Southern Housing (202213583)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213583

Southern Housing Group Limited

28 August 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 reports of defects to the windows and French doors.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Legal and policy framework

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. She purchased the property through shared ownership on 29 June 2015, staircasing to 100% in December 2022. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the seventh floor of a block. A plan of the property shows that it has a balcony that runs the length of the flat. This is accessed by French doors from the living room and each bedroom, alongside windows that overlook the balcony. The property was built in 2015.
The resident’s obligations as a leaseholder are set out in her lease. This defines the property, within the context of the lease, as “the premises”. It sets out under section point 3.5, the resident’s obligation to “repair and keep the premises in good and substantial repair …”. Schedule 1 of the lease defines that the “premises” includes (not limited to):
1. The inside and outside of the windows and other lights and the frames, glass, equipment and fitments relating to windows and lights of the premises.
2. The doors, door frames, equipment, fitments and any glass relating to the doors of the premises.
3. The flooring, raised floors and floor screeds down to the joists or other structural parts supporting the flooring…”
Section 3.9 specifies what the leaseholder is “not to alter”. This states that she must not “make any additions or alterations to the exterior of the premises” or “in any way interfere with the outside of the building”.
The landlord’s obligation to repair the property is set out under section 5.3 which says that the landlord is responsible for “the load bearing framework and all other structural parts of the building, the roof, foundations, joists and external walls …”.
The landlord has provided a copy of its latent defects procedure dated 14 September 2022. This defines a “latent defect” as “a defect we were unable to identify when carrying out our initial works or inspections. They may materialise at a later date”. Further it defines a structural defect as one that “relates to the fabric of the building, e.g. walls, beams, windows and/or roof”. It says that the landlord’s aftercare team will “co-ordinate and manage latent defects until resolved”. Where a defect is identified it will contact the original contractor and arrange for an inspection. It will also keep the resident informed. The policy further sets out that where a latent defect is not accepted but the leaseholder believes that one exists, a claim may be made by the leaseholder against the structural warranty. The landlord should ensure that details of this are provided to the leaseholder.
The landlord advised the resident on 26 June 2024 that it had made a claim under the new build warranty in respect of the windows and doors and the issue of water ingress into the building. This had been made on behalf of the resident and other occupants of the building who have raised similar issues. The landlord has confirmed that the claim is currently ongoing.

