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

Connect Housing Association Limited (202230251)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230251

Connect Housing Association Limited

8 January 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:
    1. concerns about its communication regarding:
      1. a fly infestation;
      2. road, curb, and pothole safety issues;
      3. property defects;
      4. grit bins;
      5. maintenance charges.
    2. reports of garden issues;
    3. associated complaints.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident and their partner have been joint shared ownership leaseholders of a house with a garden since November 2021. The property was a new build at the time of their purchase. The resident and their partner communicated with the landlord and its developer both individually and together. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for their household. For the purposes of this report both the resident and their partner are referred to as ‘the resident’.
  2. In October 2021, the resident expressed their concerns to the landlord regarding the unfinished road and curb outside of their property, along with potholes that they said would prevent them from using their parking space. The landlord told the resident that the work to the road would be completed within one week of them moving into the property the following month. On the day that they moved into the property, the resident told the landlord that dead flies were falling through their bathroom fan. In January 2022, the resident expressed their frustration to the landlord that the road issues, fly infestation, and other property defects remained unresolved. The resident highlighted the amount of chasing that was proving necessary, and that they had injured their back falling over the pothole.
  3. In March 2022, the resident told the landlord that their lawn appeared to have been laid on top of rubble and was “boggy”. They asked that the landlord ensure that they were on the same list to have their lawn re-laid that their neighbours were on. The developer carried out some works in the resident’s garden, but the issues persisted. The resident continued to report lawn and associated drainage issues to the landlord up to their second complaint in April 2023.
  4. The resident made their first complaint to the landlord on 2 February 2022. It concerned their ongoing fly infestation, the road issues, and difficulties in getting other defects resolved. They questioned the landlord’s apparent lack of process for handling their reports, and for dealing with the property developer. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 28 February 2022. It accepted that its arrangement with the developer meant that it was often unsure if, or when, issues were addressed and stated its intentions to improve this. It offered the resident £50 compensation. The resident responded to the landlord on 14 March 2022 and explained their ongoing concerns and dissatisfaction. They subsequently disputed that the landlord had advised them of its 2-stage complaint process, or their right to escalation.
  5. The resident made their second complaint to the landlord on 2 February 2023. They emphasised that their main concern was their ongoing garden lawn issues, but their 23 page letter also included the following key points:
    1. They expressed their disappointment with the landlord’s handling of their first complaint.
    2. They said that it had taken from November 2021 to March 2022 for the fly infestation to be resolved, which they had ended up doing directly with the developer.
    3. They stated that the landlord had failed to act on their reports of road and curb issues, nor acknowledged their injury. They said that the issues had only been resolved when the developer had resurfaced the whole road at the end of March 2022.
    4. They said that the landlord had not responded to their queries regarding the monthly “estate service charge” that they paid, and the lack of associated maintenance works.
    5. They said that the landlord had ignored their icy road safety concerns, their report of a car accident, and their request for grit bins to be provided.
    6. They emphasised their considerable time and effort reporting, chasing, and coordinating outstanding works with the developer, and the landlord’s lack of support.
  6. The landlord issued its second stage 1 response to the resident on 10 March 2023. It “partially upheld” most elements. It acknowledged that the resident had spent undue time and effort chasing defects and issues. It offered the resident £500 compensation. The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 on 27 March 2023. They disputed many of the landlord’s points and asked that it “do what is right” regarding their garden. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 19 April 2023. It confirmed that it had offered to pay for the resident’s lawn to be returfed.
  7. On 29 April 2023, the resident sent the landlord a contractor’s quotation for returfing their lawn. Over the course of May and June 2023, the landlord disputed elements of the quotation to the resident. The landlord and resident were unable to reach an agreement on the matter, and so the landlord instead offered the resident £500 towards their garden costs (it subsequently clarified that this was in addition to its £500 compensation offer). In July 2023, the resident objected to the landlord’s terminology and insistence that its offer would only be paid if the resident signed a ‘full and final settlement’ document. Both parties have since confirmed that the landlord’s compensation and garden cost offers were not paid. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the matters raised in their complaint to the landlord, and they confirmed that their garden remained the primary issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident is aware that the Ombudsman is unable to determine liability for the injury that they sustained falling over the pothole. Matters of liability require a legally binding decision, which the Ombudsman’s are not. The resident has therefore been advised that the matter would be more appropriately handled as a personal injury claim via an insurer, who would have access to medical experts and the courts if required. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, which states that we may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated reports.

