Peabody Trust (202205548)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205548

Peabody Trust

31 January 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 new home introduction visit and defects inspection.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects/repairs in the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of replacement keys.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a two-bedroom flat, the flat is located on the twelfth floor of the block. The resident is a leaseholder.
The landlord was unable to provide a copy of the lease, the landlord has stated the lease began on 19 June 2020.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. Section 5.3 of the landlord’s complaint policy states at stage one it will provide a response within 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances the response can be delayed by a further 10 working days. This must be communicated to the resident before 10 working days providing good reasons for this.
Section 6.2 of the landlord’s complaint policy states the stage two response will be provided within 15 working days.
Section 4.6 of the landlords repairs policy states the landlord would give a resident reasonable notice if it needed to get into a property to inspect it or to carry out work to the property.
Section 4.9 of the repairs policy, states the landlord expects that tenants will provide access to their homes as necessary to carry out repairs.
The new homes guide issued to the resident for his property states:
1. Emergency defects to be made safe within four hours and put right within 24 hours.
2. Urgent defects to be completed within 5 working days
3. Non Urgent defects to be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord was asked to provide the landlord’s policies and procedures (or other guidance) relating to a new home visit and defects inspection. However the landlord informed this service that if it had not provided a policy that relates to what was requested, it meant it didn’t have a specific policy for that subject. There was no policy sent to this Service regarding either a new home visit or defects inspection. It is noted that the landlord has published a new homes customer care and defects management policy in November 2023.

Summary of events

On 30 October 2020 the landlord sent a letter to the resident informing him the 12 month defect period following the completion of the construction of his property was due to expire. The letter stated:
1. The defect liability period was due to expire on 18 December 2020 and it was important any remaining defects were to be reported to the contractor to enable them to be rectified.
2. Due to the situation with COVID-19 at that time, a physical inspection of the resident’s property was not possible. It provided a Defects Notification Form to the resident to complete and return to the landlord with any applicable photographs.
3. It was important to complete the form as any faults found after 18 December 2020 would be either the landlord or resident’s responsibility to rectify.
4. Defects were usually the result of poor workmanship or materials and were not usually general wear and tear or maintenance issues. It provided a list of what would and would not be classified as defects. The landlord acknowledged there may have been ‘other things’ not covered in the lists provided and if the resident was unsure to include them on the form.
5. The resident was asked to return the form no later than 2 December 2020. The form would then be assessed to confirm if the items listed would be considered defects covered by the contractor under the buildings contract.
6. Any defects deemed to be valid would be forwarded to the contractor who would contact the resident to arrange access when the current situation allowed.
On 10 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and asked how the two year defect period could be ending one day short of six months as he had completed on his property on 19 June 2020.
The landlord responded on 12 November 2020 and informed the resident that the defect liability period typically lasted for six to twelve months. The defect liability period for the resident’s property began when the developer handed the property over to the landlord and would last a period of twelve months. The landlord stated the resident’s end of defects period would end on 31 December 2020. The purchase date of the flat by the resident or the resident’s moving in date would have no impact on the defect liability period. The resident was advised to speak with his solicitor about what was agreed as the landlord did not advertise a two year liability period.
On 23 November 2020 the landlord wrote to all residents reminding them of the need to return the defects notification form and that it had not received many replies from residents. The landlord reiterated that a physical inspection could not take place due to COVID-19 restrictions and asked for the defects form to be returned by 2 December 2020.
On 29 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that he agreed the defect period was one year from completion. The resident however and enquired about:
1. The landlord’s website stated that “At around the time the defects liability period expires, representatives from the landlord and the developers will attend an inspection of your home. The inspection will formally log any defects that have not yet been rectified and give you a chance to point out any issues of concern”. The resident asked the landlord if it could not attend for any reason, should it be postponed until the landlord could.
2. There were quite a few defects and he was not sure they could be dealt with effectively via a paper form.
3. Could the landlord specify all the important dates in relation to the matter and point out any changes that were related to the COVID-19 situation.
4. What was happening about the defects outside the flat.
On 2 December 2020 the resident returned the Defects Notification Form to the landlord. The end of defect form was passed to the developers and employers agent for review by the landlord the same day. The resident’s list of defects included defects to:
1. External floors
2. Internal walls
3. Sealings
4. Doors – internal and external
5. Balcony
6. Windows
7. Window blinds
8. Woodwork
9. Paintjob/finishings
10. Decoration
11. Water leaks and running water
12. Electrical standards and outlets
13. The bathroom
14. Corridors
15. Storage
16. Lifts, key fob system and stairways
On the same day the resident requested an appointment for an end of defects inspection for 17 December 2020 or 18 December 2020 or alternatively, could the landlord provide alternative dates considering the COVID-19 situation.
On 3 December 2020 the employers agent wrote to the landlord and asked the landlord to speak to the resident as it felt the defects the resident had listed did not represent true defects.
On 7 December 2020 the landlord emailed the resident and asked him to contact them as it had been trying to contact him to discuss his end of defects list. The resident responded the same day to say he had no missed calls from the landlord. The landlord responded and asked the resident to call it as it was having trouble connecting to the resident’s telephone line.
On 8 December 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and asked for an update on his request for an end of defects inspection. The landlord responded the same day and stated it had considered the resident’s email from 2 December 2020 and had made a special request for it to attend, with its agent to the resident’s property the next day between 9-10am.
The resident responded on 9 December 2020 and stated that he appreciated the gesture, but he had only seen the email in the early hours of the morning due to work commitments. The resident stated half a days’ notice was not enough for him to be available. The resident informed the landlord he worked shifts and extra long hours but had secured time off on 15 December 2020 between 11am and 2pm. The resident requested the landlord be flexible in arranging a suitable appointment.
