LiveWest Homes Limited (202231260)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231260

LiveWest Homes Limited

14 February 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 handling of defects in a new build property and specifically:
1. issues with the resident’s bathroom taps, bath, gas hob and radiators.
2. issues with the resident’s gate, front door, and kitchen cupboards.
3. the landlord’s communication with the resident including her request for compensation.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of a newly built property with the landlord under a lease dated 30 May 2022. The property is a 3-bedroom mid-terraced house. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
On 30 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and reported that her front door was not closing correctly and was letting a draught into the property. On 13 November 2022, the resident reported that her outdoor gate was not closing correctly. On 8 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and reported that a kitchen cupboard door was defective and required replacement.
On 1 February 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord in which she said:
1. She was unhappy with the landlord’s defect reporting process.
2. There were outstanding issues with her front door, kitchen cupboard and back gate.
3. She was unhappy with the handover process and the communication from the landlord.
On 8 February 2023, the landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 response in which it said:
1. The defect reporting process meant that the resident should report all defects directly to the landlord during the first 12 months. The landlord said this information was in the resident’s “New Home User Guide”.
2. The developer had agreed to replace the front door, but this was delayed due to manufacturing issues. The landlord said the developer had arranged an appointment to replace the door on 3 March 2023.
3. The kitchen cupboard was on order, but the landlord did not have an estimated lead time. The landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in replacing the front door and the kitchen cupboard and said it had told the developer that the length of time was unacceptable.
4. It had inspected the gate and found no defects. The landlord said the gate was in good working order and opened and closed correctly. However, the landlord said it would carry out a further review of the gate during its ‘end of defects’ inspection. The landlord also provided the resident with details of the NHBC warranty scheme.
5. It had discussed the resident’s feedback regarding the handover process with the relevant team. The landlord apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused and said it had always responded to the resident within 5 working days. The landlord also offered the resident £50 compensation for any distress or inconvenience caused.
On the same date (8 February 2023), the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. In her escalation request, the resident said:
1. She was unhappy with the compensation the landlord had offered and felt this did not reflect the time, photographs, and phone calls she made in dealing with the issues.
2. The gate was 3 inches too small and was weighted on one side which was causing the gate to drop. The resident said a contractor had told her the gate was made incorrectly.
On 24 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it explained:
1. it had reviewed all emails relating to the defects the resident had raised, reviewed its communication with the developer and all records of snags/defects recorded during construction.
2. the ‘end of defects’ inspection was completed on 17 February 2023 with a surveyor in attendance. The landlord said it inspected the gate again on this date and the bolt and latch aligned and worked correctly, the gate opened and closed without any issues and there was no sign of any dropping. The landlord acknowledged that some additional timber had been added to the post to close a gap and that this was a different colour, but it was treated and performed the function of closing the gap.
3. it acknowledged that the resident’s gate may have been a different style to other gates, but although it was different in appearance, the gate provided a satisfactory structure and was fit for purpose.
4. it was satisfied the gate was not defective and therefore it would not replace it. However, the landlord understood that the resident may have been given the impression by operatives previously that there was an issue, which may have affected the resident’s faith in the gate. Therefore, the landlord offered the resident £100 as a “gesture of goodwill if the resident wished to alter the gate herself.”
5. it was sorry for the length of time taken to replace the front door.
6. the compensation it had offered was fair and reasonable. However, it offered a further £50 in acknowledgement that the front door seal was defective during winter months which may have caused some loss of heat.

The landlord offered a total of £200 compensation across its complaint responses.

The landlord said the resident’s front door was replaced on 13 April 2023. The landlord said the kitchen cupboard door was replaced on 8 August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The complaint about bathroom taps, bath, gas hob and radiators

Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:
“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made before having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
The resident has advised that she has raised issues with her bathroom taps, bath, gas hob and radiators. From the evidence provided, the resident did not raise these issues as part of her initial complaint on 1 February 2023. The landlord has also confirmed that it has investigated and responded to these issues as a separate complaint. As these issues have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure – the Ombudsman cannot investigate them.

The complaint about the developer

In correspondence with the landlord, the resident also raised dissatisfaction with the property developer and its handling of the repairs. The property developer is not a social landlord and therefore they are not members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. In accordance with paragraph 41(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member landlord. As such, we cannot investigate the way the developer handled matters.

Scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint on 1 February 2023 against the landlord only which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 24 February 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before 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. Complaints about developers may be made to the New Homes Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the defects

The property was handed over from the developer to the landlord in February 2022. It was subject to a 12-month period for which the developer is responsible for defects. This is known as the ‘defect period’. Residents are expected to report defects to the landlord, who would pass these on to the developer. Near the end of the defect period, residents are offered an inspection to raise any issues or outstanding defects. After the end of the defect period, residents are responsible for the property and any further issues. However, some latent structural issues may be covered under a warranty provision. The property currently benefits from National House Building Council (NHBC) warranty cover.
Under the terms of the lease, the leaseholder is responsible for keeping the premises in good and substantial repair and condition. The leaseholder is also responsible for keeping the boundaries in good repair and condition. The occupier’s handbook provides comprehensive information for residents, including information on how to report a repair to the landlord.
Although the landlord was not responsible for repairing the defects, it was responsible for proactively:
1. reporting the defects to the developer.
2. taking reasonable steps to compel the developer to take action.
3. updating the resident on the progress of the repairs and what action it had taken.

