Aster Communities (202010765)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010765

Aster Communities

20 December 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

The resident has complained about:
1. How the landlord has handled her reports of defects at her property.
2. The landlord’s ongoing handling of defects since completing its complaint procedure.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. A landlord should have the chance to consider and resolve a matter complained of within its complaints procedure before this Service can assess how it dealt with the matter complained of.
The resident in her contact with this Service has complained about the landlord’s ongoing handling of defects since completing the complaints procedure. It is noted that the resident has raised a new complaint with the landlord on the advice of this Service, which is being considered by the landlord. Whilst the Service recognises the resident’s frustration, her further concerns about the handling of defects have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. This Service cannot therefore investigate complaint 1(b) in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme.
This investigation has focussed on the matters raised within the complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in March 2021. However, events which have occurred since the final complaint response have been summarised to put the resident’s complaint in its full context and to inform the orders and recommendations made in the complaint. These events have also been considered insofar as they directly relate and are consequential to the final complaint decision of March 2021.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

The landlord has confirmed that its Defect Procedure is as follows:
1. “A defect is identified which is then logged through our contact centre and issued to the developer with a target date 28 days after the date of reporting.
2. Once the target date has passed, the defects team can begin the defects resolution process. The first part is to contact the developer to pursue the outstanding item. We will usually chase the outstanding item three times.
3. If we do not receive a response from the developer, we will then escalate the outstanding items through our technical team. The team will issue notice to the developer, giving them a timeframe in which they expect the item to be completed.
4. If this is not done, we can log the item to our own contractors to attend and complete the work.”
The landlord has a two stage formal complaints procedure:
1. At Stage 1, “A written decision will be given within 10 working days from logging and allocation of the complaint. If this is not possible, an explanation and a date by when the stage 1 response will be given. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.”
2. At Stage 2, “When a customer is dissatisfied with the outcome of the stage 1 response, they will be provided with the opportunity to explain why they feel the complaint has not been resolved. A written response will be given within 20 working days from the request to escalate. If this is not possible, an explanation and a date by when the stage 2 response will be given. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.”
Prior to the formal complaints procedure, the landlord has a Fast Track Complaints Procedure which can be used where it is assessed the complaint can be:
1. “Resolved and dealt with quickly and efficiently as part of normal ‘day to day business’.
2. Is of benefit and in the best interests of the customer.
3. It does not feature a repetitive service failure for the customer and the investigation doesn’t necessarily need a written response.”
The landlord has a Compensation Procedure which allows it to offer discretionary compensation. Compensation up to a maximum of £100 can be processed via a Fast Track complaint. The landlord also has a matrix offering guidance for compensation whereby:
1. £150-£200 can be offered if there is inconvenience and distress for a long time (relevant to issues) with medium impact, or high impact for a medium length of time.
2. £200-£250 can be offered if there is inconvenience and distress for a long time with high impact.

