Great Places Housing Association (202211622)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211622

Great Places Housing Association

31 October 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. An unsatisfactory kitchen.
   2. Poor drainage in the garden.
   3. The lack of a tap in the garden.

Background

2. The resident has been the shared owner of the property since December 2021.The property is a new-build family home which is jointly owned by the landlord. A third-party company (the developer) built the property. There was a 12-month defect rectification (snagging) period during which the developer had responsibility for dealing with any problems the resident identified.
3. After the resident moved in, he reported various problems at the property and complained formally about the landlord’s response to his reports on 3 March 2022. He said the kitchen did not meet the specification set out in the plans, the garden became waterlogged in wet weather, and there was no outdoor tap as shown in an illustrative drawing on the brochure.
4. The landlord responded on 16 March 2022. It said that the kitchen plans provided were “indicative only”. It had consulted the developer which confirmed that the kitchen conformed to an approved design so it did not accept that there was a problem with it. It said it took the issue of drainage in the garden seriously but explained that the developer could not solve the problem until the Spring. The developer would investigate when the garden had had more time to bed in. It added that the developer had agreed to install an outdoor tap as a gesture of goodwill although it was not part of the property specification.
5. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 16 March 2022. He repeated that the kitchen had been installed incorrectly and said the landlord was not taking the garden drainage issue sufficiently seriously as it should be dealt with immediately. He said he had not been able to wash his cars for 10 weeks and asked when it would install the outside tap.
6. On 30 March 2022, the landlord declined to escalate the complaint as it could not see how further investigation would change its decision. It would continue to press the developer to address the garden drainage issue, but reiterated its previous view that the kitchen was built to a satisfactory standard.
7. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman in August 2022, saying that the kitchen did not conform to the plans and the garden was prone to waterlogging. He said he wanted these and other snags at the property solved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. The resident has raised a number of other concerns about the property (both in his escalation request and subsequently), including mortar stains on brickwork, a poorly fitted window, a damaged gas meter cupboard door, and faulty and mismatching kitchen units. However, there is no evidence that these matters formed part of his original complaint, or that they have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process separately. As the landlord has not yet had a reasonable opportunity to investigate and resolve these matters through its complaints process, they are not considered as part of this investigation (reflected at paragraph 42.a of the Scheme).
9. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of these matters, he may wish to raise a new complaint and refer it to the Ombudsman in due course if necessary. This would then be dealt with as a separate complaint under a new reference number.

Reports of an unsatisfactory kitchen

10. The resident has provided a kitchen plan which he says he received and approved before the kitchen was installed. He says there are various differences in the depth and width of drawers and cupboards as built and in the plan varying by 5cm. The landlord said at stage 1 that this plan was “indicative only” and any differences between the plan and the actual kitchen were minor and therefore acceptable.
11. This Service has seen various copies of the contractor’s plan all of which bear a disclaimer which states that the “plan is offered as a guide only for approval by our customer”. The contractor’s customer is the developer and the developer approved the kitchen. It says the kitchen conforms to one of its approved designs. Therefore, the landlord was correct to say that the resident could not object to the kitchen as built purely on the basis that it differed from the plan. As a result, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Reports of poor drainage in the garden

12. Often, in new build properties, defects which are not obvious at the point of handover become apparent once the occupier moves in. For this reason, shared owners are protected by a warranty period during which the developer is responsible for repairing any defects that become apparent. These defects or “snags” are the responsibility of the developer.
13. The landlord must liaise with the developer, if asked by the resident, to ensure that any snags are remedied. The existence of snags does not constitute a failure in the landlord’s service. The Ombudsman will investigate the landlord’s response to reports of snags to see if these amount to maladministration.
14. The resident first raised the issue of drainage in early 2022 when the developer was still responsible for all snagging works. The records show that the landlord made numerous efforts to contact the developer and asked the resident repeatedly throughout 2022 for evidence to enable it to apply further pressure to elicit a response. The landlord complied with its responsibilities and provided a good service to the resident in that regard.
15. The developer’s initial response was to say that it would investigate in the Spring when the garden had bedded in. This was not an unreasonable suggestion and no fault attaches to the landlord for agreeing with this approach.
16. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 10 April 2022 asking for “details of how the rear garden drainage system is to be carried out to my satisfaction”. At this point, the landlord’s role was to continue passing the resident’s concerns to the developer, and it had no responsibility to undertake any works itself. The evidence shows that it continued to press the developer through the Summer of 2022 for updates, which was appropriate. In September 2022, the developer wrote to the landlord saying it had, in fact, installed drainage in the garden.
17. The resident, understandably, argued in an email to the landlord that, if this was true, the garden was still prone to flooding. The landlord wrote to the resident in October 2022 asking for further evidence to send to the developer. The resident sent pictures in late November 2022 and continued to push for remedial works. This shows that the landlord was working on the resident’s behalf to have any necessary works done by the developer as was appropriate. It also approached the property’s insurer to look into having the works done. It wrote to the resident in January 2023 saying it wanted to give the developer another chance to remedy the situation.
18. At this point, the 12-month snagging period was coming to an end. The resident was threatening to prevent the landlord from entering the property to inspect it due to his frustration. The landlord became increasingly frustrated by the developer’s failure to deal with the resident’s concerns along with other snagging problems on the estate. In May 2023, the landlord contacted the developer’s managing director directly and insisted that it carry out an extensive programme of works over the entire development. The developer disputed that some of these works were necessary and stated that, in its view, the landlord was “not being strong enough with your own tenants”.
19. Nonetheless, the developer agreed to carry out works in the resident’s garden in June 2023 and he has confirmed that they were successful.
20. It is understandable that the resident was extremely frustrated with the state of the drainage in the garden. However, on the evidence seen by this Service, the delays in resolving the problems were solely due to the actions of the developer (which is not a member of the Scheme and is not under investigation here).
21. The landlord was diligent in pressing the developer on the resident’s behalf throughout the snagging period and beyond, and its actions were appropriate and in line with its duties. It demonstrated that it took the matter seriously and used reasonable endeavours to resolve the issues, in so far as it was able. As there was little more the landlord could be expected to do in the circumstances, there was no maladministration in relation to this point of complaint.

A missing tap in the garden

22. The landlord addressed this point of complaint by explaining that the tap did not form part of the property specification, but the developer would install one as a goodwill gesture. This was a fair and reasonable response. It is not clear when the work was undertaken but the resident did not raise it again after April 2022.
23. No evidence has been provided to suggest that an outdoor tap should have been included in the build (beyond the illustrative drawing referenced by the resident) or that the landlord should have identified the lack of one earlier. Once raised by the resident, the landlord was prompt in referring the matter to the developer and ensuring the installation was ultimately completed. As a result, it demonstrated good customer service and a willingness to practically resolve the resident’s concerns. There was no maladministration in relation to this point of complaint.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. An unsatisfactory kitchen.
    2. Poor drainage in the garden.
    3. A missing tap in the garden.