Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202302467)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302467

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

30 September 2024

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
    1. The resident’s reports of a defective patio door.
    2. The resident’s concerns about the garden fence.
    3. The resident’s reports of a loss of hot water.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder who purchased his property through shared ownership on 7 October 2022. He and his partner own a 25% share. The property is a ground floor flat within a new build block of flats.
  2. The building achieved practical completion on 27 October 2021. The defects rectification period ran for a year until 27 October 2022. During this period, the contractor was responsible under the building contract with the landlord for dealing with any defects that arose.
  3. On the day the resident’s lease began, 7 October 2022, he raised two issues verbally with the landlord. Firstly, that the patio door leading to the garden was not shutting properly and a draught was passing through it. Secondly, that the fence along the back wall of the property was too low. Behind the fence was a children’s playground and public open space. The resident was concerned about security and privacy. He put the patio door and fence issues in writing to the landlord on 20 October 2022. This was prior to the end of the defects rectification period.
  4. On 1 December 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that it had not taken any action in relation to the reported defects. The landlord sent a contractor (the repairs contractor) to the property later that month and it carried out a temporary fix to the patio door. The repairs contractor returned on 3 February 2023 to attend to a leaking sink and to fully repair the door. It repaired the sink but not the patio door. The landlord advised the resident in an email on 10 February 2023 that the repairs contractor would return to fix the door on 24 March 2023. In relation to the fence, it said that it was in discussion with the contractor who was involved in the build of the property (the original contractor) and would arrange a site visit.
  5. On 27 February 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
    1. It understood relevant staff had been in contact with the resident about the defects.
    2. It was liaising with the repairs contractor and other relevant parties to arrange the necessary repairs.
    3. It should have kept the resident updated on its proposed actions in relation to the defects.
  6. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its poor communication and the late complaint response.
  7. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 1 March 2023. He complained that 5 months had passed since he reported the patio door and fence defects to the landlord. It had not resolved either issue. He said that the landlord dismissed his concerns about the fence for months until he involved the ‘Designing Out Crime’ officer from his local police service. The police officer advised the resident that the boundary around the garden was not up to ‘Secure by Design’ (SBD) standards. This is an accreditation scheme run on behalf of UK police forces for products or services that have met recognised security standards. The resident highlighted to the landlord that it was a planning condition that the overall development complied with SBD requirements.
  8. Between the escalation request of 1 March 2023 and the stage 2 response being issued on 4 May 2023, the landlord took the following action in relation to each defect:
    1. Patio door – the repairs contractor returned to the property on 24 March 2023 to fix the patio door. However, the repair was ineffective. On 27 March, the resident told the landlord that he had to call an emergency locksmith as he had been unable to open the door. He said there was still a draught coming through the door. The landlord agreed to reimburse the locksmith costs. On 27 April, the original contractor who installed the door during construction carried out an inspection. It said that the repair carried out by the repairs contractor had caused more damage and invalidated the warranty. The resident raised concern with the landlord that this, along with the fact the locking system was faulty, would invalidate his home insurance. The landlord assured him that it would not. It said it would arrange for the original contractor to return to the property and fix it.
    2. Fence – the landlord spoke to the police officer about SBD requirements. It considered the recommendations made by the officer. It then decided it would add a 30cm diamond lattice trellis along the top of the fence to increase its height. The landlord was of the view that the diamond lattice trellis was more secure than other types of trellis. The landlord updated the resident. He was unhappy with the choice of trellis. He wanted the landlord to use a slatted style trellis as he felt it was in better keeping with the architecture of the building and would provide more privacy. A contractor then attended the property on 19 April 2023 to install the diamond lattice trellis. The resident complained to the landlord that it had not given him advance notice of the appointment or responded to him regarding the style of trellis. He also complained about the quality of the work. The landlord agreed that the panels were “wonky” and looked “flimsy”. It therefore sent the contractor back to remedy this.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the patio door and fence complaint on 4 May 2023. It responded as follows on each issue:
    1. Patio door – it apologised for the poor performance by its repairs contractor. It said it had recently appointed a new repairs contractor who would take over the contract in June 2023. It explained that the repairs contractor fitted an incompatible locking rail in March 2023. The door was not closing in a satisfactory way as a result. The original contractor was asked by the landlord to remedy this and fix the door. The landlord was waiting for it to confirm an appointment date. If it did not receive a date by 17 May 2023, the landlord said it would arrange for another contractor to undertake the work.
