Aster Group Limited (202205493)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205493

Aster Group Limited

21 December 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects to the property, including damp and mould and door repair issues.

Background

2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord. He purchased the house in October 2019 and the defect period ended on 20 March 2020. The landlord does not own the freehold for the land. Both the resident and his partner have corresponded with the landlord, for clarity, in the report both will be referred to as the resident.
3. The resident reported repair issues with the external doors, mould, heating, and vents in January 2020.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 5 April 2022 as issues had been ongoing since he moved into the property in 2019. He said:
   1. The doors in the kitchen and lounge needed to be changed.
   2. The windows did not have air vents.
   3. He had to relay the flooring in the kitchen, lounge, and hallway.
   4. There was a large gap at the bottom of the front door.
   5. There was no thermostat to control the heating.
   6. Repairs to the loft insulation had been completed twice but the mould issues were ongoing.
   7. The house could not be signed off.
5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 21 April 2022.
   1. It apologised that the resident was disappointed with the property and said it had fallen short of its aim to provide quality new homes.
   2. Several appointments to resolve the reported issues had been aborted or rescheduled, which had prolonged the time taken to resolve the issues. It was also impacted by COVID-19 lockdowns.
   3. The resident initially reported issues in January 2020, and it attended within the routine defect period. Some issues had taken longer to resolve as it had to order the necessary parts.
   4. No issues were reported between March 2020 and July 2021. There had been an ongoing issue with the patio doors and the insulation since July 2021, that it was working to resolve.
   5. The patio doors had been replaced once and adjusted several times. It was unable to change the doors as the planning condition required use of timber doors and it was liaising with the land freeholder to provide a long-term solution. It would keep the resident updated and complete temporary repairs in the interim.
   6. There are trickle vents installed in the windows. A routine repair was completed within the defect period to repair the trickle vents and any further issues would be the resident’s responsibility.
   7. There had been multiple appointments for the thermostat. It was only required to provide a thermostat that met basic requirements.
   8. It had adjusted the loft insulation, but an inspection showed further adjustments were required. It would arrange a follow-on appointment.
   9. The property had not been signed off as free of defects due to outstanding issues to clear the flies, adjust the loft insulation, make the timber patio doors fit for purpose, and install the thermostat. It had instructed the contractor to complete the works.
   10. It offered £150 compensation for the delays and the disruption caused. It signposted the resident to its insurers to pursue any medical claims.
6. The resident escalated the complaint on 21 April 2022 as he said the issues were still ongoing. 
7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 May 2022.
   1. It explained the steps it had taken to resolve the mould issues. In April 2022 a specialist contractor advised further adjustments to the loft insulation were required to resolve the cold bridging.
   2. It had attended to install a new bedroom radiator on 19 April 2022 but was unable to complete the work as the resident had to leave. It would arrange a further appointment and offered a larger radiator.
   3. It had agreed to cover reasonable costs for the resident to appoint an independent tiler as he was unhappy with the work. 
   4. The resident found the thermostat difficult to use so the landlord had agreed to replace it. The landlord advised the resident to contact it if he wanted the standard thermostat fitted but he would have to cover the cost if he wanted a different model.
   5. It would remove the flies in the loft but had been unable to contact the resident or gain access to complete the work. It advised the resident to arrange an appointment.
   6. It replaced 4 window vents on 26 April 2022, but the cover was missing from the window vent in the bathroom. It would contact the resident to arrange an appointment.
   7. There had been site wide issues with the external wooden doors. The doors had been adjusted on several occasions and the lounge doors were replaced on 26 April 2021. The resident reported he was unable to open the lounge doors so it would replace them. The freeholder had declined to install composite doors. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
   8. It did not have a policy for buying back shared ownership properties, but advised the resident to contact its home ownership team if he wanted assistance selling the property.  
   9. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused by the defects. It had promptly handled urgent defects and completed end of defects works when the developer would not attend. It had also offered to complete additional works including the tiling, thermostat and works to the bedroom radiator. It recognised the delays that had been partly caused by COVID-19 restrictions and subsequent long lead times for materials and appointments.
   10. It offered £150 compensation for the timeframe to resolve the issues, £100 compensation in recognition that the resident felt the communication and support had not met appropriate standards, and £250 for the inconvenience caused by the external doors and numerous appointments.
8. In the resident’s complaint to the Service, he said he remained dissatisfied as the issues with the doors were ongoing. He said that works to the loft insulation had been completed and the damp and mould in the property had improved albeit still present. He said he was unsure whether the works had been successful as they were completed in summer 2023 and the damp and mould typically got worse from January. He was dissatisfied the house had not been signed off after 4 years and wanted the repairs to be completed in full.

