Sparrow Shared Ownership Limited (202219349)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219349

Sage Housing Limited (SHL)

25 October 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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. Noise transference from a neighbouring property.
2. The condition of the kitchen units.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a property under shared ownership with the landlord. The lease began on 25 March 2022. The property is a new build two-bedroom semi-detached house. The resident suffers with depression, PTSD and has a spinal injury.
On 29 November 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said that she had reported a defect in April 2022 about the sound proofing in her property. She said that despite contacting the landlord on several occasions she had not received any response. The noise was impacting her health and her ability to manage her job. She asked if someone could visit her property to access the walls as she considered they had not been built to standard.
On 15 August 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It partially upheld the complaint. It apologised that it had taken approximately 10 months for a contractor to attend to complete a sound test. This was due to the developer causing delays. It had now investigated the issue in accordance with its process. As no defect had been found it would not take any further action. It offered £200 compensation. £100 for the delay in responding to the complaint. £100 for the delay in taking action to investigate the defect reported in April 2022.
In February 2024, the resident raised a stage 2 complaint. She said that she had been told on the telephone that there would be a second sound impact test. She had been told that the property had been built to robust standards in accordance with the documents. However, no one had visited the property to check. She wanted to be taken seriously and wanted the landlord to at least speak to the builder and the National House Building Council (NHBC) on her behalf as it was shared ownership. She had also raised an issue with her kitchen cupboard a month after moving in and it still remained unresolved.
On 6 March 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. In summary it upheld its findings in its stage 1 response relating to the sound test. It had previously explained that as the neighbour was a private homeowner the matter would need to be resolved between parties or reported to the local authority. It apologised that it should have proceeded to chase the developer for their position to re-assess the matter and make a complaint with them if they disputed this. It also apologised for its poor communication. It said it had now raised a formal complaint with the developer.
In respect of the kitchen unit. It upheld the complaint. It apologised that it had failed to monitor the matter to ensure a resolution could be reached earlier and that its communication had been poor. It did however point out that the issue was not considered a defect, and it was not therefore liable to resolve the matter. It requested the developer send the correct hinges. If the developer failed to provide this in a timely manner it would arrange to have the hinges provided. It offered £500 compensation. This was broken down as follows:
1. £200 as offered in its stage 1 response.
2. £150 for the handling of the kitchen cupboards.
3. £150 for the delay in chasing up the developer further regarding their reluctance to revisit the property to address the noise nuisance.

Post complaint.

The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service as the noise issue still remained unresolved. She said it was affecting her health and her ability to work as she was unable to sleep through the night.
The landlord pursued a formal complaint with the developer. It also contacted NHBC so they could pursue the matter. In August 2024 it formally referred the noise complaint to the local authority.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about noise transference from a neighbouring property.