    2. Fence – the works to add a trellis were complete. The landlord acknowledged that this included a return visit to remedy the quality of the original work. It apologised that one of the visits was unannounced. It said it had raised this with the contractor so that it did not happen again.
    3. Compensation – the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation in recognition of the time and effort he had spent in seeking updates about the defects. It also offered him £50 for delays in issuing the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
  10. The resident was unhappy with the stage 2 response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 9 May 2023. In gathering evidence from both the landlord and the resident, the Ombudsman is aware that there have been some relevant developments in relation to the patio door since then.
  11. Between May and September 2023, there were a number of incidents where the patio door would not open. On one occasion, the resident and his partner were locked in the back garden. Locksmiths attended each time to fix the immediate issue of the door not opening.
  12. The landlord liaised with the original contractor about the repair needed to fully fix the door. It said that the quality and workmanship of the door was “very poor” as 23 out of 45 properties in the building had issues with patio doors. The landlord agreed that the original glazing installer (the sub-contractor) should carry out the work to repair the resident’s patio door. This meant that the doors would be brought back into warranty. However, despite repeated visits by the sub-contractor to fit a replacement lock, install shoot bolts, and replace the entire door leaf, the patio door was still not fully fixed. It was bowing and the draught issue persisted. Additionally, the locksmith visits had left scratches and dents in the glazing mullions.
  13. The landlord therefore agreed in October 2023 to fully replace the door. It decided it would seek a new contractor to carry out this work. However, the landlord told this Service in February 2024 that it had been unable to secure a contractor to carry out the work due to the size of the door. We understand, having spoken to the resident in September 2024, that this still is the case and the landlord is still trying to secure a contractor. The repair to the patio door therefore is still outstanding.
  14. In the midst of the ongoing defects complaint in 2023, a separate repair issue arose that led to the resident making another formal complaint. In early March 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the hot water supply to his flat was not working. He made a formal complaint about the landlord’s response to this on 10 March. He complained that despite contacting the landlord a number of times, it had taken no action. He and his partner had been having cold showers for over a week. The landlord told him that a contractor would attend the previous day, but nobody showed up. The resident said he was “incredibly upset” and that he had never been “treated with this combination of incompetence and contempt” in his life.
  15. The resident added to his complaint on 23 March 2023. He said that a contractor came to the property on 10 March but did not have the parts needed to complete the repair. The resident complained that there was then a delay in the contractor ordering the parts. The contractor was due to return on 21 March but did not show up. The resident expressed his frustration about the amount of time he had spent chasing the landlord and waiting for contractors to attend the property. He and his partner had to cancel work commitments as a result. He said that communicating with the landlord was “near impossible” with wait times on phone calls sometimes lasting over half an hour.
  16. On 31 March 2023, a contractor replaced the faulty part and restored hot water to the property. There was however a significant temperature difference between the bathroom and kitchen sink taps. The resident said that the shower, although no longer cold, was still only heating to approximately 20 degrees. The contractor suspected this was due to a faulty valve affecting the temperature.
  17. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the hot water complaint on 14 April 2023. It apologised for the delay in resolving the issue and the “considerable impact” this had on the resident and his partner. It acknowledged there had been communication failures in keeping the resident updated and informing him of contractor appointment times. It said the contractor should have ordered the part needed to restore hot water “a lot sooner” than it did. It explained that its contractor had returned that day to investigate the outstanding temperature issue. It was unable to locate all the valves that it needed to check. It apologised that it had not yet resolved the issue and explained the steps it was taking to rectify the problem as soon as possible. It offered the resident compensation of £162 for the delay in restoring the hot water.
