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

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited (202300166)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300166

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited

19 May 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 the resident’s defects reports.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of a 3-bedroom ground-floor flat. His lease began in December 2021. His landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident bought the property as a newly built home in 2021. The property had a defect liability period, meaning the developer was responsible for addressing any defects identified in the first 12 months.
  3. The End of Defects inspection (EOD) concluded in November 2022, during which the resident reported issues with the heating system, the front door, and other defects not investigated in our report. We do not have records of when he first reported his concerns, but the landlord and the resident confirmed that it was before the EOD inspection.
  4. On 15 February 2023, the resident complained to the landlord, stating that the landlord had not taken the issue seriously despite his ongoing concerns about the heating malfunctioning for almost a year. In its stage 1 response on 8 March 2023, the landlord said it had been discussing the heating issue with the developer, who confirmed that Building Regulators had signed off the heating system as compliant. Still, the developer had agreed to carry out further investigations. The landlord also confirmed:
    1. it had commissioned an independent heat loss survey in January 2023 which was given to the developer and a meeting was held on 3 March 2023
    2. the developer had agreed to install large capacity radiators and would carry out further investigations into the building’s fabric by conducting a thermal imaging survey
    3. the developer acknowledged that its response had been delayed and would contact the resident regarding other defects
    4. the landlord offered £300 as a goodwill gesture for the resident’s experience
  5. On 11 March 2023, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the response, saying that the compensation offered did not ‘even begin to scratch the surface’. He mentioned that a heat loss survey had been completed but he had not received the results. Additionally, he reported that the front door did not fit well and needed adjusting.
  6. From 12 March 2023 to 19 May 2023, the resident continued to report the defects to the landlord, including additional defects not included in our investigation. On 26 May 2023 the landlord confirmed it would instruct its contractor to quote to upgrade the radiators and to repair the front door.
  7. On 31 May 2023, the landlord issued an additional stage 1 response. It said it was waiting for the developer’s thermal imaging results. Although the developer assured it would do the defect work, the landlord noted that it had not received further communication. The landlord recognised the absence of a resolution and offered £150 as a goodwill gesture for its management of the resident’s case.
  8. On 13 June 2023, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2, citing the landlord’s lack of communication, the outstanding defects, and the level of compensation offered.
  9. We know that the resident had other complaints with the landlord at that time. The resident agreed to merge his complaints into a single appeal hearing on 4 July 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged that the defect issues at the property had impacted the resident. It confirmed it planned to take the necessary actions to complete the outstanding works, including:
    1. upgrading the radiators
    2. resolving the draught to the front door
    3. the landlord offered an additional £150 to acknowledge that the heating issue (and other issues not included in this investigation) remained unresolved.
  10. In December 2023, the resident asked us to investigate his complaint. He said that he was unhappy with the level of compensation offered, considering the stress he had experienced for 2 years. He also wanted the defects to be resolved.

Events after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. On 28 March 2024, the landlord informed the resident that following investigations conducted by both the landlord and the developer, it was found that latent defects were present, impacting the thermal efficiency of the property. This included the omission of cavity wall insulation ducting (in addition to the insufficient radiators).
  2. The landlord confirmed that the cavity wall insulation was completed in September 2023, the radiators in November 2023 and offered a further compensation payment of £800 to recognise an increased use of heating and the inconvenience caused over a 2-year period. The total compensation offered was £1400. The landlord also confirmed that the front door was repaired on 25 July 2023.

