Aster Group Limited (202233145)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233145

Aster Group Limited

29 May 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects to the property.
2. The landlord’s decision to add a warning flag to the resident’s records.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her garden when it rained.

Background

The property is a 4-bedroom house and the resident had an assured tenancy which started on 21 March 2022. The house was a new-build property and was in the defects liability period until 21 March 2023.
As part of the development project, the landlord employed a separate company as its Employer’s Agent (EA). The role of an EA is to act on the employer’s behalf (in this case the landlord) to manage the development project through to completion.
The landlord has advised this Service that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair, including doors and door fames, door hinges and windows. The landlord is also responsible for repairing any installations provided by the landlord, such as the installations for space and water heating.
The tenancy agreement states that the tenant must not “…hinder, obstruct, threaten, abuse or assault any employee, agent or contractor of ours whilst they are carrying out their duties”.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that it raised an urgent priority order on 6 September 2022 for the developer to attend to the radiator in the hallway as the resident had tripped over the protruding valve and the radiator had come loose from the wall. The target time for completion of the order was 13 September 2022.
The landlord raised an order on 18 September 2022 for the developer to refix a loose handle on the kitchen door. The due date for the repair was 16 October 2022.
The landlord raised an order on 29 September 2022 for its own contractor to resecure the hallway radiator. The landlord received confirmation on 4 October 2022 that the radiator had been resecured (the exact date it was resecured is unclear from the evidence seen).
The developer’s records show that it attended the property on 5 October 2022 and fitted larger gauge screws to the bedroom doors as the hinges were loose. The repairs sheet showed that the operative had checked the kitchen door handle and had noted that a new handle was required.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 October 2022 to report that water was not draining from the garden. The landlord therefore logged a job on the same day for the developer to investigate.
An internal email dated 13 October 2022 from the landlord stated that its own contractor had attended and resecured the radiator to the wall. However, it noted that the radiator was still a trip hazard for the resident.
On 20 October 2022, the developer’s groundwork contractor advised the developer that he had visited the property with the developer the day before and had found the ground to be firm and not “boggy”. The contractor and the developer both agreed that the issue was to do with landscaping and the grass not growing.
The landlord wrote to the EA on 26 October 2022 and requested him to contact the developer to re-position the radiator.
The developer wrote to the landlord on 28 October 2022 and advised that the heating engineers had confirmed that the hallway radiator had passed all of the necessary checks when it was installed and therefore requested photos of the radiator to show its current positioning.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 November 2022 to report the drainage problem in the garden and an outstanding repair to the kitchen door handle. The landlord wrote to the developer on 3 November 2022 to chase the repair to the kitchen door handle.
On 10 November 2022, the landlord raised an order for its contractor to replace the existing radiator in the hallway with a smaller one so that the radiator controls did not overhang the doorway to the living room.
On 14 November 2022, the landlord wrote to the developer and advised that the resident had injured her leg on the radiator valve in the hallway, which was protruding. The landlord requested the developer to re-position the radiator.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 November 2022 to report various defects that were outstanding. She advised that kitchen door handle needed to be repaired, the radiator in the hallway needed to be replaced with a smaller one and the garden drainage issue had not been resolved.
The landlord raised an order on 17 November 2022 for the developer to repair the front door hinges. The developer attended the property on 18 November 2022 to repair the front door. The operative’s notes advised that he had attended the previous day and had tightened the screws to the hinges. However, new hinges were now required as the door kept dropping.
On 21 November 2022, one of the landlord’s officers completed an incident report which stated that during a phone call with the resident and her partner they were shouting and swearing at the officer. The landlord’s records show that it carried out an investigation on the following day and decided to add a tenancy warning flag to the resident’s records.
The landlord chased its EA on 24 November 2022 regarding the jobs to repair the kitchen door handle and to address the protruding valve on the hallway radiator. The landlord requested the EA to serve a defects notice on the developer as the jobs were overdue. The developer served the notice on the same day.
On 25 November 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that “a red warning flag/indicator” had been placed against her tenancy record for verbal abuse. The letter added that it had received a report that during a phone call with a member of staff, the resident had become “aggressive and was shouting and swearing”. The letter warned the resident that this was a breach of the tenancy and the flag would remain on her tenancy record for 12 months, after which time it would be reviewed.
On 2 December 2022, the landlord re-raised the order for the developer to adjust/renew the front door hinges. The order was raised as an emergency.
On 11 December 2022, the resident submitted an online complaint form in which she reported:
1. One of the landlord’s officers had called her using a personal mobile number and had been verbally abusive towards the resident.
2. The resident said she was unhappy that she had received a letter advising her that the landlord had placed a tenancy warning indicator on her file for verbal abuse.
3. The resident requested the landlord to remove the tenancy warning indicator and for the landlord’s officer to be given a warning.
