Aster Group Limited (202220459)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220459

Aster Group Limited

20 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects to her property.

Background

The resident has been a shared owner of the landlord since 31 March 2021. The property is a two bedroom end of terrace house. The resident explained that she has autism and mental health issues and finds it difficult to engage with a large number of people. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that its records list vulnerabilities for the resident including learning disabilities, autism and ‘other mental health need’.
Shortly after moving into the property the resident reported a number of defects including, but not limited to her kitchen window and cupboards, the heating, painting in the hallway, her gate, the wall in her second bedroom, a gap in the wall around the cooker hood, a defect with hot water tap over the bath and her shower, cracks to the stairs, and defects to the door to back bedroom. The landlord referred the defects reported to the developer for their attention.
On 13 September 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to complain that she was still waiting for her 2 kitchen cupboard doors to be replaced, that she had been left with no hot water in her bath for 10 months and that she had had other ‘‘major issues’’ with the property since she moved in. The resident said that she had problems with her boiler as well. In a follow up conversation with the landlord on 22 September 2022, the resident also said that she had been waiting since she moved in for her hallway ceiling to be painted.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 October 2022. In its response the landlord:
1. Acknowledged that the resident’s reports had not always been attended to within its defects resolution procedures. It apologised for the distress this had caused, for which it offered £50 compensation, and said that it would ‘‘recommend actions for improved customer service in the future’’.
2. Said that it had contacted the developer who were arranging for a contractor to resolve the painting in the hallway and the nail pops.
3. Said that it had arranged for its own operative to attend on 10 October 2022 to fit the kitchen cupboard doors.
4. Apologised for the resident being told that during the defects period, and as a shared owner, she would need to source her own plumber to address any concerns she may have had with her boiler. The landlord said that this was incorrect, apologised and offered £50 compensation. It also said that, to give the resident some peace of mind, its own team would carry out a ‘boiler health check.’
5. Acknowledged the shed and back gate were not repaired to a high standard by the developer and offered £50 towards with any other repairs the resident may need to undertake to improve their appearance.
6. Said that the photographs of her lawn had been viewed by its estates team for an experienced opinion. The outcome of this was that it believed that this was not due to poor preparation of the ground before laying the turf, and other areas of the grass appeared to be healthy.
7. Offered a further £150 for inconvenience and distress, bringing the total payable to £300.
On 10 October 2022, the resident escalated her complaint as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
The landlord issued its final response on 4 November 2022, noting that it had spoken to the resident on 19 October 2022. In its final response the landlord said:
1. That it was sorry for the length of time it took the developer to resolve the issues with regards to the hot water to her bath, and for the inconvenience and distress this would have caused.
2. Whilst it was the responsibility of the developer to attend to the defects, it apologised that the timescales during the defects process were not met and increased the compensation offered to £200. It also confirmed that it had arranged for a ‘‘health check’’ for her boiler to provide her with reassurance going forward.
3. The kitchen cupboard doors had now been replaced and there was an appointment for 5 December 2022 to address the other outstanding defects, such as nail pops and ceiling painting. The landlord acknowledged that there was a further delay with regards to the cupboard doors, which were damaged and had to be re-ordered, for which it apologised.
4. The lawn was not raised during the defects period and so the developer would have no further obligations with regards to remedying this. As a shared owner, this would be the resident’s responsibility.
5. The developer attended the gate a couple of times and on the last visit fitted hinges to resolve the issue. The landlord said that it had seen photographs of this, and the appearance seemed acceptable, but it understood that the resident was not happy with the finish.
6. The developer attended following a reported defect to the shed door. There were no further defects logged for the shed during the 12-month defects period nor at the end of defects inspection. The developer therefore had no obligation to attend further and as a shared owner this had become the resident’s responsibility.
7. That it was sorry for the issues the resident had experienced and offered her a total of £500 compensation made up of the £300 offered at stage 1, plus an additional £200 for it not fully meeting all timescales.

Matters that occurred following the landlord’s final response.

