Onward Homes Limited (202011993)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011993

Onward Homes Limited

1 March 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 residents 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 residents have complained about the landlord’s handling of defects they have reported.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The legal and policy/procedural background

The landlord’s New Build Development Brief states that:
1. 28 days before handover, the contractor “is to carry out the contractor’s snag of the property and remedy defects that have been noted in preparation for the 14 day stage”.
2. 14 days before handover the Clerk of Works “is to commence snagging the property and hand over the completed ‘snagging’ list to [the contractor] to enable defects to be remedied in preparation for the 7 day stage”.
3. 7 days before handover, the contractor “is to ensure all defects have been remedied and that the property is in a suitable condition for handover in one week” and the Clerk of Works is “to check all items on ‘snagging’ list with all defects remedied”.
4. With regards to the procedure for reporting defects, “the Contractor shall provide a 12 months defect liability cover for every scheme … ONWARD require the Contractor to produce weekly updates during the 12 month defect period (or longer if agreed) confirming progress made with any reported defects.”
5. At the end of the defects liability period “The Clerk of Works shall make an inspection of the properties, listing only items which are contractual defects. If investigation is required to decide whether an item is a defect, it shall be done at the time.… The contractors shall provide the [landlord’s] project manager a programme for the remedial works which includes a completion date. When the works are complete the contractor shall notify the Clerk of Works who will carry out the final inspections”.
The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the Home User Guide issued to residents which states that all defects should be reported directly to the landlord who will issue a job number. Residents are requested to keep a list of defects. Aside from defects, clause 4.3 of the lease states that the residents are obliged to repair and keep the premises in good and substantial repair and condition.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. At each stage the landlord should “respond to the customer with what actions we will take to resolve the complaint within 10 working days”. It should “keep the customer informed throughout” if additional time is required.

