Thrive Homes Limited (202200086)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200086

Thrive Homes Limited

16 December 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 report of defects in the property.
  2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about service charges.
  3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

2.     What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, the service must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

3.     After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 of the Scheme, the aspect of the complaint outlined in paragraph 1(b) is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident has queried what the service charges and management fees are for, and if the level of them is correct. The resident has asked the landlord for a breakdown of the charges.

4.      This matter has not been investigated, as the issues did not form part of the formal complaint. The escalation of an ongoing complaint is not the appropriate forum for raising issues which have either not been reported to the landlord previously or were not being dealt with within the same complaint.  Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) provides that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Thus, the resident is advised to follow the internal complaints process regarding this matter in the first instance.

Background

5.     The resident moved into a shared ownership new build house in April 2020 (she did not inform the Ombudsman of the exact date). The resident informed this service that the build completed on 30 January 2020.

6.     The property benefits from a ten-year warranty with the National House Building Council (NHBC). During the first 12 months, the developer/contractor agrees to deal with the defects. After this period, and for the next 12 months, the resident must claim from the NHBC warranty. Whereby the builder agrees to repair defects that do not follow NHBC’s Technical Requirements. This excludes wear and tear. If the NHBC warranty does not cover the defects, the landlord’s policy says it will inform the resident to carry out their own repairs.

7.     Upon moving into her house in April 2020, the resident began reporting defects to the landlord’s agent, an Aftercare team (‘the Aftercare team’). The landlord’s defects policy says that the Aftercare team has responsibility for managing both the defects reporting process and future NHBC warranty claims.

8.     The landlord provided a report, which listed 23 defects found in the property. This investigation has focussed on the resident’s main issues she reported, and has not considered the management of each individual defect.  After a few months of reporting defects with the Aftercare team, the resident began liaising directly with the contractor and landlord. The defect reporting continued until the landlord’s recording of the stage one complaint in October 2021.

9.     The resident expressed that she wanted to make a complaint in June 2021. Following which, several emails exchanged between the landlord and the resident. Following this complaint, the contractor repaired some of the defects, but some remained outstanding. The resident remained dissatisfied.

10. The landlord recorded a stage one complaint in October 2021. In its response, the landlord informed the resident that the contractor disputed liability for fixing the defects. The landlord recommended that the resident makes a claim from her NHBC warranty. The resident remained unhappy with the stage one response and escalated the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process.  In this further complaint, the resident said that there was outstanding work, even though she had reported the faults “within weeks of moving in”. 

11. In its stage two response, the landlord repeated its advice in its first response. It suggested the resident make a claim from the NHBC warranty. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s reply and asked for the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint. The resident informed this service that the defects remained outstanding. She also reported problems in making a claim from the NHBC warranty, as she had to now pay a retainer and was waiting for the landlord’s authorisation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of defects in her new build property.

12. The landlord employs an Aftercare team, an agent instructed by the landlord to manage the defects in its new developments. The resident had to notify this team of any defects. According to the landlord’s policy, the Aftercare team’s role was to notify the contractor of the defects, they were also responsible for informing the resident about whether the contractor would fix the defect, or whether they needed to make a warranty claim. The landlord’s defects policy also says that the Aftercare team has responsibility for managing both the defects reporting process and future NHBC warranty claims.

13. The resident was reliant on the Aftercare team to act on the landlord’s behalf. Managing agents who are managing a property on a landlord’s behalf are members of the Scheme under paragraph 2(c). However, this investigation is focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint as this is where the landlord/tenant relationship exists. It is the member landlord who had responsibility for responding to the complaint under investigation.

14. From 27 April 2020 to 9 November 2020 the Aftercare team inspected several defects reported by the resident. The defects reported during that period included:

  1. A faulty garden tap.
  2. Irregular brickwork (with gaps in the guttering).
  3. The back door being very stiff.
  4. A hole in the bath, whereby an image showed that it appeared to be masked with white paint.

