Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (201906959)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201906959

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

26 August 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

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reported defects in her property including the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to her property and personal belongings by contractors.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for pest control measures.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied her flat under a shared ownership lease dated 24 March 2017.

Legal and policy framework

The property was a new build or re-development. Under the circumstances, any defects were covered by a warranty by the landlord’s contractors/developer which, according to the resident, had expired on January 2018. Once the warranty expired, the resident had the benefit of a warranty provided by National House Building Council (NHBC).
The landlord did not provide a copy of the warranty to the Ombudsman. However, it informed this service that it had agreed to give the resident the benefit of any doubt and that the issues she had raised in the defects period were property defects, given this was difficult to dispute and the length of time it had taken to complete works. The contractor/developer which carried out the works under warranty will be referred to in this report as the developer.
Under its “customer care processes”, which appeared to date post-pandemic, the landlord set out a number of “milestones”. This included:
1. The landlord was to check the customer was “starting to think about the difference between defect and non-defect repairs” and what their maintenance responsibilities were.
2. Once customers reported defects within their liability period, the landlord would manage the reporting and fixing of the defects with the main contractor. The customer should be given a timescale for works and updates. It set out a procedure for latent defects.
3. Once it had the final agreed defects list, it would raise the defects with the contractor. Any that were not agreed by the contractor, the landlord would review and agree a resolution. It would send the final approved list to each customer and discuss this with them. The leaseholder should be given the correct advice and support. It would take care no warranty was invalidated.
Under the compensation policy, the landlord could pay to £500 for service failure, time and trouble respectively and £10 per missed appointment, up to a maximum of £50.

Chronology

On 12 June 2017, the resident wrote to the landlord with a list of defects, including (only the items that were the subject of the complaint are included):
1. Balcony door finishing not done, and glass on the balcony door was chipped
2. Balcony covered in bird foul. The resident requested spike/s “at the top”
3. Bedroom window air vent clip broken
4. Poor decoration including paint and glue stain on the carpets, paint issues on living room, bedroom and bathroom
5. Bathroom door fitted at an angle and looked bent
6. The edges of the doors in the flat were very rough, looked unfinished and living room door was chipped
7. Doors have smudge marks which did not wipe off and dirt marks on the wall
8. Poor carpet fitting.
The landlord did not provide a copy of this email to the Ombudsman, however the resident did so.
On 26 June 2017, the landlord wrote to the resident to state that it had raised the “orders” (or defects) that she had requested and that the developer would contact the resident to make arrangements to carry out the work. It added “Any issues refused by the contractor have been noted”.
The landlord added a contact number for some of the issues including the paint marks on the walls and carpet, the chipped balcony door, window air vent, badly fitted bathroom door, “unfinished” internal doors, ill-fitting carpet. It marked the dirt marks as no action.
While the landlord did not provide the list of defects, or the “HO forms” referred to below, a list of defects was included in later internal correspondence which referred to there being comments by the landlord and a note of any issues refused by the contractor. The list included as follows:
1. “Window vent – end cap required for trickle vent.
2. Carpet issue – Wear and tear item not defect.
3. Door cover strip leading from bedroom to bathroom requires refixing – has come loose.
4. Resident advised window was not acoustic as per specification – traffic noise not a defect.
5. Kitchen wall units – no marks noted on HO forms.
6. No paint issues noted on HO forms.
7. No patio chip marks noted on HO forms.”
According to the resident, her defects warranty ended January 2018. The landlord has not provided the warranty itself or the warranty expiry date.
On 25 June 2018, the resident chased the outstanding work.
The resident made a complaint on 11 July 2018 which she has provided to this service.
1. The window company came in July 2017 but they were unable to fix the air vent and the poorly fitted window in the bedroom and advised they need to replace it.
2. The window installer attended in March 2018 and stated it would repair the air vent and agreed with her that there was there was a draft and noise coming in and the window was not fitted properly. He was to report this and the issue of the chipped balcony door back to the developer who would contact her.