Summary of events

The resident had advised that works were carried out by the building developer to her French doors and the balcony in 2017 to deal with an issue of water ingress.
An inspection of the resident’s property was carried out by the developer on 16 July 2020 in response to the resident’s reports of continuing draughts and water ingress. It was accompanied by a window contractor who carried out repairs to the windows and doors. This included applying mastic to the top external edge of the windows where this was missing and refixing the soffit with an additional screw. Through its inspection it concluded that there were no defects with draughty windows. It defined that the issue was one of convection which was causing the curtain to move.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 1 December 2020. It advised that it would respond by 15 December 2020, and subsequently extended this target to 21 December 2020. The Service has not been provided with a copy of the landlord’s response to this complaint.
The landlord commissioned an independent report from a glazing firm in January 2021. Following an inspection of the resident’s property, it provided a report on 28 January 2021. This said that there were no restrictors in place on the French doors leading to the balcony from the living room. As the property was on a high floor it recommended that restrictors were fitted to “prevent damage or injury”. Further it said that there was a definite draught from the French doors which required adjusting as “the rubbers are hardly touching the frame”. It had been unable to identify a draught in the 2 bedrooms.
The landlord shared this report with the developer on 15 March 2021 and again on 29 April 2021. The developer responded on 12 May 2021 to advise that it considered that adjustment to the doors was “home maintenance”. It said that the resident needed to adequately maintain the doors and windows. This was copied to the resident. She responded on 14 May 2021 challenging this decision but was redirected by the developer to the landlord.
The landlord advised the resident on 3 June 2021 that it would go back to the developer. In direct response the developer confirmed its findings from July 2020 and its view that the moving curtain was down to convection. It said that the adjustments identified by the landlord’s contractor were not a latent defect. It restated that this was a matter for the home owner to make the necessary adjustments. Internally the landlord raised a query about responsibility to repair the doors. In an internal email to its home ownership team dated 25 October 2021 the aftercare manager advised that his team would not be taking action as this “is a latent defect”. He said that if the doors were the responsibility of the landlord it needed to arrange for a contractor to attend and adjust the door. If the responsibility was that of the leaseholder, then they would need to appoint their own contractor.
On 28 February 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and asked if she wanted it to look at a new build warranty claim. The resident responded the same day. In this she said that the developer had carried out works to the living room window and bedroom window. She said that it had made the latter worse, leaving a draught. Further there was still water ingress in the main bedroom. She said that she had been told by the developer that they would “put a trim down and fit restrictors on the doors” but this had not been done. She said she did not know what the new build warranty was or what it offered.
On 8 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team. Her correspondence was on the back of an email relating to her complaint from 2020. In this she said:
1. No work had been carried out by the landlord or instruction given to the developer to address her issue.
2. She believed that her emails were being ignored. An independent contractor had checked the windows and doors and “nothing has been done since”. No action had been taken to resolve her issues and it had been “checking the insurance for 2 years”.
3. There was a draught in the living room and both bedrooms. She also had water ingress into her bedroom.
4. The developer had investigated the water ingress up to 2018. It had taken no action since then. She said that the problem remained.
5. That adjustments had been made to the living room window and bedroom door but that the problem was worse.
6. She was frustrated at the actions of the developer and that she did not believe that it could “just wash its hands of this”. She explained that the developer had replaced 3 of the doors in the living room. She said that the window frame did not match and that she had a mix of aluminium and UPVC frames.
7. Works were required to:
  1. Replace the glass beside her bedroom door and to adjust the door.
  2. Replace the window in the second bedroom to address the draught.
8. She would seek legal advice if the issues were not addressed. It had been going on for 7 years and the landlord “had no idea what I’ve had to endure”. She did not feel her requests were unreasonable and would seek legal advice if this was not addressed.
The landlord responded on 14 September 2022. It said that as her complaint was over 2 years old, she should report her repairs through its customer services team or by using its “contact us” email address. In response the resident said that the complaint of 2 years ago had never been resolved and the issues were ongoing. She did not believe she should have to start again. She said that her flat had “never been weatherproof”. This had not been addressed either by the landlord’s defects team or the developer. She wanted the issues with her home resolved. The complaint was referred internally and allocated to a member of the landlord’s complaint team to investigate.
