Legal and General Affordable Homes (202229318)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229318

Legal and General Affordable Homes

27 March 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 response to the resident’s reports of defects to her property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of this investigation.

Background

The resident moved into a 4-bedroom new build property on 18 November 2022 and has a shared-ownership lease. The property had a defect liability period from 28 November 2022 to 28 November 2023. The landlord confirmed it had been made aware at the start of the lease that the resident was registered disabled. The landlord was also made aware of vulnerabilities within the household in December 2022. The resident informed the landlord that she and her daughter were vulnerable due to health conditions.
On 23 November 2022, the resident reported the following defects at her property to the landlord:
1. The front door was not completely level and was lower on one side.
2. The front window to the ground floor had been left in a poor state with mud and scuffs to the frame and external sill.
3. There were exposed cables to the front garden which had not been connected and the resident did not know what these were for.
4. The boiler was making a frequent knocking sound, and this was an urgent issue.
5. There were exposed screws on the rear gate.
6. The resident had not been able to use the EV charging point as they had not been able to register an account with the manufacturer using the serial number.

On 10 December 2022, the resident followed up with the landlord and said that the heating was not working properly, and the boiler was continuing to make a knocking sound. The resident told the landlord that the property was cold, and her young daughter was “freezing”.

The resident emailed the landlord on 17 December 2022. She said the following:
1. She had called the previous week about the reported defects but had not heard back.
2. There was a draft from the front door and the doors in the living room.
3. Her daughter was vulnerable due to a health condition and the cold house had affected her health.
4. The shower screen had broken and fallen into the bath.
5. She asked the landlord to contact her as soon as possible to resolve the issues.

In response to this, the landlord logged a stage 1 complaint on behalf of the resident on 19 December 2022. The developer attended to the issues with the heating on 20 December 2022, fixed the draughty doors, and repaired the shower screen. The resident reported to the landlord on 21 December 2022 that the shower screen had fallen off again while her daughter was in the bath. The developer’s contractor attended on the 22 December 2002. They removed the broken shower screen and ordered a new one to be fitted.

The landlord issued its stage one response on 25 January 2023. The landlord said the developer had delayed in responding to the defects reported due to an IT issue in which they had not received the defect reports raised by the landlord. It said the repair to the exposed screws and front door was in hand and the other defects reported had been resolved. It offered the resident £150 of compensation for the delay in attending to the urgent defects and for the inconvenience and distress caused. The landlord said that its internal complaints process was concluded and signposted the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 February 2023. The Resident told the landlord that she had been in contact with this Service and had been advised to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The resident said she had not been contacted by the landlord since the 25 January 2023 when she had been contacted about the outstanding defects and had advised the list was incorrect and the defects were not fully resolved. She said the shower screen had not been replaced and the screws on the side gate needed removing.
The landlord issued its final response to the resident on 20 March 2023. It said the following:
1. It was clear that a series of errors by the it and the developer had led to unnecessary delays in resolving the defects.
2. It had issued an instruction to the developer to order the replacement shower screen on 22 December 2022, but it was evident that this was not ordered as requested.
3. Prior to issuing its stage 1 response it had had been informed by the developer’s contractor that the new shower screen had been fitted. The landlord said it should have checked this directly with the resident.
4. The landlord had reviewed the level of compensation offered at stage 1 and given the further delays in a final resolution to the shower screen it offered a further amount of £50. This brought the total compensation offered to £200.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested an investigation of her complaint by this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation.

In raising her complaint, the resident referred to the situation impacting upon her health. While this Service is able to assess the service the landlord provided, and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused. The investigation cannot directly assess any reported impact on health or the liability for impacts on health and wellbeing, as this is better suited for the courts.
In her submissions to the Ombudsman, the resident has referred to further issues which do not relate to the complaint under investigation. The Ombudsman cannot consider the complaints about the further defects reported in November 2023 and the service charge. This is because these complaints were not raised through the landlord’s internal complaints process. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects to her property.