Agreement, policies, and procedures

  1. The resident’s lease stated that they had “the normal responsibilities of a full owner”. It said that this included “to keep the property in good and substantial repair and condition. This was further explained in the pre-sale brochure that the landlord provided to the resident, which stated “Although you are buying a share in the property, you will be responsible for all maintenance and repairs to your property”.
  2. The landlord’s 2022 leasehold management policy explained its “key standards” for leaseholders. It said that it would respond to “leaseholder enquiries about any leasehold matter within 10 working days in a way that is clear and easy to understand”.
  3. The leasehold management policy did not refer to new builds or defects. The landlord was asked to provide any separate relevant policy, but it told us that it did not currently have one. It said that it was considering implementing a new homes defects policy, but it was awaiting clarity regarding the New Homes Ombudsman Service (launched in October 2022). It further explained that any property defects reported during the defects period were the responsibility of the developer. It said that it considered it the responsibility of the resident to report defects to the developer directly.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on leasehold, shared ownership, and new builds (the Spotlight Report) was published in September 2020. Regarding new builds, the report emphasised the need for landlords to “be clear with residents at the outset how it will respond both during the defects period and once this has expired.”
  5. Regarding estate works and service charges, the Spotlight Report highlighted the importance of providing residents with “timely and accurate communication”. It further highlighted the need to clearly explain charges “to provide greater transparency.”
  6. The Spotlight Report made a number of recommendations to landlords, which included the following:
    1. “During the defect period residents are reliant on the landlord to pursue the developer. Landlords must pursue these issues effectively on their behalf.”
    2. It stated that clarity should be provided to residents on matters including:
      1. “what might be considered a defect”.
      2. “whose responsibility it is to address problems during the defect period”.
      3. “how to report a defect and how the landlord will respond”.
      4. “how to raise concerns if they are not happy with the level of service provided.”
      5. “the process for resolving any outstanding dispute between the resident and the developer at the end of the defect period.”

Concerns about its communication

  1. Landlords will generally have less authority or leverage dealing with developers than they would with their own contractors. The Ombudsman acknowledges the challenges that this can present to both landlords and residents. It was in part for this reason that the Ombudsman published the Spotlight Report, which included the recommendations and best practice referred to above.
  2. It was not disputed that the landlord failed to act in line with this best practice, nor that it often failed to provide clear responses within 10 working days in line with its own leasehold management policy. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s lack of defects process was a significant contributory factor in the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s concerns about its communication for the issues considered below.

Fly infestation

  1. The landlord’s handling, and lack of action, for the resident’s reports of a fly infestation was poor. The resident made their first report about this to the landlord on 18 November 2021, the day they moved into the property. They described, and subsequently provided photographs, of dozens of dead or dying flies falling through their bathroom fan from the roof space.
  2. The landlord’s poor record keeping meant that much of the information about the fly infestation has had to come from the resident’s own records. The resident said that, after the landlord had failed to respond to them over the remainder of November 2021, they went directly to the developer. The developer attended twice in December 2021, and confirmed the infestation.
  3. However, in early January 2022, the developer denied to the resident that it was responsible for resolving the infestation, and it referred them to the landlord. Over the following week, the evidence demonstrated the landlord’s reluctance to accept any responsibility for the matter. It was only after the resident persisted, and provided a copy of their initial report of the issue to the landlord from 18 November 2021, that it accepted that the infestation had occurred prior to them moving in.
  4. On 27 January 2022, the resident expressed their understandable frustration to the landlord that, after more than 2 months, no progress had been made and that they were still living with the deeply unpleasant infestation. The resident’s same email also raised some of the other issues considered below. It specifically highlighted the sheer volume of emails and chasing that had (and continued to be) necessary, and it questioned the landlord’s processes and timescales. It was therefore wholly unreasonable that the landlord simply forwarded the resident’s email to the developer the following day and asked it to follow it up. In doing so, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
  5. The resident made their first complaint to the landlord the following month. The landlord’s first stage 1 response on 28 February 2022 accepted that it had taken too long to address the infestation. It noted that treatments had since been completed, and that the issue was close to being resolved. However, the landlord has failed to evidence that it dealt effectively with the developer on the resident’s behalf, nor that it kept them informed. As such, it was understandable that the resident’s response to the landlord, in mid-March 2022, highlighted how little it had done, and their feeling that they had been left to resolve the infestation with the developer themselves.

