Aster Group Limited (202108633)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108633

Aster Group Limited

31 October 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of defects and snagging issues raised by the resident.
This report has also considered:
1. The landlord’s complaints handling.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared owner and the lease commenced on 31 January 2020.
The property is a two-bedroom house built in 2019.
The property had a 12-month defects period which had commenced on 8 October 2019.
The landlord has stated that following the Covid-19 pandemic starting in March 2020 it developed a post-handover workflow which set out that during the defects period residents would report issues to the contact centre who would send them directly to the developer for rectification. It added that the defects manager would send out a monthly report of outstanding defects and that the project manager would liaise with the defect manager to “rectify defects as required”.
The landlord’s post-handover workflow also explained that one month prior to the end of defect date a letter would be issued to the residents about defects and a response would be required either by email or post, within two weeks. The resident would be required to provide supporting photographs to demonstrate the defect. Once the end of defects date had been reached, the workflow indicated that its contact centre would begin sending defects and repairs to the repairs team.
The landlord has confirmed that it has revised its new build aftercare workflow in October 2023 and that this incorporated new sections on poor performing developers and clarification that any items left outstanding after 28 days from the date notice was served to the developer would be rectified by the landlord who would then pursue the developer for the costs.
The landlord’s complaint procedure explains that it considers a complaint to be “an expression of dissatisfaction” concerning the standard of service or actions/inactions by the landlord, which is made by the resident, irrespective of how it has been made.
The landlord’s complaints policy comprises a two-stage process. At stage one an acknowledgment will be issued within two days of the complaint being raised. The landlord will aim to respond within 10 working days of receiving the complaint. If the landlord is unable to respond within this timescale then it will provide an explanation and provide its response within a further 10 days. At stage one the landlord will also complete and submit a learning log.
If the resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome at stage one then the matter will be passed to stage two. The landlord will provide a response within 20 working days from the resident’s request for escalation. If the landlord is unable to do this then it will provide the resident with an explanation and it will provide its response within a maximum of a further 10 days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider a discretionary payment in respect of service failure.

Summary of Events

The landlord has confirmed that the property developer’s relationship with it had deteriorated to the extent the developer did not respond to correspondence from it. It has also confirmed that the communications which it held with the developer prior to October 2021 was via its project manager who, as a result of changing laptops, no longer has access to those emails. As a result it has limited records relating to the time period in question.
It is evident that there was contact about the issues in the complaint prior to October 2020, but the landlord was not able to provide this information in response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 October 2020. She explained that she was “getting very frustrated that every couple of months” she was having to chase up the repairs which had been outstanding since she had been in the property. She set out the outstanding defects as:
1. A bow in the wall which she had been advised by the developer would need a separate company to come out to rectify.
2. The flooring in the upstairs bathroom which needed replacing.
3. The kitchen worktops, which the developer had previously informed her that it would measure up and which had not occurred.
4. The kitchen drawers which needed to be replaced.
5. White lines for parking.
6. The fencing in the back garden.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 19 October 2020. She explained that in relation to the 12 months inspection checklist she had set out the outstanding defects in her previous email of 2 October 2020. In addition to this, she explained that she had no heating or gas in the property due to a further gas leak. She added that she had a gas leak when she had first moved into the property and her gas had now been capped due to the further leak. She added as she was asthmatic she was not currently able to live in the property, especially as it was cold and with no hot water she was unable to use the shower. The resident copied her father into the email, to whom she gave consent to contact the landlord about the matter. The landlord has not provided this Service with any details relating to the earlier gas leak at the property.
The landlord sent the resident an acknowledgment on 22 October 2020. It added it had received her email and added the matter to its defects tracker which it was due to shortly submit to the developer. It asked about the kitchen worktops, for which it required some further information as to what the problem was.
