Southern Housing Group Limited (202228600)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228600

Opitvo (now Southern Housing Group Limited)

31 July 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 regarding the landlord’s response to:
1. the resident’s dissatisfaction with the duration of the landlord’s defect liability period,
2. the resident’s reports of defects in the property.

Background

The resident is a shared owner with the landlord of a new build house, completed in April 2021. Her lease began on 10 May 2021.
The property was covered by a defect liability period (DLP) of 12 months from the date the building was completed. During this period the landlord would repair defects caused by faulty workmanship or construction. It would not repair cosmetic items or damage to the property. During the DLP the resident was responsible for wear and tear repairs as per the leasehold agreement. Under the terms of the lease after12 months the resident is responsible for all defects and repairs at the property.
On 22 March 2022 the landlord sent the resident a letter to arrange an end of DLP inspection on the 12 April 2022. The resident, the landlord, and the building developer were present during the inspection of the property. During the inspection, a letter was given to the resident that said her 12-month DLP would end on 28 April 2022. A broken fence panel in the garden and a gap between the door and the frame in the living room were noted as defects.
On the 11 May 2022, around 10 working days after her DLP had ended, the resident tried to raise a defect repair for wood showing on a kitchen unit. The landlord replied on the same day. It said it was unable to do anymore defect repairs as the resident’s 12-month DLP had ended. The landlord told the resident any new defects were her responsibility to repair.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and she raised a complaint on the 9 June 2022. She said it was ‘not fair’ that she was expected to tell the landlord what the defects were at the property as she was not an expert. She said the following defects were still present,
1. a gap in the living and bedroom door frame,
2. painting of the living room door,
3. wood showing on a kitchen cupboard,
4. broken fence panel in garden.
The landlord sent its stage one response 10 working days later on 23 June 2022. It said it had arranged for the building developer to attend and repair the gap in the living room door. The landlord said it had explained at the DLP inspection that it was the resident’s opportunity to raise any remaining defects. It said it could not offer another DLP inspection to the resident and it was unable to raise further defects for repair as the DLP had ended 2 months previously.
On the same day the resident escalated her complaint as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said her fence panel had been ‘hanging off’ since she moved in, despite reporting it several times. The resident said there were gaps in other internal doors at the bottom when shut. She also said she had to replace a downstairs sink plug and it was unfair that she was now responsible for defect repairs.
On 19 July 2022, 18 working days later, the landlord held a panel review with the resident. This was part of its stage 2 complaints process. It said the fence panel had now been fixed and it apologised for the delay. The landlord said the living room door was reported during the DLP inspection and that had now been repaired. It said repairs such as replacing a sink plug were the resident’s responsibility as per the lease agreement. The landlord sent the resident a copy of her National House Building Council (NHBC) warranty certificate. The NHBC is a warranty that will the cover the property’s structural defects until 27 April 2033. The landlord did not uphold her complaint.
The resident did not agree with this decision and brought her complaint to this Service in February 2023. The resident said the defects raised in her complaint had been repaired by the landlord. However, she said that some internal doors in the property have a gap at the bottom and she felt the DLP should be 2 years for a new build property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This investigation assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects in the property with reference to its statutory obligations, its obligations under the lease, as well as the Ombudsman’s own assessment of what was fair, given all the circumstances of the case.
A leaseholder purchases a lease subject to the condition of the property at the time. It is the leaseholder’s responsibility to inspect the property and its condition to their own satisfaction. This is in accordance with the principle of ‘caveat lessee’ (let the leaseholder beware). Unless there is an express provision in the lease agreement, the landlord is not under any obligation to disclose, or take any future responsibility for latent or inherent defects that may subsequently be discovered.
However, contracts for new buildings have DLP’s within which the landlord can ask developers to repair any inherent defects that are discovered. If a fault or defect in the construction of the property is because of a fault with the design, quality of materials, or poor workmanship, then the landlord would be obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure the developers remedy the defect.

The resident’s dissatisfaction with the duration of the landlord’s defect liability period

Paragraph 42g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which “concern the terms and operation of commercial or contractual relationships not connected with the complainant’s application for, or occupation of, a property for residential purposes”. During the resident’s complaint, she raised concern with the length of the landlord’s DLP and said that it should be 2 years in duration, instead of 1. At the time of purchase, the resident entered into a contractual agreement with the landlord and the length of the DLP, or any ambiguity regarding this, is a matter subject to the contracted entered into between the parties. Therefore, any complaint or redress sought regarding the length of the DLP is a matter specifically covered by the contract the parties entered into, and is not best suited for the this Service to consider under paragraph 42g of the Scheme.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects in the property