4. The resident stated that she had post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety and depression. She mentioned there was an ongoing ASB issue with one of her neighbours and this was not helping with her medical conditions.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that a follow-on order was raised on 20 December 2022 to fit new hinges to the front door.
On 21 December 2022, the developer wrote to the landlord and stated that in its view there was nothing wrong with the topsoil in the garden. Their view was that the problems were due to “poor management and upkeep from the customer”. However, the developer agreed that it would pass the matter to its groundwork contractor to inspect the turf.
On 21 December 2022, the developer confirmed to the landlord that a new kitchen door handle was required and it was awaiting a quote.
On 21 December 2022, the landlord booked an appointment for its contractor to fit the new radiator in the hallway on 6 January 2023. The landlord’s records confirm that the new radiator was fitted on 6 January 2023, with some minor making good still to do.
The landlord wrote to the EA on 9 January 2023 to request an update regarding the loose kitchen door handle. The landlord advised that the resident had not been contacted with an appointment.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 9 January 2023 and stated the following:
1. The landlord had investigated the resident’s complaint, which it summarised as:
  1. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had added a tenancy warning flag against her records in its housing management database.
  2. The resident had reported that one of its staff had phoned her from a private mobile number and was verbally abusive towards her.
  3. The resident was unhappy that there were still outstanding repairs, including a defective radiator, the garden flooding, a defective kitchen door handle and problems with the front door hinges.
2. The landlord explained that it had added the tenancy warning flag because during a phone call involving one of its staff and the resident on 21 November 2022 she had been shouting and swearing. The landlord quoted from its Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Policy, which stated that a resident may be added to its Safety Advice for Employees (SAFE) register if they were shouting, swearing and being verbally abusive.
3. The landlord stated that the warning flag would be reviewed and would not remain on its database any longer than necessary.
4. The landlord confirmed that the mobile phone used by its staff member was not a private number. Instead it was a mobile phone number that the staff member had previously used prior to being transferred to her new post. The landlord had since requested a new phone for the staff member.
5. The landlord had spoken to the officer about the resident’s allegation that the officer had been verbally abusive. The officer confirmed that she had spoken with the resident on 23 November 2022 and stated that she had terminated the call because the resident had been shouting and swearing at her. The landlord concluded that it could not investigate the matter further because the call had not been recorded..
6. The landlord explained that the developer was responsible for dealing with defects in the property rather than its Housing Officer being responsible. The landlord could carry out the repair and recharge the developer.
7. The landlord’s own contractor had been instructed to deal with the radiator issue and an appointment had been made to attend on 6 January 2023.
8. The landlord said it was dealing with a dispute with the developer regarding the garden and would contact the resident with any progress updates.
9. The landlord had asked the resident on 1 December 2022 whether the kitchen door was still outstanding and had not heard from the resident by 21 December 2022. The landlord said it would now contact the developer as the issue was still outstanding.
10. A new job had been raised with the developer regarding the front door. The landlord had confirmed this with the resident on 20 December 2022 and confirmed that the target date for completion was 17 January 2023.
11. The landlord did not uphold any part of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 17 January 2023 and during the conversation the resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 because:
1. She stated that the defects to the garden had not been rectified and the resident reported she was unable to use it.
2. The reported front door defect had a target date of 17 January 2023 but had not been dealt with.
3. The resident repeated that the warning flag should be removed from her file.
The landlord’s records stated that its groundwork contractor visited the property in January 2023 (the exact date is unclear) to inspect the garden and noted that no defects were present. The landlord’s records stated that it spoke to the resident on 20 January 2023 and asked her to monitor the garden during drier weather conditions.
The landlord’s records show that the developer confirmed on 1 February 2023 that the kitchen door handle had been renewed.
The landlord’s records show that it sent a holding letter to the resident on 14 February 2023 in relation to the stage 2 complaint.
The landlord wrote to the developer on 1 and 16 February 2023 to request updates regarding various outstanding defects, including repairs to the front door. It referred to an order to repair the door which had been raised on 20 December 2022 and was due for completion by 17 January 2023.
The landlord’s records show that the resident confirmed the new hinges had been fitted to the front door on 22 February 2023. The records stated that the hinges had been on order during January and February 2023.
On 27 February 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 reply in which it stated the following:
1. The developer was responsible for rectifying the defects in the resident’s property rather than the landlord. The landlord had therefore written to the developer on 16 February 2023 asking when the works would be carried out.
2. Further work would be carried out by the landlord’s contractor following the work to the radiator. This was due for completion by 31 March 2023.
3. The garden had been checked and the drainage was found to be normal. However, it would be checked again during the ‘end of defects’ inspection in March 2023.
4. The landlord reminded the resident that she could not withhold rent payments because of outstanding defects.
5. The landlord believed that the warning flag should remain on the resident’s record at that stage. However, this would be reviewed and would be removed if there were no further instances of abusive language towards its staff.
6. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply

