Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202003404)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003404

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

21 April 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 complaints are about:

a) A landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects at their property.

b) The level and the increase of the rent.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) and (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the complaint about the reasonableness and the increase of the rent, and the complaint about defects reported following the end of the internal complaints process.
Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.”
The resident raised concerns about the reasonableness of the rent and sought a rent reduction. Whether or not the level of rent is reasonable is a matter for the First – tier Tribunal to consider. Therefore, in accordance with paragraphs 39(g) of the Scheme this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
This Service can only consider matters which were brought to the landlord as a formal complaint and which have exhausted its complaints procedure. The landlord provided its final response on 09 April 2020. Following this, the resident raised with the landlord and with this Service complaints about noise interference, balcony door fitting and communal lift maintenance.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme says that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
The matters raised after 09 April 2020 were not part of the complaint considered by the landlord, therefore, in accordance with paragraphs 39(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot investigate a complaint about these issues. If the resident submits a further complaint about these issues and the landlord is unable to resolve matters, they may wish to refer the complaint to the Ombudsman once the landlord issues a final response.
This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of reported defects for the period of 25 October 2019 until 09 April 2020, which were addressed in its response to the resident’s complaint.

Background

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy

The policy states that during first 12 months from development handover, new homes are in a ‘works in defect’ phase. During this time, the landlord will analyse all remedial works raised to review whether it is a ‘work in defect’ repair – and therefore the responsibility of the developing contractor; a snagging issue (for example, hairline plaster cracks) which the policy sets out is best addressed through the end of year snagging review done by the developer; or, a repair it is responsible for as a landlord.

The landlord’s defects guidance

The landlord provided this Service with the following documents which set out how it will handle repairs reported during the defect period. Its internal document, project toolkit, sets how defects will be reported to the developer and handled, and the timescales for completion of repairs. Its after care leaflet provides information to residents about the defects period, how to report defects, how the landlord will handle defects, and includes a defects FAQ.
The project toolkit provides the following timescales for completing repairs:
1. general defects will usually be completed within 20 working days, but this may be longer, for example if a specialist part is required.
2. If a defect is an emergency, the developer will usually fix this within 24 hours of notification.
3. Some essential works would be completed within 7 days period.
The aftercare leaflet sets out that:

a. New homes have a 12 month defects period. This starts from the date that the property has been handed over from the developer to the landlord. You [the resident] can report anything you suspect to be a defect during this period and all genuine defects will be rectified by the developer. At the end of the 12 months, you will have an ‘end of defects inspection’ where someone from the landlord’s team and from the developer will come to your house to inspect any final issues and agree which items should be treated as defects. The developer will contact you to arrange to carry out the work usually within 3 months of the inspection.

b. Some defects, depending on their nature, may not be fixed until the end of the defects liability period when it is more practical to do so. That’s because things might continue to change over the year it’s best to get things fixed once, rather than needing someone to keep coming out to the property.

Compensation Guidance

When considering compensation, the landlord will be looking into the following issues:

if we’ve [the landlord] failed in delivering a service
how much the customer has been disrupted
how long it’s taken to put right
whether there’s been significant distress

The maximum compensation that will be paid is £150 with the exception of reduced or loss of facilities.
Reduced or loss of facilities section sets out that the landlord pays financial compensation where a resident:

can’t use a room in their home because of major works or improvements or if there’s significant disrepair;
there’s been 7 days of continued loss.

Summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy agreement started on 25 October 2019. The property is a two-bedroom new build flat.
The resident moved into the property during the defects period. The landlord advised that it generally provides the residents with an information pack about reporting defects within this defects period, and details of the aftercare team.
Between 25 October 2019 and 09 April 2020, the resident reported 32 defects within the property.
The following defects were dealt with as emergencies:
1. Uneven floor making it difficult to close and open a door. Reported on 25 October 2019 and completed the same day.
2. A leak from the pipework in the bathroom sink, Reported as an emergency defect on 21 November 2019 and completed the same day
3. Bathroom sink being blocked. Reported as an emergency repair on 30 December 2019 and completed the same day.
4. A heated tower rail had fallen of the wall. Reported as an emergency repair on 18 February 2020 which was attended by the landlord on the same day to make safe. The defect was then forwarded to the developer on 17 March 2020 who replaced it following the easing of Covid19 lockdown restrictions.
The following were dealt with as normal defects:
1. Cupboard door to be adjusted.
2. Leak from airing cupboard.
3. No power to cooker/hob
4. Loose living room light fitting.
5. Toilet leaking from back pipework.
6. Draught coming from the balcony door.
7. Extractor fan would not turn on sometimes in bathroom or turn on by itself sometimes.
8. Check pipework in the bathroom as sink was not draining properly and this was affecting the vinyl flooring, which might need replacing.
9. Seal missing of a window.
10. Issues with Dimplex heaters.
11. Energy saving light in the bathroom flickering.
12. Balcony door external handle rough.
13. Bath / shower screen rubber seal on bottom is split and needs replacing.
14. Loud noise coming from under the cupboard next to the sink.
15. Cold air coming underneath the bath.
16. Resident reported poor paint work throughout the property.
17. Sections of grout in the bathroom were splitting or had come away.
18. The patio door letting in draft and water coming in at bottom.
19. Loose double kitchen socket and issue with 6-way grid switch.
20. Resident raised concerns about a broken screw which secures the faceplate to the wall of the tower rail.
21. Extractor fan issue reported again on 24 February 2020.
22. The trickle vent missing its dial.
23. Bathroom light occasionally failed to turn on.
24. Following shower screen replacement by the developer in February 2020, again issues were raised on 19 March 2020, particularly bottom trim split, sharp edge to corner.
25. Kitchen pipework knocking when using hot tap.
26. Kitchen light batten loose.
27. External light fitting loose.
28. A damp patch in the corner of the living room.

