Home Group Limited (202111072)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111072

Home Group Limited

22 May 2023

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of defects in the doors and windows of a new build house.
2. The Ombudsman has also decided to consider the landlord’s complaint handling as part of this complaint. Although this was not addressed directly in the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, paragraph 44 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme allows the Ombudsman discretion to consider such issues based on the evidence of failure presented.

Background

3. The resident occupies a three-bedroom semi-detached house on a new build estate. The estate itself is primarily made up of tenanted properties owned by the landlord. The resident occupies the property on a leasehold, shared-ownership basis along with their daughter. The landlord owns the freehold for the property. The resident moved into their property in 2012. The house itself was built in 2011 and used as a show home for the estate until the shared-ownership sale was completed in 2012.
4. The resident and daughter both have illnesses which means that they need to carefully control the ambient conditions in their property. In particular, they need to avoid getting too cold as it can be dangerous for their health.
5. On 23 May 2020, the resident raised concerns to the landlord about the state of the windows. One of the windows had warped and others needed to be painted. The landlord replied to the resident a week later to confirm the type of paint used elsewhere in the street. It also stated that, as an owner-occupier, repairs were the resident’s responsibility. In July 2020, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. They said that their surveyor believed that the windows should be guaranteed for 10 years. The landlord asked for evidence of the defects so it could investigate. The resident sent in pictures as evidence which were sent to the landlord’s maintenance team to review. It concluded that the damage was likely caused by wear and tear but would need to visit the property to be sure.
6. In September 2020, it arranged a visit from its own surveyor to establish if there were any latent defects. The landlord’s surveyor concluded that the faults were present in the property, however they were likely to be caused by wear and tear. It was not possible to prove that any latent defects were present. The surveyor also concluded that the resident had not maintained the paintwork on the windows and doors in line with the manufacturer’s guidelines, and therefore any warranty was likely to be void.
7. Between November 2020 and May 2021 there was regular communication between the resident and landlord. The resident was shielding due to COVID guidance in place at the time, but the landlord did agree to have a second independent surveyor inspect the property. The surveyor inspected the resident’s property along with some others on the estate. The surveyor also contacted the manufacturers of the windows. In May 2021, the manufacturer’s confirmed:
   1. The windows should be repainted every 5 years.
   2. The warranty in place only lasted for 8 years from the point of installation.
8. Having not heard from the landlord for some time, in August 2021, the resident contacted this Service to ask it to intervene in getting the landlord to respond to their complaint. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 September 2021 with its stage 1 complaint response. This rejected the complaint for the following reasons:
   1. The faults in the property were caused by wear and tear, and not a latent defect.
   2. Maintenance of the property was the resident’s responsibility.
   3. The warranty in place on the windows had expired.
   4. As the windows were not maintained in line with manufacturer’s guidelines, that warranty would not have covered the damage had it been in place.
9. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 the next day. They believed that the property remained in the period where defects were the landlord’s responsibility. In addition, because of the complaint, other houses on the estate were scheduled for works to repaint the window frames as part of the landlord’s cyclical repairs.
10. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 3 November 2021 and sent its final response on 15 December 2021 following intervention from the Ombudsman. That final response confirmed the findings of the stage 1 response. It confirmed that cyclical works on the windows and doors of other properties on the estate were taking place, but the resident was not eligible for these. The complaint was escalated to the Ombudsman on the basis that the resident still believes the landlord is responsible for the damage. The resident has since undertaken the work themselves but alleges that further damage has been caused by the delay.

Solar panel complaint

11. In 2020, the resident raised another complaint with this Service. That complaint related to issues with solar panels on the property. The Ombudsman issued its determination on that complaint in 2021. While most of that complaint is unrelated to this one, there are small areas on which they cross over which will be referenced as appropriate.

