Home Group Limited (202118954)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118954

Home Group Limited

28 June 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

The complaint is about the landlords:
1. Handling of the residents reports of defects at his property.
2. Handling of the residents reports of the lack of communal maintenance at his property.
3. Communication and complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(m)of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: 42(m) seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
While the resident brought an individual complaint to the Ombudsman, the landlord responded to a group complaint and some of the issues contained within the group complaint have already been the subject of a determination by the Ombudsman and therefore will not be investigated again in this report. However, those issues although outside the scope of this investigation, may be referenced and subject to recommendations below.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(m) of the Scheme, the following aspects of the group complaint are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

b) Handling of the residents reports of the lack of communal maintenance at his property.

For the avoidance of doubt, this investigation will focus on issues which were uniquely pertinent to the resident. This includes:
1. The landlords handling of the residents reports of defects at his property.
2. Communication and complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a three bed flat on the ground floor of block A, he is a joint shared owner of a new build property, the lease started on 26 February 2021. The property was then subject to a 12 month defects liability period.
The lease states the resident has a “right to use” a parking space which the landlord designates.
The lease states the resident must “as often as is reasonably necessary” “decorate or treat as appropriate all parts of the inside of the property that are usually decorated or treat in a good and proper manner, using good quality, suitable materials”.
The landlord’s property management policy states “contractors are responsible for any defective works that are not in accordance with the contract within the Defects Liability Period where applicable” and “any other works not considered to be a defect within the Defects Liability Period will be dealt with as a responsive repair”. This policy uses the below definition for a defect:
1. “Defects are aspects of the works that are not in accordance with the contract”.
The landlord’s website indicates it has a two stage complaints process, with stage one complaints responded to within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.

