Abri Group Limited (202007568)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007568

Abri Group Limited

26 November 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about defects in her property.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident has a shared ownership lease with the landlord. She purchased a new build house in November 2013. The defects liability period for the property ended in October 2014. The property currently benefits from National House Building Council (NHBC) warranty cover.
3. The landlord’s records show on 24 April 2020 the resident reported over the phone that her bedroom window frame was coming away from the main frame. The landlord advised it was not responsible for this issue as per the resident’s lease. The resident emailed the landlord the same day. She said she was dissatisfied it had said during the call that the repair was not covered under the building warranty. She said it was a “faulty item and not fitted securely”. She asked the landlord to provide a list of what items were covered under the building warranty. She also asked it to provide a copy of her NHBC certificate, and a copy of the insurance policy.
4. On 27 April 2020 the landlord provided the resident the NHBC certificate. It also provided details of the building insurance for the policy in case NHBC did not accept her claim.
5. On 6 May 2020 the resident sent the landlord and NHBC an email relating to issues in her home. She explained that she was unsure “whether the following issues [were] required to be recorded and managed jointly or independently”. She set out that her main concerns were rodents in her loft, a hole in her main drainpipe, and the bedroom window. She said she had previously paid for pest control services to attend, and for a drain survey. She asked the landlord and NHBC what information they required “in order to expedite a claim, financial reimbursement and resolution”.
6. The landlord responded to the resident on 7 May 2020. It said her “report and requests for compensation” would need to be dealt with by NHBC directly. It said it had logged her reports and notified its team.
7. On 13 May 2020 the resident advised the landlord that NHBC had said her issues were not covered by its policy, and so it would not process her claim. She said NHBC had also advised that she needed to deal directly with the landlord. The landlord acknowledged her email the following day. It said it would respond within ten working days.
8. The landlord emailed the resident on 22 May 2020. It said she was responsible for dealing with rodents as per the leaseholders’ handbook. It said the pipe damage would be considered a potential latent defect and advised her to contact NHBC directly to pursue a claim for this. It asked her to provide details on the claim she had already made with NHBC concerning the pipe so it could review the matter. It said the windows would be considered a maintenance item, and the resident’s responsibility in line with the leaseholders’ handbook. It advised her to contact the window manufacturer to see whether the issue was covered under the manufacturer’s warranty.
9. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 June 2020. She said NHBC had said it would look further into the pipe issue. She asked for a copy of the air and water test certificate “that was performed on the drains and was subsequently then signed off.” The landlord acknowledged the email on 11 June 2022, and said it would respond within ten working days. The landlord responded on 19 June 2020. It advised her to contact it if she needed further information to progress her claim for the pipe. It said the air and water test certificate was “covered under one of the key stage inspections carried out by the NHBC as they also carried out the Building Control Survey and they may be able to provide you with this information.”
10. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 29 July 2020. She said she was dissatisfied with “the level of service and lack of support provided and decisions made” by the landlord. She said the landlord had not handled her complaint from 24 April 2020 or subsequent emails “effectively or appropriately”. She said she was dissatisfied that when she contacted the landlord, it would initially say it would respond within two working days, and then issue a further response saying it would respond within ten working days. She said she was dissatisfied “with the accountability of proceeding with, and managing these complaints being deflected to [her]” (this is understood to be in reference to the landlord signposting her to NHBC). She said she thought there would be a shared approach to issues from having a shared ownership lease. She said the landlord organised for an independent assessor to attend on 23 July to complete a report (it is unclear what for). She asked for a copy of their report.
11. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 4 August 2020. It said it would issue its stage one complaint response within ten working days.
12. On 19 August 2020 the resident asked the landlord for an update on her complaint, and for copy of the report. The landlord responded the following day and said it was chasing the report. It said it would contact her within two working days to provide a further response.
13. On 24 August 2020 the landlord said it had been unable to obtain the report but would continue to chase it. It said it would provide the report, and complaint response within two working days.
14. The resident advised the landlord on 9 September 2020 that NHBC had attended to inspect her home. She said NHBC had accepted her claim for the pipe but rejected her claim for the windows and rodents. She said the faults were “defective items [she] believe[d] occurred during installation.” She requested a copy of the report.
15. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 16 September 2020. It said it had previously advised her that as a shared owner she was responsible for raising a claim with NHBC. It said they would be able to guide her through the claim process. It said she was also responsible for updating it on the progress of the claim. It said there was no further action for it to take in terms of the claim. It said response timeframes were part of its policy and it could therefore not consider complaints about them. It said she was unable to escalate her complaint as all action had been completed, and the resolution would be unchanged.
16. Following contact from the resident, this Service emailed the landlord on 16 December 2020. We asked it to get in touch with the resident if the issues remained outstanding and provide a written complaint response if it had not done so.
17. The landlord emailed this Service on 13 January 2021. It said it provided its final response to the resident in September 2020. It said it advised her NHBC needed to handle her enquiry. It said it understood that NHBC had been liaising with the property developer which built the property. The landlord said it had taken it had taken all possible action relating to the matter, and the resident would need to liaise directly with NHBC. This Service did not receive the email.
18. On 12 March 2021 this Service contacted the landlord again. We said we had not received a response to our email from 16 December 2020. We asked it to provide an update and, or a final response within five days.
19. The landlord contacted us on 17 March 2021. It said it previously responded on 13 January 2021 and apologised if it had not been received. It said it closed the resident’s complaint in September 2020 as she needed to pursue her issues with NHBC, and the developer. It said because NHBC were an independent organisation, and because the resident had already raised a complaint with NHBC, it could not provide further assistance.
20. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 April 2021. She said she was dissatisfied with its assistance “in trying to reach a suitable solution to the defects”. She said the landlord “did not clearly read the copious emails” she had sent it regarding the defects.
21. On 29 April 2021, following contact from the resident, this Service asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. We asked it to provide a response within 20 working days.
22. The landlord issued a further stage two complaint response on 16 June 2021. It said it met its service delivery guidelines regarding communication when initially corresponding with the resident in 2020. It felt it had done everything it could to support her. It explained that all shared owners were responsible for repairs in their home, including major structural repairs, in accordance with their lease. The only exception were defects raised within the builder liability period which it processed on behalf of the resident. It said residents were to handle their claim with NHBC themselves to give them more control over the claim and make them the point of contact for NHBC and the builder.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

23. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, she has referenced her dissatisfaction with NHBC and the property developer in terms of their communication, and handling of the defects. The property developer and NHBC are not social landlords and therefore they are not members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. In accordance with paragraph 35 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will only consider complaints about the actions of omissions of a member.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects.

24. The resident’s lease agreement sets out that she is responsible for keeping the premises in good and substantial repair and condition. The leaseholder handbook states that shared owners of houses are responsible for all repairs. The resident is responsible for dealing with any pests in their home, at their expense. The landlord’s procedure for handling reports of defects states that if a resident’s property is over two years old, when the defect is reported, they will need to contact NHBC themselves to see whether their claim is valid.
25. Any defect reported after the defect period would usually be dealt with under the warranty. In this case, the resident’s property benefits from NHBC warranty. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost her to NHBC to report her concerns. NHBC would be able to investigate her claim and arrange any necessary repairs, if the claim was approved. The evidence shows that the resident did make a claim to NHBC concerning her pipe, and NHBC accepted it. Therefore, the landlord gave the resident accurate, and appropriate advice concerning this issue.
26. The landlord advised the resident on 22 May 2020 that she was responsible for the window repair, and for dealing with pests in her home. This was a reasonable response as in accordance with the resident’s lease, she is responsible for keeping the property in good and substantial repair and condition. The leaseholders handbook also confirms that as a shared owner of a house, the resident is responsible for all repairs in her home, and for dealing with pests. The landlord would only be responsible for pest control in very limited circumstances, if the pests were entering through a defect in the structure of the property and the defect had been reported during the defects period. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to remind her of her responsibilities in this regard. It also advised her to contact the window manufacturer to see whether the window issue was covered under the manufacturer’s warranty. This was a reasonable suggestion to help the resident obtain the outcome she was seeking.
27. The resident asked the landlord to provide air and water test certificates. The landlord advised her to request these from NHBC. It said the certificates were covered under one of the key inspections carried out by NHBC. This was a reasonable response as it explained why NHBC would be more suitable to handle her request and provide the information she needed.
28. In her stage one complaint, the resident raised concerns with the landlord’s communication and its response timeframes. The evidence shows that before the resident’s complaint, the landlord would acknowledge her email, and say it would respond within ten working days. The landlord managed her expectations, and it is understandable that it would need time to respond to her queries.
29. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it reiterated that it was not responsible for the issues that the resident had reported and advised her to liaise directly with NHBC. Ultimately, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the landlord was responsible for the issues the resident reported. Therefore, it was reasonable for it to signpost her elsewhere. It responded promptly to her queries and set her expectations.

Complaint Handling

30. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that it commits to responding to complaints within ten working days. If it requires more time, it will contact the resident. The policy also explains that if it refuses to escalate a complaint to stage two of its process, it will advise the resident of this in writing.
31. The resident raised a formal complaint on 29 July 2020. She chased the landlord for updates on the status of her complaint throughout August 2020. The landlord advised her on 20 and 24 August 2020 that it would provide its response within two working days. It issued its stage one complaint response on 16 September 2020, 35 workings days after the resident had raised the complaint. There was an unreasonable delay in providing its response. The landlord exceeded its target response timeframe of ten working days and failed on two occasions to follow through with what it had advised the resident, therefore failing to manage her expectations.
32. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it failed to provide the report from the independent assessor the resident had requested on multiple occasions or explain why it was it was unable to provide this. The landlord was aware of the resident’s request as it had advised her on 20 and 24 August 2020 that it was chasing the report. It was therefore unreasonable for it not to acknowledge or respond to her request in its complaint response.
33. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response it said the resident was unable to escalate her complaint as the resolution would not be changed at stage two of its process. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations regarding how landlords should handle complaints. The Code states “a landlord’s complaints procedure shall comprise of two stages. This ensures residents have an opportunity to challenge any decision by correcting errors or sharing concerns”. In this case, although the landlord explained why it would not escalate the complaint it was still unreasonable for it not to give the resident the opportunity to set out why she remained dissatisfied. However, it is noted that the landlord later acted reasonably, and escalated her complaint to stage two if its internal process.
34. Following intervention from this Service, and the landlord reiterating its stage one complaint response on 17 March 2021, the resident escalated her complaint on 27 April 2021. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 16 June 2021. This was an unreasonable delay of 34 working days, as no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the landlord updating the resident to advise her that its response would be delayed. The landlord also failed to acknowledge, or apologise for its delay in its complaint response, as it should have. These errors in complaint handling would have caused distress and inconvenience for the resident and the landlord should pay compensation for this, as set out below.

Determination (decision)

35. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about property defects.
36. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

37. The landlord’s suggestion that the resident pursue a claim with NHBC concerning a defect to her drainpipe was reasonable. Also, its responses to her concerns with pests, and her window were in accordance with the lease, which says the resident is responsible for any repairs. There is no evidence to show these issues were reported to the landlord within the defects period and therefore the landlord would not be responsible for repairing them.
38. However, the landlord delayed issuing its stage one and two complaint responses and failed to acknowledge or apologise for these delays. These errors in complaint handling would have caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident and the landlord should pay her £150 compensation her for this.

Order

39. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 for the inconvenience and delay experienced as a result of the failings identified with the landlord’s complaint handling.

This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.