Assessment and findings

9. It is recognised that defects and snagging issues can arise in new build properties within the defects period, which would not necessarily constitute a failing on the landlord’s behalf. However, the landlord should ensure it coordinates the necessary repairs with the developer to ensure they are completed within an appropriate timeframe and to an acceptable standard. The landlord has not provided a defect policy.
10. In this case the landlord recognised delays in completing the works and offered £500 compensation. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
11. On 10 January 2020, the resident reported that there was a large gap underneath the front door, the lounge doors let in a draught and water, and the external kitchen door was cracked. The resident then chased repairs to damp and mould in the property and reported that the trickle vents would not close on 7 February 2020. As it was reported within the defects period, the developer was responsible for the repairs. The landlord should have confirmed the progress of the repairs for itself with the developer until completion. It is recognised that there was a breakdown in the relationship between the resident and developer in October 2021, and in the circumstances, it was reasonable that the landlord assumed responsibility for the repairs.
12. It is understood that the issues with the external timber doors were largely caused due to the doors swelling and expanding due to weather changes, which can often be an issue with wooden doors. The resident reported several times that he was unable to open the doors.  The landlord was therefore obliged to put in place a full and lasting fix. In its complaint response the landlord said the doors were replaced on 26 April 2021 and adjusted several times to ensure he could open the doors, so it has demonstrated willingness to resolve the issues.
13. It is understood that the freeholder for the land enforced a planning requirement for the properties to have timber doors. The landlord has proposed using a different type of door and explained that being unable to open the door caused a fire safety and security risk. However, the freeholder declined the request. It is recognised that this was outside of the landlord’s control, and it has taken steps to attempt to provide a long-term solution. Ultimately though, a solution needs to be arrived at for a full and lasting repair. The resident told the Service that the door has since be replaced again; however, the landlord has not provided evidence of how it has satisfied the issues will not recur. An order has been made below to reflect this.
14. There are also ongoing issues with damp and mould in the property. The resident initially reported mould in January 2020 and there is no evidence that an inspection was completed prior to 24 May 2021, which was an unreasonable delay. The landlord advised the resident that the mould was caused by “a design mistake that is causing the cold bridging around the lintel”, and contractually it was required to refer the matter to the developer to resolved.
15. On 13 September 2021 the landlord told the resident it had completed works in the neighbour’s property, and it would complete works in other affected properties once it had deemed it was a satisfactory solution. It is recognised that it can be complex to resolve damp and mould issues in full. As several of the new build properties on the estate were experiencing similar issues, it was reasonable for the landlord to initially complete the repair in one property to assess whether it was successful. This would prevent unnecessary appointments, reduce the inconvenience caused to the resident, and possibly reduce the cost of repairs. Nonetheless, the landlord should ensure that it takes steps to resolve the damp and mould issues as soon as possible, particularly as the resident had raised concerns that the mould was impacting his son’s respiratory condition.
16. On 10 October 2021 the landlord told the resident the works were successful in the other property, and it would check the loft insulation. It appears that an appointment was scheduled for 27 October 2021, but no records have been provided to confirm whether it was successful. It is important to note that the landlord should have clear repair records to confirm whether it has acted in line with its obligations.
17. The resident reported on 4 November 2021 that despite works to the loft insulation, the damp and mould issues were ongoing. An appointment was arranged for 6 December 2021, but the contractor said the resident did not allow access as the works included use of bleach. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the works were rescheduled for 5 January 2022, and it arranged for the resident to stay in a hotel. It said the contractor “reported there was some confusion about appointments and when you contacted them directly you were rude to them.” While the landlord was not necessarily responsible for the delays, it is unclear from the records provided whether the appointment was ultimately completed.
18. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that a specialist contractor attended in April 2022 and advised further adjustment to the loft insulation was required to resolve the cold bridging. It said it would reattend to ensure the loft works were completed to the specification. An appointment was attended on 17 June 2022. As the issue had been ongoing for an extended period, the landlord should have prioritised the work and as it failed to there was an unreasonable delay. The contractor could not complete the work due to the high temperatures. While this was outside of the landlord’s control, it should have promptly rescheduled the appointment when the temperatures had reduced. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised and recognised the appointment should have been postponed due to the weather forecast.
