Moat Homes Limited (202202483)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202483

Moat Homes Limited

30 November 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of faulty wiring in the property at the time the electrical installation certificate was signed off.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association. The lease is dated 28 May 2021.
The property is a new build 3 bedroom house.

Summary of events

A building regulations certificate of compliance shows that the ‘new full electrical installation (new build)’ was signed off by the electrician on 5 May 2021. The ‘Domestic Electrical Installation Certificate’ (EIC) was signed off by the electrician on the same date.
On 5 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report that he had organised his own electrical engineer to attend the property because his SMART meters had not been working. During his work he went inside the property to turn off the electricity and found that the sockets in the lounge had been wired incorrectly. This was because the earth and neutral had been put in the wrong way round. He checked all the lounge sockets and confirmed they were all wrong. He said that the fuse box was also labelled incorrectly.
The landlord responded within a matter of hours to confirm that it had arranged for a contractor to attend as an emergency. It asked the resident to confirm that the electric had been turned off. He replied to confirm it had been turned off in the lounge. The developer’s electrical contractor raised a works order on 5 April 2022 to attend the property and it attended to resolve the fault that day as an ‘emergency defect’.
The resident emailed the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint, also on 5 April 2022. The landlord replied on 6 April to say it had opened a formal complaint at “quick resolution stage”. It also:
1. Confirmed that the resident had provided an electrical report which confirmed that cross polarity had been found on the socket ring on all sockets, Miniature Circuit Breaker (MCB) and Residual-current Circuit Breaker (RCD) for the sockets that had been switched off.
2. Said it had asked the developer how the electrics could have been passed with the fault present.
3. Asked the resident if he had made any electrical improvements since moving into the property.
4. Asked the resident to provide reasoning and expected outcomes should he wish to escalate his complaint to stage 1.
The resident replied on 6 April to confirm that when his electrician attended the previous day, he found that the earth and neutral cables were the wrong way around in the fuse box. He advised the resident to leave the electricity off because any appliances plugged in would become the earth because of the fault. If the appliances were touched then the person touching them would become the ‘earth’. He said the developer’s contractor had identified the same fault in the fuse box when they attended to rectify the problem.
Having done his own research the resident was concerned that this was “incredibly dangerous.” He confirmed that he had not changed or touched the electrical system in any way since he moved in. He was dissatisfied that the EIC had been signed off despite the fault and wanted it to be raised at “the very highest level.”
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 April 2022 to confirm that a stage 1 complaint had been opened. It confirmed it would respond within 10 working days. The resident replied on the same day to confirm he was also considering contacting other professional bodies.
On 12 April 2022 the electrical contractor sent an internal email to say that it had attended the property on 5 April in response to a reported issue with the power. It said when it arrived all the power was turned on. It found that the second RCD had the supply cables the wrong way round. This was causing the incorrect polarity to the sockets and the rest of the circuits on that RCD. It said that it carried out a test on every property for handover and would not have left it like that. Furthermore, it said that the test would not have been possible if the RCD was incorrectly wired because it would not have worked. All the polarity tests would fail and the RCD test button would not function.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 19 April 2022, the main points were:
1. To investigate and review the complaint, the landlord requested a formal report from the developer’s electrical contractor. It then set out the contents of the electrical contractor’s internal email of 12 April, set out above.
2. It had no reason to question the EIC which had been completed by a National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting (NICEIC) approved electrician.
3. It apologised to the resident that he had cause for complaint and said that it took the matter seriously.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 18 May 2022, the main points being:
1. The power sockets that were incorrectly wired were switched off and made safe by the smart meter engineer. The engineer had provided signed documentation to that effect.
2. He requested that the landlord raise his concerns with NICEIC.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 May 2022, as follows:
1. It apologised that electrical faults were identified and that the fuse box was not labelled correctly.
2. It acknowledged that “issues such as these should not happen” but that as soon as it was put on notice it was resolved urgently. It apologised this left the resident feeling unsafe in their home.
3. The resident would need to raise his own complaint to the NICEIC but the landlord would support him to do so if necessary.
4. It would cover the cost of the resident’s electrical contractor’s visit.
5. It did not pay compensation for “potential health and safety issues where these have been rectified without any incident.” However, it offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience of having to instruct his own electrical contractor.