This service has seen evidence that most of the above repairs were completed within the landlord’s stated timescales. Some of the defects reported were considered to be more suitable for review following the end of the defects period, these included:
1. reports about poor paint work throughout the property
2. shrinkage and cracks
3. the draft from behind the bath panel
Some defects reported at the end of February 2020 and in March 2020 were delayed due to Covid-19 restrictions, these included:
1. extractor fan issue
2. trickle vent in one of the bedrooms missing its dial
3. kitchen pipework knocking when using the hot tap
4. kitchen light batten loose
5. external light fitting loose; a damp patch in the corner of the living room
6. broken screw which secures faceplate to wall for the towel rail
7. repair shower screen.
These were all reported as completed following the end of the first lockdown period, and by July 2020 at the latest.
The repairs to the towel rail, the loose double kitchen socket and the sink trap, were also delayed by Covid19 restrictions and were therefore completed outside of the landlord’s 20 days repair period.
In January 2020, the resident submitted a formal complaint about the level of rent and the annual rent increase. As set above this Service will not investigate the rent issues. In support of their complaint about rent, the resident raised the number of defects and the landlord’s handling of defects. The landlord responded that the defects would not be considered grounds to negotiate the level of rent.
On 13 February 2020, the resident escalated their complaint. They asked for a review of the landlord’s response to their defect reports as set out above in paragraph 20, 21,22 and 23 of this document, and raised an additional point about scratched glass on the balcony door. The resident explained that they were seeking compensation in excess of £1000.00.
On 09 April 2020 the landlord responded at the final stage of its complaint process. The landlord explained that it had visited the property on 17 March 2020 and also discussed the complaint over the phone with the resident. Following its visit, it had reported the outstanding defects to the developer.
. The landlord explained that whilst the outstanding defects had been reported, due to the restrictions relating to the Covid19 pandemic, there would be some uncertainty with when these would be carried out. However, the landlord explained that it would continue to hold the developer to account for the remedial action once the lockdown restrictions were lifted. The landlord clarified that its Technical Advisor had decided that some defects, should be left to be resolved at the end of defects period. These included the shrinkage cracks and the paint work and a draft from behind the bath panel.
The landlord also responded to the resident’s complaint about scratched or damaged glazing. The landlord explained that the issue had not been reported at the point of handover, therefore, it could not hold the developer responsible for this. Furthermore, under the terms of the tenancy, glazing was considered to be the tenant’s responsibility.
The landlord explained that the defects which the resident had reported were common defects and ‘teething problems’ associated with a new building and could only be identified when someone was living at the property, rather than being obvious upon inspection or during the snagging period. In respect to the resident’s request for compensation, the landlord explained that the level of compensation sought by the resident was unlikely to be achieved through the complaints process. It explained that it had approached the developer and the developer would not consider offering compensation as it believed it had responded to most of the jobs within expected timescales and the property was still within the 12 month defects period. The landlord accepted a service failure in relation to its handling of the repair to the towel rail, which had been delayed. In recognition of this and the inconvenience caused to the resident having to report number of defects, it offered £50 compensation.
Following the landlord’s final response, there was further correspondence between the parties. The resident stated that there were other service failures besides the tower rail repair delay, which included delays in dealing with the sink trap in the bathroom and a loose double socket in the kitchen. The resident raised concerns about the shrinkage and cracks and wanted reassurance that this would be dealt with at the end of the defects period. They explained that they were also dissatisfied with the response about the glazing on the balcony door as they believed it had been missed during snagging, and therefore it should be the landlord’s responsibility. The resident considered the number of defects excessive and that it was unreasonable for the landlord to describe these as teething problems. The resident explained that they were seeking £10,000.00 for repair failures, administration work, damages, loss of home use, attendance for contractors etc. The resident explained that they believed the landlord had agreed to decorate the property following the defect period, sought confirmation that this would still take place, and explained that they expected the landlord to repair the damaged glazing.