3. The carpet fitter did not ever attend despite her having been assured they had been booked.
4. In addition to the above repairs, other outstanding repairs include:
  1. Stained kitchen cupboards
  2. Stained internal doors
  3. An ineffective front door safety chain.
  4. Yellow marks in kitchen and bathroom walls where the decorator used the same roller used for the rest of the flat with different colour paint
5. The resident had chased several times and was unable to liaise with the developer directly.
6. An inspection was arranged for 16 January 2018. The resident was concerned that this would be too late, given the warranty period would be ending then. The landlord informed her that the orders “had been raised”.
7. The developer and landlord attended the inspection. She felt her concerns were brushed aside. She was told “they could not repair everything”, despite previous reassurances, and they would write and explain why not.
8. The noise from the window and pigeons was impacting on her.
According to the resident’s email to the landlord of 25 September 2018, at the inspection she was informed that the broken bedroom window air vent would be repaired but that the window was not defective.
The landlord later summarised the resident’s complaint as follows:
1. The delay to the repair to the bedroom window and other repairs to be undertaken by the landlord, due to the developer not taking ownership of the defect. Delay by the landlord liaising with the window manufacturer to arrange inspection.
2. Delay to the installation of pigeon spikes.
3. The kitchen and bathroom walls required redecoration.
4. The resident required a replacement of the balcony door due to chips in the glass and to the lounge and bedroom doors, due to stains and scratches, as they could not be repaired.
5. Stains and marks on the kitchen unit door.
6. The architrave where the safety chain was fixed required repairing.
On 6 September 2018, resident reported that the window handle had broken off the bedroom window, which she attributed to her not being able to close it due to poor fitting.
On 24 December 2018, the landlord wrote to the developer that it had been established that the defects had not been recorded at the end of defect inspection and these would be attended to by the developer.
There followed a correspondence into February 2019 between the landlord and the developer regarding the window in which the landlord requested the window installer’s report. The developer argued the window was not included on the defects list and the window handle was damage by a “third party”.
According to the landlord’s internal correspondence of 4 March 2019, the landlord would focus on the window.
According to the resident’s email of 3 May 2019 to the landlord, the developer had replaced the vent and repaired the handle so that the resident could open it, and an operative was to attend on 13 May 2021 to align the window.
According to the landlord’s internal email of 9 May 2019, it would pursue the developer before the issue was escalated to the NHBC, or before it would carry out any remedial works that could invalidate the warranty on the window. It established that a manager had attended the property on 30 January 2018 and considered that the window/door had been incorrectly installed and that the window was double–glazed. It noted that the developer’s contention it was not acoustic should have been challenged at the time and it would contact the developer again. There followed a further email correspondence with the developer, during which time the resident continued to chase the landlord and the landlord updated her every now and again.
On 15 May 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident stating it would not escalate the complaint as that officer wanted to continue to handle it.
On 4 June 2019, the landlord informed the resident that it was looking to get the window manufacturer to assess the window, as the developer was maintaining that there was no defect, which it did and which it chased.
On 13 June 2019, the resident reported a “heavy” pigeon infestation in her area and continued to chase for a response. Spikes were to be fitted to the building to deter the infestation.
According to an internal email of 4 July 2019, the landlord considered that the door safety chain was not deemed to be a defect or a safety risk and that this had been explained to the resident at the time. All the flats had the same door chain with the same fixings.
The landlord updated the resident on 5 July 2019 that the positioning of the spikes would prevent the pigeons from landing near her balcony. On 10 July 2019, the landlord informed her that the spikes were to be erected around the entire block. The resident wanted the spikes on the roof above her balcony. There were various delays to the pest contractor attending. At that stage, the landlord updated the resident on an almost daily basis. She objected to a plan to install a net over her balcony.
On 18 July 2019, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint, due to the lack of progress with the window, other defects, and pest control measures.