The resident’s father replied to the landlord on 22 October 2020. He explained that there were several deep scratches which were evident around the worktop joint. He added the resident had previously been informed that someone would attend with a view to replace however this had not happened which had caused her frustration.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 3 November 2020. It confirmed that it would be issuing the defects list to the developer on that day and it would be regularly chasing it to get the outstanding issues resolved.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 December 2020 to ask for an update. She explained that she had not had any further follow up or contact from the landlord since the email of 3 November 2020. The landlord replied the next day stating it had chased the matter up with the developer and asked it to confirm a date when the work would be carried out. The landlord added that it would reply back to the resident once it had heard back from the developer.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 19 January 2021. She explained she had received no contact or phone calls regarding the outstanding issues. The resident added that she also wanted to add a further defect to the list which concerned the drainage in the garden which was not working effectively. This had led to the grass dying and the whole area becoming slippery and so was a health and safety problem.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 January 2021. It explained that in line with the government restrictions (due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic) all internal work had stopped “for the protection of our residents and colleagues”. As a result it was unable to provide an update on when her outstanding works would be resolved but added it would be working closely with the developer over the matter. The landlord added that emergency work was still taking place and that work was being carried out on unoccupied plots and with the building of new properties.
The resident asked the landlord on 20 January 2021 whether the issue concerning the garden which she had set out had been added to her list of defects. The landlord replied on 22 January 2021, after having checked with its project manager. It explained the garden issue had not been reported on the end of defect list and that in any case drainage in gardens was not classed as defects and the onus was on the resident to maintain it. It added the issue had probably been caused by the flooding that had recently taken place. The landlord reiterated that only emergency work was being carried out at that time.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 March 2021 to once again chase up on the outstanding defects. She acknowledged that there had been delays as a result of the Covid 19 pandemic but enquired whether, with the likelihood of restrictions being lifted, any of the jobs had been booked to be done. She added that she could see the developer had been working on the adjacent site. The resident stated that someone had come to the property and looked at the worktops and asked her to choose new ones which she had done. However following this initial contact she had not had any further update from them.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 25 March 2021 asking for an update. The landlord sent the resident a reply the next day stating it had replied to her on 11 March 2021 and was attaching a copy of its response of 11 March 2021 to the email. However the landlord has not provided a copy of this email to this Service. The landlord’s response on 25 March 2021 explained it was its decision to stop all internal non–essential work in occupied homes. It added work would have continued on non-occupied homes and emergency essential work would have been carried out on occupied homes. It noted restrictions were easing and would be fully lifted with effect from 1 April 2021. It was therefore liaising with customers to book appointments, although it explained there was a backlog. It added it had asked the developer to contact the resident to book an appointment.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 May 2021 to ask for an update. She explained that she had only had one defect completed at that time. This appeared to be a defect not included in her email list of 2 October 2020 which she set out in detail again for the landlord.
The landlord responded to the resident on 27 May 2021 to explain it had forwarded the email to its technical team who would chase the developer. This was in response to a call from the resident on that day enquiring if the landlord’s defects team had received her previous emails as she had not received an automated reply as per her earlier emails. The landlord apologised that the matters had not been resolved for her as yet.
The landlord sent the developer an email on 28 May 2021 about the resident’s outstanding work asking when it would be attended to.
The resident’s father sent the landlord an email on 1 June 2021. He explained that they had been frustrated by the timescales for the outstanding works. He wanted the landlord to provide dates for when the work would be completed. He added that the resident worked from home and would be in the property and that she was fully vaccinated. The resident followed this email up with a further email in which she enclosed the list of outstanding snagging issues (as per her original email of 2 October 2020).
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 2 June 2021. It explained that its technical team had been pursuing the snagging issues and it would be pursuing the matter again on 4 June 2021. It added it would be in touch once it had received an update.
The resident’s father emailed the landlord on 4 June 2021. He asked why the technical team were required to review what appeared to be “a simple list of outstanding defects twice in one week”. He added that it seemed to be a delaying tactic which was very frustrating.
The resident and her father followed up with a series of emails to the landlord on 11, 14 and 25 June 2021 asking for a response to be given as a matter of urgency. They received two responses from the landlord on 14 and 28 June 2021 which explained the landlord had been pursuing the end of defects items as per the defects resolution process and that it would continue to do this.
The landlord sent an email to the developer on 15 June 2021. It noted that it had provided the defects list to the developer on 4 November 2020 so it expected that most of these should have been completed by now. It asked for a response from the developer. As no response had been received it sent a further email to the developer on 18 June 2021.