15. On the 8 December 2020, the resident informed the Aftercare team that points raised in a snagging report had not been addressed or repaired. From this date and until 4 January 2021 the resident reported more defects to the Aftercare team. The issues reported included:

  1. A leak from the shower screen.
  2. A damaged skirting board in the bathroom (caused by the shower leak).
  3. A loose, sharp tile behind the shower fitting.
  4. A hole in the bath (the second time this was reported).  

16. On 5 January 2021, the Aftercare team informed the resident by email that it had received feedback from the developer/contractor to say that they intended to look into the resident’s problems. However, the same email said said that it had not received any feedback so it would ask the contractor again for an update.

17. On 19 January 2021, the resident sent an email informing the Aftercare team that the contractor’s manager had inspected the property. She said that the contractor had informed her that it did not know about the tile problem and had not received the snagging report. The resident said she then sent the snagging report to the contractor herself, but they had advised her that they would not be able to complete the work until the Aftercare team had requested it. The resident also informed the Aftercare team that the contractor had agreed:

  1. To resolve the problem with the bath.
  2. To repair the loose, sharp tiles in the bathroom. 

18. On 20 January 2021, the Aftercare team sent an email to the resident asking which works were outstanding so it could notify the contractor. The resident replied to this email on 24 January, raising her dissatisfaction about the Aftercare team’s handling of the defects reported. The resident suggested the Aftercare team keep a log/spreadsheet listing the reported and completed defects. The resident informed the Aftercare team of the outstanding work and listed the dates that it had reported issues previously, including the road signage. The resident asked for an estimated date of when the works would be completed. The resident noted her main outstanding issues were:

  1. The garden not draining water properly.
  2. The damage to the bath.
  3. The leak in the shower and sharp tiles in the bathroom.

19. On 25 January 2021, the Aftercare team sent an email to the contractor chasing the issues and promised to help the resident, to avoid further delays. Two further inspections were carried out by the Aftercare team on 25 January and 15 February 2021. The reports noted:

  1. The tiles above the bathroom sink were sharp.
  2. The skirting board was poorly finished in the bathroom.
  3. There was a crack in the downstairs toilet sink.
  4. There was a shower leak (this issue was logged twice, in both inspection reports).

20. On 3 February 2021, there was an exchange of emails between the parties within which the resident said that she had instructed an independent company to look at snagging issues. This independent report was not available to this investigation, nor was the snagging report. The resident said in an email to the landlord that the contractor had told her it was not responsible for fixing the defects (unless under warranty) because the landlord had signed off the snagging report confirming they were satisfied with the condition of the property. The landlord said that the resident could inform the Aftercare team of the outstanding defects during the “End of Defects” inspection.

21. On 12 March 2021, the landlord employed a company to carry out a defects inspection and it reported 23 defects. The document included the resident’s main concerns which were:

  1. The damaged bath, faulty plastic shower screen trim, cracked tile in the shower and problems with the flooring and around the basin in the bathroom.
  2. The garden lawn being patchy in parts.  

22. Even though the build completed on 30 January 2020 the evidence suggests that the landlord’s 12-month warranty lasted until the end of March. This may have been due to the resident not being able to move in due to the lockdown restrictions at the time during the Covid 19 pandemic. Although there was no evidence stating when the initial warranty ended.

23. On 11 April 2021, the Aftercare team inspected a stain on the bathroom linoleum floor which the resident thought related to the shower leak. A missing seal on the sink to a pedestal was also reported. The landlord’s contact log confirmed an email dated 11 May 2021 from the Aftercare team to the contractor asking for an update regarding the defects.

24. On 9 June 2021, the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the defects; she also said that she had spoken with Citizens Advice, and planned to contact a solicitor, the NHBC, and planned to lodge a complaint. On 21 July 2021, the landlord sent an email to the resident apologising for the contractor not being in contact despite it passing on the defects list. The landlord promised to contact the contractor to find out when it would visit the resident. 

25. On 4 August 2021, the Aftercare team drafted an inspection report, which recorded the stiff back door that was hard to lock. This was the second time this was reported.