According to the landlord’s internal emails of 18 July 2019, the netting work had been completed on one side. It would assess the site further as there was heavy pigeon activity around the building.
On 6 September 2019, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 3 of its complaints procedure, given the length of time the matter had been ongoing.
During September and October 2019, the landlord investigated the make and model information for the kitchen units, investigated costs for the decorations, a colour match, and material costs for kitchen units and doors as these were above its standard fitting.
On 15 October 2019, it informed the resident that it would not be proceeding with any further pigeon proofing. It had informed the resident that the landlord was not responsible for maintenance and management of the block in relation to pest control.
The resident continued to chase the landlord, and the landlord’s complaint officer continued to request and chase the works in October, November 2019 and December internally. The landlord updated the resident that the internal doors would only be available from the 13 March 2020 and the installation works had been booked for 17 March 2020.
The contractors attended on 4 December 2019 to undertake remedial works and inspect the balcony door, chain, and bedroom window.
There followed a exchange of emails between the parties. The landlord considered carrying out additional works suggested by the resident as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 December 2019 with an appointment set for 27 January 2020 to replace the double-glazed balcony window, the doors to the lounge and bedroom and two kitchen wall unit doors, and to apply one coat of paint to the kitchen. The landlord would attend.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 January 2020 stating that “the two key differences between them” was the repair to/replacement of the bathroom door and to the replacement of the carpet. There were no defects identified with the carpet or with the bathroom door in the “end of defects” visit, and therefore there was “currently some resistance” to add these as additional jobs to the work. In order to “advocate”, it asked her to explain why should it do the work.
On 6 January 2020, the resident stated that she had reported the bathroom door and carpet fitting in June 2017 with the rest of the defects over the phone and via email. The contractors had caused fresh damage when they attended on 4 December 2019.
According to its internal emails, the landlord accepted that the resident had reported the issues with the carpet and bathroom door in her email of 12 June 2017 and that it would do “this” work on the carpet and the bathroom door. It was not clear why these outstanding issues had not been picked up during the end of defects inspection.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 January 2020 that it would offer to assist her with the carpeting and to arrange to repair or replace the bathroom door. It had been agreed that it would respond to her complaint once all works had been completed and she had confirmed that she was satisfied with the outcome or it provide a formal stage three response by 13 January 2020.
On 9 January 2020, the resident reported that the painting was patchy and messy and the contractors had left unsightly paint marks. They had been unable to replace the kitchen cabinets because they were sent the wrong doors. They were unable to fit the living room and bedroom doors because the doors were damaged. They did make the bedroom window a little better but damaged the bedroom blind with dirt marks and creases. They left dirty handprints on the walls that they were unable to remove. The landlord arranged for the contractor to repaint where required. The parties agreed that the landlord would send its final response to the resident no later than 14 February 2020. On the same day, the landlord wrote thanking her for providing estimates and that it recommended that the contractors order a replacement internal door for the bathroom. On the next day, the landlord requested a photograph of the blind.
According to the landlord’s internal email of 31 January 2020, it had completed all works, apart from renewing the internal doors.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 February 2020. She had declined the replacement internal doors as they did not match the colour of the other doors although they were sourced using the same manufacturing code as the existing doors. It thought they were cosmetic differences but that in terms of their construction, the doors are identical. It offered to either replace all the doors or French Polish them so that they all matched. It would consider the costs and update the resident. The kitchen units were successfully installed. The kitchen decoration was successfully completed, although she wished to reserve judgement on the quality in a better light. It suggested compensation in relation to the standard of paint brushing around the WC and visible handprints and scuff marks on the walls. It reassured her that the balcony glass was safe and that sometimes the door frame could shrink or expand dependent upon the weather conditions but it would investigate.
On 5 February 2020, the resident opted to replace all five doors. She accepted the kitchen decoration but not the standard of finish in the bathroom. The “dirty” marks on the decorations had been removed. She reported that the balcony replacement glass moved when she touched it. She reported that the contractor had damaged the bedroom blind.
