Sanctuary Housing Association (202012638)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012638

Sanctuary Housing Association

17 November 2021

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 reports of defects at his new build property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a shared owner, in respect of the property, since 14 December 2018.
The property is a three-storey, three-bedroom, semi-detached house with dormer windows on the second floor.
The property development was completed on 21 June 2018. The property was then subject to a 12-month defects period during which the occupant could raise any identified defects for repair.
The property was also covered by a home warranty, provided by the National House Building Council (NHBC). It is unclear how long this warranty was for, but it appears that the property was covered during the period of the complaint.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord also made mention of a two-year warranty with the manufacturer, covering the dormer window.

Summary of events

On 20 June 2019 the resident called the landlord stating that an operative had been onsite re-sealing the bedroom window (on 7 June 2019) but had not rectified the roof where tiles had slipped. The resident also reported a roof leak.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord subsequently passed this information on to the developer, and requested that the roof leak be attended to as part of the defect process (which ended on 21 June 2019). It was arranged for the Clerk of Works (CW) to undertake an inspection on 1 July 2019.
Upon undertaking this inspection on 1 July 2019, the CW identified that there was missing detailing to the tiles of the dormer windows. It also noted that the silicone sealing around the window was inadequate. It was confirmed by the CW that this was a latent defect which needed to be attended to by the developer.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on these works on 15 July 2019. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord spoke with the resident on the following day. No contemporaneous notes were made of the call, however the landlord’s records suggest that the outstanding roof matter was being chased with the developer.
On 9 August 2019 the landlord’s call notes show that the resident requested to start the complaints process following the various issues he had experienced. The landlord noted that there was an outstanding roof repair matter that was allowing water ingress via cracked fibreglass.
On 20 August 2019 the landlord wrote to the developer. It explained that it had visited the resident’s property on 16 August 2019 and during this time, the resident had raised his dissatisfaction with the number of defects, the workmanship, and the length of time taken to inspect and repair the roof tiles. The landlord noted:
1. The resident’s dissatisfaction had been heightened by the number of defects experienced in the previous six months, including several leaks.
2. Most items on the 12-month defect list had been completed, however the quality of the work had not been great.
3. There appeared to be a missing gutter joint to the front of the property. this caused a constant drip by the front door in heavy rainfall. This needed to be addressed.
The landlord wrote to the resident regarding his complaint on 21 August 2019. It noted that the resident had raised a complaint and apologised for his experience to date. The landlord confirmed that the complaint had been registered formally. It acknowledged that a member of its staff had been liaising with the resident, and confirmed that it would continue to do so at the Front-Line Resolution stage. A complaint response would also be shared within 10 working days.
The landlord additionally noted the resident’s assertion that he had previously attempted to raise a complaint but had been unable to. It advised the resident that if further detail was provided, it would investigate this matter further.
The resident responded to the landlord on the same day. He explained that he had attempted to make a complaint on several previous occasions, however was informed that his complaint could not be made to the Maintenance Department. Upon making his complaint to the Customer Care Team however, he was redirected to the Maintenance Department. He was later informed that nothing could be done as the matter was being handled by the developer, and complaints could not be made against them. The resident requested that the landlord re-visit his previous calls to evidence this.
On 28 August 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to establish whether the developer had provided an update on the works to be completed. The resident sought to find out the timeframe in which the developer ought to complete the works.
The landlord advised the resident that it had received very little response from the developer to date and that it was still chasing a full response on the outstanding issues. It noted that the reason for the roof delay was that the developer was in talks with a sub-contractor about the best solution.
On 30 August 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that the floor creaked and was not in the best condition due to damp. He questioned whether the appropriate next step would be to contact his local MP to look at his case.
The landlord replied on the same day. It explained:
1. The resident’s complaint was still at stage one and was being actively dealt with. A complaint response was due on 3 September 2019.
2. The developer was being pursued for a response regarding the issues discussed, including the floorboards, however a satisfactory response had not been received yet.
3. If a satisfactory response was not obtained from the developer by 6 September 2019, the issues raised (excluding the roof) would be put right by its maintenance team. It would be in touch during the week commencing 9 September 2019.
Works to rectify the leaks in the property were undertaken by the developer on 9 September 2019. The landlord wrote to the resident on the following day to confirm that he was happy with these works and advised that it was still waiting for a date for works to re-seal the dormer window and for confirmation on the fibreglass. It advised that once it had a date for the loose tiles, it would write to him formally in response to his complaint.
