Sparrow Shared Ownership Limited (202343253)

Decision
Case ID	202343253
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sparrow Shared Ownership Limited
Landlord type	For profit
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	10 February 2026

Background

1. The resident signed a shared ownership lease for the property on 29 April 2022. The property was a new build and had a 1-year defects liability period, which ended on 7 December 2022. The resident reported damaged lino on 30 April 2022. She has complained about how the landlord handled this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of a defect.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of a defect.
   2. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord accepted it had handled the defect poorly and apologised. It resolved the issue and offered compensation that reflected the failings and was in line with our remedies guidance.
6. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings, apologised, and offered compensation in line with its policy.

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 pay the resident the £1,350 it offered through its complaints process made up of: £950 for its handling of the defect. £400 for its handling of the complaint. We made our reasonable redress decisions on the basis that it has paid these amounts. If it has not already paid this, it should pay it directly to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 April 2022 – 18 November 2022	On 30 April 2022, the resident reported a rip and dents in the kitchen lino. On 18 November 2022, she reported that her kitchen flooring was damp.
1 February 2024	The resident made a complaint. She said she reported damage to the kitchen floor in April 2022. She said the landlord did not act despite repeated contact. She said the floor remained damp and caused damage in her home and affected her health.
6 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said its customer service and communication had been poor. It found no record of lino damage at handover but accepted the damage existed from the start. It agreed that it had mixed job tickets and this caused delays. It found water‑ingress issues in May 2023 but closed the job without completing repairs. It had now raised a new job to inspect the lino and the water ingress. It apologised for not opening a complaint in January 2024. It offered £300 compensation, made up of £200 for defect handling, and £100 for complaint handling.
29 August 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said a contractor had visited. She requested a copy of its report and written confirmation of the planned repairs. The compensation offer did not reflect the stress, inconvenience, health impacts, and loss of earnings she faced while living with damp for over 2 years.
1 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it inspected the property on 9 August 2024 and found repairs to the kitchen door, plinth, skirting, vinyl, the hall door and frame, a mould wash, and the hallway carpet. It would contact her to arrange to complete these repairs. It also said that personal injury fell outside its complaints policy, and it recommended that she seek legal advice. It apologised for delays in its complaint handling and offered a further £550 compensation, made up of £350 for defect handling, and £200 for complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord took over 2 years to complete the repairs. She was unhappy with how it handled the repairs and did not feel the compensation reflected the delays or the impact on her health.

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	Reports of defects
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

7. The resident says she experienced ill health due to the landlord’s handling of her complaint. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide the cause and duration of any illness. We did not investigate this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with the developer’s communication and its handling of the defects. The housing developer is not a member of our Scheme, so we cannot assess its actions or any work it may or may not have carried out. We will only consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and to her later complaint.

