Raven Housing Trust Limited (202504184)

Background

1. A 12-month defect liability period for the property expired during March 2022. In April 2022 the landlord carried out an end of defects inspection. During December 2023 the resident and landlord exchanged emails about outstanding defects and boiler repairs. The landlord then raised works orders to remedy the defects. During March 2026 the resident told us that issues with the boiler are ongoing. For the purposes of this report, the term ‘the resident’ refers to both leaseholders/shared owners in the household.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s:
      1. reports of defects.
      2. concerns about their boiler.
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about their boiler.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

 Reasons

Reports of defects

4. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of a defects policy in place at the time of the complaint, and so its process for resolving defects is unclear. Following contact from the resident, the landlord emailed them on 13 December 2023 to ask for details of outstanding defects. They provided the information the same day. The landlord replied to say it would progress works. However, it failed to do so, causing time and trouble to the resident who emailed 3 times between May and September 2024 to chase.
5. On 19 September 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to ask if the defects identified during the end of defects inspection had been resolved. While this was positive, it was 10 months after the landlord was put on notice that works were outstanding. It was therefore inappropriate that progress had stalled. The resident’s reply sent that day explained that an issue of pooling water had been recorded incorrectly on the defects sheet. However, when the landlord raised works orders on 28 November 2024, its recording of the repair had not changed. This error contributed to ongoing delays because it did not fully understand the issue reported by the resident.
6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 10 December 2024 confirmed it had raised works orders and apologised for delays and disruption. While this was positive, the landlord failed to learn from the complaint and there were further delays. The resident was caused inconvenience when they emailed the landlord on 6 and 20 February and 2 April 2025 to chase. On 14 April 2025 the landlord emailed the resident to advise they were responsible for resolving both the bathroom fan and the water pooling. Its response was inaccurate because, as set out in the resident’s email of 16 April 2025, the issues were noted on the end of defects list and therefore remained its responsibility.
7. Having received a further complaint from the resident, the landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response on 4 June 2025. It accepted it had “overlooked” the issue with the fan for which it apologised. It advised the fan repair was complete but that it would not take further action regarding the pooling of water. On 22 July 2025 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it did not consider the pooling issue to be a defect but noted there was an issue. On 23 July 2025 it obtained a quote to carry out works to the garden to resolve the ongoing issue.
8. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 22 July 2025 identified errors in its communication, including giving incorrect advice. It offered the resident £650 in addition to the £250 offered in its earlier complaints process. As set out below, we consider that £50 of its earlier offer of compensation was in relation to the boiler. Therefore, the total amount of compensation offered was £850.
9. The landlord’s response was significantly delayed, with some repairs taking over 3 years to resolve. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the water affecting the foundations. However, there’s no independent evidence to corroborate that this was an issue. The resident was caused distress and inconvenience by having to repeatedly chase the landlord. Nevertheless, there was no evidence of serious detrimental impact.
10. The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where the failures have had an adverse effect on the resident. Therefore, we consider that while its response to the resident’s reports of defects could reasonably have been improved, it has appropriately recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, a finding of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Boiler concerns

11. A boiler warranty was in place at the start of the resident’s lease. When they contacted the landlord to report a fault, it emailed them on 13 November 2023 to suggest they contact the boiler manufacturer.
12. On 22 May 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that they’d spoken to the manufacturer. It had advised the boiler was still within its 5-year warranty, so it could replace the parts. However, it could not correspond with the resident because the boiler was not in their name. The landlord failed to respond, causing distress and inconvenience to the resident who emailed on 8 July 2024 to chase. The landlord replied the next day to say the manufacturer should contact it to discuss the matter. There was no guarantee the manufacturer would do so if requested by the resident. Therefore, it would’ve been appropriate for the landlord to contact the manufacturer to resolve the warranty issue and enable the repair.
13. The resident’s complaint of 2 December 2024 said the boiler was now out of warranty. They said the boiler had been discontinued but the manufacturer had agreed to sell the parts to enable the repair. However, the request would need to come from the landlord as the named installer. The resident described how the faults impacted on their use of the boiler. They said the landlord’s inaction had prevented them from resolving the repair within the warranty period, which was unreasonable.
14. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 10 December 2024 apologised if it had not told the resident about the need to transfer the boiler into their name. It said that in response to their complaint it had contacted the boiler manufacturer. The manufacturer had confirmed the process the resident needed to follow to complete their registration and access the benefits of the warranty. While this was positive, it did not restore the resident to the position they would have been in were it not for the landlord’s earlier failures. It’s also unclear whether the warranty was still live at the time of its response.
15. On 25 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to complain about the lack of clarity about the duration of the warranty. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 20 February 2025 said a copy of the warranty would’ve been provided in the home user guide left in the property. However, it was unable to provide evidence that it did so in this case, which is inappropriate. We acknowledge that its response also confirmed it was using learning from the complaint to update its procedures and home user guide to ensure it was not missed in future.
16. The landlord’s stage 1 response offered £100 for “any confusion and miscommunication regarding registration of the boiler warranty” and for delays resolving defects. It’s unclear how much was apportioned to each failure. Therefore, we consider it reasonable to conclude that £50 was awarded for each. The landlord’s response meant the resident did not have the benefit of the warranty to complete the boiler repair. The boiler is still faulty but is now obsolete and the parts hard to obtain.
17. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. Our remedies guidance says that payments of £100 and above should be made to put right failings in such circumstances. In ordering £300 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures. We have also made an order to address the outstanding repair.

Complaint handling

18. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 20 February 2025 said that all works were complete. However, the resident emailed the landlord the same day to advise this was incorrect. This was evidence that it failed to carry out an open-minded and thorough complaint investigation, which was inappropriate.
19. A further stage 1 complaint response of 4 June 2025 acknowledged how the landlord’s previous complaint handling may have come across as “dismissive”. It offered £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance. Therefore we consider that while the landlord’s complaint handling could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, a finding of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.