At the same time the resident had copied in the developer to her complaint. Internal communication indicates that the developer contacted the landlord and agreed that if a specific latent defect was identified it would be happy to discuss this and how it might be resolved.
The landlord provided a formal response to the resident on 6 October 2022. It noted that she was unhappy with the window repair works to her property and that she wanted the issues resolved. It said:
1. she had reported on several occasions that there was a draught through the doors leading from the balcony and that she believed that this was a latent defect.
2. it said that it had completed an independent report in January 2021 and had engaged with the developer to investigate further.
3. the developer responded on 3 June 2021 to say that there was no latent defect. It set out that there was no draught from the windows and that the issue was one of convection.
4. on 28 February 2022 the landlord had contacted the resident and offered to assist in the completion of a claim under the new build warranty but had received no response.
5. it said that it had checked the terms of the resident’s lease. It confirmed that the French doors were the resident’s responsibility to repair and make good. This was set out within schedule 1.
6. it noted that she had been told by the developer that it would be carrying out works to the French door, but it had no evidence of this, and the developer had been clear that this was her responsibility.
In reply the resident said that she was not satisfied with the outcome. She explained that she had responded to the aftercare team in February 2022 and provided a screenshot of her email. She further listed her reasons for disputing the landlord’s response. She said that:
1. the developer’s response advising that the issue was caused by convection preceded the landlord’s own independent report. This had found that there was a draught and that there were no restrictors on the French door, which made then unsafe.
2. the developer had replaced the French doors and windows because there were defects and there had been water ingress. The issue of water ingress persisted.
3. this was not a matter of adjusting doors. This had already been done on several occasions.
4. she had only been told in June 2021 that the developer had not responded.
5. the developer had visited. The landlord’s response failed to acknowledge this and that its contractor had made the bedroom door worse. She said that that she “used the words windows and door interchangeably as the windows were doors”.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 11 October 2022 and advised that it would arrange a review panel. On 2 November the resident was in contact with her property manager about a number of issues which included her complaint. He wrote to her on 14 November 2022 to say that her complaint about the defects to her windows had been responded to and she would have to follow the complaint escalation process if she remained dissatisfied. Having received no response to her escalated complaint the resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service who wrote to the landlord on behalf of the resident on 15 December 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 December 2022 to advise that it had arranged a panel meeting to review her complaint for 25 January 2023. The resident provided a response setting out her dissatisfaction with the process of addressing the issues she had identified and the impact this had had on her.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 February 2023. It said that the review had been heard on 25 January 2023 and several points had been discussed. It further confirmed that the officer who had heard the review no longer worked for the landlord. It advised that the findings set out in the letter were those of its author, the landlord’s director of home ownership. In its response the landlord said:
1. it noted that she had been raising issues relating to the doors and windows since moving in and that there had been water ingress. She had confirmed that the developer had replaced the windows and doors during the defect liability period.
2. she had reported that there was a draught present through the windows and doors and the landlord had engaged with the developer. In January 2021 the landlord commissioned an independent report which found there was a draught from the French doors. It noted that the doors would benefit from adjusting. It further said no issues had been identified in the bedroom.
3. the developer, having visited, concluded that the issue was one of convection and had refused to accept the claim that the draught was a latent defect.
4. it had reviewed the resident’s lease. It said, “The lease places responsibility to repairs and make good the issues picked up by the independent report”. It quoted the page of her lease defining the premises.
5. it apologised that it had failed to respond to the email she sent in reply to its own email of 28 February 2022. It said that it would contact her by 28 February 2023 to request the relevant information to make a warranty claim.
6. it confirmed that it had provided its stage 1 response on 6 October 2022 and she advised that she remained dissatisfied. She followed up this contact on 11 October 2022. It apologised for its failure to respond. Following contact from the Service on 16 December 2022 it contacted the resident on 21 December 2022 and arranged a review meeting for 25 January 2023. It apologised for not doing so when she requested this.
7. it partially upheld her complaint. It noted that it had previously investigated the issues raised with her windows and French doors in 2018 and 2020. In concluding her current complaint, it advised that its “complaints procedure states we won’t investigate a complaint that’s already been through our complaints process. With this in mind, we won’t be able to re-investigate complaints relating to your balcony doors and windows”.