The landlord informed this service of the outcome of the parties’ email discussion on 17 February 2020 that it would fit five new replacement internal doors, fit replacement glass to the balcony door, complete any decorating issues and reimburse the cost of carpeting and cleaning up any marks left by its original contractor on walls and surfaces. In its email of 7 February 2020 to the resident, that offer was made “subject to a quotation”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 February 2020 to say that it would not extend the scope of the complaint investigation to include new issues. It accepted that the marks on the communal walls were almost certainly a consequence of work being carried out that was related to her complaint. It would review the complaint in the week commencing 24 February 2020 and explained that there had been unforeseen staffing issues.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 March 2020 that there were delays due to the pandemic. In both May and June 2020, the resident postponed the works due to the risks from the Covid pandemic. On 8 July 2020, it was agreed that the works would go ahead.
According to the landlord’s internal records of 3 August 2020, the contractor completed the balcony glazing and works to the internal doors. It would fix some minor issues (cosmetic) with the doors in the coming weeks. The bedroom window would require a window specialist which would be arranged.
In August and September, the landlord updated the resident in the meantime and chased the contractor and the resident chased the complaint response.
The contractor confirmed on 11 September 2020 that on the previous day, the decoration works had been carried out, the doors were primed, and arrangements made to complete the painting of the doors. According to the resident, the contractor tried to adjust the bedroom window from its hinges, but not successfully.
The resident reported on 14 September 2020 that she was satisfied with the works to the bathroom wall. She reported that three out of the five doors were not level at the top and there were significant gaps in one of the doors. The door frames were scratched and chipped during the fitting.
The appointment of the 26 September 2020 was postponed due to resident’s concerns that the operative had a cold and was re-arranged for either 14 or 15 October 2020.
The contractor completed the “touch up works” on 25 October 2020. The landlord informed the resident that non-level doors would be within the normal expectation of a new build. All frames would need to be removed, walls repaired and redecorated, which in itself could worsen the issues. It would not be undertaking those works. In relation to the report that during the fitting of the doors, the door frames were scratched and chipped, the contractor believed it had done all it could to rectify this and no further action would be taken. It had completed the works and would review any compensation.
On 31 October 2020, the resident reported that the contractor attended but the marks on the door were still visible. She required compensation so that she could arrange for her own builders to fix the uneven doors and a repair or the colour paint/polish to repair the frames.
During the landlord’s internal deliberations, it could not identify whether it had received an estimate regarding the carpet. It also considered it was at risk of repairing what was not a defect. The landlord wrote to the contractor on 10 December 2020 to seek remedial works to the door frames however it was unable to evidence any damage that was not pre-existing. The contractor also wrote to the resident declining to undertake remedial works. The resident was prepared to polish the doors and requested the colour paint/polish and the contractor was also due to polish the doors on 12 December 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident with its third stage response on 16 December 2020.
1. It accepted that there were delays that were excessive.
2. Its position was that the remaining “cosmetic damage” was due to wear and tear, rather than a property defect or workmanship.
3. It did not meet its standards in terms of communicating and in delivering works in a reasonable timeframe. It set out the improvements it had made.
4. The installation of pest control measures was not its responsibility but was that of the freeholder.
5. Its complaint management and how long it took was not of an acceptable standard.
6. It offered the resident £1,500 as follows:
  1. £500 to recognise the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience.
  2. £500 for delays, including need to chase.
  3. £300 towards any further corrective works.
  4. £150 to recognise the poor complaints handling.
  5. £50 in recognition of missed or failed appointments.
According to an internal email of the landlord of 16 December 2020, the compensation of £300 was if the resident wanted to “repaint/repair any doors”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reported defects in her property including the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to her property and personal belongings by contractors.

This investigation was hampered by evidence missing which has been noted throughout this report. This demonstrated poor record-keeping on the part of the landlord which, in the view of the Ombudsman, contributed to the poor handling of this matter and frustration for the resident.
