Sparrow Shared Ownership Limited (202304514)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304514

Sparrow Shared Ownership Limited

19 June 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.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of defects.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder who purchased the property from new. He signed his lease on 30 June 2022 and moved in the following day. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
The resident reported several defects to the landlord between 2 and 26 July 2022. On 2 August 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about the number of defects at the property. He also said the landlord should have noticed these issues at the time of handover from the developer.
On 13 April 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said the developer was responsible for resolving defects and it had raised all reported issues with them. The landlord apologised for the lack of communication and delays in getting the defects resolved. It offered the resident £500 compensation made up of:
1. £250 for delays in complaint handling.
2. £50 For lack of communication.
3. £200 for distress and inconvenience.
The resident escalated his complaint before 6 May 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 3 July 2023. It said 6 outstanding defects had been identified during the end of defect inspection on 23 May 2023 and it had “promptly” send these to the developer. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and upheld the resident’s complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

With a new build property such as this, during the initial defects period, the developer is responsible for any defects with the building or the workmanship. During this time, the landlord is not responsible but would be expected to raise and pursue any issues raised by the resident with the developer. As housing developers are not covered by our Scheme, we cannot consider the actions of the developer or works it did or did not carry out. We can only consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about defects.
We have noted the landlord offered the resident an additional £50 compensation on 6 December 2023. This was for delays in replying to an email the resident sent after the stage 2 response was issued. The resident has also reported further issues he believes to be defects. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 3 July 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.

