Platform Housing Group Limited (202117482)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117482

Platform Housing Group Limited

7 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s defect repair reports.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder whose lease commenced on 20 December 2019. The property is a three bedroom new build house.
Following handover to the landlord, there was a 12 month defect liability period for the property. The developer was responsible for remedying any defect repairs reported during this period.
The landlord used the services of an employer’s agent for this development project. An employer’s agent acts on behalf of their client to administrate the contract with the developer and ensure it meets agreed standards and deadlines.
On 18 March 2021, the landlord’s employer’s agent sent an end of defect period inspection sheet for the property to the developer. This listed all outstanding defect repairs identified by the resident and gave the developer 28 days to resolve them. A copy of the inspection sheet was also sent to the landlord.
On 22 April 2021, the landlord’s employer’s agent notified the developer that the resident had reported a leak from the bathroom radiator and asked it to add this to the required defect works.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. It says it aims to provide a written response within ten working days at stage one, and 20 working days at stage two. It states that in order to ensure complaints are thoroughly investigated, it may need more time in some cases, but will ensure residents are kept updated.
The landlord’s complaints policy lists exclusions from its complaints process. One of these is listed as “chasing up of defects within the first twelve months for new build properties, complaint investigations would only be undertaken to look at the way the requests had been handled”.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can make compensation payments to residents in relation to service failure. A listed example of this is “failure of staff to take reasonable care”.

Scope of investigation

The landlord’s repair and communication logs record no contact from the resident regarding defect repair issues between the end of defect period inspection (in March 2021) and her formal complaint made on 29 October 2021. Due to this, this report will consider events from 29 October 2021 onwards. This is when the landlord’s records first show it being put on notice of repairs still being outstanding from the end of defect period inspection.
The resident has expressed her dissatisfaction with the condition that the property was handed over in and quality of workmanship in its construction. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (normally six months) of the matter arising. As the resident’s formal complaint was not made until nearly two years after she took possession of the property, its condition at the time of handover will not be considered as a part of this report.