The landlord raised an order on 1 March 2023 for the developer to attend to the front door as there were gaps letting in draughts. The due date for the repair was 29 March 2023. The landlord chased the developer for an update on 7 March 2023.
On 9 March 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord regarding the reported drainage issue in the garden. She attached photos of the garden shortly after it had rained.
The EA wrote to the landlord on 13 March 2023 and confirmed he had visited the property the previous week to inspect the reported garden drainage issue. The Agent confirmed that water was pooling on the grass and on the patio. He stated that the grass had died due to a lack of aeration. He also believed that a lack of maintenance by the resident and use of the garden by the resident’s dogs had contributed to the problem. He suggested that a land drain connected to the rainwater drain would resolve the immediate issue of pooling on the patio.
The landlord’s records show that at the end of the defects period on 21 March 2023, the following defects were still outstanding in the property:
1. There were gaps around the front door as there were problems with the seals, including that the rubber seal to the threshold had been cut too short. (An appointment had been made to attend on 18 May 2023).
2. The extractor fan in the bathroom was not clearing the steam. (The developer had sent this to its electrician).
3. Smoke alarms were reported to be going off in the middle of the night. (The developer had sent this to its electrician).
4. There were slow drainage issues in the garden causing ponding on the grass. (The developer had sent this to its groundwork contractor).
5. Some of the window handles were stiff. (An appointment had been made to attend on 18 May 2023).
6. Some of the drylining tapes had ‘blown’. (An appointment had been made to attend on 18 May 2023).
The developer informed the landlord on 23 May 2023 that its contractor had completed ‘end of defects’ works to check the wiring to the smoke alarms and the bathroom extractor, which had been reported as not clearing the steam.
The developer advised the landlord on 20 June 2023 that a new front door was required and that the estimated delivery date was 12-16 weeks.
The developer informed the landlord on 18 July 2023 that a land drain had been installed in June 2023 (the exact date is unclear) to stop the garden from flooding.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 November 2023 and stated that it would be carrying out works to the garden on 5, 6 and 7 December 2023. The work would involve aeration of the soil to help with the drainage issues. The resident wrote to this Service on 8 December 2023 to confirm that the developer had attended on 7 December 2023 to carry out the aeration work to the garden. The landlord’s records show that the resident had been requested to monitor the garden.
The resident moved out of the property on 18 December 2023. The new front door was fitted on 15 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman has received information showing events that took place in relation to the property after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 27 February 2023. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all of the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
The resident reported tripping over the overhanging radiator controls in the hallway and injuring her leg. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s report regarding the incident. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, personal injury. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers this to be appropriate. The resident may wish to obtain independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
The resident’s stage one complaint requested the landlord to remove the warning flag from her tenancy record as she believed the landlord’s decision was unjustified. The Ombudsman’s role is not to decide whether the landlord was justified in placing the warning flag on the resident’s tenancy file as this Service is not in a position to make such a decision. The role of this service is to assess whether the landlord followed its policy/procedure in relation to matters such as recording and investigating the incident and advising the resident of its decision. The Ombudsman has also assessed how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the flag being added to her record.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects to the property