Road, curb, and pothole safety issues

  1. The resident’s reports about road, curb, and pothole safety issues were raised from the month prior to them moving into their property in November 2021. At that time, the landlord advised that the road, curb, and pothole issues would be resolved shortly after they moved in. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord was acting on information from the developer.
  2. As above, it is acknowledged that the landlord’s influence over the developer’s works schedules would have been limited. Nonetheless, it would still be expected that the landlord would advocate for the resident and keep them appropriately informed. However, the evidence shows that the landlord regularly failed to do this.
  3. The resident’s contact with the landlord, referred to above on 27 January 2022, was their first report of the pothole trip and injury. They highlighted the number of times that they had reported the road and curb issues over the previous months without resolution, which continued into March 2022. They subsequently described their requests for a ramp, or other temporary measures, to allow them to use their parking space. The resident said that their requests were ignored, and the landlord has failed to demonstrate otherwise.
  4. At the end of March 2022, the resident confirmed that the issue had been resolved. However, they highlighted that this had only occurred when the developer had resurfaced the entire road, rather than from any support received from the landlord with their specific reports.
  5. Following their January 2022 report, the resident referred to their injury from falling over the pothole again in their contacts with the landlord in February and March 2022. They described the impact on their employment, and associated loss of earnings. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident in an empathetic and timely manner. It would be expected that it would offer the resident advice regarding making a personal injury claim and provide them with the developer’s and its own insurance details. The landlord has failed to evidence that it even acknowledged the resident’s injury report, and therefore it acted unreasonably.

Property defects

  1. It was not disputed by the landlord that the resident spent an “unreasonable amount of time chasing defects and issues”, and that “simple issues took an unacceptable time to resolve”. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for this. However, the conflict between the appropriate learning that the landlord took from the resident’s complaints, and its stated position, was apparent.
  2. The landlord’s 2023 complaint responses took little responsibility, and largely focused on how let down both it, and the resident, had been by the developer. The landlord stated its belief that it had appropriately handled matters with the developer on the resident’s behalf, but it accepted that the resident “did not receive regular updates on what was happening which meant you were unaware of the efforts being made to resolve the issues.” It otherwise largely attributed responsibility for any service failings to the developer, and “partially upheld” the resident’s complaints on this basis.
  3. This contrasted with the landlord’s acceptance in early 2022 that it lacked the processes or record keeping to effectively manage the resident’s reports, and that it expected them to liaise directly with the developer. It is reasonable to conclude that this continued, as the landlord came to the same conclusions one year later, which was further evident in its lack of defect report records.
  4. Following the conclusion of the defects period in July 2022, the landlord did demonstrate its more robust efforts to deal with the developer. From that time, through to the conclusion of the resident’s second complaint 9 months later, it escalated matters to the developer’s most senior level. Nevertheless, as the landlord acknowledged, it regularly failed to update or respond to the resident in line with the timeframes of its leasehold management policy, or often at all.
  5. The landlord’s failure to appropriately handled the resident’s defect reports, nor keep them reasonably informed, again caused significant time, trouble, and distress to the resident over a prolonged period.