Summary of Events

In an email dated 2 September 2020 the landlord advised prospective residents “all ground floor apartments will have their own outdoor space with boundaries – similar to the balconies.”
A welcome letter dated 26 February 2021, advised the property was in a defects liability period until 24 February 2022. It detailed how the resident could report defects during this time. The letter noted the property had “been snagged and only genuine defects” would be attended to, “cosmetic items” would not be considered a defect and would not be attended to during the defect liability period.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 May 2021 to express his concern over the parking situation and asked for advice on what he could do to prevent people using his space. He also sought clarification on what the service charge was for as he had not seen any maintenance work since he completed in February 2021.
The resident was one of ten who brought a group complaint to the landlord, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 May 2021. Within its acknowledgement it confirmed what was to be investigated, including:
1. Outstanding defects across a number of properties and communal areas.
2. Lack of communal gardening and cleaning.
3. Request of transparency regarding the service charge.
The landlord provided a decision letter for the group complaint on 3 June 2021, within this the landlord advised of fortnightly meetings with all of the relevant areas to provide a thorough response to all the issues raised. It confirmed numerous points including, but not limited to:
1. Residents were advised once they moved in that a snag list had been completed, therefore further snags could not be submitted. A handover report was sent to all residents. Anything after completion would have been a defect and the sales team had been advised to use the correct terminology in future.
2. The sales team caused confusion when it advised residents to set up a Whatsapp group to discuss parking arrangements, even though the sales brochure and legal documents showed boundary lines which confirmed the three bed properties were sold with exclusive use of a parking space.
3. An in depth survey about the plumbing issues had been requested and it was waiting for an update. The plumbing issues were not being classed as a defect by the developer.
4. Individual issues with poor quality paintwork was being addressed, however it confirmed the snagging during the build phase was completed to a high standard.
5. All residents would be given access to a defect portal.
6. The developer had attended reported defects in a timely manner but multiple appointments may had been required depending on the defect.
7. The developer had a site manager which had improved the service level agreement.
8. The communal gardening and cleaning was being looked at and it hoped to provide additional feedback by 10 June 2021. The service charge would reflect this.
9. An in depth explanation to each of the service figures would be provided, so residents were aware what they were paying for.
Additionally, the landlord committed to further actions before the complaint could be closed including:
1. Carrying out all the defect works within a timely manner.
2. Providing a response to service charge enquiries.
3. Arranging for cleaning and garden works to begin.
The landlord also stated it would advise all residents of a “compensation offer” following completion of the necessary actions and gave a point of contact to resolve the complaint.
The landlord provided a further stage one complaint response to the group complaint on 17 June 2021. Within its response it apologised for the length of time taken to communicate information, although this response was similar to that of 3 June 2021, it included but wasn’t limited to the following as additional updates:
1. It advised snagging was not accepted as a defect item under the defects liability period and only using its discretion would it pick up snagging items. And it would have rejected items as they were not defects.
2. With regards to the issues around parking it advised which properties according to individual leases had the exclusive right to use a parking space.
3. It needed to establish a compensation figure to customers not willing to allow access to rectify individual paintwork issues, this would be done following the complaint closure.
4. A named member of staff was working to resolve the complaint property by property and had a “vague road map of an action plan which would be discussed individually”.
5. It previously advised an update for the communal gardening and cleaning would be by 10 June 2021, this had not happened. It was trying to source a new garden contractor to deliver the service on an interim measure as the named contractor was currently unable to provide the service. It was waiting on “the contract instruction” for the cleaning which had been chased.
6. It referenced a flat in particular when updating on the boundary line issue, advising the boundary was meant to be fully grown bushes which would act as “anti-robbery deterrents”. It acknowledged that what was planted was small twigs and would take years to grow fully therefore it was still investigating this issue.
The landlord noted within this letter it had arranged for a stage two review and contact would be made within 5-7 working days.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 June 2021 saying he had not heard from them following a “visit about a month ago”, he expressed his disappointment in the lack of communication from the landlord.
An internal meeting took place on 6 July 2021, minutes of the meeting included but wasn’t limited to the following:
1. The developer had denied plumbing issues were defects.
2. A contractor had been instructed to rectify painting issues.
3. If the developer would not resolve the reported defects the landlord would look to instruct another contractor.
