Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Moat Housing Group Limited (202008169)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008169

Moat Housing Group Limited

10 February 2021


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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding repair works to the ‘threshold’ at his patio door and the subsequent amount of compensation it offered.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 20 January 2014. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The property is a newbuild property, built by a third-party builder, and handed over to the landlord on 8 January 2014. The ‘defects period’, i.e. the period for which the builder remained responsible for repairing any defects, ran until January 2015.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that complaints should be raised within three months of the issue arising and, where a complaint relates to a defect with a new build policy, its usual procedure and timescales will not apply.
  4. The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes that compensation is available for loss of room / amenity but does not list the use of a garden in its compensation table. The policy also notes it can award up to £150 as ‘goodwill compensation’ for time and trouble on a discretionary basis.
  5. The landlord operates a latent defects policy relating to new build properties. The policy notes that the landlord “does not pay compensation for defect related issues or properties within the defects period. Should any compensation claims be received from residents in new build homes, these will be passed onto the developer/builder for consideration.”

Summary of events

  1. The information in the following paragraph is undisputed and is informed by both a timeline of events provided to this service by the landlord, and correspondence from the resident dated 27 July 2020. In 2014 the resident reported to the landlord that the ‘screed’ beneath the threshold at the patio door to the garden at the property was crumbling. The landlord forwarded this report to the builder for their attention. In 2015 (it is not evident precisely when), the builder attempted repairs to the threshold, which resulted in a hole being cut into the single piece of ‘Lino’ that covered the entire floor and a piece of “white facia” being installed to cover the hole. The white facia was unsatisfactory and further works were requested by the landlord, however, due to the extensive nature of the works required to replace the entire floor the resident agreed for a wooden panel to be installed by the patio door instead, which was completed in July 2016. Shortly after, the wooden panel started to ‘bow’. Following this, the landlord requested that the builder repair the wooden panel, however, the builder did not make any arrangements to do so. In September 2017, the landlord subsequently began a claim with the National House Building Council (the ‘NHBC’). After continued inaction by the builder, in November 2019 the NHBC passed a ‘resolution’ ordering the builder to complete the works by December 2019.
  2. On 3 December 2019, the landlord contacted the builder to chase up the works. The builder responded on the same date to advise it would not be able to attend until 6 January 2020. The landlord replied on 4 December 2019 and advised that it was not happy with this timeline and requested the works be completed before Christmas. While this service has not been provided with the response to this request, it is evident that the request was not agreed to.
  3. It is not disputed that the builder commenced works on 6 January 2020. The resident contacted the landlord on the same date and expressed concern that the works left the door frame unsupported. The landlord contacted the NHBC on the same date and requested it review the works being completed by the builder “as [the resident] doesn’t want them back tomorrow to finish if the works are not correct.” It is not disputed that following this query, the works were left incomplete pending the response from the NHBC.
  4. On 15 January 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and advised that the NHBC were still investigating the proposed works. The resident responded on the same date and queried if he was “due some sort of compensation for the last five years for all the waiting and being messed around for them to sort it out.” It is not evident that the landlord addressed this query.
  5. On 22 January 2020, the NHBC advised the landlord that the proposed works were satisfactory. On 29 January 2020, the landlord requested its surveyor attend the property and provide a second opinion on the works. The surveyor attended on 21 February 2020 and subsequently advised the landlord on 24 February that he had “no issues with the proposed repair.” On 27 February 2020, the landlord advised the resident it had contacted the NHBC to request it instruct the builder to complete the works. On the same date, the resident again made a query regarding compensation. It is not evident that the landlord responded to this query.
  6. On 12 March 2020, the landlord advised the resident it was chasing the builder regarding the works. The builder contacted the landlord on the same date to clarify the landlord’s instructions following its surveyor inspection. The landlord confirmed to the builder on 13 March 2020 that the works should proceed. On 20 March 2020, the resident suggested that he arrange for the works to be completed himself, however, the landlord replied that as this was part of an NHBC claim, this would prevent them from claiming any further works if there were any errors. It further noted that due to the COVID-19 restrictions, “the builders are only dealing with emergencies at present,” and that “once the restrictions are lifted, I will be straight on to [the builders] to get these works booked in.”
  7. On 24 April 2020, the resident advised that he suffered from dementia and due to the incomplete works, “I can’t access my back garden without feeling unsafe,” and that he was considering legal action in an attempt to resolve the issue. On the same date, the landlord contacted the builder and advised that the resident “cannot access his garden and with the lockdown,” and requested that “these works to be completed as a matter of urgency.” The builder replied also on the same date and reiterated that it was “only attending to emergency works.” The landlord subsequently enquired if the builder would allow either it or the resident to complete the works and subsequently reimburse the costs. It also contacted the resident to advise of the enquiries it had made. On 27 April 2020, the builder again reiterated it would only complete emergency works and did not address the landlord’s request regarding it completing the works. The landlord subsequently updated the resident on 30 April 2020.