Events post internal complaints process

The resident emailed the landlord on 25 May 2022 to say his main concern was the developer changing its response from saying errors were not possible to acknowledging they may have occurred. He also confirmed that at no point did he say the fuse box was labelled incorrectly, just that the wiring was incorrect. The resident pointed out the seriousness of the situation, given the potential consequences.
On 27 May 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for the inconsistencies in its response. It confirmed its stage 1 response included the contractor feedback and the stage 2 response focussed more on the NICEIC procedure. It confirmed how the resident could arrange for compensation to be paid.
On 28 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to express his ongoing dissatisfaction. The landlord replied on the same day to apologise for its “poor standard of communication.” It said it had visited the NICEIC website and went on to provide advice to enable the resident to decide how he wished to progress his complaint. It also said it was “very frustrating and concerning” when a contractor failed to correctly install an electrical installation and said it took such matters seriously.
On 1 June 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that the complaint had been closed and to ask if the resident would like an additional electrical test to be carried out.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 June 2022 to confirm that his complaint had been “thoroughly investigated” and that it had offered compensation as an apology where a failure has occurred. It acknowledged his frustration that the developer did not note the same faults as those identified by the resident’s electrician. It confirmed that it had raised this with the developer but their response remained unchanged. It said it understood the frustration in this information being “incorrect”, but its main aim had been to ensure that the defect was corrected as soon as possible, so that the resident was safe in his home.
It said it had no reason to disbelieve the report from the resident’s own contractor. It confirmed that it would:
1. Cover the cost of the resident’s electrical contractor’s visit.
2. Pay compensation of £100 for inconvenience.
3. Carry out a further electrical test if the resident would like one.
On 20 June 2022 the landlord instructed an independent electrical contractor to carry out an EIC at the property. The resident emailed the landlord on 21 July 2022 to confirm that it had been carried out that day. He said he had discussed the original electrical fault with the contractor who had told him that the issue was a ‘C1 danger’ meaning he had been living in a home with an immediate risk to injury or death. He requested the landlord review its offer of compensation.
The resident emailed us on 28 July 2022 to express his ongoing dissatisfaction that the landlord did not take the incident seriously. He said that to resolve his complaint he would like a “full apology” and compensation which fit “the very serious nature of the fault”, and the distress caused.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 July 2022 to say that it would not increase its offer of compensation. This was because its policy “did not cover compensation for situations such as this.” It agreed that the issue with the electrical installation was a “potentially dangerous situation” however, it did not cause any harm. Once it was put on notice, it resolved the fault.
The landlord’s contractor signed off an EIC on 4 August 2022, the purpose of which was described as “to assess the condition of the installation in terms of the electrical safety, and to confirm that it is safe for continued use.” The electrician described the installation as being in “excellent condition.”
The landlord told us that it sympathised with the resident about his concerns over the electrical faults but did not know why it had a signed compliant certificate, when electrical faults had been identified. It confirmed that its approach was to ensure this was corrected as an emergency and that its main task was to ensure the resident was safe in his home.

Assessment and findings

The resident complained to the landlord that the developer had failed to ensure that the electrics at the property were safe, despite the EIC being signed off before handover. The developer is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme therefore, in line with Paragraph 41 b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the scope of this investigation is limited to the landlord’s response to the complaint only.

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s ‘buying your new shared ownership home’ guide defines a defect as a building flaw or failure that is the builder’s responsibility to put right. It says that the ‘defects liability period’ is usually 1 year from when the builder hands over the property.
Its defects and latent defects policy says that it does not pay compensation for defect related issues or properties within the defects period. Should any compensation claims be received from residents in new built homes, these will be passed onto the developer/builder for consideration. Compensation payments from the developer/builder are not guaranteed and they may only agree to cover costs where the resident has incurred a financial loss. It aims to obtain a full written response from the developer/builder within 28 days of the claim being referred.
Its complaints policy says that if a complaint relates to a new build defect or latent defect where the builders of the property or building warranty provider are investigating the cause, the complaint will not follow its usual 2 stage complaints procedure. The complaint will be logged at the initial stage only at which point it will agree timescales for communication with the resident. If it fails to communicate as agreed or achieve the timescales agreed to, a complaint can be raised for non-response which will follow its full complaints procedure.
Its compensation policy states that it will consider paying compensation as follows:
1. If a qualifying repair is not completed within a given time.
2. Loss of amenities.
3. Additional costs incurred for alternative heating, dehumidifiers, and use of immersion heaters.
4. Missed appointments.
5. Damage to a resident’s property and/or decorations.
6. Time and trouble payments in the case of service failure.
In the case of time and trouble payments for service failures:
1. It will consider claims for compensation where residents have suffered a material loss through time and trouble spent trying to resolve service failures.
2. Goodwill compensation may be awarded up to a maximum of £150 and should include the cost of telephone calls, visits, postage, and time spent resolving issues.
3. The amount of compensation awarded is discretionary.
4. We may consider a non-financial goodwill gesture in recognition of a customer receiving a disappointing service.
Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) classification codes are broken down into:
1. Code 1 ‘danger present’ risk of injury, immediate remedial action required.
2. Code 2 ‘potentially dangerous’, urgent remedial action required.
3. Code 3 ‘improvement recommended’.
NICEIC is a leading certification body for the electrical contracting industry and wider building services sector.

Resident’s responsibilities

Schedule 4 of the resident’s lease sets out that the transferee agrees to keep the property in good structural repair including wires, cables and mains.