  18. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on the same day he received the stage 1 response, 14 April 2023. He complained that the landlord failed to “assume any responsibility other than delays with clerical work, and instead points fingers to other companies.” He said that the landlord had not given a satisfactory explanation as to what was wrong with the system and what steps it would take to ensure there was a full repair.
  19. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 June 2023. By this date, the contractor had returned to the property and fixed the temperature issue. The landlord said in its stage 2 response:
    1. It was glad it had now resolved the hot water issue. It recognised that the contractor should have scheduled in more inspections to ensure it completed a full repair sooner. It also accepted that the ordering of parts took longer than expected which added to the delay.
    2. It took full responsibility as it was, “responsible for the performance of our contractors. We expect an excellent service from all our contractors, and on this occasion, it was not delivered.” It apologised for the delay and outlined feedback it had provided to its contractors.
    3. It had provided feedback to relevant internal colleagues. It would also deliver training to bridge any knowledge gaps.
    4. It increased the compensation offered in the stage 1 response from £162 to £550. The added £388 included a further £350 for failure in service, and £38 for the delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint response.
  20. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. Subsequent to this, the hot water and central heating supply to the whole building stopped working in November 2023. The residents were without heat or hot water for approximately 8 weeks until the landlord installed a temporary boiler in December 2023. When providing evidence to the Ombudsman in September 2024, the resident said that a full repair to the building’s hot water and central heating system remained outstanding. He was concerned about the impact of this on residents throughout the building as the winter months approached.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of a defective patio door

  1. The landlord must oversee that all of its new developments are designed and built in line with a wide range of regulatory standards. This includes requirements around, for example, planning, building control, environmental health, and health and safety. The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) provides landlords with a tool to identify and protect against potential risks and hazards found in residential properties. A door that does not fit properly may give rise to a number of hazards in the HHSRS. This includes an increase in the risk of excess cold, damp and mould growth, entry by intruders, noise nuisance, access by rodents, and personal injury.
  2. Under the terms of the resident’s lease, it would usually be his responsibility to keep the patio door in repair. However, as the fault with the door arose due to either the design or installation, the landlord appropriately assumed responsibility for ensuring the repair was carried out.
  3. The landlord’s repair records show that in September 2022, it carried out a repair to the patio door as it was not unlocking. This was within the defects rectification period. It is not known from the records provided which contractor carried out the repair. However, when the resident raised the faulty door with the landlord in October 2022, there is no evidence that the landlord raised this with the original contractor at that time. It instead opted to use its repairs contractor, rather than invoking the building contract requiring the original contractor or sub-contractor to fix the door. The timeframes set out in its repairs policy therefore applied. The repair to the patio door was a non-emergency repair. The repairs policy provided that the landlord would aim to complete such repairs within 15 working days. If a repair needed more than one appointment, the landlord or its contractor was required to arrange the next appointment date following the first appointment.
  4. The landlord failed to adhere to its policy as it did not attend to the repair within this timeframe. It was December 2022, 2 months after the resident reported the issue, before the landlord’s repairs contractor attended the property. It carried out an interim repair only. It did not then schedule in a follow up appointment within a short window after the first visit. It was March 2023, 5 months after the first report, before the landlord attempted a full repair. That repair caused further damage to the door and the original contractor advised that as a result, the door was no longer in warranty. The delays, lack of communication and failure to carry out an effective repair added to the resident’s distress. As the repair invalidated the warranty on the door, this understandably led the resident to have concerns about the validity of his home insurance.