The landlord’s home user guide states that the defects liability period of 12 months began for the resident’s property on 28 November 2022 and ended on the 28 November 2023. The guide states that during this period, defects with the property should be reported to its aftercare team.
The guide defines defects as a fault in the construction of a new build property that adversely alters the practical use or enjoyment of the property, or a fault in the installation or manufacture of items of equipment which form part of the construction. Any defects or problems with installed white goods should be made to the manufacturer under the guarantee and not through the defects reporting procedure.
The landlord’s defects process states that its aftercare team will assess and triage the defect once reported. The landlord categorises defects into 4 priorities as follows. Priority 1 are emergency repairs that must be responded to and made safe and fully rectified within 24 hours, priority 2 are urgent repairs to be rectified within 7 days, priority 3 are routine repairs to be rectified within 4 weeks, and priority 4 are end of defect repairs which will be completed as part of the end of defects process.
The process states that once triaged, the landlord will contact the relevant developer and report the defect. It says the landlord will continue to liaise between the resident and the developer until the defect is completed. It states that the landlord will not close a defect until the resident has confirmed that the works have been completed. The policy says that in the event the developer refuses to attend the defects or fails to attend within the agreed timescale, the landlord will seek authority to appoint its own supplier to complete the works.
The resident first reported defects at her property to the landlord on 23 November 2022. From the evidence provided to this Service, the landlord had raised the defects with the developer on 28 November 2022. The landlord had confirmed in its stage 1 response on 25 January 2023 that the items which had been accepted as defects, included the front door, exposed screws to the gate, the knocking sound made by the boiler and the shower screen. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s home user guide.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response that the repair to the front door and the screws to the fence were in hand. In consideration that these had been reported in November 2022, and were still outstanding by 25 January 2023, this timeframe was not in line with the landlord’s defects process. This stated that routine defects repairs would be rectified within 4 weeks. It was noted that this period included additional non working days due to bank holidays over the Christmas period.
It was not clear from the evidence provided when the repair to the door was completed. In regard to the repair to the screws on the gate, the resident told the landlord in her complaint escalation on 24 February 2023 that this defect remained outstanding. The landlord’s records noted that this was completed on 16 February 2023, and it had visited the resident’s property on 24 February 2023 to confirm this. The timeframe here for this repair was 58 working days. This was inappropriate and had caused the resident inconvenience and frustration. However, it was evident that the landlord had liaised with the developer on the progress of this repair and had chased the developer for an update on this on 19 December 2022, 4 January 2024, 15 February 2023, and 24 February 2023.
The repair to the shower screen was also delayed. It was evident that the resident had first reported this defect to the landlord on 17 December 2022. The landlord demonstrated that it had reported this to the developer on 19 December 2022 and a repair had been completed on 20 December 2022. The resident reported on 21 December 2022 that the shower screen had again fallen off. The landlord took the appropriate action of liaising with the developer the following day about this defect and the developer arranged for a contractor to remove the shower screen.
The landlord told the resident on 22 December 2022 that a new shower screen had been ordered to be fitted in the new year. This was an appropriate action to take at this time, given that the repair to the screen had previously failed and the resident had raised concerns about its safety. The resident told the landlord on 21 December 2022 that the shower screen had fallen off while her daughter was in the bath. The landlord’s records noted that it had raised the resident’s concerns with the developer. It confirmed to the resident in its stage 1 response that it had reviewed where else it had installed the shower screen and believed it had been an isolated incident. The landlord demonstrated here that it had investigated the resident’s concerns about the risk of the shower screen appropriately.
Following this initial action, the landlord had failed to follow up with the developer on the progress of this repair. It said in its stage 1 response that the shower screen had been fully replaced. However, this had not happened, and the resident said in her complaint escalation that this was still outstanding. It was noted that the developer’s contractor advised the landlord on 24 February 2023 that it had left 2 voicemails for the resident and had posted a letter in January 2023 in regard to the shower screen.
The shower screen was replaced on 17 March 2024. This was 59 working days after the landlord had received the resident’s report that this had broken again. While it was evident that the developer’s contractor had attempted to contact the resident, the landlord had not followed up on the progress of the repair or kept the resident updated. This was not in line with the landlord’s defects process. The landlord acknowledged in its final complaint response that it should have checked with the resident directly to find out if she was satisfied with the outcome of the shower screen repair. Had the landlord continued to liaise between the resident and the developer on this issue it would have been clear that the repair was still outstanding. As a result of this, the repair was delayed and took longer than the timeframes set out in the landlord’s defects process.
The resident had reported an issue with the boiler on 23 November 2022. The resident followed up with the landlord on 10 December 2022and said that the heating did not seem to be working properly and some of the radiators did not work. The resident also told the landlord that she had a 2-year-olddaughter, and her hands were “freezing” in the property. The resident followed up with the landlord in an email received on 19 December 2022 in which she explained the health vulnerabilities of both her and her daughter and that the cold house had been impacting on their health. On receipt of this information, the landlord took the appropriate action of establishing the extent of the heating loss with the resident and contacted the developer to request that they address this urgently. The developer’s contractor attended on 20 December 2022 and subsequently confirmed it had carried out the full repair on 21 December 2022. The landlord had here acted appropriately by liaising with the developer with urgency once it was aware of the vulnerabilities in the household.
While it was evident that the initial report of the knocking sound to the boiler was unrelated to the loss of heating, the landlord should have fully investigated with the resident on 10 December 2022 the problems with the heating to establish if this was an urgent repair. As such this was not raised as an urgent defect until 19 December 2022 with the developer.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that the delays experienced by the resident had been due to an IT issue, which it confirmed to this Service it had since resolved. The issue had meant that the developer had not received the landlord’s initial defect reports. From the records provided by the landlord, the developer had not received the reports of the defects made prior to 19 December 2022. It was also clear that the list of defects was not assessed by the developer until 4 January 2023 as a result of this issue.
