The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202003011)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003011

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

16 March 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

  1. The resident complains about the landlord’s handling of his concerns relating to the condition of the garden at his property, and to his subsequent formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

Remedial works to the garden

  1. The resident moved to a new build property in early 2018. He reported various issues and defects over the next few months, and on 10 July 2018 complained to the landlord that the developer was failing to rectify these and not attending appointments. The landlord responded that same day explaining that it had a contractual arrangement which required it to write to inform the developer where it was felt the developer had “gone wrong” and give it a chance to put things right. The landlord detailed its understanding of the outstanding matters, which included rubble in the garden, and a drop to the rear of garden where scaffold was removed. The landlord said that if the developer did not resolve the issues it would book its own contractor to do so “…except the rubble in the garden for which I will open a claim with the NHBC.” The landlord emailed the developer that same day about the matter.
  2. As the garden issues were not addressed by the developer, the landlord gave it a weeks’ notice in September 2018 that if these were not done it would take over the works. The developer still did not address the issues, and so on 24 September 2018 the landlord confirmed with the resident the outstanding issues for it to address, which included debris/rubble in the garden and a noticeable drop from where the scaffolding had been in place.
  3. On 18 October 2018, following an inspection at the property, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that a contractor would attend to check for build rubble every few inches throughout the garden. Any build rubble found would be removed, filled with soil and then returfed. To remedy the drop in the back garden the landlord’s contractor would remove the turf, fill it with soil to level it and then returf. The landlord said that it was awaiting dates from the contractor to get this booked in.  The Ombudsman understands that these works took place several weeks later.
  4. On 10 December 2018 the resident emailed the landlord’s contractor stating that while he had been told that the garden works had been completed, instead of raising up the level of the garden to address the drop, the area had been dug down to lower it all to the same level instead, which was not what had been agreed. He asked that this be resolved urgently.
  5. In response the contractor emailed stating that the levels were raised by around 10-15cm, not lowered, saying “To clarify: turf was lifted, soil added to level up area where scaffold leg rested.it wasn’t lowered down, but filled with soil and putting down existing turf previously removed.”
  6. On 12 December 2018 the resident emailed the contractor to say that while it had taken up and filled in an area by the shed, it had been filled with soil that contained rubble and glass. The resident forwarded this email on to the landlord that same day expressing frustration, and noting that the “end of defects period” inspection was taking place in a couple of days, at which he would discuss these issues. The end of defect inspection was then carried out on 14 December 2018, and included “Garden area from last timber fence post across to shed to rear fence needs levelling.”
  7. After the resident chased up the landlord about this, it emailed him on 21 January 2019, stating that it had been chasing the developer for an update and timescale with regards to the garden works which had been agreed at the inspection the developer would address.
  8. The resident continued to chase the landlord, reporting in February 2019 that while the developer had now attended to carry out the works to the garden, “…all they have done is fill the area with top soil. They have not compacted it in any way, meaning that it will be lower than it should be once it is compacted. The top soil used is full of rocks and they have not seeded or turfed the area.” He invited the landlord to attend to inspect this saying “I hope you will agree that this is unacceptable and that a suitable resolution can be found quickly to resolve an issue that has been there for well over a year now.”
  9. The landlord replied, apologising for not having responded previously, stating that it had reviewed the situation and had contacted the National House Building Council (NHBC) for its input into the matter of the garden and other outstanding works.
  10. The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates, and on 6 March 2019 said “We spent the weekend taking the rocks out of the top soil that [the developer] had put down to level the back of the lawn…they were meant to level off the lawn but have left us with less lawn than when they started and told us that we would have to take the rocks out ourselves and buy the grass seed/turf for the area.”
  11. The landlord responded on 12 March 2019 updating on progress with the NHBC and saying that it would make the NHBC aware of the turf issue. On 26 March 2019 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that the NHBC had now written to the developer asking it to carry out any required work or explain why it felt it should not. The developer had responded informing the NHBC that the levelling of the garden had been completed. The landlord said that it had gone back to the NHBC to inform it that the garden had been levelled but not turfed. The resident responded reiterating that the garden had been levelled using soil that was full of rocks which he had to remove himself.
  12. An email dated 7 May 2019 from the landlord to the developer notes that all outstanding matters at the property had been addressed, aside from turf and air bricks required in the garden.