  5. As per the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds, “During the defect period residents are reliant on the landlord to pursue the developer. Landlords must pursue these issues effectively on their behalf.” The resident fulfilled his obligations by pointing out defects to the landlord as soon as he became aware of them in October 2022. However, the landlord’s records show that it was February 2023 before it arranged for the original contractor to inspect the door. It was April 2023 before it asked the original contractor to take over the repair.
  6. The landlord has not provided a reasonable explanation as to why it attended to the repair itself initially. The resident raised the issue within the defects rectification period. Its delay in addressing it with the original contractor and use of its own repairs contractor instead led directly to the situation where it caused further damage to the door.
  7. The landlord provided a limited stage 1 response in February 2023 to the complaint about the defective patio door. Despite the repairs contractor having been out at the property twice by the date of the stage 1 response, the landlord offered no explanation as to why it had not yet completed the repair. It did not explain why there was a delay. It was unable to provide a date for the next appointment. It did however acknowledge that it should have communicated better with the resident and kept him updated about the defect. Therefore, the landlord recognised there were failings but did not carry out a thorough complaint investigation at stage 1 into why the failings occurred.
  8. The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response in May 2023 that it had reviewed the performance of the repairs contractor. It acknowledged that it had carried out an ineffective repair. It said it recognised the impact of this poor performance on the resident and acknowledged his frustration with regard to the ongoing delay in completing the repair. It explained that a new contractor would be taking over the repairs contract from June 2023. It said that the original contractor would carry out the repair. It was awaiting confirmation of an appointment date and if not received within the next 2 weeks, the landlord said it would arrange for another contractor to undertake the work. This signalled an intention by the landlord to oversee the outstanding work was completed within a reasonable period of time. However, as will be outlined below, it did not follow through on this.
  9. While the stage 2 response went some way towards recognising the landlord’s failings in the handling of the door repair, it did not provide full redress for the following reasons:
    1. The response focussed on the delays in carrying out the repair and acknowledged that the work carried out by the repairs contractor was ineffectual. However, when leasing the property, the landlord was required to ensure its letting standards had been met. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have acknowledged that the door was not in good working order at the commencement of the lease and to have apologised for this. It unreasonable that it took for the resident to persistently complain and chase the landlord before it took any action to resolve the issue. The landlord showed no introspection on this in its complaint response.
    2. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 April 2023. He said that he was aware the work carried out by the repairs contractor had invalidated the warranty on the door. He was concerned how this would affect his insurance. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to address this in the complaint response and explain what it planned to do about the warranty. It did not do this.
    3. The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for the time and effort he spent in chasing appointments and updates in relation to both the patio door and fence defects. It also offered £50 for the late complaint response. It offered the resident £50 at stage 1 for poor communications. Therefore, assuming an even split of compensation between the door and fence issues, the total amount offered by the landlord for its failings in relation to the door was only £100. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a higher level of compensation would have been appropriate. The amount offered should reasonably have reflected that the repair still remained outstanding and the landlord’s contractor exacerbated the issue. This caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience.
    4. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to see any actions proposed in a complaint response through to completion. The landlord committed in its complaint response to ensuring that a contractor attended to the repair as soon as possible. This did not happen and after a number of failed attempts to repair the door, it remains in a state of disrepair.
  10. Overall, for the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a defective patio door. The resident has spent a significant amount of time complaining to the landlord and seeking updates. He and his partner had to rearrange their work commitments to facilitate contractor appointments. There were occasions when the door would not open, resulting in the inconvenience of emergency locksmith callouts. The resident’s partner was unable to access his tools for work on some occasions as they were stored in the garden shed. On one occasion, the resident and his partner were locked outside in the garden. This is a health and safety risk given the patio door is the only means of escape from the garden in an emergency. Despite all this, the landlord has still not fully repaired the patio door. The landlord is ordered by the Ombudsman to pay the resident £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience its maladministration has caused. This is in addition to the compensation offered in the stage 2 complaint response.
