Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202308576)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308576

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

30 September 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 the resident’s concerns about:
1. Trees behind a boundary fence.
2. The side patio retaining water.
3. The size of the driveway.
4. The condition of the kitchen countertop.
The resident has also complained about the landlord’s handling of their complaint.

Background and summary of events

Legal and policy framework

The resident is a shared owner of a 3-bedroom, 2 storey, semi-detached house. The resident purchased their share of the property on 16 October 2020. The property is jointly owned. The complaint has been raised on behalf of both owners. For clarity the term “resident” is used in this report to describe both owners.
The property is part of a new build estate and was completed on 7 October 2020. The property was subject to a 12 month defect liability period during which the developer retained a responsibility for repairs to the property.
The landlord wrote to the resident following the completion of their purchase, providing a welcome letter, a contacts list and a homeowner’s handbook. The handbook provides information on the rights and responsibilities of the homeowner, together with a broad explanation of the lease. The resident has a full repairing lease which includes provision to keep the garden or patio in good order.
Page 15 of the homeowner’s handbook deals with newly built homes. This defines a defect as “a problem with the property caused by faulty workmanship or materials during the building process”. It includes examples of what may or may not be considered a defect. It says that the builder is responsible for “resolving defects and problems that appear in the first 12 months after construction”. It tells residents to keep a list of non-urgent items. It will then arrange to meet at the property at the end of 12 months to discuss the items and confirm which defects are the builder’s responsibility. The landlord will then oversee the works. It will not, in most cases, be carrying out these works.
The handbook provides an explanation of the extended warranty provided through the national house building council (NHBC). It says that the resident should have been given a copy of this warranty.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out that it does not apply to leaseholders or shared owners. An exception is where it has repair responsibilities for communal areas. For “new properties that fall within the defects liability period, it will refer repairs to the original developer”. It says that the developer is required to carry out any repairs to the same standard and within the same timescale as the landlord sets itself.
Through its estate management policy, the landlord defines its approach to parking within its car parks and estates. It says that it will take measures to discourage non-resident parking. Where necessary it says that it will introduce parking controls in consultation with residents. The resident’s lease includes that they may “park one private motor car in each of the parking spaces shown coloured green on the attached plan”. This shows a single space.
The landlord’s tree safety and management policy says that the responsibility for trees within a resident’s private garden is defined by the relevant lease or tenancy agreement. The resident will need the written consent of the landlord to remove any tree. Where a resident reports an issue with a tree that presents a risk to persons or property, the policy says that the landlord will arrange for an inspection to be carried out. This will be done by a specialist tree contractor. It says that it will arrange for works to be carried out by the specialist contractor in line with the survey outcome. Its specialist tree contractor will check if there is a tree preservation order (TPO) in place before undertaking any works.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaint procedure. This says that it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The policy allows for an extension to its response time where this is communicated to the resident. This should not exceed a further 10 days at either stage. The policy allows for issues to be recorded as informal complaints where “there is an opportunity to put things right quickly and easily”. This is to be done in agreement with the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the circumstances under which it will consider compensation and the process it will use to determine both financial and nonfinancial compensation. Its sets out its statutory obligations and provides guidance for discretionary awards of compensation. This does not include guidance on the level of financial compensation or provide for the types of nonfinancial compensation it may consider.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord about the trees behind their fence on 3 November 2020. They said they believed the trees were dead and should be removed. The resident added that they believed the trees were the responsibility of the landlord. On 19 November 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to raise repair issues in respect of their new home. The landlord said that it had referred these to the developer. On 30 November 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to raise an issue about the size of the driveway and the difficultly experienced when parking. The resident also questioned the size of the front garden. The landlord’s records show that the resident’s concerns about the trees and the driveway were the subject of internal discussion between staff. This was also referred to its development team.