It is reasonable to assume that, according to the landlord’s defects list and comments, the developer did not consider a number of the issues raised by the resident to be defects. This included the carpet, the bedroom window, the kitchen wall units, the decoration and the chips on the balcony door.
The evidence showed that the security chain, some of the decorating issues and the stains on the kitchen units and internal doors (but not the rough edges) were raised after expiry of the defects period.
During the course of the complaint period, the resident raised further issues of poor workmanship and damage by the landlord’s contractors while they had carried out repairs and remedial works. These included scuff marks on the walls, poor decoration, and the fit and colour of the internal doors.
The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to consider what constituted a defect under the warranty, and to have either queried issues with the developer where it disagreed with the developer at the outset, such as the bedroom window installation, or provided a clear explanation to the resident why the issues she had raised were not deemed to be defects. There was no evidence that the landlord shared or discussed the annotated defects list with the resident or that it followed its own processes in relation to defects. On the contrary, it gave the impression at the outset that in the main it would address the issues the resident raised in her email of 12 June 2017. There was no indication that the landlord wrote to the resident after the inspection on 16 January 2018 to explain why it would not carry out certain works.
The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have monitored the developer’s actions and responses to the resident’s reports. The evidence showed that the landlord’s involvement, once it had raised the orders in June 2017, did not begin until she had made her complaint. At that stage, the resident expected the landlord to undertake the repairs in lieu of the developer. There was no evidence that the landlord either resisted or agreed with this position at the outset with any clarity.
The evidence indicated that the landlord did not itself consider the resident’s initial email and its own defects list until many months into the parties’ correspondence and that it was itself unclear about the list and assessments made. In the circumstances, given the confusion and poor communication, it was reasonable and appropriate of the landlord to give the resident the benefit of the doubt and treat the resident’s list of defects as actual defects.
While the landlord should have done so sooner, it was reasonable of the landlord to assess the bedroom window itself, and to seek to challenge the developer about whether it was defective. It was also reasonable not to attempt a repair, in case it invalidated the NHBC warranty.
Eventually, the landlord gave the impression, although not an absolute assurance, to the resident that it would consider repairing the window. It made enquiries and instructed its contractor to make such an effort which, in December 2019, according to the resident, made the window “a little better”.
Failing the developer declining to rectify the window, the next appropriate step would have been for the resident to make a claim under the NHBC warranty. While the landlord recognised this was the case internally, there was no evidence the landlord referred the resident to NHBC. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to assist in that regard, including supporting the resident’s view that the window was defective.
It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange the repair of the window’s trickle vent and handle. While there was a significant delay to the repair, it was reasonable of the landlord to pursue the matter with the developer first, and no fault is attributed to the landlord for the delay. While there was no conclusive evidence as to the cause of the damage to the handle, it was reasonable of the landlord to take a pragmatic view and repair the handle as well.
In relation to the balcony door, poor decoration and the kitchen door units, again the developer had not deemed they were defective. Again, if that was a reasonable position to adopt, the landlord should have addressed this with the resident early on. While it was reasonable of the landlord to focus on the bedroom window, this led the landlord to not address the remaining issues with any clarity. While there was an unreasonable delay in resolving the issues, given the delays, it was a reasonable exercise of the landlord’s discretion to repair the balcony door and undertake a redecoration to the eventual satisfaction of the resident and to offer compensation for the works it did not complete.
There was no reference to stained internal doors on the defect list. The resident raised the issue in her complaint of 11 July 2018. The landlord did not address the issue until July 2019 and there was no evidence that it referred back to the defects list. This left a lack of clarity. Again, the landlord exercised its reasonable discretion by not only replacing the doors but going to some trouble to ensure that they matched the existing doors to the extent of replacing all the internal doors. The landlord reasonably investigated the matter and its explanation that seeking to undertake a repair would exacerbate matters was reasonable in the circumstances. At that stage, it was a proportionate response to draw a line under the door repairs and make an offer of compensation in lieu of further works.
