Peabody Trust (202405777)

Background

1. Prior to completing the purchase of the property, which was a new-build property, the resident sent the landlord a “snagging report” showing various items that he said the landlord needed to address. He later said that despite emailing the landlord on various occasions, the items had not been addressed. The landlord has advised us that it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various snags and defects to the property.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various snags and defects to the property.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. There were delays in the landlord completing the snagging items and it was not proactive in communicating with the resident. Although the majority of the items were either addressed by the landlord or were classed by it as non-defects, the lack of any final inspection by the landlord meant it could not confidently say that it had fully addressed the snagging list. The landlord made an offer of compensation, however, its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation and the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
6. There were delays in the landlord sending its stage 1 and 2 responses. Also, it did not log a stage 2 complaint in a timely manner, despite the resident writing on several occasions to express his dissatisfaction with the outstanding snagging. Although the landlord offered compensation, we do not consider it adequately reflected the additional time and trouble experienced by the resident during the complaints process.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The landlord’s new homes customer care and defects management policy says:
   1. A defect is an aspect of the new building which is not performing as it should and may need attention or repair.
   2. A snag is usually a cosmetic issue that remains in the property after work has been completed.
   3. Residents can submit their own full snagging lists no later than one month of occupation as long as a suitably qualified third-party inspector qualifies these.
   4. The landlord will aim to complete repairs for non-urgent defects within 20 working days and where it is unable to do so, it will communicate this clearly to the resident and provide regular fortnightly updates until the matter is resolved.
8. Prior to moving into the property, the resident arranged for a report to be produced showing various ‘snags’ in relation to the property. The report included 78 items, however, it showed that no action was needed in relation to 13 of the items. The report was dated 12 April 2022, however, the resident said he sent a copy of the report to the landlord in February 2022. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 12 December 2023 to say that the landlord had not addressed the snagging. He said he had sent several emails to the landlord regarding the snagging issues but no one had attended to resolve them.
9. We have not seen the resident’s initial email sent to the landlord in 2022 with the snagging report, nor his follow up emails sent before his stage 1 complaint. However, the landlord said in its stage 1 reply dated 16 February 2024 that the resident had sent it a copy of the snagging report in April 2022 and accepted there had been a delay in dealing with the snagging. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not responded to the snagging report between April 2022 and December 2023.
10. In its stage 1 reply dated 16 February 2024, the landlord confirmed that its handyperson had attended the property on 17 and 19 January 2024 and carried out works to address some of the defects, including making good issues with mastic sealant, paint finishes, tidying cables, realignment of a kitchen unit door and securing carpet. As these were relatively small jobs, it was reasonable that the landlord had arranged for its handyperson to deal with them. It meant that the issues were dealt with by one person as opposed to different operatives. The landlord asked the resident to advise if any of the information was incorrect. This was also reasonable as it gave the resident the opportunity to say if the handyperson had not carried out any of the work satisfactorily.
11. The landlord said that it had raised jobs for the developer to deal with 5 items relating to window/balcony door handles and had passed jobs for another 5 items to a separate contractor. It was reasonable that the landlord had identified the jobs that the handyperson could not deal with and arranged for the developer and a separate contractor to address them.
12. The landlord also identified 6 items in the snagging report which it said it considered to be non-defects. It was reasonable that the landlord had investigated these 6 items and, having done so, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the knowledge and expertise of its officers in assessing the items against the NHBC tolerance levels and other information.
13. The landlord advised the resident in its stage 1 reply that a defect was an aspect of a new building that was not performing as it should and may need attention or repair. It added that cosmetic imperfections which do not affect the function of the component were not considered to be genuine defects that the developer would be responsible for rectifying under the build contract. The explanation given by the landlord was consistent with its policy and it was therefore reasonable for it to provide this clarification to the resident.
14. In response to the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident wrote to the landlord on 23 February 2024 and listed 30 items that he said were still outstanding from the original snagging report he had submitted in 2022. He then wrote to the landlord various times during February to May 2024 chasing for a resolution regarding the outstanding snagging. For example, he wrote to the landlord on 23 February, 21 March, 2 April and 2 and 15 May 2024.
15. We have not seen any evidence that the developer or the third-party contractor contacted the resident during this period to arrange the works agreed by the landlord in its stage 1 reply. Also, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident regarding the reported outstanding snagging until it wrote to him on 15 May 2024. The lack of response and meaningful updates from the landlord were unreasonable as it had been 3 months since the landlord had sent its stage 1 reply agreeing to pass the jobs to the developer and contractor.
16. In its email dated 15 May 2024, the landlord explained that it did not consider 8 of the 30 items to be defects as the work was within the NHBC tolerances and some of the items were the resident’s responsibility to deal with, including shrinkage cracks and fitting a door stop. It also explained that the item relating to the flooring in the kitchen/living room was not a defect as the flooring had been designed to take account of the expansion/contraction of the flooring due to the underfloor heating. Having considered the list of snags reported by the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the knowledge of its officers and the handyperson in deciding which items should not be classed as defects (or snags). The handyperson had previously attended the property and the landlord had the benefit of the photos in the resident’s snagging report on which to make its decisions.