It is recognised the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident. Its adverse impact on her welfare is also acknowledged. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around loss of earnings and any damage to her health are beyond the scope of this assessment. The Ombudsman can assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused.
The lease states it is the resident’s responsibility to keep the property in good and substantial repair and condition. The resident is also required to give notice to the landlord of any defect in the property as soon as possible.
The landlord’s anti social behaviour (ASB) policy defines ASB as “conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.” It states when the landlord receives a report it will work to quickly determine whether it meets its definition of ASB. It may therefore need to conduct some investigations before making its determinations. It categorises reports based on risk and harm from high, medium and low risk. It will respond to high risk within 24 hours and low to medium risk within 5 working days.
Generally, with any new build there is a ‘defects period’ of between 6-24 months. During this period, the builders/developers remain responsible for any defects/snagging issues. Repairs are usually reported to the landlord and then addressed towards the end of the defects period (unless urgent) and signed off as completed by the resident.
Once the defects period has ended, any repairs required would fall under the terms of the lease agreement. However, latent defects reported after the conclusion of the defects period would then be covered by the warranty/insurance for all new or newly converted homes provided by the National House Building Council (NHBC) which provides insurance to a financial limit to cover:
1. If the Contractor becomes insolvent or fails to meet their obligations during the first two years after completion.
2. Against damage caused by defects in specified parts of the home during years 3-10. (standard excess of £650)
The landlord has a defect policy which confirms that its developers have obligations to correct defects that arise within a defined period. This period is known as the defects liability period (DLP). The developer has to correct defects within defined timescales according to the severity of the issue.
The DLP usually lasts 1 or 2 years depending on the agreements it has with the developer. Defects should be corrected no later than 30 days from being reported although this may be extended if there is a longer waiting time for materials.
Where a defect is reported its aftercare team will instruct the developer to resolve the issue within the timescales. It will keep residents informed throughout the process with updates on progress. Where an issue is not considered a defect, it will advise the resident accordingly.
In this case, the DLP was 12 months. The resident reported the defect on 27 April 2022 which was within the DLP. The landlord raised this with its developers at the same time. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord monitored the report and kept the resident updated. This was a failing and not in accordance with the timescales provided in its defect policy.
The landlord states within its stage 1 response that it contacted the developer on 24 August 2022 to advise that the defects were overdue. It said it gave the developer 24 hours to respond, or it would instruct its own contractor. This Service has not seen evidence within the records provided to show that this action was taken.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The evidence shows that the resident chased the matter again on 16 October 2022 as she had not received any response. She said she had been emailing another team as well to try to get a response. The landlord advised the resident that the matter had been passed on to its consultant for further action. The records provided do not show whether the landlord took any further action.
The landlord also said within its stage 1 complaint response that in November 2022 it notified the developer that as it had no update it would be arranging a sound test itself. The records provided show that this was communicated to the developer on 9 December 2022.
The landlord then explained within its complaint response that there were delays in arranging the sound test due to having to arrange access with the resident’s neighbour. The evidence shows that the resident had to chase the landlord again for an update on 29 December 2022. Following on from this however the landlord ensured that it updated the resident. There was then a further delay as the contractor failed to attend in February meaning that the sound test was not completed until 24 March 2023.
The sound test found that the property met the regulatory standards. It is acknowledged that the resident was dissatisfied with the result. It is however reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of its qualified contractors.
In relation to the resident’s assertion that the landlord had advised that another test could be available. This Service does not dispute the resident’s version of events. However, there is no evidence to support that 2 tests had been offered or were necessary.
It is further acknowledged that the resident informed the landlord that the contractor recommended a further vibration sound test. Although we do not doubt the resident’s testimony this Service cannot establish any evidence to support this from the information provided.
In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In this instance, there is no written record of the contractor ever recommending the requirement of a further test. Therefore, in the absence of any formal recommendation, there were limited steps the landlord could have taken in this instance.
The landlord failed however to clarify its position and provide a copy of the sound test to the resident until 30 June 2022. This was almost 3 months after the sound test had been completed. The resident had sent several emails during April and May expressing her concerns. The landlord did not explain its delay within its complaint response. It is important for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations. Failure to can be detrimental to the landlord/tenant relationship as it can potentially convey to the resident a feeling of being forgotten about.
While the landlord was responding to the defect enquiry the records show that the resident had also raised a noise complaint to its anti ASB team. The report was logged on 25 November 2022 and assessed as a medium priority.
The ASB team contacted the resident on 30 March 2023. This was 87 working days later which is outside of its own policy timescales. It is unclear whether the delay was because it was waiting on the outcome of the sound test before pursuing a noise complaint. The timing of the contact did coincide with the completion of the sound testing. The records however do not show what if anything was communicated to the resident during this period in respect of her noise complaint. That it does not is a failing in its handling of the matter.
The records are then confusing. The initial advice given to the resident in March 2023 was that if her neighbour owned their property, she would have to pursue the matter with the local authority environmental health team. She was advised to start to record diary sheets to provide to the local authority.
The correspondence then shows that the resident was contacted by another member of the team on 19 April 2023 and the resident was provided access to the landlord’s ASB app so that she could send in recordings. A few days later it then reconfirmed its original position that as the neighbour owned their property it would have to be investigated by the local authority environmental health team. Although the landlord did provide the same advice again. The conflicting information would have caused confusion and frustration for the resident. The duration however was short so the impact on the resident was minimal.
In October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord with advice that she had been given about how NHBC could assist under the 2-year warranty. In accordance with that advice the landlord contacted the developer again asking it to re-assess the resident’s original request. This was appropriate however it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have pursued this action without the resident having to request it.
The landlord needed to follow up with a formal complaint if no response was provided from the developer. It failed to do this but acknowledged this failing within its stage 2 response. It also acknowledged that it had failed to keep the resident informed.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord offered £250 compensation in total to try to put matters right. This amount however does not fully reflect the time and level of impact on the resident.
The resident had spent considerable time and effort contacting the landlord for a 10-month period to try to ensure the defect was reported to the developer in the first instance. The landlord’s records fail to show all the action it said it took. The resident had explained that it was affecting her health. She had to continue to live with the uncertainty for longer than necessary which was unreasonable.
The landlord failed to respond to the noise reports made to its ASB team within a reasonable timeframe. It then failed to consider whether it could pursue action with NHBC. When it was informed by the resident it could it failed to monitor the matter and keep the resident updated. This protracted the whole process even further causing distress and inconvenience. Therefore, a series of orders are made out below.
After the complaint, the landlord took reasonable steps to try to resolve the issue. It exhausted the complaint process with the developer. It liaised with NHBC to assist under the warranty but due to issues beyond its control were unable to pursue the matter further. It then ensured that the matter was referred to the local authority.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the kitchen units.