The landlord responded the same day and stated it was out of its hands as it had a contract with the developer which required the landlord have the list no later than five working days prior to the end of defects date – making the required date 12 December 2020. The landlord stated that after that day it was not possible to visit the resident and submit what the resident deemed a defect and it would be the resident’s responsibility to rectify.
On 17 December 2020 the resident emailed the landlord and said three weeks since reporting the defects nothing had been done. The resident said he had requested the landlord provide potential inspection dates between 2 and 18 December 2020 but had not received any dates with reasonable notice from the landlord for attendance or repairs to be completed. The resident stated he was still within the one-year defects liability period, and it needed to have been resolved three weeks prior. The resident stated it required escalating.
On 18 December 2020 the resident emailed the landlord and said he was expecting attendance on 15 December 2020 however no one attended. The resident stated his original suggested dates were 17 December 2020 or 18 December 2020 as per his email on 2 December 2020 but were not picked up by the landlord despite his attempt to get an update. The resident requested the landlord clarify the dates regarding completion of the building and provide proof to him.
The landlord responded the same day and acknowledged the resident’s email and informed the resident he would receive a response to his enquiry within 10 working days which would be 11 January 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 December 2020 and asked for the reference number it was logged under as he needed to chase the landlord by telephone as he was not receiving any meaningful responses from the landlord and no progress had been made since 2 December 2020. The resident stated he had listed defects along with 700 pictures, the flat was leaking warmth, and the toilet water was running.
On 30 December 2020 the resident emailed again about heat and water loss in the property and it was approaching one month since he provided the defects list. The resident stated the landlord had not contacted him directly, emailed or telephoned him.
On 8 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord said it was sorry the resident had to make a complaint about the end of defects process due to COVID-19. The landlord stated:
1. The resident was written to on 30 October 2020 on behalf of the landlord to notify him that the 12 months were due to expire since the completion of the construction of the property.
2. Following the residents request, it made a special request to attend on 9 December 2020 which was the only day for it, the contractor and the landlords agent to be all available. The resident was not able to keep the appointment due to work commitments.
3. It had advised all residents that due to COVID–19 a physical inspection of the properties was not possible.
4. When the end of defects form was issued to residents, the landlord itemised what would and would not be classed as defects.
5. The defects notification form was received from the resident but not all listed items were assessed to be defects.
6. Its employers agents had looked through the list and explained the developer and landlord had built the property to spec and NHBC standard.
7. The landlord considered that the following items were deemed to be defects which would be passed to the contractor to arrange access with the resident when the current situation allowed:
  1. Unable to connect Internet/telecom as there was no power socket.
  2. Leaks in the toilet cistern.
  3. WC running water.
  4. Internal doors not properly closing or opening fully.
  5. Cooker shutoff ventilation system temperamental.
  6. Towel holder fitted unlevel.
  7. Bathroom sink cork mechanical didn’t hold water.
  8. Sink corks fittings leaking.
8. The end of defects closed on 18 December 2020, contractually the defects had to be closed out within two weeks of that date so should have been closed out by 6 January 2021. This did not mean all works completed, but for the housing association to submit the defects list so they can pick out true defects.
9. The twelve month defect period was to allow the building to settle and began from the completion date of the property and not when the resident moved into the property.
10. If purchasers were advised by solicitors in March 2021 there must have been a miscommunication which the landlord could not comment on.
11. This was the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint.
On 10 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. The letter issued stated the landlord had made a special request to visit the resident, but the resident had not been available for the landlord’s proposed appointment on 9 December 2020. The letter stated the landlord had received the residents end of defects form but not all items were considered to be true defects. The letter stated the landlord was responsible for ensuring the property was kept in repair within the defect period, but the resident was also required to provide reasonable access. By refusing access the resident would be in breach of its contract and would make himself liable for any repairs. The landlord asked the resident to contact it to arrange a suitable time for the works required.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 January 2021 and stated he wished for the issues to be escalated to a manager. The resident stated he had requested an escalation at least twice before, but an escalation had not occurred. The resident said he wanted to give the landlord the opportunity to put things right, but he could not if the landlord was not contacting him to arrange an appointment.
In the same email, the resident requested a full list of the defects reported with a detailed explanation why one or another defect would not be rectified and be provided with all documentation relevant to inspections/quality assurance checks that the landlord referred to which helped it conclude all standards had been met. He told the landlord it had to prove quality assurance was taken seriously and any faults found had been rectified. The resident informed the landlord two keys handed over to him had been bent and hardly useable and had one working key fob out of two that were handed to him. The resident reminded the landlord he had sent 700 digital items with his original end of defects form. He also stated there had been no lockdown in place for COVID-19 during December 2020.
A manager emailed the resident the next day stating it had attempted to call the resident that morning but was unable to connect to the resident’s phone. The landlord requested time to review the resident’s concerns and that it would reply by 28 January 2021.
The landlord responded to the resident on 28 January 2021. The landlord stated it had gone through the list sent by the resident and noted some of the items on the list had been identified as defects. The landlord stated that from the items listed that it had not deemed to be defects, it noted the resident had stated those defects as being substandard and asked the resident to clarify the specific issues for each reported defect. The resident responded with a list of the defects on 2 February 2021 with an explanation as to why he considered them to be defects.
Between 2 and 5 February 2021 the resident was in contact via email with the landlord’s defects contractor regarding the end of defect list. The contractor informed the resident that it was not passed pictures and information by the landlord, and it only received a description of the defect which could sometimes be wrong and it needed to check with the resident so the list provided was not full of inaccuracies and was updated correctly.
During this time, on 3 February 2021 the landlord issued a letter to the resident informing him that the contractor wanted to carry out the repairs/make good regarding connection of a BT power socket in the utility room, WC running water, WC constantly shutting off, cooker shutoff ventilation system temperamental and internal door not opening or closing properly. The landlord asked for the resident to arrange for the defect repairs to be carried out within 28 days as they were now urgent repairs and asked the resident to make contact to arrange a time for the repairs to be carried out.