On 13 December 2022, the developer emailed the landlord to say that it had now carried out all the outstanding works at the resident’s property.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 23 May 2023. In her referral the resident said that:
1. The hot water to the bath, kitchen cupboards and ceiling painting had been resolved but there remained concerns regarding nail pops, her rear lawn, her shed and her back gate.
2. There were other issues with the property including the wash hand basin having a lot of marks and pipework sticking out. The resident also said that there were issues with her front door and the metal beading in her hallway was split.
On 23 May 2023, this Service wrote to the landlord about the possibility of a mediated resolution and on 4 July 2023, the landlord carried out a visit to the property with the resident and a family friend. The report produced by the landlord following this visit:
1. Acknowledged that the ‘built in’ lock to the shed did not appear to work correctly but the shed was currently lockable on a heavy duty lock provided by the developer. The screw sticking out was not structural and could be removed using screwdriver. The replacement of the shed would not be proportionate and that the level of compensation offered at stage 2 was appropriate.
2. Said that the resident’s proposed resolution, that the back gate be replaced, was not proportionate to the problem. The compensation offered at stage 2 was reasonable and allowed the resident to seek alternative remedies of improvement the aesthetic.
3. Said that the rear lawn would need to be rotavated and the turf relayed, ensuring the inspection hatch was appropriately situated as currently proud of ground level. The landlord noted that this was an action for it to take either via the developer or directly.
4. Noted the issues the resident had raised about her front door, which had been reported. Whilst appointments and work had been carried out, the issues were still present. It therefore recommended that it investigated the mechanism and eased the front door. Following its investigation, recommendations would be reviewed as to whether a new door was required to resolve intermittent issue.
5. With regards to the marks on the ceiling in the living room. These would not be classified as a defect under NHBC guidance and therefore no further action was recommended.
6. With regards to the nail pops in cupboards under the stairs, in the hallway, and in the kitchen. A review the end of defects list was recommended. Other nail pops around property (hallway and kitchen) had been repaired satisfactory, and therefore these may be new items or not previously noted during inspection and reporting timescales. The landlord noted that the resident was advised that these would appear through life of property and would be part of normal home decorating.
The landlord also noted that:
1. The issue with the pipe work in the toilet/bathroom sticking out had been resolved during visit.
2. The bath plug of the new bath did not fit properly, which would be discussed with the developer. It did not believe that the silicone/grouting had been raised previously and that it would contact the developer to see if extra mastic can be applied to prevent potential for future failure and water egress via these areas.
3. Its development team were to check whether the metal beading in hallway split was on the end of defects list. If it was not, it was likely due to wear and tear and therefore was homeowner decorating and maintenance.
4. That the basin enamel did not appear damaged, and that the resident was advised that the label could be removed with some soapy water. The resident was asked to try this and to send over some further photos of the discolouration marks on the basin remained. The landlord noted that the resident had agreed to do this.
5. That it would review the end of defects list to see if the tape joint being visible in lounge was noted during defects period. If is not, the landlord noted that his would fall under the homeowner decorating and maintenance responsibilities.
The resident provided quotes for the works to her lawn and on 12 September 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm its approval of the quote, of £1,290, she had provided.
In a telephone conversation with this Service on 13 June 2024, the resident confirmed that the landlord did cover the cost for the works to the lawn and that these had been completed. The resident also explained that the ‘‘entire fence and back gate had come down’’, which the landlord had now addressed. The resident said that nothing had happened with the shed, the marks on her living room ceiling or the nail pops and that there were still gaps in the sealant in her bath.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what, if anything, the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
Under the terms of the lease, as a shared owner, the resident would be obliged to repair and keep the property in good and substantial repair and condition.
The Ombudsman recognises that there may be defects and snagging in new build properties, which may not have been identified in the initial build. However, new build properties have a defects liability period (DLP) where the developer is responsible for rectifying any defect raised. In this case, the resident’s new build property was subject to a 12 month defects period, during which time the developer was responsible for rectifying any defects within the property. The existence of defects alone would therefore not constitute a failure in the landlord’s service.
It is evident that the resident reported defects in the property from the start of her lease, as such it was appropriate that the landlord initially referred the list to the developer as they had responsibility for remedying defects and carrying out snagging works.
Although the works were being scheduled and undertaken by a third party, the Ombudsman would expect to see that the landlord had done all that it could to manage the situation, to proactively pursue the outstanding works, and to consider alternative solutions where resolution was being prolonged.
It is evident that the landlord contacted the developer on numerous occasions in order to expedite the works. However, as acknowledged by the landlord throughout the complaints process it had not always attended the defects within its defects resolution process. To make this right, the landlord offered the resident a total of £500 compensation made up of:
1. £250 for its failure to attend to the defects within its procedures.
2. £50 for the incorrect information provided to the resident about her boiler.
3. £50 towards the shed and back gate.
4. £150 for distress and inconvenience.
The landlord also:
1. Arranged for its own operative to fit the kitchen cupboard doors. These had been replaced by the time of the landlord’s final response of 4 November 2022, the landlord acknowledging that there had been a further delay to these being installed, as they had been delivered damaged.
2. Apologised to the resident for the length of time she was without hot water to her bath, which the resident said had been 10 months.