Grit bins

  1. The resident said that, during frosty weather at the beginning of January 2023, cars had been seen skidding on the road outside their property, and a neighbour’s car had skidded off the road into a garden. They said that their neighbour had reported this to the landlord at the time, but they had said that they received no response. As such, the resident expressed their own concerns about the matter to the landlord on 27 January 2023.
  2. The landlord’s leasehold management policy stated that it would respond to leaseholder queries within 10 working days. It is acknowledged that the resident’s second stage 1 complaint of 2 February 2023 was made only 4 working days after they had expressed their icy road concerns. Their complaint queried the lack of grit bins that would allow residents to treat the road.
  3. The landlord’s second stage 1 response was issued 30 working days after the resident’s original icy road query on 10 March 2023. The factors that contributed to the delay in the landlord issuing the resident its stage 1 response have been considered in the complaint handling assessment below.
  4. The landlord’s second stage 1 response explained its understanding that the local authority would ultimately become responsible for providing grit bins, but that the resident was welcome to use the ones outside of the developer’s office in the meantime. The resident’s reply pointed out that there were no grit bins outside the developer’s office, and that they had already approached the local authority, which had advised them the opposite of the landlord’s advice. The landlord’s stage 2 response repeated its stage 1 position on the matter, and it provided a link to relevant information on the local authority’s website.
  5. The Ombudsman is unable to establish whether grit bins were available at the developer’s office. In either case, the landlord’s delayed response to the resident would have caused them frustration. The landlord may have viewed its 10-working-day response time to the resident’s original report as having been superseded once they made their formal complaint 4 working days later.
  6. Nonetheless, the resident’s query raised a safety concern and was time sensitive with further icy conditions forecasted. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to provide them with a timely response, independent of their complaint, which it failed to do.

Maintenance charges

  1. On 4 January 2022, the resident asked the landlord whether trees were due to be planted at their end of the estate, and whether their monthly “service charge” went towards this. The landlord has failed to evidence that it answered their query.
  2. The landlord visited the resident in May 2022 to discuss their ongoing dissatisfaction. The resident said that, at the visit, they had raised their concern that some areas of nearby land were not being maintained. They said that they had queried whether this should be covered by their monthly “service charge”. They said that the landlord had advised that it would investigate the matter and come back to them.
  3. On 17 May 2022, the landlord told the resident that its “initial view is that they are unowned estate land, and should be maintained as part of the estate service charge”, but that it needed to confirm this. The landlord’s internal communications 2 days later said that maintenance of the land in question was “tenant responsibility”.
  4. The landlord has failed to evidence that it got back to the resident following its visit to them, and their February 2023 complaint referred to their frustration at this. Their complaint further queried what they received for the “service charge”, as they reported very little grounds maintenance work was being done.
  5. The landlord’s second stage 1 response to the resident said that the unmaintained land may be its responsibility, but that it would need to investigate further. It again “partially upheld” that element of their complaint on the basis it had not previously responded to them. The resident’s stage 2 escalation request highlighted their frustration that the matter remained unresolved after so long. It further pointed out that the landlord had still not told them what their “service charge” was for.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident said that it had originally intended that the land in question would be maintained by the neighbouring tenants. It accepted that that “approach appears to be optimistic”. It said that it would look again, but that “any costs for this work have not been, or will not be, part of your service charge since they are not part of the communal land which it covers”. The landlord’s continued failure to tell the resident what the charge did in fact cover would have been very frustrating for them after 15 months of asking.
  7. The landlord subsequently told us that it does not have any grounds maintenance areas on the estate, and as such the resident “does not pay a service charge”. This contradicted its previous advice to the resident, including in its stage 2 response. It further stated that maintenance of the communal land in question was the responsibility of the tenants of its adjacent properties. The landlord told us that the resident does pay an “estate management fee”, but that it is invoiced to them directly from the “management company”. It said that, as such, it was “not responsible for the ground maintenance or service charge matters”.
  8. The landlord’s untimely, unclear, and often conflicting advice to the resident would likely have appeared evasive and caused them significant frustration. The chasing that they found necessary, only to still be unable to get a clear response from the landlord, would have added to their already considerable time, trouble, and distress.