Complaint handling

  1. On 15 April 2019 the resident made a formal complaint, saying that he had found it a constant uphill struggle to get any issues and defects resolved. The resident stated that one of the main issues was the quality of the garden. He said “When we first moved in we found there to be a lot of rubble and rubbish within the soil. This was put forward to [the developer] who failed to respond and [the landlord] sent out a contractor to resolve the issue. However, even after this had been done, we found glass in the soil used on our garden…The contractors then came back to inspect it…and decided that it was fine and they simply picked out the pieces of glass on the surface.” The resident said that he recently carried out works in the garden and had found a number of large pieces of rubble and rubbish. He stated that he had tried to raise this several times but the issue was ignored. 
  2. The landlord provided a response to the formal complaint on 13 May 2019, saying that there were areas where it could have done better, including keeping the resident better informed and updated. It explained that the garden issues had been difficult as “…there have been several items raised with differing standards and situations…I understand that the remaining item is the levelling of the garden and to re-turf this area…”. It explained that it had raised this as a defect for the developer and when the developer did not address this, the landlord had taken over the works itself. However, it was only able to resolve the drop caused by scaffold, whereas the resident’s expectation was that the garden would be levelled. The landlord explained that there was no building or NHBC standard requiring gardens to be levelled and so it took no further action. The landlord said “In order to get a resolution to this we did ask the NHBC to arbitrate and they wrote to the builder who carried out further work in order to resolve the issue...” The landlord noted that the area had not been turfed and said that it would continue to chase this up.
  3. On 10 June 2019 the resident emailed the landlord asking to escalate the complaint to stage two, saying that while he understood that it was ultimately the developer’s responsibility to resolve issues, the landlord had failed to follow its own process in this regard, and he had constantly had to chase it up. He said that the quality of works carried out by the landlord’s contractor in the garden were poor, and he was still finding rubble and debris that was supposed to have been removed. He had raised this on several occasions since but was ignored. The resident said that the dip at the back of the garden wasn’t resolved, as rather than raising the dip to match the rest of the garden back to its original height, the landlord’s contractors lowered the area to match the height of the dip, and then argued that they hadn’t. The resident said that they were still waiting for the garden to be turfed.
  4. The landlord responded on 5 August 2019, apologising for the delay. It said that while the outcome of the stage one complaint had been “Partially Upheld” the complaint was now fully “Upheld” as while it had regularly chased the developer, it was the landlord’s responsibility to uphold its contract with the developer and it should have done so at an earlier stage. It said that regarding finalising any outstanding work it felt that the best way forward would be to meet with the resident at his property to go through what was still outstanding and agree what work was required, along with a timescale to carry out the work. A learning point taken from the matter was for the landlord to follow the defect resolution clause in its build contracts at an earlier stage.
  5. While originally accepting the offer to visit and finalise works, the resident then emailed the landlord on 15 August 2019 saying that on further consideration he did not think this was necessary “…as we do not have any outstanding defects other than the general quality of the gardens.” He asked for compensation for the poor service and wasted time on trying to get defects resolved. On 20 August 2019 the landlord replied offering £200. On 28 August 2019 it confirmed that the cheque had been requested and would be sent to the resident when it was ready.
  6. Over the following weeks the resident contacted the landlord to chase up the cheque, as this did not arrive. On 2 October 2019 he asked to make a fresh complaint about this. The landlord responded that same day, apologised and confirmed that the cheque request had been made on 20 August 2019 and chased up since, and it would do so again. The resident responded saying “Whilst I’m sure what you’ve said is true, it does not take away from the fact that we have not received the cheque and that our complaint is still not resolved as we have not received the resolution. Which is why, as previously stated, I would like to raise another formal complaint…Please action this.”