3. It also apologised for having told her she would be responsible for boiler repairs in the first 12 months and arranged for its own team to carry out a boiler health check, which was completed on 17 October 2022 and no faults found.
Whilst these acknowledgements and apologies are welcome, given the excessive delays in a number of these matters being resolved, it is this Service’s position that the total of £350 offered by the landlord for the delays, the incorrect information provided regarding her boiler and the standard of work on the shed, did not provide the resident with reasonable redress for the level of failure in this case.
This is because the defects reported by the resident shortly after moving into the property on 31 March 2021 were still outstanding some 9 months later, at the end of defects period in December 2021. These included the kitchen cupboard doors, issues with the bath water temperature control, the issue with the garden gate, the wall to her second bedroom, the gap in the wall around the cooker hood and defects to the door to the back bedroom.
The developer advised the landlord on 31 January 2022 that it had completed all the defects. However, the kitchen cupboard doors were not then completed until October/November 2022, some 19 months after being reported. At that time, the resident had also been experiencing issues with the hot water in her bathroom for 10 months.
Given the extent of these delays, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £500 compensation, bringing the total payable for the delays, the incorrect information provided regarding her boiler and the standard of work on the shed to the defects within its procedures to £850.
With regards to the shed and back gate. It is evident that the landlord did refer this to the developer who in turn carried out works to the gate. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and offered her £50 so that she could undertake improvements to their ‘appearance’ herself. It is the view of this Service that £50 was not sufficient to provide redress to the resident. However, given that the landlord ultimately replaced the entire fence and back gate at its own cost, it is the view of this Service that in doing to the landlord has provided reasonable redress with regards to the resident’s concerns about both of these matters.
With regards to the resident’s lawn. Again, whilst it is recognised that there was some delay in the landlord addressing this matter, this Service is satisfied that as it subsequently covering the costs, of some £1,290, for these works this was sufficient to put right its failures with regards to this aspect of her complaint.
Following the landlord’s final response, and its visit to the resident’s property on 4 July 2023, the landlord made a number of commitments. These included that:
1. It would contact the developer about the bath plug of the new bath not fitting properly, and the resident’s concerns about the silicone/grouting to the bath.
2. Its development team would check whether the metal beading in hallway split was on the end of defects list.
3. It would review the end of defects list to see if the tape joint being visible in lounge was noted during defects period.
Given that the position regarding these matters remain unclear, it has been recommended that the landlord confirm to this Service what the outcome of these actions was. If there are any outstanding works for which it is responsible, the landlord is to provide the resident with an action plan, with timescales as to when these will be done. If it is the landlord’s position that it is not responsible for these works, it is to provide the resident with an explanation as to why it believes that to be the case.
During this Service’s recent telephone conversation with resident, it became evident that the resident was not aware of all the responsibilities that fell to her as a shared owner. The resident was advised to seek independent advice on this. However, it has also been recommended that the landlord arrange to meet with her, and a representative of her choice, to discuss what responsibilities fall to her as a shared owner and what the landlord’s responsibilities are.
When considering an appropriate level of compensation for distress and inconvenience, this Service expects landlords not only to take into account the severity of the situation and the length of time involved but also any disabilities or particular vulnerabilities of the resident.
It is unclear exactly when the landlord first became aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, evidence has been seen of:
1. The resident advising the landlord as early as 20 March 2022, that she ‘‘suffers with her mental health and finds these things hard sometimes’’.
2. The landlord being contacted by the resident on 17 August 2022 giving consent for her support worker to speak to the landlord on her behalf.
3. The resident contact the landlord again on 1 December 2022, advising that she had ‘‘limited capacity for making decisions’’ and that her dad was her main point of case.
4. An internal landlord email of 16 January 2024, seen by this Service, which notes that the resident’s Help to Buy (HTB) application stated that the resident had a disability and was in receipt of disability allowance.
Given that the landlord had been made aware of multiple occasions of the resident’s vulnerabilities the £150 offered by the landlord for the distress and inconvenience falls well short of a level that would have provided the resident with reasonable redress. To make this right, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £500, bringing the level of compensation for distress and inconvenience to £650.
Overall, whilst the landlord acknowledged its failures in the case and offered the resident compensation for those failures, the level of compensation offered by the landlord with respect of both its acknowledged failure to attend to the defects within its procedures and the distress and inconvenience to the resident was not proportionate to the level of failure. As result a finding of maladministration has been made in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of defects to her property.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

That within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1,500, made up of:
1. £850 for its failure to attend to the defects within its procedures. This is inclusive of the £350 previously offered if this has not already been paid.
2. £650 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident. This is inclusive of the £150 previously offered if this has not already been paid.

Recommendations

It is also recommended that the landlord:
1. Confirm to this Service if there are any outstanding works related to the matters raised in this complaint for which it is responsible. If there are the landlord is to provide the resident with an action plan, with timescales as to when these will be done. If it is the landlord’s position that it is not responsible for these works, it is to provide the resident with an explanation as to why it believes that to be the case.
2. Meets with the resident, and an advocate/support provider of her choice, to discuss what responsibilities fall to her as a shared owner and what the landlord’s responsibilities are.