On 8 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident about the trees. In this the landlord advised that “everything within the red line on your conveyancing drawing belongs to the you”. It said that it was the resident’s responsibility to maintain any trees as the landlord did not own the land outlined within the drawings. It followed up on 9 December 2020 providing a copy of the conveyancing plan and said that the resident should have received a copy of this from their solicitors. This included the trees located behind the fence.
The landlord wrote again to the resident on 18 December 2020. In this it said that the resident may wish to seek clarification from the land registry as to ownership of the trees. It confirmed that it did not own this land. It also said that it was following up the reported repairs with the developer. There were some delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 March 2021 pursuing outstanding defects, including the issue of water pooling on the patio. This was referred to the developer on 30 March 2021 for follow up. The landlord fed back that the ongoing pandemic had led to a delay in getting defects addressed. The resident further chased the landlord on 9 and 14 April 2021.
The resident raised a complaint on 16 April 2021 (Complaint A). They said they were unhappy with the developer and the defects process and set out a list of issues. This included that the back patio was “not straight, with water pooling by the house when it rains”. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 April 2021. It said that its head of design and quality would be in touch and provide a formal response by 30 April 2021. The resident spoke with the landlord on 21 April 2021 and provided photographs of the outstanding repairs and defects that had been reported.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to Complaint A on 30 April 2021. It acknowledged that the resident’s complaint was about several defects to the property. These had been reported but had not been completed in a timely manner. In the letter it:
1. listed 18 issues which the resident had raised.
2. said that it had reviewed the detail contained in their complaint, together with its repair records. It had also spoken with the resident about the outstanding issues.
3. noted that the resident understood the possible delays due to COVID-19.
4. acknowledged that the process had not been explained them. That some of the issues raised may not be considered defects and that some of the less urgent or routine defects would usually be deferred. These would then be picked up at the end of 12 months defects inspection.
5. confirmed the resident’s agreement that the contractor would attend and investigate 6 of the items at the end of the defect period, in October 2021. This included the rear garden not draining and water pooling by the door when it rained.
6. identified those issues that the resident confirmed had been resolved.
7. set out the action it would take to resolve the remaining 7 issues. This included a proposed visit on 14 May 2021, by the head of design and quality, to inspect these items. Additionally, work was to be carried out to replace the garden light and address the unstable front paving slabs.
8. apologised that the resident had needed to chase for updates and had not been provided with the relevant information. It understood the inconvenience caused by this service failure.
9. said that once the repairs had been satisfactorily completed it “may be able to consider if compensation is appropriate”. It said it would contact the resident again once it was able to review this.
10. set out the learning from the complaint in addressing the communication failures with its contractors.
The landlord’s records capture communication between both parties on 5 and 6 May 2021 in response to a parking consultation that was underway. The resident flagged concerns that their parking space was too small. The landlord confirmed that as the spaces were of a standard size it could not change this. The resident was unhappy and advised that they would consult a solicitor.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 July 2021. This was primarily to discuss the parking consultation that it was carrying out but also to ask about outstanding works to the garden and patio. The resident followed up with the landlord on 29 July 2021. The landlord wrote to all residents on 18 August 2021 to tell them that parking enforcement would start from 21 September 2021.
The landlord’s records note that it would be booking the end of defects inspection with the resident for the week commencing 11 October 2021.
The resident raised a second complaint on 1 April 2022 (Complaint B). They said:
1. They were unhappy with the level of support received and indicated that there had been no follow up to the earlier complaint as promised.
2. The end of defects inspection had not been carried out and there were several outstanding issues with the property. They had been chasing these and discussing them with the landlord since October, but these remained outstanding.

