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

Flagship Housing Group Limited (202440443)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202440443

Flagship Housing Group Limited

31 July 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 handover of the property and the resident’s reports of defects.

Background

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder and shared owner of the property with the landlord since 28 March 2024. The property is a 2 bed semi-detached house, which was built in May 2023. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The landlord explained that the property was a new build covered under the defect liability period (DLP) and the NHBC warranty. During the DLP, which was ending in May 2024, it would liaise with the builder contractor to resolve any defects reported. Additionally, for the first 2 years of the NHBC warranty, the landlord would address any defects relating to poor workmanship or materials used during the build. Following which, and for another 7 years, the NHBC warranty would cover major structural issues such as the foundations or the roof.
  3. The landlord agreed reasonable adjustments with the resident. It said that it would communicate with her via texts and pre book appointments at a time convenient to her. In September 2024 the resident informed the landlord that she was receiving support for anxiety, the landlord then updated its systems to reflect this.
  4. The landlord said that during the property handover, it had identified and agreed the snagging repairs with the developer. It explained that it had trusted the developer would complete the works. It is unclear what repairs were agreed.
  5. The resident purchased the property on 28 March 2024, and on 27 May 2024, the landlord visited her to show her how to use the appliances and services in her property.
  6. From March 2024 onwards, the resident reported several defects to the landlord such as a chipped worktop, damaged doors, paint on walls and surfaces. On 11 June 2024 the landlord carried out the end of defect (EOD) inspection with the resident and the developer. After explaining the purpose of their visit to the resident, they inspected the property, discussed the resident’s defects list and agreed the remedial works with her.
  7. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 29 August 2024. Her complaint was about the property handover and the outstanding defects. She described the inconvenience and the additional cost caused to her because of not being able to fully move in.
  8. Between June 2024 and October 2024, the landlord liaised with the developer to resolve the defects. There were delays in completing the repairs because of the challenges in agreeing the works, missed appointments, cancellations and breakdown in relationships. The resident said she was unhappy with the quality of the repairs done and the developer’s conduct. After discussing the matter with the relevant parties, the landlord appointed a new contractor to complete the agreed repairs. On 4 December 2024, the landlord shared the revised work schedule with the resident, based on the repairs identified at the EOD inspection and the repairs completed by the developer.
  9. In September 2024 the resident informed the landlord that she had raised a claim with the NHBC. The warranty provider said that it was satisfied with the landlord’s handling of the matter. In November 2024 the landlord had further discussions with NHBC about the resident’s claim. It also advised the resident that she could ask for NHBC to inspect the repairs.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 2 October 2024, and said:
    1. After considering the resident’s feedback about the developer’s contractor, it appointed a new contractor for dealing with the repairs. Its new contractor inspected the works on 19 September 2024, it agreed the works and confirmed that it would start the repairs on 28 October 2024.
    2. It found that there were failings with the handover of her property, which lacked quality assurance. It explained that it had raised the issues with the relevant teams to prevent this from reoccurring.
    3. It apologised to the resident and offered to pay £1000 compensation to the resident. It said this was equivalent to:
      1. £250 for the costs occurred by the resident (fuel).
      2. £250 to reflect the impact of its failings on the resident.
      3. £500 as a gesture of goodwill.
  11. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 1 November 2024, because of the landlord’s poor communication, the poor condition of her home and the unresolved defects. She said that the level of compensation did not reflect the distress and financial hardship caused to her.
  12. In November 2024 the landlord continued to liaise with the contractors and the resident to resolve the outstanding repairs. It said that it also agreed to complete works which were not previously agreed.
  13. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 6 December 2024, and said:
    1. The property was empty for 8 months before the resident purchased it, which meant the resident only benefitted from a 10 week DLP. To recognise this, it agreed to extend the period that the resident could raise defects to April 2025.
    2. After inspecting the works in September 2024, it visited the resident with its contractor on 4 November 2024 and agreed an action plan to resolve the issues. The contractor agreed to start the work the following week.
    3. The resident organised her own contractor, who identified 238 snagging repairs, and she asked the landlord to respond to each item listed. It apologised for the delay in providing her with an update on her snagging list. It confirmed that on 4 December 2024, it reviewed the resident’s list and provided her with a response.
    4. It explained the DLP warranty cover, the NHBC warranty, who is responsible for repairing any issues and how long the property is covered for.
    5. It reiterated its finding at the stage 1 of the complaint process and acknowledged that it had failed to satisfy itself that the developer had completed the required works.
    6. The contractor planned to complete the agreed repairs week commencing 13 January 2025.
    7. After reflecting on the resident’s feedback, it reviewed its approaches and introduced steps to prevent the issues from reoccurring. It apologised for its failings and reviewed its compensation offer. It offered to pay £4550 compensation to the resident. The compensation was equivalent to:
      1. £1500 to reflect the challenges faced by the resident because of its actions.
      2. £2600 to cover 50% of her rent charges for 10 months.
      3. £450 to cover the cost the resident incurred by organising her own contractor.
  14. In January 2025, the contractor informed the resident that they would complete the repairs by the end of March 2025. The contractors completed several repairs, but the resident remained dissatisfied with the condition of her property. She was especially unhappy about the repairs to her kitchen and the bath panel. Both parties confirmed that the repairs to the kitchen were ongoing. The resident said she did not consider the repairs to the bath panel satisfactory, but the landlord said that it has taken reasonable steps to resolve the matter. The resident shared with us that she had raised a NHBC claim about the defects at her property and the insurer was in communication with the landlord about it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident reported that the situation had significantly impacted on her mental health. We can consider the impact that the issues raised have had on her, and whether the landlord acted reasonably. However, we cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions may have contributed to or exacerbated any physical and/or mental health issues. These are legal aspects better suited to a personal injury claim or court.
  2. We recognise that the resident reported she incurred additional costs because of not being able to fully move into her property. We will not make a decision on the resident’s costs because it is outside our remit to assess damages. We cannot draw conclusions on negligence nor the causation of, or liability for damages. This would be usually dealt with either as an insurance claim or through the courts. However, we can look at how the landlord dealt with the resident’s request for damages.
  3. We understand the property is a new build and under warranty, namely the DLP and the NHBC warranty. The DLP ended in April 2025 and the NHBC warranty will end in June 2035. We understand that the resident has raised a claim with NHBC about the defects in her property. We cannot draw conclusions on the action, lack of actions and decisions of an insurer. Complaints concerning insurance claims are not within our jurisdiction. This is because the insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s actions.
  4. However, our role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and whether the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the handover of the property and the resident’s reports of defects.