The resident completed an online complaint on 25 June 2021. In terms of her complaint she explained that there was too much detail for her to complete in the summary box of the form. She asked that she was called by the landlord in respect of the complaint. As well as the outstanding defects the resident explained there had been poor communication from the landlord on the matter which had been outstanding for over a year.
The landlord sent the developer’s commercial director an email on 30 June 2021. It explained that it had emailed the developer’s customer care team on a few occasions with no success. It asked for a response on the defects before the matter became a formal complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 July 2021 to explain that she had made a complaint about the matter. She also asked for an update as it had been three days since the landlord’s previous response.
The landlord replied on 3 July 2021 to explain there had been no further update to the resident since its last email of 28 June 2021 and that most developers had a five working days response time. It stated its technical team had been chasing the matter on her behalf and would continue to do so. In terms of the resident’s complaint, it explained that would go through to the landlord’s complaints team who would log the matter and respond to her.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 July 2021 to ask for an update. She explained that she had been promised a call within two working days which had not materialised about the defects. The landlord replied on 12 July 2021 to explain that it had sent on the matter to both the complaints team and the technical team and those areas would be contacting her directly about the matter.
The resident confirmed to the landlord on 12 July 2021 that she had heard back from the complaints team but not the technical team. She asked for an update, citing that the landlord had informed her in its previous email that it would respond within five working days which had not happened.
The resident also telephoned the Housing Ombudsman Service on 12 July 2021 and explained that she wanted the landlord to come out and complete the defects and provide a timescale for them to be done.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 July 2021 to reiterate most developers had a five-day working days response time. It added that its technical team had had a meeting on 11 July 2021, although it did not specify who this was with. It added it would chase the technical team to see if there was any further update.
The resident’s father replied to the landlord on 13 July 2021. He stated they had been waiting for 193 days for a response and so could not understand how the landlord had stated that most developers had a five working day response time. He asked the matter was escalated to a line manager to action the defects as a matter of urgency.
The landlord’s internal notes of 13 July 2021 stated that the developer had been struggling with attending to the defects and this had been explained to the resident during a phone call the previous week. It added that the issue did not simply extend to her property but concerned others where it failed to resolve the outstanding defects. It noted that if the resident remained dissatisfied it might need to escalate the matter to a formal complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 July 2021 to explain it had passed the resident’s email onto its data protection officer (DPO) so that it could begin processing the resident’s request. It added the DPO would be in touch with her shortly. The resident replied by email on the same day asking why the matter had been passed on to the DPO. She stated she had asked the matter to be passed on to the line manager and not the DPO. The resident also confirmed that she had been called the previous week but this related to the complaint and not to the defects.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 July 2021. It apologised and explained that it had been under the impression that the resident wanted copies of all previous correspondence. It added that the matter with the developer was a site wide issue and it had been attempting to pursue the developer as per its procedure and it would continue to do this until the works had been completed.
The landlord’s internal notes show that it was contacted by this Service on 20 July 2021 in respect of the resident’s complaint. It had allocated the matter to a stage one complaint on 21 July 2021 and an acknowledgment had been issued to the resident at this time.
The landlord internal correspondence of 26 July 2021 noted that it had spoken to the resident on that day and explained it had spoken to the developer directly as well as emailed it the outstanding works. It added that it would be chasing the developer again on 28 July 2021. It also explained that the representative who had spoken to the resident and who was overseeing the matter in their capacity of project manager had informed her that they would be off on leave for two weeks from 29 July 2021 and this could impact the updates it could provide to her during that time.
The landlord issued the stage one response on 27 July 2021. It noted that in terms of the resident’s outstanding issues, the matter of the parking lines had now been resolved. It added with regards to the other defects raised by the resident that it had emailed the developer full details of these on 23 July 2021 and asked it to deal with the matter as a priority. It reiterated the matter had been a site wide issue with the developer and the developer had failed to attend to the defects. It offered the resident the option to escalate the matter to stage two if she remained dissatisfied and it provided her a deadline of 10 August 2021 to do this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 August 2021 to chase up for an update on the snagging issues. The landlord sent an acknowledgment email on the same day explaining that it would pass the matter on to the representative who had been primarily dealing with the resident to respond. A further email was sent by the resident on 14 September 2021 in which she explained she had still not received any contact from the developer.