The landlord acknowledged the complaint and said that this would be investigated at stage 1 of its complaints process.

The landlord spoke with the resident on 6 April 2022. The next day, the resident sent the landlord a list of the outstanding issues. This contained 17 items including the trees to the rear of the property and an issue about the driveway. It also recorded the date on which these had been reported to the landlord. The resident told the landlord that the driveway was too narrow and said that they wished for a fence to be installed.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to Complaint B on 20 April 2022. Within this it:
1. acknowledged that the end of defect inspection had not been carried out. It included the resident’s list of 17 outstanding items within the body of the letter.
2. noted that the resident wanted these items to be fixed.
3. recorded the outcome of the previous stage 1 complaint and apologised that the actions had not be carried out as promised.
4. noted that the end of defects appointment had been arranged for 29 September 2021. This had not been attended as planned and there was no communication with the resident about the missed appointment. The resident had then been contacted on 13 October 2021 and told that they would be notified when this had been rearranged. The landlord acknowledged that this had not happened.
5. recorded that the resident had contacted it on 12 January 2022 regarding the end of defects inspection and an outstanding repair. It said that there had been no follow up recorded until 23 March 2022 when the complaint was raised with the developer. The landlord offered an apology.
6. accepted that it had not followed through on the defects reported and that the end of defects inspection had not been carried out. It noted that this had caused disruption to the resident with missed appointments and late notice cancellations.
7. further apologised for its failure to follow through on the actions from the previous complaint.
8. provided an action plan for addressing the defects raised.
9. said that in response to the complaint it was reviewing how it dealt with defects in the future.
10. drew out 2 issues that it did not consider to be defects. These were the resident’s concerns about the driveway and the trees at the rear of the property. It said that:
  1. The driveway was not a defect and that there was no provision for a fence. It said that it would not action this.
  2. On the trees, these were protected by a tree protection order (TPO). This meant that they could not be removed. It advised the resident to contact the local council who would be able to carry out any works required and provided a link to the council’s website.
A visit to the resident was arranged by the landlord’s latent defect manager for 29 April 2022. In follow up it advised the resident on 9 May 2022 that it was due to meet with the developer.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 May 2022 to say that their neighbour did not park considerately. The resident provided photographs, including screen shots of contact with the neighbour.
On 7 June 2022 the landlord told the resident that it would visit them with the developer on 23 June 2022. It apologised for the delay in arranging this. In confirming the appointment with the landlord, the resident also advised that they had been in contact with the local council regarding the trees. They said that it had confirmed that the trees did not sit on land owned by the council.
Following its visit on 23 June 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident on 27 June 2022. It provided an update on each of the defect issues that had been raised. It set out the action taken, and to be taken. It further noted that:
1. it would take no further action in respect of the kitchen worktop. The resident had reported that this retained water when it was cleaned. The landlord said that this was not a defect. The issue was due to the design of the worktop which had a corner in it.
2. it had investigated the issue of the trees and found that these fell within the boundary of the resident’s property. It said, “therefore even though your garden fence is in front of the trees, they are yours to maintain”.
3. The issue of the driveway was not something it could remedy. It suggested speaking with her homeownership officer to discuss the issue of parking with the neighbour.
The resident wrote back the following day. They said:
1. they were unhappy with the responses received about the garden, worktop, driveway, and trees.
2. there was an issue outstanding with the patio that had not been addressed.
3. the trees were not within the boundary of the property. If they were, the fence had been put in the wrong place and the landlord should relocate this.

In reply, the landlord acknowledged her dissatisfaction and escalated Complaint B to stage 2.

