Sovereign Network Homes (202214095)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214095

Sovereign Network Homes

8 January 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 provision of information relating to:
1. Parking.
2. Snags and defects.

Background

The resident became a shared leaseholder of the property, which is a flat, on 13 December 2021. The landlord, which is a housing association, is the freeholder.
On 21 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and asked for a copy of the property’s snagging survey. The landlord responded on 22 September 2021 and said that the snagging inspection was carried out internally and was not sent out to buyers. It also said that the resident would have the opportunity to check the flat for anything ‘glaringly obvious’ at the point of handover. However, if she found anything once she started using her property, then this could be reported to the landlord, who would arrange to have it dealt with.
On 22 September 2021, the resident replied to the landlord and asked if she could arrange for an external company to attend and complete a snagging list. The landlord responded on 24 September 2021 and informed the resident that it was not able to accommodate this request and reiterated that she should be able to report any issues after she had moved in.
On 17 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord about parking. She explained that she had applied to the local authority for a visitor parking permit, but had been declined due to the development being car free. She said she did not recall this being within the brochure or lease contract.
On 19 January 2022 the landlord responded and confirmed that this was correct and that it had previously offered incentives to potential purchasers for prepaid parking in the local area. The resident asked the landlord how she could claim the incentive as she was not offered it at the time of purchase.
On 15 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and reported issues with:
1. The bath silicone was not sealed.
2. The shower door was missing one of the screws/plugs
3. The sealant on the shower door was faulty and had leaked when the shower was in use.
4. There was a chip and wrinkles in the kitchen counter worktop.
5. A plug in the laundry room was faulty and crackled when in use.
The landlord responded to the resident on the same day and informed her that the contractor would contact her regarding the missing screw in the shower door and plug in the laundry room. It went on to say that the remaining issues were classed as snagging and not covered by the warranty. It also said that unless reported at the time of sale and noted on the completion paperwork then residents were unable to report snagging issues after completion/occupying.
In February and March 2022 the resident asked the landlord to confirm where this was documented as she had been told that she could report snagging after she had moved in. On 8 March 2022 the landlord responded to the resident and said that there was no provision for residents to report snagging after occupation and she should contact another department about what she had been told prior to moving in.
On 14 March 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s response that some issues did not fall into the category of defects. She also expressed her dissatisfaction that she could not report snagging after she had moved into the property, despite what she had previously been told. The resident also asked the landlord to address why she was not informed about the restrictions on applying for parking permits outside of her development and the lack of information she had been provided during the sales process.
On 29 March 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response where it said:
1. Regarding the snagging works, it should have done more to investigate the issues the resident was reporting. It said it would be in touch within 7 days to discuss further and visit if necessary.
2. Regarding the parking, the landlord said that the resident was informed that the resident and visitor parking would not be available and that it was a car free scheme. It was also made clear in the reservation terms and conditions which had been provided.
On 30 March 2022 the resident escalated her complaint. She said that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as she had requested the written material which stated that snagging issues could not be reported after completion and where the information relating to the parking restrictions had been provided to her. Furthermore, she also said none of the marketing literature or the contract stated the extent of the restrictions applied to parking permits in the entire borough, as confirmed by her solicitor.
On 9 May 2022 the landlord provided it stage 2 response where it said that:
1. It had arranged to deal with all the issues the resident reported in February 2022, and that it had a home user guide which explained the the difference between a snag and a defect. It had however, asked that a review be completed about what additional literature or information could be given to resident’s earlier in process.
2. The resident had signed the sales agreement which clearly stated that, as a no parking scheme, residents were not able or permitted to apply and obtain a parking permit to park on council controlled streets on the boundary of her estate.
3. It did acknowledge that it could have been more proactive in responding to the resident’s emails and offered £50 compensation.
On 12 November 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as she was not informed in any literature, and that within her contract there was only one line to say that if a controlled parking zone was implemented within the estate then residents would not be eligible for a permit. She also said that the contract did not provide any details of the surrounding areas.
The resident also confirmed that she remained dissatisfied with the way the landlord had handled her snagging issues as she was told during the buying process that she would not be able to access the property to conduct a snagging survey, except for an inspection at exchange. However, she was not offered an inspection at all and when she did report issues she was told that snagging issues could not be reported after completion.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s provision of information relating to parking.

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 may not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states that the Housing Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which

“concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.”

