Sparrow Shared Ownership Limited (202334273)

Decision
Case ID	202334273
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sparrow Shared Ownership Limited
Landlord type	For profit
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	23 October 2025

Background

The resident purchased his share of the property in January 2023. The developer of the property provided a 12-month defect liability period, which started from the date the landlord took ownership of the property. The resident raised issues during the defect liability period regarding exterior cladding and defects within his property. The resident complained about the length of time it was taking to fix the issue with the cladding.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding issues with the cladding and defects.
The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding issues with the cladding and defects.
2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding issues with the cladding and defects.

The landlord acknowledged and apologised for failures in its response. It offered a reasonable amount of compensation to put things right.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays in its complaint responses. It offered a reasonable amount of compensation to put things right.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should now pay the resident the £600 compensation it offered in its complaint responses.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 20 May and 7 June 2023.	The resident reported damage with the exterior cladding to the landlord by email. He said the cladding rattled in the wind and disturbed his sleep, which caused him to miss work. He said he had reported this 3 times online but received no response. The developer attended to make the area safe following the cladding coming loose.
8 June 2023	The resident submitted a formal complaint by email. He said he had been experiencing issues with the cladding for 6 weeks. He said despite multiple attempts to report the problem, it remained unresolved. He said the disruption had caused him sleepless nights, resulting in financial loss due to taking time off work.
Between 9 June and 30 July 2023.	The developer completed repairs to the cladding but, due to availability of parts, had to use the wrong colour screws. It said it would fit the correct screws when available. The resident reported the cladding repair had reduced the noise but said it rattled in the wind. He reported several defects with his property and asked the landlord/developer to resolve these. Both parties corresponded regarding the defects during this period.
17 August 2023.	The landlord registered the resident’s complaint. It contacted the resident and confirmed his complaint points. The resident said the landlord had agreed to reimburse him £160 for the cost of temporarily moving out due to the noise the cladding was making. He said it had agreed to look into reimbursing him for his loss of earnings related to the cladding issue. He also said It had agreed to resolve all defects, including hairline cracks, but had now withdrawn this offer. The resident said the landlord had left his property unlocked after completing a property inspection.
12 September 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. In response to the issues the resident raised the landlord said: Cladding issue Its communication was consistent and in line with its policy. It acknowledged a delay in resolving the issue due to a parts delay. Hotel expenses It apologised for any miscommunication regarding covering the cost of a hotel and for the impact the cladding noise had. It offered £160 to cover the cost of the hotel, as a gesture of goodwill. Defects It explained it did not consider hairline cracks defects. It found no record of agreeing to address all defects. It said the developer had agreed to fill a couple of cracks, as a gesture of goodwill. It explained what defects the developer would and would not address. It said the parties who completed the defect inspection disputed leaving the door unlocked. Loss of earnings It stated its compensation policy did not cover loss of earnings. Complaint handling It apologised for failures in handling the complaint. It acknowledged the resident initially complained on 8 June 2023, but it did not log this until August 2023 due to a system error. It offered compensation of £50 for failures in its complaint handling. Resolution It explained what lessons it had learnt from the complaint. It offered further compensation of £75.
17 September 2023	The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint. He said he had initially reported issues in April 2023. He explained the landlord had sent automated emails to acknowledge his reports, but he heard nothing further. He said the cladding still had incorrect colour screws and the cladding recently made noise when it was windy. He said the noise was not as bad as it had previously been but was still noticeable. The resident disputed the landlord’s response regarding the hairline cracks. He said the resident in another property had hairline cracks addressed. He reiterated that his flat door had been left unlocked following a property inspection. The resident said that was an unresolved defect with his front door. He raised issues with the landlord’s communication, as it agreed to take actions verbally but never confirmed in writing. He disputed the landlord’s response regarding his loss of earning and rejected its offer of £125 compensation.
7 November 2023	The landlord provided its final response. It provided responses to multiple concerns the resident raised. In addition, it said: Cladding issue It had no record of the resident reporting an issue in April 2023. It said the developer had since installed the correct colour screws It said the developer had inspected the cladding on 31 October 2023 but found no loose cladding or any other issues. It said it was completing a site visit with the developer on 13 November 2023 and told the resident to raise any outstanding issues during the visit. It found no failures in its response but offered compensation of £150, as a gesture of goodwill. Defects It said it could not discuss the defects in the neighbouring property but explained these were different to the defects in the resident’s property. It maintained its position that hairline cracks are not defects. It said the developer would address the remaining defects and inspect the resident’s front door on 13 November 2023. Unlocked door It said the parties involved disputed the front door was left unlocked. It said it could not independently confirm what happened. It apologised and offered £25 compensation, as a gesture goodwill. Loss of earning It maintained its position that its policy does not cover loss of earnings. Complaint handling It apologised for the delay in its response. It offered £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures. Resolution It apologised for any failings in its communication and acknowledged it could improve how it communicated it policies and the inspection process. It offered further compensation of £40 for communication issues, bringing the total amount of compensation to £315.
14 November 2023	The resident emailed the landlord. He acknowledged it had repaired the cladding but said there was still an issue with noise. He said a contractor had attended to fix the issues on an agreed list, including the front door. The resident said he did not agree with most of the landlord’s responses but accepted its offer of compensation.
Referral to Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He said he had experienced further issues with the cladding, but the developer had declined to complete a repair, as it said someone had cut the cladding.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding cladding, defects, its communication and his request for compensation.
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not considered.

