Abri Group Limited (202106356)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106356

Abri Group Limited

25 June 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 concerns about the roof of the property.
2. The Ombudsman has decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a shared owner with the landlord since 2018. The property is a new-build 2-bedroom house. The defects liability period for the property ended on 20 September 2019. (The defects liability period refers to the period when it remains the responsibility of the person who built the property to put right any damage or defects). The property is under warranty until January 2028.
In March 2020, the resident noticed an issue on the roof. Specifically, she had noticed a dark vertical line running down the slope of the roof. The resident’s concern was that the tiles were collapsing inwards. She contacted the landlord to report the matter. The landlord’s initial advice to the resident was that because the property was outside of the defects period it was not obligated to carry out any work or repairs to the property. After this, it advised the resident to raise the matter with the warranty provider. The resident questioned the landlord’s position, it then decided it would inspect the roof.
On 26 March 2020, the landlord’s roofing contractor inspected the external roof. It removed some tiles in the area to investigate and found no structural issue with the roof. It found the vertical line was caused by the point where two areas of tiles met. When viewed from a distance, this caused the impression of a sunken area. On 8 June 2020, its roofing contractor carried out an inspection of the internal roof space. It identified no structural issue in relation to the line visible on the roof slope and recommended repositioning the affected tiles to remove the vertical line. The resident and contractor agreed this work would take place in the coming months.
On 17 November 2020, the landlord’s roofing contractor completed the work. On 18 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to inform that she remained unhappy with the appearance of the roof. Specifically, that the straight line now appeared as a ‘zigzag’ pattern on the roof surface. The resident stated this worsened the appearance of the roof. The landlord advised her to contact the warranty provider as the roof was under warranty.
On 28 January 2021, the landlord contacted the warranty provider to discuss the case. The warranty provider stated the landlord should provide it with an independent surveyor’s report explaining its actions and confirming the roof was structurally sound. The landlord gave this to the warranty provider on 10 March 2021.
On 17 June 2021, the resident complained about the issue. Her position was that the work carried out by the landlord had worsened the appearance of the roof, she had been advised by the warranty provider that it was unlikely it would consider any future claim in respect of the roof, as a result of the landlord’s work, and that the situation had caused her a huge amount of stress and worry. On 22 February 2022, the landlord provided its complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It stated that the roof was structurally sound, and the repositioning of the roof tiles had not invalidated her warranty. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to respond to her complaint and organised a £50 shopping voucher and a box of chocolates to be delivered to her.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to stage 2. In its stage 2 response the landlord upheld its stage 1 findings but stated it had not provided enough detail about its processes at stage 1. It said it would learn from this and provide training to its stage 1 complaint handlers. It said it would pay for an additional roof survey to provide further reassurance that the roof was structurally sound. The resident remained unhappy with this response and proposed course of action and escalated the complaint to this service. To resolve the matter the tenant would like the roof to be retiled.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the roof of the property.

The resident’s lease with the landlord does not set out the obligations of the parties in respect of repairs and maintenance to the roof. In March 2020, the resident reported the issue. It informed her that because the property was out of the defects liability period it was not obligated to carry out any work or repairs to the property. The Ombudsman considers this was unfair because the landlord has a latent defects policy and procedure. It defines a latent defect as ‘a fault, or defect arising from the failure in workmanship, design or materials that would not have been reasonably apparent or detected at the end of the defects liability period but has since manifested itself.’ It also states, ‘We also have a legal duty to ensure we minimise our losses, so if a quick repair will help do this we should consider it, provided that repair is not so much that it constitutes repairing the defect entirely.’ The defects liability period on the property had ended 6 months prior to the resident reporting the issue. The Ombudsman’s view is that it should have identified there was a possibility of a latent defect of the roof. However, the landlord did not seem to consider its latent defects policy in respect of the resident’s concerns. This was unreasonable.
On 24 March 2020, the resident sent an email to the landlord questioning the landlord’s position . The landlord reconsidered its position and decided to inspect the roof. This was the appropriate action to take and in line with its latent defects procedure.