What we have investigated

9. The landlord’s defects policy says it will record a defect as soon as the resident reports it and will ask for clear details and photos. It will then tell the developer to fix the issue within the defect‑liability period, and the defect should be fixed within 30 days of it being reported. It will keep the resident updated through its online systems. If the issue is not a defect, it will explain this and advise the resident on next steps.
10. It was inappropriate for the landlord to say in its complaint responses that it first knew about the issue on 4 July 2022. The resident reported rips and dents in the kitchen lino on 30 April 2022. It acknowledged this the same day and gave her a link to report the defect online. While we have not seen any evidence that she reported this issue using the online system in April 2022, she continued to chase the issue through May and June 2022. She provided photos of the damage on 6 June 2022, but there is no evidence it raised it with the developer as required by its policy.
11. The landlord informed the developer of the defect on 4 July 2022. However, it closed the job on 11 November 2022 as the developer told it the issue was due to damage and not a defect. It did not tell the resident about this or confirm the next steps, which was not in line with its defects policy. After the resident reported a leak on 21 November 2022, the developer attended on 9 December 2022 and confirmed there was a leak under the lino but said it was for the landlord to resolve. The landlord again closed the job without action and did not respond to the resident’s chasers on 9 and 21 December 2022.
12. In May 2023, the landlord arranged for its contractor to inspect the issue. We have not seen evidence of this visit, but both parties agree on the contractor’s findings. It found water entering the property at the back door sill and noted that the sealant around the area did not prevent water from getting in. The water also affected the vinyl flooring. The landlord received this information but closed the repair on 26 July 2023 and took no further action.
13. From August 2023 to January 2024, the resident repeatedly contacted the landlord, shared photos, and said the unresolved damp was affecting her health. However, it did not take meaningful action or provide consistent updates, and the issue remained outstanding. This fell short of its defects policy, which requires it to explain next steps and keep residents informed. The lack of progress was particularly concerning given the resident’s reports about the impact on her health.
14. It was appropriate for the landlord to accept that it did not manage the defect report appropriately in its stage 1 response on 6 August 2024. It acknowledged poor customer service, communication, and delays. It recognised that it closed repair jobs prematurely and did not act when it found water ingress. It apologised for these failings, offered £200 compensation, and confirmed it had raised a new job to inspect both the lino damage and the water ingress.
15. While it was positive that the landlord awarded compensation at this stage, the amount did not reflect the length of the delay or the impact on the resident. The repair had been unresolved for more than 2 years, communication had been consistently poor, and the resident had repeatedly raised concerns about the impact on their health. Its compensation policy says that awards over £250 are appropriate where there has been a persistent failure over a prolonged period. Given the failings found, it should have offered a higher amount.
16. The landlord inspected the property on 9 August 2024. By the time it issued its stage 2 response on 1 October 2024, it had still not completed the repairs. There is also no evidence that it kept the resident updated during this period.
17. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £550 at stage 2. This was appropriate and exceeded its compensation policy, which recommends up to £500 for persistent failings over a prolonged period. It also confirmed it would repair the kitchen door, plinth, skirting, vinyl flooring, hall door and hallway carpet. However, the resident asked for a copy of the contractor’s report, but it did not share it or explain why it could not do so. It also did not explain why the repair had not progressed since the August inspection or give a clear timeframe for completing the repairs. This lack of clarity likely added to the resident’s frustration and inconvenience.
18. The landlord completed the repairs on 14 January 2025, nearly 3 years after the resident first reported the issue, and significantly outside of the 30-day timescale as set out in its defects policy. It was appropriate for it to complete a review of the redress offered on 27 January 2025. It increased the compensation by £400 to recognise there had been further poor communication and delays that had impacted the resident. This increased the total amount to £950.
19. The landlord’s total compensation offer was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance when there were failings that had a significant impact on the resident. In this case, it recognised that its delays and poor communication caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It appropriately used its policy and applied discretion to award compensation that was fair and reflected the long-term disruption the resident experienced. The compensation award, together with the apology and actions taken to resolve the issue, were appropriate. On this basis, we find that the landlord provided reasonable redress in its handling of reports of a defect.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

20. The landlord uses a 2‑stage complaints procedure aligned to the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code requires stage 1 responses within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy reflects these requirements.
21. The resident raised a complaint on 1 February 2024. The landlord initially refused to accept it, saying the issue was more than 6 months old. After contact from this Service, it issued its stage 1 response on 6 August 2024. This was 130 working days after the resident first raised the complaint. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise in its stage 1 response and offer £100 compensation. This amount was in line with its compensation policy for inconvenience or distress caused by a service failure.
22. The resident escalated her complaint on 29 August 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 October 2024, 23 working days later. This was in line with the timeframes set out in the Code.
23. In her complaint, the resident raised concerns about how the landlord’s handling of the defect had affected her health and wellbeing. It acted appropriately by advising her to contact her GP and seek legal advice. This was in line with its compensation policy, which says it does not consider personal injury claims and that its legal team manages these separately.
24. However, the resident asked for compensation for loss of earnings as part of her complaint. Although the landlord’s policy says it does not award compensation for loss of earnings, it did not acknowledge this request or explain its position in its stage 2 response. This was a shortcoming in its complaint handling that likely added to her frustration.
25. In its stage 2 response, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £300 in recognition of its complaint handling failures. It later raised this to £400 on 27 January 2025. This amount was consistent with its compensation policy for cases where a serious failure had occurred. It is also in line with our remedies guidance, which states an award of £400 may remedy maladministration where there were failures that had an adverse impact on the resident. In this case, it has addressed its failings by apologising and offering compensation which provides reasonable redress.

Learning

General learning

26. The landlord has shown significant learning as a result of this complaint. It has restructured its aftercare team, increased capacity, and introduced specialist training in defects management, customer service, and complaints handling. These are positive steps to address the failings identified.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord has informed us that it has reviewed and streamlined its defects‑reporting process to improve accuracy and reduce delays. This should prevent similar failures that were identified in this report.

Communication

28. Poor communication was identified, including unclear timescales and not providing information when requested. The landlord has since told us it has appointed an aftercare manager for each region to give residents a single point of contact This is a positive step that should make communication clearer and help prevent similar problems happening again.