  11. The landlord’s intention is to fully replace the door. It told the Ombudsman that it had not yet done so due to difficulties in securing a contractor to carry out the work. However, that does not detract from the landlord’s obligation to provide the resident with a properly installed, secure, and fit for purpose door. It is unreasonable that 3 years after the building was complete, and 2 years after the resident reported the issue, it has not carried out a full and lasting repair. Accordingly, the landlord is ordered to review its efforts to secure a contractor to install the new patio door. The landlord should then inform the resident and the Ombudsman of how it intends to ensure it fulfils its obligations with regard to providing a fit for purpose door.
  12. The Ombudsman notes that clause 3.24 of the resident’s lease provides that he is unable to make a claim under a new home warranty or any other building guarantee without first notifying the landlord in writing. He must then comply with the landlord’s reasonable directions regarding the conduct and settlement of the claim. It is not clear whether the actions of the repairs contractor in causing further damage to the door have limited the resident’s options for making any such claim. The landlord is therefore ordered by the Ombudsman to advise the resident whether he has the option to pursue a claim under a new home warranty or any other building guarantee. If the resident then wishes to explore this further, he should seek his own independent legal advice.
  13. More generally, the Ombudsman notes that 23 other flats were affected by design or installation faults with the patio doors. The landlord told us that the sub-contractor fixed the “vast majority” of these. We understand that these repairs took place during 2023. This was over a year after the building achieved practical completion. As will be outlined in more detail below, the landlord delayed in securing SBD accreditation for the building, despite it being a planning condition. Also referenced in more detail below, the central heating and hot water system in the building was defective and is still an ongoing issue. Given the potential impact of these issues on other residents, the landlord is ordered to review its management of defects arising within the building. This is a wider order made by the Ombudsman in accordance with paragraph 54.f of the Scheme. Paragraph 54.f enables the Ombudsman to order that a landlord review its practice in relation to a matter if that practice may give rise to further complaints. The full requirements of the review are set out in more detail in the orders section at the end of this report.

The resident’s concerns about the garden fence

  1. As outlined above, the resident was reliant on the landlord to oversee that his property was built in line with all relevant regulatory standards, including planning. It was a planning condition that the property complied with SBD requirements. The fence as built did not. The building achieved practical completion in October 2021. It would be reasonable to expect that the landlord would have proactively sought the SBD certification around that time. However, there is no evidence it did this. Based on the evidence it provided to this Service, it appears that it raised the non-compliant fence with the original contractor for the first time in February 2023. This was following discussion with the police officer responsible for providing advice on SBD. The resident had however first raised the issue with the landlord 4 months previously, in October 2022, when he signed his lease. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not proactively take any action in relation to the fence prior to the resident signing his lease. It was even more unreasonable that it continued to take no action when the resident then moved in and raised valid security concerns.
  2. When escalating his complaint, the resident said that the landlord dismissed his concerns until it spoke to the police officer. He has explained to this Service that when the landlord initially took no action, he looked through the planning documentation for the development and realised there was a condition about SBD. He then found the details of the police officer responsible for SBD and contacted him. He made the landlord aware of this and it then spoke to the police officer. The landlord did not respond to this in its complaint responses. However, the timeline of action taken by the landlord supports the resident’s account of events. It was unreasonable that it took for the resident’s persistence and the involvement of the police before the landlord agreed to act.
  3. The police officer advised the landlord that in addition to the fence being low, a retaining wall in the playground was also low. He said intruders could potentially use it as a staircase to access the resident’s garden. The landlord discussed 2 options for addressing this with the officer. There was a preferred option of rebuilding the retaining wall, or an alternative option of extending the height of the fence. The landlord opted for the latter option on the grounds of cost. It informed the resident of this decision in an email on 17 March 2023. The resident was unhappy that the landlord opted for the cheaper alternative rather than the preferred option. It was however reasonable for the landlord to consider a range of factors, including cost, when making its decision. It discussed the option it chose with the police officer who agreed it was a workable solution to make the fencing SBD compliant.