19. Following several attempts by the landlord between July and September 2022 to contact the resident, an appointment was booked for 19 October 2022 to complete several repairs, including the loft insulation. Again, the Service has not received evidence relating to the outcome of the appointment or a copy of the post inspection. As a result, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to confirm it has fulfilled its repair obligations and successfully resolved the damp and mould issues. The landlord is therefore ordered to provide evidence that the works had been completed in full and a copy of a post inspection report.
20. The resident advised the Service that further works were completed in summer 2023. No contemporaneous evidence of the works has been provided by the landlord. The resident said the damp and mould had considerably improved but it typically worsens with colder temperatures so he would not be satisfied the repairs were successful unless the damp and mould issues did not recur in January and February 2024. The landlord should therefore monitor the damp and mould issues for the next 8 weeks to assess the impact of the colder temperatures and complete further repairs if necessary.
21. Overall, the landlord exceeded a reasonable timeframe to resolve the issues with damp and mould and the external doors. It has not provided evidence that it has put in place full and lasting repairs, despite the fact the issues were initially reported almost 4 years ago. While it is recognised that there were some mitigating factors that impacted the landlord’s ability to complete the repairs, the delays are unreasonable. The ongoing issues caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident and impacted the enjoyment of the property particularly as he was a first-time buyer. The resident also had concerns that the mould impacted his son’s health.
22. The landlord recognised in its final response that there were outstanding works to the bedroom radiator, tiling, thermostat, flies in the loft, and air vent. The resident has confirmed he is satisfied the issues are now resolved, so the landlord’s handling of the issues will not be assessed in depth. Nonetheless, it was appropriate that the landlord recognised there were delays in completing the works and offered compensation.
23. In its final response, the landlord offered £150 for the time taken to resolve the issues, £100 in recognition that the resident felt the communication and support had not met standards, and £250 for the issues with external doors and numerous appointments. It is important to note that the compensation covered all failings discussed in the complaint response and was not solely awarded for the external doors and damp and mould.
24. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 compensation are warranted when the landlord has acknowledged failings and attempted to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in the investigation. In this case, due to the significant delays and as the landlord has not confirmed the repairs have been completed in full, further compensation is warranted. The landlord should therefore pay the resident an additional £250 compensation.
25. Following the final response, the landlord discussed offering compensation for the loss of income due to the resident taking time off for appointments. It identified 8 appointments between 14 July 2021 and 6 April 2022 and asked the resident to send evidence of loss of earnings so it could reimburse him. The resident advised the Service that no further compensation has been offered. In line with our remedies guidance, the Ombudsman would not typically order the landlord to pay compensation for loss of earnings due to resident’s taking time off for repairs, as the resident is required to allow access in line with the lease agreement. However, in this case, due to numerous unsuccessful appointments and as the landlord has set the expectation that it would consider compensation for loss of earnings, it should honour this providing the resident is able to supply the landlord with any required evidence.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of defects to the property, including damp and mould and door repair issues.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

27. In addition to the £500 compensation already offered, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £250. It should provide proof of the payment within 4 weeks.
28. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should send a plan to the resident and the Service explaining how it will implement a permanent fix to resolve the issues with the doors. This should include a clear schedule of works.
29. The landlord should monitor the damp and mould issues for the next 8 weeks to assess the impact of the colder temperatures and complete further repairs if necessary. It should then provide evidence to the resident and the Service that the repairs have been completed in full, including any relevant repair records and post-inspection.
30. The landlord should write to the resident within four weeks of this determination to request any information needed to enable it to fulfil its agreement to reimburse the resident for loss of earnings.
31. The landlord should provide proof to the Service that it has complied with the orders within the relevant timeframes.

Recommendations

32. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping practices to ensure it keeps clear records of repairs.