The resident’s front door

From the evidence provided, the resident reported issues with her front door on 30 October 2022. This was within the 12-month defect period and therefore it was the developer’s responsibility to repair this. The resident said the front door started to bow and she was concerned for the health and safety of her child and her pets, particularly due to concerns that the glass in the door would break.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that some of the defects that she reported to the landlord were present at the time of completion. Therefore, the date that the resident reported the issue to the landlord may not correlate with the date when the resident first identified the issue. For example, the resident said the front door snapped when the developer first installed it. It is also unclear whether the resident first reported some of the issues to the developer rather than the landlord. Given the documentary evidence available, the Ombudsman has focussed on the date that the landlord was made aware of the issue with the front door, being 30 October 2022.
The landlord reported the front door to the developer on 2 November 2022. The landlord confirmed that the developer replaced the door on 13 April 2023. Therefore, there was a delay of 5 months until the developer replaced the front door.
The landlord has explained that the delay for the front door replacement was largely due to manufacturing backlogs. The developer also cancelled an appointment on 3 March 2023 due to staff illness. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the developer’s actions; however, what the Ombudsman can assess is the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of issues with her front door.
The evidence shows that the landlord emailed the resident on 1 February 2023 about the delays to the front door. It also explained the manufacturing delays in its stage 1 and stage 2 response. The evidence also shows that the landlord remained in regular contact with the developer and on multiple occasions requested an update on the front door replacement. This was appropriate.
The Ombudsman understands that the delay in replacing the front door would have likely caused the resident distress and concern, particularly as she was worried for the health and safety of her family. However, the Ombudsman recognises that delays due to manufacturing issues are often unavoidable. With this in mind, the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of issues with her front door was reasonable. It notified the developer of the issue within 2 days of receiving the resident’s report. It investigated the reason for the delay and explained this to the resident. The landlord continued to chase for updates from the developer and remained in communication with the resident.

The resident’s gate

The resident contacted the landlord on 13 November 2022 and reported the issues with her gate. This was within the 12-month defect period and therefore it was the developer’s responsibility to repair the defects.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 November 2022 to confirm it had reported the issue to the developer. The landlord said it arranged for the developer to inspect the gate in November 2022. The resident said the developer informed her that the gate had “dropped” and the latch was faulty.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 December 2022 and said the developer had agreed to rectify the gate. The landlord said there appeared to be issues with the latch aligning and reports of the gate dropping. The Ombudsman understands that the developer carried out some repair works to the gate on or around 17 or 18 January 2023. This included the replacement of the latch and adjustment of the gate. The repair record provided said the developer completed the repair on 19 January 2023. However, the resident said the gate was still defective and a contractor had previously told her that the gate required replacement.
In correspondence with the landlord, the resident said she was unhappy that a contractor had accessed her garden in January 2023 to carry out repair works without an appointment. The resident said she had returned home from work to find a piece of wood attached to the side of the gate, and that this would have required access to her garden.
The landlord said it did not notify the resident of an appointment in January 2023, but it understood that the contractor/developer had contacted the resident directly to arrange the appointment. However, in an email from the developer to the landlord dated 17 January 2023, the developer asked the landlord to inform the resident of the appointment. It appears that the landlord did not action this email and failed to inform the resident of the appointment.
Despite this, the landlord investigated the issue with the contractor, and it was advised that a contractor verbally spoke with the resident on 17 January 2023 and agreed to attend the property the next day to complete repairs. The landlord said that there was no evidence that the contractor accessed the garden without prior notice. Based on the documentary evidence available in this case, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the resident was informed of the appointment in January 2023. The Ombudsman is also unable to comment on the actions of the developer. However, it is best practice for landlords to ensure they communicate any appointments in advance and in writing to avoid any unnecessary delays or inconvenience to the resident.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord carried out a further inspection of the gate on 17 February 2023 with an external surveyor and an Aftercare Manager in attendance. The landlord said the bolt and latch aligned, the gate opened and closed and there was no sign of dropping. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it advised that the developer had also inspected the gate and confirmed it was fit for purpose. The landlord also provided a detailed response to the resident in its stage 2 letter. It addressed the resident’s concerns regarding the additional piece of wood installed to the side of the gate and responded to the shape, design and colour of the gate and the structural integrity of the gate.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of issues with her gate was reasonable. The evidence shows that the landlord informed the developer of the resident’s concerns within 1 day of receiving the resident’s report, arranged an inspection and repair works and carried out a further inspection of the gate in February 2023. Further, despite finding no defect, it offered compensation to the resident for any distress or inconvenience caused.

