Hightown Housing Association Limited (202009996)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009996

Hightown Housing Association Limited

29 September 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 is about the landlord’s response to reports of defects in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a joint shared owner who completed the sale of his property on 28 November 2019.
At that time, the resident discovered various defects in the property. He raised these with the sales team on 28 November 2019. Between then and March 2020, the landlord liaised with the builder and the developer’s warranty provider, together with the warranty provider’s dispute resolution service to try to resolve the issues. The Ombudsman investigated the landlord’s handling of the defects. This was up to and including 15 October 2020, under case reference 201915457. We said the landlord was not responsible for maladministration.
This investigation centres on what happened from 16 October 2020. As of this date, the resident raised 407 outstanding defects. The dispute resolution service decided that 222 items ought to be covered and rectified. The other items were considered ‘contractual, specification or snagging’ but not relevant defects which were covered under the policy.
The resident and the builder discussed how the issues could be resolved by either making good the defects or offering a cash settlement. It is noted that the builder offered a cash settlement which it later withdrew on 9 June 2021.
The matter reverted to the warranty provider. On 16 July 2021, the warranty provider confirmed to the landlord that a settlement payment had been made to the resident in relation to all defects in the report. It advised that it was a full and final settlement and that if accepted, discharged all liability for all the defects identified in the report.

The formal complaint

On 11 January 2021, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He said that:
1. When he moved into the property, the snagging works had not been completed. The landlord promised it would complete the snagging at the 12-month review date in September 2020. However, it awaited the report of 16 October 2020. Since then, none of the snagging works had been completed.
2. The landlord had sent letters advising the works would be completed within 28 days of the date of the report in October 2020. However, this was outside the landlord’s policy which required the works to have been completed by September 2020.
3. A member of the landlord’s staff had treated him unfairly by purposefully delaying and avoiding replying to queries relating to whether the builder had been chased.
4. The landlord had allowed its contractor and the developer to delay repairs. The result was that the repairs had not been completed within the timeframes stated by the warranty provider.
The landlord issued an early-stage response on 25 January 2021, in which it said:
1. It was not responsible for the repairs, the developer was. It said the developer had until 15 January 2021, to say whether it would complete the repairs or whether the warranty provider would step in. The landlord explained that it understood the resident was in discussions regarding a cash settlement in lieu of the repairs being completed.
2. There were delays in attending some repairs and the warranty provider carrying out its inspection. However, it said that it regularly chased the developer and the warranty provider for updates and passed these on to the resident.
3. It did not accept its staff member had treated the resident unfairly. It said the staff member in question had been chasing the warranty provider and the developer for updates.
4. It did not accept that it had allowed the developer to delay the repairs. The developer had agreed to complete or start the works within the 3-month period. Since the defects report, the resident had been in correspondence with the developer and a cash settlement had been offered – which the resident had rejected. Since then, the developer had advised it was unwilling to complete the works and the warranty provider had contacted the resident about the next steps.
On 7 February 2020, the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated. He felt that the response did not address the complaint he had raised.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 1 March 2021, under stage 1 of its complaint procedure. Its findings were:
1. Inspections were suspended in March 2020, due to COVID-19. The landlord updated the resident on this on 27 March 2020. In June 2020 the landlord referred the dispute to the warranty provider’s dispute resolution service.
2. The staff-member that the resident had complained about had tried to assist the resident and had not been made fully aware of the resident’s contact with the developer. The staff-member was asking the resident to confirm whether he (the resident) was accepting the cash settlement put forward.
3. The landlord also stated that the staff member in question was correct to decline to raise a complaint. It said that the complaint the resident was attempting to raise had already been dealt with by the landlord in March 2020.
4. The cash settlement offered was in lieu of the repairs being completed.
The landlord issued its final response on 15 April 2021, in which it said:
1. The developer agreed to use the warranty provider’s dispute resolution service on 13 March 2020. That service was required to attend the property – but it advised the landlord on 26 March 2020, that it had suspended all visits due to the pandemic.
2. It updated the resident of this on 27 March 2020. This was followed up in June 2020 when it was informed that the dispute resolution service site visits were taking place. It asked for a visit at that stage (in June 2020). The landlord apologised if the resident felt it had delayed the case.
3. It maintained its position regarding the staff conduct aspect of the complaint. Namely that it could not agree the staff-member had delayed matters and that they had rightly declined to raise duplicate complaints.
4. At that time, the developer was waiting for the resident to sign the settlement agreement.
The resident brought his complaint to this service. The resident believes that as the warranty provider did not seek to identify “contractual, specification or snagging” issues, the landlord must take further action to remedy the outstanding issues, despite the cash settlement. He feels that the landlord has avoided dealing with the repairs and has not supported him in getting the issues resolved.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to defects in the property