Concerns about its communication conclusion

  1. The landlord’s failings caused significant and undue time, trouble, and distress to the resident over a prolonged period. While the landlord did offer the resident redress for this, it is the view of the Ombudsman that it was not proportionate to their experience. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made.
  2. The landlord offered the resident a combined £550 compensation over the course of their 2 complaints (£50 and £500, respectively). It did not explain to them how it had arrived at that figure, and it did not offer a breakdown of it relative to the multiple issues they had raised. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s offer covered all the matters considered above, as well as the garden issue separately assessed below.
  3. The Ombudsman has therefore made a further compensation order of £750 for the maladministration identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its communication, and we have ordered the landlord to issue a further apology. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards in this range where “there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident”.
  4. The landlord is also ordered to write to the resident to advise what their monthly ‘estate charge’ is, and what they receive for it, “in a way that is clear and easy to understand”, in line with its own leasehold management policy.
  5. The Ombudsman has further ordered that the landlord will review the pre and post-sale information that it provides to residents about charges. The review must consider the relevant best practice detailed in the Spotlight Report, and the landlord must write to us with its findings.

Garden

  1. The resident first reported lawn issues to the landlord on 22 March 2022. They described it as “patchy, boggy, and has not taken properly”. They subsequently explained that much of the grass had died, and that there were areas covered in slime where insects were breeding. They said that they had therefore dug this area up and found that the lawn had been laid on top of rubble and builder’s waste.
  2. Following some communication delays while the resident was unwell in early April 2022, the landlord appropriately assured them that it was chasing the developer about the garden. The resident explained the works that they had done and paid for themselves to ready the garden for being returfed. They expressed their frustration at the lack of progress and contact from the developer. The landlord visited the resident the following month. It has not provided any record of the visit, but it was subsequently not disputed that it had told the resident that it would pay for their garden to be returfed if the developer did not do it.
  3. On 21 June 2022, the resident confirmed to the landlord that the developer had completed repairs in their garden. However, the following month the resident told the landlord that, despite the heatwave at the time, there were sections of ground that never dried out. They expressed their frustration that they had chased many times, but they had still received no confirmation of when their front and back gardens would be returfed (a number of other issues were raised at the same time). The landlord’s response to the resident the next day did not specifically refer to the garden, but it did advise that it had further chased the developer.
  4. On 14 July 2022, the resident updated the landlord on their efforts with the developer (they subsequently stated that they had been pursuing the developer directly due to the lack of contact or progress by the landlord). They described their deflation that, after much chasing, the developer had attended and told them that everything needed to be dug up again, as the garden drainage was inadequate.
  5. The landlord replied on the same day and told the resident that it was still pursuing matters, but that the developer had stated it would not returf their back garden due to the works that the resident had already done to it. The resident expressed their dissatisfaction with this, and reminded the landlord that it had said it would returf their garden if the developer did not.
  6. At the same time, the landlord separately told the resident it would arrange a drainage camera survey. The resident chased the landlord for an update of when the survey would take place 1 month later, but the landlord has failed to evidence that it responded. The resident chased again in early September 2022. The survey took place later that month and confirmed that the drains were in an acceptable condition.
  7. As above, the landlord did evidence its more robust handling of matters with the developer around this period, which included the resident’s garden. However, as it later accepted, it failed to keep the resident appropriately informed of its actions, which would have further added to their time, trouble, and distress.
