Stonewater (5) Limited (201901180)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201901180

Stonewater (5) Limited

15 December 2020

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 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 complaints

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
1. Repair issues identified during the defect period.
2. Damage caused to the resident’s flooring during works.
3. Complaints handling.

Background and Summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured (non-shorthold) tenancy that commenced on 26 April 2017. The property is a one-bedroom house, built by a major housebuilder [the builder] and acquired by the landlord on 25 April 2017.
There is a defect period of 12 months, which ended on 24 April 2018 when a defect inspection was completed. The defect inspection noted that the doorbell was not working and there were outstanding works to “dry lining dabs, make good and decorate”. Irrespective of the defects period, which relates to the landlord’s contractual arrangement with the builder, the landlord’s responsibilities to the resident are reflected in the tenancy agreement and repairs policies as outlined below.
According to the NHBC, the builder is responsible for remedying anything covered by the builder warranty. If the builder “can’t or won’t meet their responsibilities”, NHBC can rectify matters on behalf of the builder.
The tenancy agreement states the landlord will keep in reasonable repair and working order “the structure and exterior of your home including:-
1. The roof, chimneys and chimney stacks;
2. Drains, gutters and external pipes;
3. The windows; and
4. The walls, floors and ceilings.”
The tenancy agreement requires the resident to allow the landlord’s “employees, the managing agent, or other agents or contractors acting on our behalf access at reasonable times and subject to reasonable notice to inspect the condition of your home or any installations or to carry out repairs or other works to your home…”

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy classifies repairs as either high priority or by appointment. Examples of high priority repairs include total failure of electricity supply, major leaks which are uncontrollable and cannot be contained, total failure of heating or hot water if the property is occupied by elderly of vulnerable tenants.
The landlord will attend and repair high priority repairs within 24 hours. All other types of repairs are classed as ‘by appointment’ and will be attended within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compliments, comments and complaints policy defines complaints as “an expression of dissatisfaction however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action, by Stonewater, its staff, contractors or suppliers, and we cannot remedy the situation to the customer’s satisfaction and the customer wishes to pursue the matter.”
The policy does not provide a timeframe for handling complaints, but states “we will deal with complaints as quickly and effectively as possible.”
According to the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord will not pay compensation where “the customer has denied access to effect a repair or the customer has unreasonably prevented a resolution.”

