Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202122517)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122517

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

29 June 2022

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 handling of the resident’s reports of defects within the property.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the property. The landlord is the freeholder. The resident’s lease began in August 2019. The property was considered a new-build property.
3. The resident initially raised concerns about several defects (repair issues) in the property soon after moving in. This included concerns that the paving outside the property was slanting and that the ground was subsiding, that the external communal door to the garden did not have a stopper and slammed into her lounge window when opened among other issues. She raised a formal complaint in October 2019 as she had not heard anything from the landlord or the property developer regarding the issues raised. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at this stage as the repair issues were not attended to within its target timescales. It confirmed that the paving stones would be corrected at the end of the defects period and that other repairs inside the property had been completed on 31 January 2020.
4. The landlord asked the resident to provide a list of outstanding defects in May 2020 as it was not able to complete an ‘end of defect period’ inspection of the property due to Covid-19 restrictions. The resident responded and advised that the door stopper had not been installed, and she was concerned that the door would shatter her windows. She also raised concerns about other issues which included the paving outside of the property and electricity in her bathroom. She sent a follow-up email in September 2020 as she had not heard anything about the repairs needed. The landlord explained that it had not received the resident’s initial email. It said it would take responsibility for the defects (rather than the developers) as the defects period had ended in June 2020. Some repairs to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom were rectified during November 2020.
5. The resident raised a new complaint in March 2021 about the landlord’s handling of the outstanding defects. She expressed dissatisfaction with the length of time it was taking to complete works and that the issues had been ongoing since 2019. She advised that she had been told on several occasions that these would be rectified but there had been a lack of clear communication from the landlord. She raised her concerns again in July 2021 as she had not received a complaint response. Whilst there had been some communication about the repairs, these had not been completed. She later raised concerns about the quality of the work completed, and believed that the door stop which had been fitted was not fit for purpose. In addition, she raised concerns about how her complaint was handled.
6. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing the matter and its poor communication. It confirmed that the issues with the electrics in the bathroom had been rectified on 3 August 2021, as had the uneven paving slabs. It further explained that the door stopper had been fitted on 3 August 2021 and that it had internally discussed the resident’s concerns regarding its suitability (including the second opinion she had commissioned herself, which had advised that the stopper was inappropriate) but had concluded that no further work was required. It noted that there was a delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint and said that the initial complaint had been dealt with as an enquiry which was in line with its policies and procedures. It offered the resident £232.97 compensation, comprised of £32.97 as reimbursement for the costs the resident had incurred by needing to buy new lightbulbs for her bathroom, £100 for its poor communication and complaint handling and £100 in view of the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing the matter.
7. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the length of time the repairs had taken and the trouble she had spent pursuing them. She added that she had been told that the door stopper installed in August 2021 was not suitable and wanted this to be replaced with a door closer fitting. She was also dissatisfied with the way the complaint had been handled and expressed concern that the landlord had not explained how it would take steps to improve its communication or complaint handling. As a resolution, she wanted an apology and a higher level of compensation in view of the overall time and trouble experienced and the inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects within the property.