On inspection, the landlord removed a section of tiles to investigate. It found no fault with the tiles, battens, or components of the external roof. After its inspection it replaced the tiles. It then inspected the internal roof space. The landlord’s inspections found no fault with the external or internal structure of the roof. It identified the vertical line was caused by where tiles joined together at a particular point.
Due to issues relating to COVID-19 pandemic, the parties agreed the landlord would re-attend in November 2020. The resident advised this service that her understanding of this visit was the landlord would be stripping half the roof tiles and relaying them to remove the issue. The landlord attended and rearranged the tiles in the affected area only. The resident was dissatisfied and stated that in her view the appearance of the roof had worsened and resulted in a ‘zigzag’ pattern across the roof. The documents provided show the landlord did not discuss and agree its methodology for correcting the issue with the resident beforehand. This was unfair and unreasonable. The Ombudsman considers it would be good practice for the landlord to explain the scope and methodology of the works to the resident. The landlord did not do this. This meant she was not informed of the possible outcomes and risks associated with the landlord’s approach.
Consequently, the resident informed the landlord that in her view the pattern on the roof was worse than before. The landlord’s response was to write to the resident to inform her that it could not carry out further work beyond what it had done because further work would compromise the manufacturer’s warranty. It advised the resident to contact the warranty provider if she remained dissatisfied. The Ombudsman considers the landlord treated the resident in a heavy-handed manner at this point.
The Ombudsman has examined the landlord’s latent defects flowchart. The flowchart states the next step for the landlord in the circumstances was to, ‘collate all information and send to warranty provider to check if valid claim.’ The Ombudsman finds that while the landlord’s decision not to carry out any further works was reasonable and in line with its procedure, in line with its flow chart, it should have then taken responsibility for contacting the warranty provider.
The resident duly contacted the warranty provider. She was advised it was unlikely the roof would be covered because the landlord had carried out works. She reported this to the landlord. In January 2021, the landlord contacted the warranty provider and explained its actions and the resident’s concerns. The warranty provider requested the landlord provide it with an independent surveyor’s report of the roof to add to its file. The landlord did this. In respect of the tiles, the independent report noted the tile arrangement resulted in a ‘visual anomaly’ but had ‘no material effect on the roof.’ The landlord provided a copy of the report to the warranty provider and the resident.
On 17 June 2021, the resident complained that;
1. several aspects of the surveyor’s report were incorrect.
2. the landlord’s work was substandard.
3. the property had been devalued by the visual anomaly.
4. the warranty provider had mentioned it was unlikely the roof would be covered.
5. The situation had caused a huge amount of distress, and she was taking medication due to stress and worry.
The landlord did not formally respond to the complaint until 2 February 2022. (The landlord’s complaint handling has been investigated later in this report).
Prior to issuing its stage 1 response, the landlord contacted the warranty provider and requested it carry out an inspection to reassure the resident that the warranty remained intact. It said it would pay for this. The Ombudsman finds it was good customer service for the landlord to take these practical steps. However, in its formal complaint response it did not respond to any of the resident’s concerns and only restated its position that the roof was structurally sound. It did not uphold the complaint. The Ombudsman finds that while the landlord’s complaint response was factually correct when it stated the roof was sound, it was heavy handed and did not address the resident’s complaints that the property had been devalued. Nor did it respond to the fact that she was dissatisfied with the result of the landlord’s efforts to put things right.
The Ombudsman considers a solution focussed complaint response would have been for the landlord to:
1. provide assurances the inaccuracies in the report would be corrected.
2. assist with and provide support in making a warranty claim.
3. acknowledge the resident’s disclosure about the distress caused.
