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

Sparrow Shared Ownership Limited (202309277)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309277

Sage Housing Limited

25 March 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Defects the resident reported at his property.
    2. The resident’s parking allocation.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease dated 22 October 2021 for a term of 125 years starting on 10 September 2021. The property is a semi-detached house that a developer built, and the landlord is the freeholder. The landlord was aware from 1 June 2023 that the resident has a “neurological disorder and ADHD” with some mobility issues.
  2. The resident first raised defects with the landlord in 2021. He also said his parking space was too small in 2021. The resident continued to report defects with the property between March 2022 to 10 January 2023. These related to the garden, windows, bathroom, doors, cracks, radiators, skirting boards, cupboards, electrical boxes, flooring, a bedroom light, thermostat and guttering or drainage.
  3. On 10 February 2023 the resident complained that parking spaces contained within the lease he signed were different to what was available. The resident complained on 16 May 2023 about the outstanding defects.
  4. On 24 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response and said:
    1. it upheld his complaint
    2. it acknowledged the resident first raised an issue with his parking in 2021 but noted he did not complain about this until February 2023
    3. it agreed to reinstate the resident’s parking to reflect the parking bays in his lease plan
    4. it noted the defects the resident raised, said the developer had dealt with some of these and it had asked its contractor to deal with any that were outstanding
    5. it accepted that it did not deal with the resident’s parking concerns when he first raised them, and it had not dealt with the defects in a timely way
    6. it had increased staffing on its defects team and put in place processes for improved monitoring and communication
    7. it offered the resident £750 made up of:
      1. £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint
      2. £500 for the delays in processing defects
      3. £200 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 1 June 2023 and the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 July 2023 and said:
    1. it upheld the resident’s complaint
    2. the developer completed some of the defects and it passed on any outstanding ones to its contractors
    3. it changed the internal door handles on 25 May 2023 and booked work to deal with the flooring for 28 July 2023 and 7 August 2023
    4. it asked the resident to send a list of missing items on 26 June 2023
    5. it noted the resident felt he had been ‘mis sold’ the property as there was no allocated parking but that as this was a legal matter it could not investigate this
    6. it agreed to reinstate the parking spaces contained in the resident’s lease with groundwork starting on 26 June 2023 and likely to last for 4 weeks
    7. it accepted it failed to update the resident and respond in line with its complaint policy
    8. it increased its monitoring of complex cases and additional system checks in addition to completing additional staff training on communication
    9. it offered the resident £1,050 which included the compensation at stage 1 and an additional £300 made up of:
      1. £250 for the lack of communication over its decision to reinstate the parking in the resident’s lease
      2. an additional £50 for delays in complaint handling.
  6. The landlord completed another inspection on 18 August 2023 which identified defects which it agreed to remedy. The landlord also said that it paid the resident an additional £40 compensation on 23 August 2023 (£1,090 in total) which the resident has not contested. The landlord also said that it reinstated the resident’s car parking space. The resident told us that he wanted more compensation in his referral to us. The resident has not reported any outstanding defects.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

  1. Although the resident only complained about “outstanding” defects from 2021 on 16 May 2023 the landlord considered defects going back to 2021 through its complaint procedure, even ones that had been resolved. Therefore, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of defects going back to 2021 for fairness and in line with the landlord’s approach.
  2. As the landlord raised new jobs following the inspection it did on 18 August 2023, which were not subject to the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman has not considered these. This is because we cannot consider complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process.
  3. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s allegation that he had been “mis sold” the property because the parking available to him did not reflect the parking in his lease plan.
  4. A court is set up to make binding declarations on legal documents like leases and has the expertise to apply caselaw to determine disputes. In contrast the Ombudsman does not have this function or expertise. Therefore, we will not investigate the resident’s concerns over mis selling because it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through a court. We can consider the resident’s complaint about his parking space allocation, in terms of how the landlord handled this from the date of his complaint (10 February 2023).