The Ombudsman considers that the sum of £300 to be a reasonable contribution to address the remaining cosmetic defects, including the poor decoration and the internal doors.
The carpet was raised in the defects list but was deemed to constitute wear and tear. Yet the evidence indicated that the landlord had arranged for a carpet fitter to attend, though this was not followed through. This gave an ambiguous message to the resident. It was an example of the landlord not reviewing its own records. However, it exercised its reasonable discretion and offered to meet the cost of a replacement, subject to a quotation. It was reasonable for the landlord to retain some discretion in terms of how much it would pay. The evidence indicated that the resident provided a quotation for carpeting on 14 February 2020 but there was no evidence that the landlord followed this up. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to honour its promises. While the complaint response was not clear in itself, the evidence showed that the landlord’s offer of £300 was not intended to cover the carpet. In any event, the Ombudsman does not consider that the offer of £300 for “further corrective works” would reasonably include the carpet as well, so will set a sum which is considered to be a reasonable contribution.
The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have reached a conclusion regarding the resident’s report of the damaged blind. There was no evidence of the outcome and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
There was no evidence of a reference to the security chain in the defects list, but the resident raised the issue in her complaint of 11 July 2018. The landlord did not address the issue until after July 2019. Despite its view that the chain did not present a defect and was the same as the others installed in the building, it again exercised its reasonable discretion and installed a new chain in January 2020.
While on a number of occasions, the landlord sought to be helpful and resolve the issue for the resident, once it made a promise and raised the resident’s expectations, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep to those promises, unless it had very good reason otherwise. The difficulty was not so much what steps it took but how it managed its communications and the resident’s expectations as well as the delays. The landlord accepted that there were delays to the works and that its communication was poor. Given some of the works were carried out as a reasonable exercise of the landlord’s discretion and, in some instances, the delays were not attributable to the landlord (such as the availability of materials), the Ombudsman considers that the total of £1,050 the landlord offered in relation to missed appointments, frustration, and delays was reasonable. Had the landlord not made this offer, the Ombudsman would have found maladministration rather than service failure regarding this complaint.
The Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to effect repairs that were not defects, but it had allowed the issues to drift. In the view of the Ombudsman, the landlord’s lack of methodical approach was partly due to poor record keeping by the landlord which led to delays and frustration for the resident. However, it rectified the matter and it reasonably exercised its discretion in the resident’s favour overall. Having raised the resident’s expectations, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to abide by its promises. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord not honouring its promise to pay a contribution for the carpet and for not resolving the issue of the bedroom window, which the landlord accepted was defective. The Ombudsman will set a sum in relation to the former and make an order regarding the latter.

The landlord’s handing of the resident’s request for pest control measures.

The evidence showed that the landlord clearly intended to address the pigeon infestation. The parties could not agree on the approach. It was understandable that the resident did not wish for her balcony to be enclosed in a net. However, it was for the landlord to determine the best approach, as long as it was reasonable. It was not satisfactory, however, to state it would take steps and then without any acknowledgement or explanation of its change of approach, state that it was not for the landlord to address the infestation. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have acknowledged it had changed its stance and provide a clear and reasonable explanation why. It referred the resident to the freeholder and managing agent, yet it had referred to itself as freeholder. This required the landlord to explain the relationships. The landlord could have considered launching a leaseholder consultation into the works. It would also expect the landlord to intervene with the managing agent rather than merely refer the resident to the “freeholder and/or developer” and the Ombudsman will make an order in that regard.

The landlord’s complaint handing.

The evidence showed that the various complaints officers kept, as far as was reasonable, the resident updated, and also advocated on behalf of the resident. The decision to delay escalation of the complaint was made with good intentions, if the proposal did not, ultimately, benefit the resident. It was reasonable, however, to escalate the complaint to the final stage. The final response was delayed partly due to the parties agreeing to a delay. However, this led to a significant delay to the complaint process. While the evidence demonstrated that discussions took place between the landlord’s various teams, and the various complaints officers constructively advocated for the resident, a holistic review of the position would have provided a clearer position by the landlord and assisted the landlord and resident relationship. It is better practice to address a complaint within the complaints policy timescale and put forward the solution as part of the resolution.
