Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Town and Country Housing (202435070)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435070

Town and Country Housing

30 May 2025


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.

Complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of delays to the construction of a new build property allocated to the resident. 

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the initial tenancy beginning in 1992. He was formally offered a new build property following a successful bid on 28 March 2024. He moved into the property on 5 May 2025. The resident lives with his wife who has restricted mobility.
  2. The resident initially enquired about the new build properties in October 2023. In January 2024 the landlord advised him that the development had been delayed and the properties would be relisted on its bidding system.
  3. On 13 March 2024, the resident was offered and later accepted a new build property that better accommodated his wife’s medical needs. However, on 22 March 2024, the landlord informed the resident that the handover of the property had been delayed again and was now not expected until 4 April 2024. The resident expressed that the delay was causing him anxiety and was negatively impacting his wife’s mental health.
  4. Between April and July 2024, the resident contacted the landlord 7 times seeking updates on the construction progress and an expected move-in date. On 31 July 2024, the landlord responded that there was “no update yet” and that it was still awaiting a response from the development team.
  5. On 20 August 2024, the resident contacted the landlord, stating that he had been advised the handover was scheduled for “next week”. He requested information on the next steps for viewing the property.
  6. On 21 August 2024, the landlord notified the resident that the handover had been postponed once again, as the contractors had not yet completed the necessary works for building control approval. The resident expressed his growing frustration, and the landlord explained that the delays were caused by external factors beyond its control. On the same day, the resident contacted his local MP to voice his dissatisfaction with the ongoing development setbacks. He mentioned being informed of additional delays with no specified end date, and highlighted that these delays were significantly impacting his wife’s health.
  7. The landlord raised a stage 1 complaint on behalf of the resident on 23 August 2024, and responded on 30 August 2024. In its reply, it apologised for the delays and acknowledged the impact this had on the resident. It acknowledged that the contractor’s performance had been “poor”, which contributed to ongoing delays in completing the project. The response cited issues with both labour and material resources as factors behind the delays. While the landlord stated that the delays had been communicated to the resident, it acknowledged that the reasons for the delays had not always been clearly explained. It assured the resident that he would be kept informed of any further developments.
  8. On 7 October 2024, the landlord contacted the resident saying there were no further updates. The same day the resident contacted his local MP, as he was unhappy with the continued delays. Throughout October 2024, the resident liaised with the landlord over the progress of the development. The landlord explained that the water company had inspected the site and confirmed “all ok”, however it could take 10 to 14 days to receive the approval notice.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 November 2024. It reiterated the points made in its stage 1 response. Additionally, it stated that until the approval notice was received from building control, it would not be able to provide the final sign-off, and as a result, the handover date had been postponed to mid-November 2024. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had “very valid concerns” regarding the impact of its service failures on him and his wife, particularly concerning the completion and approval of the relevant works. It offered compensation of £300, explaining that this payment was intended to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and poor communication, as well as the resident’s need to escalate the complaint.
  10. On 14 November 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to inform him of additional delays. The resident responded by expressing that his “biggest concern was the lack of communication” from the landlord throughout the “very long and drawn-out process”. He also mentioned that he was given incorrect information regarding the water company, as the landlord was still awaiting approval from them. The resident then made further contact with the landlord on 29 November 2024. The landlord replied on 4 December 2024, stating that the resident was being updated weekly and that the property would be available as soon as all the necessary approvals had been obtained.
  11. Following recent communication, the resident confirmed that he had moved into the property on 5 May 2025 and was now seeking additional compensation for the extended delay, which he said caused distress and inconvenience to both him and his wife.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact he felt the situation had on his wife’s mental health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.
  2. The landlord offered the resident a new build property on 13 March 2024, to accommodate his wife’s medical needs. The evidence highlights how complex property development projects can be, where landlords are required to work with many outside agencies and contractors. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the delays, and whether the landlord’s action were reasonable in the circumstances. This is because we can only consider matters that were the landlord’s responsibility and within its control.