26. On 10 September 2021, the resident expressed dissatisfaction in an email to the landlord about the lack of communication and she asked when the defects would be completed. The landlord apologised in an email on 13 September and asked if the contractor had attended since the last inspection. The resident informed the landlord that the contractor had been in touch to arrange the repairs in the bathroom. However, she said the contractor had not contacted her to discuss the inspection and outstanding faults in the snagging report. The resident also said that she had not received a copy of the ‘End of Defect’ report following the inspection in March.

27. On 5 October 2021, the resident complained to the landlord in an email about the defects not being resolved and the lack of communication from the Aftercare team. The resident said that the work in the bathroom was complete, but the other faults had not been fixed. The landlord’s internal records show that it accepted a stage one complaint on this date.

28. On 15 October 2021, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response. It said it had contacted the Aftercare team and had asked them to contact the contractor. The landlord said that the contractor disputed the liability to fix “a number” of the defects. The landlord suggested that the resident makes a claim under the NHBC Buildmark Choice Warranty.

29. On 16 October 2021, the resident asked in an email to escalate the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process. The resident complained about the outstanding work being incomplete, and that she had reported the faults “within weeks of moving in”.  The resident said it had informed the Aftercare team of the defects before the “End of Year” report, which she had not seen a copy of. The resident said that the contractor informed her that the landlord had signed to say that the house was at an acceptable standard. The resident’s reported outstanding defects included:

  1. A crack in the downstairs sink and toilet.
  2. Scratches in the glass on the back door.
  3. Issues with the layout of the kitchen cupboards.
  4. A hole in the kitchen floor, where the doorstop had been incorrectly fitted.
  5. The garden flooding and this had damaged the lawn.

30. It is appreciated that as the resident had moved into a new property, she would have been disappointed with finding several defects within a short period of her occupancy. This would have affected her new home experience. It is recognised, however, that from time to time there will be defects and snagging in new build properties which may not have been identified in the initial build. Shared owners are protected by the defect period and the warranties in place, and the existence of a defect (or defects) alone would not mean a failure in the landlord’s service.

31. As works were to be scheduled and undertaken by a third party, it is accepted that matters were to an extent out of the landlord’s hands. In such circumstances, however, the Ombudsman would expect to see that the landlord had done all that it could to manage the situation, to proactively pursue the outstanding works, and to consider alternative solutions where resolution was being prolonged.

32. In accordance with landlord’s defects policy entitled “Development Procedures, June 2020, version 2.0”. Page 19 of the policy states that it is the Aftercare team’s responsibility to notify the contractor of any defects found during the first 12 months after completion. After this timeframe, the defect must be handled under an NHBC warranty claim, or the resident will be informed of their responsibility to resolve it.

33. When the NHBC warranty period ends (two years following completion) for the remaining eight years of the warranty, the NHBC insurance covers damage caused to specified parts of the property because the builder did not comply to NHBC’s Technical Requirements. This does not cover plumbing, electrics and gardens. New builds should comply with NHBC standards and section 9.1 covers the Technical Requirements for finishes on new homes.

34. During the defect period, or where works remain outstanding after this time, it is expected that the landlord and the managing agent acting on its behalf to act as an appropriate intermediary coordinating matters between the developer and the resident, in order to ensure that repairs are appropriately managed and completed to a satisfactory standard. This would also include ensuring that the repairs which have been reported are passed on to the developer / contractor are resolved within a reasonable period.

35. In respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a hole in the bath this service has found service failure. The Aftercare team inspected the problem on 9 November 2020 and, according to the inspection report, they notified the contractor the same day. This defect was categorised as “Wilful Damage” with a timescale response period of 7 days. This service found that the resident then chased a response to this defect on 8 December 2020, 4 January 2021, 24 January and 3 February 2021.

36. The landlord’s internal communication log showed that on 25 January 2021, the Aftercare team had informed the resident that on 16 November 2020 the contractor had questioned liability for fixing the bathtub. The Aftercare team said it had asserted that the contractor was responsible. It is recognised that it can be difficult to manage a defect when the contractor disputes liability. However, this service did not find evidence to suggest that the resident had been informed that the contractor disputed the works.