Summary of events

On 29 October 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She expressed dissatisfaction that defect repairs were still outstanding at the property after nearly two years of her chasing them up. She stated that the property should have been of the required standard when she moved in and she was continually finding further defect issues due to poor workmanship. She listed the outstanding defect repair issues as:
1. Water ingress at the bottom of the back door;
2. A leak from the bathroom radiator and rust along the top of the bath panel;
3. Glue residue left on the kitchen units;
4. Grass coming through the tarmac, and a rusted drain cover, on the driveway;
5. Poor quality paintwork on the landing;
6. Incorrectly fitted windows in the master bedroom;
7. Poorly fitted guttering which was cut too short;
8. Rear garden gate which had dropped;
9. Shed door lock not correctly fitted.
On 1 November 2021, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint. It advised it aimed to provide a response by 14 November 2021.
On 2 November 2021, the landlord contacted the developer to ask for it to confirm what defect repairs its records showed as outstanding for the resident’s property.
On 4 November 2021, the landlord’s employer’s agent contacted the developer, asking for an update of the outstanding defect repairs reported from the end of defect inspection on 18 March 2021. It advised the developer that the resident had now made a formal complaint to the landlord about the delays in resolving these.
On 12 November 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it needed to extend its complaint response date as it was still liaising with the developer about the delays. It said it would update her as soon as possible.
On the same day, the developer advised the landlord that it had all of the defect repairs listed in the resident’s complaint logged on its system. It said it would chase its contractors and ask them to contact the resident as soon as possible.
On 17 November 2021, the landlord contacted the developer requesting an update as the resident had still not been contacted about the defect repairs.
On 24 November 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to provide an update. It advised her that the developer had ordered a replacement radiator for the bathroom and would contact her directly once this arrived. The landlord also said that it was giving consideration to providing the developer with a deadline to complete all works, with the landlord then making arrangements to complete anything that remained outstanding after this.
On 29 November 2021, the landlord’s employer’s agent chased the developer for a timescale for completion of the defect repairs to the resident’s property.
On 10 December 2021, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response. It thanked the resident for allowing it extra time to investigate the complaint and stated that:
1. Some of the outstanding defects had now been resolved, but works to the guttering, radiator, and front and back doors were still outstanding.
2. It had agreed to propose a deadline to the developer to complete all outstanding works, after which the landlord would arrange to carry them out.
3. Following this, the developer had completed works to the guttering and advised that only two defect repair issues were now outstanding.
4. It would continue to liaise with the developer to ensure the outstanding works were completed and would proceed with its plan to propose a deadline if required.
5. It was upholding the resident’s complaint as there had been clear delay in the developer carrying out repairs and a lack of communication to her surrounding this.
6. It would like to offer her £200 compensation under the category of “failure of staff to take reasonable care”.
On 10 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that several of the still outstanding defect issues were not included in the stage one response. These were the glue on the kitchen units, incorrectly fitted windows in the master bedroom, the landing not being properly decorated, the back gate having dropped and the shed lock not being properly fitted.
On 14 December 2021, the landlord responded to advise that it had sent this information on to the developer.
On 25 January 2022, the developer updated the landlord on the outstanding repairs. It advised that it had completed an inspection of the front and back doors and was awaiting reports. The shed lock, back gate and radiator were still to be completed. The landlord passed the update on to the resident the same day.
On 4 February 2022, the landlord advised the resident that the developer had decided to replace the front and back doors to the property. They said there was an estimated 12 week wait for the new doors to arrive and the developer would contact her to arrange installation following this.
On 10 February 2022 and 17 February 2022, the landlord chased the developer for a further update on the outstanding repairs.
On 22 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to express her dissatisfaction that defect issues were still outstanding, including the front and back doors which were the “biggest problem”. The resident said she was “fed up” of booking time off from work to accommodate appointments and repeatedly chasing up the repairs. Based on this, the landlord decided to escalate her complaint to stage two of its process.
On 25 February 2022, the landlord contacted the resident. It advised that the developer had informed it that the replacement of the bathroom radiator and repair to the shed lock had now been completed, and asked her to confirm this. It also acknowledged her request to escalate her complaint.
On 28 February 2022, the landlord contacted the developer to request an estimated arrival date for the new front and back doors to the resident’s property. The developer advised that both doors were due to arrive on 1 April 2022; it stated that all other outstanding defect repairs logged for the property had now been completed.
On 4 March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge the escalation of her complaint. It advised it would provide a full written response within 20 working days.
On 22 March 2022, the landlord contacted the developer to advise that the resident had reported mould by the windows in the master bedroom and on the ceiling in the bathroom. It asked the developer if it could inspect this.
On 30 March 2022, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response. It said that:
1. Whilst some defect repairs had been reported to the landlord, the resident had reported others directly to the developer, meaning the landlord had no visibility of these.
2. During the coronavirus pandemic, there were periods of time where the developer was only attending to emergency repairs which contributed to the delays; however, the delay of over two years to complete the defect repairs was unreasonably long.
3. Evidence showed that the landlord made efforts, including escalation to its employer’s agent, to try and resolve matters, but that there were missed opportunities for better communication and it to be more proactive.
4. The new front and back doors were due to arrive on 1 April 2022, as it had advised her on 4 February 2022. This could have been dealt with more urgently, and the decision to replace the doors made sooner rather than the developer attending multiple times to adjust and inspect them.
5. The mould in the property had not been reported until 24 January 2022, and it had arranged a provisional date of 6 April 2022 for the landlord and the developer to inspect this.
6. It wished to offer her an additional £100 compensation, to further acknowledge the inconvenience caused, and would consider further compensation for excess heating used due to the delays in resolving the issues with the doors if she provided relevant bills.
7. It would schedule three follow up courtesy calls between April and June 2023 to monitor the remaining outstanding work and ensure it was progressing.
8. It was undertaking a review of some processes involved in handover, snagging, and communication with developers on its new build properties.