The resident asked for an escalation to stage two of the complaints process on 15 September 2021. She explained she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response.
The landlord’s internal correspondence of 15 and 16 September 2021 noted it was trying to determine who would be dealing with the resident’s complaint at stage two. The correspondence stated that notice to the developer had not been issued for the property as yet and that it would instruct the project manager to put the developer on notice under the terms of the contract. It added that if the work had not been completed within the timescales of the notice then the landlord would step in to do the works.
The landlord’s internal correspondence of 28 September 2021 discussed what it should do after the stage two response. It noted that it should give notice to the developer to do the work whilst planning on a backup should the developer not respond on the matter. This would reduce the lead in time for the work to be completed. The landlord issued the developer a defects notice on 30 September 2021.
The landlord’s internal correspondence also noted that should it need its own contractor to carry out the work it might not be manageable as the appointments needed to be pre-booked and there was the possibility of the work being cancelled. The landlord agreed it would raise but not release the works to its contractor until the notice with the developer had expired. This would allow it to be released on a 28-day routine repair basis meaning the lead in time for the resident to wait for the work to be carried out would be reduced.
The landlord issued the stage two response to the resident on 4 October 2021. It noted the parking line issue had been resolved and that it had been chasing the developer for a response. It confirmed to the resident that it had provided notice to the developer and that, following this, it would step in to complete the works which would be raised as a 28-day routine repair with its own contractor. It added that, whilst it did not compensate for the developers’ lack of service, it was prepared to offer £150 to the resident. The letter explained this was for the inconvenience of the resident having to contact the landlord to get the issues resolved.
The resident informed the landlord on 29 October 2021 that she would be referring the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service. Whilst she had noted the landlord’s offer of compensation she felt this was inadequate. The landlord replied on the same day. It acknowledged that the resident was free to go to this Service. It added that the notice period it had provided to the developer had expired and, as they had not contacted the resident to carry out the outstanding works, it would now do so. It added that it would keep in touch to make sure the appointments were made for these works.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 29 October 2021 show that the project manager asked for arrangements to be made with its own contractor for the defects to be logged and the works booked in. It set out the five remaining defects which remained outstanding.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 9 November 2021 confirmed that the works had been raised with its contractor on 6 October 2021 but with a 60-day response time.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 November 2021. She provided her bank details for the £150 to be paid. She also informed the landlord that she had been awaiting contact regarding the mould in her bathroom, which she had been informed would be prioritised due to her asthma.
The landlord replied to the resident on 18 November 2021. It explained it would deal with the damp and mould in the bathroom as an urgent issue. It informed the resident the timescales on the remaining work was approximately 60 days.
The landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord on 10 February 2022 to say it had attended the property. It had however closed down the works orders which had been created by the landlord as it stated, “there seems to be quite a lot of works that are needed”.
The landlord asked its contractor on 15 February 2022 whether it could complete the outstanding work. It confirmed on the same day that it could, however the work would need to go on a 60-day order.
The landlord has confirmed that all of the outstanding defects with the exception of the vinyl flooring in the upstairs bathroom were completed by its contractors on 16 and 17 March 2022. The resident confirmed the flooring was eventually completed in May 2023, following a quote having been received from the landlord’s contractor for the flooring in July 2022 which had been approved in a matter of days.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the defects and snagging issues raised by the resident.

It is not uncommon for there to be ‘snagging issues’ with any new build property especially as some issues are not apparent at handover and will only become apparent once the property has been ‘lived in’ and subject to normal everyday use. Whilst any issue needing a fix would have caused a degree of distress and inconvenience, the resident has raised concerns about the extent of the distress and inconvenience caused by the excessive delay in the time taken for the defects to be fixed.
The landlord has stated that as the first-year inspection would have occurred at a time when there were restrictions in place as a result of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, neither it nor the developer undertook an inspection of the property at that time. Instead the resident was asked to send over details of the defects to the landlord with pictures and these would have been passed to the developer to follow up on. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord, given the circumstances, as it factored in the issues of social distancing and national lockdowns which were in force at the time. The lockdowns had also impacted directly on landlord services, which had been reduced. There appears to be no dispute with any of the issues which the resident had raised at the time. The landlord accepted that the six issues the resident had raised were indeed snagging issues which required the developer to attend and correct and it explained it had passed them onto the developer.