37. On 19 January 2021, according to correspondence between the resident and landlord, the contractor had inspected the property and agreed to rectify the bathtub problem. The resident chased this problem again with the Aftercare team in February, and by 9 June 2021 the contractor had not yet replaced the bath, despite agreeing to do so on 19 January. This was over 6 months after the resident had reported the problem. 

38. In respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak from the shower screen, there was inadequate record keeping and poor communication. This leak appeared to have caused damage to the resident’s skirting board and flooring, which the resident also reported to the Aftercare team. The landlord’s internal communication log shows that the resident notified them about the leaking shower screen problem on 8 December 2020. The Aftercare team inspected the defect on 25 January and 15 February 2021, notifying the contractor of the issue each time, with an “urgent” timescale response period of 24 hours. The resident chased a response with the Aftercare team regarding this defect on 24 January, 3 February 2021 and 9 June 2021. This was over six months after the resident had first reported the problem. Correspondence on 13 September 2021 suggests the contractor had resolved the issue, though it is unclear when this happened.

39. In respect of the resident’s report of loose and sharp tiles in the bathroom, there was inadequate record keeping and delays in communication. The landlord’s internal communication log shows that the resident notified the Aftercare team about loose tiles behind the shower fitting on 8 December 2020; there is no evidence of this issue having been inspected at this time however. On 19 January 2021, the internal log mentions an email from the resident informing the Aftercare team that the contractor’s manager had agreed to rectify the sharp and loose tiles in the bathroom. According to the log, the resident chased a reply to this email on 24 January. On 25 January, the Aftercare team reported the sharp tiles to the contractor, noting they were “dangerous”. This defect was given a timescale response period of seven days. As with the shower screen leak, there was correspondence (13 September 2021) to suggest that the contractor had resolved the issue, but it is unclear when.

40. In respect of the resident’s report of a stiff back door (that was hard to lock) there was evidence of further inadequate record keeping. The Aftercare team inspected the issue on 9 November 2020 and, according to the inspection report, they notified the contractor the same day. This defect was given an “Urgent” timescale response period of 24 hours. It is unclear if the contractor had resolved this issue temporarily. This service could not see evidence of this being reported again until August 2021, however there was no evidence to show that the work was completed when first reported.

41. One of the resident’s main issues related to poor drainage in the garden. In respect of this, there was evidence of poor communication. The landlord’s internal communication log shows that the resident notified the Aftercare team about this issue by email on 24 January 2021. Although in the log, the Aftercare team’s reply on 25 January 2021 suggested it had been reported previously as it said that it had been chasing the issue with the contractor. The landlord’s internal communication log shows that the resident had sent an email suggesting she had logged the issue first on 15 May 2020, though there was no evidence to confirm this. This issue remained unresolved in October 2021 as the resident noted the issue again in her stage 2 complaint.

42. There was communication between the parties on 3 February 2021, whereby the resident said that they had instructed an independent company to look at the snagging issues. This service has not seen this independent report, though notes that a landlord would be expected to take into consideration the qualified findings of an independent surveyor, if made available.

43. In respect of recording and management of the defects the Ombudsman found poor record keeping on the landlord’s part. On 12 March 2021, it instructed a defects inspection, which identified 23 defects listed as having taken place during the rectification period. The report had 22 defects which were highlighted and there were handwritten notes stuck onto the report. On the first note, there was a comment which read “Images and further info required, and evidence damages were reported at handover”. The notes appeared to be from the developer asking for more evidence to decide if it was liable for the repairs. One of the defects (landing cupboard door hatch) was highlighted in green and marked “agreed”. The defects list included the resident’s main concerns which included:

  1. The damaged bath, faulty plastic shower screen trim, cracked tile in the shower and problems with the flooring and around the basin.
  2. The garden lawn not level and patchy in parts.  
  3. A water pressure valve being faulty in the kitchen.
  4. The kitchen cupboard door handles and door stops missing from the cupboard doors.

The notes said that the bathroom problems and problem with the garden lawn were not noted at the handover.

44. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not record and track the defects efficiently in this case, leading to poor customer service. On 20 January 2021, in reply to a resident’s email chasing works, the landlord’s internal log showed that the agent had asked the resident to list the outstanding defects so it could communicate this to the contractor. It was clear from the resident’s  reply to this email that she was frustrated, and she queried whether the agent recorded outstanding works on a database or spreadsheet.

45. In its reply to the resident’s email mentioned in paragraph 47, on 25 January, the Aftercare team said that the contractor did not always update it on the completed works, and it relied on the resident to inform it.  Page 19 of the landlord’s defects policy says that it is the Customer team’s responsibility to log and report defects to the Aftercare team and that they should ensure that “the contractor attends to defects in a timely manner”. This service cannot, however, see that this was done in this case. There is no clear evidence from the landlord to clarify which defects have been completed and which remain outstanding.

46. The landlord’s defects policy acknowledges that some housebuilders may not attend to defects “in a timely manner”. The policy states “where a housebuilder is not attending to a defect after it has been reported (at least twice) then the Customer team will arrange for the defect to be attended”. There is no evidence of this having taken place in this instance however. The resident had reported issues with the damaged bath, tile problems and shower leak on at least two occasions and there is no evidence of the landlord attending to these defects, as required by the landlord’s policy.

47. The landlord waited until it had issued its stage one complaint response on 15 October 2021, before it informed the resident that the contractor was disputing liability for fixing some of the outstanding defects. The landlord had also waited until this response to inform the resident to make a claim through the NHBC Buildmark Choice Warranty. The landlord’s defects policy says the Aftercare team must notify the contractor of any defects found during the first 12 months after completion. After this timeframe, according to the policy, the defect must be handled under an NHBC warranty claim, or the resident will be informed to carry out her own repairs.

48. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord said that the contractor had disputed some of the defects. It did not specify which defects the contractor accepted liability for and which it did not. It suggested that the resident should make a claim with NHBC. The landlord said that after the resident had made a claim, NHBC would contact it and it would assign a staff member to liaise with NHBC and the resident.

49. On 16 October 2021, the resident escalated the complaint to stage two, under the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord’s internal log shows the resident’s email whereby she said that she was annoyed as she had reported the defects within the 12-month defect period, but the landlord was now saying she had to claim under the NHBC warranty.

50. In its stage two complaint response, on 18 November 2021, the landlord’s response somewhat repeated its stage one reply. It said that the contractor disputed some of the defects but did not specify which. The stage two response went further to say the landlord had reviewed items listed against the NHBC standards and agreed with the contractor that a number of points in the report would not be considered a defect. The landlord again suggested that the resident should make a warranty claim with NHBC. It promised to give support with this.

51. The Ombudsman would not normally consider events taking place after the stage two complaint process.  However, the Ombudsman has considered information pertinent to the complaint about the NHBC claim. The Ombudsman found that the NHBC had sent an email to the landlord on 26 November 2021 attaching details of the resident’s claim. Another email was sent almost four months later on 8 March 2022 from NHBC to the landlord stating that it had not received a reply to its email dated 26 November 2021 regarding the resident’s warranty claim.

52. The resident sent an email to the landlord on 9 March 2022, stating that she was unable to claim from the NHBC because the landlord had not completed the required consent form. This service notes that it is important that NHBC claims are dealt with promptly. When the NHBC warranty period ends (two years following completion) for the remaining eight years of the warranty, the NHBC insurance covers damage caused to specified parts of the property because the builder did not comply to NHBC’s Technical Requirements.

53. On 17 May 2022, the landlord’s internal log showed that the resident had sent another email to the contractor, landlord and Aftercare team saying that the following defects (all reported prior to the completion of the complaints process) remained outstanding:

  1. A crack in the downstairs sink and toilet.
  2. Scratches in the glass on the back door window.
  3. Issues with the layout and fitting of the kitchen cupboards.
  4. A hole in the kitchen floor, where the doorstop had been incorrectly fitted.
  5. The garden flooding and this has damaged the lawn.
  6. The cold water tap pressure valve is broken.