On 5 February 2021 the resident replied to the landlord and informed it he had been in contact with the defects team and that they were refusing to visit his property to inspect. The resident provided an update he had received two days earlier from the contractor which asked the resident further questions about the issues that had been deemed defects and for the resident to describe the issues over the telephone to gather further information.
The landlord responded on 9 February 2021 and reiterated it, or the contractors were not willing to attend the resident’s property for inspections due to COVID-19 restrictions and health and safety concerns. The landlord said once restrictions were lifted it would attend the resident’s property, but asked would the resident allow access for the contractor to complete repairs on the identified defects.
On 13 March 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and asked that following restrictions of COVID-19 being lifted, had the landlord resumed visits to residents properties. The resident queried why attendance could be made for repairs but not for inspections. The resident stated:
1. The landlord to provide him with a proposed schedule for the end of defects inspection and resulting contractor work.
2. He was willing to consider the required visits before any restrictions that applied to the landlord were lifted.
3. He was still waiting for the documentation he had previously requested including QA checks and reports.
4. He needed the landlord to attend a new home introduction as that was overdue and he was unable to operate the equipment in the property. Until he was shown how to use the equipment, he was unable to know if a defect was to be reported.
The landlord responded on 16 March 2023 and stated:
1. An inspection had not been possible due to COVID-19 restrictions and although the restrictions were eased, it was operating with caution.
2. It had already conducted an end of defect inspection for the building by asking residents to send photographs for review, this had been done across its other developments, and this was the new normal it had implemented to ensure the safety of its team and residents.
3. To progress the matter, it could arrange for a member of its team to attend the resident’s property and go through each item raised and proposed either 22 March 2021 or 23 March 2021. It was unable to offer any other dates and asked the resident to respond by 18 March 2021. If it did not hear from the resident by that date, it would take it the resident no longer wanted the inspection.
4. During any visit the landlord would conduct a refresher home induction as it believed one had previously been completed.
5. All relevant certificates had been provided in the resident home pack at the time of occupation, but it provided copies to the resident.
On 18 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and stated it had not heard from him after the email sent on 16 March 2021. The landlord stated that the contractors had almost completed other remedial works in the building and once completed, they would no longer attend to any defect works. The resident was asked to contact the landlord by the end of that week, or the landlord would have to close the defects report as access refusal.
On 23 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident as it had not heard from him. The landlord explained that it was due to have attended on previous days but as it had not heard from him it was unable to do so. It had also heard from the defect contractors that they had not been able to carry out remedial works due to no response from the resident. The landlord reiterated it would have no option other than to close the defect report as access refusal unless the resident responded by the end of that week.
On 31 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and stated he would be back from holiday the next day.
On 1 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord provided copies of the emails previously sent to the resident in March 2021. The landlord restated it had agreed to conduct an inspection of the resident’s property and the contractors had closed most of the defects to other properties. The resident had not given access to attend the items that had already been agreed to be defects. The resident was asked to provide a date for the week commencing 12 April 2021 for the landlord to attend.
The resident responded on 13 April 2021 informing the landlord he would be available on Tuesday or Wednesday afternoons during April 2021. The landlord responded the next day to say it would attend the resident’s property on 20 April 2021 between 2pm and 3pm and asked the resident to confirm if the date and time was suitable. The resident responded the same day to say he acknowledged receipt of the landlord’s email.
On 16 April 2021 the landlord sent another email to the resident stating it had not had a response regarding confirmation from the resident about the proposed appointment on 20 April 2021 and asked the resident to confirm his availability.
Internal landlord correspondence shows the landlord attended the resident’s property on 20 April 2021 despite not having received confirmation from the resident of his agreement to the appointment. On arrival to the resident’s property the landlord was refused access by the resident and told it had no right to attend and that the resident would let it know when he was ready for the landlord to attend.
On 21 April 2021 the landlord issued a letter to the resident that informed him:
1. On 30 October 2020 a letter was sent informing all residents in the block that the defect liability period was ending on 18 December 2020.
2. The letter advised residents to send a list of items with photos of defects for it to remotely assess as physical inspections could not be completed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. On 2 December 2020 the resident’s defect list was received by the landlord and it was unable to assess the report due to the description of defects not being clear or accompanied with any photographs. It had contacted the resident for further clarification, but the resident had insisted on a physical inspection.
4. It agreed to attend and appointments were offered on 3 December 2020 and 9 December 2020 but both appointments were not upheld.
5. Further appointments were offered on 22 March 2021 and 23 March 2021 but no reply was received from the resident until 31 March 2021 when the resident advised he had been on holiday.
6. An appointment was offered for 20 April 2021 but no response was received from the resident. The landlord attended on that date but was refused entry.
7. The landlord was offering one more appointment for an inspection of the flat on either 4 May 2021 or 5 May 2021 and asked could the resident respond to confirm by 28 April 2021 for the appointment to take place.
8. The landlord and contractor would close the end of defects report if no reply was received. That would mean the responsibility and costs to rectify any defects would be the resident’s.
The resident responded to the landlord on 28 April 2021 proposing a date of 5 May 2021 but said he would prefer the following week on 11 May 2021 or 12 May 2021. The landlord agreed to attend on 11 May 2021 at 2pm.
On 11 May 2021 the resident informed the landlord he had not been able to get the day off for the inspection. The landlord responded the same day and informed the resident that the appointment had been agreed on 28 April 2021 and confirmed on 10 May 2021 as acceptable by the resident. The landlord stated that the end of defects report was now closed and no further actions would be taken. The resident responded back to the landlord and said he had not cancelled the appointment but was querying options due to a change of circumstances at work. The resident stated he may only have one hour of time for all activities so may need to follow up the next day. The resident asked the landlord to confirm what time it would be attending. The landlord confirmed it would attend at the agreed time of 2pm and that a follow up appointment would not be necessary as the inspection should have been concluded within an hour.