  1. We appreciate that as the resident had moved into a new build property, she would have been disappointed that the defects occurred. This would have affected her new home experience. However, we recognise that, from time to time, there will be defects which may not have been found during the handover of the property. In such cases, the DLP and the warranties in place offer some protection to shared owners. The existence of a defect alone would not constitute a failure on the part of the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s website says that during the DLP it will support residents and communicate with the developer to resolve any defects. It describes on its website that defects result from poor workmanship, the design, or a fault with the part or materials used during the build. It clarifies that this excludes damage caused by wear and tear or the resident. During the DLP the landlord will expect the developer to put right any qualifying defects. Additionally, the NHBC warranty offers a resolution service to help residents resolve issues with the developer.
  3. In this case, the resident’s property was handed over to the landlord in May 2023 and had a defect liability period of 12 months. We understand that, in agreement with the relevant parties, the landlord extended the DLP to April 2025. It explains that this was to reflect that the resident purchased her property in March 2024, and only had 10 weeks to report defects before the original DLP expired. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and showed that it was keen to treat the resident fairly.
  4. We understand that for the duration of the resident’s formal complaint about the service she had received, the property remained under the DLP. As such the landlord was to liaise with the developer to resolve any qualifying defects reported by the resident. This was so it could ensure that the repairs were appropriately managed, completed to a satisfactory standard and within a reasonable amount of time.
  5. We understand that, from its own admission during the complaint process, the landlord failed to adequately inspect the property for defects when the developer handed the property over. It explained that it identified some repairs during the handover inspection, but it failed to monitor the repairs to completion. This was unreasonable by the landlord, it should have ensured that the identified defects had been correctly remedied.
  6. Additionally, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect the property for new defects before the resident moved in. This is because the property had been void for several months prior to the resident purchasing it. The landlord’s failings to adequately inspect for defects caused inconvenience to the resident, who had to report issues as soon as she moved in. Those were also missed opportunities to resolve the matters prior to the resident moving in.
  7. The landlord said that when residents complete the purchase of their property, it offers them a home familiarisation session on their completion date. The purpose of the session is to demonstrate to them how to use the appliances and services in the property.
  8. In this case, the landlord said that the resident was not available for the session on the day she completed the purchase of her home. We recognise that the landlord rebooked the session for May 2024, but it did not explain the delay of 2 months to do this. This was unreasonable by the landlord, it should have promptly rebooked the home familiarisation session with the resident. The resident had to rely on her neighbours to show her how “things worked”, which was unfair to her. Its delay in doing this contributed to the resident feeling ignored.
  9. We understand that the resident reported defects as soon as she took ownership of the property in March 2024. We acknowledge that once the landlord became aware of the issues, it promptly completed repairs it was responsible for, such as, the hot water. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord.
  10. The landlord completed the EOD inspection with the developer and the resident on 11 June 2024. We understand this was 10 weeks after the resident started reporting defects to the landlord. However, it is normal practice for landlords and developers to wait until the EOD inspection to confirm and address any reported defects. In this case, the landlord acted reasonably and actively booked the EOD inspection when the DLP was ending.
  11. The evidence shows that the landlord promptly and adequately liaised with the developer and the relevant contractors to address the defects reported by the resident. We understand that there were delays in agreeing the work schedule with the developer. However, the landlord showed that it correctly involved the employer’s agent (EA) when negotiating the work schedule with the developer. The EA is an independent adviser who can help resolve disagreements between landlords and developers. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and in keeping with its obligations.
  12. We recognise that once the developer addressed the defects, there were missed appointments, disagreements on the works, issue with the standard of the repairs and a breakdown in the relationship between the developer and the resident. Those issues clearly impacted resolving the repairs, however, those were out of the landlord’s control. The evidence shows that the landlord acted correctly as the intermediary between both parties. It communicated with them on the nature of the repairs, the work schedule and coordinated the repairs appointments. It also updated the resident on the repairs progress and raised any issues she reported with the developer. This was reasonable by the landlord and in keeping with its obligations under the DLP.
  13. Additionally, the landlord showed that when the resident raised issues, it promptly raised the matter with the developer. For example, on 5 August 2024, the resident queried whether the developer’s contractor was due at the property, the landlord immediately contacted the developer for confirmation. It then informed the resident on who would attend the repair appointment. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, it adequately acted as an intermediary between the resident and the developer.
