Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Sage Housing Limited (202209226)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209226

Sage Housing Limited

26 June 2023


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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the roof at her property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease of an end of terrace new build house owned by the landlord, a registered social housing provider. Under the terms of the lease, the resident is responsible for keeping the property in good and substantial repair and condition.
  2. The landlord’s Defective Management Procedure sets out responsibilities and the processes to be followed when a defect comes to light in a new build property.   Defects are defined as “something that is broken, not working or not to the correct standard due to a faulty part, poor workmanship, or bad design which during the Defect Liability Period (DLP) or builder’s warranty period are for the developer to repair under the terms of their warranty.”
  3. The landlord’s Latent Defect Procedure defines a latent defect as “a defect that can only have been caused by poor workmanship at the time the property was built but is not likely to manifest in the standard defect liability period.” During the DLP, it is the developer’s responsibility to investigate and repair defects. After the end of the DLP “the onus of responsibility changes and it is the shared owner’s responsibility to investigate the issue and determine that it might be a latent defect”. 
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy provides a 2 stage process.  A request to escalate a complaint can be refused but only where the complaint relates to “our policies and procedures or in relation to compensation levels”.
  5. The lease for the resident’s new build property was completed on 19 January 2021. The resident did not move in until 12 February due to problems with a faulty boiler. The defect liability period for the property ended on 19 February 2021.
  6. On 11 April 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that a section of dry roof verge had fallen from her roof and another section had come loose. She asked for this to be repaired as a matter of urgency because of the risk of harm to neighbours whose access ran alongside her property beneath the displaced roof verge. 
  7. On the advice of the landlord the resident arranged for a contractor to fix the damaged sections of roof verge, the cost of the work to be claimed against the building insurance. She was warned that she would be liable for the claim excess. The resident then learned from her neighbour that he had reported loose tiles overhanging the roofline of her property to the landlord on 10 February 2021. This report was made before the end of the defect liability period and the developer had accepted the damaged roof fitting was a defect and carried out the repairs.
  8. On 4 May 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that the loose roof verge was a pre-existing defect which had not been fixed properly by the developer when reported by her neighbour in February 2021. The advice she had been given to arrange for the repairs herself had therefore been misleading. The landlord responded that it had no evidence that the damage reported in February 2021 had reoccurred and the advice to make a claim for the damage with the insurers was correct. The resident’s request for a stage 2 review of the complaint was refused by the landlord. In July 2022 the resident reported further loose roof verge and the landlord issued a final response to her complaint on 28 July 2022, upholding the stage 1 decision.
  9. The resident referred her case to the Ombudsman. She wanted the landlord to investigate the problems with the defective roof verge and undertake the work necessary to ensure her roof was safe. She also wanted the landlord to pay for repairs already carried out as she had been wrongly advised to arrange this herself.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the roof at her property.

  1. When the resident reported the damaged roof fittings to the landlord on 11 April 2022, the landlord does not appear to have checked the record of defect reports for the resident’s property, and did not share information about the earlier reported roof defect in February 2021 with the resident. The landlord’s response was that it checked when the defect liability period ended, and informed the resident that she was responsible for the repairs and should claim the cost against insurance.
  2. It appears that the resident only became aware that repairs to her roof were carried out in February 2021 when her neighbour informed her on 12 April 2022. The neighbour told the resident that they had reported loose tiles on her roof overhanging the alleyway alongside the property during the defect liability period, and that repair works had been done by the developer at that time. They provided the resident with a copy of the email they had sent to the landlord on 10 February 2021 reporting the defect.
  3. The resident owned her new property from 19 January 2021 when the lease was completed but did not move in immediately, due to problems with a defective boiler. However, the resident was responsible for the property from the date of completion and as the owner, she could reasonably have expected the landlord to notify her about any reported defect and repair work affecting her property. This investigation has seen no evidence that the landlord made the resident aware of the defect and repairs reported before she moved into the property in February 2021.
  4. The resident originally reported that the roof damage was caused by bad weather, but she says she was told to say this by the landlord when being advised to make an insurance claim for the damage. The Ombudsman sees no evidence for this, however omissions by the landlord, (i) to notify the resident as owner of the property about reported defects and repairs carried out by the developer during the defect liability period and (ii) to check its records and share information about the defect works when further damage to the roof was reported, will have left the resident at a disadvantage. It was only after repairs had been arranged that the resident had the information needed to consider raising the issue as a defect linked to the previous works, and was able to explore the issue with the landlord and developer in an appropriate way. The information that the damage occurred where repairs were previously carried out would be relevant information, whatever the cause, and so the fact that the resident did not have this is not satisfactory.
  5. The conclusion of the landlord’s investigation into the resident’s complaint was that “there is no evidence to support your claim” that damage had reoccurred. This conclusion makes no reference to the landlord’s record of the roof damage and repair work in 2021. It does not explain what that record said about the nature of the original defect and what work had been done to fix it. The landlord has referred to feedback from the developer that they would not take responsibility, and feedback from a contractor that the roof is built as designed and the damage has been caused by severe weather conditions, but the Ombudsman has not seen the evidence behind these statements to give a clear picture for the landlord’s decision-making about the issue. The evidence does not provide confidence that the landlord properly explored the resident’s claim, namely that damage identified in April 2022 resulted from a failure to properly fix a defect acknowledged by the developer in 2021.
  6. The landlord’s Latent Defect Procedure applies to defects “that can only have been caused by poor workmanship at the time the property was built but is not likely to manifest itself in the standard defect liability period.” The Procedure continues “During the DLP (warranty period) it is the developer’s responsibility to investigate and repair defects, following the DLP…it is the shared owner’s responsibility to investigate the issue and determine that it might be a latent defect.” In a response to the resident on 26 April 2022, the landlord referred to the need to prove that the damage was a latent defect and placed the onus on the resident to investigate and provide evidence of the defect. This advice was in line with the Procedure but the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the Procedure was clearly explained to the resident, so that she understood what steps she needed to take and the significance of providing evidence from a competent professional to identify the defect and its likely cause.
  7. The landlord’s Defect Management Procedure provides for the situation where remedial action is taken by the developer during the defect liability period, but a resident subsequently advises that the defect has not been satisfactorily resolved. The Procedure states that the defect team should re-open the matter and “if required, the Defects Surveyor should inspect.” By focussing on the Latent Defect Procedure, the landlord did not appear to consider whether the situation was more suited to resolution under the Defect Management Procedure in line with the resident’s argument that damage to roof fittings was a defect that had become apparent during the liability period. The Defect Management Procedure should have guided the landlord in responding to the situation in which the resident found herself and the landlord should have considered appointing a surveyor in this case. In addition, the resident repeatedly raised concerns with the landlord about the safety of users of the passage alongside her property which were not acknowledged. These concerns should also have prompted the landlord to consider the need to appoint a surveyor with the aim of resolving the matter as quickly as possible. An inspection of those areas of the roof where there have been reported issues would have informed a complete and fair response to the complaint.
  8. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 20 May 2022, it asked the resident to report any further roof damage for it to consider if “further action or whether a claim through NHBC would be appropriate.” However, when the resident did report further damage in July 2022, the landlord simply restated that it was unable to accept reports of any new defects because the defect liability period had expired. The landlord’s response to the resident in July 2022 disregarded its earlier commitment to assess matters further if she reported a reoccurrence of the roof defect, and mismanaged her expectations. In dismissing the resident’s report of further damage, the landlord also did not appear to consider that this was the 3rd reported incident of roof damage to a new build property within 17 months, and whether it was providing appropriate support to the resident.
  9. Overall, the above leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the roof at her property. After the resident became the owner of the property, it failed to notify her that defects to her property had been reported and that repairs were carried out. It failed to check the record of reported defects for the resident’s property when she reported the roof, and failed to inform her of the contents of that record when she reported damage, in April 2022. It does not demonstrate it appropriately met commitments in its complaint response to consider further reports about the roof. It does not demonstrate that it provided appropriate support to the resident, given she reported multiple issues about the roof of a new build property within a relatively short period of moving in.