Defects

It is important to note that it is not our role to assess individual instances of workmanship or determine whether or not an issue raised is a defect. Our role is to assess whether the landlord handled the resident’s reports in line with its policies and procedures.
Upon completion of the shared ownership property, the landlord provided the occupant with a document called ‘A guide to your new home’. With regards to defects, the guide states:
1. The defect liability period for the property is 12 months from the date the property was handed over to the landlord.
2. An independent surveyor checks all homes before they’re completed to ensure the quality is “up to scratch”.
3. By moving into the property, the occupant accepts the condition the home is currently in.
4. Defects can be reported through an online platform and the resident will receive an email invite to access it.
5. Cracks smaller than a £1 coin and “wear and tear” are not considered defects.
The document “A guide to your new home” does not define a defect beyond what is summarised at paragraph 10 e above.
The agreement between the landlord and the developer states if defects arise with the defect liability period, the landlord must notify the developer in writing. The agreement does not set out timescales in which defects will be rectified. The landlord’s defects policy states defects should be corrected no later than 30 days from being reported.
The landlord acquired the property from the developer on 31 May 2022. The landlord has been unable to provide us with a copy of the snagging list from the time of handover. On 1 July 2022 the resident signed a completion inspection form to confirm he was satisfied with the condition of the property.
The resident contacted the landlord by email on 2 and 6 July 2022 to report defects. The landlord contacted the resident on 11 July 2022 and arranged to attend the property 4 days later to carry out an inspection. The landlord has been unable to provide us with a report on the subsequent inspection’s findings. On the same day the landlord also provided the resident with a link to access the defect online platform.
Between 11 and 13 July 2022 the resident reported defects to the landlord, via the online platform. These included:
1. The space for the washing machine was too small.
2. Problems with the fencing and gate.
3. A crack in a kitchen cupboard.
4. A bedroom door not closing properly.
5. A defective garden airer.
All the defects were sent to the developer within 6 days of the reports being made. The developer attended the property on 14 July 2022 and made a temporary fix to the washing machine space in order for the resident to be able to use his machine. It was identified that new flooring was required, and a return visit was made for later in the year at a time when the flooring would become available.
The developer rejected the resident’s reports of a crack to the kitchen cupboard as a defect on 19 July 2022. It said the issue had not been included on the handover. The landlord emailed the resident the same day and offered to repair the crack or give the resident £100 to cover the cost of getting the work done. The landlord’s proposed solution was made within the timescales it set out in its policy to resolve defects.
The developer also completed repairs to the bedroom door and replaced the airer on 21 July 2022. The time taken to complete these issues were also in line with the landlord’s defect policy.
The evidence shows the issues reported by the resident with the fence and gate were eventually rejected by the developer in August 2022. The time taken to provide the resident with an answer later than the timescales set out in the landlord’s defect policy. However, the evidence shows the landlord was proactive in trying to resolve the situation and took steps to chase the developer on multiple occasions.
On 21 and 22 July 2022, the resident reported further defects to the landlord. These included:
1. A door handle sticking.
2. A crack to the shower screen.
3. A dent in the kitchen flooring.
The door handle was repaired the same it was reported. The landlord informed the resident the following day the shower screen was not a defect as upon inspection it was deemed to be a scratch, rather than a crack. The kitchen flooring was also rejected by the developer on 9 August as the fault was not noticed handover. The evidence shows all 3 issues were dealt with in line with the landlord’s defects policy.
The resident complained to the landlord on 2 August 2022 about the number of defects in his property. He also said the “snagger” had missed a number of issues that he was subsequently having to report. The resident sent a further email to the landlord 3 days later to expand on his complaint. He said:
1. He was caught off guard when he completed the paperwork for the property. He was trying to take in a lot of information.
2. His eyesight was diminished due to glaucoma, and he would not have seen the issues at the time.
3. He was told some issues had not been raised at handover, but he had not been provided with a copy of the snagging list to confirm this.
4. He was “sick and tired” of the situation, and he just wanted someone to take ownership for the issues.
The landlord replied to the resident on 9 August 2022. It said the issues reported by the resident to do with the fencing and the washing machine were with the developer. The landlord also listed the issues that were not classed as defects. It stated those issues were deemed to be cosmetic. It also said it tried to capture all defects in a property at the time of handover. It said it could only record items that will be classed as defects.
Between September and December 2022, the resident reported 12 further defects to the landlord. These included:
1. 4 issues that had been previously reported and which had either been previously rejected by the developer or were awaiting completion.
2. A further 3 issues that were rejected by the developer including non–wipeable paint, a mismatched floor covering and a dent in a door frame. The developer said these were not defects.
3. 3 issues that were addressed by the developer outside of the landlord’s 30-day timeframe but were not chased up by the landlord.
4. A leak that was attended on the day it was reported.
5. A crack in the ceiling which would be reviewed during the end of defect period inspection.
On 26 January 2023 the landlord agreed with the resident that all outstanding issues would be addressed during the end of defect period inspection.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 April 2023. It apologised for poor communication while dealing with the resident’s defect reports and for the inconvenience experienced. The response stated:
1. The landlord purchases homes in “good faith” from developers that have passed through building control and with advice of professional advisors who confirm they have reached the required standard.
2. Customers have the opportunity to view the property before making a decision to buy. The landlord checks the condition of the home with the customer upon moving in.
3. The resident signed to say he was happy with the condition of the property upon moving in.
4. The developer was responsible for the resolving the defects within the defects liability period and the landlord needed to allow them time to attend the issues.
5. Although the landlord had its own service level agreement timescales, it was “at the mercy” of the developer who worked to their own timescales.
6. The landlord had previously explained why some issues had not been accepted as defects.
7. The landlord had agreed with the resident that all outstanding issues would be addressed at the end of the defect liability period.
8. The landlord was unable to provide the snagging list for the property as this was a “contractual document” between the landlord and the Developer.
9. The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for its poor communication and distress and inconvenience.
The landlord did not give any explanation as to why the list of identified defects constituted a contractual document, and as such, why it could not be shared. It’s unreasonable the landlord failed to disclose the snagging list or made efforts to provide the relevant information in another form. Ultimately the information asked for was a list of defects present in the resident’s property which the contractor knew about and was prepared to remedy.
The landlord’s remedies policy states discretionary compensation may be paid when a service failure has occurred. The policy defines a failure of medium impact as one where distress and inconvenience has been caused and suggest a remedy of between £10 and £250 may be appropriate. The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with its remedies policy.
On 20 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said he was having trouble raising new issues on the defect reporting platform. The landlord did not respond. On 6 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again and asked for urgent issues to be raised before the end of defect liability period inspection. The landlord raised the issues with the developer ahead of the inspection.
The end of defect inspection took place on 23 May 2023 and was attended by the resident, the developer, a consultant for the landlord and the landlord’s surveyor. During the inspection the following issues were recorded as outstanding defects:
1. Loose toilet seat.
2. Mark to the vinyl flooring in the kitchen.
3. Replacement backboard to sink base unit following leak.
4. Replacement backboard to larder unit.
5. Loose bath panel.
6. Mark to slamming strip.
The landlord raised the issues as defects the following day and assigned them to the developer to complete. The defects were subsequently made good by the developer in a timescale which was just outside of the landlord defect policy timescales. There is no evidence the landlord proactively chased the developer for each issue. The mark to the vinyl flooring was not put right by the developer prior to the stage 2 response being issued.
On 3 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said:
1. A number of issues raised by the resident were not classed as defects and these were explained to him at the time they were raised.
2. All issues identified as defects, following the end of defect period inspection had been allocated promptly and addressed.
3. It was sorry for any inconvenience caused by being unable to use the defects reporting platform. It said the likely cause of the issues was due to the close proximity of the defect liability period ending (31 May 2023).
The following day, the developer contacted the landlord. The developer said it would not be repairing the mark to the kitchen floor as the flooring had been down for over 12 months, and the issue had not been picked up during the handover. The landlord communicated the decision to the resident on the same day.
In summary, the landlord’s responsibility in this situation was to facilitate communication between the resident and the developer in relation to defects. In the main, the landlord achieved this by proactively chasing outstanding issues with the developer prior to the 30-day timescale in its defects policy. It continued to chase when no reply was received.
As part of his original complaint the resident raised concerns to the landlord that due to an eye condition, he was unable to identify defects at the time of handover. In its complaint responses the landlord stated residents had the opportunity to inspect the property prior to completion. The landlord could have done more at that time to explain defects could be reported throughout the defect period and by signing the completion inspection, the resident was not signing to confirm that the property had no defects. Given the resident’s concerns about the number of defects present and the vulnerabilities he has, the landlord’s lack of explanation on that point could be perceived as being unsupportive.
The evidence shows the landlord clearly set out which issues had been accepted or rejected as defects, with reasons given. Furthermore, the landlord offered to carry out the repair of one issue raised when the developer rejected it. By the end of the landlord’s complaint process and the defect liability period, all matters had been addressed by the landlord and properly referred to the developer for action.
However, there were some occasions when the landlord failed to chase the developer in a timely manner and failed to respond to the resident’s emails. This caused updates to the resident to be delayed and added to the distress and inconvenience he was experiencing.
The landlord demonstrated poor communication around its decision not to supply the resident with a copy of the snagging list at handover, when it was still available.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord offered compensation for the delays experienced by the resident that was in line with its compensation policy. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £250 may remedy failings which had a significant impact on the resident. Considering the delays in addressing the defects and instances of poor communication, the apologies made, the landlord made an offer which resolved the complaint satisfactorily. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects.