The landlord’s records show that on arrival at the property the landlord had brought the original defects list, but the resident provided a new list he had completed. The landlord wrote down the new items and took photographs.
Following the visit on 11 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and informed him that he had been shown all functions and facilities provided in the property and the location of the utilities and relevant documentation. The landlord stated that as of 18th December 2020 the development defect liability period had ended and the development was now managed by the landlord.
On 13 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that it had handed two new programmed key fobs to the resident that day that were tested on all approved access doors including the lift and that they were working as they should be.
On the same day the resident wrote to the landlord. The resident stated:
1. The completion of noting down the defects was required due to the resident only having one hour at the appointment and the landlord’s officer not having a laptop and needing to leave to address parking and other appointments.
2. The new home demonstration was almost complete, but he was not provided with a list of items the landlord needed to cover so was not sure.
3. He still had two bent keys, one of which he still needed to be shown how to operate.
4. He had quite a few questions about ventilation which were not answered.
5. There was a kitchen window he did not know how to operate.
6. The main new home demonstration related concern was regarding the thermostat display.
7. The next step was to agree on the second part of the appointment.
The landlord responded to the resident on 18 May 2021. The landlord informed the resident that inspections and home demonstrations were scheduled for one hour which was usually more than adequate and there was no requirement for the landlord’s officer to have a laptop. The officer did attend with the resident’s original list of defects and added the further list of defects that was presented to him by the resident at the visit. The landlord stated a further visit was not required. It informed the resident that regarding the two bent keys, they were handed to the landlord in working order and were not bent. That was not a defect, and it would not be taking any action. Two key fobs were not working which it took away and provided two newly programmed key fobs which had been tested on all entry points and were working correctly. It provided an explanation to the resident’s reports of issues with the ventilation, kitchen window and thermostat. The landlord informed the resident its officer had completed a comprehensive report, and this would be reviewed and an update would be provided to the resident by 24 May 2021.
On 24 May 2021 the landlord provided an update from the inspection to the resident. The response from the landlord listed each item submitted by the resident on the end of defects list and provided an explanation of its assessment. The landlord noted that items the resident had reported on his initial end of defect list in December 2020 and the items reported during the visit on 11 May 2021 were not defects but were snag items which fell within tolerance of hand-built construction. The landlord identified one item it agreed was a defect which was a flushing mechanism in both toilets. The landlord said that as the defect contractor had completed defect works on site it would arrange for a third party to complete the repair. The landlord also stated that as a gesture of goodwill it would carry out works to a hairline crack and an uneven finish in the utility cupboard. The resident was asked to respond so it could arrange to attend to the identified repairs.
In the same letter the landlord informed the resident that regarding the items identified as defects from the original defects list, its contractor had tried to gain access to complete the repairs during February, March and April 2021 and could no longer be actioned as the contractor was no longer attending defects.
On 3 June 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord. The resident stated:
1. He was not accepting the new home introduction or the end of defects inspection as completed.
2. The new homes introduction needed to have a checklist to be signed off and the landlord’s officer needed to be very knowledgeable and able to answer all questions. An appointment needed to be set up and a meeting agenda to be provided prior to the visit.
3. The end of defects inspection required a landlord officer who was competent, capable and less biased to attend and expected three persons to attend – the rental landlord, the landlord and the developer as per the terms of the warranty.
4. Outcomes needed to be on a spreadsheet, ideally online so both parties could work on it. A table in a email was not sufficient. Once he was confident all issues items were in a spreadsheet, it can progress to discussions to rectify the defects.
5. The keys were handed over by someone other than the sales team and he had effectively been called a liar about the keys.
6. He would need escalation contacts.
The landlord responded to the resident on 21 June 2021 and stated as the resident had asked to escalate the matter it was considering the email as a formal complaint, and a formal response would be issued by 28 June 2021.
On 11 July 2021 the landlord informed the resident it was sorry for not sending the complaint response by 28 June 2021 as it had previously stated. The landlord said this was due to its officer being out of the office. The landlord stated a response would be issued by 13 July 2021.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 13 July 2021. The landlord stated:
1. There was a checklist used during the home demonstration. A copy was sent to the resident which covered all areas that were covered by the demonstration and a copy was enclosed with the complaint response.
2. An appointment had been made on 11 May 2021 which was confirmed by the resident on 10 May 2021. It did not allocate a time to each area as there was no requirement to do so and all aspects of the checklist were covered. The resident could ask questions during and after the home demonstration.
3. It had communicated extensively with the resident about the end of defects. COVID-19 and government guidelines to stay at home meant it was unable to offer physical inspections at the end of the defect period. It asked the resident to send a list of the defect items along with photographs. This was offered to all developments since the COVID–19 pandemic.
4. Due to the length of the residents list and it being unable to distinguish proper defects it agreed to carry out a physical inspection. Dates in December 2020 were offered and included the landlord, the build contractor and the landlord’s employer agent but the dates could not be upheld. Another lockdown was imposed, and it was unable to offer any further appointments.
5. It advised the resident it had identified some defects from the list provided by the resident which it believed were proper defects and advised the resident they would be attended to by the defect contractor. The resident refused attendance and the contractor invoked its right to refuse further attendance.
6. When lockdown restrictions were eased in March 2021 an offer of inspection was made in April 2021 but it had no response from the resident. An inspection was arranged for 11 May 2021.