8. it offered her compensation of £165. This was broken down as £15 for its failure to respond in February 2022, £50 for the delay in its stage 2 response and £100 that had been offered for its handling of her complaint in 2018.
9. it further offered to arrange for its contractors to attend and adjust the French doors as a gesture of goodwill to settle what had become a drawn out process. This would avoid need for a building warranty claim. It also apologised that it had “missed some key points to have helped you have this resolved sooner”.
The resident consulted a solicitor who wrote to the landlord on her behalf on 20 April 2023. The landlord’s solicitor responded on 21 June 2023 restating the position set out in the landlord’s stage 2 response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 31 July 2023. It apologised that it had not reached out about a potential building warranty claim and asked if she wanted it to raise a claim. Further it asked if the resident wanted it to instruct a contractor to adjust the French door. It offered to call her to discuss the matter. In reply the resident explained that her door had previously been adjusted in June 2021. She was able to close the door with a rug under it and she continued to experience water ingress. She said that the doors needed restrictors and that she wanted a surveyor to visit. Further she advised that she had made a claim herself. The resident sent follow up emails seeking a response from the landlord on 3, 15,17 and 29 August 2023. The landlord responded on 1 September 2023. It apologised for the delay. It said that it would instruct an independent building consultant to review the “built spec, lease, existing reports and on-site investigation to review the door and windows inc. restrictors that may need to be installed”. It said that the building consultant would contact her within 2 weeks.
On 6 October 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it had raised a repair order for her French door to be adjusted. Its independent building consultant visited the resident on 12 October 2023 to carry out the survey. It provided a report to the landlord on 25 October 2023.
The executive summary of the building consultant’s report stated that the property was in a good condition. It recommended works to be carried out and suggested further investigation to assess the balcony drainage system. It set out its findings and noted that:
1. There was a bulge to the timber threshold to the master bedroom and a deterioration in the paint finish to the door reveal.
2. It had recorded medium damp meter readings in this area that were indicative of water penetration.
3. The French doors to the living room were difficult to close and required alignment.
4. One door was not fully functioning and that it did not close.
5. There was an absence of restrictors to the doors. It highlighted the risk of damage in high winds.
The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property and carried out repairs to the living room and bedroom French doors. It adjusted the door, provided a restrictor to the living room door and sealed these with silicone. It invoiced the landlord for the works on 7 December 2023.
On 11 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord. She said that she was still waiting for a response to her email of 30 November 2023 and she wanted a copy of the surveyor’s report. She said that the contractor had been unable to adjust the door to the living room as the latch was broken and it was due to order a new one. She was still awaiting an update. As a result she was unable to close the door properly and there was a draught which was affecting her whole home. She stated that she had not had a weatherproof home since moving in in 2015.
The landlord responded on 22 January 2024 apologising for the delay. It recorded the detail of the works its contractor had advised were carried out and said that it was unaware of the need for a new latch. It would follow this up with the contractor. Further it agreed that it would ask the contractor to adjust the internal doors that had been reported by the resident as not closing. It said that it could not share the building consultant’s report with her. In follow up emails the resident confirmed that the issue was with a broken hinge to the door rather than the latch. The landlord confirmed on 29 January 2024 that it had arranged for a further contractor to attend the resident’s home.
The resident brought her complaint back to the Service on 1 February 2024. In this she said:
1. that the issues with her windows and French doors had been going on for years.
2. her complaint was about the landlord’s handling of defects to the windows and doors.
3. adjustments had been made to 3 French doors but 2 could not be adjusted because of a broken hinge.
4. there was water ingress into both bedrooms, the living room and the developer had been unable to resolve this.
5. she had been advised that the frames and windows should be of the same material, but she had been left with a mix of UPVC, aluminium and wood.
6. she had raised these issues within the initial defect period. She felt that there was a lack of ownership of the issue.
7. several cracks had appeared above internal doors which would no longer close. She believed that these issues related to subsidence and that this had been identified by the landlord’s surveyor in October 2023. She was unhappy that the landlord had refused to share this report with her.
8. the issue had caused her great stress and anxiety. She felt discriminated against and that her reports had been dismissed. She highlighted that she believed that the developer was dealing with another resident’s issue. She wanted the landlord to accept its responsibility and recover her costs for solicitor fees she had incurred in pursuing the issue.