Faulty wiring

The landlord responded appropriately to the report that there was a dangerous electrical fault in the property on 5 April 2022. It checked with the resident that the power had been turned off and arranged for the problem to be rectified as a defect by the developer within hours.
In its internal email of 12 April 2022 the contractor confirmed the fault was as described but denied that it was due to a failure on its part. It said it would not have been possible to carry out the EIC testing if such a fault had been present and that it would not have left the installation in that condition. It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the contractor for its response. The implication of its report was that changes had been made to the fuse box since the EIC was signed off, something which the resident disputed.
Given that the landlord had no part in the electrical installation itself or in the certification process, it was appropriate that it focussed on ensuring that the resident’s home was made safe as soon as possible.
Taking into account that under the terms of the lease the resident is responsible maintaining the wiring, the landlord acted reasonably when it offered to carry out a further EIC to provide reassurance to the resident. Furthermore, its offer to cover the costs incurred by the resident, and inconvenience caused, when he arranged his own electrical contractor was also reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

There is no evidence that the landlord formally followed its defects and latent defects policy. The landlord asked the developer how the situation could have arisen but there is no evidence that it formally passed the claim for compensation over for consideration. Instead, it considered the claim itself as part of its complaint investigation. The policy is not clear on whether the resident has further recourse with the landlord should their request for compensation be declined by the developer/builder. It would be reasonable for the landlord to clarify this point.
Its complaints policy says that complaints where the builder or warranty provider are investigating the cause will not follow its 2 stage policy. Again, it is not clear whether, in asking the developer for their response, the complaint was formally passed on. In any event, the landlord went on to log and investigate the complaint as it would any other. The wording in the policy is vague but seems to suggest it will communicate the builder’s response to the resident and who will then have no further recourse with the landlord should they be dissatisfied with the response.
It is understandable that the landlord found itself in a difficult position when trying to resolve the resident’s complaint about the work carried out by the developer’s electrical contractor. The complaint was better suited for investigation by the developer. The landlord has policies in place to be able to refer these types of complaints on however, it accepted the complaint and investigated it in accordance with its complaints and compensation policy.
It is accepted that the landlord itself is not an expert on electrical works and was therefore not able to make a determination itself regarding what had gone wrong. However, having accepted the complaint, it would be reasonable for the landlord to have thoroughly researched the most appropriate route to escalate the complaint.
By its own admission, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response focused on how the resident could make a complaint to NICEIC. However, this organisation is not a regulatory body and therefore, was limited in holding the developer to account for any inappropriate conduct. Given that the mistake had been put right, the most it could have done would be assess the information with a view to deregistering the contractor. This would therefore have provided a limited opportunity to ‘put things right’ for the resident. On this basis, the landlord did not go far enough in its investigation which resulted in it giving the resident incorrect advice which was inappropriate.
By the time it issued its stage 2 complaint response, on 18 May 2022, the landlord’s position shifted to one where it accepted and acknowledged that the developer was at fault. It said “issues such as these should not happen” for which it apologised.
The change in the landlord’s approach was confusing because it said the developer’s position had not changed yet the 2 complaint responses differed in terms of conclusions, seemingly without any evidential basis. This caused further frustration for the resident who, understandably felt dissatisfied that the stage 2 complaint response did not reflect any acceptance of liability by the developer for the fault. The landlord understood the point that the resident made and on 28 May 2022 appropriately apologised for its “poor standard of communication.” However, it did not offer any compensation for its failure which was inappropriate.
In opening the complaint as a 2 stage complaint and considering compensation, the landlord acted outside of its policies. It accepted the complaint but failed to carry out a thorough investigation, despite assurances it had done so in its email of 1 June 2022, which made it difficult for it to provide appropriate responses. This resulted in inconsistent communication which ultimately prevented the resident from accessing reasonable redress.
The complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. The landlord’s confused approach, which was outside its policies, and mixed messaging caused frustration and time and trouble to the resident in pursuing his complaint. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of faulty wiring in the property at the time the electrical installation certificate was signed off.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord was not involved in the electrical installation or certification but when notified of the faulty wiring it quickly made sure the property was safe. It used its discretion to carry out a further electrical inspection to reassure the resident the electrics were in order and offered discretionary compensation.
The landlord failed to follow its own policies. It failed to thoroughly investigate the complaint which made it difficult for it to provide an appropriate response. This resulted in inconsistent communication which ultimately prevented the resident from accessing reasonable redress through a more appropriate route.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This should be paid in addition to the £100 compensation for inconvenience already offered.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified the case. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination, the landlord should review its approach to the complaint and consider whether it needs to amend its defects and latent defects policy and complaints policy to ensure consistent complaint handling for defects in the future. The date and content of the review should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should carry out staff training on its approach to investigating complaints relating to defects in new builds. The date and content of the training should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.