  7. The resident chased this up as he received no response, and on 21 October 2019 the landlord replied and explained that it had telephoned him on 2 October 2019 in relation to his complaint request, and left a voicemail confirming that it was progressing the matter of the outstanding cheque. In the meantime, the resident’s partner had spoken with the landlord to confirm the scope of works required for an outstanding defect, and they also confirmed that they had now received the cheque. The landlord had therefore understood that the matter was resolved.
  8. Around this time the resident asked the landlord for the equivalent of two months’ rent compensation (£1000) for the issues that he had experienced. From the information available, it seems that the landlord agreed to the £1000 in November 2019. The resident then chased up the payment as he had not received it, and on 10 December 2019 the landlord apologised and said it would make sure that this was done in the next week. In this same email the landlord asked when it could attend to complete the works it had said that it would. Alternatively, it could offer an additional £500 so that the resident could arrange the works himself. The resident replied saying that he would accept the £500. The landlord has confirmed that this was in relation to outstanding decorative items in the property and for the resident to lay the topsoil the contractor had provided to the front garden area.
  9. On 17 December 2019 the resident chased up the payments he was waiting for from the landlord, and said that if he did not receive these by the end of the week he would request that the matter be escalated. On 14 January 2020 the landlord replied, apologising for not having done so earlier. It said “I’m very sorry you’ve still not received the payment from us. We’ve investigated further and we found that the finance team were missing your full sort code which you had correctly provided to us. We will work on improving communications between our teams to identify these kind of errors much more quickly. We’re also reviewing how we process payments to our customers”. A further response was sent that same day from a Director of Customer Care, saying “I have personally taken up your case with our senior finance team.”
  10. When the resident expressed dissatisfaction with this and asked that the matter be escalated to someone senior, the Director of Customer Care responded on 22 January 2020 offering reassures that the matter had been escalated and that the Chief Executive had been provided with full details of the case. An outcome of this escalation was the decision of the Executive Director of Finance to write to the resident to give assurance that the matter had been taken very seriously. The resident responded that day expressing his dissatisfaction.
  11. The landlord emailed the resident on 24 January 2020 advising that it had logged a stage three request, with the complaint summarised as the landlord being slow to resolve issues in relation to the garden, and a delay in paying compensation. Efforts where then made to arrange an independent panel hearing in line with the stage three process, but this had to be cancelled due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
  12. On 7 August 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to request a final response. He emailed again chasing this up on 24 August 2020. On 26 August 2020 the landlord emailed him a copy of the response which was dated 10 August 2020, apologising that this had not been sent to him at the time.
  13. This letter acknowledged that there were many areas where it “could have done better”. It stated that the landlord wanted to learn from what had gone wrong, and said “Part of our improvement plan over the last 12 months has been to introduce a national development customer care team to develop supportive relationships with our customers to help manage their enquiries and defect repairs during the defect liability period.” The landlord said that the resident’s experience was not the one it intended to deliver and so further to the £1500 already paid to help conclude the outstanding defects, an additional £150 was offered for the poor complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating complaints, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: to be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; put things right, and; learn from outcomes.
  2. The resident has explained in his complaint to this Service that the main issue he remains dissatisfied with is the landlord’s handling of his concerns about the garden. He states that when action was finally taken in response to these concerns, the general quality of the works carried out by the landlord’s contractor was extremely poor, and the landlord was unhelpful and unwilling to take any responsibility for either the quality of the garden, or the works that it had carried out to try to rectify the issues. He also complains about the way the landlord handled his complaint, and that he had to chase up responses and the compensation that had been promised.
  3. As a remedy he would like the landlord to cover the cost of re-turfing the garden and replacing the poor-quality soil. He would also like additional paving to allow him to use the space left around the side of his shed, and the small area of lawn at the front of the house levelled with the path/driveway.