Events since stage two complaint response

On 11 April 2022, the landlord contacted the developer to chase up a date for installation of the new doors as the resident had not been contacted.
On 12 April 2022, the developer advised the landlord that only one of the doors had arrived and the second was due in the week commencing 26 April 2022. It said it would contact the resident to book in installation of the first door.
On 21 April 2022, the developer inspected the property. It found a gap in mastic on the outside of the master bedroom window and arranged to seal this and treat the mould in the bathroom and master bedroom on 6 May 2022.
On 26 April 2022, the landlord completed the first of its courtesy calls to the resident.
On 6 May 2022, the developer installed the new front door at the property.
On 24 May 2022, the developer installed the new back door at the property. It returned the following day to seal this.
On 26 May 2022, the landlord completed the second courtesy call to the resident.
On 28 June 2022, the landlord was due to make its third courtesy call. It advised the resident that it had attempted to call her and left a voicemail. The resident said she had not received a missed call, or voicemail, and declined to rearrange the call for a future date.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s formal complaint made on 29 October 2021 listed numerous outstanding defect repair issues. The end of defect inspection sheet, sent by the landlord’s employer’s agent on 18 March 2021, contained some of these defects, however several were not listed, and there is no evidence in the landlord’s records that it was made aware of them prior to the complaint. This is supported by the resident’s acknowledgement, recorded in the stage two complaint response, that some repairs had been reported directly to the developer, bypassing the landlord, due to her frustration.
After the resident had made her complaint, the landlord acted swiftly in contacting the developer to establish what defect repairs it had listed as outstanding, and notifying its employer’s agent, who also chased the developer. The developer stated that it had all of the repairs listed on the resident’s complaint logged on its system and would chase its contractors to attend. The landlord showed appropriate diligence in continuing to chase the developer for updates following this, and communicating these to the resident.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response issued on 10 December 2021 stated that it had considered imposing a deadline on the developer to complete the repairs, after which it would step in and complete them itself. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to consider such an option, it was also reasonable for it not to proceed with this, based on the developer advising that only the repairs to the front and back doors and bathroom radiator remained outstanding. At this time, the developer had taken steps, in inspecting the doors and ordering the radiator, which indicated these would be resolved shortly.
The resident contacted the landlord following the stage one response to advise that several additional repairs were outstanding that had not been mentioned. All of these were issues that the landlord had been made aware of, either in the formal complaint, or directly by the resident since. The landlord’s failure to recognise that these repairs were outstanding indicates that it was reliant on the developer’s records and that it was not appropriately tracking the completion of the defect repairs itself.
The landlord’s stage one response upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged there had been delays in the developer completing the defect repairs, and a lack of communication around this, and it awarded her £200 compensation. This was a reasonable offer of redress considering the delays were largely beyond the control of the landlord, and it had appropriately pursued the developer to complete the works since the complaint had been made.
The resident’s complaint was escalated on 22 February 2022 on the basis that some of the repairs, particularly those to the front and back doors, were still outstanding. The landlord’s records showed that, since the stage one complaint response, it had continued to chase the developer for updates on the outstanding repairs and had passed these on to the resident, including advising that new front and back doors had been ordered and were due in 12 weeks.
The resident also expressed dissatisfaction at having repeatedly taken time off from work to facilitate appointments, which were not kept or did not progress matters. This is something that was beyond the landlord’s control. All evidence indicates that appointments were made by the developer directly with the resident and the landlord had no involvement in determining the scope of works carried out on each visit.
The landlord’s stage two response also upheld the resident’s complaint. It reasonably found that, although the landlord had taken appropriate action to attempt to resolve the issues, including escalating the matter to its employer’s agent, there were still areas where it could have done more. The award of an additional £100 compensation, to reflect the inconvenience the resident had experienced, was reasonable considering it had taken several months since the stage one complaint response for the front and back doors to be ordered and delivered. The landlord also made a reasonable offer to consider compensating her for excess heating costs should appropriate evidence of these be provided.
The landlord evidenced reflective learning from the complaint, advising it was undertaking a review of its processes around new build properties, including communication with developers. It also acted appropriately in arranging the series of three follow up calls with the resident to ensure that the outstanding repairs were completed and her complaint fully resolved.
Following the landlord’s stage two complaint response, there were further delays in the delivery and installation of the new doors, however the landlord appropriately obtained updates from the developer regarding these and communicated them to the resident during the first courtesy call on 26 April 2022.
Although the second courtesy call was rearranged and carried out on 26 May 2022, two days after originally planned, there is no evidence this caused any detriment to the resident, and this rescheduling meant the call took place after both the new doors had been installed, enabling the landlord to ensure the key area of complaint had been adequately addressed.
The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the third courtesy call, stating she did not receive a missed call on 28 June 2022, or the voicemail which the landlord stated that it had left. The landlord appropriately offered to complete the call on 30 June 2022 instead and although the resident declined, by this stage all of the outstanding works from the original complaint had been completed.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord persistently pursued the developer to complete the outstanding works and provided the resident with timely updates. It appropriately escalated matters with its employer’s agent, including considering stepping in to resolve the repairs itself.
The landlord’s complaint responses appropriately recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays and, even though these were largely outside of its control, made a reasonable offer of redress by way of an apology and offer of compensation. It also evidenced learning from the complaint in reviewing its processes around the handover and snagging of newbuild properties and how it communicated with developers.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident providing details of any changes made to its processes around the handover, snagging and management of defect repairs in its new build properties following the review it undertook in 2022.
The landlord should contact this Service to advise how it intends to act upon this recommendation within four weeks of the date of this report.