The defects manager wrote to the resident on 1 July 2022 to confirm that it was continuing to liaise with the developer. It said that it was trying to arrange for a plumber and carpenter to attend on the same day to carry out works. This was to minimise the disruption to the resident. In response to the issue of water pooling on the patio it told the resident that this could be raised under the National Housing-Building Council (NHBC) warranty. It provided them with the contact details for this. It explained that as the resident was a shared owner, the landlord could not progress a claim on their behalf.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 29 July 2022. In this it noted that the resident was unhappy with the resolution to 4 specific areas raised at stage 1. It noted that it had spoken with the resident on 11 July 2022. They had set out their concerns regarding the trees and the boundary at the rear of the property, the driveway, the patio, and the kitchen worktop. It noted that these issues could not be resolved through the latent defects process. Other issues, which were not part of the complaint, were being progressed with the developer to resolve. The reply provided a response on each point as follows:
1. Trees and Boundary – following a review of the relevant plans it acknowledged that there was an issue with the positioning of the fence. It said that the trees were on land sold to the resident and the fence had been incorrectly installed, shortening the garden. In its opinion it did not believe that the trees were covered by a TPO. It confirmed that the latent defect manager had been correct in the assessment that the trees fell within the resident’s boundary. It apologised that the resident had incorrectly been directed to contact the local authority about the trees. It upheld this element of the resident’s complaint. It said that it would arrange for the fence to be relocated to ensure that all the garden owned by the resident, in line with the plan of the property, was “to be in front of the fence”.
2. Driveway – it set out that given the location of the driveway between 2 buildings there was no way this could be enlarged. If further confirmed that it had checked the minimum width for a residential parking bay. It had found that the resident’s driveway, while being the smallest it could be, met the agreed standard. It did not uphold this complaint.
3. Side patio retaining water – it had reviewed documents and communication relating to the defects reported. It said that while it had found reference to the front and rear patios, it found no reference to the side patio. Further, as this issue had not been raised during the defect period, even though the end of defect inspection had not been carried out, it could not now be addressed with the developer. It said the resident may wish to carry out works. These would be at their own cost. It noted that this issue had not been raised as part of complaint B before its escalation to stage 2.
4. Kitchen counter retaining water – this had first been reported as a defect in October 2021. It had been inspected by the latent defect manager. There was little evidence of the pooling reported by the resident. This was also not visible in the photographs the resident had provided. It said that as kitchen counters were level there would “always be an element of water sitting on the counter if spilt”. It said that to alleviate the resident’s concerns that water spills could damage the counter, it had instructed its repairs team to seal joints in the kitchen countertop. The resident would be contacted the week commencing 1 August 2022 to arrange an appointment for this to be done.
5. It concluded that the issues of the rear garden and trees was unusual. It said that in learning from the complaint it would ensure that in future it would seek more expert advice. It further said that it would continue to work with the resident to ensure that the outstanding actions were concluded.
A works order was raised on 28 July 2022 to reseal the kitchen worktop. The resident confirmed that this was completed on 4 August 2022.
The resident responded to the landlord on 15 August 2022. Within their correspondence they:
1. attached evidence that they had previously raised the issue of the patio holding water. They noted that this had been seen by the latent defect manager during its inspection.
2. attached photographs of the tree that had fallen and damaged the fence. They added they would await a date for the trees and the fence to be dealt with.
3. confirmed they would seek further advice in relation to the driveway.
The resident chased updates from the landlord on 16 and 28 September 2022. In further contact on 5 October 2022 the resident said they were waiting for an update about the side patio.
The landlord told the resident on 5 October 2022 that the developer would not deal with the side patio issue as a defect. As such, it recommended the resident refer the matter to NHBC.

Post internal complaints procedure

The resident contacted the landlord on 10 May 2023. They said another tree branch had fallen and damaged the fence. The resident added that several of the defects were still outstanding and they had not received the promised feedback. They had not received an update since October 2022. The resident said they wanted the fence to be moved and for all but one of the trees to be removed.
The landlord and resident exchanged communication and it wrote to them on 15 May 2023 to confirm its position and summarise their discussions. It said they had discussed the damage to the fence and the commitments made at stage 2. It had followed up the resident’s concerns with its head of asset appraisal and investment. Having done so it wished to advise:
1. the developer had gone into receivership and had not been able to complete the work previously promised. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to follow up on the outstanding works. It apologised for this.
2. it had agreed to fix the scratches on the kitchen floor and a dent in the kitchen door handle. These items had been raised by the resident as part of the defects list included as part of Complaint B. The landlord said that it was now unable to carry out these repairs. To address this, it made an offer of £150 compensation. This was in recognition of the inconvenience caused as these had been outstanding since July 2022. This would enable the resident to arrange for a private contractor to carry out the work for her.
3. it would not reopen any other repairs that had been mentioned previously, including any water pooling on the patio.
4. it would engage with a contractor to quote for moving the fence as set out in its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised that this had not been done. It said that its head of asset appraisal and development would oversee the work to ensure it was done.
5. it would not commit to any tree surgery work in the garden.
The resident rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation and on 25 May 2023 it asked that they make a counteroffer. It reconfirmed that it would not commit to tree surgery. The Service has not seen a record of the resident’s response.
The landlord contacted a fencing contractor on 31 May 2023 to arrange for the resident’s fence to be moved to incorporate the trees into the garden. This was to be moved about a meter. Contact was made with the resident on 7 June 2023 to make an appointment for the contractor to attend and assess the work required.
On 6 June 2023 the resident contacted the Service. They said that despite raising formal complaints with the landlord, the issues remained unresolved. They said:
1. They were a shared owner and that when they bought her property, they had been unable to view it due to the COVID-19 restrictions.
2. The trees behind the fence were marked to be cut. Further, 2 trees had fallen on the fence and the landlord had not taken responsibility for this. Only in the last week had the landlord started to look at moving the fence.
3. The landlord had also refused to address an issue with the patio and there were outstanding defects to be addressed.
4. It had offered £150 compensation which was not enough.
5. They wanted the issues resolved and to be compensated for all the delays and stressed caused.
The resident has shared communication between them and the landlord from January 2024 as it made arrangements with a fencing contractor. In these it is noted that the trees are subject to a TPO. The landlord confirmed to the Service that as of 6 September 2024 all bar one of the fence panels has been relocated. It is currently in contact with the resident in terms of access to relocate the final panel. It has indicated that works have been prevented due to debris that needs to be removed by the resident.