Remedial works to the garden

  1. The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s defects policy, which sets out that during the 12 month defect period any defects reported will be logged and monitored, and forwarded to the developer to be rectified. If the developer fails to carry out the works, the landlord may use its ‘day to day’ contractors or other suitable contractors to correct the defect. The Ombudsman notes that while the defects policy contains a flow chart setting out the processes to follow where a defect is reported but not resolved by the developer, no timeframes are given.
  2. The policy does not refer to the NHBC warranty, but this Service notes that one was in place. When concerns are raised that a property is not in accordance with the NHBC requirements, the housebuilder (in this case the developer) must put it right. The NHBC provides a free resolution service to help with disputes about defects, to help determine whether the builder has failed to meet technical requirements and if not, how they can meet them. If after contact with the NHBC the builder still does not complete the work or resolve the dispute, the NHBC can assess the case to determine whether its requirements were complied with when the property was built. If it is found that the builder did not comply with standards, the NHBC sets out what must be rectified by the builder and when works must be completed by. If it finds that the builder complied with the standards, but the owners of the property were not satisfied with this result, it would be open to the owners to take remedial action such as arbitration or court action.
  3. The Ombudsman notes that the NHBC’s standards document in place at the time (2018) sets out that in relation to gardens, disturbed topsoil should be reinstated, and construction rubbish and debris should be removed.
  4. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of any initial complaint from the resident about the garden, but there is an email from him to the landlord dated 23 July 2018 asking the landlord to “…chase the resolution for the garden for us, as this week will be 8 weeks since the initial complaint…” Therefore, it would seem that concerns were first raised about the garden at the end of May 2018.
  5. The evidence available shows that, in line with the defects policy, the landlord did write to the developer in July 2018 about the garden issues, which was an appropriate course of action. It seems that the developer took no action in response to this, but it was not until September 2018 that the landlord gave it a weeks’ notice that if these works were not carried out it would take over. As noted above, no timeframes are given in the defects policy as to when actions should be taken (it may be that such timeframes were included in the contract, but the Ombudsman does not have a copy of this), but in the Ombudsman’s view the landlord should have proactively monitored the situation and chased the developer sooner than two months after its initial request, given the matter had been ongoing since May 2018.
  6. The evidence available does then indicate that the landlord acted reasonably quickly when the developer still took no action, by arranging for an inspection to be carried out by its own “day to day” contractors, and then on 18 October 2019 confirming that it would arrange for build rubble to be removed from the garden and the affected areas filled with soil and then returfed, as well as the drop being filled and re-turfed. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any record of this inspection but given that arrangements were made to address the rubble and the drop, it is reasonable to conclude that these were found to be issues which required remedial action.
  7. The landlord carrying out these works itself in lieu of the developer doing so was appropriate and in line with the defects policy, although it is unclear why its initial plan (as stated in its 10 July 2018 email) to raise the rubble issue with the NHBC was not carried out.
  8. However, it seems that it was not until December 2019 that these works took place, which represents a delay. It is clear from the evidence available that the resident was then dissatisfied with the works to level to drop, as is demonstrated in his 10 December 2018 email to the landlord’s contractor. However, the landlord’s contractor strongly refuted the resident’s assertion that the rest of the garden was lowered rather than the drop being levelled. However, given that the end of defects inspection that was carried out on 14 December 2019 listed leveling of the garden as being required, it is reasonable to conclude that the leveling works carried out by the landlord’s own contractor may have been insufficient.
  9. The information available indicates that following on from the defects inspection the developer did attend and carry out levelling works to the garden in February 2019. However, the resident then reported in an email dated 21 February 2019 “…all they have done is fill the area with top soil. They have not compacted it in any way, meaning that it will be lower than it should be once it is compacted. The top soil used is full of rocks and they have not seeded or turfed the area.”
  10. In light of this, the landlord referred the matter to the NHBC for advice and told the resident it would update him once this was obtained. This was a reasonable course of action given that at this point both the landlord and the developer had carried out leveling works and the resident remained dissatisfied.
  11. While the Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the referral to the NHBC, this is evidenced by a letter from the NHBC to the developer dated 1 March 2020 confirming that the landlord had asked it to assist resolve issues at the property which included “Garden area from last timber fence post to shed needs levelling.” However, it is noted that neither the rubble nor returfing issues were mentioned in this letter, indicating that they were not raised by the landlord. Given that these were clearly of concern to the resident, and are items included in the NHBC 2018 standard, it is not clear why they were omitted. Further, while the landlord later stated in its 12 March 2019 email that it informed the NHBC that the garden had been leveled but not returfed, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that supports this.
  12. It appears that in response to the NHBC letter, the developer informed it that it had carried out the work to level the garden. However, this was not in dispute: as above, the resident himself noted in February 2019 that this had been done, but he considered that these works were of a poor standard and further debris and rubble had been brought into the garden, and no returfing had been carried out. There is no indication that the landlord raised this with the NHBC, which given the ongoing dispute would have been a reasonable course of action to help resolve the dispute.
  13. Having said this, the landlord’s May 2019 response to the resident’s formal complaint suggests that it was of the view that the works that had been carried out were sufficient, referring to “differing standards”, which might explain why it did not pursue the matter further. This would accord with the resident’s own description (as set out in his complaint) of the landlord’s contractor returning when the resident was dissatisfied with the works carried out to clear the debris, but finding that the works that had been done were sufficient.
  14. The landlord also explained that there was no building or NHBC standard requiring gardens to be levelled. While this is correct with reference to the 2018 standard, the concerns the resident appears to have been raising at this point were that the works to level the drop had been carried out poorly, that the garden still contained building debris, and that areas still required returfing. The landlord’s response did not fully address these concerns. If it was the case that the landlord considered that the works to the garden had resolved all these issues, it missed the opportunity to make this clear in its response.