Complaint Handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints:
1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint within 5 working days.
2. It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded. If further time is need, it will contact the resident with an estimated resolution time. This will not exceed a further 10 working days “without legitimate reason”.
3. It will issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. If further time is need, it will contact the resident with an estimated resolution time. This will not exceed a further 10 working days “in most cases”.
The resident made his formal complaint on 2 August 2022. In summary he said:
1. He was unhappy with the number of defects he had found.
2. The landlord had not noticed these issues when it “signed off” the house.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day in line with its policy. It said it was unable to investigate complaints about the developer. This is in line with its complaints policy, which states it can only investigate complaints about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by itself or its contractors. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge that part of the resident’s complaint was about its own actions.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 and 8 August 2022 to reiterate he was complaining about the snagging list completed by the landlord, prior to handover. He contacted the landlord again on 1 September 2022 and said he was getting nowhere with his complaint.
It is unclear when the landlord recorded the resident’s complaint. It emailed him on 16 September 2022 and said it needed more time to investigate and would respond to him by 23 September 2022. The landlord emailed the resident again on 27 September 2022 and apologised for the delay. It said it would respond by 29 September 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 April 2023, 8 months after the resident made his complaint. The response recognised the lengthy delay and offered the resident £250 compensation.
It is unclear exactly what date the resident escalated his complaint. However, the evidence shows he chased his complaint on 6 May 2023. The landlord responded to his request on 9 May 2023 and said it would respond to his complaint by 12 May 2023 at the latest.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 3 July 2023. This was almost 2 months after the resident chased his escalation request the first time. The landlord apologised for not responding to the resident’s earlier requests.
The evidence shows the landlord initially failed to record the resident’s complaint in regard to the snagging list. This caused the resident time and trouble in repeatedly contacting it. The landlord’s subsequent communication regarding the delays was poor. The stage 1 response was 8 months late and the stage 2 response was at least 1 month late. The landlord failed to follow the timescales set out in its policy.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £250 may remedy failings which had a significant impact on the resident. When considering the failures by the landlord, its apology and offer of compensation satisfactorily resolved the complaint. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

There are no orders or recommendations for the landlord to consider.