision.
The Ombudsman also appreciates that while this confusion could have been mitigated by allowing the resident to view his actual property prior to legal completion – and considers it unreasonable that the landlord’s internal issues deprived the resident of this opportunity – the resident still took the decision to continue with the purchase, having not seen the specific property. The resident therefore accepted the property in its condition, and the Ombudsman would expect that the resident’s solicitor would have advised the resident of any potential risks surrounding such a decision before completion was agreed. It is the responsibility of the resident’s solicitor to carry out searches and investigation of the title deed, including a review of the paperwork provided by the seller’s solicitor on the property to identify and resolve any risks. Thus, any concerns that the resident had with the absence of fixtures or fittings in the property inventory should have been identified and raised at the appropriate point.
The resident raised that, under the terms of his lease, he was obligated to maintain and keep in good order the garden or patio area forming part of the premises. The Ombudsman notes that the resident made reference to this within his complaint and requested that the landlord amend this, if it was unwilling to provide an outside tap. Although the Ombudsman recognises that the existence of an outdoor tap would have better enabled the resident to fulfil this duty, an outside tap was not a prerequisite for this nor was this requirement evidence of the landlord’s intention to offer a tap. The Ombudsman therefore cannot see that the landlord needed to remove this requirement from the lease, as the resident suggested. It was reasonable though, particularly as the resident had informed the landlord of his back pains, that the landlord advised that it had employed a gardener to carry out weekly maintenance of the plant beds and estate gardens.
It might have been reasonable to have provided the resident with a tap given that the same issue had been addressed for the resident’s neighbour. The Ombudsman accepts, however, that circumstances will differ and/or may require a different approach. It is therefore not necessarily the case that the landlord needed to respond in the same way. The landlord has informed this Service that on review of its previous decision to install the tap for the resident’s neighbour, it had considered this to be a mistake and far in excess of the response required due to the time and money expended. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this difference in treatment was not ideal and would have been disappointing for the resident, but accepts that the landlord was able to make this decision for itself, as there was no legal obligation.
The Ombudsman has subsequently been unable to conclude that the landlord’s decision not to install the outside tap was inappropriate. What’s more, given the landlord’s failure to offer the resident an opportunity to view the property before completion, and therefore to provide the capacity to discuss any defects or missing installations, it was reasonable that it made a compensation offer of £250. This also recognised the resident’s dissatisfaction with its decision which was fair.
While the landlord’s final response offered little recognition for its failure in communication, a further offer of £250 was made to account for the resident’s overall experience and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was satisfactory in resolving this aspect of the resident’s complaint. A recommendation has been made nonetheless to improve the landlord’s service.
For completeness, the Ombudsman has noted that on 7 August 2020 the resident raised that upon moving into his property, the landlord had incorrectly given his spare front door key to his neighbour. He raised that this posed a safety risk. While the Ombudsman appreciates that this would have caused some distress, the landlord did apologise for this and the £250 awarded in recognition of the resident’s experience would have been partly reflective of this. This was reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its adherence to the standards set out in its Service Level Agreement (SLA).