The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy states: “Any repairs that are due within the first 12 months of handover on a new-build property will ordinarily be dealt with in line with the Defects Procedure”.
The landlord’s Defects Procedure states that the defects contractor will be given a timeframe within which to complete any defects work. If the work is not completed within this timeframe, the landlord will carry out the work and recharge the defects contractor.
The landlord raised an order on 6 September 2022 for the developer to attend to the radiator in the hallway, which was loose after the resident had tripped over the radiator control valve. The date the resident tripped is unclear from the evidence seen, however, it was reasonable for the landlord to request the developer to deal with the issue. The property was still within the defects liability period and therefore the developer was still responsible for dealing with defects at that time.
The landlord raised an order for its own contractor to repair the radiator on 29 September 2022 as the developer had not yet carried out the repairs. The landlord received confirmation on 4 October 2022 that its contractor had resecured the radiator to the wall. As per the landlord’s defects policy, it was appropriate that the landlord had requested its own contractor to refix the radiator as the developer had not attended to it by the target date, which was 13 September 2022. The landlord’s contractor resecured the radiator within a reasonable timescale by 4 October 2022.
Although the landlord’s contractor had resecured the hallway radiator, it had noted that the radiator valve was still overhanging the living room doorway, which the resident had previously reported as a trip hazard. The landlord therefore wrote to its EA on 26 October 2022 and requested him to contact the developer for the radiator to be repositioned. It is unclear why the landlord had waited 3 weeks to request the EA to reposition the radiator and therefore the delay was unreasonable. The landlord was aware of the potential trip hazard as the resident had previously reported tripping over the radiator controls. Although the developer was responsible for repositioning the radiator, the landlord nevertheless had a duty of care to ensure the matter was dealt with without delay.
The developer confirmed that the radiator had passed the necessary checks when it was installed. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the developer inspected the radiator following the resident’s fall. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord had decided to address the issue. On 10 November 2022, it raised an order for its contractor to replace the radiator with a smaller one so that the valve did not overhang the living room hallway.
During November 2022, the landlord attempted to arrange for the developer to address the reported problem with the radiator by writing to the developer on 14 November and serving a notice on 24 November 2022. The radiator was replaced by the landlord’s own contractor on 6 January 2023.
Given that the landlord had resecured the radiator to the wall, it was reasonable that it should have initially tried to arrange for the developer to address the outstanding issue of the overhanging valve. The radiator had been installed by the developer and therefore the landlord’s view was that the developer had an obligation to address any repositioning or replacement of the radiator.
Given that the developer had failed to reposition the radiator within a reasonable time, it was appropriate that the landlord had arranged for its own contractor to do the work on 6 January 2023. It was, however, a shortcoming that the landlord had taken as long as it did to replace the radiator. The landlord was aware that the resident had reported tripping over the valve and injuring her leg. Therefore, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have acted with greater urgency in relation to the radiator. The delay meant that the resident had to chase the landlord about the matter on 17 November 2022.
The landlord raised an order on 18 September 2022 for the developer to refix the loose handle on the kitchen door. The due date was 16 October 2022 and the developer attended on 5 October 2022 and noted that a new handle was needed. The landlord had therefore arranged for the developer to attend within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord chased the developer about the new door handle on 3 November 2022 and served a notice on the developer on 24 November 2022 regarding the kitchen door handle. Therefore, during November 2022, the evidence shows that the landlord was trying to arrange for the developer to rectify the problem with the kitchen door handle by chasing and serving a notice. The developer confirmed on 21 December 2022 that it was awaiting a quote for the new door handle.
The landlord stated in its stage one reply on 9 January 2023 that it had asked the resident on 1 December 2022 whether the repair to the kitchen door handle was still outstanding and the resident had not replied until 21 December 2022. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have checked the position directly with the developer and therefore it was unreasonable that the landlord had placed the onus on the resident to advise whether the repair was still outstanding. It meant that the landlord had delayed chasing the developer by not monitoring the position itself.
The landlord’s records show that the developer confirmed on 1 February 2023 that the kitchen door handle had been replaced. It had therefore taken approximately 4 months to replace the handle after the developer had advised the landlord on 5 October 2022 that a new handle was required. Although during this time the landlord had chased the developer and served a notice on the developer, the Ombudsman’s view is that the delay was unreasonable. The landlord should have monitored the position more closely after it served the notice on 24 November 2022, rather than placing the onus on the resident to advise the landlord if the work was still outstanding.
The landlord raised an order on 17 November 2022 for the developer to repair the front door hinges. The developer attended on 18 November 2022 but reported that new hinges were needed as the door kept dropping. The landlord had therefore arranged for the developer to attend within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord raised further orders on 2 December 2022 and 20 December 2022 for the developer to adjust or renew the front door hinges. The target date for completion of the latter order was 17 January 2023, however, the resident stated in her stage 2 complaint on 17 January 2023 that the repair had not yet been carried out. The new hinges were fitted on 22 February 2023 and the landlord’s records stated that the hinges had been on order during January and February 2023.
The landlord had therefore raised the appropriate orders within a reasonable time for the developer to attend to the front door hinges. Although the developer took a month longer to fit the hinges than the target timescale of 17 January 2023, the delay was not excessive. Furthermore, as the new hinges had already been ordered by the developer, it was reasonable for the landlord to wait for the hinges to arrive rather than attempting to carry out the work itself.
The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord and the developer confirmed during the ‘end of the defects’ inspection that there were gaps around the front door due to problems with the rubber seals. Following interim repairs to the door in June 2023, the developer advised the landlord on 20 June 2023 that a new front door was required and that the estimated delivery date was 12-16 weeks. The resident has advised this Service that the new front door had not been fitted by the time she moved out of the property in December 2023. However, as stated earlier in this assessment, the Ombudsman has not investigated events that occurred after the landlord’s final response letter of 27 February 2023.
Overall, it is not disputed that there were various defects reported by the resident during 2022 and these defects were the developer’s responsibility to rectify under the defects liability period. Although the evidence shows that the landlord raised appropriate orders for the developer to rectify the defects and chased the developer, the Ombudsman has found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects because:
1. After resecuring the hallway radiator to the wall, there was a delay of 3 weeks before the landlord requested its EA to arrange for the developer to reposition the radiator. The delay was inappropriate given that the resident had already reported tripping over the radiator control valve.
2. There was a delay in the developer replacing the kitchen door handle. The landlord should have monitored the position more closely after it had served a defects notice on the developer on 24 November 2022.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100, which is within the range of financial redress recommended in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for cases where there has been a service failure.