54. In all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman, having reviewed the evidence available, has concluded that the landlord did not do enough to resolve the issues raised by the resident through her formal complaints of June and October 2021. The landlord did not respond to all the issues raised during the defects period. Where it did respond, there is no evidence of the issues being followed through to completion.  There is evidence that the landlord delayed in its communication with the resident regarding the contractor’s dispute of some of the defect issues.  This led to the resident repeatedly chasing the same issues, leading to significant inconvenience and distress.

55. There is also evidence of poor record keeping in the reporting and tracking the completion of the defects. There is no clear evidence, even in the final complaint response, of which defects the contractor disputes and which it agreed to fix. There is a clear failure of the Aftercare team to effectively report and track the completion of issues with the contractor, and the landlord has not effectively managed its relationship with its managing agent here.

56. It is clear to this service that the resident has spent a significant amount of time pursuing this case. As well as having to chase the landlord excessively for a response or update, the resident also had to make time for multiple visits/appointments. However, the landlord did not offer any redress to recognise the resident’s inconvenience, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances.

57. To conclude, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord did not go far enough to resolve the complaint based on the following:

  1. The landlord has not acted in accordance with its own defect management policy, which is to manage the works required with the contractor in a timely manner and to communicate with the resident. This service has seen poor communication and that the resident has had to repeatedly chase a resolution of the defects with the landlord’s Aftercare team, the landlord and the contractor.
  2. The Ombudsman appreciates some of the reported issues may not be considered a defect by the developer/contractor. However, it was found that where this was the case, the landlord did not inform the resident exactly which defects were disputed as per its policy. It also failed to reply within the response timescales set in its inspection reports. The service found that there was also poor record keeping as it was not clear which defects were completed and which were outstanding, even in its stage two response.
  3. The Ombudsman has recognised that the landlord took some action to chase up the developer/contractor for the arrangement of works. However, it found that the landlord could have better managed the situation and been more proactive. Where the landlord was unable to arrange the resident’s works with the contractor (within a reasonable timeframe), the landlord should have pursued an alternative solution (such as via NHBC).
  4. While this service appreciates that with new builds, the landlord will often be relying on third party contractors to undertake works, the landlord should still try to provide a good and prompt aftercare service for its residents. The landlord and the Aftercare team should have provided better, more timely communication about which defects the contractor was liable for, and which it disputed.
  5. The landlord has failed to follow its own complaints policy in not recognising the complaint and inviting the resident to record a formal complaint when she had raised her dissatisfaction. The resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the Aftercare team’s service on a couple of occasions in January 2021, and on 9 June 2021 she had suggested that she was going to make a formal complaint. At this point the Ombudsman believes that the landlord should have asked if the resident wanted to record the matter as a complaint and provided a response. The landlord failed to use this as an opportunity to potentially identify any issue with its process which may have caused the problem in the first place and to learn / improve its service. Further consideration of the landlord’s complaints handling is detailed below.

58. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s final response to the complaint did not go far enough to acknowledge the resident’s dissatisfaction, and to resolve the complaint. The response did not recognise that it had inconvenienced and caused undue stress to the resident. The complaint failed to identify or acknowledge the poor communication and record keeping, which led to the resident having to repeatedly spend time chasing issues. In this service’s opinion the landlord had unduly delayed a warranty claim to the NHBC as it did not inform the resident that the contractor disputed some of the outstanding defects, promptly enough. It also failed to offer any redress for the resident’s inconvenience.

59. The Ombudsman would expect to have seen a more thorough, and prompt service in managing the defects process for its residents, in line with its policy. In addition, a more robust system for record keeping, enabling the landlord to record and track completed and outstanding defects should have been in operation. Improved communication between the relevant parties (managing agent, contractor, resident and landlord) would also have assisted in this instance. To address the failures identified, a payment of compensation has been ordered.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

60. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “An expression of dissatisfaction however made about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents”.

61. On 24 January 2021, the resident expressed dissatisfaction about the service she was receiving from the Aftercare team regarding the management of the defects. In its response to this email on 25 January 2021, this service did not find evidence of the Aftercare team notifying the resident of its complaint’s procedure should she wish to formally complain.