4. A one off clean had been arranged.
5. It would need to check the landscaping plans about the boundary planting.
6. Written updates were needed to improve communication.
A further internal meeting took place on 21 July 2021 and minutes of that meeting are considered in its letter dated 26 July 2021.
The landlord provided a stage two decision letter for the group complaint on 26 July 2021. Within this update the landlord advised the complaint had been reviewed by a senior member of staff and whilst snags and defects would be expected in new build properties, it accepted that the communication and management of customer expectations fell significantly below its expected standards. It went on to say it was addressing the issues raised by the residents and holding regular meetings to ensure things were progressed as soon as possible.
The landlord also provided the minutes of meetings held on 6 July 2021 and 21 July 2021 along with its response for reference and said progress had been made on a number of the issues raised by residents. It also advised of further updates as below:
1. The communal cleaning contract started on 16th July and would continue weekly, each Friday.
2. The gardening service would resume shortly, although it could not confirm a start date but would update in due course.
3. Although car parking signage was not part of the original design/specification it would instruct and pay for markings in each of the spaces.
4. The developer would check what had been delivered against the original design plans in reference to the boundary.
The landlord confirmed in this response that the majority of individual defects reported separately by residents appeared to had been resolved. The landlord apologised for the lack of clear updates and inconvenience caused as it worked through the numerous issues, it referenced valuable lessons to learn from the complaint which it was committed to doing so. Within its response it advised the residents could approach this service if they remained unsatisfied.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 July 2021 thanking the landlord for the letter in the post, it is not clear if the resident was referencing the above but advised he felt some key issues were missed or forgotten. These issues were:
1. The resident advised he expected some compensation to be able to repaint his property in his own time, especially as he was expected to keep the property in a good state of repair.
2. the resident said he had been told for months the cleaning and garden maintenance would start soon, he requested a date and compensation for not being able to use communal spaces due to this. He raised concerns about safety for children on the estate as the communal gardens had fox holes.
3. the resident reiterated the confusion around parking due to spaces not being numbered and said he “shouldn’t have to find my parking space being used by some random person when I return home from work”.
4. the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the plumbing contractors, advising it had taken six months to fix the small flush.
5. the resident felt the ‘bushing’ plants were a terrible decision and had simply failed to do what they were intended to do.
The resident said the length of time it was taking to resolve the issues was distressing especially as he had a baby, the disruption caused by constant visits by contractors madehis family feel extremely unsettled and uncomfortable. The resident said he didnot think the landlord was taking the high number of defects in such a short period of time seriously.
Following this the landlord provided its stage two response to the group complaint on 6 August 2021, within its response it acknowledged the outstanding issues from residents and addressed each point. This included but was not limited to:
1. Poor quality paint work throughout the properties. It said it was happy to arrange for any issues with paintwork to be resolved and the areas in question to be re-painted to resident’s satisfaction and in line with the original specification, all residents had also been offered the option of a carpet clean and it would be writing to residents individually regarding the offer of a paint touch up or recoat. It acknowledged some residents had requested compensation instead, however it felt the offer to re-paint to a satisfactory standard and arrange a professional carpet clean was a fair and reasonable resolution to this element of the complaint. It apologised for this issue.
2. It acknowledged and accepted that the service provided was inconsistent and there was room for considerable improvement. In the interim it had taken steps to try and improve the situation and believed it had been able to make some progress.
3. The landlord disputed that most properties had plumbing issues advising according to its records it had 13 issues logged and being progressed. It did not think any systemic issues or failures occurred. It did however acknowledge there could be plumbing issues that were not being reported.
4. It acknowledged the difficulties it had experienced with cleaning and garden maintenance contractors and accepted that those services had not been provided. It apologised sincerely for any inconvenience caused in relation to this. It went on to confirm no service charge would be charged to residents during the time the services were not provided.
5. In relation to gardening, it advised it expected the grounds maintenance to commence from 16th August.
6. In relation to cleaning, the landlord detailed numerous attempts to get a contract in place even though these went without success and no service was in place for five months. It did acknowledge however it had challenged the contractor on its performance and would monitor in future. It attached the cleaning specification for information.
