Halton Housing (202310172)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310172

Halton Housing

2 July 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of defects.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a shared owner, owning 55% of the property. The landlord, a social housing provider, owns the remaining percentage of the property. The property is a new build.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its system.
The landlord legally completed on the property on 25 April 2022 and the 12 months’ defect’s period started from that date. The resident’s lease is from 10 October 2022.
The landlord provides written information to its shared owners explaining they have the responsibilities of a full owner, which includes to keep the property in good repair and condition. During the defects period they must report any defects to the landlord, so they can be correctly logged and monitored.
From October 2022 to April 2023 the resident reported 47 defects to the landlord. The landlord passed them onto the developer to rectify. 17 were completed within the agreed timescales, 30 were not.
The landlord produced a fortnightly outstanding defects log and sent this to the developer. Notes between the landlord and the developer were shared on this log.
In November 2022 the resident reported mould behind the kitchen units. This was logged as a non-urgent category 3 priority. Damp and mould were not listed as a defect example under any of the 3 categories in the landlord and developer agreement.
In January 2023 unbeknown to anyone, one of the developer’s contractors accidentally punctured a gas pipe in the kitchen. He was re-fitting a kitchen unit to the wall.
The next day the resident reported a sewage smell that he thought was coming from the loft. This was logged as a non-urgent category 3 priority. The developer investigated and carried out work to the drains and pipes to try and solve the problem. Nothing worked and the smell remained.
The resident complained to the landlord in March 2023. He complained about the following issues:
1. Defect repairs were not completed within the given timescales.
2. Some defect repairs were categorised incorrectly.
3. Lack of communication and lack of a plan to try and resolve the smell issue.
On 31 March 2023 a plumber attended to replace the boiler housing unit. When asked by the resident, he diagnosed the smell as gas and located a leak. It was repaired on the same day.
The landlord allowed the resident to add more points to his complaint and the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 24 April 2023. It accepted there had been delays and at times the communication was not good enough. The landlord offered £315.03 as a goodwill gesture, which equated to 1 month’s rent.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. After a review panel the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It identified that many of the frustrations lay with the developer and their contractors. However, it accepted that it could have improved its communication with the resident. The landlord offered an increased goodwill gesture amount of £427.55 and finalised the date for the outstanding works.
The resident approached the Ombudsman to investigate the case. He felt the offer of compensation should be higher and he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In correspondence with the landlord, the resident raised dissatisfaction with the developer of the property. The developer is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. For this reason, the Ombudsman cannot investigate the way the developer handled matters.
It is not within the role or expertise of the Ombudsman to carry out independent technical assessments of disputed repairs and maintenance issues. In investigating this complaint, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s handling of the issues, taking into account any legal obligations, its policies and procedures and good practice.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects.

The Ombudsman recognises that there may be defects and snagging in new build properties, which may not have been identified in the initial build. Shared owners are therefore protected by the defects period and the warranties that are in place. The existence of defects alone would not constitute a failure in the landlord’s service.
Schedule 7 of the landlord’s development agreement sets out how defects will be managed between the landlord and the developer. The scheme in question had a 12-month defects period. Schedule 7 sets out the following information:
1. A category 1 defect is an emergency repair and will be attended to within 24 hours.
2. A category 2 defect is an urgent repair and will be attended to within 5 working days.
3. A category 3 defect is a non-urgent repair and will be attended to within 25 working days.
4. If the developer does not complete the defect repairs within the timescales, then the landlord can complete them as long as:
  1. It gives the developer 5 working days’ notice.
  2. It had advised of the defect in the correct way.
  3. There is evidence it is a legitimate defect.
  4. The landlord supplies the developer with an invoice.
5. If the landlord is not satisfied with the quality of a repair and it tells the developer within 5 working days of completion, then the developer must revisit the defect. This process can be repeated as often as needed until the landlord agrees the defect repair is completed.
6. The landlord must provide the developer with the final list of defect repairs 5 working days after the final defect inspection (just before the expiry of the 12-month defect period).
7. From receipt of the list the developer has 40 working days to complete the final inspection defects. If the developer needs materials, then it is 40 working days from the date the materials are received.
From October 2022 to April 2023 there were 34 defects logged as category 3 defects. 15 were completed in time and 19 were out of time. 5 of these took over 70 working days to be completed.