Assessment and finding

  1. The property was purchased as a new build in 2021, and the resident had a 12-month defect liability period. It is undisputed that during these 12 months, the developer was responsible for addressing any identified defects. Meanwhile, the landlord’s primary role was to communicate with the developer on behalf of the resident. Although there was no established defects policy, the landlord was still required to actively monitor the progress of repairs and address any delays in rectification by the developer.
  2. As a shared owner, the resident has a contractual relationship with the landlord and not directly with the developer which places a duty on the landlord to act in the resident’s interests. This includes:
    1. actively ensuring any unresolved defects were followed up
    2. pursuing the developer where commitments were not being met and
  3. Our Spotlight Report on Leasehold, Shared Ownership, and New Builds 2023 reinforces this position. It highlights that landlords must adopt a proactive approach to defect management and stresses the need for clear accountability, early intervention, and robust monitoring of defect resolution.
  4. An EOD was carried out in November 2022, near the end of the defect liability period, where the resident raised several issues, most notably:
    1. an inadequate heating system, which reportedly failed to heat the property effectively
    2. a draughty front door which the resident stated was ill-fitting and let in cold air
  5. It is unclear when the resident initially reported the defects, but it is agreed that this occurred prior to the EOD inspection. Although the issues were noted again in November 2022 during that inspection, the defects were not resolved promptly.
  6. The defect liability period ended in December 2022. In January 2023, the landlord attempted to engage the developer via email to complete the outstanding work; however, the developer neither responded to nor addressed these requests, which contributed to the delays.  
  7. In his complaint from February 2023, the resident reported that his heating system had been inadequate for nearly a year and that he had also highlighted an unresolved defect with the front door. Despite these issues, the developer had not taken effective action to address them. Our Spotlight Report – A New Lease of Life (2020) emphasises that landlords must take responsibility and cannot use developers as an excuse for inaction or delays.
  8. In its internal records dated 2 March 2023 the landlord noted that the developer acknowledged its defect response times had been ‘problematic’ and that it had raised the defects with third-party contractors to ‘complete and the cost would be deducted out of monies held in retention’. The ongoing delay in resolving these matters highlighted the need for the landlord take prompt and effective action to address the defects, which it has failed to do in this case.
  9. On 8 March 2023, the landlord issued its first stage 1 response, indicating that it had communicated with the developer. It acknowledged the landlord’s slow response but said the developer had committed to completing the work. The landlord assured the resident it would continue to meet with the developer to monitor progress. The landlord also said the developer planned to conduct a thermal imaging survey to assess the building’s thermal efficiency.
  10. Although the developer had confirmed it would upgrade the radiators, it delayed doing so to complete a thermal imaging survey. The delay was outside of the landlord’s control. Despite the developer’s intention to upgrade the radiators, they opted to delay this work for further assessment, leading to heightened frustration for the resident. It is worth noting that the thermal imaging surveys should not have impeded the installation of the new radiators, as both activities could have been conducted concurrently.
  11. The landlord assured in its stage 1 response that progress would be monitored. It also reported that in a meeting held in March 2023, it communicated to the developer its instruction to third parties to carry out the necessary works. Additionally, it mentioned its intention to recoup the costs from retained funds. However, this assurance did not materialise. As a result, the resident continued to experience ongoing delays. Considering the persistent issues and the developer’s inadequate response, it was important for the landlord to address the defects directly to ensure the resident’s defects were resolved promptly. The landlord’s continued efforts, without the execution of immediate measures, only extended the resident’s dissatisfaction and negatively impacted his thermal comfort.
  12. On 24 March 2023, the landlord said it would instruct a contractor to upgrade the radiators, addressing what was identified as an ‘immediate concern.’ It is unclear why this was not done earlier, as the landlord had committed on 2 March 2023 to instructing third-party contractors to complete the works.
  13. On 31 May 2023, the landlord issued a second stage 1 complaint response. While this response demonstrated a more reflective approach, it confirmed that the defects remained unresolved 5 months after the defect liability period had ended. Although the landlord accepted its failures and outlined some intended actions to resolve the heating issue and the front door defect, it did not provide clear timescales to resolve either.
  14. The landlord accepted responsibility for obtaining quotes to carry out the works in March 2023. We have used the landlord’s repair policy to consider how the works were managed from that point onwards. The landlord’s repair policy confirms that urgent repairs, such as heating failures, should be resolved within 7 to 14 working days, while non-urgent issues should be addressed within 20 working days.
  15. Despite acknowledging its lack of proactivity in its stage 1 response in May 2023, the situation was not progressed effectively. After agreeing to take responsibility for the defects, the response to resolve them was not timely:
    1. the landlord committed to installing the radiators on 24 March 2023, but they were not completed until 7 November 2023, 158 working days later. This delay was not in accordance with the landlord’s report that it was an ‘immediate concern’ and went against its policy of addressing heating issues within 7 to 14 days