7. The landlord reiterated it agreed to arrange additional signage for the car parking spaces and it would cover the cost, despite it not being part of the original design specification. Residents would be updated when this would take place.
8. In reference to the boundary issue, it advised it had been agreed that it would replace the current boundary with more established plants.
9. The landlord agreed response times and communications could have been better, there was now a regular email bulletin in place to update residents on “generic’ issues”.
10. The landlord confirmed that windows should be cleaned quarterly, and glass paned doors should be cleaned weekly.
The landlord clarified the residents wanted compensation for:
1. poor quality work
2. inconvenience of constant operatives having to access the property,
3. time taken to resolve matters.
4. lack of access to communal gardens.
The landlord offered each resident £140 for:
1. poor quality work and service
2. lack of access to facilities, eg. gardens
3. disruption, inconvenience and delays caused by multiple visits by contractors.
The landlord reiterated the overall level of service provided and the quality of some of the work, had fallen significantly below its high standards. It agreed this was unacceptable and committed to carrying out a thorough review and lesson learned exercise, once its primary objective of completing all of the 46 outstanding issues had been satisfactorily achieved.
The landlord provided internal communications between different departments between the dates 21 May 2021 and 2 September 2021 to show what actions it took in response to the issues raised and what could be done to resolve them.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 August 2021 to ask whether the damage to his flat would be repaired following a toilet leak, he advised it had been about “3/4weeks since it happened and mould was returning”. He requested a portion of the wall be replaced in case the mould had travelled, new skirting, carpet and flooring. He sent a further email on 26 August 2021 chasing up this request advising he had been contacted by the contractor about the painting but the repairs needing doing first, he also stated he was cleaning the mould away every day.
The landlord provided minutes of a meeting held on 24 September 2021 titled “lessons learned” within the minutes the following was noted:
1. Key learning points included improvements to the handover from developer to landlord.
2. Improved communications were required as it was misleading to suggest a housing manager could support customer queries.
3. It needed to review the way it communicates delays to customers.
4. Management to check procedures are adhered to when launching on site.
5. A pre handover meeting would be beneficial.
6. It would be helpful to map out who did what in response to issues raised from a new build development.
7. It needed to manage customer expectations better.
8. Collaboration between teams needed improving as part of the handover process.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 September 2021 advising no cleaning or gardening had taken place in the last month, the resident advised it was “disappointing, especially as it took so long for them to start.”
The landlord responded to this email on 8 October 2021 sharing the residents disappointment and advising the issue was part of the wider complaint at the development and he should be receiving updates about it.
From the evidence provided the landlord contacted the developer on 4 October 2021 to advise as it had been trying to reach out to them for “months on end” if the jobs identified at handover were not completed within 24 hours it would instruct another contractor to complete the jobs and “contra charge the cost back”. The landlord attached the snag list from the handover showing which jobs remained incomplete. Of these the resident’s property had the following marked as incomplete:
1. Cracking to frame and back marks to edges
2. Dot and dab marks showing through the wall, touch up visible, paint whole wall.
3. Multiple scratches and marks on the wall visible.
The landlord sent a further email on 4 November 2021 to the resident asking for confirmation the following issues had been completed:
1. Building materials/mess under plinth and plinth panels do not have clips.
2. Flush plate fall off the wall.
3. Bedroom 3 cracking to frame and back marks to edges.
4. Bedroom 1 dot and dab marks showing through wall, touch up visible paint whole wall.
5. Living room, multiple scratches and marks on wall visible.
The resident confirmed to the landlord on 9 November 2021 what works had been completed, the landlord responded the same day noting its contractor had not completed some of the works.
In approaching this service on 15 November 2021, the resident listed the following as the main focus of his complaint:
1. Poor customer service and communications
2. Below standard accommodation
3. Lack of transparency and honesty in communication
4. Lack of service
5. Insufficient response times/ time to resolve concerns.
The resident also stated that following the landlord’s final response he had seen no significant improvement, or genuine acknowledgement of the, in his opinion, shocking service and standard of accommodation received. He said an offer of £140 compensation was refused as it was viewed as “derisory”.
The resident gave the following updates on progress following on from the landlord’s final complaint response. This included:
1. Vouchers were offered to one resident to buy paint but the offer was then rescinded when others asked for the same. The offer for operatives to patch areas of concerns was offered in comparison.
2. When he used the portal to report defects, he was advised to email the issues as well.
3. Correspondence would often go unacknowledged and there was no mechanism in place to escalate concerns despite numerous requests.
4. Communal gardening had taken place twice since February and was, in the residents view, completed to a poor standard. Furthermore, he stated the communal garden was not safe to use in summer.