The resident’s kitchen cupboard door

On 8 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and reported that a kitchen cupboard door was defective and required replacement. However, documentation from the developer suggests that the resident may have raised this issue with the developer later in July 2023. Regardless of this, the resident’s report was within the 12-month defect period and therefore it was the developer’s responsibility to repair the defect. The landlord confirmed the kitchen door was replaced on 8 August 2023.
The landlord said the kitchen cupboard issue was primarily dealt with between the resident and the developer. The developer agreed to replace the cupboard door as a gesture of goodwill. Despite this, once the landlord was made aware of the issue with the cupboard door, the evidence shows it chased the developer on the resident’s behalf. The landlord also communicated with the developer throughout January 2023 about the issue and addressed this in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was reasonable. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns with the developer and sought its response to the points the resident had raised. In accordance with the terms of the lease and the conditions of the 12-month defect period, the landlord complied with its obligations in notifying the developer of the issues raised by the resident.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the delays experienced would have likely left the resident feeling frustrated, but the evidence shows that the landlord maintained regular contact with the developer and chased for updates on repairs where appropriate. In addition, the landlord notified the developer of the defects within a reasonable period. The landlord responded to all of the points raised by the resident, offered compensation for the delays experienced and provided a detailed response to the resident’s concerns within its internal complaint procedure.

The landlord’s communication with the resident including her request for compensation

The landlord has offered the resident a total of £200 across its complaint responses. It also paid for the resident’s partner’s loss of earnings as a result of the missed appointment for the front door replacement on 3 March 2023. The resident said she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered and that this did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused, as well as the time spent in dealing with the complaint.
The resident said she spent a considerable amount of time dealing with the complaint, chasing for repairs, and corresponding with the landlord. The resident also said the complaint has caused her significant distress and impacted her well-being. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments and recognises the distress and inconvenience caused, the Ombudsman acknowledges that it is difficult to financially quantify the time spent in dealing with a complaint.
The Ombudsman understands that any resident pursuing a complaint with their landlord will incur a certain amount of time, trouble, and minor costs (such as telephone calls). We would not usually order a landlord to compensate residents for their time in making a complaint in these circumstances.
As part of the offer of compensation, the landlord offered the resident £50 towards her heating costs in recognition of the issues raised regarding the front door. The resident has not provided the landlord with evidence of the heating costs incurred. The Ombudsman has also not seen evidence of the resident’s heating costs before and after the door replacement, or copies of any survey reports to establish the extent of the heat loss in the property as a result of the issue with the front door.
Based on the evidence provided, the Ombudsman is not in a position to accurately assess the likely impact the issues with the front door had on the overall costs of heating the property. As an exact measure of the likely costs the resident incurred is not possible, this service must look to its own remedies guidance to assess compensation due. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, given the lack of evidence available, the landlord’s offer towards the resident’s heating costs was reasonable.
As part of the resident’s initial complaint, she said she was unhappy with the handover process and the landlord’s communication. In correspondence with the landlord, the resident said she felt the landlord had given her misinformation about the defect period. In addition, the resident said she was not allowed to inspect the property when she first signed the lease agreement. The resident said at the time of the handover inspection, the landlord told her to not leave the kitchen, so she was unable to inspect the property for any defects.
The landlord has provided a copy of its “new home demo checklist” which the resident signed on 24 May 2022. The checklist confirms the rectification warranty period end date was 20 February 2023. The document also confirms the landlord discussed the rectification period, home repair reporting and build guarantee provider with the resident during the handover. Based on the documentary evidence available, the Ombudsman is unable to confirm exactly what information the landlord gave the resident during the handover process. However, the landlord addressed this issue in its stage 1 response and clarified the defect reporting process, as well as confirming it had passed the resident’s comments about the handover process to the handover team.
The resident’s lease agreement sets out that she is responsible for keeping the premises in good and substantial repair and condition. The Ombudsman understands the usual procedure for handling reports of defects states that if a resident’s property is over 2 years old when the defect is reported, they will need to contact NHBC to see whether their claim is valid.
The landlord provided the resident with details about the NHBC in its complaint responses. Usually, any defects raised outside of the defects period would be dealt with under the warranty. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost her to the NHBC to report her concerns. The NHBC would be able to investigate her claim and arrange any necessary repairs if the claim was approved.
Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports and remained in regular communication with her. The landlord responded quickly and appropriately to the resident’s complaint in line with the Complaint Handling Code. It provided timely responses to the resident’s emails in an effort to address the resident’s concerns. These actions were reasonable and in line with good practice and customer service. The Ombudsman also notes the landlord’s clear and consistent record keeping with concise notes, emails and repairs information provided.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot investigate the complaints about the bathroom taps, bath, gas hob and radiators because they were not raised as a complaint or exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure as part of the resident’s initial complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 41(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the acts of the developer, as it is not a landlord member of the Scheme.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the resident’s gate, front door, and kitchen cupboards.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident including her request for compensation.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pay the compensation it has offered the resident if it has not already done so.