Aster Group Limited (202108508)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108508

Aster Group Limited

25 February 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple defects in her new-build home.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and moved into a new build property.
3. An internal email on 9 April 2021 states the resident had reported her internet provider had attended to install the connection but was unsuccessful as the necessary wiring had not been installed to the property.
4. On 13 April 2021, an internal email said the resident could order a temporary WIFI connection from the internet provider, and the landlord would reimburse the costs. It is unclear from the evidence when this was communicated to the resident.
5. A work order was raised with the developers on 14 April 2021 to repair the internet/ phone lines.
6. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 May 2021 with a list of issues she said the property had. She said there was not “any internet wires going through the house”, which was impacting her family. She said the front door does not stay shut, unless locked, and her fence was broken, so she was concerned for her pets’ safety. She also did not have a shed. The landlord acknowledged the email (it recognised it as a complaint but, internally, decided it was a service request).
7. An internal email on 12 May 2021 stated the landlord was already arranging a shed to be provided and managing the internet issue.
8. A work order was raised with the developers on 14 May 2021 to attend to the faulty door.
9. A support worker emailed the landlord on behalf of the resident on 21 May 2021. She said the resident had reported faults but felt they had not been acted on. She highlighted the importance of the internet connection to be able to work from home, which was difficult when relying on the temporary WIFI as it was not very effective. She added that the postal address was not recognised and the front door fault was a safety issue.
10. An internal email on 26 May 2021 stated the resident had called the landlord as the door repair was still outstanding.
11. The landlord emailed the resident on 27 May 2021 and stated the developer had booked an appointment for 28 June 2021 to repair the front door.
12. An internal email on 28 May 2021 stated the resident wanted to escalate the complaint from “fast track to formal”.
13. The landlord acknowledged the stage one complaint on 1 June 2021.
14. The resident emailed the landlord on 3 June 2021 confirming the internet was now working.
15. A work order was raised on 9 June 2021 to make the fence safe, the landlord advised the resident it had been raised with the developer and would be resolved within 28 days. It said to contact it if the issue was outstanding after this timeframe.
16. The landlord advised the resident on 9 June 2021 that her address was now registered with Royal Mail.
17. The landlord sent its stage one response on 14 June 2021. It said the contractor had renewed the internet cable connection within two weeks, and the internet provider had then carried out follow-on works, however the internet provider had an estimated backlog of eight weeks. The landlord had advised the resident to obtain temporary WIFI during this time, which it compensated for. The internet connection was resolved by the internet provider on 2 June 2021 and the landlord apologised for the delay. An appointment had been booked to attend the front door defect. A contractor attended on 12 April 2021 to make the fence safe, a follow-on appointment had been raised with the developer. It had been in regular contact with the developer regarding the property being correctly registered with Royal Mail. It advised how she could report other defects she had raised, including repairs to “the wall under the consumer unit” and adjusting the shed door, and that they would be resolved as a non-urgent defect by the developer.
18. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 June 2021 and said she was dissatisfied with the complaint response. She said her complaint was not taken seriously as it took eight weeks to resolve most of the issues raised, with a lot still outstanding (she did not provide any specific details). She also emphasised the impact moving to the property had had on her family’s mental health and wellbeing.
19. The landlord acknowledged the stage two escalation on 18 June 2021.
20. The resident confirmed she was satisfied with the repairs to the front door on 7 July 2021.
21. The landlord sent its stage two response on 7 July 2021. The fence and front door had been made safe but required follow on works, it provided her with a direct contact number while the works were ongoing. It had reported further defects she had raised and the developer had until 23 July 2021 to rectify the issues; if the timeframe was not adhered to it would commence the “defects resolution process”. It apologised for the impact on her family’s health, but said it could not compensate for medical claims so it signposted her to its insurers. Nonetheless, it recognised the stress and inconvenience caused and offered £150 compensation. It explained how she could escalate her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
22. The resident emailed this Service on 1 October 2021 outlining additional issues to those in her original complaint, including defects such as a broken window handle and the attic hatch not being secure. She also said that she had to pay double rent for a month and the property was unliveable when she moved in.

Assessment and findings

23. The tenancy agreement states:
    1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to door frames and fences bordering public footpaths.
    2. The resident is responsible for meeting all outgoings applying to the property.
24. The landlord’s repairs policy states “Any repairs that are due within the first 12 months of handover on a new-build property will ordinarily be dealt with in line with the Defects procedure”.
25. The resident’s new homes guide states:
    1. “Any defect reported within the first 12 months is the responsibility of the developer or contractor and we will manage this process on your behalf.”
    2. If the defect has not been resolved within 28 days, contact the landlord and it will investigate in line with its “defect resolution process”.
    3. It can take up to 8 weeks or more to resolve defects.
26. The landlord’s compensation policy states all claims for injury or ill health will be dealt with by its insurers.
27. The resident did not include the additional defects outlined to this Service in her complaint to the landlord, including a broken window handle and the attic hatch not being secure. These issues will not be assessed in this report, as in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. This is because the landlord has not been given the opportunity to rectify the issues. The resident also raised to this Service that she had to pay double rent for a month when she moved and the property was not ready when she moved in. Again, as these issues have not been raised with the landlord and completed its internal complaints procedure, we cannot assess them.
28. The defect period for the property is 12 months and during this period the builders/developers remain responsible for any defects or snagging issues. All the issues raised by the resident were within this period. The landlord’s responsibility in this period is to assist, but the full responsibility for repairs lies with the developers. The landlord acted reasonably in this case. It promptly raised works orders to the developer when the resident reported the various issues. It managed the resident’s expectations by advising her of the expected timeframes and informed her to contact it if these were exceeded. It then sent follow up emails to the developer, in line with the defects policy, when the timeframes had been exceeded. It also communicated with the resident following the completion of the works to ensure she was satisfied with the repairs.
29. The issue with the cables in the property was also clearly a defect, and one for the developers to resolve. The landlord went above its obligations by reimbursing the resident for the temporary WIFI she obtained to assist with her lack of internet. There is no evidence indicating that the landlord was responsible for registering addresses with Royal Mail. Nonetheless, it appropriately dealt with the matter by, as it explained in its stage one response, staying in regular contact with the developer and advising the resident when it had been resolved.
30. Although it is clear and understandable that the defects caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident, the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and responsibilities and demonstrated clear communication throughout the process of completing the works. It used its discretion to offer £150 compensation for the inconvenience the resident experienced. In regards to the health impact the resident reported, the landlord signposted her to its liability insurer, which was in accordance with its compensation policy.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

32. The landlord acted in accordance with its repairs policy, effectively communicated with the developer and the resident, and appropriately managed her expectations.