Summary of Events

The resident is a shared owner of the landlord, and her property is a new build two-bedroom house. The resident’s lease commenced on 20 August 2020.
The resident has stated that she informed the landlord that the back door was leaking in June 2020, prior to moving in. There is no contemporaneous record of this report.
The landlord’s records indicate that on 26 August 2020 it logged several defects including the back door letting in rainwater which was making the resident’s living room carpet wet; clumps of cement on the steps to the back door; a shelf missing in a kitchen unit; three kitchen units without soft-close hinges; and a leaking shower. On 24 September 2020, the landlord raised an order for the developer to inspect the brickwork around the back door which was potentially letting in water. On 7 October 2021 the landlord logged a defect in regard to a large hole on the driveway where the kerb adjoined. A four-week timeframe was provided for the works, except for the hole in the driveway which had a 7-day timeframe.
On 22 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord stating that she had established she had not received a gas bill as her property had not been registered on the national database by British Gas. After her meter was registered, the resident changed the energy supplier in October 2020 away from British Gas on cost grounds. The landlord offered to pay for her gas usage up until that point.
On 5 November 2020 the developer attended the resident’s property to attend to defects, but the resident left the property before the developer, who was late, arrived and an alternative date of 30 November 2020 was declined.
On 12 November 2020 the resident completed an online complaint form stating that she was “exhausted with all the issues relating to my property, the inconsistencies and the unhelpful emails”, and requesting solutions.
On 15 November 2020, the resident sent an email referring to the damp carpet in her living room due to rain entering past the back door. She noted that the developer had ordered a new door, but she had highlighted the issue in June 2020. The resident also stated that her gas supply had not been linked to the network (which was the responsibility of the developer) but she was now receiving bills for payment before she moved into the property.
On 17 November 2020 the resident completed a complaint form stating that her living room carpet was soaked again after further rain, and was always damp and smelly. On 17 November 2020 the landlord logged a fast-track complaint to be dealt with by its Defects Team.
In an exchange of correspondence and in phone calls between 13 and 24 November 2020 the resident reported several issues including cracks in the wall; broken and worn door handles; the bedroom door being too big; the garden gate lock needing to be adjusted; rubble sliding down the slope in her garden; and the grass not growing. The landlord advised that its defects team was chasing the developer for updates on outstanding items. It advised that the door manufacturer/developer would inspect for damage after the door was rectified.
The landlord advised the resident in an email sent on 20 November 2020 that new doors had been received but were unsuitable for installation. It separately sent information about caring for her lawn. It also arranged an inspection for 11 December 2020 by the developer.
On 25 November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord stating that British Gas had advised her that the landlord had informed it she had moved to a neighbouring address and set up an account in her name. The landlord’s internal emails indicate that as of 1 December 2020, it did not identify any staff member who phoned British Gas to provide information about the resident’s utilities. However, it located the Meter Point Reference Number and provided it to the resident on 9 December 2020 so she could provide this information to British Gas. On 18 December 2020 the landlord also confirmed that it would pay the bill received by the resident as a gesture of goodwill.
On 2 December 2020 the landlord advised the resident that the developer would attend to the garden gate, kitchen shelves and hinges and pathway/driveway issues on 11 December 2020.
On 8 December 2021, the resident advised the landlord that water was entering her property thorough the front door after a storm. On 18 December 2020 the resident completed another online complaint form reiterating her concerns about water entering through her back door and asking the landlord to investigate by removing the carpet, panels around the door and skirting which were damp. She asked the landlord to inspect the plasterboard floorboards underneath for dampness, and make good if necessary. The resident also asked the landlord to make good areas of dead grass and level her garden. The landlord emailed her that day advising that it needed updated photographs of the issues with the garden and that the developer was intending to install the replacement back door in January and would compensate for any damage caused.
On 21 December 2020 the resident advised the landlord she had been using towels to mop up the water that had been entering through her back door. She requested a temporary fix to reduce the water ingress pending the new door arriving. The landlord advised that it had raised an emergency job for the developer to check the electrics following water ingress through the back door. The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that it would offer the resident a humidifier and vouchers of £100.
On 22 December 2020 the developer attended the resident’s property and advised the landlord afterwards that it could not see where the water was coming in and that there was “minimal damage to interior and carpet wasn’t soaking. No walls or sockets were getting wet at all”. However, the door had “blown” open causing damage to the hinge side, and screws in the hinges had been ripped out making the door loose and the screws unable to be tightened. The developer reattended the following day and refitted threshold strips, the sealant and damaged hinges and screws.
The resident also contacted this Service, which wrote to the landlord on 24 December 2020, making particular reference to the front and back doors which were leaking, the garden and door handles, as well as the administration of her rent and service charge account and the registration of her gas meter. On 5 January 2021 the landlord confirmed to this Service that it had escalated the resident’s complaint to a formal complaint and would send a written response.
On 4 January 2021 the landlord sent the resident a list of logged defects – the garden gate lock; the hole in driveway; brickwork around the backdoor; hinges to kitchen units; installing shelves in a kitchen unit; concrete on the steps to the back door; leaking shower; and water ingress through the back door – and asked which ones remained outstanding. The resident in response noted that water still leaked through the back door as a recent visit had not resolved the issue and that there were issues that were not listed that she had raised in previous correspondence. The landlord reminded the resident that all defects should be logged through its contact centre so they could be tracked.
On 14 January 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the complaint (although as the resident didn’t receive the response at the time, it re-sent the response on 20 January 2021). It stated that:
1. There had been delays in its defects resolution process as the developers and their contractors had not been able to complete non-urgent work in occupied homes. As resolution its surveyor would inspect the resident’s home, once restrictions were lifted, then liaise with the developer.