62. On 9 June 2021, there was evidence of a complaint in the landlord’s internal log. This service found that the resident expressed further dissatisfaction about the service she was receiving from the Aftercare team regarding the management of the defects.  In her email, the resident said “I am at my wits end with the snagging/faults ongoing issues – it’s been over a year and we’ve been more than patient. I’ve recently had a conversation with Citizens Advice and on their guidance, I will be speaking with my solicitor and they can deal with getting the outstanding issues dealt with. I’m also planning to contact the NHBC and lodging a complaint about all the outstanding works and the general lack of interest in getting issues resolved. We’ve had various people out to look at faults and take pictures but not much is happening to sort things – our main issues are in the bathroom, the kitchen and the garden (saying it has rained a lot recently is a ‘cop out’ – it’s England, it always rains but the garden should of dried out).” As the resident used the word “complaint”, this service would consider that it is reasonable to expect a landlord to record this email as a formal complaint. There is no evidence it did this, though the landlord issued an apology to the resident in an email dated 21 July 2021.

63. It was not clear from the evidence provided when the resident actually made a formal stage one complaint.  This service found in the landlord’s internal log that the landlord had accepted a stage one complaint on 6 October 2021 and responded to this on 15 October 2021, in accordance with its complaint handling policy timescales.

64. The landlord recorded the resident’s stage two complaint on 16 October 2021 and responded on 18 November 2021. This was over its policy timescale of 20 working days, albeit by three days. This service found that the landlord’s stage two response somewhat repeated the stage one response and therefore failed to identify the extensive service failures identified above, in the Ombudsman’s assessment of the substantive issue. 

65. The Ombudsman would expect to have seen a stage one complaint recorded on 9 June 2021 when the resident noted a complaint in her email. As the complaint was not logged earlier, this caused undue delay to the resident’s resolution of the defects and delayed her claim from the NHBC warranty. This service would also expect to have seen a more thorough stage two response. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to inform the resident which defects the contractor disputed and which it did not. This service would also expect that that the landlord acknowledged its failings in the form of appropriate redress through its complaint handling procedure. 

66. With consideration of all of the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration with respect to the landlord’s complaints handling, with an order of compensation to reflect the detriment experienced by the resident on account of the landlord’s overall failures. Ensuring that complaints are identified at an early stage as possible gives the landlord the opportunity to identify and address any service failures. That it failed to do this in this instance has compounded the failures identified and thus added to the detriment experienced by the resident.

Determination

67. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman upholds the complaint as it found there was:

  1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects in the property.
  2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

68. In regard to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s administration and level of the service charges and management fees, this is out of jurisdiction under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

69. In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported defects, the landlord to pay the resident £1000 compensation.

70. In respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation.

71. The compensation to be paid to the resident within four weeks of this investigation report, with evidence of this payment to be provided to this Service.

72. If it has not done so already the landlord to arrange for an inspection of the outstanding defects and either arrange for the contractor to resolve the defect or support the resident to make a claim from the NHBC warranty. The landlord to evidence that this inspection has been completed within 8 weeks of this investigation report, with the further resolution to be completed within a reasonable timeframe thereafter.

Recommendations

73. The landlord to arrange to meet with the developer to agree a streamlined approach for assessing defects, arranging repairs, and managing resident expectations. The landlord should reflect on this case and should ensure that moving forward, it is effectively monitoring and managing the performance of third parties to ensure that contractual obligations are met.

74. The landlord should have regard to best practice guidance such as the ‘Getting It Right Defect Guide’ which recommends (amongst other things):

  1. Having a ‘defects specialist’ in the organisation, to be trained to a high level and to be a resource to other staff. This person can familiarise themselves with the scheme before handover, have defects reported to them, assess what is, and is not, a defect, keep a log of all defects and analyse patterns of defects at the end of the 12 months. There are benefits to be gained, in that they can build up a good rapport with the contractor.
  2. Report regular patterns of defects to the employer’s agent.
  3. Provide excellent training for call centre staff in defects, repairs diagnosis and provide repairs diagnosis software.

75. The resident is advised to refer to the NHBC policy schedule to determine if the NHBC insurance covers the outstanding defects.