Assessment and findings

Defects

12. Under the terms of the shared ownership agreement, the resident is required to “repair maintain renew uphold and keep the Premises … in good and substantial repair and in particular to cleanse decorate repair maintain support and uphold the Premises as often as need shall require”. The landlord is responsible for maintaining “common areas”, however as the property is a house there are no common areas which fall within this complaint.
13. Normally, new build properties benefit from the NHBC guarantee. This insures properties against latent defects present from when the property was built for a period of 10 years, passing to new owners as required. However, that guarantee only covers faults present due to failure to build properties in line with construction guidelines and does not cover faults due to “wear and tear, neglect or damage”.
14. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters from when the property was built. Generally, such matters would need to be raised to the landlord within a reasonable period to be considered within our jurisdiction. While it is acknowledged that the resident may not have been aware of issues for some time, we can only consider whether the landlord took reasonable action once the issues were brought to their attention.
15. It is unclear what information was given to the resident at the point of entering into the shared-ownership agreement. It is reasonable to expect that a resident would make enquiries if there was anything regarding the property that they were unsure of. In any event, it is the responsibility of the resident, and their solicitor, to ensure that they are aware of their responsibilities when purchasing a property. Additionally, the resident enquired about decorating in 2017 according to the landlord’s records. They were told at this time that as an owner they were responsible for all such work.
16. It is not in dispute that there is damage to the windows and doors in the resident’s property. The resident is very clear that they believe the windows and doors were not properly treated when the house was built and therefore it is a latent defect. On this basis the landlord investigated the damage to establish the cause. In both their own investigation, and the independent investigation, surveyors found that the damage was caused by:
    1. Wear and tear.
    2. Failure to maintain in line with manufacturer’s guidelines.
17. The resident has told us that their surveyor believed the windows should have had a 10-year guarantee. However, the landlord did enquire with the manufacturer on this point who confirmed there was a warranty of 8 years from construction. This meant the warranty expired in 2019, even if the windows had been maintained. The manufacturer also confirmed that the windows and doors should be painted every five years. There is no evidence that any painting was completed prior to the resident raising their complaint.
18. There was an additional point raised by the resident that the beading around the windows had failed. The landlord’s surveyor concluded that this was likely wear and tear and not something it was responsible for. However, there was also a suggestion that it may have been caused by overheating due to the malfunctioning solar panels on the property. In our previous determination, the Ombudsman decided that the landlord was not responsible for the malfunctioning solar panels and therefore, this point has not been considered in this complaint.
19. Based on the evidence available, any damage in the property was caused by wear and tear, or neglect, and therefore the landlord has no responsibility to repair or redecorate the windows. Any delay by the landlord in responding to the resident’s concerns would not affect this determination. The defect period for new build properties also does not apply because there is no evidence that the property was not built in line with construction standards.

Complaint handling

20. The landlord’s policy on complaint handling sets out “standards” with which it handles complaints. This includes “Communication and Customer Involvement” and “Timely and effective complaint handling”. The landlord further sets out its process on its website. There, it gives the following timescales for responding to a complaint:
    1. Stage 1 – 10 working days unless it is complex, in which case a further 10 working days. The landlord aims to contact residents where this happens.
    2. Stage 2 – 20 working days. If it takes longer than this, the landlord will explain to the resident when it expects to be able to provide a response.
21. The resident raised the complaint to the landlord on 20 July 2020, and the landlord acknowledged receipt on 4 August 2020, requesting further evidence. This was already outside the 10-working day window for responding to the complaint. Following two inspections and contact from this Service, a response to the complaint was sent on 15 September 2021, over a year later. There was no indication from the landlord at any point when it expected to be able to provide a response, or any explanation or consideration of the delay for the resident. There is also evidence that the landlord delayed sending the response after it had received the relevant reports in May 2021.
22. The landlord, during this time, was dealing with another complaint from the resident. There were also delays due to COVID guidance in place at the time and the complexity of arranging the independent surveyor. However, these factors do not explain the extent of the delay or the lack of transparent communication from the landlord.
23. When the complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the process, it took nearly 2 months for the landlord to acknowledge receipt and 3 months to issue its response. Again, this was outside its own processes for responding to the complaint. Based on these two excessive and unjustified delays, there has been a finding of service failure. The landlord should consider how to ensure that its policy is followed in practice by staff.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of defects in the property. This is because the landlord had no responsibility for repairing or maintaining the resident’s property and there is no evidence of a latent defect.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because the landlord failed to respond to the complaint in a reasonable timeframe or keep the resident informed of its progress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

26. The landlord is hereby ordered, within four weeks of the date of this report, to pay £100 to the resident for distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in responding to their complaint.

Recommendations

27. The landlord should share the findings of this report with relevant staff members.
28. The landlord should consider updating its policy to ensure that the complaint journey is considered when responding to a complaint.