7. When the appointment was attended the landlord brought the original list of defects sent to it by the resident and on arrival the resident had a different list and showed it items he deemed to be defects in the property. A report was produced which was shared with the resident and was included in the complaint response. It could transfer the document to a spreadsheet, but it would not add items to it.
8. The end of defects signified the end of the landlord and the build contractor’s liability to carry out works and was a finite date. No further new home demonstrations or end of defects inspections were required, and none would be arranged.
9. It apologised if the resident felt he had been called a liar regarding the bent front door keys. The keys were handed to its sales team who handed them to the resident and to the best of its knowledge the keys were not bent.
10. It offered to reimburse the cost to the resident of making two additional copies from the good key.
On 4 October 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and stated:
1. He still had numerous issues at the property including missing power sockets, untested communication sockets, thermostat issues, a toilet with running water, doors that did not close properly throughout the property, a window that did not open properly, a leaking tap and issues with the shower.
2. The only item ever fixed from his list of defects were the key fobs.
3. COVID-19 as he understood it was mostly resolved and with the landlords offices being open he requested delegates over that week.
The landlord responded on 18 October 2021, stating the resident had requested to escalate the complaint. It informed the resident that due to the number of reviews it was dealing with it would not be able to allocate the case yet but it would be allocated within five to seven working days.
On 1 November 2021 the resident requested an update from the landlord. The landlord responded to the resident the same day and informed him the complaint had been assigned to an officer and a response would be issued by 22 November 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 November 2021 and informed him of a delay in the response due to annual leave and the response would be issued the week beginning 29 November 2021.
The stage two response was issued on 6 December 2021. The landlord stated:
1. The defects period for the resident’s property ended on 18 January 2021, an end of defect report had been generated but because of COVID-19 a physical visit was not viable at that time.
2. It offered the resident a physical inspection due to the length of the list of defects provided by the resident, but appointments offered in December 2020 which were to include the landlord, the build contractor and the landlords employer’s agent could not be carried out due to unforeseen circumstances.
3. A further lockdown was imposed, and it was unable to offer new appointments for a period of time but had identified some items from the resident’s list it believed could be defects and advised they would be attended by the contractor in the meantime. The resident declined that, and the contractor invoked its right to refuse to attend once the defects liability period had ended.
4. Once lockdown restrictions were eased in March 2021, it offered an inspection in April 2021 but did not hear from the resident for some time and an appointment was mutually agreed for 11 May 2021.
5. Following the inspection on 11 May 2021, two defects were found – a toilet with continuous running water and the main toilet not flushing properly with very little water appearing.
6. Past the date of the end of defects period the responsibility for repairs would be the responsibility of the resident.
7. Its records showed it had tried to arrange repairs for the two defects, but access was not provided by the resident therefore no further repairs were actionable by the landlord.
8. No further inspections were required for the end of defects or for home demonstrations and none would be arranged.
9. Its records showed the resident was provided with reprogrammed key fobs and the resident was fairly advised about being reimbursed for the bent keys.
10. It acknowledged there were delays in the residents pursuit of the matter and in its handling of the complaint. It offered £30 for time, trouble and inconvenience for delays between December 2020 and January 2021 and £30 for poor complaint handling at stage two.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

The Ombudsman’s role is not to assess or determine whether or not an issue raised is a defect. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord handled the resident’s reports in line with its policies. This report therefore will not make a determination as what was or was not a defect.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s new home introduction visit and defects inspection.

The resident in his correspondence with the landlord noted the Home User Guide that was issued to him stated a physical inspection of the property would take place at the end of the defect period. This guide was issued to the resident during the COVID–19 pandemic. As the impact of COVID-19 had implications on how landlords could operate it is accepted the landlord may not be able to fulfil all its operations in the way it previously have done. The landlord though would be required to ensure if any of its processes were unable to be carried out in the expected way that it provided alternative processes and informed the resident.
The landlord has not evidenced that it had a policy specific to COVID-19 which it was operating during the period considered in this investigation. The landlord therefore would have operated under the national or local restrictions in place during that time.
From 1 June 2020, the Government’s Guidance for Landlords and Tenants was updated to say “Where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs”. The guidance was that repairs should not be carried out if household members were self-isolating or where an individual was being shielded.
The landlord issued the end of defects form to the resident on 30 October 2020. From 5 November 2020 to 2 December 2020 – a second national lockdown was in place. The national guidance was updated but still stated that landlords could carry out repairs and safety inspections if in line with public health advice.
The landlord would normally have carried out an inspection before the end of the defect period. In this case the landlord contacted the resident in October 2020 and informed him it was not carrying out inspections due to COVID-19. This Service is not aware that there were any specific restrictions in place in October 2020 which would have prevented the landlord from carrying out an inspection. However, it is acknowledged the landlord had a responsibility to minimise risks to its staff and residents and it was reasonable that it took a cautious approach. The landlord’s process of issuing the end of defects form to the resident to complete and provide photographs of defects was reasonable under the circumstances. This is evident by the second national lockdown coming into affect less than one week after the end of defects form was issued to the resident. However as previously stated the introduction of the second national lockdown did not restrict visits for repairs or inspections if one was required
When the resident initially requested a physical inspection, the landlord responded by contacting the resident on the afternoon of 8 December 2020 and stated it would attend the resident’s property the following morning between 9-10am. This was an unreasonable request from the landlord as it did not give adequate time to the resident to be able to make himself available for the appointment and it did not offer any alternative options to the resident.
The resident responded with alternative dates of 15 December 2020, 17 December 2020 and 18 December 2020. The landlords response was that those dates were too late and it needed to have issued the final defect list to the developer by 12 December 2020. There is no evidence that the landlord attempted to discuss this with the developer to establish if any extension could be arranged given the need for all parties to be available and the unique circumstance of COVID-19. The resident should not have been put at a disadvantage due to the availability of the landlord, contractor and developer.