Summary of Events

The residents are shared owners of the landlord, their lease commencing on 5 September 2019. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord has provided this Service with copies of its pre–handover snag list dated 21 August 2019 and a back check snag list dated 29 August 2019. It has confirmed that “neither of these lists would be provided to the customer as they are part of the pre–handover process checks undertaking once the notice has been served on a property”. The landlord has also advised this Service that the defect liability period for the property ended on 14 July 2020.
On 23 September 2019, the residents emailed a snag list to the landlord which it forwarded to the building contractor. The list included a leaking drainpipe; the bases of two fence panels were too high; the grid of a drainpipe was not edged with cement; the patio door was not straight with the hinges touching the brick walls and getting damaged; silicon was missing on part of patio door and there was a large puddle. There is no evidence that the landlord logged job numbers for the issues.
In phone calls made on 6, 7 and 11 October 2019, the residents resident noted that the floor in the property had to be re–laid but the self-levelling compound added to the floor had not worked. They also reported that there was a cracked window. The residents have advised this Service that on 21 October 2019, the re-concreting and levelling of the downstairs floor was completed.
On 17 October 2019 the residents reported other issues that the landlord emailed to the contractor including water backing up when the toilet was flushed; uneven plastering of the living room ceiling; leaking taps in the kitchen and bathroom; damage to a cupboard door; and mortar on the path. There is no evidence that the landlord logged job numbers for the issues apart from the toilet flush issue which was raised on 22 October 2019. With regard to the toilet flush issue the residents called again on 15 November 2019 stating that a repair had not been completed. The repairs records further indicate that the toilet flush repair was raised again on 6 January 2020.
In phone calls made on 12, 14 and 15 November 2019, the residents requested to be called back to discuss works to outstanding defects. The landlord’s internal records do not confirm that the landlord called back or that action had been taken on the defects that had been reported up till then. There is a note stating that the contractor had attended to unblock the drains and thought that the use of wipes on the estate may be causing blockages.
The residents have advised this Service that on 18 November 2019, they requested an update on the list of defects they had sent in September 2019.
In phone calls to the landlord on 3 and 7 January 2020 the residents advised that they were still unhappy that defects had been unresolved and asked for the snagging list that was made at the time they moved into the property.
On 7 January 2020, the residents raised a complaint stating they would send a list of outstanding defects. The landlord’s records indicate that it then sought advice from the contractor. Having done so it considered that a scratch on the worktop, other items including scratches and dents to the sink, and cracks to the inside of glass not to be defects but owner occupier damage.
On 5 February 2020, the landlord responded to the complaint, although a copy has not been provided to this Service. According to the residents’ chronology and the landlord’s later response of 10 December 2020, the landlord found that the outstanding repairs were not defects. It advised that the damaged worktop was owner damage. The residents phoned on the same day. They have stated that they would respond and understood the complaint would be reopened, although the landlord’s records do not confirm what was discussed and agreed.
In emails sent on 6 and 26 February 2020, the residents requested the landlord’s snagging list that they understood was promised in November 2019 and stated that a member of staff had advised them in October 2019 that the contractor had not completed the snagging list.
The residents continued to report issues including stating on 6 February 2020 that their UPVC patio door did not close. On 11 March 2020 the residents reported an overflowing drain in the alleyway. The landlord raised a job on the same day. On 13 March 2020, the residents reported again that the patio door would not close when it absorbed heat in hot weather. The landlord raised an emergency repair which was cancelled when the residents reported that the door was able to close when the weather cooled.
On 13 March 2020 the landlord requested that the residents compile a list of outstanding issues, which they then provided on 15 March 2020. The landlord arranged an inspection for 25 March 2020 which was postponed due to the introduction of Covid-19 lockdown restrictions.
The residents in the interim continued to report drainage problems and on 22 May 2020 again reported that the back door was not closing.
On 1 June 2020 the residents phoned seeking an update on the defects situation, inspections and a possible extension of the warranty. They also reported new issues including only the master phone socket working and lack of insulation in the bedroom.
The residents wrote again on 22 July 2020 asking for the landlord to confirm what action it would take in respect of the defects that they had reported and remained unresolved. They also noted that they had not been provided with the snagging list they had requested. On the same day the landlord phoned stating that it would arrange an inspection.
The landlord subsequently arranged the end of defect liability period inspection which was carried out on 14 August 2020. The contractor, a quantity surveyor and a member of staff inspected the property. On the same day, the landlord drafted a schedule of 12 month defect items, with 27 items listed. The landlord has provided a spreadsheet to this Service evidencing that it sought to cross reference the list of defects provided by the residents with the items it identified at the end of defects inspection. The spreadsheet listed 24 issues reported by the residents that the landlord did not identify itself, but does not indicate that the landlord considered how the issues should be resolved.
The residents have advised this Service that they sent several emails between 23 August 2020 and 26 October 2020, querying works that were outstanding and contending that some works had been carried out poorly and large matters were omitted. They further state that the landlord advised them on 30 October 2020 that the builder would only carry out works recorded at an inspection.
On 17 November 2020, the landlord advised that it did not accept the residents’ list as the items could not be cross referenced with what was identified in the snag list at handover or issues identified at the end of defects inspection. It advised that as a “compromise”, it would contact the contractor again about the worktop issue as although the contactor had previously attended it remained unresolved. The landlord attached the schedule of 12 month defect items that was made after the inspection of 14 August 2020. On 20 November 2020, the residents queried the status of their complaint, specifically whether the 17 November 2020 response was the final response to their complaint.
On 27 November 2020 the landlord raised a new complaint as the residents remained dissatisfied. Its internal correspondence indicates that it raised a new complaint on the basis that the original complaint mainly concerned issues around the kitchen / splashback which it was still liaising with the contractor about, and that the residents were raising new issues.
On 10 December 2020, the landlord sent a Stage 1 response to the complaint of 27 November 2020. It noted it had sent a previous complaint response on 5 February 2020. In respect of the current complaint the landlord advised that it had cross referenced the list of defects provided by the residents with the end of defect inspection list and noted several snags on the former that were not on the latter. The landlord also stated that as only one of the properties on the scheme had experienced the same issue, it could not form a common view. In conclusion, the landlord advised that it would not attend to any issues outside the defect inspection. The landlord re-sent the response on 13 January 2021 as it was not received by the residents.
On 17 January 2021, the residents escalated the complaint. They stated:
1. The complaint response of 5 February 2020 was based solely on the contractor’s advice. Although they had phoned, the landlord did not reopen the complaint so they could not respond to the complaint.
2. They did not know when the end of defects list was compiled and by who, and had not been advised of the basis on which defects were accepted or rejected. They did not accept the snag list of 21 August 2019 for various reasons including:
  1. Builders were in the property and were able to cause damage after this date.
  2. There were major omissions from the list, including uneven flooring, badly fitted fascia and poor plastering.
  3. The snag list compiled at the visit of 14 August 2019 was not impartial and the landlord’s representative was a substitute.
3. The landlord did not provide a hand over inspection of scuffs, scratches, faults etc as should be the case. On 23 September 2019, within two weeks, they had provided their own list, including a damaged worktop and bad plastering.
4. The builder had accepted responsibility for the damaged worktop but when trying to carry out a repair in December 2019, it made the worktop worse, then stated it was owner damage.
5. The landlord had not responded to the residents’ claim that they should not pay rent for the period until the downstairs floor was resurfaced to level it. The residents noted that at this point their furniture was already in the property and the levelling works had to be completed over 3 / 4 sessions in a piecemeal way.
6. The builder’s own snag list had not been completed, for example a poorly fitted back gate. Insulation had only been added to the bedroom but nowhere else had been checked.
As resolution, the residents identified 37 defects that they considered should be remedied to an acceptable standard, including uneven plastering throughout the property; drainage issues in the alley still; the back door still catching; and the worktop still damaged as it could not be fixed by filling. They also noted that the floor was still not level with, for example, a lump in the kitchen and a dip in the living room floor.
On 29 March 2021, the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint. It advised that the contractor had agreed to revisit the residents’ property, along with the landlord and its agent, to consider each item on the snagging list and discuss a course of action. The landlord further advised that the contractor had offered £750 towards a damaged worktop, based on the supply and fit cost of a new worktop of similar quality.
On 11 April and 7 July 2021, the residents advised this Service that all issues listed in their escalated complaint of 17 January 2021 were outstanding, aside from the kitchen worktop issue, including a defect to the gutter which had been repaired twice but had started leaking again. They advised that they had not accepted the landlord’s offer of another visit as they considered the previous visits unhelpful and intimidating. They advised that remedial works and further inspections that were identified at previous visits were either not carried out satisfactorily or never materialised.