5. Communal cleaning had taken place a handful of times and again in the residents view, completed to a poor standard.
6. The boundary planting was not resolved, he stated residents felt unsafe and unable to allow pets or children to use the garden space. The resident references an incident on 13 October 2021 where a contractor accessed a garden without prior notice by simply walking across the boundary. It is not evident however that this related to this resident.
7. No exterior window cleaning had taken place since the resident moved in.
In a further update to this service on 21 December 2021 the resident confirmed numerous issues remained ongoing, these included:
1. The paint work throughout the property being of poor standard since moving in, the resident stated this was to the extent that if you leant against a wall, white paint would transfer on to clothing. As he had lived in the property for 10months at this stage he thought it would be too disruptive for contractors to rectify this. The resident stated he would like vouchers to be issued so that he can paint his property himself.
2. A senior member of staff had become involved due to the inconsistent customer service. In the residents view communication from the housing officer remained poor, dishonest and inconsistent therefore he requested all communication to be in writing. The resident hoped this to improve with other departments involved.
3. The resident said it took months of chasing for any action to be taken in relation to gardening and cleaning, according to the resident no communal gardening took place until the end of August. Owners were assured they would be reimbursed for lack of service in the next financial year.
4. Additionally, the resident would like compensation to be paid for not having access or use of the communal garden and no cleaning of communal areas from February through to the end of August 2021, alongside the reimbursement of service charge fees for this timeframe and evidence of invoices for goods received.
5. The resident first raised the issue that his garden did not have a sufficient boundary when he first moved in. He said he could not have full enjoyment of his garden as the concern that dogs/foxes could have been in his garden makes it unsafe for his family. The landlord advised a new hedge would be planted in March 2022 which will need to grow in, the resident would like assurance that this boundary will be safe and secure, he would also like compensation to be paid for not being able to use his garden for a year.
6. The resident would like a full reimbursement of service charges for window cleaning, for the service to be put in place and evidence of invoices paid and goods received.
The resident also stated in this update that he had experienced.
1. Poor quality paint work (walls and ceiling)
2. Rubble left behind by contractors.
3. Flooring covered in paint.
4. Flooring overlapping/lifting with gaps.
5. Broken toilet flush x 2
6. Leak in en-suite shower x 1
7. Toilet leaking (over a period of months x 1) causing substantial damage to the adjoining room, causing mould in the carpet/walls and flooring outside of the room.
The resident stated he understood a certain level of defects would be expected in new build homes but he did not understand why handover was delayed due to quality issues to then be handed over and he experience a poor standard. The resident would like compensation for not getting the quality of property he paid for, proof of the full inspection and compliance documents for his property and an extension of the defect period for his property given the plumbing issues he had experienced.
The landlord provided this service with an update on 6 April 2023 which stated the resident and many of his neighbours had been in regular communication with the landlord since moving into the property. It confirmed the development was developed by an external organisation, upon completion a number of defects were identified and further to this, customers also began to identify “latent defects” and other issues after moving in.
The aftercare team sought quotes to replace the original and insufficient planting and as far it was aware this was actioned.
The landlord also confirmed:
1. The correct procedure was followed for allowing the contractor the opportunity to rectify any defects.
2. The contractor disputed most of the reported defects, lengthening the process which resulted in legal action being taken by the landlord.
3. All customers were offered £140 to apologise for the inconvenience caused.
4. Reconciliations were done at the end of the year and services that were not delivered had been refunded.
5. All services are now in place and it has not received further reports of concern.
6. The window cleaning service is currently being monitored.
7. The boundary to block A was planted as per the planning specification, but it discovered the planting was done at the wrong time of year resulting in the plants dying or not growing.
8. It had considered the request for a fence to replace the boundary but it was required to adhere to the building specification.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s email to this Service of 21 December 2021 referred to the below issues he had experienced. From the evidence seen, these repairs do not appear to have been included within the group complaint. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the landlord must have had the opportunity to consider and address a complaint before the Ombudsman would ordinarily consider it. As we have seen no evidence that the landlord has had the opportunity to address these issues though its complaint process, we have not considered them in this investigation.
1. Rubble left behind by contractors.
2. Flooring covered in paint.
3. Flooring overlapping/lifting with gaps.
4. Leak in en-suite shower x 1