Assessment and findings

Trees behind a boundary fence

The evidence provided by the landlord shows that the resident first raised concerns about the trees behind their fence in November 2020. The landlord wrote to the resident to say that the trees fell within the boundary of their property. This was in line with the conveyancing plan. It said that the trees were therefore their responsibility. It did not however address the location of the fence. In follow up correspondence, the landlord suggested that the resident may wish to contact the land registry to confirm the boundary position. It further said that it did not own the land on which the trees were located. It is not clear why the landlord suggested the resident seek further clarification as to the location of the boundary. In doing so it raised an element of doubt as to the accuracy of its original advice. Further it is unclear why, having identified that the trees fell within the boundary of the resident’s property, the landlord did not take action to work with the developer to relocate the fence. It would have been appropriate for it to have done so. It is noted that at the time the site was still under construction. However, that it did not do so left an element of doubt for the resident that its advice was correct. This was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to take ownership of the situation and to try to put things right for the resident.
The resident captured the issue of the trees within the list of defects raised with the landlord and this featured within Complaint B. At this time the landlord directed them to the local authority. It then accepted in its stage 2 response that this advice had been incorrect. It agreed as an outcome to the complaint for the fence to be relocated along the correct boundary, bringing the trees into the resident’s garden. This was appropriate. However, this action was not followed up. It was only following further contact from the resident in May 2023 that the landlord began to take steps to relocate the fence. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to track any actions outlined in complaint responses through to completion. It is unclear why the landlord failed to do so. However, that it did not do was a significant failing by the landlord.
It is further noted that the resident reported that tree branches had fallen into the garden, damaging the fence. The landlord could reasonably at this time, in line with its tree policy have arranged for the trees to be inspected by its specialist contractor. This would have enabled it to establish the health of the trees and whether a TPO was in place. There is a lack of clarity in the landlord’s communication on the issue of a TPO. It would be expected that the developer could have provided advice on this. It would have had to consider the existence of TPO’s across the site as it progressed with the development. While it is noted that the trees were intended to lie within the property boundary, they were not owing to an error that was yet to be rectified. In the circumstances therefore, the landlord could reasonably have provided the resident with some assistance in inspecting the trees with the aim of ensuring that no further damage was caused to the fence while it was yet to be relocated.
There was a significant failure in the landlord’s handling of this issue which amounts to maladministration. By not addressing the location of the fence when the matter was first brought to its attention in November 2020 the issue was left unresolved. It then took significant contact from the resident over the following 3 years to start the process of relocating the boundary fence.
It is noted that this work is yet to be completed. The landlord has advised that this is due to debris preventing it doing so. The resident has shared photographs with the Service of the debris. This appears to be items that have built up in the area behind the resident’s fence. As this was not an area of land the resident had access to until the fence was removed, it is unclear how the resident could be responsible for this. Considering the delay that occurred in commencing the works to relocate the fence, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have removed the debris. Doing so would have helped to ensure that the job could be completed without further delay. To draw this matter to a conclusion an order has been made for the landlord to work with and support the resident to ensure that this is now resolved. It is to arrange for the removal of the debris and install the remaining fence panel.