The outstanding issue to consider in this case is whether the settlement made to the resident by the warranty provider is a full and final settlement relating to all issues documented within the Technical Manual Report (TMR).
The TMR report categorised the issues as ‘defect’ and others as ‘investigation’ or ‘no-defect’. The insurer’s settlement was only in relation to the valid defects identified within the report.
Whilst all correspondence and communication with the landlord and the warranty provider refer to the valid defects, and state the settlement was in full and final settlement for all the defects, it does not clarify the position with the remaining items listed as ‘issues’ in the report. It is this lack of clarity that has resulted in the complaint being raised by the resident.
This service would have expected the landlord, as a shared owner of the property, to want to clarify the meaning of the settlement made. Namely, the position with the remaining repairs not classified as a defect and who was responsible for them.
The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to support the resident to get those repairs resolved. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord did this. As a result, the resident believes the landlord did not support him in resolving the outstanding repairs, this is a failure on the landlord’s part.
The resident states he has completed all the outstanding works.
Without sight of the unredacted settlement agreement, or a copy of the policy booklet to establish what was covered, or evidence of the cost of the work to the resident, the Ombudsman is unable to determine that the resident has not been fairly indemnified for all the works. Therefore, we can only consider compensation based on the distress, time and inconvenience the resident has experienced as a result of his complaint, in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on remedies

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord operates a two-stage formal complaint process as follows:
1. Stage 1 – early resolution. The landlord will provide a response within ten working days.
2. Stage 1 – A senior manager will provide a written response within ten working days.
3. Stage 2 – A director or the Chief Executive will provide a written response within 15 working days.
The policy states that where the landlord does not accept that the complaint is one it will consider, it will provide a detailed explanation setting out the reasons why this is the case. It identifies the following as reasons a complaint is not eligible:
1. Any claim being dealt with by its insurers, or a contractor’s insurance where applicable (including personal injury, property damage, or compensation claims)
2. Matters already considered under its policy.
Between 16 October 2020 and December 2021, the resident and the landlord communicated with each other regarding the outcome of the TMR. In particular, the resident believed that the landlord was still responsible for the remaining issues not covered and that it should have supported him to resolve the issues. The resident therefore asked that a formal complaint be logged.
In line with its policy, the landlord responded and advised the resident that it did not accept the matter should be logged as a complaint, as the issue was still with the developer and insurers to finalise. It also advised the resident that it considered the complaint to be the same as a previous complaint the resident had raised and that had already been investigated and determined. The resident disputed this and said it was a separate issue and requested it be raised as a new complaint.
The landlord asked the resident to explain why he believed the complaint was different to the one previously investigated. This service considers the above actions to be reasonable under the circumstances. In order to be able to address and respond to a complaint, the landlord needs to understand what the complaint is about and if the complaint is one it has already considered previously. The landlord provided an explanation to the resident in a timely manner, which was in line with its policy.
On 11 January 2021, the resident raised his complaint with the landlord. He explained why he felt the complaint was different to what had previously been investigated. The landlord provided an early stage 1 response on 25 January 2021, this was in line with its policy.
The resident requested his complaint to be escalated on 7 February 2021. The landlord’s policy states that it would respond within ten working days, counted from the working day following receipt of escalation. The request to escalate was not acknowledged by the landlord until 23 February 2021 – 17 days after the resident’s request. There is no evidence to explain the delay, this is a service failure by the landlord.
The resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 21 March 2021. The landlord issued its final response on 15 April 2021. The policy states it will provide the response within 15 working days, therefore the response should have been provided by 11 April 2021, or provide an explanation for the delay and state a date when the response would be received. The landlord failed to meet the timeframe for responding, or provide an explanation why, this is service failure by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to reports of defects in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing ombudsman scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, to within 28 days of the date of this decision, pay the resident:
1. £100 for the time and inconvenience the resident experienced in seeking clarity on the outstanding repairs within the Technical Manual Report (TMR).
2. £100 for the complaint handling.

Recommendations

The complaint was as a result of the lack of clarity in respect of the remaining repairs not considered a defect within the TMR. Had the landlord sought clarity at the time of the settlement, this could have been avoided. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews the actions it ought to have taken in respect of this issue, and include any lessons learned into ensuring it avoids this in the future.