The resident responded on the same day (10 September 2019). He explained that he was advised that the developer would return to finish “bits and bobs” in October 2019, however noted that the creaking floorboards, and a new issue with the shower, were not on the list for repair. He questioned whether he needed to re-raise this. He noted that it had now been three months since reporting the roof tiles.
The landlord responded on the same day. It apologised for any items that had been missed and explained:
1. If more details were given on the shower and floorboards, this would be passed to the developer.
2. In respect of the delays with the roof tiles, as this involved many different teams, this had delayed the matter somewhat. It would chase this up.
On 4 October 2019 the developer undertook works at the resident’s property. Lead was fitted to the loose tiles, the fibreglass and dormer window were inspected, and mastic / silicone was applied.
On 10 October 2019 the resident reported a crack by his front door and four points in which black mould was growing. He stated that there was also mould on the bottom corner of the door, which he believed was coming from outside. He stated that the walls were damp to touch.
On 15 October 2019, the resident expressed:
1. With regards to the roof, he was extremely disappointed. Despite talks of scaffolding and cherry pickers, two people with a ladder had badly fitted lead around the loose tiles.
2. The fibreglass still had not been fixed.
3. He still had not heard anything about the shower repair.
On 23 October 2019 the resident contacted the landlord requesting the outcome of his complaint as he stated that the matters were still outstanding.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord chased the developer on 25 October 2019 for an update on the outcome of its inspection of the cracked fibreglass.
The landlord also wrote to the resident on the same day. It informed the resident that it had chased the developer and that the new CW had also been asked to inspect the resident’s shower to assess the problem raised. The landlord explained that the CW would make contact to arrange a suitable time. It confirmed that several items raised on the original inspection had now been completed (and provided the resident with a list).
On 27 October 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord. He highlighted that with regards to the roof, one side still had holes in which water could blow under and the loose tile had not been fixed, but rather had been wrapped in lead. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that this was the quality of work he had to wait months for.
In response, on 28 October 2019, the landlord explained to the resident that it would return to the developer once the property had been inspected by a member of its staff. In relation to the fibreglass, the developer reported that this had been inspected on 4 October 2019 and the cracks were found to be minimal hairline cracks that would not cause any issues going forward. It noted that while the contractor on the day had reportedly sealed the cracks, this would be inspected.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord re-raised the gutter issue with the developer on 29 October 2019 and requested that it advise on a course of action. Following an inspection on 4 November 2019, the landlord shared with the developer that there was a gap between the dormer cheek and the guttering causing water to damage the brickwork and presenting future damp issues. The landlord noted that the dressed leadwork was poorly fitted and needed to overlap the tiles more. It also advised of loose tiles on the left-hand side. In respect of the fibreglass on the dormer cheek, it advised that this was cracked all the way through and therefore needed filling.
On 1 December 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord. He stated that he had not received any feedback or an outcome from his complaint. He therefore asked to escalate his complaint.
The landlord chased the developer on 3 December 2019 to obtain an update on the latent defects reported. The Ombudsman can see that the developer advised that it would seek to resolve the defects, however, did not consider the leadwork or the fibreglass issue to be defects. It could, nonetheless, fill the fibreglass cracks with resin but would not be responsible for painting this or its maintenance.
On the same day, the landlord responded to the resident. It apologised that the resident had not been kept up to date with the progress regarding his complaint. It noted that its staff had been in regular contact with the developer about several issues including the guttering, the dormer window detail, and the fibreglass and had chased them for a full response. The landlord confirmed that it would escalate the resident’s complaint and provide a full response within 20 working days. It asked the resident to confirm the matters which remained outstanding.
The resident confirmed on the same day that the outstanding issues were the window and the fibreglass. He noted that during an inspection it was also highlighted that the guttering and front door had not been installed properly.
On 6 December 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident. It explained:
1. Since its inspection, the developer had accepted that the gutter sat too far away from the runoff from the roof, causing water to fall from the overhang and onto the exterior wall. The developer would therefore arrange for the gutter to be adjusted.
2. The developer did not consider the lead flashing to the dormer window to be a defect. The landlord explained the purpose of the leadwork and advised that while it may not have been aesthetically pleasing, this was compliant with technical standards.
3. The CW had confirmed that there was no defect with the door.
4. The cracks in the fibreglass were not a defect but rather was a property of the product. The cracks did not affect the product’s structural integrity. This could be filled, however, if this caused an aesthetic issue.