The Landlords handling of the residents reports of defects at his property.

This service appreciates that resident moved into a new build property and he would have been disappointed with the number of defects and issues he had to raise within a short period of his occupancy. This service does acknowledge however that defects can be expected in new build properties. Shared owners are covered by the defect liability period for this reason, therefore the occurrence of a defect would not constitute a failure in the landlord’s service. During the defect period, this service would expect the landlord to act as an appropriate intermediary coordinating matters between the developer and the resident, in order to ensure that repairs are appropriately managed and completed to a satisfactory standard in a timely manner.
The landlord acted reasonably in providing written communication to advise of the defect liability period and how to report defects to new owners. It was reasonable for it to explain that its obligation to rectify issues was limited to building defects, and not decorations or “cosmetic issues” and that it would contact the developer in the first instance. However the landlord could have provided examples to help illustrate the difference between snagging, genuine defects and cosmetic items as per its letter dated 26 February 2021 as this would have helped managed expectations from the offset.
It has been difficult to establish whether the landlord acted appropriately in the early stages of this case due to the poor records relating to the individual circumstances of the resident. Most correspondence is via email, communication within the group complaint referenced individual or outstanding issues without giving any detail.
The list of defects the landlord provided between the dates 6 April 2021 and 10 January 2022 for this property showed 17 records. These included numerous plumbing issues alongside painting issues at handover. It is not clear from these records what was rectified and when but it is reasonable to assume the landlord did not dispute any of the issues raised and accepted all issues needed some form of resolution. The resident had expressed his dissatisfaction in the plumbing repairs and reported it took six months to fix the toilet flush, this is an unreasonable amount of time however it is not clear if this delay was down to the developer not accepting this as a defect. The resident confirmed to the landlord what defects were still outstanding on 9 November 2021 which included the paintwork issue. Although the landlord accepted the standard of paintwork as an issue it retracted its offer of compensation throughout its complaints process and instead offered a contractor to make good. This service would expect the landlord to abide by its promises and as this is an outstanding issue still pertinent to this resident an order will be made with this in mind.
This service has not seen any evidence to show the landlord responded to the residents claim in August 2021 that mould was spreading in his property due to the toilet leak, which is a concern, especially as there was a baby living in the property and the resident had made the landlord aware of this. The landlord’s property management policy states that any works “not considered to be a defect under the defect liability period” would be treated as a responsive repair. This service therefore sees this as a significant failure which caused avoidable distress and upset to the resident and his household.
This service notes the residents dissatisfaction with the quality of his home, he should not have had to wait until November, 8months after he moved in, for the jobs identified at handover to be completed, this was an unacceptable amount of time.
Although this service acknowledges the landlord was taking measures to resolve the issues on behalf of the resident and advised of the difficulties it had with the developer and the action it was taking in relation to this.
Additional orders will be made in relation to the communication throughout this time however a finding of Service Failure has been made in respect of the landlords handling of the reported defects at the resident’s property.