On 26 April 2022, the resident reported that she needed hinges for her kitchen cupboard. This was because she was unable to reach inside the cupboard without overstretching.
The resident raised this issue within her stage 2 escalation. It is acknowledged that the resident said that she had raised this issue before. There is no evidence however to support that it had been raised as part of her stage 1 complaint. The landlord provided a chronology of what had happened within its stage 2 response. Its version of events coincides with the evidence provided to this Service.
The landlord appropriately upheld the resident’s complaint. It agreed that it had not proactively monitored the matter to ensure that a resolution could be resolved sooner. It further acknowledged that it should have scrutinised the developer for updates more frequently. The evidence also shows this so this was appropriate.
The works to the kitchen cupboard were completed 2 months after the stage 2 complaint on 3 May 2024. This was almost 2 years after the resident first raised her concerns. The landlord said that it was further delayed because of a change in works required and a lack in clarity from its contractor as to whether the works were completed. It also said that it later transpired that it was not considered a defect and should have been treated as a repair.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an acknowledgment of its error, and an apology) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident. It put things right by awarding £150 compensation. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint procedure. Its policy advises that it aims to respond to complaints at Stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days if a complaint is escalated to Stage 2.
The evidence provided by the resident shows that she raised a formal complaint on 29 November 2022 and 26 May 2023. On 2 August 2023, this Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf as she had not received a response. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 15 August 2023.
The landlord acknowledged that its complaint response was overdue. It said that it had received a formal complaint request on 7 December 2022. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord sent an acknowledgement of the complaint on 7 December 2022 but that the complaint was originally raised on 29 November 2022. The stage 1 complaint response therefore took 178 working days before the landlord responded. This was not in accordance with its complaint policy and a failing.
The stage 1 complaint response however did show a clear investigation of how it had handled the report of the defect. It provided a chronology of what action it had taken. It acknowledged its failings and set out its current position. This was appropriate and showed that it had listened to the resident’s concerns and taken them seriously. It further managed the resident’s expectations by explaining what it could and could not do. To try to put matters right it offered compensation. It also described learning outcomes which showed how it would improve its monitoring of its developer moving forwards. This was appropriate and offered some reassurance that the issues would not reoccur.
On 5 October 2023, the evidence shows that the landlord followed up after the stage 1 response. It contacted the resident and asked if she was happy with the stage 1 response. The resident responded on 8 October 2023 to explain that she still remained dissatisfied. She said she was at breaking point due to the noise. She also mentioned the kitchen cupboards. The landlord responded and asked her to confirm what she was unhappy with and what outcome she sought. It also asked whether the kitchen units was a new issue.
The evidence does not show that the resident responded. However, she had expressed her dissatisfaction so on that basis it would have been reasonable for the landlord to raise a stage 2 escalation. The landlord explained within its stage 2 that it had also contacted this Service at that point for further information. While this Service does not dispute the landlord’s version of events there is no evidence to support that it did. Regardless of whether it did contact this Service It would have been reasonable for the landlord to pursue the matter again with the resident. This would have shown that it had done all it could to ensure the issues were resolved.
On 6 February 2024, the resident contacted this Service, and we then contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The stage 2 response was then issued on 6 March 2024 which was 105 working days after the resident had expressed her dissatisfaction on 8 October 2023. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy and a failing.
The stage 2 response reiterated its findings within its stage 1 response relating to the defect. It clearly set out what action it had taken since in respect of the warranty held by NHBC. It appropriately upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged its failings and apologised.
In relation to the kitchen units, it provided a detailed chronology of events which showed a thorough investigation. It upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged its failings. It also detailed next steps. This showed that it had listened to the resident and had taken her concerns seriously.
In relation to both issues the landlord provided several learning outcomes. These included staff training and a referral to its senior management team to review the complaint. This was appropriate and showed that it was committed to try to ensure that it improved moving forwards.
To try to put matters right the landlord considered compensation which was reasonable in the circumstances. This Service acknowledges that the landlord offered compensation for the complaint handling delay in its stage 1 response of £100. It failed however to consider if it had done all it could to escalate the resident’s concerns to stage 2.
While the complaint responses were appropriate the process was substantially protracted and hard to access for the resident. There were unreasonable delays in issuing both its complaint responses, and the resident was cost time and trouble in needing to seek assistance in getting responses. Therefore, an order has been made for compensation in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, which can be found on our website.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about noise transference from a neighbouring property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the kitchen units.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay directly to the resident a total of £525. £350 of the landlord’s compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about noise transference from a neighbouring property.
3. £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The landlord is ordered to do the following within 6 weeks:
1. Write to the resident to reiterate its advice that she should engage with the local authority to enable it to investigate the issues further. A copy of this letter should be provided to this Service also within 6 weeks.

Recommendation

The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £150 as offered in its stage 2 response for its handling of the kitchen units.