It noted that the matter was taking some time to resolve and explained that the resident’s inconvenience would be considered within the complaint response.

On the same day (6 December 2019) the resident explained to the landlord that the CW and two roofing companies had highlighted the fibre glass as being an issue. He therefore questioned why he was being given inconsistent information.
The landlord advised the resident on 11 December 2019 that an inspection would take place which sought to establish whether the issues in question complied with NHBC’s standard. This was undertaken on 13 December 2019. It is unclear what the result of this inspection was.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord chased the developer several times throughout December 2019 for an update. On 19 December 2019 the developer advised the landlord of the proposed solution for the resident’s gutter. It advised it would come back to it with a firm solution and date for works.
On 10 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested an update on the inspection that had been undertaken and when the guttering would be fixed.
The landlord advised the resident on 13 January 2020 that following the inspection, it had been in touch with the dormer window manufacturer who wished to undertake an inspection to see whether the subsequent gutter issue was a manufacture issue or an installation issue. The landlord also sought further proposals on how the guttering would be resolved.
This (joint) inspection took place on 24 January 2020. The landlord advised the resident that an update would be provided once it had received the report and findings from the manufacturer. The landlord also sought confirmation from the developer on how it proposed to adjust the resident’s guttering on the same day.
The Ombudsman can also see that the landlord chased the developer for an update again on two further occasions in January 2020.
On 5 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It apologised for its delay in responding and explained that the manufacturer’s inspection report was being chased. It advised that it would be requesting the report as a matter of urgency.
The resident requested a further update on 14 February 2020.
On 20 February 2020 the dormer window manufacturer provided the landlord with a copy of its report. The report noted, upon assessing the gutter issue causing the property to be damp inside and out, that the bottom of the dormer should have been trimmed to suit the installation. The developer was subsequently responsible for this as it had failed to follow the fitting instructions. No comments were made in relation to the fibreglass.
The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s internal emails on the same day that it raised with the manufacturer that the report did not cover what it had agreed it would investigate. The landlord advised that the fibreglass cheeks were cracking and sought to confirm whether this was normal, and what the lifespan of the product was. Noting that this also formed part of the inspection on 24 January 2020, it advised that it needed this part of the report urgently.
On 20 February 2020 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord. The MP summarised his understanding of the issues to date and requested that the landlord make contact with the resident to provide an update.
On 26 February 2020 the landlord advised the resident that it had received the long-awaited report, however to its disappointment, it did not cover what it had requested out of the investigation. It therefore had to return to the dormer window manufacturer to request further information as a matter of urgency. It apologised for this delay.
The resident questioned, on the same day what was happening with the poorly fitted roof tiles and the damp walls caused by the gutters.
On 27 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that the developer had accepted that they were to remedy the issue with the tiles and guttering. To save numerous visits to the resident’s property, it also wanted to get the issue with the fibreglass fixed by identifying who was responsible for the work (via the report) and confirming a programme of works. The landlord expressed concern about the reported damp and questioned whether this had now become an internal issue. It explained that a follow up meeting would take place as soon as the report was received.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord chased the manufacturer up again on 2 and 13 March 2020.
On 3 March 2020 the landlord provided a further update to the resident. It explained that it had continued to chase the report from the manufacturer, and also a response from the developer on its proposal for the roof tiling and gutter. It advised that although it had initially sought to have the works completed on the same day, it was not prepared to hold back on the roof and gutter any longer whilst the information on the fibreglass remained outstanding.
On 5 March 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s MP. It stated:
1. While it noted that the resident had experienced several leaks shortly after he had moved in, remedial works were carried out promptly and there had been no further leaks since May 2019.
2. With regards to some of the roof tiles tipping and the leak from the dormer window, these had both been raised with the developer as potential latent defects. The properties were still within the two-year warranty and so the developer had accepted responsibility for remedying the problem.
3. In respect of the fibreglass cheeks to the dormer window, a more comprehensive report had been requested.

The landlord acknowledged that this was frustrating for the resident. It noted that it had been providing the resident with updates and would continue to maintain contact. It had now escalated the matter to the highest level with the developer.

