Platform Housing Group Limited (202305921)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305921

Platform Housing Limited

6 January 2025


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 handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, in particular:
    1. The back door.
    2. A leak in the kitchen.
    3. The bath.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord under a shared ownership scheme. The landlord is the freeholder of the property. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in February 2021 and stated there was a leak under the kitchen cupboard, and that she had arranged to be repaired. She said the leak had “ruined” the kitchen cupboard, and was present from when she moved in. It is unclear what action the landlord took at the time.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord in January 2022 and said raised concerns about repair issues in her property. She said:
    1. The back door was difficult to close, and sometimes would not lock.
    2. The leak in the kitchen had caused damage, and the bath had started to rust.

 

  1. The landlord responded on 12 January 2022 and said it would open a line of communication with the developer and the National House Building Council (NHBC) who provided a 10 year warranty for the property.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 14 March 2022 and said she was unhappy about the landlord’s communication with the developer about the repairs issues.
  3. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 28 March 2022. It partially upheld the complaint and said there were delays in its communication about the repairs issues. It set out the history on the repairs, and explained that as the defect liability period had passed, the resident had full responsibility for the repairs at the property. It said this was in accordance with the terms set out in her lease agreement.
  4. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, and asked her complaint to go to stage 2 on 4 May 2022. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 9 June 2022. It apologised for giving “misleading” information at stage 1. It said it had since become aware the door had a 10 year warranty, and it would discuss the issue with the manufacturer of the door. It advised that the bath was outside of the warranty period but the manufacturer had told it the bath should not be rusting within 2 years. It gave advice on how to provide more information to the manufacturer. It explained the kitchen repairs were the responsibility of the resident under her lease. It offered £250 in compensation for its communication about the repairs issues.

Events after the complaints process

  1. On 11 July 2022, the landlord completed a further inspection of the back door, as it said it had reached a “stalemate” between the developer and the manufacturer. The notes from the inspection found the frame to be “twisted” and recommended replacing the frame. As a result, the landlord raised a warranty claim with NHBC.
  2. The NHBC inspected the door on 27 October 2022 and it found the door to have “minor stiffness” and it needed to be “eased and adjusted”. The report said this was the resident’s responsibility.
  3. The resident contacted this Service on 5 February 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the door issue was ongoing, and the landlord’s handling of the repairs had a negative impact on her mental health.

Assessment and findings

  1. When the resident moved into her property it was within the 12 month defect liability period. The landlord’s defect liability policy states that repairs covered under the policy relate to defects as a result of “poor workmanship” and not “wear and tear”. The policy states that during the defect liability period the resident should raise repairs with the landlord, and it will liaise with the developer to resolve the issue.
  2. The resident’s lease agreement states that she has responsibility for repairs within the property.
  3. When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, she said the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted on her mental wellbeing. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit.
  4. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord.
  5. The resident contacted this Service in August 2024 and said that she had a leak in her property. She said that a plumber had refused to complete works before the landlord checked the “building quality”. As this matter occurred after the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, it is not within the scope of this investigation. The resident may wish to raise a further complaint about this issue if she remains unhappy. It is also worth noting that, in line with her lease agreement, the resident is responsible for repairs within the property.
  6. The resident reported issues with the leak in the kitchen in February 2021. While it is noted that this was outside of the defect liability period, that the landlord did not respond at that time was unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by the lack of response from the landlord. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have communicated its position on the repairs at that time. That it did not inconvenienced the resident.
  7. When the resident raised concerns about the repair issues, in January 2022, the landlord advised it would engage with the developer to establish who was responsible for the repairs. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously. The evidence provided supports the conclusion that the landlord made enquiries with the developer, in March 2022. It is unclear why the queries with the developer we not raised before, but a 2 month delay was unreasonable. The lack of proactive engagement on the issue increased the inconvenience the resident experienced.
  8. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response of 14 March 2022 to outline its position on the repairs, and set out that as the defect liability had passed, the repairs were the resident’s responsibility. That it outlined the history of the issues in detail was appropriate, and provided the resident with clarity on its position. It is noted the resident disagreed with its position and thought that the landlord should complete the repairs. While this concern is noted, it is not within the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether the landlord’s interpretation of the lease was legally correct, but to assess the landlord’s response to the concerns the resident raised. The landlord used its stage 1 response to set out its position on the repairs with clarity, which was reasonable in the circumstances. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she believes the landlord is/was responsible for the repairs.
  9. The information given about the door in its stage 1 complaint response was incorrect, a fact it later accepted. The evidence shows the landlord passed on the information given by the developer. That it did not investigate this further at the time caused an inconvenience as the resident was given the incorrect information.
  10. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response admitted that there were failings in its communication about the issues. That it did not offer redress for the admitted failing was inappropriate, and evidence it failed to adopt the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of putting things right.
  11. When the resident raised further queries about the repairs issues, in April 2022, the landlord again sought clarification from the developer. This was appropriate in the circumstances. That it outlined its position that the resident was responsible for the repairs in the property, in line with the lease agreement. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and evidence it acted with clarity.
  12. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response, of June 2022, sought to put right the failing from stage 1. It gave the correct information about the door (that it was under warranty). This was appropriate in the circumstances, and showed transparency.
  13. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to apologise for the failings in communication, and offered redress. This was reasonable in the circumstances. That the landlord provided information about how the resident could raise concerns about the door, and bath, with the relevant manufacturers was supportive and appropriate in the circumstances.
  14. The evidence shows that the landlord raised concerns about the door with the manufacturer, and the developer, after issuing its stage 2 complaint response. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and evidence it took a supportive approach to the resident’s concerns. Again, it is noted the resident was unhappy that the landlord did not take responsibility for the repairs. However, it explained its position with consistency and sought to support the resident with the issues.
  15. That the landlord attended to inspect the door in July 2022, after reaching a “stalemate” with the developer and manufacturer, was appropriate in the circumstances. This is further evidence it took a supportive approach. That it raised a warranty claim, following its inspection, was reasonable in the circumstances.
  16. The NHBC inspected as part of the warranty claim, and found the was not defective. It is not within our remit to comment on whether the door was defective, or the reasonableness of the actions of the NHBC. The NHBC is not a member of our Scheme and its actions fall outside the complaints process, as it is a separate organisation from the landlord. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot comment on the NHBC’s actions, or its decision not to replace the door. The resident may wish to seek independent advice if we wishes to pursue this matter further.
  17. The landlord maintained its position that the resident was responsible for the repairs. As set out above, it is not for us to determine whether the landlord’s legal position was correct, but to assess how it responded to the resident’s queries. The landlord’s communication about the issue was poor, a fact it accepted in its complaint responses. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. We have determined that the landlord’s offer of £250 in compensation was reasonable to put right the failings identified above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with 53(b) the landlord, the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord pay the resident the £250 in compensation it offered for its handling of the repairs.
  2. Considering the resident’s dissatisfaction relating to the leak in August 2024, it is recommended that the landlord open a complaint investigation into its handling of the matter.