2. There was a sitewide issue with external doors and multiple properties required replacement doors. The manufacturer had recently delivered some doors that had been on order for several months, but they were unsuitable because:
  1. They were black and would need to be painted onsite which was a risk for long-term maintenance.
  2. They were open-in not open-out which was not ideal for external doors.
  3. They were 30mm narrower than the existing frame.
3. It would discuss the possibility of compensation from the developer, but only after the issues were rectified.
4. It would compensate the resident for the gas bill provided, totalling £122.23, as it had failed to register the property with the appropriate supplier.
5. A rent account officer would contact the resident to discuss rent/service charge issues.
6. It would log a job for the resident’s garden to be inspected by the developer, once restrictions were lifted.
7. The driveway should have a dropped kerb but as the road did not have the final topcoat yet, the step up was higher than what it would eventually be.
On 27 January 2021 the resident responded to the landlord reiterating that she wanted the “whole [back door] frame, floor, outside and inside surrounding walls assessed so the root of the issue can be identified”. She advised that she wanted works carried out to the garden and the drive as they would not be affected by lockdown, and the dates for issues to be resolved. She also queried the size of the gate. In response the landlord confirmed a surveyor would inspect the whole property including the areas cited by the resident, but it could not yet provide a date.
On 28 January 2021, the landlord confirmed that it had credited her service charge account to correct an error and bring the account in balance.
On 3 February 2021, the landlord advised that it would be escalating the resident’s complaint and sending the response by 3 March 2021.
After speaking to the resident on 17 February 2021, the landlord confirmed it would replace the carpets with vinyl as an interim solution, then reinstate the carpet when the rear door/ leak issue had been resolved. It also asked that the resident provide a final list of issues which could be passed to its consultant as it appeared that not all issues raised had been reported via its Contact Centre.
On 21 February 2021 the resident emailed a list of defects as requested, including reiterating her concerns about the garden; the front and back doors not fitting the frame; the driveway being too steep due to the gap; and bumpy carpets on the stairs and in one bedroom. She further stated that water had reached her furniture in the living room.
The landlord’s internal correspondence noted it would ask the carpet fitters to install the vinyl flooring once pandemic lockdown restrictions were lifted, and that a new back door would be fitted on 3 March 2021. The correspondence also confirmed that the landlord would only raise a job for cracks in the wall that had been reported if the width was less than a £1 coin.
On 25 February 2021, an independent surveyor/consultant was scheduled to inspect the resident’s property although there is no contemporaneous record of the visit to confirm the outcome.
On 3 March 2021 the landlord sent the final response to the complaint. It stated:
1. As discussed on 17 February 2021, it had decided to stop operatives entering residents’ homes to keep them safe during the pandemic. However, its consultant had carried out an external inspection of the grass, rear gate and drive on 25 February 2021 and found:
  1. The resident should care for and maintain her lawn to the end of April. If the lawn remained patchy, it would arrange for grass seeding in the affected areas.
  2. The width of the rear gate was standard size; however, due to the configuration of the path, it would ask its consultant to identify a solution to ensure that an adequate turning angle was provided.
  3. A drop kerb had been installed but as the main road was awaiting a final top surface, there was a slight difference in level between the current road surface and the drive. As a temporary solution it would ask the developer to provide a tarmac ramp.
2. The 12-months defect inspection was due on 18 March 2021 whereby a surveyor would list all valid outstanding defects and instruct the developer to rectify. The consultant in the week commencing 1 March 2021 would make an appointment for the inspection. It had been agreed that the resident would send a final list of outstanding items, and the list was received on 21 February 2021. The landlord attached a table confirming all items reported and the status of each job.
3. With regards to the leaking door, there had been delays due to the manufacturer halting production, but the contractor had now advised that it was expecting delivery of the back door on 4 March 2021, and subject to delivery and quality checks, the door should be installed week commencing 8 March 2021.
4. Its surveyor would make an appointment with the resident during the following week to discuss the outstanding defects.
5. It had offered £100 vouchers as compensation for items damaged when over the Christmas period the resident had used towels to mop up excess water. In recognition of the resident’s inconvenience and distress caused by the delays, it would also offer £150 in compensation. (The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that the compensation was intended to recognise that it could have offered the vinyl flooring sooner which “may have lessened the impact” and there was a “delay in the external jobs that have now been carried out at Stage 2”).
On 11-16 March 2021, the landlord offered a date of 19 March 2021 to install the replacement door. It advised that it would carry out remedial works to the frame, floor and skirting boards, then a surveyor would inspect after which it would arrange to replace the floor covering. The resident asked the landlord to check for damage / damp by removing floor panels and flooring, which she stated the independent surveyor had shown her to have been there since February 2020.
On 19 March 2021, the developer advised the landlord that the resident’s report about her turf was not a defect, referring to the advice it provided on gardens and lawn maintenance in its information pack for new residents. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of the developer’s response.
The resident has advised this Service that a new door was installed on 19 March 2021, but the landlord had not assessed the surrounding area for water damage.
On 23 March 2021 a bricklayer attended to investigate the leak affecting the flooring in the living room.
On 30 March 2021 the resident advised the landlord that the shelves in the kitchen had not been installed.
The landlord’s records indicate that on 19 April 2021, works to remedy the issue of the gap in driveway where it met the kerb were completed.
On 29 June 2021 this Service raised a new complaint from the resident about the landlord’s level of communication and its ongoing response to reports of repairs (202107627). The landlord has also registered a new complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord has a clearly defined procedure for resolving defects where in the first instance a defect should be formally registered and issued to the developer within 28 days. The landlord logged several defects, including water ingress, shortly after the resident moved in, on 26 August 2020 in line with the procedure. However, there is no evidence that the landlord pursued the developer after the 28-day timeframe was not met.