17. During May and June 2024, the landlord and the resident exchanged further correspondence. The developer’s repairs log states that it completed various works on 5 July 2024, including works to the seals around the external frames, tidying the cables above the kitchen units and securing a ceiling vent. The developer’s notes also state that it inspected the mastic sealant on the frame of the balcony door or window and found it had been applied in accordance with the design specification and was therefore not a defect. It was reasonable that the developer had carried various works on 5 July 2024 and checked other items on the resident’s snagging list. Having carried out the inspection, the landlord was entitled to rely on the developer’s findings.
18. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 6 September 2024 setting out its final position regarding the items from the resident’s snagging report. It said:
    1. It listed 41 items that it said the handyperson had completed on 17 and 19 January 2024 as the landlord had advised in its stage 1 reply.
    2. It listed 5 items relating to window and door handles it had logged with the developer. The landlord asked the resident to confirm whether they had been resolved.
    3. It listed 5 jobs it had logged with a third-party contractor that had been completed.
    4. It listed 6 items that it considered to be non-defects.
    5. It said the handyperson had completed all of the remaining reasonable outstanding works on 7 June 2024.
    6. It said the developer had attended on 28 May 2024 and advised that that the reported items were ‘snags’ rather than ‘defects’ and as such the developer would not carry out any further work.
    7. The landlord signposted the resident to the NHBC website where he could view the standards it had used to decide whether work had been completed within the NHBC tolerances.
19. The evidence shows that the handyperson completed several jobs on 17 and 19 January 2024 and that the developer completed other jobs in July 2024. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord carried out a final inspection to check that the remaining items had been resolved. Furthermore, we have not seen any evidence of the works carried out by the handyperson on 7 June 2024, the works carried out by the developer on the door/window handles or the jobs completed by the third-party contractor. Given the length of time that the resident had been reporting the snagging, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not arranged to check whether all the items had been resolved.
20. The lack of an inspection by the landlord meant it was not in a position to say definitely that all of the items had been addressed. Instead, it asked the resident to confirm whether some of the jobs assigned to the developer had been completed.
21. Overall, we have found that there were delays in the landlord completing the snagging items and it was not proactive in communicating with the resident regarding progress. Although the majority of the items were either addressed by the landlord or were classed by it as non-defects, the lack of any final inspection by the landlord meant it could not confidently say that it had fully addressed the snagging list.
22. During the complaints process, the landlord used the terms ‘snag’ and ‘defect’ interchangeably. As part of his complaint, the resident said that the items in the report he had provided were defects and therefore the landlord should apply the formula set out in its policy for compensating residents where there have been delays in addressing defects.
23. We are unable to make a binding decision on whether the items in the resident’s report were snags or defects as this would require an assessment of each item against the landlord’s policy, which we do not have the expertise to carry out. Instead, we have considered the landlord’s offer of compensation and whether this was sufficient to put things right in terms of the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the failings we identified during our investigation. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he considers that the landlord should have applied its defects compensation formula for some of the items in his report.
24. The landlord used its stage 2 reply to apologise for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and offered compensation of £750 to recognise the length of time the issues had remained unresolved. Of this sum, £600 related to the snagging/defects issues and £150 was for its complaint handling. The landlord’s complaint handling is considered below.
25. In terms of its offer of £600 for its response to the reported snagging/defects, its offer was in line with its compensation policy for situations where the resident had experienced a service failure that was short to medium in duration. The policy states that a payment of up to £600 may be awarded where the service failure caused disruption which had a short term but not permanent impact. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, we do not consider the duration of the service failure to have been short to medium in duration. The resident initially reported the snags/defects in 2022 and it was not until 2024 that the majority of jobs were completed. For some of the jobs, this was more than 2 years later.
26. We have also not seen sufficient evidence that the landlord put things right in terms of completing all of the jobs in the snagging report, particularly as it did not carry out a final inspection to check.
27. In terms of the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident, we have not seen any evidence to indicate that the issues had a significant impact on him. Of the 78 snags/defects in the original report, 13 did not require any action, 6 were deemed by the landlord to be non-defects, the handyperson completed 41 of the jobs in January 2024 and the developer completed some of the remaining jobs in July 2024. The jobs themselves mainly involved addressing small imperfections, tidying/renewing mastic sealant, cleaning and touching up paint, filling and caulking, securing door/window handles and flooring issues (some of which the landlord said were non-defects).
28. Although we have not seen evidence of significant impact on the resident as a result of the failings, the evidence shows that the resident did spend a great deal of time and effort chasing the landlord in seeking updates and a resolution.
29. In summary, we have found there was service failure because although the landlord made an offer of compensation, its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Also, we have not seen sufficient evidence to confirm that it had put things right by completing all of the required work in the snagging report. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £100, which is within the range of sums in our Remedies Guidance for service failures. We have also ordered the landlord to carry out an inspection and write to the resident setting out its findings and plans for completing any necessary outstanding works.

30. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages: stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt and responded to within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days of the escalation request and responses are sent within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. At both stages of the process, the timescale for responding may be extended as long as the landlord provides an explanation to the resident and a timeframe for when it will send the response. The extension should not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2 without good reason.
31. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 12 December 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 December 2023, which was 8 working days after receiving the complaint. It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it did not acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days.
32. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 16 February 2024, which was 37 working days after acknowledging the complaint. Although the landlord had written to the resident on 4, 16 and 18 January 2024 extending the deadline for its response, the overall time taken to respond was still inappropriate. This is because the landlord had advised the resident that it needed to receive the handyperson’s report before responding and yet it took almost a month after the handyperson’s final visit on 19 January 2024 for it to send its response. Furthermore, it had advised the resident on 18 January 2024 that it would reply by 24 January 2024, which it failed to do.
33. The resident then wrote to the landlord on various occasions to say there were still outstanding items from the snagging report. For example, he wrote on 23 February, 21 March, 2 April, 22 April, 2 May, 15 May, 20 May, 3 June and 4 June 2024. The landlord did not log these emails as a stage 2 complaint, which was inappropriate as the resident had replied to the landlord’s stage 1 response and indicated his dissatisfaction with the response.
34. The landlord logged a stage 2 complaint and acknowledged the complaint on 26 June 2024. It then sent its stage 2 response on 6 September 2024, which was 52 working days after acknowledging the complaint. Although the landlord had written to the resident on 25 July 2024 to extend the deadline by a further 20 working days, it did not keep to this timescale. Therefore, the overall time taken by the landlord to respond to the stage 2 complaint was inappropriate.
35. Overall, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s complaint handling:
    1. The landlord delayed sending its stage 1 response.
    2. The landlord failed to log a stage 2 complaint, despite the resident writing on several occasions to express his continued dissatisfaction with the outstanding snagging.
    3. The landlord delayed sending its stage 2 response.
36. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it had not followed its complaints policy as it had failed to meet its published timescales. It offered compensation of £150.
37. We have considered the landlord’s offer of compensation and whilst it goes some way to put things right, we do not consider it reflects the delays in progressing the resident’s complaints and the additional time and trouble he experienced as a result. We have therefore found there was service failure and ordered the landlord to pay an additional £50 to reflect the time and trouble experienced by the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. The information provided to us by the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the snagging had been resolved. In particular, given the length of time that the issues had been outstanding and the previous volume of correspondence with the resident, we would have expected the landlord to carry out a final inspection to check whether any items were still outstanding.

Communication

39. The landlord was not proactive in its communications with the resident about the outstanding snagging and there were periods when it did not respond to his correspondence. We have also found that the landlord needed to be clear about its use of the terms ‘snags’ and ‘defects’ as they have different implications in terms of compensating residents for delays in addressing them.