We have not considered the resident’s reports of issues with the cladding after the landlord’s final response on 7 November 2023. The resident raised further issues with the cladding after the landlord’s final response and received a further stage 1 complaint response. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. Therefore, we have no power to investigate events after 7 November 2023, as these issues have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.

What we have considered.

We have seen no evidence that the resident reported issues with the cladding in April 2023. The landlord’s records show it first received a report of an issue with the cladding on 20 May 2023. The landlord confirmed to us it was not responsible for the cladding, as it was the developer of the property who was responsible at the time of the complaint, as this was still within the defect period.
The landlord’s repairs policy states where third parties are responsible for repairs, it will communicate and work closely with them to ensure the service the resident receives is satisfactory.
The evidence shows the landlord promptly referred the issues the resident raised with the cladding to the developer, as well as the defects he reported. It provided updates to the resident and kept in touch with the developer regarding the ongoing issues. The developer fitted temporary cladding on 9 June 2023 before fitting matching cladding around 26 June 2023. The developer used black screws instead of white due to availability. It later installed the correct colour screws before the landlord’s final response on 7 November 2023.
While the evidence indicates no clear failings in the steps the landlord took regarding the issue with the cladding, it recognised the impact the noise from the cladding had on the resident. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer a goodwill gesture for the impact the noise had on the resident. The landlord demonstrated a commitment to improve its relationship with the resident by covering the resident’s hotel expenses of £160, when it had no responsibility to do so.
The resident reported defects to the landlord on 17 June 2023. This included cracks in several rooms. In response, the landlord told the resident hairline cracks which did not fit a £1 coin were not classed as a defect. This is in line with the guidance provided by the National Home Builders Council (NHBC), which states a crack that’s 2mm or less is considered to be cosmetic. The resident’s new home welcome pack also states any shrinkage or cracks (smaller than a £1 coin) are not covered by warranty as they’re expected in new build homes as they settle.
The landlord’s defect policy states where an issue is not considered a defect, it will advise the customer. The landlord informed the resident on several occasions, including in its complaint responses why it did not consider the hairline cracks to be defects. Its response throughout the complaint was appropriate, as this was in line with industry guidance and its policy.
The resident complained in June 2023 that he had to take time off work due to being unable to sleep because of the noise from the cladding. He asked the landlord to compensate him for his loss of earnings for the time he took off work. The landlord’s remedies policy states this does not cover time off work or loss of earnings. In both of its complaint responses, the landlord declined to consider the resident’s loss of earnings for this reason. Its complaint responses were in line with its policy and therefore reasonable.
The resident complained about the landlord’s communication, as he said it agreed to take actions verbally, but later denied it had agreed to take an action. This complaint related to several actions, such as the landlord agreeing to cover all reported defects. He also complained it failed to lock his door after completing a defect inspection.
We have seen no evidence the landlord agreed to cover all defects or that it left the resident’s door unlocked. While there was no evidence to support what the resident said, the evidence shows the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously. It contacted the relevant members of staff involved in each incident to ask them about the situation. Where the landlord could not confirm what happened, it apologised for any miscommunication and offered a goodwill gesture. The landlord also acknowledged it could improve how it communicates its policies to avoid similar issues in the future.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for any miscommunication, acknowledge how it could improve and to offer compensation to resolve the issue.
The landlord offered the resident compensation and goodwill payments totalling £450. This amount reasonably reflected the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by things the landlord could have done better. This leads to a finding of reasonable redress, in that the landlord has made an offer of redress which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

It took the landlord 68 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and 36 working days to respond at stage 2. This was outside the landlord’s response timescale of 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and 20 working day for stage 2 complaints. The delay in the landlord’s response at both stages was a failure in its complaint handling.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologised for the delay in both of its complaint responses. In total, the landlord offered the resident compensation totalling £150 for the failures in its complaint handling. This amount was proportionate to the delays in the landlord’s complaint responses and the impact this had on the resident. This leads to a finding of reasonable redress, in that the landlord has made an offer of compensation which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord demonstrated detailed record keeping in respect of the matters we have investigated in the case.

Communication

We have identified no issues with the landlord’s communication outside of the specific communication failures identified above. The landlord may wish to consider implementing a process to follow up verbal conversations with written records to avoid the potential for miscommunication.