On the same day as receiving the complaint response, the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. On 21 March 2022, the landlord visited the resident at home to discuss the issues. On 27 April 2022, it provided its stage 2 response. In its stage 2 response it acknowledged the resident felt her concerns had not been fully considered. It apologised it had not responded in enough detail in its stage 1 response. It said it would learn from it and it was exploring providing additional technical training to its complaint handlers. It maintained that its actions had not invalidated the roof’s warranty and stated there was no evidence that its contractor’s work was substandard. It offered to arrange and pay for another independent survey of the property and informed the resident she could also nominate a suitably qualified surveyor, to provide reassurance there was no defect in the roof.
The Ombudsman finds that while the landlord’s offer to carry out an independent survey was good, this still failed to acknowledge the building survey would not resolve the resident’s concerns that in her view, the property had been ‘devalued’ by the cosmetic issue. Additionally, it did not resolve the issue that in the resident’s view, the roof looked worse after the landlord’s efforts to put it right.
The landlord focused on evidencing the structural soundness of the roof and providing assurances relating to the warranty. However, the Ombudsman finds the landlord did not address all the resident’s concerns. When she made the initial report, the landlord prematurely informed the resident that it was not obligated to carry out any works to roof. It has not demonstrated that it consulted her or sought her informed consent before relaying the tiles in a different pattern. It has not evidenced that it gave any consideration to, or acted on the residents concern the property had been devalued by the visual anomaly, and, in the resident’s view making the property harder to sell in the future. It has not demonstrated that it has considered the resident’s concerns the appearance of the roof had worsened because of its actions, and it has not demonstrated that it appreciated the level of distress caused to the resident by the issue. It also did not collate all the information to be sent to the warranty provider to check if there was a valid claim, in line with its latent defects flowchart. Looking at everything together, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the roof of the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
In this case the resident first made her stage 1 complaint on 17 June 2021. This means the landlord’s complaint response was due no later than 1 July 2021. The landlord did not respond to the complaint and did not make any contact with the resident until 23 November 2021, when it informed her the complaint had been reassigned to a new staff member. The documents provided show the delay in progressing the complaint was caused by staff absence. The Ombudsman’s view is the landlord should have systems in place to ensure complaints are handled efficiently during periods of staff absence.
It provided its stage 1 response on 2 February 2022. This was 8 months past the due date. This delay was unfair and unreasonable. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord apologised for the delay and offered £50 voucher and a box of chocolates.
The Ombudsman’s view is that this does not go far enough in recognising the extent of the landlord’s delay and considers an additional award of compensation would more appropriately reflect the landlord’s 8-month delay.
On the same day, the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. This meant the landlord should have provided its stage 2 response by no later than 1 March 2022. In this case, the landlord asked for an extension of time to respond to the complaint. This meant the stage 2 response should have been provided no later than 14 March 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 27 April 2022. This was 6.5 weeks past its due date. In its stage 2 response it did not apologise for the lateness of its response or provide any explanation to the resident. This was discourteous. On 23 February 2024,(nearly 2 years later), the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging that its complaint handling had not met its service level agreement. It apologised and offered £100 in compensation.
The landlord’s late offer of compensation and failure to respond to the resident’s devaluation concern is not sufficient to avoid an adverse finding. The landlord should have identified earlier that it had not met its service standards and offered the compensation at the appropriate stage. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman takes into account the landlord’s compensation payment of £100 and apology to the resident dated 23 February 2024.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the roof of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay £500 for its handling of the resident’s concerns about the roof.
2. Pay an additional £200 for the delay in its stage one complaint response and its failure to respond to the concerns surrounding devaluation. This is excluding the landlord’s £100 compensation award.
3. Find out from the resident if she wishes to proceed with making a claim on the warranty. Provide support and assistance to the resident to do this if she so wishes.
4. Provide the resident with its position on the resident’s concerns that the property could have been devalued and explain its obligations around this.
5. Carry out an investigation into the reasons why the landlord did not provide a methodology or consult the resident on its intended approach to rearranging the tiles.
6. Provide evidence that it has suitable arrangements in place in respect of its complaint handling during staff absence.
7. Provide this service with evidence it has complied with the above Orders.