On 13 March 2020 the landlord advised the resident that it had contacted the developer’s Managing Director (MD) to request a response on the programme of works to deal with the roof tiles / gutter works.
On 17 April 2020 the landlord advised the resident that due to lockdown, it was unable to progress the outstanding matters, but these would be picked up again once normal working had resumed.
On 11 June 2020 the resident’s MP advised that after speaking with the resident, he understood that works had been placed on hold due to COVID-19. He requested an update on when works would safely commence.
The landlord responded on 23 June 2020. It explained that no works had taken place since the March 2020 lockdown, however as restrictions were being lifted, the developer had been contacted on 15 June 2020 for an update. The manufacturer was also chased for the outstanding report. The landlord advised that while the developer was waiting on the report from the manufacturer too, so that it could consider how best to address all issues, it would now be advised that the roof tile and the missing eaves drip for the guttering would need to be addressed separately from the fibreglass to prevent these matters remaining unresolved. This matter had been escalated to the developer’s MD and if a satisfactory response was not received, resolution would be sought via the home warranty provider, NHBC. The landlord communicated this to the resident on the same day.
On 14 July 2020 the landlord provided the resident with a further update. It explained that yet another site visit was to be arranged by the developer. The resident was advised that while it was doing all that it could, he could contact NHBC who would act as a resolution service to help get matters sorted.
Following correspondence from the resident’s MP on 27 July 2020 in which he reported that the condition of the resident’s property had worsened, the landlord explained on 5 August 2020:
1. An inspection was undertaken by the developer on 23 July 2020. It was now waiting for the developer to provide a way forward.
2. It had discussed the drip/gutter issue with the developer and agreed a proposal (which it attached).
3. The manufacturer did not believe that there was risk of water ingress as a result of the lead flashing issue, however, would inspect this and comment on this within its report.
On 27 August 2020 the resident chased an update. He wrote further to the landlord on 12 September 2020 advising that he had still not been provided with a timeline for the outstanding repairs.
On 18 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It apologised that it had not responded sooner and explained that despite the commitments made, it still had not received a firm plan from the developer.
In an internal email on 13 October 2020 the developer explained to the landlord that the manufacturer had claimed to be unaware of the cracked fibreglass issue on 24 January 2020 and therefore did not seek to inspect this at this time. Another date for inspection was therefore agreed (5/6 November 2020) and any repair required would be undertaken at this time.
On 20 October 2020 the landlord explained to the resident that it had considered the proposal to deal with the gutter issue but was not fully satisfied with the design. This was subsequently still in discussion. The landlord added that a preliminary date of 5/6 November 2020 had been proposed by the manufacturer.
The landlord’s records suggest that no inspection was undertaken on 5/6 November 2020. It is unclear why this did not take place.
On 8 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord reporting a further WC leak and a leak from the holding tank. There were also cracks in the bedroom ceiling above the former window. The resident noted that the cut off valve fitted to the WC was too short. He stated that this was therefore incorrectly fitted in the first place.
On 11 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It stated:
1. As the defects period had ended in June 2019, it was unable to require the builders to attend to his issues with the WC.
2. It had noted the resident’s concerns about the ceiling and passed this to the construction team who would investigate the matter once the developer had confirmed it was dealing with the dormer window. As it understood, the inspection had been postponed until 18/19 November 2020.
On the same day the resident responded. He stated that he had requested on several occasions that a full inspection be undertaken on the quality of the building and plumbing but this had been turned down. His main concern was the “shoddy” repairs and materials. He noted that this issue was out of warranty however explained that this was not a material failure but rather improperly fitted in the first place.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord discussed the proposed detail to amend the gutter with the developer throughout November 2020. It noted that it could not employ the exact plan as presented to the resident as this would involve removing the dormer which was not feasible.
On 23 November 2020 the landlord wrote further to the resident. It stated that:
1. Works would commence on 8 December 2020 to complete the drip detail which would take approximately three to four days.
2. The manufacturer was booked for 14 and 15 December 2020 to carry out an inspection and any remedial works required.
3. The pipework in the toilet had also been raised and the developer had agreed to address this.
On 14 December 2020 a site inspection was undertaken by the manufacturer. It reported that upon leaving the site, all was left in good order. The report produced from this inspection was shared with the landlord on 15 December 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 December 2020 to confirm that the works to deflect the rainwater into the guttering had been completed and to dormer window tiles.
On the same day (15 December 2020) the resident responded to the landlord. He stated:
1. The developer had undertaken a “botch job”. A little piece of plastic was now bridging the gap between the roof and gutter, and looked nothing like the plan. The tile was also crooked and slightly loose.
2. The dormer window was still the same. The fibreglass was still cracked.
3. There had still been no inspection of the crack that had appeared in the side of the dormer window.
On 7 January 2021 the landlord provided the resident with its stage two response. It stated:
1. The developer was satisfied that all works to remedy the issue and to deflect the rainwater into the guttering had been completed. The landlord noted that the resident should no longer have issues with rainwater running down the gap.
2. The dormer windows had been examined by the manufacturer and a report provided. They too were satisfied that the dormer was in good order and that the fibreglass was not a concern.
3. No further works would be completed as no further works were identified for rectification. The resident was assured that the developer and manufacturer would remain responsible for any further problems that could arise during the dormer warranty period.
4. In relation to the crack in the resident’s bedroom, now that external works had been completed, an inspection would be arranged. The landlord proposed the following Friday.
5. The landlord recognised that it had taken an unacceptable time for the matter to be dealt with. It noted that while it had been in constant communication with the developer, the matter would have caused a great deal of inconvenience. It therefore offered the resident £250 as a goodwill gesture. The resident was advised that he could contact his home warranty provider if he remained dissatisfied with the standard of the work.
On 11 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord. He stated:
1. While a solution had been found for the guttering, it was not what was agreed upon and did not match the plan put forward. Similar to the lead flashing, the job did not appear professionally done.
2. Despite the number of calls and visits regarding how poor the plumbing was, the same toilet leak occurred in the same place for the fourth time.