  8. In mid-December 2022, the resident recapped the garden matters to the landlord regarding its agreement to pay for the rear to be returfed. They said that the landlord had asked them to put it on hold until the developer attended in case the garden needed digging up a third time. They said that, after the developer’s attendance, they had sought quotations but, as no contractor had availability, the returfing had to be postponed until the spring. They highlighted that, since that time, it had become apparent that the garden drainage issues persisted, and a new lawn would die in the standing water. They advised of their preference to instead seek quotations for artificial turf, but they asked if the landlord wished to pursue the drainage with the developer.
  9. The landlord evidenced that it raised the matter with the developer, but it again failed to demonstrate that it had responded to the resident. Having heard nothing further, the resident went to the time and trouble of obtaining a quotation for artificial turf, which they sent to the landlord on 10 January 2023.
  10. The landlord responded the same day and told the resident that the developer would rotavate their back garden to help with the drainage. The resident said that this had already been done on 3 previous occasions. They highlighted that the developer, the landlord’s own surveyor, and a number of landscape gardeners had already advised the significant and expensive works that would be needed to get the ground drainage to a point that it could be successfully turfed. They said that this was why they had suggested artificial turf. They emphasised that they had been without a usable back garden for the 14 months since they moved in, and asked that the landlord progress matters.
  11. The landlord responded to the resident one week later. It stated that artificial grass could create a surface water issue. It said that, once the developer had rotovated the ground, it would cover the cost of turfing it.
  12. The resident made their second stage 1 complaint to the landlord 2 weeks later. They expressed their understandable frustration that the landlord had ignored all the points that they had raised on 10 January 2023, including about standing water and the extent of works needed. They emphasised the significant time, trouble, distress, and cost that they had gone to chasing the landlord and the developer, and in trying to get their garden to a usable condition.
  13. The landlord’s complaint responses emphasised that resolving the resident’s garden issues had been the developer’s responsibility. It explained that the type of issues that the resident had suffered were referred to in the National House Building Council (NHBC) standards. It said that it may be possible for the resident to make a NHBC warranty claim. However, it advised that the more strict NHBC garden standards had only more recently come into effect and were not applicable to the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to grant its permission for the resident to make a claim, but to manage their expectations with its view that it would not be successful.
  14. As above, the landlord’s second stage 1 response offered the resident £500 compensation for the impact of its failings, but did not provide a breakdown of it. The ‘garden’ section of its stage 2 response reiterated that it had “offered to pay for relaying the lawn, and (…) offered £500 for any inconvenience caused”. The landlord maintained that these offers are appropriate and sufficient in the circumstances”, which the Ombudsman would agree with. Our remedies guidance recommends awards in this range where the landlord’s failure has adversely affected the resident.
  15. However, the landlord’s £500 compensation offer had originally appeared to have been intended to cover the full range of issues raised in the resident’s complaint, and not just the garden. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to make a finding of reasonable redress for this, and we have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of garden issues. A separate compensation order of £500 has been made for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of their reports of garden issues, which is again in line with our remedies guidance quoted above. This also recommends awards in this range when the landlord’s offer attempting to put things right was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
  16. Over the following 2 months, the landlord and resident were unable to agree on what works should be included in the returfing quotation. The landlord instead offered a further £500 towards their garden work costs, which the resident initially accepted.
  17. Landlords are unable to prevent residents from referring their complaints to the Ombudsman, and should not make any financial awards contingent on them not doing so. It was therefore unclear why the landlord insisted that the resident must sign a ‘full and final settlement’ document. The resident understandably objected to this, which meant that neither of the landlord’s £500 offers were paid to them. The Ombudsman has therefore further ordered that the landlord pay the resident its previous £500 offer towards their garden costs.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy said that it used the definition of a complaint stated in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which is as follows:

“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.”