    2. the landlord’s repair request for the front door was submitted on 26 May 2023 but it was not fixed until 25 July 2023, 41 working days later. According to the landlord’s repair policy, urgent repairs, such as those involving security and weatherproofing, are prioritised. Consequently, it would be reasonable to expect that this issue be addressed within 7 to 14 days, or, at the latest, within 20 working days.
  16. The landlord’s inaction resulted in delays and unnecessary distress for the resident, particularly following the conclusion of the defect period. Despite acknowledging the need for timely resolutions, the landlord’s approach to addressing ongoing issues has compromised the residents’ comfort in his home. The landlord recognised a lack of proactivity in the second stage 1 complaint response and acknowledged failures in communication regarding the status of the defects. However, despite this acknowledgement, there were no tangible improvements for the resident, as issues persisted even after the complaints process was concluded.
  17. The landlord’s management of heating concerns and the overall defect resolution have not met expected standards, especially regarding timeliness, communication, and coordination. Although the final response at stage 2 demonstrated a degree of understanding and a commitment to taking corrective action, the prolonged delay in reaching this resolution caused considerable distress and inconvenience for the resident and affected the comfort of his property. As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s defects reports. 
  18. While the resident’s frustration was evident, the landlord offered compensation of £600 to address the identified failures and the resultant distress and inconvenience. The resident experienced further delays after the completion of the complaints process. Subsequently, on 28 March 2024, the landlord provided additional compensation of £800 for the further distress and inconvenience (including the increase in heating costs during the 2 year period). It confirmed that further latent defects, such as missing cavity wall insulation and ducting, had been identified through investigations despite the property having passed all inspections conducted by the National Housing Building Council (NHBC).
  19. Acknowledging the inconvenience endured over 2 years, the landlord offered an additional £800, thereby increasing the total compensation amount to £1400, which aligns with what we would have ordered for the failures identified. Although this was a positive development, it is unclear why the landlord delayed in providing increased compensation. We have not ordered the landlord to pay more compensation. However, we have ordered the landlord to identify lessons learned from this complaint and provide evidence of service improvements to prevent similar failures in the future.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident complained on 15 February 2023. A stage 1 response was issued on 8 March 2023, 9 working days outside of the 10-working day timeframe.
  2. Despite his evident dissatisfaction expressed in an email dated 11 March 2023, the complaint was not escalated. Consequently, the resident sent additional emails concerning the issues from March to May 2023 before the landlord addressed the matter via the complaints process again in May 2023.
  3. It was unreasonable for the landlord to issue a second stage 1 response on 31 May 2023, instead of escalating the complaint in March 2023. This approach was inconsistent with the landlord’s complaints policy, which defines a 2-stage process, and it fails to adhere to our Complaints Handling Code (the Code), which stipulates that complaints should be escalated promptly when initial responses do not adequately address the concerns raised. Issuing a second stage 1 response resulted in unnecessary delays, caused confusion, and deprived the resident of timely access to stage 2 of the complaints process and a potential resolution.
  4. On 13 June 2023, the resident reiterated his request to escalate his complaint, indicating that the compensation offered was inadequate in relation to the time, effort, and extended inconvenience he had endured. Following the complaints policy, the resident was invited to participate in a stage 2 panel hearing, which allowed him to articulate his concerns in person.
  5. A stage 2 complaint response was issued on 11 July 2023, in which the landlord acknowledged the ongoing issues and said it would provide feedback on the need for more transparent communication regarding the defect process. However, the main issues remained unresolved, and there was no clear timeline for when the matter would be addressed, leaving the resident without a tangible resolution. Due to the further delays after the completion of the complaints process, there was no clear evidence that meaningful learning had occurred or been implemented.
  6. Furthermore, the landlord did not identify any failures in its complaint handling, despite failing to meet the response deadline at stage 1 and failing to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 11 March 2023, which prolonged the complaints process. 
  7. As a result, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, and we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation for:
    1. the delay in issuing a stage 1 response
    2. the failure to escalate the complaint promptly when dissatisfaction was clear
    3. the lack of acknowledgement of its failures in following its policy

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports of defects
    2. the complaint

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. apologised in writing to the resident for the failures we have identified
    2. paid the resident £50 for the time and trouble caused because of its handling of the complaint
    3. this money should be paid directly to the resident
    4. identified all that went wrong in this case, the steps taken to improve the service to residents during the defects process, and how this will prevent similar failures in the future.

Recommendation

  1. Consider establishing a defects policy that details the procedures for reporting and recording defects, as well as the responsibilities of both the landlord and developer. It should also outline timelines for defect resolution and the process for escalation if delays arise.
  2. The landlord should update us on its intention with this recommendation, also within 4 weeks.