He concluded that the repairs completed were sub-standard and not all had actually been completed. The plumbing was also still an issue after two years.

On 12 January 2021 the landlord responded to the resident. It advised:
1. The manufacturer had investigated the issues raised regarding the cracked fibre glass and had confirmed that following minor repairs, they were satisfied that the dormer was in good order. The resident was reminded that the dormer window was covered under the home warranty and that he could approach NHBC if he was not satisfied with the works.
2. When the developer attended to the guttering issue and accessed the dormer window via the cherry picker, it discovered that the proposed detail did not work and had to amend the proposal. The resident was again advised that this was covered by the home warranty if he was unhappy with this work.
3. It was not aware of any plumbing issues arising after May 2019, aside from the resident’s recent report of a WC leak. The end of defects list showed nothing to indicate that there was an outstanding issue. The landlord reminded the resident that the developer had agreed to undertake this work and advise it would offer a reimbursement if the resident had already arranged this work. It also sought a convenient time to inspect the crack in the resident’s bedroom.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects at his new build property.

The Ombudsman appreciates that as the resident had moved into a new property, he would have been disappointed where several leaks had been discovered within a short period of his occupancy. This would have impacted on his new home experience.
The Ombudsman does recognise, however, that from time to time there will be defects and snagging in new build properties which may not have been identified in the initial build. Shared owners are therefore protected by the defect period and the warranties in place, and the existence of a defect (or defects) alone would not constitute a failure in the landlord’s service.
During the defect period however, or where works remain outstanding after this time, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to act as an appropriate intermediary coordinating matters between the developer / manufacturer and the resident, in order to ensure that repairs are appropriately managed and completed to a satisfactory standard. This would also include ensuring that the repairs which have been reported are passed on to the developer / manufacturer and arranged within a reasonable amount of time.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling / management of the resident’s repair needs with this in mind and has concluded that while it was appropriate that the landlord made an offer of redress to recognise the resident’s experience, it did not do enough to resolve the complaint.
As works were being scheduled and undertaken by a third party, it is accepted that matters were to an extent out of the landlord’s hands. In such circumstances, however, the Ombudsman would expect to see that the landlord had done all that it could to manage the situation, to proactively pursue the outstanding works, and to consider alternative solutions where resolution was being prolonged.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord did this where the resident’s reports of water ingress from his roof was concerned. Upon receiving the report, the matter was inspected by the CW and subsequently brought to the developer’s attention to address as part of the defect period. This was appropriate. While the resident was not made aware of when the works would take place, and subsequently had to chase an update on 28 August 2019, it was reasonable that the landlord explained its difficulty with communicating with the developer and maintained communication with the resident until such time that the leak was rectified on 9 September 2019.
What’s more, although there was also some delay in addressing the inadequate silicone sealing identified in July 2019, the landlord kept the resident somewhat up to date with what was happening with the developer in August 2019 and advised the resident in early September 2019 that the works would be completed in October 2019, which it was. This was reasonable.
The Ombudsman has been unable to comment on the landlord’s management of the creaking floorboards as it is unclear whether the landlord resolved this for the resident. It is noted, however, that upon asking the resident to detail the matters that remained outstanding in December 2019, this was not raised as an issue with the landlord.
In respect of the resident’s report of loose tiles, however, this Service has identified a clear omission. The Ombudsman accepts that upon arranging an inspection of the resident’s property on 1 July 2019, and confirming an issue with the roof tiles, the landlord experienced some difficulty in obtaining a date for the works. As was the case above, this was communicated to the resident and works were undertaken on 4 October 2019.
It was also reasonable, as the resident expressed concern with the quality of this work on 15 and 27 October 2019, that the landlord inspected this for itself and agreed to raise this with the developer. While it found that the leadwork was poorly fitted (on 4 November 2019), after discussing the matter with the developer, it concluded and explained to the resident that the lead flashing was technically compliant. This was communicated on 6 December 2019. A further inspection was undertaken on 11 December 2019.
During this time, however, the resident was given little information on how the developer proposed to address the loose tiles. While this should have been pursued by the landlord upon confirming for itself that the tiles were loose, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord did. The landlord subsequently had to be chased by the resident on 26 February 2020 and although it confirmed, on the following day, that the developer had agreed to remedy the tiles, it does not appear that this was done.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the report shared by the manufacturer on 14 December 2020 and cannot see that any works were undertaken to rectify the loose tiles at the resident’s property. The resident consequently continued to complain about this on 15 December 2020.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was inappropriate. While the landlord explained in its final response that the manufacturer was content with the condition of the dormer, it failed to comment on and ensure the completion of the loose tiles reported.
Moreover, in respect of the cracked fibreglass, it is disputed that works were undertaken to seal the cracks on 4 October 2019. While the developer reported that it did, after finding minor hairline cracks, seal the cracks with matching silicone, the Ombudsman can see that on 15 October 2019 the resident said that no works had been done to rectify this.