There is also no evidence that the landlord consistently updated the resident to clearly manage her expectations about the action it was taking, what works could be completed at that time and the timeframes. There is evidence that there was some contact by the landlord as the resident made reference in her complaints of 12 and 15 November 2020 to ‘unhelpful’ emails and the order of a new door; however, it is not evident that the landlord consistently and clearly updated the resident on each issue raised.
After receiving the resident’s complaint, the landlord logged a Fast-Track complaint. This was reasonable as the resolution of the substantive issue of defects was being pursued with the contractor at that time and therefore part of “day to day” business. However, for landlords to effectively resolve a complaint – to put matters right – it is necessary to be clear about the scope of the complaint, in this case defining the substantive defect issues. It is also important that a timeframe is provided as far as possible, in particular where the intention is to resolve a complaint quickly, so as to manage the resident’s expectations.
In this case the landlord did not clearly define the complaint or provide a timeframe for resolution of the complaint. It is recognised that the landlord’s reliance on the developer to attend to issues and the impact of service delivery by Covid-19 meant that it was not straightforward to provide a timeframe for resolution of the issues raised. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations by working to a defined timeframe, having logged a Fast-Track complaint.
It is noted that the resident referred to various defects at different times in her exchanges of correspondences with the landlord and this Service which made it less straightforward for the landlord to log and collate all the defects which should ordinarily be formally logged through the Contact Centre. Consequently, defects were overlooked or not clearly responded to, as confirmed by the resident’s response of 4 January 2021.
It is reasonable to expect a resident to work with their landlord to ensure that it can provide the effective and timely services by reporting matters through the appropriate channels. However, landlords have a responsibility to manage the contact of residents and be clear how any given service request, enquiry or complaint, should be made. Furthermore, as there is an onus on the landlord to provide services to its tenants and leaseholder, there is a reasonable expectation that landlords proactively confirm their understanding of a resident’s service request, enquiry or complaint with the resident, and share relevant information across their service areas. In this case, the landlord did not take decisive steps to collate and register all outstanding defects until the resident had raised a Stage 2 complaint, when it wrote to her on 17 February 2021.
A significant aspect of the resident’s complaint was the delay in dealing with her reports of water ingress through back door. The landlord only sought to carry out a temporary, mitigating repair on the door on 22 December 2021, four months after the initial report. It only took this action after the resident reported that there was an urgent leak that was difficult to control and possible damage to the electrics which led to the developer attending on an emergency basis, and consideration of providing a humidifier. There was therefore a delay by the landlord that was particularly unreasonable given the frequency of the resident’s correspondence on this issue, the fact she advised from the onset that water ingress made her carpet wet and smelly, and given the context of the delays in the manufacture of suitable replacement doors. Additionally, the landlord, by its own acceptance, delayed in offering the resident vinyl flooring, only doing so at Stage 2.
The landlord installed the new back door shortly after the Stage 2 complaint response as it committed to. With regards to the water ingress, the resident advised the landlord that she had reported the matter prior to moving in, in June 2020 and that its surveyor had noticed the issue in construction, in February 2020. The landlord failed to consider these points, and the resident’s general contention that the landlord had the opportunity to identify and remedy the water ingress prior to her moving in. It therefore did not acknowledge or consider the full extent of the resident’s dissatisfaction.
The landlord also did not fully address the resident’s related request that it carry out an intrusive inspection of the area around the back door for water damage, such as by removing floor panels and skirting, as it did not explicitly say whether or not these steps were necessary, in its view. Nor did it confirm that the developer had otherwise inspected these areas for dampness. This was another missed opportunity to provide a definitive response to resolve the resident’s concerns about dampness in the property.
Aside from the rear door, the resident reported that the water ingress in her sitting room may have resulted from defective brickwork around the door. The landlord’s records indicate that this possibility was not investigated until 23 March 2021 when a bricklayer attended. This was over six months after the defect was logged and, notwithstanding the periods when the developer or staff were not visiting properties, this was an unreasonable delay.
As confirmed in the Stage 2 response the landlord arranged for its consultant to investigate external defects reported, specifically, the garden area, rear gate and driveway. As the consultant had expertise and authority to assess technical matters it was reasonable that the landlord relied on the consultant’s decision on these issues. However, as the landlord’s internal correspondence accepted, it had delayed in carrying out these actions.
There are other defects that were raised that the landlord did not respond to in a timely way within the complaints process. For instance, it is not evident that the landlord has investigated the resident’s concerns about the front door which is unreasonable given that this Service made specific reference to this issue when writing to the landlord on 24 December 2020. The landlord also did not provide a clear response to the resident’s request to remedy deposits of waste concrete on her steps despite this defect being logged at an early stage, on 26 August 2020.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration, the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure are considered. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
In this case, the landlord offered £100 vouchers specifically for the period when the resident had to use towels to mop up excess water. This was a reasonable offer given the length of time that the resident had to use the towels and the prompt visit by the developer who carried out works to the rear door. The offer was also in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy which allows the landlord to pay £100 when dealing with a Fast-Track complaint.
The landlord offered a further £150 for the delay in installing vinyl flooring and in dealing with external issues. This is in line with the guidance within the compensation matrix. However, given the cumulation of defects which were not all taken into account by the landlord when responding to the resident’s complaint, this award was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, there were shortcomings in the landlord’s complaints handling as there was no clear definition of the complaint or timeframe for resolution. Therefore, while the landlord sought to offer redress to the resident, it was not sufficient to resolve her complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of defects at her property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