The landlord did not however have the same time constraints to conduct the home induction requested. This induction only required an officer from the landlord to be present. The landlord failed to provide a response to the resident regarding this request originally made in December 2020. From the evidence provided to this Service the landlord has not evidenced a home inspection taking place before the resident’s request in December 2020.
From 6 January 2021 a third national lockdown was in place but government guidelines regarding inspection and repairs remained the same. There is no evidence of attempts by the landlord to conduct either the end of defects inspection or new homes induction physically as per the resident’s request during January 2021 or February 2021. There is however evidence of email contact between the resident and developer in February 2021 in which the developer requested the defects information was discussed over the telephone instead of a home visit.
In March 2021, the landlord proposed it visit the resident to conduct the end of defects inspection and also conduct a home induction. The landlord proposed dates of 22 March 2021 and 23 March 2021. On this occasion the landlord provided more notice to the resident for the dates it could attend, proposed more dates and was more flexible in the times it could attend than when it offered its previous visit in December 2020.
After the proposed dates for inspection had passed with no contact from the resident the landlord wrote to the resident again on 23 March 2021 and 1 April 2021 and informed the resident it could still attend but the contractor was nearing the end of works in the building and that the resident’s case would be closed due to refusal of access.
The resident did respond on 13 April 2021. The response was 29 days after the landlord’s initial email to the resident. The delay in the response was not a failure of the landlord and the evidence shows it consistently tried to make contact with the resident during this period with the contents of the emails making it clear it was trying to arrange an inspection and the contractors on site were nearing completion of works.
There is no evidence the resident responded to the landlord during this period meaning the landlord could take no further action at that time to progress the residents request for a home induction and inspection for his reports of defects.
Although there were restrictions in place due to COVID-19, those restrictions would not have prevented the landlord from conducting the inspections requested by the resident to inspect his reports of defects and for a home induction. There is also no policy provided from the landlord which demonstrates it was operating under a revised policy or process. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for the home induction which would not have been restricted by the same time scales as the end of defects inspection until it took steps to arrange the appointment with the resident from March 2021. The landlord stated it was carrying out a refresher home induction as it believed one had previously been completed however the landlord has not evidenced an inspection took place until the visit carried out on 11 May 2021. This service therefore cannot confirm that a home induction took place before May 2021. This is service failure by the landlord for which the landlord should apologise and pay the resident £100 compensation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects/repairs in the property.

The landlord’s role is to take fair and reasonable steps to determine the defects, pass those to the developer’s contractors and hold the developer’s contractors liable for any outstanding defects it has not fixed. The developer would remain responsible for defects arising during the liability period and the landlord would act as intermediary between leaseholder and developer to enable the leaseholder to ensure the developer and the landlord agreement is upheld in respect of those defects.
During the defect period, or where works remain outstanding after this time, this Service would expect the landlord to act as an appropriate intermediary by coordinating matters between the developer and the resident. This is to ensure that any repairs are appropriately managed, and arranged within a reasonable amount of time and are completed to a satisfactory standard.
As previously mentioned, given the various and changing COVID-19 restrictions in place in 2020, it was reasonable for the landlord to forgo its usual final defects inspection and instead ask for a detailed list of any defects from the resident. The landlord asked residents to complete the end of defects form and provide photographic evidence for the landlord to consider. The landlord did explain to the resident what defects were covered under defect liability. This was an appropriate step by the landlord as it ensured residents were able to notify it of defects and it could consider its response. However, this led to disagreement between the parties.
The resident returned the end of defects form to the landlord on 2 December 2020. The resident therefore notified the landlord of defects during the liability period. This Service would expect the landlord to liaise with the developer to consider and investigate the resident’s reports and to provide an assessment regarding whether the reported issues constituted a defect.
The evidence provided does show the landlord quickly provided the list of defects to the developer who responded back to the landlord and asked the landlord to speak to the resident as it felt the list provided did not contain true defects.
It was clear therefore the developer disagreed with some of the items on the resident’s end of defects form. This Service has seen no further evidence of correspondence between the landlord and the developer since it was asked by the developer to speak to the resident to enable progress of the resident end of defects report.
The landlord offered one appointment to the resident for a physical inspection on 9 December 2020 with it, the developer and managing agent, which did not provide enough notice to the resident. Following that appointment not taking place, the landlord has not evidenced it tried to arrange any further appointments for all parties to attend to clarify the defects the resident had reported before the end of the stated defect period.
The landlord however issued a letter to the resident on 8 January 2021 that did provide him with confirmation of what items had been agreed as defects. The letter also stated arrangements would be made by the contractor to gain access when the current situation allowed. There was no evidence provided by the landlord to this Service of how or when the conclusion of those agreed defects was made.
However, the letter issued by the landlord on 10 January 2021 stated the resident was required to provide access for the items assessed as being defects to be repaired. The letter informed the resident he would be in breach of his contract by refusing access. At the time the letter had been issued the landlord has only evidenced it provided one appointment to the resident which gave him less than half a days notice. The resident however provided three dates on 15 December 2020, 17 December 2020 and 18 December 2020 that he would be available which were not taken up by the landlord. It is not clear therefore why the landlord would issue such a letter to the resident given he had only been provided with a list of what was considered defects two days earlier and had suggested more appointment times than the landlord.
A manager of the landlord wrote to the resident on 28 January 2021 and stated that some items listed by the resident were not agreed by the developer as defects. The landlord stated the resident had noted the items listed were substandard and asked the resident to provide more clarity. This request was made 58 days after the end of defects form was initially sent to the landlord on 2 December 2020. The landlord has not evidenced why it took that length of time for it to enquire about the residents listed items being substandard especially given it had agreed some of the items to be defects 20 days earlier.