It was therefore reasonable, following receipt of conflicting information, that the landlord agreed to arrange a further inspection of the fibreglass at the resident’s property. The Ombudsman can see that this was done on 4 November 2019 and that it confirmed the fibreglass needed filling.
This was communicated to the resident (although somewhat delayed) on 6 December 2019 in which the landlord explained that the cracks in the fibreglass were not considered a defect and did not impact the structural integrity of the product. Of particular relevance nonetheless, it was agreed that these cracks could be filled, to resolve the aesthetic problem for the resident.
It is subsequently unclear why this action was not progressed. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord proactively chased the developer and manufacturer after it had arranged an inspection of the fibreglass on 24 January 2019. It also provided the resident with frequent updates and explained why the investigation report was being sought before works would commence. This was reasonable action in pursuit of the repair, and it is noted that the landlord escalated matters to both the developer’s and the manufacturer’s MD where communication was unsatisfactory.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, as the delay in retrieving the inspection report became excessive, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have either rearranged an inspection by the manufacturer (and therefore a new inspection report) in good time, or to have contacted NHBC to resolve the issue via the resident’s home warranty. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord advised the resident’s MP on 23 June 2020 that it would do this if a satisfactory response had not been received from the developer, however despite further delays, took no action. This was unreasonable and was a missed opportunity to potentially resolve the matter at an earlier time. Despite its responsibility to arrange the works, and suggesting it would, the landlord advised the resident on 14 July 2020 that he could contact NHBC to seek resolution for himself.
The Ombudsman notes that a second inspection was arranged but only as the manufacturer claimed to have been unaware of the request to inspect the fibreglass. This was also at a much later time (almost 11 months after the original inspection) and no remedial works were undertaken. The Ombudsman has therefore not considered this to be an example of proactive action.
It is acknowledged that upon further inspection, the manufacturer supported the assertion that the cracks in the fibreglass were not a concern and would cause no long-term issues for the resident. Still, as this had been promised, and as the resident had waited a significant length of time for this to be filled, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for this to be honoured. Had the resident been aware that the developer / manufacturer would not undertake this work, he could have arranged this for himself several months prior.
Further, in respect of the management of the resident’s gutter repairs / adjustment, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord did enough to ensure that the works were undertaken at the earliest opportunity. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord reported to the developer on 20 August 2019 that a missing gutter joint to the front of the property had resulted in a constant drip during heavy rainfall. Still, no real update was provided to the resident on how this issue would be managed. Despite advising on 10 October 2019 that there was mould growth to the corners of the front door and that the property walls were becoming damp to touch, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord followed this up with the developer until 29 October 2019. It later confirmed for itself via the CW’s inspection on 4 November 2019 that the defect was causing damage to the brickwork and would present a future damp issue.
On 6 December 2019 the landlord confirmed for the resident that the developer would arrange for the guttering to be adjusted. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord did chase the developer and the manufacturer in the months that followed. The landlord also provided the resident with an update on the cause of the delay, and this was reasonable. Upon obtaining the manufacturer’s inspection report in February 2020, however, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have done more to encourage the developer to commence works. While the report failed to comment on the condition of the fibreglass, it confirmed that the gutter issue had been caused by poor installation. There was therefore no reason to delay this work, given the damage and inconvenience it was causing.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord did pursue the developer to have this work done separately from the fibreglass, as it explained it would (on 3 March 2020). This was not until 15 June 2020, however. While the Ombudsman appreciates that for part of this time, services were restricted due to COVID-19 guidelines, as the landlord became aware of the developer’s repair responsibility in February 2020, this should have been pursued at this time.
It is also acknowledged that on receiving the work proposal from the developer (initially in July 2020) several changes needed to be made. At this time, however, it does not appear that the resident was kept up to date on this issue. This subsequently resulted in the resident chasing this matter, before being advised that there still was no firm plan.
Given the length of time that the resident had to wait for the works to the gutter to be completed, and that the final detail was different to that proposed to the resident, it might have been reasonable for the landlord to have inspected the fix, upon receiving the resident’s dissatisfaction with the “botch job”. While it was appropriate to advise the resident that he could approach NHBC if he was not satisfied with the works, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have undertaken a post-works inspection, particularly in light of the longstanding issues the resident had experienced. As per the landlord’s Defects Report policy also, the landlord should undertake random visits to the property following the completion of repair work to confirm that it is satisfied with the works. The Ombudsman cannot, however, see that this was done.