The landlord’s decision to add a warning flag to the resident’s records

The landlord’s Safety Advice for Employees (SAFE) procedure sets out the process for recording cases where a resident could potentially present problems for, or risk to, the landlord’s staff or contractors. The procedure states:
1. That a SAFE incident report should be completed where there has been a safety incident with a resident, their visitors, or members of their household.
2. The types of behaviour that will be recorded include shouting, swearing and verbal abuse.
3. Once a report has been completed, it will be considered by an ASB Service Manager who will make a decision within 48 hours regarding any further action.
4. The procedure states that in most circumstances, the landlord will write to the resident to advise them they are being added to the SAFE register and advise them of the reason.
5. If a resident does not agree that their name should be on the SAFE register, the line manager of the employee reporting the incident will review the case.
6. The procedure states that where a decision has been reviewed and the decision is that the flag should remain, the record will be adjusted to show a further review is to be carried out in 12 months.
On 21 November 2022, one of the landlord’s staff completed an incident form stating that the resident and her partner had been shouting and swearing at her on the phone earlier that day. The landlord carried out an investigation into the incident on the following day and decided to add a warning flag to the resident’s records. The landlord had therefore acted in accordance with its policy because the officer involved in the incident had completed a SAFE incident form shortly after the phone call. The landlord had then investigated the matter and made a decision regarding the incident within the 48-hour period prescribed in its policy.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 November 2022 to advise her that a warning flag had been placed against her tenancy record. It explained the reason it had added the flag and stated that the flag would remain on her record for 12 months and then would be reviewed. Therefore, the landlord had again acted appropriately by writing to the resident as per its SAFE policy.
In its stage one reply dated 9 January 2023, the landlord explained why it had added the warning flag and quoted from its ASB policy, which stated that a resident could be added to the SAFE register for shouting, swearing and being verbally abusive. The landlord confirmed that it would review the warning flag in the future. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply that the warning flag would remain on the resident’s file at that stage but would be removed if there were no further reports of verbal abuse. The landlord had therefore reviewed the original decision to place the flag on the resident’s tenancy records and had concluded that the flag should remain in place.
The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about the warning flag by reviewing the original decision, explaining the reason the flag had been added and then confirming its decision to leave the warning flag in place.
It was also reasonable that the landlord had made it clear that the flag was not permanent and would be removed if there were no further reports of verbal abuse.
One of the concerns raised by the resident on 11 December 2022 was that one of the landlord’s staff had used a personal mobile phone to ring her and had been verbally abusive. The resident felt that the landlord should have issued a warning to the staff member. The landlord confirmed in its stage one reply that it had spoken to the officer in question. The landlord stated that the officer had not used a private mobile phone and had denied being verbally abusive towards the resident. The officer stated that she had terminated the phone call when the resident began shouting and swearing.
There are clearly differing accounts of the conversation in question and in such cases it is difficult for this Service to determine which of the accounts accurately reflects what was said. Therefore, the Ombudsman has focussed on whether the landlord responded appropriately when the resident reported her concerns about the officer’s conduct. In this case, the landlord confirmed that it had investigated the matter by speaking to the officer. The landlord explained the account given by the officer in its stage one reply and advised the resident that it was unable to investigate the matter further as the call had not been recorded.
Given that the call had not been recorded, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the matter by speaking to the officer in question. The Ombudsman’s view is that in the circumstances the landlord’s conclusion that it could not investigate the matter any further was reasonable.
In summary, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord followed its policy in terms of adding the warning flag to the resident’s tenancy record and responded reasonably to her concerns about the warning flag.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her garden when it rained