Summary

On 22 May 2017, the resident contacted the landlord to report the paint in the property was cracking and peeling. He sent photos of the issue to the landlord the following day.
On 29 May 2017, the property was identified by the landlord as being within the defect period and a request was raised with the builder. The builder attended the property on 18 August 2017 but did not attend a follow up appointment on 25 August 2017.
On 12 September 2017, the resident emailed the landlord explaining the matter had not been resolved for four months. The resident requested a [rent] discount for the inconvenience and a move to another property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this expression of dissatisfaction should have been considered a complaint and dealt with accordingly by the landlord.
The builder attended the property on 14 September to complete works and contacted the landlord to confirm they had attended.
The builder’s contractor attended the property on 1 November 2017. Following this appointment, the contractor reattended the property on 29 November 2017, cut several holes in the walls of the property and set up machines to blow warm air into the cavity to dry out the property.
The landlord stated in an email to the NHBC on 22 July 2019 that finishes had been made good following the contractor works, however the resident emailed the landlord on 6 March 2018 stating there was damage to the walls in every room. This email was passed to the development team and the customer feedback team as the resident had requested a refund of rent. Again, there is no evidence the landlord raised a formal complaint at this stage.
On 8 May 2018, the builder emailed the resident explaining they had been trying to contact him to arrange further works. The additional works required the resident to move out of the property for the duration, which the builder would pay for and provide an allowance for food and sundries. Arrangements were made for the work to be completed between 29 May and 1 June 2018. During this time, the resident alleges the contractor damaged his flooring.
On 12 June 2018, the resident exchanged emails with the builder regarding the damage caused to the flooring. There is a gap in the evidence here as the Ombudsman does not have the earlier emails between the builder and the tenant regarding this compensation. However, it is reasonable to assume based on the email correspondence the Ombudsman does have that the builder had offered compensation to the resident due to inconvenience caused by the issues with the plasterboard and DABs. The resident requested £5000 in compensation from the builder, but the builder advised their offer of compensation stood at £2500. The builder also acknowledged its contractors did damage the flooring and offered to pay the flooring company directly for the replacement floor or to send the resident a cheque for £352.67.
On 26 June 2018, the resident informed the builder they considered the landlord was responsible for the damage to the flooring and would therefore deal with them directly in the future. The resident declined the offer of £2500 in compensation and the £352.67 to cover the cost of the flooring. The builder advised the resident that the contractor would be in touch regarding the walls.
On 5 July 2018, the resident emailed the landlord requesting £1000 in compensation for the damage caused to his flooring. He requested this was deducted from his rent. The email was forwarded to the rents team for consideration. The Ombudsman notes this is less compensation than that already offered by the builder and declined by the resident, it is unclear why the resident had reduced the amount of compensation requested.
On 24 August 2018, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. The resident stated the builder had damaged his flooring. The customer feedback team passed the email to the resident’s tenancy support officer, expressing the desire to keep this outside of the complaints process. There is nothing in the evidence explaining why the landlord wished to keep the matter outside of the complaints process.
On 12 December 2018, the resident submitted a contact form to the landlord. In it the resident stated he wished to complain about some unresolved issues, namely the damp issues at the property, the damage to his flooring, a draught, and an issue with his bathroom light. The landlord responded requesting further information but again did not record a formal complaint.
Between 12 and 27 December 2018 there were multiple emails between the landlord and the resident as the landlord’s contractor did not contact the resident as arranged.
An electrician attended to repair the bathroom light on 3 January 2019 and the windows were inspected in respect of the draught on 4 January 2019. The inspection of the window determined there was no fault, but the vents were poor quality.
On 5 February 2019, the landlord visited the property to conduct an inspection.
The builder contacted the resident on 27 February 2019 regarding the issues in the property. They explained several properties, including the resident’s had not dried out properly following plastering and previous remediation works had not had the desired effect. They advised they had decided to let the affected properties dry out naturally for 6 months, at which point they would reassess.
Between 8 April 2019 and 22 May 2019, the resident emailed the landlord for an update several times. The landlord requested an update from the builder regarding the outstanding issues and explained the expectation for the resident to wait until September whilst the property dried out was not acceptable.
On 22 May 2019, the landlord received a letter from the Housing Ombudsman Service requesting information about the resident’s complaint. The landlord stated they did not have an open complaint for the resident, and they would contact him. The landlord requested a report from the builder via their management consultant.
On 24 May 2019, the landlord raised a formal complaint.
The landlord sent the resident a stage one letter on 11 June 2019. In it they provided an extract of the report from the builder explaining the cause of the damp patches and that they would reassess in September and confirmed the builder was happy to reimburse the resident for the cost of the flooring. They also explained their maintenance surveyor would attend on 17 June 2019 to assess the draught issues. The resident was dissatisfied with this response and the complaint was escalated on 24 June 2019.
On 12 July 2019, the landlord conducted a further inspection at the property with their management consultant and the builder’s contractor. An invite had been extended to the builder, but they were unable to attend. Following the inspection, the landlord initiated a claim with NHBC in recognition that the property should have dried out naturally.
On 14 August 2019, the builder contacted the resident to request access to the property on 30 August 2019 to complete some inspection works at the landlord’s request. The builder followed up on 19 August as they had not received a response.
On 23 August 2019, the landlord visited the resident to establish why he had not responded to the request for access from the builder. The resident stated he had not responded as he felt the contact should have come from the landlord. The landlord arranged for an email to be sent accordingly.
The invasive inspection was completed on 30 August 2019 by opening up the walls in the property, which was made good the same day. The landlord confirmed there was no failure of the damp proof membrane and no leaks causing latent defects. Moisture readings were taken confirming all walling and insulation was dry. The landlord explained the next steps to the resident to enable the matter to be resolved. These included instructing the builder to proceed with the ‘infra-red’ drying technique to the affected walls and redecorating.
On 11 September 2019, the builder’s contractor contacted the resident to arrange a visit on 16 September 2019 to take damp readings and assess for the installation of infrared heaters to dry out the moisture trapped between the wall surface and the plaster board.
Following the visit, the contractor emailed the resident on 30 September 2019, with a plan of works between 8 and 28 October 2019. This included initial damp meter readings, installation of infrared panels, interim meter readings and final painting.
On 24 October 2019, the landlord emailed the resident to arrange for their maintenance surveyor to attend on 28 October 2019 to confirm the ventilation system was installed and operating correctly.
On 25 October 2019, the resident emailed the contractor and informed them not to attend from 28 October to commence the final decorating works. The resident stated he wished the works to the ventilation system, the flooring, and the painting to be completed at the same time. He also expressed his expectation that he was decanted from the property during the works. The landlord and the contractor explained to the resident that he did not need to be decanted during the works and advised that the same work had been completed with several other properties with families in situ, with no need to decant anyone. The resident still refused access.
On 4 November 2019, the landlord confirmed the builder’s duty under the NHBC claim was complete due to the resident’s refusal to allow the works to take place and the fact decanting the resident was not required.
On 21 November 2019, the landlord sent the resident a stage two outcome letter outlining two options to close the matter. Option one amounted to £2400 in compensation consisting of £400 to replace the flooring, £1500 to cover the cost of redecorating works, £500 compensation for the disruption caused, and three nights’ accommodation at a local hotel including food allowance during the works. Option two amounted to £900, as the landlord would make good the decoration at the resident’s property.
On 25 November 2019, the resident responded advising he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer and put forward two alternative options. The first option consisted of:
1. “The landlord organises and carries out all repairs needed at once. Repairs include:
  1. Replacing vinyl
  2. Redecorating walls
  3. Installing proper air circulation.
2. The landlord arranges other accommodation … while the works are completed. Ventilating the property after redecoration treating as a repair.
3. The landlord compensates 50% of gas bills paid from … the start of the tenancy until repairs are completed.
4. The landlord compensates 50% of the rent paid from … the start of the tenancy until repairs are completed.
The second option put forward by the resident consisted of:
1. “The landlord arranges another affordable accommodation for the tenant to be rehoused in general.
2. The landlord compensates 50% of gas bills paid from … the start of the tenancy until repairs are completed.
3. The landlord compensates 50% of the rent paid from … the start of the tenancy until repairs are completed.
The landlord acknowledged the resident on 28 November 2019 advising discussions were ongoing with the relevant managers regarding the options put forward by the resident.
On 18 December 2019, the landlord advised the resident a response to his ‘comeback’ was in the post. The letter was incorrectly dated ’21 November 2019’. The landlord explained it could not agree to the resident’s counter proposals and offered a further £500 in compensation. The resident responded on 22 December 2019, again stating the offer was not acceptable.
Between 8 January 2020 and 11 May 2020, the landlord further considered the resident’s alternative options, including reviewing his heating bills and rent account in response to the request to refund 50% of the heating bills and rent for the period. A final response was sent to the resident from the Director of Development on 11 May 2020. This response reiterated the final offer and explained why the resident’s other options were unfeasible (except for a move to another property, which the landlord confirmed it was happy to facilitate). The landlord also offered the resident an opportunity to meet the Director of Development and Director of Customer Experience to discuss the issues raised so the landlord could learn from the case.
On 12 May 2020, the resident responded again stating the landlord’s offer was not acceptable. The landlord responded on 28 May 2020 and informed the resident how to escalate their complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Assessment and Findings