The landlord has been unable to provide any communication from the resident prior to 2 October 2020. It has recorded the resident’s defects as being noted on its 12-month defects list as on 19 October 2020. However it is clear from the email communications which it has provided to this Service that the resident had emailed the defects team prior to the time the 12-month checklist had been due. The landlord had emailed the resident on 4 August 2020 although it has not provided details of the contents of this email. The email had come from the defects team which was the team which dealt with the snagging issues. The resident’s next email of 2 October 2020 had begun “I am just following up on my outstanding defects”. The resident had also stated in this email “this is getting very frustrating that every couple of months I have to chase these to see where we are with them”. These comments indicated the resident had previously made the landlord aware of the defects, yet there was no indication the matter had been noted or raised by the landlord with the developer at that time.
The landlord has explained that there was a site wide issue with the developer over communication concerning not only the resident’s property but other property built on that site. To support this it has provided evidence of the defects on other properties, some of which are similar in nature to those raised by the resident. As it was aware that there may have been a lack of communication and interaction with the developer over rectifying defects across properties on the estate, there was a responsibility on the landlord to clearly explain this to the resident. However it did not do this until July 2021 after it had issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint. This was around a year since the resident had first made the landlord aware of the matter. Prior to this the landlord had merely repeatedly informed the resident when she had chased it up on the matter that it was actively pursuing the matter with the developer and that it would update her once it had received a response back from the developer. It also informed the resident on more than one occasion that the developer would book an appointment directly with her. This would have given the resident the impression that the matter was being considered by the developer and that the delay in rectifying the work was solely down to the Covid-19 restrictions which were in place. Overall this was a missed opportunity for the landlord to be transparent with the resident over the matter. As such it was a failing on the part of the landlord which increased the degree of frustration experienced by the resident.
Even after the landlord had put the developer on notice on 30 September 2021 about the outstanding work, it did not act promptly and in keeping with the likely outcome following the end of the notice period. It was clear from the landlord’s internal communication that it did not believe the developer would respond to the notice provided to it and as such it would need to step in to complete the repairs. Whilst it proposed putting its own contractor on alert to complete the jobs following the end of the notice period, in a bid to reduce the lead in time until the work was completed given the contractor’s routine repair response timeframe, the contractor did not attend the property until several months after the notice period to the developer had been completed. The contractor also stated that the routine repair response timeframe was not 30 days but was rather 60 days The failure of the landlord to factor in the correct timeframe of its contractor and not to have steps in place to reduce the resident’s waiting time on the matter was a failing. The resident had already been waiting a year and the landlord’s response was not in keeping with what it had stated in the stage two response. This was a significant failure to put matters right and a missed opportunity to demonstrate to the resident that it was committed to resolving the matters she had repeatedly raised with it.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy uses this Service’s definition for a complaint. The policy adds that a complaint does not cover an issue which the landlord has not been made aware about, for example by reporting a repair. In this regard we do not know exactly what the resident had stated prior to 4 August 2020. The resident’s email of 2 October 2020 would not constitute her making a complaint but rather that she had been reporting the defects which she was still waiting a response on.
The resident’s first indication to the landlord that she remained dissatisfied with the process was via her completing the online complaint form on 25 June 2021. The landlord’s complaints policy explains that it would send an acknowledgment within two working days and a response would be sent ideally within 10 working days but no later than by 20 days. However the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 21 July 2021, 18 working days after it had been made by the resident. The landlord’s acknowledgment was sent the day after it had been contacted by this Service about the resident’s complaint. This was despite the resident having informed the landlord on 1 July 2021 that she had made a complaint and that she had been contacted by the landlord about the complaint on 12 July 2021. The landlord has not sent this Service any notes from the telephone call made by the complaints team to the resident.
Following the issuing of its stage one response the landlord informed the resident that, if she remained dissatisfied, she had the option to escalate the matter to the second stage and it provided her two weeks to do this. This was contrary to the landlord’s own complaints policy where no such time limit appeared for the resident to escalate their complaint. However the landlord did ultimately act appropriately in escalating the complaint to stage two, even though the resident did not request this until 36 days after the stage one response had been issued.