Post internal complaints process

On 9 February 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it was awaiting an update from its contractor for availability to fix the French door. It further said that “as a gesture of goodwill in recognition of the delay” it had asked a contractor to adjust her internal doors.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 February 2024 seeking an update. She set out that she believed that water ingress, cracks, wall movement, ill fitting doors and windows were all related. These had been raised in the defect period and she believed that the landlord had taken ownership of these.
On 19 February 2024, the resident wrote to the landlord to ask it to buy back her property as she said she was “fed up with all of it”. She said that it had taken a toll on her mental health, and she could not sell because of the defects.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 February 2024. It said it was seeking updates from its contractors and surveyor. It asked if she was still experiencing water ingress as it had been advised that this should have been addressed through the adjustment of the French door. It said that it could not share the report of its building consultant as it did not provide technical reports to residents. There was further correspondence between the resident and the landlord in April 2024 about the issue with the internal doors.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 April 2024. It said that it had passed the window issue on to its property services to carry out a survey of the windows in the development and would then go back to the building warranty insurer. It said that it believed there was no structural issue with the internal doors based on the advice it had received.
On 11 May 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that her French door still did not close and she still had an issue with water ingress. The landlord advised the resident on 26 June 2024 that it had an open warranty claim and would be seeking a signed mandate from all residents affected to enable them to pursue this on their behalf.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that she initially had raised issues with her doors and windows during the defect liability period for her property between 2015 and 2016. It is acknowledged that the issues have been longstanding and that the resident was in regular communication with the landlord about her concerns. However, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner and while issues are “live”. Given the length of time that has elapsed this investigation has focused on the issues raised by the resident through her complaint of 8 September 2022. Information has been captured within the summary of events that pre-date this complaint where this is linked to the complaint that the landlord responded to.
The resident has explained to the Service how the outstanding defects and the lack of a resolution has had a negative impact on her mental health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.