  8. On 10 June 2020, the resident enquired if the works could now be completed following the easing of the COVID-19 restrictions. On 16 June 2020, the landlord contacted the builder and requested they “get this issue resolved as soon as possible.” It once again updated the resident that it had made this request. The resident replied on 17 June 2020 and advised he considered the works to be “an emergency job as there is gaps for me to get my foot caught and possible trip hazard.” He again raised the issue of compensation and advised that “I think £10 a day compensation sounds a fair amount.”
  9. On 23 June 2020, the landlord contacted its own contractors to arrange for a quote to complete the works. It contacted the resident to advise him of the steps it had taken and also advised that “with regards to the compensation I will start looking at the dates etc. but I won’t be able to come back to you on this until the works are completed.”
  10. On 24 June 2020, the builder advised it would not be able to attend to the works until 6 July 2020. The landlord replied that the “6th July is not quick enough, this issue has now become very urgent as … the area by the back door is preventing him from being able to access his back garden safely as it is a major tripping hazard for him.” On the same date, the builder advised that “6 July is the earliest we can attend, and unfortunately we would not be willing to cover your costs should you choose to do the works yourself.” The landlord subsequently instructed its contractors to complete the works on 25 June 2020 and advised the resident of the same.
  11. On 25 June 2020, the resident confirmed the works had been completed. The landlord replied on the same date and advised it would “draw up a figure for the compensation. It will take a little bit of time as there is a lot of data to go through.” On 3 and 14 July 2020, the resident requested an update regarding compensation and expressed concern that he had not received a reply. On the same date the landlord advised that “given the length of time it took for your issue to be resolved, we have raised this as a formal complaint,” and that it would provide a formal response by 24 July 2020.
  12. On 24 July 2020, the landlord provided its stage one response. It apologised for the length of time it took to resolve the issue and summarised the chain of events that had taken place. Regarding the initial bowing of the wooden threshold panel, it advised its ‘health and safety team’ did not consider it would “pose a significant trip hazard.” It noted the resident had “reduced mobility and the way the works were left made it more difficult for you to access the garden,” however, it also advised that it had “witnessed you stepping out into the garden with relative ease” upon its visit to the property in February 2020. It subsequently advised that “we do not consider the original issue and subsequent fitting of the threshold to have been a significant trip hazard and you did not lose the use of any of your rooms,” and that “the works were stopped at your request and the subsequent lockdown was outside of [its] control.”
  13. It acknowledged that there had been “been failings on our part to ensure the works were completed within a reasonable timeframe, and that communication should have been improved on,” and advised it was taking steps to improve its procedures regarding identifying and correcting defects. It advised that it did not “not feel the events of your complaint justify the £10 per day,” however, it recognised that the events had caused the resident inconvenience and so offered £350 compensation for his “time and trouble.”
  14. The resident replied on 27 July 2020 and refused the offer of compensation. He advised that in 2014 he had reported “flooding in our back garden” but did not receive a response. Subsequently, he completed works including building a wall, steps, and replacing the soil, which he estimated costed him “£4,500 for materials and labour.” Regarding his ability to access his garden, he advised that his illness meant that “I struggle to recognise steps, slopes, and uneven ground,” and that for him, the bowed wood was also a hazard. He again suggested a compensation rate of £10 per day based on the landlord’s compensation policy which awards £20 for missed appointments.
  15. The landlord replied on 31 July 2020 and advised that the £20 compensation noted in its policy only related to single payments for missed appointments and that other compensation is calculated on a “a case by case basis.” It sympathised at the impact the resident’s disability had on his use of the garden and advised it would arrange for a review of the resident’s illness and subsequently update its system. It also advised it would increase the compensation to £400 and noted “this is over and above what we would normally pay for time and trouble.”
  16. The resident subsequently requested an escalation of his complaint and the landlord provided its stage two response on 25 August 2020. It apologised for the level of service the resident had received and advised it would improve its procedures for dealing with builders going forward. Regarding the works carried out by the resident in 2014, it noted that the resident had carried out the works without giving it notice and that it was unable to consider the complaint under its complaints policy as it occurred six years previously. It advised that while “non-use of gardens is not a category covered in our Compensation Policy, we agree a joint decision was made with [the landlord] to stop the works midway and this would have impacted on you comfortably accessing your garden.” It noted its compensation policy allowed for a 10% reduction in rent for loss of amenities such as heating, and while its policy did not recognise a garden as an amenity, it considered a 5% reduction in rent to be reasonable. It calculated the reduction from 13 July 2017 to 30 June 2020, being £1,081.90, plus an additional £150 for “time and trouble” (£1,231.90 total).
  17. The resident replied on 1 September 2020 and declined the offer. He also queried the significance of 13 July 2017 being used to calculate the compensation. It is not evident that the landlord has responded to this query.