It is clear to the Ombudsman that the resident spent a significant amount of time pursuing his case. As well as having to chase the landlord excessively for a response or update, the resident also had to make time for several appointments / inspections and works. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord attempted to recognise the resident’s inconvenience with a goodwill offer of £250. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, the landlord also should have ensured that the roof tiles were fixed, the fibreglass filled, and that the quality of the gutter fixing was appropriate. Its offer of compensation was therefore not sufficient in resolving the complaint.
For completeness, it was reasonable that upon receiving report of the resident’s toilet leak in November 2020, and his assertion that it had been incorrectly fitted in the first place, the landlord agreed to raise the matter with the developer. The landlord reaffirmed this in its later correspondence and advised that it would reimburse the resident if the works had already been paid for by himself. This was reasonable.
It has also been noted that on 10 September 2019 the resident reported an issue with his shower drainage. The Ombudsman notes that as this was reported outside of the defects period, responsibility for this would have fallen to the resident (unless it was shown to be a defect). It was therefore reasonable that the landlord agreed to pass this issue on to the developer and that it arranged for the CW to inspect the shower subsequently, to establish what the fault was. The Ombudsman has been unable to establish what the results of this inspection was however cannot see that the resident raised this any further when he was asked to outline the matters which remained outstanding on 3 December 2019.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Under the complaints procedure in force at the time of the complaint, the landlord sought to employ a two-stage complaints process consisting of Front-Line Resolution (FRL) at stage one, and an investigation at stage two.
As part of the landlord’s FLR stage, it advised the resident – upon formally acknowledging his complaint – that it would provide a complaint response within 10 working days. As such, the landlord should have endeavoured to provide its response by 30 August 2019, 10 working days after the resident had reported his dissatisfaction during the landlord’s visit to his property or, at minimum, by 3 September 2019 as it advised it would.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the records available, however, and cannot see that the landlord honoured this. Despite being prompted by the resident on 30 August 2019 and advised on 23 October 2019 that a complaint outcome remained outstanding, the landlord failed to properly consider the resident’s complaint under its process. This was inappropriate. The landlord’s failure in service here subsequently resulted in the resident escalating his complaint to the landlord’s investigation stage on 1 December 2019.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the investigation stage offered the landlord the opportunity to put things right by considering the resident’s experience to date, offering a timely response in line with the procedure, and also to review the previous pitfalls in its complaint handling. Despite confirming with the resident that a response would be provided within 20 working days, the landlord failed to do so until 7 January 2021 – almost a year after it had proposed to, and more than a year and five months after the resident had initially raised his complaint. This was unacceptable.
It appears that the landlord delayed its complaint response until such time that it was able to confirm with the developer/manufacturer that the outstanding works had been completed. This was inappropriate, however, as it meant that the resident remained unaware of the landlord’s position and unsure whether his issues were being taken seriously under the landlord’s procedure. Had the landlord offered the resident a complaint response within good time, it would have been able to demonstrate that each of the resident’s concerns had been considered and set out how it planned to resolve the resident’s dissatisfaction in the short or long-term.
The Ombudsman notes that throughout this time, the resident was provided with no explanations as to why he had not received a complaint response, or when he could likely expect one. The landlord subsequently also failed to manage the resident’s expectations, as its policy suggests it will where it is unable to meet the prescribed timescale. As well as delaying the resident in achieving some sort of resolution, the landlord also delayed the resident in exhausting its complaints process and bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman Service for investigation.
It should also be noted that by employing a one-stage process, the landlord’s procedure was not in keeping with the dispute resolution principles (to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes). Offering only one complaint response meant that the resident was not given fair opportunity to comment on or challenge the landlord’s position, and to have his comments formally responded to. The landlord’s process therefore provided no scope for it to consider any potential oversights or new information that it may not have considered in its initial response.
What’s more, as the resident advised the landlord that he had attempted to make complaints at an earlier time but had been unable to, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated this. While the Ombudsman notes that the landlord stated it would, upon acknowledging the resident’s initial complaint, this Service has seen no evidence that it did this, or that it provided the resident with any feedback on the matter. Despite requesting that the resident provide more detail and being signposted to his previous calls, it does not appear that the landlord did anything to consider whether the resident had in fact made previous complaints or why they had not been appropriately registered. This was inappropriate.
In consideration of the landlord’s complaint handling as a whole, it has therefore been determined that there was a clear failure in service, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects at his new build property.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determination as:
1. As well as failing to make an offer of compensation which reflected the resident’s full experience, the landlord also failed to ensure that the works agreed had been completed. This was despite the extensive period of time which had passed, and in which the resident had to continuously chase the repair. Moreover, while the Defects Report Policy required the landlord to undertake post-works inspections to confirm that it was happy with the standard of works at the resident’s property, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord did this (in respect of the gutter fixing). This was particularly inappropriate as the resident had raised his concerns with the quality of the works undertaken.

