One Vision Housing Limited (202122576)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122576

One Vision Housing Limited

9 June 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of defects/snags in the property.
    2. The resident’s concerns relating to how the TV aerial transponder was installed.
    3. Damage caused to the resident’s car as a result of discarded building materials in the development

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

How the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns relating to how the TV aerial transponder was installed

  1. In an email sent on 6 January 2022, the resident informed the landlord that she had been in contact with the developer regarding how the TV aerial had been installed and her concerns that it had posed a fire risk. When bringing her complaint to this Service, the resident highlighted how the landlord responded her concerns relating to the TV aerial installation as one of the outstanding issues of the complaint she wanted the Ombudsman to consider.
  2. From the evidence provided, it appears that issues relating to the TV aerial, its condition, and the developer’s response to the resident’s concerns were not raised with the landlord until after its complaints process had concluded. Before this matter can be considered by the Ombudsman, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns through its complaints process. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a new complaint if she wishes to pursue this matter further.
  3. This is in line with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints that have exhausted a member’s [landlord’s] complaint procedure

Damage caused to the resident’s car as a result of discarded building materials in the development.

  1. The resident requested £400 compensation from the developer to reimburse her for the damage caused to her car’s tyres as a result of discarded building materials in the development. The resident noted that the developer had declined this request as it said there was no evidence that it was liable for the damage.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 25(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service is only able to consider complaints between a complainant and member (landlord) if there is a landlord/tenant relationship. The report will therefore examine if the landlord has taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. However, this Service is unable to consider the actions of the developer in its direct contact with the resident. This is because the resident does not have a landlord/tenant relationship with the developer.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a new-build house. During the time period of the complaint, both the resident and her husband corresponded with the landlord. For reasons of clarity, the resident and her husband have been jointly referred to as “the resident” in this report.
  2. The resident took on the tenancy of the property on 1 March 2021. On 25 May 2021 the resident called the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. The landlord’s notes of the telephone call described the elements of the complaint as:
    1. The time taken by the site developer to complete the snagging list. The resident also requested for either the landlord or developer to visit the property and complete a new snagging list.
    2. The resident was unhappy with the amount of outstanding issues the property had and requested further information on how the property was signed off prior to her accepting the lease.
    3. The washing machine was fitted incorrectly by the developer and when this was raised by the resident, she was informed that this was a matter for the washing machine manufacturer to resolve.
  3. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 11 June 2021. The landlord noted that the outstanding defects and snags were scheduled to be resolved by the contractor by 10 June 2021. It also noted that the resident had not been provided with all the documentation during the handover of the property, which should have included manuals and warranties for the appliances, and information relating to what snags had been identified and if any remained outstanding. The landlord apologised, stated that had been in contact with the developer to provide the documentation and advised the resident that copies of the manuals were available via its online portal. The landlord also offered the resident £100 compensation for its service failure for not ensuring that the resident received all the documents during the handover.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 June 2021. and provided the requested information relating to what work was completed prior to the handover of the property and what work remained outstanding when the resident took on the tenancy.
  5. A stage two response to the complaint was sent to the resident on 6 September 2021 following an escalation request from the resident due to the length of time it was taking the outstanding defects and snags to be resolved. The landlord informed the resident that the majority of snagging issues were completed before the handover, with the rest being completed shortly afterwards. The landlord confirmed that as the property was still within the 12-month property defect period, it was the responsibility of the developer to resolve the defects.
  6. The resident had raised three defects relating to the shower, the upstairs heating and to the washing machine. These repairs were classified as medium priority, which has a response time of five days. The landlord was satisfied that the repairs were correctly classified and that the developer completed the work within the five-day timescale.
  7. When requesting an escalation of the complaint, the resident had highlighted further issues relating to the removal of a tree, cracks to stone sills, the oven, and the vent on the kitchen window.The developer had arranged for the tree to be removed on 13 September 2021. This did not occur and the developer had informed the landlord that it would arrange a new appointment date. The developer had not classified the issues relating to the sills, the oven and the kitchen window vent as defects. The landlord provided the resident with the information on how to raise a complaint to the developer directly if she wished to.
  8. In February 2022, the developer entered administration. The landlord wrote to all residents of the development on 24 February 2022 to inform them that it would take over responsibility for completing repairs reported during the defects liability period. The landlord also wrote to the resident on 22 February 2022 and informed her that it would arrange for the tree to be removed and to repair the sills.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The developer’s response times for repairs are categorised as follows:
    1. Priority 1 (emergency repairs). Respond within two hours, complete within 24 hours. Examples given for this level of priority include dangerous electrics, no lights, burst water pipes, flooding, no heating, no hot and cold water, and loss of power.
    2. Priority 2 (urgent repairs). Respond within five calendar days. Examples given for this level of priority include roof leaks, blocked drains, minor electrical faults, faults to heating system and/or boiler.
    3. Priority 3 (normal repairs) Respond within 28 calendar days. All other types of repairs would be considered at this priority level.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering non-statutory compensation as a payment of recompense for loss of service or out of pocket expense at a quantifiable rate or amount incurred by a complainant as a direct result of its actions or failure to act. The policy also states that the landlord will consider offering a goodwill gesture when inconvenience has been caused to a complainant by its actions or failure to act. The policy does not provide any guidance on what level of redress the landlord should consider.
  3. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide an acknowledgement within two working days and a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within ten working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
  4. The complaints policy also states that it the landlord is unable to provide a response within its published timescales, it will contact the complainant and agree to an extension. During this complaint the landlord request extensions to allow it to complete its investigations once at stage one and three times at stage two. The resident agreed to the extensions and the complaint responses were provided within the amended timeframes.

