Sparrow Shared Ownership Limited (202318978)

Background

1. The resident bought a new-build flat in September 2022.  The resident reported defects regarding the bedroom window and patio door set to the landlord when she moved into the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of defects.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of defects.
   2. The landlord offered reasonable redress in response to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of defects

4. There were long delays in the landlord resolving the defects reported by the resident. There were missed opportunities for the landlord to have resolved the matter at an earlier date.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request in line with its policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It also did not correctly manage its stage 2 response extension requests in line with the Code. The landlord made an appropriate offer of redress for the failings.

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.

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.

6. The resident reported mould, draughts and excessive condensation in the bedroom window and patio door set. The defects were first reported by the resident in September 2022.
7. The landlord’s defects policy states the developer is responsible for correcting defects no later than 30 days after being reported under the defects liability period. We were unable to establish when the defects liability period ended.
8. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response dated 19 April 2024 that the delays the resident experienced were made worse as it did not have input from the developer or their contractor on the matter. It said it had taken time “to get to grips with the issue”. The landlord said the developer and their contractor’s expert knowledge of the construction of the frames and serial numbers would have been invaluable.
9. We are unable to assess the developer’s actions as this is outside of our remit. We can only consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects. The landlord did not explain why the developer and its contractor were not involved in resolving this matter or why it did not pursue this further with these parties.
10. On 8 May 2024 the landlord inspected the bedroom window and patio door set. The resident said she was unclear why the landlord was attending again when it had already received reports to confirm further investigation by a specialist was needed.
11. The landlord confirmed in an email to the resident dated 28 June 2024 that a contractor had attended on 13 March 2024. The contractor advised a window fitter should attend to review the “gaskets and seals”. It was unclear why the landlord did not follow the recommendation in March 2024. This was a missed opportunity. Instead, it decided to inspect these items itself, nearly 2 months later.
12. The report from the visit on 13 March 2024 had also advised there was mould around the bedroom window frame and patio door set. It had been noted that mould would likely redevelop if the cause of the condensation was not resolved.
13. As a result of the landlord’s visit on 8 May 2024, work was identified to be carried out on the bedroom window and patio door set. An appointment was booked for this to take place on 25 June 2024. It was unclear why the appointment was booked for 33 working days later. This exceeded the 20 working days stated in the landlord’s repairs policy for routine repairs to be carried out.
14. On 26 June 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that while the contractor had attended on 25 June 2024, it had not been briefed on the correct job. The resident said the contractor came to carry out a repair that had been completed in August 2023. This error showed there were record keeping and communication problems that contributed to the delays the resident experienced.
15. The record keeping errors continued. Despite the intended job not being completed on 25 June 2024, the resident received a notification the following day that the job had been closed down. The landlord apologised for this error in its stage 2 response dated 25 September 2024. It said it should have checked the work had been completed before closing the job down.
16. The resident expressed her frustration at the number of appointments that had taken place over 18 months without any resolution. On 1 July 2024 the resident requested an independent inspection be carried out. The landlord directed the resident to the NHBC. However, this was not appropriate as the resident was not the policyholder so could not make a claim herself. The landlord had provided the resident with inaccurate information.
17. When the resident explained this to the landlord, it contacted NHBC on 8 July 2024. The NHBC inspection took place on 22 October 2024. However, the landlord did not attend this appointment as anticipated. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have attended this appointment as it had advised the resident on 27 September 2024 that it would. Therefore, the landlord failed to follow through with an action it said it would take.
18. The resident told the landlord that she felt it not attending showed a continued disregard for customer care. The landlord apologised it had not attended. It said this was because the manager for the region had recently left the business. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have told the resident this before the NHBC visit. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to send a different representative to attend instead.
19. The NHBC report stated there were no defects. However, the resident continued to have the problems with mould, draughts and excessive condensation in the bedroom window and patio door set. She pursued the landlord for the outstanding work that it had not completed due to the appointment errors it had made earlier in the year.
20. In January 2025 the landlord sent a window contractor to inspect the windows. The window fitter identified problems with the bedroom window and the patio door set. It advised work was needed on the bedroom window and the patio door set needed replacing.
21. An inspection from a window fitter had been recommended by a contractor 9 months earlier on 13 March 2024. If the landlord had acted upon this in a timely manner the resident would have received resolution to the matter at a much earlier date. Instead, the resident experienced delays and multiple other appointments. These unnecessarily prolonged the length of time the resident and her partner were having to live with the mould, draughts and condensation.
22. On 27 June 2024 the resident had told the landlord it was important to resolve the defects as her partner had asthma. She said her partner had been getting reoccurring chest infections since they had moved into the property. The resident said they had been advised by a doctor that these could have been caused by mould spores. The landlord did not acknowledge these vulnerabilities or resolve the matters in a timely manner to reflect the urgency of the problem and the vulnerabilities of the household.
23. The work identified by the window fitter was carried out on 18 March 2025. This was 2 and a half years after the defects were originally reported and 6 months after the stage 2 response. The resident told us that since this work was completed, the problems with mould, draughts and condensation had stopped.
24. The landlord awarded the resident £100 compensation at stage 1 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the defects. The resident received this compensation.
25. In its stage 2 response the landlord awarded the resident £150 for its handling of the defects. The resident declined the compensation offered at stage 2 as she did not feel it was a proportionate amount for the delays and distress experienced. Therefore, the resident did not receive this compensation.
26. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of up to £600 are appropriate to put right failings which adversely affected the resident. In ordering £500 in compensation, we have considered the delays, missed opportunities, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to reports of the defects. This compensation replaces the amount the landlord offered in its stage 2 response for its handling of the defects.

27. The landlord issued its acknowledgement and stage 1 response in line with the timeframes in its policy and the Code.
28. The resident made her escalation request on 27 June 2024. The landlord asked the resident on 28 June 2024 to confirm what she remained dissatisfied with. The resident replied on 1 July 2024 stating her reasons for wanting to escalate her complaint. However, this was not acknowledged by the landlord until 1 August 2024. This considerably exceeded the 5 working days timeframe stated in its policy and the Code.
29. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 September 2024. This exceeded the 20 working days timeframe stated in its policy and the Code. However, the landlord stated in its stage 2 response it had asked for extensions. We have not seen these requests.
30. The Code allows for an extension but states the reason for this must be clearly explained to the resident. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it had repeatedly asked for extensions between 10 September 2024 and 20 September 2024. It said these repeated requests came without a justifiable reason. The landlord apologised for this in its stage 2 response.
31. The landlord awarded the resident £100 compensation for complaint handling failures at stage 2. This was a proportionate amount of compensation, in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.
32. The resident declined the compensation offered at stage 2 as she did not feel it was an appropriate amount. Therefore, the resident did not receive this compensation.
33. We have found that the landlord made an offer of redress which was satisfactory in resolving its complaint handling failures.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. We encourage the landlord to consider the recommendations in our Spotlight Report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds. This should help ensure future reports of defects in new build properties are managed effectively, in line with best practice.

Communication

35. Our Spotlight Report on repairs and maintenance explains the importance of the landlord keeping accurate records and having good communication with contractors. We encourage the landlord to consider the recommendations and best practice in our Spotlight Report. This should help ensure it keeps accurate and complete records of the jobs it raises and when the work is completed.