8. When the resident accepted the property in August 2019, any defects reported were covered by the defect liability period, which usually lasts 12 months following the completion of the building. During this period, the builders/developers of the property remained responsible for any defects. Repairs are usually reported to the landlord and then addressed towards the end of the defects period (unless urgent). Once the defects period has ended, any repairs required would fall under the terms of the lease agreement. Defects that had gone unnoticed (latent defects) reported after the end of the defects period would usually be covered by the warranty/insurance for the building. The resident’s lease agreement confirms that the landlord would be responsible for repairs to the external structure of the building, the estate and any communal areas. The resident would be responsible for reporting any defects in the property.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs, including those needed to rectify major water leaks or to secure entrance doors, should be attended to within 24 hours to make safe. Follow-on works may then be required. Routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. Some repairs, where there are major replacements or works may take a longer timescale to complete. Landlord’s would be expected to contact the resident and provide updates on the progress of such works.
10. In this case, it is not disputed that the resident pursued concerns about several defect issues which had not been addressed for a significant time period between September 2019 and August 2021. The landlord initially acknowledged that there had been a delay in completing works to the resident’s toilet and addressing internal cracks in early 2020. At this stage, the original developer was responsible for the defects, and the landlord took reasonable steps to apologise to the resident for the delays and time and trouble she had experienced with the developers up to March 2020. It also offered compensation which it considered proportionate for the delays up to this point. It confirmed at this stage that works needed to the paving and door stopper outside of the property would be carried out near the end of the defect liability period which was reasonable as they were not considered emergency or urgent repairs.
11. The resident reported more defects in May 2020 at the end of the defect liability period. These included her concerns about the communal entrance door hitting her window when opened, the paving slabs being uneven, as well as a damp smell in her bathroom, issues with the kitchen pipes which regularly leaked, her bathroom sink which was detached, and issues with the lights in the bathroom which needed to be replaced on an almost weekly basis. The landlord later acknowledged that due to an administrative error the issues were not sent to the developer to address at this stage. The resident needed to re-raise her concerns in September 2020, as she had not received any further communication. That was clearly a failing by the landlord, leading to significant delay with the repairs.
12. It is unclear from the evidence why the developer did not address several defect issues which had been reported prior to the end of the defect period. However, the landlord acted appropriately by taking ownership of the issues in September 2020. The landlord attended to the leaking kitchen sink on 21 September 2020 which was within a reasonable timescale of the reports that month. However, several other repairs were completed on 27 November 2020; the bathroom sink was reattached, the paving in the garden was made good, the workmanship in the kitchen was made good and a leaking waste pipe, which was found to be the cause of the damp smell in the bathroom, was repaired. As these had been reported originally in May 2020 (or earlier), they were significantly outside the landlord’s 28 calendar day timescale. Following this, there was a further delay, with the carpet damaged by the bathroom water leak replaced in May 2021 and the work to install the door stopper and check the electrics in the resident’s bathroom completed on 3 August 2021. These delays were extensive and involved numerous repair issues.
13. It is noted that the resident has raised concerns about the door stopper that was fitted on 3 August 2021 and wanted this to be replaced with a door closer fitting. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate by liaising with its repairs team. Its repairs team advised that there was no way of fitting a door closer to the current door or frame, and that the door stopper in place was appropriate for stopping the door hitting the resident’s windows. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors. Whilst the resident’s concerns are understandable, this investigation cannot comment on what might happen with the door in the future. If necessary, it would be the landlord’s responsibility to rectify any damage caused to communal parts of the property in future under the terms of its repairs responsibilities.
14. Whilst there was likely to be some delay during this period as a result of Covid-19, this would not account for the entirety of the delay in this case and the evidence shows that the resident sent several emails to the landlord in pursuit of the repairs, necessitating an unreasonable level of involvement by her. Nothing in the evidence indicates that the landlord adequately managed the resident’s expectations of how long the work was likely to take. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord to put things right suitably resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its mistakes, arranging for the repair works to be carried out and offering £232.97 in recognition of some of the costs the resident had incurred, the time and trouble she had spent pursuing the issues, and its poor communication.
15. The compensation offered by the landlord was broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in circumstances of a resident repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that resident or failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs. The landlord also acknowledged the scale of its poor service, and apologised for the inconvenience and distress it had caused the resident. Taken together these were all reasonable remedies in the circumstances. However, there was one important remedy the landlord did not demonstrate, which is addressed in the section below.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

16. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaints process. Complaints should not be used where a resident is requesting a service or an initial request for information. At stage one, the landlord should provide a response within 15 working days. if the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate the complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. if at any stage there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response timescale.
17. The resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 2 March 2021 via an online complaint form in which she clearly explained her dissatisfaction with the service received by the landlord. The landlord treated this communication as an enquiry, rather than a complaint. Whilst it may be suitable to treat complaints informally where a resident’s concerns can be quickly resolved, the scale of the issues she was raising, and the clear dissatisfaction she expressed (including her intention to approach this Service) show that her concerns should have been treated as a formal complaint, not an enquiry. This was especially so given that she had been pursuing the defects for some time. As it was, because it was treated as an enquiry, the resident did not receive a response to her complaint, and had to resort to asking to escalate her concerns in July 2021 before receiving a stage one complaint response in August 2021. The landlord’s handling of the complaint at this stage led to significant delay, repeated contact, and confusion.
18. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one complaint response on 6 August 2021, she then pursued her concerns through her local MP who asked the landlord to respond at stage two on 20 September 2021. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 1 November 2021 which was approximately ten working days outside of its 20 working day timescales. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord provided an update to the resident on the progress of her complaint or acknowledged the inconvenience which may have been caused as a result of the delay.
19. The landlord apologised to the resident for its initial complaint handling, and offered £50 compensation (included in the amount of £232.97 referred to above). However, nowhere in the landlord’s final complaint response did it indicate that it had learnt anything from the resident’s experiences, or would take steps to avoid similar occurrences in the future, despite the resident describing her concerns about systemic problems with its processes in her stage two escalation complaint. Learning from mistakes should be one of the overarching goals of any complaints process, and is clearly set out as an important remedy in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It is surprising that the landlord omitted this step, as its complaint responses fully acknowledged where it had failed the resident (in both the repairs and the complaint handling). Nonetheless, an opportunity was missed for the landlord to improve the relevant services, and to take steps towards re-establishing the resident’s confidence and trust. That omission, in this case, was significant.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s reports of defects within the property.
21. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

22. In light of the complaint handling failings found in this investigation, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Create an action plan to review this case (in regard to defect delays and complaint handling), identify what lessons can be learned from the resident’s complaint, and set out how it intends to implement whichever improvements are identified. This review should be shared with the resident and this Service within six weeks of this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £125. Evidence of this payment should be provided to this Service within four weeks of this report. This payment is in addition to the £232.97 already offered by the landlord, which it should also now pay if it has not already done so.