Assessment and findings

  1. Following the resident’s reports of issues with the threshold at his patio doors, it is evident that the landlord appropriately raised the issue with the builder. Following the builder’s continued inaction, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord took reasonable steps to address the issue by pursuing a complaint through the NHBC. Following the NHBC’s resolution and the continued inaction by the builder, the landlord appropriately requested that works be expediated.
  2. Following the concerns raised regarding the rectification works carried out by the builder, the landlord appropriately escalated the concerns to the NHBC for clarification and also appropriately carried out its own investigation into the suitability of the works within a reasonable timeframe. The Ombudsman notes that the subsequent delay to the works caused by the COVID-19 restrictions was beyond the landlord’s control. It was appropriate, however, that following the resident’s concerns regarding how his illness affected his use of the patio door while works were incomplete, the landlord continued to request that the builder treat the works as ‘urgent’ and that it made enquiries about the builder reimbursing it should it complete the works. It was also appropriate that the landlord kept the resident informed of the steps it was taking and the subsequent responses from the builder.
  3. Following the easing of COVID-19 restrictions and the builder’s continued delay to the timescale for completing works, it was commendable that the landlord arranged for the works to be completed at its own expense, despite its concerns that to do so would prevent it from making further claims to the NHBC.
  4. It is evident, however, that a significant amount of time passed between the resident’s initial reports and the resolution of the issue. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord considered the complaint under its internal complaints procedure and that in its stage one response the landlord acknowledged it had not provided the resident with the service he would expect and apologised accordingly. It is also evident that the resident made multiple requests for the landlord to advise its position on compensation, which it subsequently did not do. It was therefore appropriate that in its stage two response, it also acknowledged its communication could have been improved and apologised accordingly. It was also appropriate that it advised how it would improve its service in the future.
  5. While the resident had advised the landlord of the difficulty he was experiencing using the door as a result of his illness following the incomplete repairs, given that the initial bowing was objectively minor, and that it had witnessed the resident using the door when attending the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to comment that the resident did not fully lose the use of the garden in its stage one response. Following the resident’s further explanation regarding his illness, it was appropriate that landlord expressed its sympathy, arranged for an assessment and for its records to be updated, and reassessed its offer of compensation accordingly.
  6. Following the resident’s suggestion that an amount of £10 per day be used to calculate compensation, based on the missed appointment compensation of £20 noted in the landlord’s compensation policy, it was appropriate that the landlord addressed this request and it was reasonable that it advised that the amount was only relevant to missed appointments and not to the current issue. The landlord’s compensation policy notes that it can offer compensation for time and trouble on a discretionary basis, with a maximum offer of £150. While the policy provides a schedule for compensation for the loss of some amenities, the use of a garden is not listed as an amenity. Given that the landlord had also agreed to the repair works being interrupted, resulting in the loss of the use of the garden, it was therefore appropriate that the landlord used its discretion to offer compensation.
  7. Given that the landlord’s policy allowed it to use its discretion in calculating compensation, its decision to apply a rent reduction of 5% was reasonable. The Ombudsman notes that the calculation by the landlord used 13 July 2017 as a starting date for its application of the rent reduction. While the end date used for the calculation, 30 June 2020, is evidently the date on which the works were completed, it is not evident why 13 July 2017 was used as a starting date. It is also of concern that the landlord did not provide the resident with an explanation of its use of this date following his request it do so. The timeline of events provided to this service by the landlord notes the date of the installation of the wooden panel as July 2017. The resident has provided this service with contemporary emails which note the works took place in July 2016. Additionally, the landlord’s emails to the resident and to its contractors also refer to the works taking place in July 2016. Regardless of the possible erroneous use of 13 July 2017 as the commencing date for the landlord’s calculation of compensation, the Ombudsman considers that the final compensation amount of £1,231.90 is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and the £150 component of that amount for the resident’s time and trouble is both in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, and what the Ombudsman would expect.
  8. The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will only consider complaints made within three months of the issue arising. Similarly, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman would not investigate issues that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period. Regarding the resident’s reports concerning his expenditure on works to his garden in 2014, it is not evident that the resident discussed the works with the landlord prior to commencing them, nor is it evident that the resident had raised this request for compensation with landlord previously. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord advised that due to the amount of time that had elapsed, it was unable to consider the complaint or request for compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaint concerning its response to the resident’s reports regarding repair works to the ‘threshold’ at his patio door and the subsequent amount of compensation it offered.

Reasons

  1. The landlord appropriately pursued a complaint with the NHBC regarding the builder’s inaction to repair the threshold at the resident’s patio doors. It also appropriately requested that the builder expediate its works or consider the works to be urgent when the timeframes for the works were unsatisfactory. It also appropriately kept the resident informed of the actions it took. Following continued delays, its decision to complete the works at its own expense was also appropriate.
  2. Given the significant length of time the works remained incomplete and the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s requests for compensation, it was appropriate that the landlord recognised its service failure and apologised accordingly. It appropriately applied its discretion as per its compensation policy and made an offer of compensation that the Ombudsman considers reasonable and fair in the circumstances.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and reiterate its offer of compensation in the amount of £1,231.90.