Although the work was being scheduled and undertaken by a third party, the Ombudsman would expect to see that the landlord had done all it could to manage the situation, to proactively pursue the outstanding works and to consider alternative solutions where resolution was prolonged. The evidence provided as part of this investigation shows:
1. The landlord produced a fortnightly outstanding defects log for the developer. It used this to chase defects and share notes. It was reasonable to use this for non-urgent defects, but it was not detailed enough to easily identify and alert the landlord to defects that were nearly out of timescales.
2. In February 2023 the landlord and the developer discussed more effective ways to communicate to ensure items were not missed and actions were timely. This included colour coding the notes on the log to know what was new and who the note was from.
3. The communication lines were open between the landlord and the developer, but the landlord did not do enough to push the developer on the defects that were nearly out of time. It does not appear to have been a concern for either the landlord or the developer that timescales were continually not being met.
Absent from the evidence provided was anything that showed the landlord had considered utilising the clauses in schedule 7 for when the developer had failed to adhere to both timescales and quality. The landlord told the resident in the stage 2 review panel that it was struggling with the developer. It would have been reasonable of the landlord to implement the schedule 7 terms or explain to the resident why it did not. Therefore, the landlord acted unreasonably.
The landlord’s communication and actions with the developer did not go far enough. The Ombudsman recognises that due to the high volume of defects raised it may be more difficult to adhere to timescales due to the practicalities of providing so many repairs. The Ombudsman also recognises that some of the repairs that were out of time did have multiple visits to the property. However, the landlord could have put more remedies in place with the developer to try and improve the service and it was unreasonable that it did not. In not doing so it had an adverse impact on the resident resulting in multiple visits, time and trouble logging and chasing defects, long waiting times and disruption to his daily life.
Eleven repairs were logged from the final defect’s inspection. The landlord provided the list to the developer 8 working days after the inspection. The landlord acted inappropriately given that the agreement was 5 working days. Although the delay was not excessive, the landlord was aware of delays with the developer completing works. It should have prioritised getting the list to the developer quickly.
Part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord was that 2 defects had been categorised incorrectly. On 16 November 2022 a category 3 defect (non-urgent) was logged for a mouldy kitchen. The photos on the works order showed small patches of mould behind the kitchen units. Mould was not listed under any category. Although the list of examples under each category is not a definitive list, its absence would have made it difficult for the person categorising the defect to know what category to log it under. The Ombudsman expects landlords to take any reports of damp and mould seriously. It is considered a category 1 hazard in the Housing Health and Safety Rating system, introduced under the Housing Act 2004. New build homes are susceptible to issues as they are still drying out when occupied for the first time and it should have been listed under a category. It was unreasonable that the schedule 7 agreement did not have ‘damp, mould, condensation’ listed.
Despite its category 3 status the developer initially acted quickly. A dehumidifier was provided on 18 November 2022. On 28 November 2022 a wall cabinet was removed to check for mould, cleaned and refitted. On 1 December 2022 new backboards for the units were ordered. The work to clean and treat the mould was booked for 14 December 2022 but then re-arranged twice to 23 January 2023. The landlord did chase this appointment for the resident. In the outstanding defect’s logs of 20 December 2022 and 4 January 2023 the landlord specifically told the developer that it needed an update on the mould wash. The landlord acted reasonably in its efforts to get the developer to complete the mould wash.
The second defect the resident felt was categorised incorrectly was his report of a raw sewage smell on 26 January 2023. It was categorised as a category 3 defect (non-urgent). The schedule 7 agreement did not include an example defect around health and safety of occupiers. As with the defect above it would have been challenging for the landlord to know how to categorise this defect. It was unreasonable that the schedule 7 did not encompass this kind of report.
The developer investigated the smell and carried out work to the drains and pipes to try and eradicate it. The resident’s description of the smell being sewage was taken as correct, and the investigation went down that route. While the Ombudsman cannot determine on the actions of the developer it can determine that the landlord should have done more to help the resident, the longer the smell continued. The landlord could have:
1. Offered the developer any expertise it had in the field.
2. Arranged to meet with the developer and resident at an agreed time so the resident could have shut all the windows to contain the smell and giving everyone a better chance to identify it.
3. Requested the developer eliminate other possibilities. As the location of the smell seemed to change, it did not directly point to being a sewage issue.