The resident’s complaint is that she believes she was misinformed by the landlord, regarding the parking arrangements prior to signing her lease. The property sales process is a formal and legal one. There are rules and regulations about the information provided to prospective buyers, and solicitors play an important role in advising and guiding their clients in the process.
Allegations of impropriety, such as the ones made by the resident, are serious matters, and ones which, ultimately, can only be resolved by the courts. The courts can cross examine and call expert witnesses, and can make legally binding judgements on the parties involved in the sale. The Ombudsman does not have the authority or remit to make such judgments. Because of that, in line with paragraph 42(f) this matter is better suited for the courts, and is not one the Ombudsman will investigate.

The landlord’s provision of information relating to snags and defects.

The landlord has not provided a policy or procedure which sets out the landlord’s processes for carrying out a repair due to faulty materials and products, or poor workmanship in properties under a defects liability period. Nor has it provided any procedure which shows what it will do if a reported fault is not a latent defect which shared owners will be responsible for rectification of these faults.
On review of the evidence provided, it is clear that the resident requested access to the property in September 2021 in order to complete a snagging inspection, which the landlord said that it could not accommodate. The resident further requested a copy of the landlord’s snagging inspection report, but the landlord said it could not provide this, although it is not clear why.
Within the 2 responses the landlord sent the resident in September 2021, it did confirm that she could report any issues once she had moved into the property. On both occasions the landlord did not distinguish between a snag or a defect, nor did it give her a time limit of when she had to report any issues. Because of this, the resident had a legitimate expectation that the landlord would deal with any issues once she had moved into the property.
Given this expectation, when the resident emailed the landlord on 15 February 2022 to report the issues that she had identified, it was not unreasonable for her to expect the landlord to address them accordingly. Instead the landlord responded and said that it could only deal with the missing screw in the shower door and plug as the other items were classed as snagging and there was ‘no provision’ for residents to report these after moving into a property.
Furthermore, when the landlord said it was unable to deal with the snagging issues, it did not attempt to try to help resolve the issues identified. When the resident explained that she had been told previously that she could report any issues once she was moved in.
The landlord also failed to take responsibility and caused further inconvenience when it told her that she needed to contact another department who gave her this information. The Ombudsman would have expected to see the landlords internal departments work together to try and resolve the issue without the need for the resident to speak to multiple people.
The landlord had a duty to establish whether the faults reported within the defects liability period were a defect, and if so to arrange for the developer to rectify. If an issue reported is classed as snagging, we would reasonably expect the landlord to provide an explanation and the next steps the resident could take in order to remedy the issues. This did not happen and led to resident having to contact the landlord on multiple occasions.
When the resident made a stage 1 complaint, the landlord appropriately acknowledged within its stage 1 response that it should have taken steps to investigate the issues reported and undertake works if needed. The landlord apologised and said that it would be in touch within 7 days.
The landlord contacted the resident the next day and appropriately followed up with the resident about the issues she had reported. These actions show that the landlord was taking steps to put things right for the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint as she requested written materials about the statement that snagging could not be reported after a resident moves in. The landlord responded and confirmed that it provided a home user guide which explains the difference between snags and defects, but would be completing a review as to whether additional literature could be give earlier in the home buying process. It further offered £50 compensation in recognition of its service failure.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged that it should have done more when the resident first reported issues in February 2022 and that there was a small delay in responding to her emails. The landlord also took steps to put things right for the resident and furthermore said that as a result of her complaint, it would carry out a review of the current process which shows that it was actively looking to learn from the outcome.
These were appropriate steps for the landlord to take and the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to share a copy of its review as it would not be reasonable for it to take the position that residents could not report snagging issues once they had moved into the property.
The Ombudsman would expect to see a clear policy, procedure or guidance which details how long a resident has to report any snagging issues, which are not classed as a defect, and what steps the landlord will take to address them. A recommendation has been made at the end of the report regarding this.
In determining whether £50 compensation was a fair and reasonable offer of compensation, the Service has consulted its own remedies guidance. This states that where there has been service failure, which may include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, and delays in getting matters resolved, payments of between £50 and £100 are recommended. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there has been reasonable redress in respect of landlord’s provision of information relating to snags and defects.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint about the provision of information relating to parking.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in relation to the provision of information relating to snags and defects, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves this complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £50 compensation which it offered in its final response within 4 weeks of this determination, if it has not already done so.
It is recommended that the landlord provide the Ombudsman and resident with details of the review it took regarding the provision of information given to residents and the outcome, as detailed within its final response, within 4 weeks of this determination.
It is recommended that the landlord produce a policy, procedure or guidance in relation to issues that are identified once a resident has moved into a new build property, and are not classed as defects. It should detail how long a resident has to report any issues, and what steps the landlord should take.
It is also recommended that the landlord take steps to update its stage 1 response letter to ensure residents are given the Ombudsman’s contact details, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Code.