Defects to the windows and doors.

Having purchased the property as a new build in 2015 the resident benefited from an initial defect period. This would typically have been for a period of 1 year from completion of the property. Subsequently the property was covered by a new build warranty. The resident’s lease sets out her responsibility for repairs to the windows and doors. The landlord’s responsibility is to the structural elements and the exterior of the building.
The resident has indicated that she had experienced draughts and water ingress into her home since she moved in. From the evidence provided the developer took steps to address the issues within the defect period, replacing the doors and carrying out work to the balcony. The resident has continued to report issues of draughts and water ingress into her home, highlighting that the works carried out did not resolve the issue. In correspondence with both the Service and the landlord she has indicated that her home has never been weatherproof. It is reasonable for the resident to have continued to chase these issues with the landlord and the developer.
The developer attended in July 2020 to undertake some remedial works to the windows but reported that it found no evidence of draughts into her home. It said that her curtains moving was caused by convection and provided a definition of this. Indeed, it said that this process was proof that the windows were working properly. The landlord arranged its own inspection in January 2021 which did note that there were draughts through the French doors. This also highlighted the absence of restrictors to the doors, which was a specific concern given the location of the resident’s home. The landlord appropriately referred its findings to the developer. The developer declined to accept responsibility for the doors as it considered this to be part of home maintenance.
The landlord did initially revert to the developer but did not later challenge its reassertion that the issue was one of convection. This was despite its own report setting out issues with the French doors. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have sought a joint inspection based on its independent report. That it did not do so was a missed opportunity. It is noted that the landlord reaffirmed the developer’s statement as it informed the resident of this position through its complaint response. It failed to address the conflicting reports and the timeline of these.
The landlord’s aftercare team took steps to internally investigate the responsibilities for repairs as set out within its lease. It is unclear if it drew a conclusion on this and there is no evidence that it took further action at this point. It offered to assist the resident with a new build warranty claim in February 2022, which was appropriate, but this was not progressed. Correspondence from the resident indicates that the developer had undertaken further works to her French doors which had failed to address the issue. Aside from the resident’s own statement the Service has seen no record of these works.
The landlord arranged for a further independent survey of the resident’s property in October 2023. This identified issues with the French doors and water ingress into the property. It also highlighted that there were no restrictors on the doors. Repair works in the resident’s home were carried out by the landlord in light of this report and these were completed in December 2023. The resident has said that these works were not complete and that the contractor was due to go back once a new hinge had been obtained. It is not clear if this was completed.
From the evidence provided it is unclear as to the extent of the works carried out within the resident’s home. It is also unclear if these were instigated by the landlord or the developer to address the concerns raised by the resident. It is of particular concern that having identified that there were no restrictors in place in January 2021, this same failing was identified in October 2023. It is a failing that the landlord did not address this, either itself or through the developer.
There was also a significant delay in the landlord submitting the new build warranty claim. Having contacted the resident about this issue in February 2022 it overlooked her response and did not follow up on the issue. The new build warranty claim was submitted in June 2024 on behalf of the resident and other residents of the block who have reported similar issues. It is not clear if other residents were raising similar issues to the resident throughout the period of the compliant. However, the resident has expressed her unhappiness that the landlord had only acted following the interventions of another resident and feels that she had been ignored up to that point. Given the evidence that is available it is understandable that the resident was left to feel this way. The landlord should have progressed a new build warranty claim approximately 2 years earlier than it did. Its failure to do so was maladministration. That it has now done so is a positive action; however, we have taken the impact of the delay into account within our orders as set out below.
The evidence provided to this Service contains gaps in the landlord’s correspondence with the resident. The evidence also shows that the landlord’s communication was not always timely. There is a lack of ownership around the issues that the resident had raised and little push back to the developer where its responses could be seen as unreasonable or in contradiction of the landlord’s own findings. The resident has a responsibility under her lease agreement to undertake routine maintenance within her home. It does not appear reasonable, as suggested by the developer, that she should routinely need to adjust the French doors.
The communication between the resident and the landlord has predominantly been through email. There is no evidence that the landlord’s aftercare team have visited the resident at home or carried out inspections of the works undertaken on its behalf. To rebuild the relationship with the resident an order has been made that the landlord should arrange to meet with her to review her complaints and the concerns she has around the issues within her home. It is accepted that the outcome of the new build warranty claim will impact on the next steps that the landlord should take and the Service cannot prejudge its finding.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s offer of compensation, made in its stage 2 response, which contains an amount of £15 in recognition of its failure to respond to her correspondence. There is a lack of timeliness and effective decision making in the landlord’s correspondence with the resident and this has added to her frustration. Considering this the offer is insufficient in the circumstances. An order has been made, in line with the Services guidance on remedies for an additional amount of compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. At the time of the resident’s complaint this included the use of a review panel at stage 2. Once the review panel has considered the complaint a response should be provided to the resident within 10 working days.
There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint at both stages. She raised her initial complaint on 8 September 2022 and the landlord provided its response on 6 October 2022, taking a total of 16 working days. In this it noted that inspections had been carried out by both the developer and the landlord. It said that the developer’s findings, that there was no draught, were made in June 2022, rather than January 2021. This had predated the landlord’s own findings of draughts into the property. In not confirming the actual timeline of the inspections and the findings made, there was a failure to acknowledge the different outcomes and that its findings supported the resident’s complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 11 October 2022 but failed to progress this. It was only after the intervention of the Service on 15 December 2022 that the landlord contacted the resident and arranged for a review panel hearing to be held on 25 January 2023. It then provided its written response on 14 February 2022. This process took a total of 18 weeks.
These delays amount to maladministration by the landlord. It is noted that these delays further added to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. As an outcome to its stage 2 the landlord made an offer of compensation. This amounted to £50 for the delay in its complaint response. Given the length of time take to provide a formal response, this amount is assessed as unreasonable, and a more appropriate amount has been ordered. A further £100 was included based on the outcome of its complaint in 2018. It is an unacceptable failing that having previously offered the resident compensation it had failed to make the necessary payment. The Service has reconfirmed within its order that this amount should be paid.
The Ombudsman’s special report into the landlord carried out in May 2024 noted unreasonable delays in its complaint handling. This specified delays in accepting escalated complaint requests and in convening the review panel. Orders were made for the landlord to take action to address the issues highlighted and to ensure that its complaint handling process is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. As such, no further orders have been made as part of this investigation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects to the windows and doors.
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 resident has reported continuing issues with draughts and water ingress into her home which have not been addressed by the works carried out either by the developer or the landlord. There is a lack of clarity in the extent of the works carried out and a failure by the landlord to ensure that these have been fully completed and address the resident’s concerns at each stage.
There was a significant delay in raising a new build warranty claim on behalf of the resident and other residents of her building.
The landlord’s complaint handling lacked timeliness with significant delays in its responding to her escalated complaint.

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 £450 in compensation, calculated as follows:
  1. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of defects in her home, and the delay in registering a new build warranty claim.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in its complaint handling.

This award is in addition to the amount of £165 offered as an outcome at stage 2.

Update the resident on the progress of the new build warranty claim. This update should be shared with the Service. The landlord should actively monitor progression of the claim and update the resident monthly until a decision regarding the claim is made.

Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. undertake a review of the resident’s complaint. This should consider the improvements it can make to its aftercare process for new build homes. It should also consider its use of the new build warranty. It is encouraged to engage with the resident as part of the review to benefit from her experiences of its process. The landlord should provide the Service with a copy of its review report and its findings.

Recommendations

On the conclusion of the new build warranty claim, the landlord should provide the resident with a schedule of works for any repairs identified as falling within its remit. This should include a time frame for completion of the repairs.