Communication and complaint handling.

It is not disputed that the initial communication and management of the new build was poor, there was confusion about what the residents could expect and there were consequential delays which caused frustration, inconvenience and dissatisfaction for the resident.
The landlord mentioning in an email to prospective buyers that “all ground floor apartments will have their own outdoor space with boundaries – similar to the balconies” was misleading. Although this service recognises that it is ultimately down to the buyer or the buyer’s solicitor to confirm the particulars of the sale, this information was misleading and would have caused confusion. It was not made adequately clear if the phrase “similar to the balconies” referred to the outdoor space or the boundary. This ultimately led to the complaint regarding the boundary hedging which the landlord agreed did not meet its intended purpose even though it met planning approval requirements. It was reasonable of the landlord to agree to replant the hedge and the explanation of needing to wait until the season changed so the planting would be successful showed the landlord had learnt from the initial mistake of planting at the wrong time of year.
The resident raised issues with the parking at the development and the lack of maintenance with the landlord on 10 May 2021, no evidence has been seen that the landlord responded to the individual concerns prior to providing its decision letter on 3 June 2021 after the group complaint had been brought. Within its complaint responses the landlord was reasonable in accepting the confusion caused by its sales team in advising the spaces were not allocated and an improvement to the parking spaces marking could be made and agreed to do this without cost. This was reasonable as the resident had the “right to use” a parking space designated by the landlord in his lease.
Although the landlord did not dispute the lack of maintenance, it gave no explanation as to why services were not initially put in place, which undermined the landlord/tenant relationship from the start. Furthermore, it did not proactively keep residents updated on this issue and only advised of its struggles with contractors in its final complaint response. The lack of updates exacerbated the resident’s frustration and inconvenience and his time and trouble pursuing the matter.
The landlord made reference to individual issues outside of the group complaint response however it was not clear that all individual issues were being dealt with. Within its stage one response it stated it had “a vague road map of an action plan” for each property. This highlights that at this stage the landlord did not have an adequate oversight or clarity of individual reports, their subsequent progress and what remedy was required. It failed to give confidence in its competence to resolve matters, leading to uncertainty and frustration amongst residents. The stage one response to the group complaint was not constructive, lacked empathy and failed to adequately address the adverse impacts the number of issues raised were having on its residents.
Moreover, issues were later added on to the complaint following the stage one response which complicated matters. Although it is noted the landlord was open to trying to deal with all issues as they arose whilst it was investigating the complaint this made it confusing to follow. Within a letter in July 2021, it reported to majority of individual issues being resolved, yet in another letter in August it references 46 outstanding issues. It is not clear the landlord addressed the particular circumstances of the resident in this case.
Due to the number of issues raised it is noted that the landlord attempted to address each collective issue in its response however it failed to give timescales and said issues were ongoing. This caused frustration with residents and the landlord should have given a timescale for when it would update on further progress of issues, subsequently communicating effectively and managing expectations.
Within the landlords letter to the group dated 17 June 2021 it acknowledged the escalation to stage two and advised contact would be made within 5-7 working days, no evidence has been seen to suggest this was done and this led to the resident emailing the landlord expressing his disappointment with the lack of communication from the landlord.
The landlord managed the complaint more effectively at stage two, it evidenced a proactive approach towards monitoring the progress of the issues raised. A senior officers oversight of the complaint as a whole ensured the issues raised were discussed and actioned when possible. This demonstrated it was trying to put things right, it also demonstrated how it would use the complaint process to learn from mistakes and make improvements. While this service notes the resident’s continued dissatisfaction the landlord showed it was trying to resolve the issues within its capabilities.
The landlord offered compensation at stage one for those who did not want a contractor to attend to fix painting issues, although no figure was indicated. It then subsequently withdrew this offer without providing reason or explanation, this is unacceptable and goes against its customer promise of being open and honest in communications. As such the resident remained dissatisfied with the accepted unsatisfactory standard of painting.
This service has seen no evidence if the resident received a response to his email dated 26 July 2021, where he had detailed key issues, he felt had been missed in previous communications. The resident makes reference to feeling uncomfortable in his home and the length of time to resolve things being distressing as he had a baby, he felt the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously. As such there is no evidence that the landlord had regard to the particular circumstances of the resident. A lack of response to such a personal email could not but have damaged the landlord/tenant relationship further and it suggests the landlord did not truly see its residents as individuals through this collective complaint.
Both complaint responses were delayed, taking into account the timeframe of the complaints procedure, and no evidence was provided to show residents were advised of the reasons for the delay and when a response could be expected. This heightened the inconvenience and uncertainty of the resident. Compounding this, the Landlords use of decision and outcome letters is misleading and makes it hard to understand which stage the complaint is up to. Within its complaint process the landlord lacked empathy and showed a disregard for individuality. When considered cumulatively the landlord failings in respect of communications and handling of the complaint constitutes maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlords handling of the reported defects at the resident’s property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlords communication and handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The delays in resolving the reported defects were not solely down to the landlord however it remained responsible for the quality of work and the effectiveness of its snagging process. The failure to effectively manage the snagging and defect period led to an elevated level of defects which took a considerable amount of time to resolve. Resulting in mounting frustration and inconvenience to the resident. The evidence showed the landlord was taking reasonable steps to resolve the defects but failed to acknowledge the detrimental impact the delays were having.
There were unexplained delays in the landlord’s response to the group complaint and it is not clear that all individual correspondence or issues were acknowledged and responded to. The landlord failed to acknowledge the detriment to its residents within its complaint responses. Withdrawing its offer of compensation for repairing paintwork was also not appropriate and would have caused further damage to the relationship with its residents whose key issue within the complaint was transparency.

Orders

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to send a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £140 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor service, disruption, inconvenience and delays if not already paid.
3. Pay the resident £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communications and complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention to ensure its staff have adequate guidance, are sufficiently trained and equipped as to how to effectively manage complaints in the future.
2. Its intention to enhance its management of its handover procedure, between completion and it moving into business-as-usual operations.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider the orders and recommendations made in the related determination (202116755) and to effect remedies in respect of the common issues in this case as were awarded in that determination.
The landlord should review its records of the individual accounts involved in this complaint and ensure all induvial issues have been addressed.
The landlord should consider reviewing its complaints process and in particular the information it provides to customers including what the difference between a decision and outcome letter is.
The landlord should confirm to this service of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of the date of this report.