  15. The Ombudsman is satisfied from the above assessment that there were failings and delays on the part of the landlord in addressing the resident’s concerns about the garden, including via its own defects policy, and in the issues it raised with the NHBC. The landlord did recognise failings in its response to the resident’s stage two complaint, fully upholding this. It acknowledged that it should have upheld its contract with the developer at an earlier stage and said that it would now follow the defect resolution clause in its build contracts at an earlier stage. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this demonstrates that it had “learnt from outcomes”. In addition, the landlord set out in its August 2020 response that it had introduced a national development customer care team to help manage enquiries and defect repairs during the defect liability period.
  16. Further, the resident had stated in his second stage complaint that he was still finding rubble and debris, the dip at the back of the garden wasn’t resolved, and he was still waiting for the garden to be turfed. To resolve the outstanding concerns the landlord offered to meet with the with the resident and agree what work was required and a timescale for this. This was a reasonable course of action to try and settle the matter, and the Ombudsman is satisfied it demonstrates that the landlord was taking steps to try and “put things right”.
  17. The resident declined this and requested a compensation payment, and so the landlord made an offer of £200, which the resident accepted. Again, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord took steps to try and provide a remedy for its failings in line with the resident’s preference, and notes that, had this been paid in a timely fashion, this may have been an end to the matter. The resident did eventually receive the £200 payment after he chased this up on several occasions.
  18. The resident then requested £1000 in compensation. The Ombudsman has not been provided with details of the request, but an internal email from the landlord in relation to this indicates that it was for:
  • a lack of ownership from the landlord to manage the developer
  • frustration at the length of time to resolve any item defects raised
  • the landlord offering “insincere empathy with no effective resolution…”
  • large amount of time taken by the resident to resolve queries and attend contractor appointments.
  1. The Ombudsman understands that this relates to both the internal defects that the resident had at the property and difficulties he had getting these rectified, as well as the issues with the garden, and so this whole amount does not apply to the garden issues assessed in this investigation.
  2. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance sets out that amounts of between £250 and £700 are appropriate in cases such as this, where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but no permanent impact on the resident. A significantly higher amount than this was offered as a resolution to cover both the internal defects as well as the garden. The landlord also agreed to the full amount that the resident had specifically asked for (£100). The Ombudsman also notes that this was in addition to the £200 that had already been paid at stage two of the complaint process. In light of this, the Ombudsman is satisfied that overall an appropriate amount of compensation was provided for the garden issues. It is noted that an additional £500 was then paid, but this did not relate to the specific garden issues that were raised in the formal complaint, and so is discounted in this assessment.
  3. The Ombudsman understands that the outcome that the resident now seeks are works to his garden as he is dissatisfied with the quality, however, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to show that the garden requires remedial works. The landlord has stated in response to this investigation that it does not agree that there are any outstanding issues with the garden.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a three-stage complaint process. At stage one, it will investigate and provide a written response within ten working days and aims to complete all actions relating to the complaint within 30 calendar days. If a resident remains dissatisfied, the complaint can progress to stage two and be reviewed, and a written response will be provided within ten working days. At stage three, a resident may request escalation to an independent appeal panel.
  2. On 15 April 2019 the resident made a formal complaint, and the landlord provided a response on 13 May 2019, which is some way outside the ten working day response time detailed in tits policy.
  3. On 10 June 2019 the resident emailed the landlord asking to escalate the complaint to stage two, and the landlord responded on 5 August 2019, again some way outside of its ten working day policy. These delays were no doubt frustrating for the resident.
  4. There was then a lengthy delay in the landlord providing the £200 compensation that it had offered as a resolution, and had been accepted by the resident in August 2020, leading to a further complaint from the resident. A delay then occurred in it making the payment of £1000, with the resident again having to chase up the landlord on several occasions, compounding his frustrations. These delays in the payments being made were not in line with the complaint policy that sets out actions relating to the complaint should be completed within 30 calendar days.
  5. The landlord did then accept the resident’s request to escalate the complaint about the garden and the delay in compensation payments to the independent appeal panel, but this did not go ahead due to the Covid-19 pandemic. While the Ombudsman might have expected the landlord to have been proactive in providing a written final response to the complaint in lieu of the appeal panel, it is perhaps understandable that due to the implications of the pandemic on the landlord and its resources, this did not happen. Nevertheless, no final response was provided until the resident requested this in August 2020. The fact that he had to chase this up would have added to his frustrations.
  6. In light of the above, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there were several failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord did provide an explanation for the delay in the £1000 being paid, stating that this had been due to the finance team missing the full sort code, and saying that it would “work on improving communications” to pick up on such errors in the future, and was also reviewing how it processed payments, and the case had been taken up with the finance team. The final response in August 2020 also recognised failings and set out the steps it had taken to address these. The Ombudsman considers that this demonstrates that the landlord took steps to “learn from outcomes”.
  7. In its August 2020 final response, the landlord offered £150 compensation for its poor complaint handling. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance sets out that in cases where there has been a failing, but this had no significant impact on overall outcome, compensation amounts of between £50 to £250 are appropriate. In line with this, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the £150 payment is a suitable resolution to the time and trouble caused to the resident due to failings in the complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has provided “reasonable redress” which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the concerns about the condition of the garden at the property, and the subsequent formal complaint.