As per the landlord’s contract with the builder, the builder was responsible for defect issues identified during the defect period. However, as a secure tenant, the resident’s legal relationship is with the landlord. Therefore, the landlord is responsible for resolving issues in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the landlord’s repairs policy. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to require the builder to take remedial action, the landlord still had a responsibility to resolve repair issues within a reasonable timeframe.

Repair issues during the defect period

The landlord’s handling of the issues identified during the defect period, namely the moisture trapped between the wall surface and plaster board, could have been handled better. Whilst they quickly identified the property was within the defect period and notified the builder accordingly, the evidence suggests nobody at the landlord took ownership of the issue to ensure the resident received a swift resolution. There appears to have been a breakdown in communication between the landlord, the builder, and the resident, with the resident communicating directly with the builder. This meant the landlord was unable to keep track of the works.
The fact the resident first reported the issue on 22 May 2017, and it was still not fully rectified at the time of this investigation is not acceptable. However, the length of time it has taken to complete these works has been exacerbated by the resident.
1. The builder informed the resident in May 2018 that they had been trying to contact him to arrange the works without success. They advised if he had engaged earlier, they would have been able to book the works in earlier.
2. Following the works in May and June 2018, the builder offered the resident £2500 in compensation and agreed to cover the cost of replacing the damaged flooring, but the resident refused to accept this. This offer of compensation would have more than covered the additional cost of hiring someone to dismantle and reassemble the resident’s furniture, which he was insistent on. It was also significantly more than the £1000 he subsequently requested from his landlord to cover the cost of the flooring replacement.
The resident refused to allow the builder’s contractor access to the property on 28 October 2019, stating he wished to be decanted for the duration of the works. The builder’s duty under the NHBC claim ended at this point due to the resident refusing access to the builder’s contractor. The resident was informed by the landlord it was not necessary for him to be decanted and this would not be offered. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s refusal to decant the resident during decorating works to be reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord informed the resident that similar works had been completed at several properties with families and had not required anyone to be decanted. The resident’s refusal to allow access for the works to be completed also ended the landlord’s repair responsibility. Despite this, the landlord continued to engage with the resident to resolve the outstanding issues. This was reasonable – as the owner of the property, the landlord retained a responsibility to ensure it was fit for purpose.
The landlord has inspected the heating and ventilation system, as well as the windows, and found no defects. Although the resident states the contractor that attended to assess the windows claimed the vents in the windows were of poor quality, the Ombudsman does not consider it reasonable to expect the landlord to change the windows as they meet current building regulations. The landlord has also offered to have an independent person inspect the system.
The landlord’s offer of compensation incorporates redecoration works, accommodation at a hotel during the redecoration works and compensation for the inconvenience caused. The Ombudsman considers the offer from the landlord to be reasonable.