  4. The landlord told the resident that it would increase the height of the fence by adding a diamond lattice trellis along the top of it. It said that this type of trellis was “best suited to prevent someone from gaining a hand-hold when trying to climb the fence and trellis.” The resident asked the landlord to consider using a slatted style trellis instead. He believed it would be in better keeping with the architecture of the building and would provide more privacy.
  5. The landlord’s records show that it discussed the trellis options with the original contractor. It asked this contractor to carry out the works as it was required to comply with a planning condition. There is no evidence that the landlord then reverted to the resident to confirm that having considered the style of trellis, it remained of the view that the diamond lattice was most secure. Instead, the first the resident knew of the landlord’s decision was when a contractor attended unannounced a month later in April 2023 to install the trellis. He contacted the landlord following this. He said, “A huge part of the problem is that youths climb onto the fence from the park and can look into our garden and shout homophobic abuse at us.” It was only then that the landlord told him it had decided to stick with its original decision to install diamond lattice trellis on the basis of it being the “best security method.” It did not acknowledge his concerns about privacy and his fears regarding homophobic abuse. It has provided no evidence to this Service that it took these serious concerns into account when reaching its decision to install the diamond lattice style trellis. Its communications with the resident on this issue were poor and lacking in sympathy.
  6. The stage 1 complaint response in February 2023 provided a limited response, other than to say the landlord was arranging the work and would be in touch with the resident. This was not a thorough response that addressed all aspects of the complaint as required by the Code.
  7. The landlord’s discussions with the police officer and decision making around options for remedying the fence took place in March 2023. The contractor installed the trellis in April 2023. The landlord was therefore in a position to provide a more substantial response by the time it issued the stage 2 response in May 2023.
  8. In the stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately apologised that the work “has taken a long period of time to arrange and complete.” It acknowledged that the workmanship when the contractor first installed the trellis was not good. The contractor had to return to remedy this. It apologised for the unannounced visit from the contractor. It said it had addressed this with the contractor so that it would not happen again.
  9. While the stage 2 response went some way towards recognising the landlord’s failings in its response to the concerns about the fence, it did not provide full redress for the following reasons:
    1. It focussed on the delays in carrying out the work to the fence. However, there was no recognition or apology that the fence did not meet SBD standards in the first place and that the landlord had not proactively identified this, despite it being a planning requirement.
    2. The response stated that the landlord arranged to carry out the work following a request from the SBD police officer. It did not recognise that the resident raised this with the landlord in October 2022. The resident stated in his escalation request that the landlord dismissed his initial report for months until the police got involved. The landlord did not address this in its stage 2 response.
    3. The response simply said that “the work has been completed as requested [by the police officer]”. It did not acknowledge the resident’s remaining concerns that despite the landlord installing trellis, there remained a privacy issue and he was concerned about homophobic abuse. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to support services should such abuse occur. It could also have informed the resident of the contact details for its anti-social behaviour (ASB) team should any issues arise.
    4. It offered the resident £200 compensation for the time and effort he spent in chasing appointments and updates in relation to the patio doors and fence. Assuming an even split, that equates to £100 compensation for the fence. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a higher level of compensation would have been appropriate. It was 4 months after the resident’s initial report about the fence before the landlord engaged with him on it. During those 4 months the resident spent time and effort researching planning requirements and contacting the police. It was through this persistence that the landlord acknowledged that the fence required work and raised it with the original contractor.
  10. Overall, for the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the garden fence. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience its maladministration has caused. This is in addition to the compensation offered in the stage 2 complaint response.
  11. When providing evidence to this Service, the resident advised that the diamond trellis added by the landlord did not provide sufficient security. He said that after it was installed, there were incidents of people climbing up it. Due to this, he planted climbing plants, installed signage and applied anti-climb paint to the trellis. He has advised that there have been no climbing incidents since then.