The landlord’s handling of defects

  1. The resident bought the property as a newly built property. Therefore, it had the benefit of a defect liability period. This lasted for 12 months from when the developer handed the property over to the landlord. This meant that during this time the developer was responsible for sorting any defects which were reported to it and which it accepted as a defect. This included any defects found at the end of the defect liability inspection carried out at the end of the defect liability period.
  2. The landlord’s defects policy required the developer to remedy any defects it accepted within 30 days of receiving a report. The landlord’s agreement with the developer said that if the developer failed to remedy defects it reported to it then the landlord could complete these at the developer’s expense.
  3. The defect liability period expired on 24 February 2022 and the end of defect inspection took place in March 2022. The resident’s lease required him to keep his property in repair. The landlord was responsible for communal areas or facilities. Therefore, aside from defects identified and accepted as part of the defect process, the resident was responsible for repairing his property.
  4. The resident reported missing caps from the top of his shower on 17 February 2022 and reported a cut to the carpet in his “double room” on 8 March 2022. The landlord explained to the resident on 17 February 2022 and on 12 April 2022 respectively that these were not defects. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot fault the landlord for not dealing with these.
  5. In contrast, the resident raised the following defects which the landlord addressed in its complaint responses and which it accepted as defects. The resident first reported the following defects on the dates within the brackets followed by the date it resolved the defect by:
    1. cracks throughout the property including ceilings, walls, and staircase (6 January 2022, resolved on 2 June 2023 in relation to the cracks under the stairs and the staircase)
    2. a draught affecting all their windows (18 January 2022, resolved 31 May 2023)
    3. a garden gate not assembled correctly (18 January 2022, resolved 14 April 2023)
    4. a shower screen not properly on (18 January 2022, closed and presumed resolved on 29 September 2022)
    5. a cracked bathroom tile (18 January 2022, resolved July 2022)
    6. an insecure garden fence (18 January 2022, resolved 28 February 2023)
    7. a dark mark on the living room carpet (18 January 2022, resolved 8 August 2023)
    8. issue with extractor fan (16 February 2022, resolved 28 February 2023)
    9. french doors catching (8 March 2022, resolved 28 February 2023)
    10. side gate needing refixing and readjusting (17 March 2022, resolved 13 January 2023)
    11. wires on electrical box (8 March 2022, resolved 11 April 2023)
    12. loose internal door handles (8 March 2022, resolved 2 June 2023)
    13. a loose radiator at the top of the stairs (8 March 2022, resolved 19 April 2023)
    14. water leaking affecting the lounge ceiling (17 March 2022, resolved 12 January 2024)
  6. In respect of these reports the landlord needed to either:
    1. get the developer to complete the work within 30 days in line with its defects policy
    2. show it took reasonable steps to get the developer to complete the work in line with its defect policy and any service agreement with the developer
    3. explain to the resident why the report was not a defect it was responsible for
    4. do the work itself within a reasonable period (in line with its repair policy which required it to complete routine repairs within 20 business days) where the developer failed to, and it accepted the report as a defect.
  7. The Ombudsman cannot be satisfied the landlord acted reasonably or in line with its policies. This is because it has not shown that it completed these steps in relation to the above jobs. It is also unclear when the landlord dealt with the report made on 8 March 2022 about a broken kitchen skirting board or missing turf in the garden.
  8. While the landlord said it resolved the cracks under the stairs and the staircase (stair strings) on 2 June 2023 its records are unclear when it dealt with the resident’s report of 8 March 2022 about cracks above doorframes. As the resident has not outlined any outstanding repairs the Ombudsman has not made any orders in relation to these.
  9. The records show that the resident first raised the issue about a tree in 2021. While the landlord’s records state it did not resolve this until 5 April 2023 it told the resident as early as 29 November 2021 that this was not a defect. The developer or landlord were not responsible for replacing the tree. Although it eventually decided to replace it there was no evidence the delay in it doing so affected the resident’s occupation or enjoyment of his property. Therefore, overall, the Ombudsman finds no fault in the time it took the landlord to deal with this.
  10. The resident raised the following defects between 9 April 2022 and 10 January 2023, with the date it resolved them by in brackets:
    1. cracks in the kitchen ceiling
    2. bath panel incorrectly fitted (28 February 2023)
    3. “creaking” flooring in the first-floor main bedroom (29 May 2023)
    4. kitchen cupboards not fitting (29 May 2023)
    5. reports of gutters not fitting into a drain or becoming disconnected from the wall
    6. a loose toilet seat
    7. a downstairs toilet not flushing properly
    8. a bathroom tap dripping
    9. carpets rippling in every room
    10. a split main bedroom skirting board
    11. loose bedroom thermostat and bedroom light
    12. 90% of radiators loose
    13. front door being tight
    14. recently fitted lino in the en-suite and kitchen and downstairs bathroom lino which was damaged or not fitted properly.
  11. The resident did not raise these before the end of the defect liability period or at the end of the defect inspection. Therefore, the landlord was under no duty to deal with these as these were the resident’s responsibility under his lease. Nevertheless, the landlord ought to have explained this to him.
  12. Despite this, the evidence shows that the landlord fitted the bath panel by 28 February 2023 and resolved the kitchen cupboards and flooring by 29 May 2023. It also sought to address the issue with the carpets and lino on 28 July 2023 and 7 August 2023. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it wanted to resolve the “flooring” on those dates.
  13. As the landlord assumed responsibility for dealing with the flooring (which would include carpets and lino), and the bath panel, it was important that it did so within a reasonable time. The Ombudsman notes the landlord’s repair policy required it to complete routine repairs within 20 business days. In the absence of any explanation for the time it took the landlord to resolve these repairs we cannot be satisfied it acted reasonably.