The landlord had reassured the resident in its stage 1 response that a workaround had been put in place to ensure communication between the landlord and the developer. However, it was clear that communication issues between the landlord and the developer had continued after this. The landlord had here failed to demonstrate effective communication with the developer, and also did not demonstrate that it had learnt from the errors it acknowledged at stage 1 of the complaints process.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times during the defect repairs process. The resident received an acknowledgement from the landlord on 24 November 2022 of her initial report of defects. However, she contacted the landlord on 1 December 2022, 10 December 2022, and 12 December 2022 for an update. The landlord advised on both occasions that it was chasing the developer for an update. The landlord had here not demonstrated that it had proactively chased or successfully secured an update on the status of the repair work with the developer in order to provide the resident with updates until prompted by the resident. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with timely updates on the progress of the repair to the shower screen, and repair to the screws on the gate. As such, the landlord missed the opportunity to provide the resident with timescales for the completion of the work and set her expectations around the repairs. As a result, the resident was left unsure of when repairs would take place.
When a landlord agrees that it failed to provide a service, the expectation is for the landlord to offer redress. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that there had been delays in attending to the resident’s defects which had been caused by errors by itself and the developer. It had offered the resident compensation of £150 at stage 1 to account for the delays in attending to the urgent defects and a further £50 to account for the further delays to the shower screen repair.
While the offer of redress made by the landlord shows good practice in trying to resolve complaints and learn from outcomes, the compensation was not fully appropriate for the failings identified. The resident had spent time and trouble chasing the landlord for responses on the repairs and had also experienced the distress and inconvenience of the further delay to the repair to the shower screen.
In summary, the resident experienced delays in the completion of repairs to reported defects. It was evident that the initial delays were the result of an IT issue between the landlord and developer. However, the landlord demonstrated that it had failed to communicate effectively with the developer on the outstanding repairs or follow up with the resident. When works were arranged the landlord was not proactive in monitoring the completion of the works or the actions of the developer. This had caused further delays to the repair of the residents shower screen. This had resulted in further frustration and inconvenience for the resident who had then needed to escalate her complaint to resolve the matter.
The landlord attempted to put this right for the resident through a total offer of compensation of £200. However, this was not proportionate to fully account for the further delay to the shower screen repair and the level of inconvenience and distress caused to the resident. As such there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects to her property. A further amount of £50 compensation is considered appropriate to account for the distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. If an initial complaint cannot be resolved on discussing the issue, a resident can request the complaint to be logged at stage 1 of the complaints process. The landlord will investigate and respond within 5 working days. A resident can escalate their complaint to stage 2 if they remain dissatisfied. The landlord will respond within 10 working days from the point of escalation. If the landlord needs longer to respond it will agree this with the resident.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate. If it is not possible for a landlord to respond within these timeframes, an explanation, and a date of when the response will be received is required. This should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason.
The landlord logged the email from the resident on 17 December 2022 as a formal stage 1 complaint. This was an appropriate action by the landlord as the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with its service.
It was noted that the landlord’s stage 1 response was delayed. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 January 2023 which was a timeframe of 24 working days. The landlord did notify the resident on 3 January 2023 and said that it needed an extension to the complaint period which was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy. However, it did not specify a timeframe for when the resident could expect a response.
It was evident that the landlord had provided incorrect information to the resident about its complaint procedure in its stage 1 response. It said that its internal complaints process was concluded and if the resident was dissatisfied with the response, she was able to take the matter further with this Service. This was incorrect, as the landlord operates a 2 stage formal complaints process in line with the Code.
As a result of this misinformation, the resident contacted this Service and was advised to escalate her complaint to stage 2 with the landlord. This caused the resident the time and trouble of following up with this Service. It had limited the resident’s access to the full complaints process during this time. It had also delayed the process further. Had the landlord included the correct next steps for the resident to take to escalate her complaint, the resident would have been able to access the second stage of the complaints process sooner. This caused the resident further frustration and had a detrimental impact on the landlord and resident relationship.
While the landlord accepted the resident’s complaint escalation on 24 February 2023, it had not provided the resident with an explanation for or an acknowledgement of the incorrect information it had provided in its complaint response. This was despite the resident informing the landlord that it had missed the second stage of its complaints process and she had been in touch with this Service as directed. The landlord had here missed the opportunity to investigate this issue and learn from this.
The landlord attempted to resolve the substantive complaint through an offer of compensation. However, it did not acknowledge or account for any of its complaint handling failures within its final response.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor. While it had informed the resident of an extension to the delay at stage 1, it had not set her expectations on when its response would be issued. The landlord had also incorrectly told the resident that it had concluded its internal complaints process at stage 1. This caused the resident the inconvenience, and time and trouble of having to follow up with this Service for advice on escalating her complaint. This had also limited the resident’s access to the full complaints process for a period of time. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where a landlord’s failures have adversely affected a resident and where a landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £350 compensation. This amount includes the £200 offered during the complaints process. Compensation not already paid, should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
1. £250 for the distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects to her property.
2. £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord should review its complaint handing procedure to ensure that it is providing residents with the correct information about how to escalate a complaint and bring any identified learning into its operations within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation.

The landlord should review its staff training needs in regard to the importance of communicating with residents throughout the defect process.