  12. The landlord told this Service that since August 2023, its tenancy solutions team have been engaging with residents in the development in relation to ASB. The resident should report any further incidents of ASB to that team and, if applicable, to the police. If he is unhappy with the landlord’s response to his ASB reports, he may raise a formal complaint.
  13. We acknowledge that the landlord received SBD accreditation for the property in June 2023. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to conclude whether the SBD certification would have been achieved without the additional measures added to the fencing and trellis by the resident. However, as the certification is now in place, we are satisfied that the planning condition regarding SBD has been achieved.

The resident’s reports of a loss of hot water

  1. The resident’s lease provides that he is responsible for keeping his property in repair. This includes all apparatus within the property for the supply of gas and water. The landlord is responsible for repairing such apparatus within the communal areas, provided it does not exclusively serve only one flat.
  2. The resident reported a loss of hot water in his flat in early March 2023. There was no indication initially that there was a fault with the communal parts of the heating and hot water system. The resident made the report outside the defects rectification period. It therefore would have been reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident the repair was his responsibility under the lease. If he instructed a contractor who then found there was a fault in the communal parts of the system, at that stage the landlord would have to assume responsibility.
  3. However, when the resident reported the issue, the landlord said it would send a contractor to the property to investigate. In an internal email 3 weeks later, the landlord indicated that it was not clear on who was responsible for carrying out the work. However, it decided that due to the fact it had made a commitment to investigate, and had delayed in doing so, it would complete the repair and meet the cost. It was reasonable that the landlord took this decision given it created the expectation it would carry out the work. However, it should further consider why there was confusion about responsibility. The Ombudsman has made a wider order in this report requiring the landlord to review its management of defects within the building. As part of this review, the landlord must consider whether all relevant staff had a thorough understanding of lease provisions along with access to legal or other appropriate advice.
  4. As the landlord assumed responsibility for the hot water repair, it was reasonable to expect that it would adhere to the target response times set out in its repairs policy. This policy defined a loss of hot water as an emergency repair. It stated that emergency repairs would be responded to in 4 hours and rectified in 24 hours. The landlord’s response time in this case far exceeded that timeframe. It therefore did not carry out the repair in accordance with its policy.
  5. The resident was without hot water for 27 days in total. This meant that for almost a month, the resident and his partner had to take cold showers. During that time, the resident’s elderly parents came to stay with him for a few days. He said he found it “humiliating” that they had to take cold showers. He was unhappy that despite advising the landlord in advance of his parent’s stay, it showed no sympathy. He suggested that it could have offered him and his family the use of a shower in one of the empty flats in the building. When making his formal complaint, he complained that the landlord treated him with “incompetence and contempt”. He outlined the difficulties he experienced when trying to communicate with the landlord.
  6. The Ombudsman cannot say whether the offer of a shower in another flat would have been a suitable solution. There may have been reasons, such as insurance, that would have made this inappropriate. However, there is no evidence that the landlord at least considered the option and ruled it out. It does not appear to have explored any options for providing alternative washing facilities. It offered no support to the resident during the time he was without hot water. This was unreasonable.
  7. Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that through its complaints handling, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident in relation to the hot water repair. Within its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for:
    1. The delay in carrying out the repair. It acknowledged that the delay was extended as the contractor did not order parts as soon as it should have.
    2. Its poor communications with the resident about appointment times. It recognised the contractor missed some pre-arranged appointments. It acknowledged “how frustrating” this must have been for the resident.
    3. The performance of its contractors. It said in the stage 2 response that it took full responsibility for this. It said it had raised communications and processes for ordering parts with relevant internal staff and the contractor to ensure they learnt from the complaint.