The items that the developer had identified as defects were passed to the contractor who attempted to contact the resident in early February 2021 but was not able to progress the repairs due to the resident wanting the physical inspection. As previously stated there was no government restrictions that prevented physical inspections and although the landlord and developer attempted to operate a remote evaluation of the defects reported by the resident. Once it became clear he wanted the physical inspection to discuss his reported defects, the landlord has not evidenced it properly considered the resident’s request for the physical inspection or discussed this with the developer. The explanation provided by the landlord to the resident was that it was its new way of working but it has not provided a policy to this Service that confirms a change in its working practices during that time.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 March 2021 and 1 April 2021 and informed the resident it could still attend the property to complete the identified repairs, but the contractor was nearing the end of work in the building and the resident’s case would be closed due to refusal of access. Those letters did not provide any guidance to the resident regarding the remaining items it had been unable to assess as defects.
The resident did not respond until 13 April 2021 so any delay during this period could not be considered a failure by the landlord.
The resident was offered an appointment for 20 April 2021 which was acknowledged by the resident. The landlord asked the resident to confirm the appointment could proceed but received no reply from him so attended his property on 20 April 2021. The resident refused access stating he had not agreed to the appointment.
This was difficult for the landlord to manage. It offered the appointment to the resident and the resident acknowledged he had received the date of the appointment. The landlord was left with a choice of either not to attend due to the resident not confirming agreement with the appointment which could have been interpreted as the landlord of not attending or it could attend, and risk being refused access. In this case the landlord attended. Given the length of time the resident had been waiting for the appointment, the landlord evidencing it had informed the resident when it would attend and the resident acknowledging the appointment date proposed. The landlord attending the resident’s property was an appropriate step to take given the resident was aware of the appointment and had not cancelled or told the landlord not to attend.
The landlord has evidenced it conducted an inspection of the property on 11 May 2021 and had considered all the items on the resident’s end of defects list. The landlord provided a report detailing the items listed by the resident, whether it deemed there to be a fault and its reasoning for its determination. The inspection however took place without the developer or contractor as they were no longer on site.
The resident through the complaint period asked the landlord to provide evidence of the quality controls used and how it determined what was or was not a defect. There is no evidence this information was provided to the resident.
The landlord during the inspection did identify a defect regarding both toilets in the property and although the contractor responsible was no longer on site the landlord took steps to arrange repairs for the resident. The landlord also agreed to complete some additional works it did not deem to be a defect for the resident as a gesture of good will. This was an appropriate response by the landlord. The landlord however, in its assessment of the defects identified in January 2021 determined they were no longer to be actioned due to the resident’s refusal to provide access to the developer and were not resolved. .
Although the landlord accepted there had been delays in addressing the defects, it did not offer appropriate redress to the resident to recognise the inconvenience, time and trouble the resident had experienced in contacting the landlord about the delays. Appropriate redress in this case would have been an apology and an offer of financial compensation. The landlord offered £30 for time, trouble and inconvenience for delays. The offer of £30 is not considered an appropriate level of redress.
It is acknowledged the COVID-19 lockdowns will have impacted the landlords ability at times to carry out what would be considered normal service. However the government guidance during the period of this investigation remained that routine and emergency inspections and repairs could still be completed by landlords. There were delays by the landlord in establishing the defects reported by the resident on 2 December 2020, insufficient notice given for the appointment on 9 December 2020.
The landlord did not provide evidence of its correspondence with the developer regarding the end of defects form supplied by the resident except for an email from the developer on 3 December 2020 in which it stated it felt the items on the residents list were not defects. The was no response to the residents requests for appointments on three dates in December 2020 with no further evidence of appointments being attempted until March 2021. Although since March 2021 the landlord took more frequent attempts to resolve the defects reported, the landlord has not demonstrated what actions it took to ensure the defects reported were suitably investigated and resolved through the developer when initially reported and those defects have remained unresolved.
This is maladministration by the landlord for which the landlord should apologise to the resident and pay £200 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of replacement keys.

The landlord was informed by the resident of keys being bent in an email sent to it on 21 January 2021. The resident confirmed to the landlord during the inspection on 11 May 2021 that the key was still bent. There is no evidence provided by the landlord that it responded to the resident’s statement about the bent keys in between these times.
The landlord did respond on 18 May 2021 following the physical inspection and told the resident the keys when handed to the resident were not bent and were in full working order so would not be replaced. It did however acknowledge there were issues with the key fobs and had arranged replacements for the resident.
The resident felt the landlord called him a liar regarding the bent keys in his complaint on 3 June 2021. The landlord failed to respond to him regarding this until it issued the complaint response on 13 July 2021 where it apologised to the resident if he felt the landlord had called him a liar.
The landlord in the stage one response offered to refund the costs of the keys if the resident arranged for new keys to be cut. This was reoffered to the resident in the landlord’s stage two response.
The offer to pay for the replacement of the keys was an appropriate step by the landlord as was the apology to the resident regarding him feeling he had been called a liar. However there was a lack of acknowledgement to the resident from the initial report regarding the keys in January 2021 until 18 May 2021 and the landlord failed to address the residents concern he was called a liar prior to issuing the complaint response in July 2021. This is a service failure by the landlord and compensation of £50 to the resident should be paid.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord issued an email to the resident on 8 January 2021. The landlord stated it was responding to the complaint made by the resident on 18 December 2020. The landlord at the end of that response stated it was its final response to the resident regarding the complaint he had made. It is therefore considered by this Service that the landlord acknowledged the resident had made a complaint.
The landlord in the response on 8 January 2021 failed to state if it was responding at stage one of its complaint process. The response did not provide the resident with details of his escalation rights to either stage two of the landlord’s complaint process or of the Ombudsman Service.