The side patio retaining water

The resident first raised an issue with water pooling on her patio in March 2021. This was addressed in the landlord’s complaint response from April 2021 in advising that this would be picked up by the developer through the end of defects process. As the end of defects inspection was not carried out as scheduled in October 2021 the issue remained. Following the inspection carried out by the landlord in June 2022 the resident again highlighted this issue. They were advised at that time that the developer would not accept this as a defect and that they should raise the matter with NHBC.
It is not clear why the developer refused to address this issue. It is later suggested, in the landlord’s stage 2 response, that this was because it had not previously been raised within the defect period. It is unclear from the evidence provided if the area highlighted by the resident in March 2021 is the same as that described in the landlord’s stage 2 response. This demonstrates a lack of clarity in its communication. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds highlights the importance of effective communication between all parties and the landlord’s role in pursuing defects with the developer. In its recommendations it sets out that landlords must effectively pursue issues with the developer on the resident’s behalf. The landlord failed to ensure that the end of defects inspection was carried out within the appropriate timeframe. While we cannot say with certainty that the developer would have regarded the issues with the side patio as a defect, the opportunity for this to be assessed as such was missed. By not undertaking the end of defects inspection the resident was left chasing a range of defects within their home. It also led to a lack of clarity as to the location of issues raised. There was a missed opportunity to accurately document all of the defects highlighted by the resident, including her concerns about the side patio. This amounts to maladministration by the landlord.
Having decided that the patio sat outside of the defects process the landlord appropriately advised the resident to approach the NHBC. While it is not expected that the landlord should make the application on behalf of the resident, it could have taken additional steps to support the resident to ensure that they were able to progress an application. This would have gone some way to put things right for the resident considering the significant delays they had faced.

The size of the driveway

The resident’s concerns about the size of the driveway centred on the fact that this was shared with their neighbour. This led to issues when parking and being able to get in and out of their car. The landlord confirmed that the driveway met the required size standard and that it was unable to take any further action. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The driveway is shared between the resident and their neighbour and located between their respective properties leaving no room to extend the space. The resident included the driveway in the list of defects and indicated through contact with the landlord that they would like a fence to be placed between the two properties. There is no requirement for the landlord to do this as none is shown on the plan for the property. There is also no obligation on the landlord under the terms of the lease to install fencing, or a partition, at the request of the resident.
The landlord has been clear in its communication that it could take no further action on this issue. It appropriately suggested that the resident speak with the home ownership officer to discuss the issue with the neighbour. In the event that discussions between the neighbour and the resident do not reach a satisfactory outcome, the landlord may consider exploring other options. This can include mediation. However, there is no obligation on the landlord to explore such a course of action. While it is acknowledged that the resident will remain unhappy, the landlord acted appropriately in response to their concerns. We have therefore found that there was no maladministration.

The condition of the kitchen countertop

Within the list of defects reported to the landlord by the resident there were a few items highlighted with the kitchen countertop. This included issues with the silicon seal, a suspected chip in the surface and the resident’s concerns about water pooling in places. As the end of defects inspection was not carried out as it should have been in October 2021 there was a significant delay in resolving the resident’s concerns. It is noted that the issue with the countertop was resolved following works carried out on 4 August 2022. This was as an outcome to the stage 2 complaint.
There was a significant failure and delay which caused serious inconvenience to the resident with missed appointments and numerous contacts with the landlord over an extended period. The resident had been raising issues of concern about defects within the property from the start of their ownership. They were correctly advised that some of these issues would be addressed as part of the end of defects process, but when this inspection was not completed there was no immediate follow up by the landlord. From the evidence there is nothing to suggest that the delays in resolving this issue were unavoidable. To gain a solution to the issues it was necessary for the resident to raise a complaint. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue.

The handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord dealt appropriately with the resident’s stage 1 complaint in April 2021, providing a response within the correct timeframe. This offered an apology and set out the actions that would be taken in follow up, including many items being held over to the end of defects inspection. The landlord failed to ensure that all the items covered in the complaint were then followed up. The end of defects inspection was cancelled on 2 occasions and did not progress as it should have done. Its offer to consider compensation on conclusion of all the repairs was not progressed. This was a failing by the landlord in not meeting the commitments it made.
When the resident raised Complaint B, relating to the same issues of outstanding defects, the landlord again provided appropriate responses. At both stage 1 and 2 it contacted the resident to discuss the complaint and set out the details within its correspondence. Both responses were provided slightly outside the 10 and 20 day response target, taking an additional 3 days at each stage. It offered apologies for the delays the resident had experienced and acknowledged its failure to progress the reported defects. It acknowledged that it had not followed through the outcomes to Complaint A. Further it committed that it would be reviewing how it addressed defects in the future. The landlord has shared its current defects action plan which was most recently updated in December 2023.
At stage 2 the scope of the resident’s complaint was narrowed suggesting that some progress had been made. The resident highlighted specific areas of concern. The landlord’s response addressed each of these in turn. It acknowledged that the issues around the tree and fencing had been difficult to resolve. It said it would now move the fence to the correct boundary.
While it offered both timely and appropriate responses to the resident’s complaints these did not result in the follow up actions being taken. There were missed opportunities by the landlord to take action to bring the resident’s complaint to a conclusion. There is evidence of poor communication between the resident, the landlord and the developer in getting the defect inspection and the repairs carried out in a timely manner. This left the resident having to chase for updates and follow up at every stage of the process. This was a significant failing by the landlord. It should ensure that it has processes in place to monitor the outcomes of complaints and ensure that the actions that it committed to are completed. It should also have a means by which it can ensure that it can embed learning from complaints.
Furthermore, having said in its earliest complaint response it would consider the issue of compensation it did not do so. Given the length of time over which these issues were outstanding and the considerable effort required by the resident in pursuing these an appropriate award of compensation has been made.
It is noted that in its correspondence with the resident in May 2023, the landlord made an offer of £150 compensation. This was rejected by the resident and the landlord asked that they make a counteroffer. It is unclear if this has been resolved. A recommendation has been made that the landlord should revisit this offer. The landlord has failed to acknowledge the wider issues that have been highlighted in this investigation and taken no steps to put things right. These failings should have been identifiable through its internal complains process and it therefore missed an opportunity to try to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about trees behind a boundary fence and responsibility for them.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the side patio retaining water.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the size of the driveway.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the kitchen countertop.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The were significant delays by the landlord in following through on its commitment to relocate the boundary fence. This was an issue that should have been addressed when it was first identified that the fence had been placed in the wrong location. This would have prevented the significant inconvenience caused to the resident, including damage to the fence caused by a falling branch.
There was a failing in the landlord’s handling of the defects process. This led to a lack of clarity about the issues that it was considering and delays in getting issues resolved. The landlord’s advice to raise a claim with the NHBC was appropriate in the circumstances. Given the delays experienced by the resident it could have better supported her through this process. The landlord’s delays in dealing with defects at the resident’s home also impacted on its handling of her concerns about her kitchen countertop. This was initially raised within the defects period and only addressed following her stage 2 complaint in August 2022, almost a year later.
The landlord confirmed that the driveway met the appropriate size standards and was not able to make any changes to it. The resident’s lease provides that they had parking for a single vehicle. It was an issue for the resident to work with her neighbour to find an appropriate solution for them both to use the shared space.
The landlord’s complaint handling, while on the surface delivered both timely and detailed response, failed to provide a resolution to the resident.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
2. Pay the resident a total of £600 in recognition of time and trouble that they had been put to it getting a resolution to the defects identified within her new home.
3. The landlord should work with the resident to complete the fencing works to her property, removing the debris and installing the final panel.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Undertake a review of its complaint handling in this case. It should consider the outcome of the complaints and how it can ensure in the future such commitments and actions are met. It should provide details of this review.
2. Complete a review of its process for handling defects to its new build homes. This should include a process to ensure that end of defects inspections are completed at the appropriate time. This should also include a review of its communication methods with leaseholders and shared owners around the actions being taken.

Recommendations

The landlord should revisit the offer of compensation made to the resident in its letter of 15 May 2023. If this has not been settled with the resident, it should agree with her a level of compensation appropriate to the cost of putting right the defects and for the length of time that has elapsed.