It is clear to the Ombudsman that the communication from the landlord was below the expected standard. Despite several attempts to engage with the landlord in June/July 2020, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s correspondence (within 2 working days) and to offer a response (within 5 working days) in line with its SLA. This was inappropriate and resulted in the resident consistently having to chase the landlord.
While the PMO did advise the resident that there would likely be delays as she was working with several residents across the development, it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the workload was adequately managed in order for it to maintain a good level of service. This therefore did not justify the PMO’s subsequent failure to provide the resident with a complaint response within the expected timeframe.
It was appropriate, therefore, that within the landlord’s stage one response it recognised this failure in service and made an offer of compensation (£100). This offer was reasonable and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved this element of the resident’s complaint at this time.
The Ombudsman notes, however, that despite the landlord’s recognition of its poor service, and its assertion that changes had been made to improve the service, it still failed to maintain reasonable communication with the resident, to respond to the resident within the SLA, and to manage his stage two escalation request within good time.
Despite advising the landlord that he wished to escalate his complaint to stage two on 7 August 2020 and chasing the landlord further in September 2020 to obtain a complaint response, it failed to provide this until 19 November 2020. This was significantly outside of its SLA and the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord took any steps to manage the resident’s expectations. While it would have been good practice, upon breaching the timeframe for response, to have advised the resident of the new deadline it sought to work to, it does not appear that the landlord did this, even though the resident had prompted it to do so on 24 September 2020.
It was inappropriate that the resident had to chase this further in October 2020 and that this Service had to encourage the landlord to subsequently offer its final response. The landlord’s delay in offering this and in enabling the resident to exhaust its process ultimately delayed the resident in having his complaint investigated by HOS.
With this said, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s final response and has concluded that the landlord went far enough to satisfactorily resolve the resident’s complaint. As well as acknowledging its continued failure to uphold the SLA, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord offered the resident an apology and explained that further steps would be taken to improve its process. The landlord reviewed the compensation that it had offered at stage one and despite agreeing £100 with the resident to reflect its service during the stage one complaints process, increased this amount to £250, the maximum available under its compensation policy. What’s more, in light of its further failure to manage the resident’s review appropriately, the landlord offered a further £250. A total amount of £500 was therefore offered for this matter.
With consideration of the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, this offer was fair and proportionate. As well as seeking to recognise the adverse impact caused by its delay, the landlord also demonstrated an intention to learn from this outcome, which was appropriate. While the Ombudsman notes that the resident sought a greater level of compensation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer was reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s defective floorboards.

The Ombudsman notes that the resident’s property was subject to a 12-month Defect Liability Period (DLP). This offered the resident the capability to report defects within the first year of occupying his property which, once agreed, would be repaired by the developer.
Under the landlord’s DLP guidance, defects reported by the resident and confirmed as defects should be made good within a reasonable amount of time. For issues such as flooring, the guidance suggests a period of four weeks.
At the end of DLP, an EOD list (listing the defects which remain outstanding) should be put together / agreed and a date set for works to be done. This too should be within a reasonable amount of time.
It appears, from the landlord’s correspondence on 22 July 2020, that the DLP ended on 30 July 2020 and therefore the resident was required to report any defects which he was concerned about before this period. The Ombudsman can see that the resident did this.
On 7 August 2020, within the landlord’s stage one response, it confirmed for the resident that the defect had been added to the EOD list. It was not disputed whether this matter was a defect and the landlord later shared that this was an issue which affected several of the residents across the scheme.
Still, despite advising the resident in August 2020 that the issue needed to be reviewed and that the Defects Team would make contact directly to schedule the necessary appointments, there was no communication with the resident on this matter for several months.
It was not until the landlord offered its final response, three months later, that it advised that the flooring would be addressed as part of an EOD inspection. This was inappropriate. Despite the time that had passed, it was clear that the landlord had done little to advance the floor repair and had failed to provide the resident with reassurance that the matter was nearing completion. Adding to this, the resident was not advised on when the EOD inspection would take place.
Despite the landlord’s recognition that the works remained outstanding, and its responsibility to undertake works within a reasonable period, it took no action. Rather, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord advised the resident on two occasions (despite being months apart) that the EOD list needed to be reviewed (in November 2020 and again March 2021), which it followed with several further inspections. The Ombudsman notes, as confirmed by the landlord, that the works were not completed until 6 October 2021, more than a year and three months after the matter was raised.
With consideration of the landlord’s repair responsibilities here, the period within which matters should have been addressed, and the actual length of time that passed following the resident’s submission on or around 22 July 2021, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was maladministration. It is unclear whether this delay was caused by the landlord’s inability to confirm that this matter was a defect with its developers, or in arranging the works to be undertaken. In either event, nonetheless, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was a clear failure to arrange / ensure that the works were undertaken within a reasonable period of time. The timescale for completion significantly exceeded the suggested timescale within the landlord’s guidance and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was a clear failure to manage the resident’s expectation. While good practice dictates that the landlord agree a timescale for the EOD works to be done, particularly in relation to the flooring here, it did not do this.
It was reasonable that the landlord made an offer of £250 in recognition of the resident’s poor experience up until November 2020. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, further recognition is required to acknowledge the landlord’s further delay in addressing the flooring.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of the sale of the resident’s property and the landlord’s decision not to provide the resident with an outside tap, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its adherence to the standards set out in its Service Level Agreement (SLA), the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s defective floorboards.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. While the landlord should have made clear, upon offering the resident a tour of its show home, that the outdoor tap would not be an installation which came with his property, the Ombudsman has not found that the landlord’s decision not to uphold the resident’s later request was inappropriate.