  14. We understand that the relationship between the developer and the resident broke down. In agreement with the relevant parties, the landlord appointed a new contractor to complete the works. On 4 November 2024, the landlord visited the resident and agreed the outstanding repairs. This was reasonable by the landlord. We recognise that seeking a new contractor and getting new quotes would have taken time and further delayed the repairs. However, this was out of the landlord’s control. Its actions showed that it had considered the resident’s feedback and was keen to support her in resolving the matters.
  15. We understand that in June 2024, the resident provided the landlord with a list of defects identified by her own contractor. While we understand the parties agreed the works during the EOD inspection, in October 2024, the landlord also agreed to review the resident’s defects list and respond to each item.
  16. In November 2024 the landlord explained that it was taking longer than expected to provide her with a response to her defects list. On 4 December 2024 it shared the work schedule with the resident, including the date of the repairs appointments. While it was reasonable for the landlord to do this, it should have provided a response to the resident’s query sooner. Especially as it had been addressing some of the defects reported by the resident since June 2024. The delay in providing a copy of the agreed works to the resident, caused her inconvenience because she had to chase the landlord for a response.
  17. We understand the resident feels that the landlord had not always responded to her communications. Overall, the landlord has showed that it had remained in communications with the resident since the issues started. We recognise that the landlord did not always provide the resident with a call back as agreed but those occasions were fewer in numbers compared to when it responded promptly or updated the resident. We also recognise that at times, it took several attempts for the landlord to get the information sought by the resident from the other parties. Overall, the landlord effectively communicated with and updated the resident.
  18. Between October 2024 and January 2025, the landlord liaised with the resident and the contractor about the repairs. In its stage 2 complaint, the landlord said that its newly appointed contractor would complete the repairs in January 2025. On 11 December 2024 the resident agreed to meet the landlord and the contractor at the property on 13 January 2025, to review the progress of the repairs. On 13 January 2025 the parties met and agreed the outstanding works. The contractor informed the resident it would complete the works by the end of March 2025. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, which acted as an intermediatory in keeping with its obligations under the EDL period.
  19. Since January 2025 the landlord has continued to be the intermediary between the resident and the contractors. We recognise that the evidence shows that cancelled appointments, disagreement on the works and the standard of repairs further delayed completing the repairs.
  20. However, we are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of the matters beyond its stage 2 complaint response as it has not had the opportunity to do so itself, through its internal complaints procedure. Additionally, we understand that the resident has raised a claim with NHBC because she is dissatisfied with the standard of repairs such as the repairs to her bathroom. She is also unhappy that some of the repairs she reported were not considered defects. We cannot comment on those issues as those are matters for the insurers to investigate and respond to.
  21. In summary, it is evident from the evidence we have seen that the landlord has rectified some of the defects reported by the resident. However, the evidence also shows that the landlord did not adequately inspect the property for defects when it took the property over. There were delays in showing to the resident how to use the appliances in her home and in sharing the agreed work schedule with the resident. We also recognise that the repairs did not go to plan, and this caused significant inconvenience and distress to the resident. However, the landlord showed that it remained an intermediary between the resident and the developer, in keeping with its obligations under the property warranties.
  22. We understand that during the complaint process, the resident informed the landlord that she incurred additional costs because of the delay in moving into her property. During the complaint process, the landlord offered the resident compensation for her “out of pocket” expenses. For example, it offered to cover the cost of fuel for traveling to and from her parent’s home. It also offered to pay for her contractor’s fee, compensation towards her rent and compensation to reflect the challenges she faced. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, it showed that it considered the resident’s requests for compensation.
  23. During the complaint process, the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered £4550 compensation to the resident. After considering the evidence of the case, it is our opinion that the landlord’s total offer reflected the failings identified. Therefore, we determine that, in all circumstances of the case, the level of compensation amounts to reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident in relation to her complaint about its handling of the handover of the property and the subsequent reports of defects prior to investigation which, in our opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This results in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord pay £4550 compensation it offered to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response if it has not already paid it.