The landlord’s handling of delays to the construction of a new build property allocated to the resident

  1. The resident was offered the new build property on 13 March 2024. On 22 March 2024, the landlord informed him of a delay, stating the property would not be available until 4 April 2024. The resident said this caused him to feel “quite anxious”. The landlord responded promptly to inform him of the delay, which was appropriate. However, it could have gone further by explaining the reason for the delay, as this was not clear from the case notes, to help reduce the resident’s uncertainty.
  2. Between 25 April and 30 July 2024, the landlord and resident communicated about the move date. It would have been helpful if the landlord had kept a record of these calls or followed up in writing to show what information had been provided. The case notes confirm calls were made, but lacked details about the conversations, so we cannot comment further. The importance of effective record keeping is highlighted.
  3. The case notes from 31 July 2024 show the landlord told the resident there were no updates on when the property would be ready. However, notes from 20 August 2024 indicate the resident was told the handover would be “next week”. By this time, 6 months after the property was offered, the move had been postponed twice, and there was no clear explanation for these delays. This was understandably frustrating for the resident, especially since the move was to accommodate his wife’s medical needs.
  4. On 21 August 2024, the landlord informed the resident of another delay in the handover, explaining that the contractors had not yet completed the necessary work for building control approval. No new date for the handover was provided. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on the same day, and the landlord responded on 30 August 2024. In its response, the landlord apologised for the delays and recognised that its contractors’ performance had been poor. It also acknowledged that the reasons for the delays had not always been clearly communicated and assured the resident that he would be kept informed moving forward. Although the landlord accepted responsibility for the service failure and explained the causes, it did not offer any compensation to address the inconvenience caused to the resident. This was not appropriate, especially as it had acknowledged the impact the delays had had on him.
  5. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on 4 October 2024, requesting a call back and emphasising that the matter was “urgent”. The landlord responded on 7 October 2024, informing the resident that there were no updates since his last conversation with the project manager. As mentioned earlier, it would have been helpful to have detailed call logs to verify what information was provided and when. It is essential for landlords to keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to create a proper audit trail. When investigating a complaint, we will request these records. If there is conflicting evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that certain actions occurred or that the landlord adhered to its policies and procedures.
  6. Between 18 October and 4 November 2024, the resident and landlord continued to communicate. The landlord stated that the water company had inspected the drainage and everything was “ok,” but noted that it could take up to 14 days for the approval notice to be issued. The resident was unhappy, feeling that he was being given “lip service” and that there was “no excuse for allowing this to have dragged on”. In response, a stage 2 complaint was raised on the resident’s behalf, and the landlord replied on 6 November 2024. The response reiterated its stage 1 explanation and confirmed that the building control team would not sign off the project until the water company provided the approval notice. The landlord said that it had “pleaded for an earlier date” but the handover date had been pushed back again. It offered the resident £300 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him.
  7. The landlord’s response was reasonable given that the approval notice and delays were outside of its control. It appropriately explained the reason for the delays (waiting for the water company’s approval), and acknowledged the impact on the resident by offering compensation to put things right.

Events post complaint

  1. The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 November 2024 to request an update. The landlord responded on 14 November 2024, apologising for the ongoing delay and explaining that it was “communicating daily with its contractors”. The resident complained to the landlord’s chief executive saying he had exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure and wanted some intervention. The landlord contacted the resident on 4 December 2024, explaining that he was being contacted “every Friday” by the project manager and they would have provided any additional information if they had it. The weekly contact by the landlord appeared to be resolution focused, although this Service has not had sight of call records to reflect this.

Summary and conclusion

  1. In the main, the landlord’s actions were reasonable given the circumstances. While there were some failings in record keeping, these do not significantly detract from the reasonableness of its overall response. The delays were primarily caused by external factors beyond the landlord’s control, such as contractor performance and waiting for approval from water and building control authorities. The landlord responded promptly to any communication from the resident, and provided updates when it had them. Nevertheless, the landlord could have been more proactive with its communication at times, which may have alleviated some of the resident’s frustration. It is good practice to keep residents updated even when there is no new information.
  2. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that the reasons for the delays had not always been clearly explained and recognised the impact on the resident. At stage 2, it offered him £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount aligns with the landlord’s compensation policy for such situations, as well as our remedies guidance, and is considered appropriate to address the failings. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of delays to the construction of a new build property allocated to the resident.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £300 compensation it previously offered to him in relation to this case, if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this amount is paid.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with the recommendations of this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) and considers assessing its internal record keeping procedures against these. This should include the completion of this Service’s free online training in relation to KIM by relevant staff if this has not been done recently.