Following the resident’s initial reports of defects in August 2020, there is no evidence that the landlord consistently updated the resident to clearly manage her expectations about the action it was taking, what works could be completed at that time and the timeframes.
The landlord delayed in dealing with the resident’s reports of water ingress through the back door, which was a significant part of her complaint. The landlord also delayed in responding to other issues raised by the resident including assessing whether defected brickwork around the rear door caused or contributed to water ingress; assessing whether there was dampness or water damage around the back door; resolving water ingress through the front door and dealing with deposits of waste concrete on steps.
There were also shortcomings in the landlord’s complaints handling insofar as the landlord did not clearly define the complaint or provide a timeframe for resolution of the complaint. The landlord also did not investigate the resident’s contention that the issue of water ingress could have been identified and resolved prior to her moving in the property.

Orders

The landlord provides the resident with the £100 vouchers offered within its complaint procedure if it has not already done so.
The landlord pays the resident £275 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of her reports of defects. If the landlord has already paid the £150 offered within its complaint procedure, it should pay the difference, £125.
The landlord pays the resident £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the shortcomings in the handling of the resident’s formal complaint.
The landlord carries out an inspection of the walls, floor and skirting around the resident’s rear door for dampness or water damage. It should then advise the resident of the outcome and of any further action to be taken.
The landlord provides an update on the action that has been taken to remedy the following reported items:
1. Water ingress through the front door.
2. Cleaning of concrete waste stuck to steps.
3. The issues reported by the resident about her garden.
4. The installation of vinyl or other new flooring in the resident’s property.
The landlord considers this outcome of this investigation with a view to providing guidance to staff on how to deal with formal complaints about how it and/or the developer and/or its contractor are dealing with defects reported on new build properties. The landlord should consider which members of staff should take ownership of the formal complaint and have oversight of the defect resolution process, and how information should be shared between the two service areas. The landlord should communicate the outcome of this review to the Ombudsman.