Reasons

  1. It is understandable that the failings in this case, or which there have been several, have been very frustrating for the resident and that he has expended considerable time and effort in trying to resolve matters. However, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has for the most part recognised its failings and taken learning from the case. It also offered to visit the resident and agree what further works may be required. When the resident declined this and requested compensation instead, the landlord offered and paid £200, albeit delayed. When further compensation was requested the landlord agreed to and paid the full amount asked: £1000, again albeit delayed.
  2. It is regrettable that there was a delay in the landlord responding to the complaints and making the compensation payments, and this case demonstrates the importance of a landlord carrying out remedial actions agreed during the complaint process in a timely manner. Having said this, the landlord did recognise these failings, and offered a further £150 for its poor complaint handling.
  3. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.
  4. In this case, the Ombudsman satisfied that the landlord has taken steps to “learn from outcomes” and “put things right”. In light of the compensation already paid to the resident, the Ombudsman does not consider it proportionate for the landlord to also cover the cost of works the resident would like carried out in the garden.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the £150 offered for the failings in complaint handling.
  2. If it has not already done so, the landlord should undertake the Ombudsman’s free online dispute resolution e-learing modules at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/
  3. The landlord should consider whether its defects policy should be reviewed to include timeframes, and in what circumstances referrals to NHBC may be considered.