The resident advised the landlord on 12 October 2022 that water was not draining from the garden. The landlord therefore raised an order on the same day for the developer to investigate. This was appropriate as the property was still in the defects liability period and therefore any defective drainage (or lack of drainage) would initially be referred to the developer to investigate.
The developer and its groundwork contractor inspected the garden on 19 October 2022 and reported back that the ground was firm rather than “boggy”. However, the resident again reported the lack of drainage in the garden on 2 and 17 November 2022 and advised the landlord that the problem had not been resolved. The developer wrote to the landlord on 21 December 2022 and stated that in its view there was nothing wrong with the topsoil and the problem was due to poor management and upkeep of the lawn by the resident.
The landlord advised the resident in its stage one reply on 9 January 2023 that it had a dispute with the developer regarding the garden and would contact the resident with any progress updates. Although the developer had stated that there were no problems with the turf in the garden, the resident was still reporting drainage problems in the garden and therefore it was reasonable that the landlord had continued to raise the issue with the developer during October to December 2022. The landlord had arranged for the developer to inspect the garden, which was reasonable.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 17 January 2023 as she said she was unable to use the garden. The landlord spoke to the resident on 20 January 2023 and requested her to monitor the garden during drier weather. The landlord then sent its stage 2 reply on 27 February 2023 and advised her that the garden had been checked and the drainage was found to be normal. However, it would be checked again during the ‘end of defects’ inspection in March 2023.
The developer had therefore not identified any problems with the garden and similarly the landlord had not identified any problems with the garden drainage. In these circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to have requested the resident to monitor the garden. The landlord was entitled to rely on the advice from the developer and from its contractors that they had not identified any problems. It was also reasonable that the landlord had planned to inspect the garden again in March 2023 during the end of defects inspection. This provided a further period of monitoring and would then allow the landlord, its EA and the developer to carry out a joint inspection of the garden.
The Ombudsman has noted that as part of the end of defects inspection, the landlord recorded there were slow drainage issues in the garden causing ponding on the grass. The landlord’s records show that the developer therefore installed a land drain in the garden during June 2023. However, as stated earlier, the Ombudsman has not assessed the events that took place after the landlord’s stage 2 reply on 27 February 2023.
In summary, the landlord arranged for the developer to inspect the garden with its groundwork contractor and they reported back that they could not find any issues regarding the topsoil. The landlord also reported that it had found the drainage in the garden to be normal. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to suggest a monitoring period and a re–inspection of the garden during the end of defects review. Therefore, the evidence shows that during the period October 2022 to 27 February 2023, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about the garden.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of defects to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision to add a warning flag to the resident’s records.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her garden when it rained.

Reasons

There was a delay of 3 weeks after the landlord resecured the radiator to the wall before it requested the EA to arrange for the developer to reposition the radiator. The delay was inappropriate given that the resident had already reported tripping over the radiator control valve. There was also a delay in the developer replacing the kitchen door handle.
The landlord followed its policy in terms of adding the warning flag to the resident’s tenancy record and responded reasonably to her concerns about the warning flag.
The landlord arranged for the developer to inspect the garden with its groundwork contractor and they did not identify any problems. The landlord also inspected the drainage in the garden and found it to be normal. It was reasonable for the landlord to suggest a monitoring period and a re-inspection of the garden during the end of defects review.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Pay the resident £100 for its handling of the resident’s reports of defects to the property.