 

Parking allocation

  1. The resident complained about his parking allocation on 10 February 2023. The landlord responded on 21 February 2023 and explained it moved his parking spaces across the road to accommodate the developer’s show house. The landlord suggested it reinstate these to reflect the lease plan the resident signed. It confirmed this in its stage 1 response, after it agreed this on 15 May 2023.
  2. It told the resident in its stage 2 response that it aimed to complete this by 24 July 2023. While this was a reasonable response the landlord has not provided us with evidence to show this completed before 27 September 2023, which is the date it did a site inspection that noted it had completed the work. Therefore, the landlord has not confirmed it completed the work when it said it would or offered an explanation for any delay.

Summary and findings

  1. Overall, the landlord failed to show that it completed work to remedy the defects it accepted in line with its policies. The time it took it to resolve these involved the resident in considerable time and trouble. It also caused him distress and inconvenience and revealed it had an ineffective oversight of its defect process. In addition, the delays in it dealing with the parking allocation caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord showed in its complaint responses that it learnt from its mistakes and agreed to introduce improvements.
  2. The landlord paid the resident compensation of £1,090 (with £870 for the failures in dealing with the defects and parking). This is reflective of the amount that the Ombudsman would award where we have found maladministration where there have been significant failures, but which have not permanently affected the resident. Therefore, the compensation offered is in line with our remedies guidance and amounts to reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord had a 2–stage complaint process. The landlord needed to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. It had 20 working days to respond to complaints at stage 2. The resident complained about the parking allocation on 10 February 2023 and about the outstanding defects on 16 May 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 24 May 2023. While this was within 10 working days of the complaint about the defects it took the landlord 69 working days to respond to his parking complaint.
  2. When the resident escalated his complaint (1 June 2023) the landlord responded at stage 2 on 6 July 2023. Therefore, it took the landlord 25 working days against a target of 20 working days to respond at stage 2. The landlord accepted in its complaint responses that it had not responded to the resident’s complaints in line with its complaint policy. It awarded £120 for the delays in complaint handling and another £100 for time and trouble (£220 in total). This is consistent with the compensation the Ombudsman may award where it finds maladministration where there is no permanent effect. Therefore, the amount the landlord awarded was in line with our remedies guidance. The landlord also sought to explain to the resident how it had learnt from his complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion these steps amounted to reasonable redress.

Determination 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. defects the resident reported at his property
    2. the resident’s parking allocation
    3. the associated complaint.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord reviews this case and decide if it needs to make further changes to its defect process. The landlord should consider if the changes it has made since we determined complaint 202210088 are sufficient to improve its defect reporting, monitoring, and escalation processes.