  1. The policy stated that the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. It said that it would aim to respond within 10 and 20 working days, at stages 1 and 2, respectively. It explained that, where this was not possible, it may extend these timeframes by up to 10 working days with the agreement of the resident. It said that a resident could request an escalation to stage 2 where they believed that the stage 1 response had “not fully addressed their complaint”. It said that, in such circumstances, residents “are asked to clarify which aspects of the complaint have not yet been resolved.” It stated that the resident should make their escalation request within 21 days of completing stage 1.
  2. The resident made their first stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 2 February 2022. The landlord’s internal emails the following day confirmed that the complaint was logged the day that it was received, and that an acknowledgement had been sent to the resident. However, the emails also stated that “we have 28 days to respond”, which was neither in line with the landlord’s own policy, nor the Code.
  3. The Code was updated in April 2022, and again in April 2024 when it became statutory. The Code in effect at the time of the resident’s first complaint explained what the landlord should confirm in writing “at the completion of each stage of the complaints process”. This was also reflected in the landlord’s policy, and included the following:
    1. “the complaint stage”.
    2. “details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied”.
  4. The landlord provided us with two versions of its stage 1 response to the resident. The first was on an email sent to the resident on 28 February 2022, which was 8 working days later than the 10-working-day timeframe of its policy. The email included the landlord’s complaint reference number, but failed to refer to what stage their complaint was at, nor their right to escalate it to stage 2. It also failed to explain or apologise for the delay in its handling of their complaint.
  5. The second version of the landlord’s stage 1 response provided to us, was a headed letter dated 2 March 2022. The contents of the 2-page letter were identical to the landlord’s earlier emailed response. However, it concluded with an information box, on a separate third page, which advised that the resident’s complaint had completed stage 1, and of their right to escalate it to stage 2.
  6. The resident later strongly disputed that they were ever advised of the landlord’s complaint stages, or of their right to escalate. They stated their belief that the landlord had subsequently added the third page to make it appear otherwise. The Ombudsman is unable to definitively determine from the evidence available what information the landlord provided to the resident.
  7. However, it is not disputed that the resident replied to the landlord’s stage 1 response on 14 March 2022, which was less than the 21 days that was stated in its policy. The resident expressed their ongoing dissatisfaction that jobs remained outstanding, and their “disappointment that the service hasn’t noticeably improved following our formal complaint”. They further highlighted that they did not feel that the landlord’s £50 compensation offer “sufficiently reflects the inconvenience and poor customer service we have experienced over the past 4 months.”
  8. It was significant failing that the landlord did not handle the resident’s response as an escalation request. As a result, it failed to recognise their ongoing expressions of dissatisfaction in line with the Code. The landlord then compounded this one year later during the resident’s second stage 1 complaint. It suggested that it had been the resident’s choice not to escalate their first complaint to stage 2. The resident expressed their understandable objection and frustration at the landlord’s inference. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s first complaint, and its subsequent comments, would have added to their time, trouble, and distress, and were therefore unreasonable.
  9. The resident made their second complaint to the landlord on 2 February 2023. Over the following fortnight, the landlord arranged a meeting with the resident, which they were subsequently unable to make. As such, discussions took place via email. Following this, the landlord discussed an extension to its stage 1 timeframe with the resident. It proposed visiting the resident on 3 March 2023, to coincide with the developer’s works, and issuing its stage 1 response one week later. It confirmed this in writing to the resident on 27 February 2023.
  10. The resident’s complaint letter was very long and multi-faceted. It was therefore somewhat understandable that the landlord felt it necessary to extend the timeframe of its policy. It was also appropriate for the landlord to seek to meet, or otherwise discuss, with the resident the range of issues that they had raised, and to maintain contact through this period. This would have allowed the landlord to better its understanding of the complaint, and to increase the chances of finding a resolution.
  11. It was further appropriate for the landlord to confirm its intentions and revised timescale in writing to the resident. This would have ensured that they were clear about the status of their complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident 26 working days after it had received it, on 10 March 2023, which was in line with its revised timescale. The landlord’s handling of its stage 1 investigation was therefore largely appropriate, albeit well outside of the timeframes stated in its policy.
  12. However, the landlord was unable to answer some of the resident’s points in its stage 1 response, which it deferred to a follow up response issued on 17 March 2023. Given the protracted stage 1 investigation period, it was understandable that this caused the resident frustration, which they expressed in their escalation request on 27 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request the following day, and it issued its stage 2 response 17 working days later. This was in line with its policy and the Code.
  13. As above, the landlord failed to explain or apologise for the delay in its handling of the resident’s first complaint, nor escalate it in line with its policy. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay the resident compensation of £200. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation where the landlord’s failure has adversely affected the resident, and it has failed to acknowledge its failings or make an attempt to put things right.