The landlord provided further responses to the resident on 15, 16 and 27 April 2021. It apologised for all defects and the delays the resident had experienced so far and also acknowledged that there would be further delays due to the Covid-19 restrictions. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £150.00 in recognition of any delays in its defects handling and inconvenience that the resident had experienced reporting the defects. The landlord confirmed that it would address issues relating to decorating at the end of the defects period. However, it was not aware of any conversation indicating it had promised to decorate the flat at the end of the defects.
The landlord explained that it had no record that the scratched glazing was raised during the snagging. As such it could not hold the developer responsible. It reiterated its previous position, that the tenancy set out this was the resident’s responsibility. However, it agreed to arrange an inspection to the scratched glass following the Covid-19 initial lockdown by a glass specialist who would advise what could be done.
The resident brought the complaint to this Service on 12 October 2020.
In November 2020, the landlord contacted the resident in relation to the scratched glass on the balcony door. The landlord explained that it had been unable to source a glass contractor that was prepared to inspect the glass. It had exhausted all its local partners and its options were limited due the lockdown restrictions and being able to work only with approved contractors. The landlord suggested that the resident find their own contractor, and further discussed the option to replace the glass. In December 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had arranged to replace the scratched glazing.

Assessment and findings

According to the landlord’s defects guidance, the developer is responsible for rectifying issues with new build properties during the defect period, which is 12 months from handover of the property from the developers. During this period, reported repairs are referred to the developer to resolve. The landlord provided information that new residents were generally supplied with information about defects, including reporting defects and defects handling. Based on the evidence provided, the resident was aware of how to report defects and that living in a new built would involve discovering and reporting such issues.
The landlord provided detailed information about the defects which the resident had reported between 25 October 2019 and 09 April 2020, together with the action it has taken in response to those reports. It is evident that the majority of defects, were reported to the developer in a timely manner and responded to in line with the targets outlined in the defects’ guidance. The landlord’s response explained that some defects were left to be resolved at the end of the defects period, which its policies allow for. Defects raised at the end of February and in March 2020 were delayed due to the Covid -19 lockdown and the limited developer’s services in the pandemic but were resolved when the lockdown restrictions were eased.
The landlord explained that it believed that the defects reported by the resident were minor and were not evident at the start of the tenancy and, for the most part, could only be discovered through occupancy and use of the property. The defects identified by the resident were reported over a period of seven months, which supports the landlord’s explanation.
Whilst most of the defects were actioned quickly, there were some that went over 20 working days despite being raised prior to Covid-19, e.g. the towel rail, the bathroom sink and the kitchen socket. Those repairs were, however, completed following the ease of restrictions. In its response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that the handling of some defects exceeded its timescales. It exercised its discretion and provided further responses to the resident’s complaint, acknowledging these delays, apologising for the inconvenience and offering compensation for this. When awarding compensation, the landlord offered the highest amount for these in line with its compensation policy.
In relation to the scratched glass on the balcony door, there was a dispute about which party was responsible for replacing the glass and whether the issue was missed during snugging. Despite the landlord stating that the glass was the tenant’s responsibility according to the tenancy agreement, it exercised its discretion and agreed to replace the whole glass in its effort to resolve the complaint. The landlord, indeed, faced delays in carrying this out due to issues caused by the pandemic. It has, however, kept the resident updated for the options available. This Service has seen evidence that a job was raised in December 2020 to carry out this work.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the number of defects and the attendance of a number of contractors may have caused frustration and inconvenience. However, overall, the landlord responded to defects within the timescales set out in its guidance. It apologised for those repairs which were delayed and offered a proportionate amount of compensation. This service is therefore satisfied that the landlord’s response to the complaint was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of the time taken to complete defects.

Reasons

Overall, the landlord has handled the majority of reported defects within the timescales set out in its guidance for defects.
In its final response to the resident, the landlord accepted that there had been delays in its handling of some of the repairs. Following the final response, the resident provided further information to the landlord. The landlord considered this, reviewed its decision and increased its offer of compensation to an amount proportionate to the delayed repairs. The landlord also exercised its discretion and arranged repairs to glazing which would usually have been the resident’s responsibility.
The landlord identified that the resident had experienced inconvenience and that service failures had occurred in its handling of three repairs. It offered the maximum amount of compensation allowable under its policies which was proportionate to the service failures identified in the complaint. I am therefore satisfied that the landlord’s response offers suitable redress to the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that, the landlord should pay to the resident compensation of £150.00 in recognition of distress and inconvenience its dealing with the reported defects may have caused, if it has not already done so. The landlord should arrange this payment within four weeks, and provide confirmation of payment to this Service