    4. The delays in issuing the complaint responses.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 April 2023. In this response it explained that it needed to carry out further investigations to resolve the temperature difference between the bathroom and kitchen taps. By the time of the stage 2 response, this issue was resolved and the hot water to the property was fully restored. The landlord advised in the stage 2 response that it had carried out a ‘lessons learned’ exercise in relation to the complaint. It said it would provide feedback from this to relevant colleagues.
  9. The landlord offered the resident £162 compensation in its stage 1 response. It increased this to £550 at stage 2. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this is a reasonable offer of compensation. In line with our remedies guidance, we would usually order compensation of between £100 to £600 for the delays and communication failings in the landlord’s handling of the repair.
  10. The Ombudsman is aware that the hot water and central heating supply to the whole building stopped working in November 2023. The residents were without heat or hot water for approximately 8 weeks until the landlord installed a temporary boiler in December 2023. The resident formally complained about the landlord’s handling of the breakdown. The landlord recognised in its complaint responses that it had not “rectified the problem within acceptable timescales”. It later offered compensation to all residents affected and wrote to them to explain what action it was taking to resolve the issue. Whether this response and compensation was appropriate has not been formally assessed by the Ombudsman, as the issue arose after the resident referred his initial complaint to us.
  11. The landlord told the Ombudsman in February 2024 that it had carried out diagnostic tests and was carrying out phased works to the system. It told the resident in April 2024 that a full investigation was ongoing into “how the issues first occurred and to prevent any such thing happening again in the future.” The resident told us in September 2024 that this work has not yet completed and the temporary boiler is still in place. He said that it was not efficient as on at least 4 occasions during the summer in 2024, the heating and hot water stopped working. He was concerned that the winter months were approaching and the landlord had not completed a permanent repair to the heating and hot water system. These concerns are understandable and valid, particularly as there are likely a number of young children and vulnerable people living in the building. The Ombudsman therefore recommends that when reviewing its management of defects as ordered in this report, the landlord should consider how it has handled the repair to the building’s hot water and central heating system.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a defective patio door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the garden fence.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of a loss of hot water.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. A senior member of the landlord’s staff should make the apology.
    2. Pay the resident £1,200 compensation as follows:
      1. £600 for distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a defective patio door.
      2. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the garden fence.
      3. £300 being the amount of compensation offered in the stage 2 response of 4 May 2023 for complaint handling, poor communications and delays to the patio door and fence repairs. If the landlord has already paid this, it may be deducted from the £1,200 ordered above.
    3. Review its efforts to secure a contractor to install the new patio door. The landlord should then inform the resident and the Ombudsman of how it intends to ensure it fulfils its obligations with regard to providing a fit for purpose door.
    4. Advise the resident whether he has the option to pursue a claim under a new home warranty or any other building guarantee.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to review its management of all defects arising within the resident’s building. It should provide a report on the review findings to its senior leadership team and the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of the date of this report. In line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds, the review should seek to establish:
    1. Whether the landlord was clear with residents at the beginning of their contract as to how it would respond both during the defects period and once this has expired. In particular, that it provided residents with clarity on:
      1. What might be considered a defect.
      2. The length of the defect period.
      3. Whose responsibility it was to address problems during the defect period.
      4. How to report a defect and how the landlord would respond.
      5. The process for resolving any outstanding disputes.
    2. The effectiveness of communications between all parties, in particular, between its development and operational teams.
    3. Whether all relevant staff had a thorough understanding of lease provisions or, if they did not, could readily access legal or other appropriate advice.
    4. Any learning arising from its management of the defects and how it will apply this when leasing or renting new builds in the future.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already been paid, the landlord should reoffer the resident the £550 compensation contained within its stage 2 response dated 12 June 2023. This relates to its response to the resident’s reports of a loss of hot water during March 2023. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress in relation to that complaint is on the understanding that the offer of £550, if not already paid, remains valid.
  2. When reviewing its management of defects as ordered in this report, the landlord should include within the review a consideration of how it has handled the repair to the building’s hot water and central heating system.