Whilst the landlord did acknowledge and provide its stage two response in keeping with the timeframe in its complaints policy, it failed to follow up on the contents of the stage two response. It explained that should the developer not respond within the notice period provided to it, that it would step in to sort the works out and it would raise this as a 28-day routine repair with its contractor. This would have led the resident to believe that, as the notice period for the developer ended on 28 October 2021, she would be looking at a repair by the end of November 2021. However the contractor did not attend until several months after this and whilst the majority of works were completed in one go by 17 March 2022, the vinyl flooring in the bathroom took a considerable time after this to be completed.
Although the landlord made an offer of compensation of £150 in the stage two response this offer was inadequate. The landlord stated the offer was for the inconvenience of having to involve the landlord in the matter. However the offer failed to recognise the extent of its failings and resulting impact on the resident. The resident had to continually chase the landlord on the matter and she was often met with a holding response to confirm it was pursuing the matter and would update her when it received an update which did not occur. It also misrepresented to the resident initially the interaction that it was having with the developer with regards to it rectifying the defects. This was despite it knowing on a site wide basis that the developer was not dealing with defects. In addition the offer did not factor in the significant further delay taken before the resident’s defects had all been addressed.

The landlord’s record keeping.

Very little information has been provided by the landlord in relation to conversations which it held with the developer. The landlord has explained that the project manager had lost access to historic emails following a change of laptops in 2022. Whilst some emails had been recovered these were only emails from October 2021. The landlord has not explained why the communication was stored solely on a single laptop and not shared or backed up. This was a significant failing, particularly as the records indicate that the issues with the developer had not only affected the resident but also other households on the estate.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not been the case in its management of the resident’s repair request as well as the complaints handling. These recording failures all amounts to a failing on the part of the landlord as they would have caused the resident inconvenience and frustration over the time taken to resolve the snagging issues she had raised. She was eventually told by the landlord that the developer was not responding to it over the defects and that there were backlogs on work being carried out firstly by the developer and also by the landlord’s own contractor. This was at a time where she could easily observe both the developer and the landlord working on nearby properties on the same site, but not hers.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of the defects and snagging issues at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to be transparent with the resident in terms of the lack of interaction and involvement by the developer in relation to rectifying the snagging issues. It instead continued to lead the resident over a significant period of time that it was actively pursuing the developer over the matter. Whilst the landlord did eventually issue notice to the developer this was only around 12 months after the resident had raised the issue of the defects with it. The landlord recognised at stage two of its complaints process that the service provided by it had fallen short and whilst it made an offer of compensation this was not sufficient for the distress and inconvenience which it had put the resident through.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint at stage one. Whilst it responded within the timeframe based on the acknowledgment the stage one response was issued 22 days after the resident’s complaint had been made. Even after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process there appeared to be no clear monitoring by it in terms of resolving the resident’s repairs and this process took a number of months to be done.
There were record keeping failures by the landlord in terms of the communication with the developer. Whilst the landlord has explained the communication had been stored on the project manager’s laptop it has not explained why the communication had not been stored centrally or backed up.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failing identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a further £800. This is in addition to the £150 which was set out in the stage one response which it has previously paid to the resident. This further amount comprises:
  1. £500 in recognition for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the snagging issues reported by the resident.
  2. £100 for its failure to respond in accordance with the complaints policy and for it not to continue to monitor the repairs after the end of its internal complaints process.
  3. £200 for the landlord’s failure in its record keeping.
3. Review its record keeping arrangements including ensuring any records which are held on standalone devices are regularly reviewed and backed up.
Whilst the landlord has recently reviewed its new build aftercare workflow process it should also consider whether there any further learning which can be incorporated from this case. It should then update the Ombudsman on the matter within the next four weeks.

Recommendation

The landlord should review complaints on its database from any other residents of properties which were also affected by the issues set out in this investigation, to ensure that all complaints have been fully resolved. The landlord should consider whether any additional redress is appropriate for those individual residents. The landlord is asked to provide the outcome of this review exercise to the Ombudsman within eight weeks.