The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord had advised the resident that his property would be a replica of the show home, that the marketing material offered any indication that an outdoor tap would be included in the purchase, or that there was any legal agreement which demonstrated that this was to be an included fixture/fitting. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has not considered the resident’s obligation to manage the garden space at his property to be an indication of the landlords intention. The Ombudsman has therefore been unable to see that the landlord was obligated to agree with the resident’s request.

It is also the case that the resident agreed the property in the absence of an outdoor tap. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident had not had the opportunity to view the property before doing so, the resident / the resident’s solicitor was responsible for ensuring that they were satisfied with the property as a whole prior to completion, and any concerns should have been raised during this time if they were not. It is reasonable to assume that the resident’s solicitor would have (or should have) advised the resident on the risks in such circumstances.

While it might have been reasonable to make this provision for the resident, given the lack of clarity, the resident’s overall experience and the landlord’s previous decision to offer a tap for the resident’s neighbour, this decision was for the landlord to make at its own discretion. It was not unreasonable that the landlord took the decision to recognise its oversights by making a proportionate offer of compensation.

It was appropriate that the landlord recognised its shortcomings and took reasonable steps to put things right. Although the landlord failed to improve its communication with the resident and to adhere to its SLA even after its stage one response, the Ombudsman is satisfied that it recognised this within its final response and as well as adjusting its initial offer of compensation, made a further offer at stage two to recognise its further failure in service. This was fair. The landlord also advised the resident of its intention to implement changes to improve its service which was in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations and the dispute resolution principles (to be fair, to put things right, and to learn from outcomes).
Despite the landlord’s requirement to arrange and resolve the resident’s defective flooring within a reasonable period of time, the landlord failed to do so. The Ombudsman notes that the resident chased this matter on several occasions and while an unreasonable amount of time was expended following this matter up and accommodating visits to the property, the issue remained unresolved for more than a year and three months. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord made an offer of compensation which fairly accounted for much of the residents experience up until its final response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however and with knowledge of the full length of time take to complete this work, the compensation offered was insufficient in recognising the full extent of the failure.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should award a further £350 for its delay in responding to and repairing the resident’s floorboards. This fairly reflects the length of time that passed, the inconvenience and distress caused, and the continuous involvement required from the resident in chasing the works (including time taken to accommodate inspections).
The landlord should also honour the £1000 award previously offered to the resident.
The landlord should make the above payment within four weeks of receiving the Ombudsman’s determination.

Recommendations

While the Ombudsman appreciates that with new builds, the landlord will often be relying on third party developers to undertake works, the landlord must still endeavour to provide a good and prompt repair service for its residents. It should therefore ensure that these third parties are aware of the timescales it seeks to work to, to streamline its process for assessing defects and arranging repairs, and to manage a resident’s expectation where it is unable to provide service within a reasonable amount of time. The landlord should reflect on this as it considers the learnings from this case and should ensure that it is effectively monitoring / managing the performance of such third parties to ensure that contractual obligations are met.
As part of the resident’s requested resolution, he stated that he would like the landlord to publish its service standards on its website to demonstrate that it is taking steps to improve its response times and adhering to its SLAs. The landlord has since advised this Service that it will be looking to publish quarterly stats for complaint handling on its website which the resident will be able to access.
The landlord should consider the comments made within this investigation and should ensure that home buyers are explicitly advised, particularly where there are parts of its show home which are subject to conditions, what will and will not be included in the purchase.