The landlord arranged the DLP inspection of the property with the resident for 12 April 2022. During the visit the landlord said it hand delivered an end of DLP letter to the resident. This letter said the 12 month DLP would end on 28 April 2022 which gave the resident 16 days’ notice the DLP was ending and she would be responsible for any future defects. It also said as a shared owner the resident is responsible for any repairs or maintenance at her home, as per the terms of her full repair lease.
The landlord made a note of defect repairs reported by the resident during the DLP inspection and this included adjusting the living room door to the frame.
On the 11 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and attached a photo of wood showing in a kitchen cupboard. The landlord replied and said it was unable to take forward any more defects for the resident as they were now the resident’s responsibility. It said only the defects picked up on the day of the inspection would be completed. This was in line with the terms of the resident’s lease and therefore a reasonable response by the landlord. The resident replied and said the landlord’s response was not fair and the defect with the kitchen cupboard should have been picked up by the landlord during the DLP inspection.
On the 16 May 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and said the DLP process would have been explained to the resident verbally during the end of DLP inspection and outlined in the letter given to her at the visit. This was a reasonable response from the landlord given that it had used two methods to explain the process to the resident.
The landlord said it is ‘not practical’ for it to inspect every property for unidentified defects, and so, it will ask residents to report defects at the end of the DLP inspection. This was a reasonable response by the landlord given the resident will be more aware of defects through living in the property.
On 9 June 2022 the resident raised her complaint to the landlord. She said she had been unwell at the DLP inspection, and she would like another inspection as she was still finding defects. The resident said the landlord failed to do a thorough handover inspection with the building developer. However, no evidence has been provided to this Service to show the landlord failed to do this.
The resident further said she was unhappy that she had replaced a broken sink plug, and the following defects were still present in the property,
1. gap on door trim for bedroom and living room,
2. wood showing on kitchen cupboard,
3. broken fence panel in garden.
The landlord’s defects classification policy says defects will be attended within 25 working days. The resident’s stage 1 complaint shows that the defect for the living room door was still present around 49 working days after it was raised at the DLP inspection. The resident has confirmed this defect was repaired, however, it is not clear from the evidence what date it was completed. This Service has not seen any reason provided by the landlord to account for the delay in repairing this defect. The delay was therefore inappropriate with regard to the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 14 June 2022 and asked the resident what outcome she wanted. The resident said she would like all defects to be repaired and another end of DLP inspection.
On the 23 June 2022, 10 working days later, the landlord replied at stage 1 of its internal complaints process. The landlord said it had instructed the building developer to return and repair the defect on her living room door, which had been noted at the end of DLP inspection.
The landlord said it was unable to offer another DLP inspection as this was not a service it offered to any residents. It said that it was unable to raise defects for repair as the DLP had ended 2 months previously. This Service has seen no information to show the landlord is obliged to do a second DLP inspection, this was therefore a reasonable response by the landlord.
The landlord said it informed the resident that they became responsible for defects after the DLP had ended. It said this was explained to her during the end of DLP inspection and also outlined in a hand delivered letter. As part of its response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord said it would be reviewing the written correspondence it provides to residents to ensure the letters are clear. This was an appropriate response by the landlord and shows that it used the complaints process as an opportunity to improve its service for residents and learn from outcomes in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
On the 23 June 2022 the resident escalated her complaint as she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response. She said the fence panel had not been fixed, there was a gap between the frame and the door of 2 bedrooms and a small gap in the bathroom door as well. The resident was unhappy that she had to replace a sink plug. The resident said she was saddened to hear the landlord would not be addressing the defects as the DLP had ended. She requested that all defects be repaired in order to resolve her complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 response comprised of a review panel that took place on 19 July 2022, 18 working days later. The meeting took place with the resident and the landlord via a video call. The landlord sent the resident a review panel outcome letter on 3 August 2022 and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It summarised the complaint as,
1. broken fence panel,
2. gaps between internal doors and frames,
3. wood showing on kitchen cupboard,
4. the resident was unhappy she had to replace the bathroom plug,
In its stage 2 response the landlord said the fence panel defect repair had been arranged and it apologised for the delay. The delay to repair the fence panel was over 77 working days. This was significantly beyond the timescales set out in its policy and was an inappropriate delay against the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy.
The landlord said in the response that the lounge door defect reported during the DLP inspection had been repaired. It said it had also repaired the defect to the kitchen cupboard. These were actions undertaken by the landlord that were beyond its obligations as the resident had reported these issues after the DLP had ended. It did not repair the gaps around the other internal doors as reported by the resident after the DLP inspection date. Whilst this failure to repair was acceptable under the terms of the policy, it is understandable that the resident would be confused as to why some issues had been resolved that were reported after the DLP, and others had not. It is recommended that the landlord provide clarification and explanation to the resident as to why it had been selective in conducting repairs beyond its obligations.
The landlord further said the resident’s property has a new build warranty which includes structural cover until 27 April 2033 and included the certificate in the correspondence.
The landlord said as per the resident’s signed lease, she was responsible for all repairs at the property, and this would include replacing faulty sink plugs.
The evidence also shows the landlord has conducted some repairs beyond the scope of what it was obliged to, however, in doing so will have caused confusion to the resident, and it is recommended that the landlord clarifies its rationale for the limited scope of its additional actions . The landlord has demonstrated it has taken learning from the complaint and has committed to bettering the service to residents in the future by reviewing the wording of DLP letters given to residents and presumably making changes were improvements are identified.
In summary, there is evidence that the landlord conducted the repairs that were reported to it within the timescales as required by the DLP. However, there were significant delays to complete some of these repairs which will have caused distress to the resident above the general frustration she was experiencing with the process. The delays to repair were unreasonable in the circumstances and amount to a service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint regarding the duration of the landlord’s DLP was outside of jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation within the next 4 weeks for the service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order to this Service within 4 weeks of this report’s date.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord explain its rationale as to why it completed some of the repairs to defects reported after the DLP had ended, and not others.
That the landlord updates both the resident and this Service of the results of the review and any relevant changes it has made to the content of its DLP letters.