Scope of investigation

  1. In her correspondence with both the landlord and this Service, the resident has described the adverse effect on the health of her household and has stated that this should have been considered by the landlord in its compensation calculations.
  2. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health and that of her household, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts as a personal injury claim.
  3. This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord responded.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of defects/snags in the property

  1. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had not provided the resident with all the necessary documentation during the handover of the property. The landlord apologised, explained what steps it had taken internally to improve its procedures and offered £100 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by this failing.
  2. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and explaining what it did wrong. It put things right by apologising to the resident and awarding appropriate compensation. It looked to learn from its errors by raising internally how it provides the documentation to residents. The landlord has provided internal emails were the issue was discussed with its sales team to identify what went wrong and what changes were needed to be made in order to prevent a similar incident occurring.
  4. The compensation payment was made in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). The remedies guidance suggests a payment of £50 to £250 in cases of service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”. 
  5. In this case, the paperwork provided to the resident did not include the list of defects/snags identified by the developer, what work had been completed and what work remained outstanding. Nor did it provide the warranties and manuals for the appliances installed by the developer. This resulted in inconvenience to the resident as she had to chase the developer and the landlord for this information and caused the complaint to be opened. The £100 compensation award by the landlord that recognised this inconvenience was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns relating to work completed by the developer and outstanding work raised during the complaint process. The landlord explained that it was satisfied that the developer had correctly classified the repairs highlighted by the resident as Priority 2, and had attended within the five-day timeframe for that type of repair. This timescale was appropriate as whilst the issues the resident had reported would have caused significant inconvenience, they would not be regarded as a Priority 1/emergency repair as there was not an immediate and severe risk to health and safety.
  7. Partway through the complaints process, the resident raised further issues concerning the oven, sills and a tree outside the property. The landlord acted appropriately by referring these issues to the developer as the developer in the first instance. The developer arranged to have the tree removed but it did not class the cracks to the sills or issue with the oven to be defects.
  8. The developer’s position on the cracks was in line with its policy on defects, which states that it will not consider cracks defects “unless the crack is larger than the edge of a £1 coin”. However, it should be noted that when landlord took on the responsibility for the defect liability period when the developer went into administration, it informed the resident that it would arrange to have the tree removed, as this had not yet been done and would also repair the cracks to the stone sills.
  9. The landlord also explained to the resident why the developer did not consider the issues raised relating to the window vent and the oven to be defects in the property. This position was not disputed by the resident when she explained the outstanding issues in her complaint to the Ombudsman.
  10. It was reasonable for the landlord to take on responsibility for removing the tree and repairing the sills after the developer went into administration. It is acknowledged that there was a delay in removing the tree as the developer had agreed to this but did not action it. However, the landlord was not at fault for this delay as it was in contact with the developer about having the tree removed and agreed to carry out the work itself when the developer was unable to complete it.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of its handling of her reports of defects/snags in the property which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.