Damage to flooring

It is not disputed that the damage to the floor was caused by the builder’s contractor, who was acting on behalf of the landlord at the time. However, the builder accepted liability for the damage and offered to cover the cost of replacement (£352.67) and offered compensation for the inconvenience (£2,500). The landlord has also offered to cover the cost of replacing the floor. The resident has requested the builder and the landlord cover the cost of hiring people to dismantle and reassemble his furniture, as well as the cost of hotel accommodation whilst this is completed. The Ombudsman considers this request to be unreasonable in the circumstances, any furniture dismantling or reassembly is the responsibility of the resident, therefore the overall offer is reasonable.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s handling of the complaint was not acceptable, it missed several opportunities to recognise the resident had raised a complaint and deal with it appropriately. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the resident first expressed dissatisfaction in September 2017 when he requested a rent refund, and the landlord should have recognised this as a complaint. The resident’s email in March 2018 appears to have been recognised as a complaint by the member of staff who received it, given they passed it on to the customer feedback team. However, no one in the customer feedback team acknowledged it and dealt with it as per the landlord’s policy.
Further missed opportunities occurred in July 2018, when the resident requested £1000 refund from his rent and August 2018 when he submitted a complaint. The Ombudsman is disappointed to note the landlord’s response at this stage was to ask the tenancy support officer to look into it in attempt to keep it out of the formal complaints process.
It was only when the Housing Ombudsman Service wrote to the landlord in May 2019 that they accepted a complaint from the resident.
The Ombudsman notes that it took almost three years from the resident initially raising a complaint in September 2017 to receiving his final response letter in May 2020. An efficient complaints process enables a landlord to identify potential service failures and put things right in a timely manner. It also provides reassurance to the resident that their reports have been taken seriously and assists in the improvement in the landlord/tenant relationship. In this instance, the landlord’s failure to recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction at an earlier point meant that it missed the opportunity to resolve the substantive issues earlier.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the service failures identified with its handling of the issues that arose during the defect period.
In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the service failures identified with its handling of the damage to the flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there is maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged the issues experienced since the resident moved into the property have been below standard and has apologised for this and the delay in resolving the issues. It has also offered to meet the resident to discuss the case and identify any learning. As the infrared panels were in place for at least four weeks (from 8 October 2019 to w/c 4 November 2019), the walls had been suitably dried out and the only work outstanding was decorating. As previously noted, the builder’s and the landlord’s repair obligations ended when the resident refused access to the property. However, the landlord has still offered to either complete the decorating using their own maintenance staff or to provide the resident with £1500 to cover the cost of decorating. They have also offered to have the heating and ventilation system independently inspected. The Ombudsman considers this to be reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord is responsible for damage caused by their staff or contractors and is ultimately responsible for the builder’s contractors who were acting on their behalf. The evidence suggests the quote from the flooring company to replace the flooring was £352.67. The builder accepted responsibility and offered to cover the cost of the flooring, and the landlord has also offered to cover this cost.
As outlined above, the landlord missed multiple opportunities to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s complaint in line with their policy. On this occasion it did not follow its policy, and only responded to the complaint following contact from the Housing Ombudsman Service. Its handling of this complaint was not appropriate.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £200 in compensation for the maladministration related to the handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord to proactively engage with the resident to facilitate the resident’s move to another suitable property should the resident still wish to move.
The landlord to review its procedure for handling issues that arise during the defects period for new build properties so that it can identify responsibility for any issues that arise in a timely manner and clarify service level agreements for identified works.
If it has not done so already, the landlord to pay the resident the compensation offered in its letter of 11 May 2020.