4. Put more pressure on the developer to adhere to timescales.
The landlord acted unreasonably by not doing enough to help the resident. It was not customer focused and it placed an unreasonably heavy reliance on the developer, that it knew was not performing, to solve a complicated issue.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that the landlord’s communication was poor. In the stage 2 review panel the resident told the landlord that it felt like when he messaged the landlord and developer everyone seemed to “wake up” and there would be a flurry of activity. The email exchanges on the bottom of each work log support this statement. Most of the communication appeared to be instigated from the resident asking what was happening. The landlord acted unreasonably and should have been more pro-active. This may have alleviated any concerns the resident had about the developer, if he had felt that the landlord was fully supporting him and focused on fixing the defects in time.
At some point the landlord agreed with the resident’s request to be included in the landlord’s emails to the developer. This appeared to work for a few months. It was reasonable of the landlord to agree to the request, and it resulted in improved communication and responses from the developer. However, the resident told the stage 2 review panel that this stopped, and he felt the communication reverted to its original poor standard. The landlord should have ensured this communication agreement continued or informed the resident why it was going to stop. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident about this. It may have contributed to the resident’s negative view that the landlord could not communicate effectively.
This investigation has been hampered by a lack of evidence around the communication between the resident and the landlord. No telephone logs were provided. The works order forms for each defect have email exchanges attached to the bottom of them. However, the forms state that only the 10 most recent emails are attached. Only some of the messages are dated. This has made it difficult to determine if the landlord responded to the resident in a reasonable timeframe. It has also made it difficult to determine how quickly the landlord contacted the developer, following a query from the resident. This is indicative of poor knowledge and information management by the landlord in both its communication with the resident and the developer.
Where there are failings by the landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation, actions for example) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint in all the circumstances. In the Ombudsman’s assessment the financial and non-financial remedies were not proportionate to the impact the failings had on the resident.
At stage 1 of the complaint process the landlord offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £365.16. The landlord’s compensation and goodwill policy tells us that goodwill gestures should not be used when the landlord is at fault. They should only be used in the interest of building positive customer relations. However, at both stages of the complaint process the landlord upheld the complaint and found fault with its communication attributing to the delays. It should have offered the goodwill gesture solely for the faults of the developer and offered a separate compensation payment for the failures of the landlord. It was not reasonable that it only offered a goodwill gesture.
The landlord’s stage 1 response agreed that the landlord would review the escalation processes in place with the contractors, and the communication channels with the residents. No evidence received as part of this investigation suggests this review had been completed and what the outcome was. The resident was not kept informed and commented that nothing changed. The landlord acted unreasonably. Its proposed actions were solution driven and customer focused but it did not follow through with them. This may have attributed to the resident feeling that the landlord had not rectified its lack of communication in anyway.
The landlord did not exhaust other remedies that may have put things right in this case. It should have set out a communication plan with the resident, detailing how it would contact him and when. It should have attempted to bring forward the date of 4 July 2023 for the final defect repairs. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not do more to put things right which might have improved the landlord and resident relationship.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response increased the offer to £472.55. This was splitting the difference between the stage 1 offer and the resident’s request of 2 months’ rent at £630.06. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated £427.55 which was an error as splitting the difference equates to £472.55. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable and fair for the landlord to offer this as a goodwill gesture for the developer’s failings.
It would have been fair and reasonable for the landlord to offer a further £300 for its communication failures with the resident and the developer, that contributed to the delays in the defect repairs being completed. This would have been in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. In recognition of this, an order is made below.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects. The landlord at times did demonstrate it could communicate well and its good intent was clear throughout. However, its communication contributed to poor outcomes for the resident including the delayed completion of defect repairs and a negative experience of moving into a new home. The landlord did not utilise the options in the schedule 7 to adequately manage the delays with the developer and take action on their failings. The landlord did not help the resident enough and the financial remedy understated the adverse impact the experience may have had on the resident.

Landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s ‘talk to us’ policy sets out the timescales for responding to complaints. They are:
1. Within 3 working days the landlord must call the resident to discuss the complaint, unless the resident tells the landlord this is not required.
2. Acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days.
3. Provide a response within 10 working days of being logged.
4. The resident must request a stage 2 escalation within 20 days of the stage 1 response.
5. The resident must be advised of the review panel date within 10 working days of the escalation and must have 10 working days’ notice of the panel date.
6. Provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
7. If the landlord needs an extension, it must explain why and be clear with the resident.
The resident complained on 22 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 March 2023. It advised it would respond by 6 April 2023. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging within its published timescales. It gave the resident a date it would respond by, 10 working days from the complaint being acknowledged.
There was no record of the landlord calling the resident within 3 working days of his complaint being acknowledged. This was not appropriate. It is good practice to speak to the complainant as part of the investigation. The landlord recognises this as it is part of its policy.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 6 April 2023. The landlord had agreed to incorporate the most recent developments in the complaint into the resident’s original complaint of 22 March 2023. The most recent developments were directly linked to the original complaint. Paragraph 5.7 of the complaint handling code (the Code) at the time of this complaint allows for additional complaints to be added, if they are relevant, and the landlord’s stage 1 response has not been issued. The landlord acted appropriately. It was customer focused and understood a lot had happened between 22 March 2023 and 6 April 2023.
A new response date was agreed, and the landlord provided a stage 1 written response on 24 April 2023, 10 working days after the additional complaint information was received. This was reasonable of the landlord. New information had been added to the complaint and it was fair and reasonable that the landlord needed time to investigate and respond.
In his stage 2 escalation request the resident noted that he had received the stage 1 response on the 25 April 2023, not the 24 April 2023 and that this was 1 day over the 10-working day timescale. The landlord should have correctly dated the letter, given that the resident had a 20-day deadline to escalate the complaint. However, the Ombudsman does not determine that this minor error had an adverse impact on the resident. He escalated within 15 days.
The stage 1 response contained the appropriate information as per paragraph 5.8 of the Code:
1. The complaint stage.
2. The complaint definition.
3. The decision on the complaint.
4. The reasons for any decision made.
5. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
6. Details of any outstanding actions.
7. Details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
The landlord told the resident the date of the review panel hearing 7 working days after the resident escalated the complaint. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s ‘talk to me’ policy. It gave the resident 7 working days’ notice of the panel hearing appointment. Although the policy states that 10 working days’ notice should be given, the Ombudsman does not consider the shorter notice had an adverse impact on the resident. The landlord acted reasonably.
The landlord may wish to consider amending its policy. It would be more manageable to have a shorter timescale for advising the resident of the panel hearing. This could then allow for 10 working days’ notice of the panel hearing date and time for the landlord to complete the written response. The current timescales make it challenging for the landlord to meet the overall 20 working day’s target for stage 2 of its complaint process.
The review panel hearing took place on 31 May 2023 and the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was completed on 13 June 2023. This was 23 working days after the resident escalated his complaint. The landlord had completed a panel hearing and was in contact with the resident. The 3-day delay did not have an adverse impact on the resident. The Ombudsman noticed in the review panel transcript that it appeared the landlord’s stage 2 reviewing officer thought the 20 working days started after the panel hearing. This was not the case, and the landlord should ensure its staff have had adequate training on complaints and understand the timescales within the policy.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 13 June 2023 contained all the appropriate information as per paragraph 5.16 of the Code. This is the same as for stage 1 except it must provide details of how to escalate matters to the Ombudsman if the resident remains dissatisfied. The landlord acted appropriately.
In summary, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. It followed its ‘time to talk’ policy. Where it was a few days late meeting the timescales, it did not have an adverse impact on the resident. A recommendation is made below to consider amending its timescales around its stage 2 actions.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the impact of its failures on the resident. This written apology must be from someone in the landlord’s senior management team.
2. Pay the resident, if it has not already done so, the £472.55 it offered at stage 2 of the complaint.
3. Pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of defects. This payment is in addition to the £472.55 the landlord has already offered.
4. This must be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any rent arrears or other amount owed.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to complete a case review that considers and accounts for the failings in this case. A senior manager should conduct the review, which should set out:
1. The outcome of the review of the escalation processes in place with contractors.
2. The outcome of the review into communication channels with residents during the defect period.
3. Whether ‘damp, mould and condensation’ and ‘health and safety of occupiers’ should be included in future development agreements, to allow for correct categorisation of certain defects. The outcome to be that the schedule is clearer as to how those defects should be categorised.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord consider reviewing the timescales around the notification of the review panel hearing and the notice period given to the resident. This is to ensure the landlord has enough time to complete the stage 2 response within 20 working days from the escalation date.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord consider reviewing its staff training for complaints, specifically to ensure all relevant staff have a clear understanding of the timescales.