The landlord’s handing of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy provides a 2 stage complaints process so that a customer who remains dissatisfied after the response at stage 1 can request a review. The Policy goes on to say that “The customer will always be asked to specify their reason for requesting this review and their expected outcome”.  The grounds for refusing a request in the landlord’s Policy are “where the dissatisfaction relates to our policies and procedures or in relation to compensation levels”.
  2. The landlord is entitled to ask for clarification from residents requesting a review of a complaint, to be clear what the escalation review will be about and why the resident remains dissatisfied. In this case the resident was told that she needed to explain why she disagreed with the stage 1 response and provide evidence “so that we can assess whether this should be escalated to Stage 2.” The resident’s request for review was followed by an email from the landlord which said that it had considered her request to escalate the complaint and looked again at the photos and other evidence provided but had decided not to investigate since “An investigation of your complaint at stage 2 will not change the outcome”.
  3. The reason given for the refusal was not a valid reason since it pre-judged the outcome of an independent review by a more senior member of staff and deprived the resident of the opportunity for a review “to ensure that the complaint has been handled in a fair and appropriate manner” as provided for in its Complaints Policy. The landlord’s refusal to escalate the complaint was consequently unfair.
  4. There was partial redress for this failure just over a month later when the landlord appointed a senior manager to carry out a stage 2 review of the complaint, however the final review of the complaint did not meet the standards set in its Complaints Policy that the review would be completed only after “thorough and detailed investigation to ensure that the complaint has been handled in a fair and appropriate manner”. No explanation or apology was given, for the earlier decision to refuse to escalate the complaint, or for the delay in providing the final response.
  5. The landlord declined to take action for the resident’s report of further roof damage as the defect liability period had expired “and the developer will not accept them. ” The response failed to explain why the landlord had changed its position on the earlier commitment to consider further reports and decide what further action to take. The response made no reference to the possibility of a claim to NHBC as had been indicated in the stage 1 response. The response also failed to explain what work the developer had carried out to repair what it had originally accepted to be a defect with the roof, and why the landlord concluded that the subsequent reported damage was unrelated. For these reasons an overall determination of service failure has been identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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 damage to the roof at her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to apologise to the resident for the identified failures in its response to reports of damage to her roof and handling of her complaint.
  2. The landlord to pay £400 for the identified issues in its response to the resident’s reports of damage to her roof.
  3. The landlord to pay £100 for the identified issues in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  4. The landlord to review its handling of reported defects to ensure that defects reported by third parties are accurately recorded against the relevant property; property owners are given notice of defect repairs carried out after completion; and previous defect records are reviewed when a property owner contacts the defects team to report an issue.
  5. The landlord to take steps to appoint an independent surveyor to inspect areas of the roof at the resident’s property which have been the subject of reports and repairs, in order to provide a report and response in line with the requirements set out the landlord’s Latent Defect Procedure.
  6. The landlord to evidence of compliance with the above within 4 weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review its handling of complex complaints, to ensure that sufficient investigation is carried out and that all relevant correspondence and commitments are reviewed as part of this.