It is therefore not clear that despite using the term complaint in its response to the resident if the landlord was issuing a formal complaint response. The resident’s email which prompted the landlord to issue a response did ask for his email to be escalated and therefore it could be considered that a complaint was made. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states a complaint shall be defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. The resident does not have to use the word complaint in order for it to be treated as such.
The resident responded to the landlord’s response on 21 January 2021 and requested for it to be escalated to a manager. A manager did respond to the resident the next day and proceeded to try and assist the resident with his end of defects reports, however there is no evidence that the resident was asked to clarify if he wished for his complaint to be formally responded to.
The landlord considered the email sent by the resident on 3 June 2021 to be a complaint. When the landlord issued an acknowledgement of the complaint on 21 June 2021 the landlord stated there had been a delay in getting back to the resident due to the officer being on leave for a couple of weeks. The acknowledgement was not issued within three working days as required under its complaint policy.
The landlord in the acknowledgement stated the response would be issued by 28 June 2021. This would have been 18 working days after the complaint was made and it is not clear why the landlord had selected this date.
The landlord’s complaint policy states a response should be issued within ten working days after receipt of the complaint. The expected stage one response date therefore should have been 16 June 2021. The landlord’s acknowledgement of the complaint was issued four working days after it should have issued the stage one complaint response.
The stage one response was issued on 13 July 2021. This was 19 working days outside the landlords complaint policy timescales. There was no acknowledgement of the delay, apology or compensation offered to the resident by the landlord.
The stage one response informed the resident to provide a response within 14 days. The landlord did not make it clear what the resident was to respond to and did not provide the resident with his escalation rights.
The resident responded to the landlord on 4 October 2021. This was 94 days after the stage one response had been issued. When the complaint was escalated to stage two by the resident, the escalation requested was made much beyond the landlords time limit of 14 days. The landlord however agreed to escalate the request to stage two which was a positive step by the landlord.
The acknowledgement of the escalation of the complaint was issued after 11 working days on 18 October 2021 and not within three working days as stated in the landlords complaint policy. The landlord informed the resident it had a delay in its responses due to the high number of reviews it had received. This is not considered an appropriate response from the landlord. The landlord needs to ensure it has sufficient resource to carry out obligations of its own policies and that residents are not put at a disadvantage.
As with the stage one response there were considerable delays by the landlord. The request to escalate was made on 4 October 2021. Under the landlords complaint policy a response should have been issued by 22 October 2021. The complaint however was not allocated to an officer until 1 November 2021 and there is no evidence the landlord kept the resident informed of the delay until it responded to the resident’s request for an update.
There were further delays in the landlord issuing the complaint response at stage two. As with the stage one response the landlord informed the resident there were initially delays allocating the case due to the high number of reviews it was dealing with. Once allocated, the resident was informed the stage two response would be issued by 22 November 2021. The landlord informed the resident there would be further delays due to staff annual leave. It is noted that this was the same reason given to the resident during the stage one response. Staff leave is not considered an appropriate reason for delays in the landlord responding to a residents complaint. The landlord must ensure any staff absences are covered through appropriate resource to ensure compliance with its policies.
The resident was informed the stage two response would be issued week commencing 29 November 2021. The stage two response was eventually issued on 6 December 2021. This was 46 working days after the complaint was first requested to be escalated.
The stage two response provided a date for the end of defects period of 18 January 2021. This was a different date to what was provided in the landlords stage one response which provided a date of 18 December 2020.
By providing the wrong date to the resident this would have created confusion to the resident and given he had already queried the end of defects period with the landlord, would have created further uncertainty that the landlord was accurate in the dates provided to the resident.
The landlord offered compensation of £30 to the resident for its poor complaint handling at stage two. The landlord primarily used the reason of staff being on leave as the reason for the delays and a high number of reviews it was dealing with. The reasons provided by the landlord are not considered acceptable reasons for the delays in issuing the complaint responses.
The landlord failed to correctly record the resident’s complaint made in January 2021. It failed to issue either the stage one or the stage two acknowledgements and complaint responses to the resident within the timescales set out in its complaint policy. The stage one response failed to inform the resident of his escalation rights and there were errors in the stage one and stage two complaint responses. This is considered maladministration by the landlord. The landlord should pay the resident £250 for the delays and errors.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s new home introduction visit and defects inspection.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects/repairs in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of replacement keys.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlords handling of the residents complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to take sufficient action to arrange a visit to conduct the home induction or defects inspection with the resident once made aware the resident was requesting one within a reasonable time scale.
The landlord has not evidenced it took sufficient action to liaise between the resident and the developer to investigate the residents report of defects. It failed to complete repairs the resident identified as defects from January 2021 or May 2021.
The landlord took five months to acknowledge the resident’s report of issues with his keys and provided an inadequate first response to the resident that offended the resident.
The landlord failed to recognise the residents initial complaint, failed to issue an acknowledgement or full complaint response within the timescales set out in its complaint policy. The reasons provided to the resident are not considered appropriate reasons for the delays.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of the report the landlord is to:
1. The landlord is to write to the resident and apologise for its handling of the defects inspection and required repairs.
2. Pay the resident £100 for its handling of the resident’s new home introduction visit and defects inspection
3. Pay the resident £200 for the its response to the resident’s reports of defects/repairs in the property. This is inclusive of the £30 already offered by the landlord.
4. Pay the resident £50 for its handling of replacement keys.
5. Pay the resident £250 for its handling of the resident complaint. This is inclusive of the £30 already offered by the landlord.
6. Complete any outstanding repairs on the items identified as defects from the residents initial end of defects list in the letter issued 3 February 2021 and from the inspection on 11 May 2021.
7. Confirm with the resident if all keys and key fobs are working as required and replace any necessary keys or key fobs.

Recommendations

The landlord reviews its complaint handling processes to ensure it is able to comply with its complaints policy.