Assessment and findings

It is not within the role or expertise of the Ombudsman to carry out independent technical assessments of disputed repair and maintenance issues. In investigating this complaint, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s handling of the issues, taking into account its legal obligations, its policies and procedures and good practice.
It is evident that the residents reported defects in the property from the start of their lease, from 23 September 2019. It was appropriate that the landlord initially referred the list to the contractor as it had responsibility for remedying defects and carrying out snagging works.
The residents subsequently reported several more issues. As the landlord was the residents’ point of contact it had a responsibility to administer the repair. It is not evident though that the landlord issued job numbers for the issues reported as required by the Home User Guide, kept records of each issue, or maintained contact with the contractor. It is therefore not evident that the landlord maintained oversight of the issues reported or proactively managed the residents’ expectations on what action, if any, was being taken on the issues reported. In fact, the residents’ phone calls and emails between November 2019 and 7 January 2020, in which they sought updates on defects reported which remained unresolved, confirm they remained uncertain on the landlord’s and its contractor’s response to all defects reported.
When considering complaints, landlords are expected to follow this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles which are to Be Fair, Put Matters Right and Learn from Outcomes. In this case, on 7 January 2020, the residents first raised a complaint. The landlord therefore had the opportunity to confirm its position of the issues reported by the residents and to review its handling of the issues. However, it did not seek to obtain the residents’ version of events before sending its response of 7 February 2020 in which it concluded that the issues reported were not defects. It therefore did not act fairly as it reached its conclusions (at that point in time) without taking into account the residents’ view. Moreover, there is no evidence that the landlord kept full records of its contact with its contractor. The landlord therefore did not keep a clear audit trail to support the decision it reached.
The residents continued to state that defects they had reported had not been remedied. In conjunction with new issues reported such as the alley flooding and the back door not closing, it was reasonable that the landlord requested a list of all outstanding issues on 13 March 2020, then arranged a visit as this would enable it to reach an informed decision on all the issues. It was unfortunate that the visit scheduled for 25 March 2020 was delayed; however, the landlord did not act unreasonably given the introduction of Covid-19 lockdown restrictions that it and third parties were obliged to follow.
When the landlord visited the residents, the defect liability period had ended. In line with the New Development Brief the landlord compiled a schedule of 12 month defect items. In subsequent correspondence, on 30 October 2020, 17 November 2020 and 10 December 2020, the landlord advised that it would only carry out remedial works to the issues that it had identified. As the landlord was aware, the residents had listed other issues that they wanted it to remedy. The landlord in effect decided not to accept the residents’ list and therefore that it was the residents’ responsibility to deal with any issue it had not identified itself.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord assessed these outstanding issues in any detail on their own merits or otherwise explained its decision to the residents. For instance, it did not explain what constituted a contractual defect, whether it considered it had satisfactorily remedied any defects on the residents’ list that it had previously attended to and whether any issues fell within the residents’ own repair responsibility. As such, the landlord did not take reasonable steps to justify its decision and to resolve the residents’ complaint. This was particularly unreasonable as the residents’ list included significant issues, such as the floor being uneven in parts causing problem with the laminate flooring, and plastering on walls and ceilings throughout the property being uneven, which warranted a response.
In its Stage 2 response of 29 March 2021, the landlord proposed to carry out another joint visit. This was a reasonable as another visit would enable it to accurately review the residents’ list of defects that remained in dispute. It would then be in a position to explain whether or not it would accept responsibility for each item and ultimately close the complaint. It is acknowledged that the residents have been unwilling to provide access for another visit. Nonetheless, resolution of the complaint requires further engagement between the parties and consideration of the substantive issues in dispute.
In their complaint escalation of 17 January 2021, the residents made specific reference to the fact that the floor downstairs had to be re–levelled. Insofar as the landlord recalled the contractor who carried out remedial works, it responded appropriately to the issue. There is also no obligation for the landlord to provide a refund of rent, as requested by the residents, on the basis of a defect that it attended to. However, the residents experienced significant inconvenience from facilitating the remedial works to the floor, having moved in. It was therefore particularly unreasonable that the landlord did not respond to this aspect of the complaint. Moreover, by failing to acknowledge the residents’ inconvenience from remedial works to the floor and other issues reported, the landlord demonstrated a lack of empathy that was not conducive to resolving the complaint.
As noted, there are omissions in the landlord’s record keeping in relation to its consideration of defects reported by the residents. The residents’ chronology of events also lists correspondence that has not been provided by the landlord. This lack of records is concerning and a failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.