The Ombudsman has recognised that the landlord took some action to chase up the developer and manufacturer for the arrangement of works. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, the landlord could have better managed the situation and been more proactive. Where the landlord was unable to arrange the resident’s works with the developer / manufacturer (within a reasonable timeframe), the landlord should have pursued an alternative solution (such as via NHBC).

With consideration of all of the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord did enough to put things right. A series of orders have therefore been set out below.

It is clear to this Service that the landlord failed to act in accordance with its complaint procedure. While the landlord should have offered the resident a two-stage process, the resident’s dissatisfaction was only considered at its final stage, almost a year and a half after the resident had initially raised his complaint. This was unacceptable and contrary to good practice. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations during this time which ultimately meant that the resident found himself waiting indefinitely for a response.

What’s more, despite highlighting that he had previously attempted to raise his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service, but had been misdirected, the landlord failed to investigate this matter and to provide the resident with a response. This was inappropriate. As well as missing the opportunity to demonstrate that it had taken the resident’s comments seriously, the landlord also failed to use this as an opportunity to potentially identify any issue with its process which may have caused the problem in the first place and to learn / improve its service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported defects, the landlord should award the resident £200 in addition to the £250 already offered. This is to account for its failure to ensure that the loose tiles and fibreglass were attended to as had previously been suggested.
The landlord should arrange for the loose tiles and the cracked fibreglass to be repaired. It should also arrange for the property to be inspected and should confirm for itself and the resident (in writing) that the quality of the gutter fixing was appropriate and technically sound. The landlord should do this within eight weeks of receiving this letter and should provide this Service with copies of the works / inspection reports to demonstrate compliance with this order.
In respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord should pay the resident £350.
The above amounts should be paid to the resident within four weeks of receiving this letter.

Recommendations

While the Ombudsman appreciates that with new builds, the landlord will often be relying on third party developers / manufacturers to undertake works, the landlord should still endeavour to provide a good and prompt repair service for its residents. It is clear from this case, however, that there were issues with the communication and the level of service being provided. If the landlord has not already, it should therefore arrange to meet with the developer to agree a streamlined approach for assessing defects, arranging repairs, and managing resident expectations. The landlord should reflect on this case and should ensure that moving forward, it is effectively monitoring / managing the performance of such third parties to ensure that contractual obligations are met.