Record keeping

  1. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide its repair logs or equivalent records relevant to the defects and garden issues raised by the resident. The landlord provided a log of the defects recorded at the end of the defects period in July 2022 (including the garden). It told us that its records for both matters were otherwise “limited due to the reports being made in the defect stage of the build, therefore the developers responsibility”.
  2. As above, the landlord further explained that it considered it to be the resident’s responsibility to “liaise with the developer directly”. It said that, as such, the reports were not logged on its own internal systems. However, the landlord’s position on these matters, as explained to us and the resident, appeared to conflict with the findings of its own investigations of the resident’s complaints.
  3. The landlord’s February 2022 first complaint response to the resident acknowledged the high number of issues they had experienced, and the time being taken by the developer to address them. It accepted that, by leaving it to the developer and resident to liaise directly, it was often unaware of issues or their status. It said that, to resolve this, it had put in place a “single point of contact for you in terms of reporting issues”, so that it would be “aware of all problems, and if issues are not being resolved promptly”.
  4. It would therefore be expected that, having recognised its process failing, the landlord would maintain appropriate records of the resident’s reports from that point onwards. This would have allowed the landlord to monitor the progress of outstanding issues, as it had told the resident that it would. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s failure to do this would have contributed to the further failings identified in the associated assessments above.
  5. The resident raised the same, and further related, issues in their second stage 1 complaint to the landlord one year later. It was notable that the landlord’s subsequent stage 1 investigation reached similar conclusions as it had the previous year. Its March 2023 complaint response to the resident summarised its learning, which included the need for “a process for keeping records of defects and issues for new developments.” Its subsequent complaint learning meeting included the following key points:
    1. “Need for a centralised system and process to record defects/snagging on new build properties”.
    2. “Need for a formal escalation process where defects and snagging are not responded to in reasonable time by the developer”.
    3. “Need for proactive responses when dealing with defects and snagging – i.e. keeping residents up to speed on what action is being taken”.
  6. The landlord’s final complaint response to the resident was issued in April 2023. It confirmed that it had followed its stage 1 recommendation “for a clear policy on dealing with defects and snagging, and…set…a deadline for its production.”
  7. The landlord’s position regarding responsibility for reporting and recording issues during the defects period, as described above, was relayed to us one year later, in April 2024. At the outset of this investigation, the landlord was asked if the new homes defects policy, which it had previously stated it was implementing, was now in effect. The landlord responded to us by providing a further copy of its 2022 leasehold management policy, which it had previously provided. It therefore appears that, despite identifying its process and record keeping failings over 2 years earlier, and its assurances to the resident, the landlord failed to act upon its own learning.
  8. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. An order has been made for the landlord to review its previous learning regarding establishing a process for reporting and recording issues during the defects period. The landlord must consider this alongside the Spotlight Report, and write to the Ombudsman with its findings and intentions.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its communication regarding:
    1. a fly infestation;
    2. road, curb, and pothole safety issues;
    3. property defects;
    4. grit bins;
    5. maintenance charges.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of garden issues.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaints.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was also maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks, the landlord:
    1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
    2. Writes to the resident to provide a clear explanation of what their monthly ‘estate charge’ is, and what they receive for it.
    3. Pays the resident £1,950 total compensation made up of:
      1. £750 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of their concerns about its communication.
      2. £500 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of their reports of garden issues.
      3. £500 that it previously offered towards their garden costs.
      4. £200 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failings identified in its complaint handling.
      5. This amount replaces the landlord’s own compensation award of £50 (if that award was paid to the resident, it should be deducted from the £1,950).
      6. Compensation awarded by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against arrears where they exist.

The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

  1. The Ombudsman further orders that, within 8 weeks, the landlord:
    1. Reviews its previous learning regarding establishing a process for reporting and recording issues during the defects period.
    2. Review the pre and post-sale information that it provides to residents about charges (both reviews must be considered alongside the Spotlight Report).
    3. Writes to the Ombudsman with its findings and intentions.

The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of the date of this report.