Complaint Handling

With regards to the landlord’s complaint handling, it is not evident that it dealt with the residents’ complaint in a clear and consistent way. After the initial response of 5 February 2020, the landlord did not make clear the status of the complaint and how it could be escalated despite the residents advising they remained dissatisfied and wished to respond. The response of 17 November 2020 again simply stated that the landlord did not accept responsibility for issues the residents had reported again without confirming the status of the complaint, and what further options the residents had.
The landlord registered a new complaint on 27 November 2020 as the residents remained dissatisfied. However, the essence of the dispute remained the same, i.e. what the landlord considered to be snagging issues under defects vs what the residents believed there to be. The landlord missed opportunities to resolve the complaint, or at least to provide more comprehensive responses that addressed the details of the complaint, at an earlier stage.
With regards to timeframes, the Stage 1 response was sent in line with the target timeframe of 10 working days. However, the Stage 2 response of 29 March 2021 was delayed being sent significantly outside this timeframe. There is no evidence that that the landlord sent holding responses as required by the Complaints Procedure to mitigate the inconvenience.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of defects the residents have reported.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not maintain oversight of the issues reported by the residents as defects or proactively manage their expectations on what action, if any, was being taken on the issues reported. The landlord had the opportunity to confirm its position of the issues reported by the residents and to review its handling of the issues when responding to the initial complaint of 7 January 2020 but did not do so. It did not act fairly as it reached its conclusions (at that point in time) without taking into account the residents’ view. Moreover, there is no evidence that the landlord kept full records of its contact with its contractor. The landlord therefore did not keep a clear audit trail to support the decision it reached.
When the landlord reviewed the issues reported by the residents at the end of the defect liability period, it decided not to accept the residents’ list. However, there is no evidence that the landlord assessed these outstanding issues in any detail or otherwise explained its decision to the residents. As such the landlord did not take reasonable steps to justify its decision and resolve the residents’ complaint. It was particular unreasonable that the landlord did not respond to the concerns raised about the levelling of the floor given the level of inconvenience.
With regards to the landlord’s complaint handling, it is not evident that it dealt with the residents’ complaint in a clear and consistent way. Although the landlord registered a new complaint on 27 November 2020, the landlord had missed opportunities to resolve the complaint, or at least provided comprehensive responses addressing the details of the complaint at an earlier stage. There was also a delay in sending the Stage 2 response of March 2021.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within the next four weeks:
1. The landlord pays the residents £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of their reports of defects since the start of their lease.
2. The landlord pays the residents £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by them from the failings in its complaints handling.
3. The landlord writes to the residents seeking to arrange an inspection to their property making clear who will be in attendance. After the visit the landlord should provide its response to each issue listed in the residents’ Stage 2 complaint of 17 January 2020, making clear whether it will be accepting responsibility for carrying out any remedial works, and if not, why not.
The Ombudsman orders that within the next six weeks:
1. The landlord reviews its record keeping practices in relation to the logging and remedying of defects in new build properties. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained, both of works raised and completed and of contact with the residents and the contractor. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord makes clear to the residents what option they have should agreement not be reached on all issues after another inspection has been carried out.