It was reasonable of the landlord to exclude fresh complaints and to consider damage as a result of the contractor’s works, especially given how protracted the complaints process had been. However, the landlord was not clear about what it considered to be a fresh matter and what it did not consider to be a fresh matter,
The final response recognised the delays and poor communication. The Ombudsman considers the landlord made a reasonable offer of compensation in relation to those issues. The resident considered that the £50 for the missed appointments did not cover her costs. However, the Ombudsman, while it would expect the landlord to recognise inconvenience caused by missed appointments, would not expect the landlord to compensate for example, for loss of earnings. The offer for missed appointments was in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and in the context of the overall compensation, in the view of the Ombudsman, was reasonable.
While the complaints process was constructive overall, recognised the landlord’s delays in its processes, and went some way to compensate to the resident, the final response did not take into account the various discussions the parties had had, including compensation for the carpet. It did not mention the bedroom window at all. It was not satisfactory to state at that late stage and in only broad, somewhat cursory and unspecific terms that its position was that cosmetic damage was due to wear and tear, rather than a property defect or poor workmanship. There was little sense that the complaint had been properly reviewed so as to provide a complete resolution or satisfactory explanation.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reported defects in her property, including the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to her property and personal belongings by contractors.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response in terms of its communication to the resident’s request for pest control measures.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While there were delays and poor communication by the landlord, the landlord reasonably exercised its discretion and made significant efforts to rectify the defects identified by the resident. It offered reasonable compensation in relation to the delays and outstanding issues regarding decoration and internal doors, but it did not follow through on its promises for compensation for the carpet or provide a resolution for repairs to the bedroom window.
The landlord gave assurances that it would effect pest control measures and then changed course without a proper explanation or offering any assistance.
While there were constructive aspects to the landlord’s complaint handling, it did not provide a satisfactory final response and address the compensation it had previously offered to the resident.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident within 28 days as follows:
1. The sum of £750 or the sum equivalent to the carpet estimate the resident provided to the landlord on 14 February 2020, whichever is the lower.
2. The sum of £100 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for pest control.
3. The sum of £50, in addition to the £150 already offered by the landlord, in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered, if it has not already done so, to assist the resident in making a claim to NHBC in relation to the defective bedroom window by writing to the NHBC explaining the reasons why the window was defective and reasons for any delay to the resident’s claim.
The landlord should provide a copy of the letter to the NHBC to the resident and the Ombudsman within 28 days.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should follow up its letter to the NHBC regarding the bedroom window and follow through to resolution with any assistance it can reasonably provide to the resident. If the claim, in the view of NHBC, fails due to the fault of the landlord, the landlord should consider an effective repair or, if necessary, replacement of the bedroom window.
2. The landlord should, if it has not done so already, provide a clear and reasonable explanation why it had initially offered assistance with the pest control measures and then changed its stance.
3. The landlord should assess the need for further pest control measures, and if appropriate, consider a leaseholder consultation, or, if not in a position to do so, write to the freeholder and/or developer in order to advocate for pest control measures.
4. The landlord should ensure that it provides clear timescales and criteria in relation to a resident reporting defects, that it engages in a discussion with the resident and developer/contractor in relation to those defects and communicates any assessments promptly and clearly. It should either provide a reasonable explanation why an issue is not a defect or provide a resolution. It should monitors progress of a resident’s claim under any warranty.
5. The landlord should review its record-keeping methods to ensure it can access its own records and monitor its own actions proactively.
6. The landlord should ensure that it adheres to its own complaints procedure and ensure that all relevant staff are aware of the Complaint Handling Code and consider attendance at training events, such as learning from complaints workshops – https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/workshops/.
7. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 28 days of this report.