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

Great Places Housing Association (202218300)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218300

Great Places Housing Association

26 March 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 resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs required to the property including:
      1. The shower and shower cubicle.
      2. A faulty ventilation system that caused damage to carpets, walls, curtains and soft furnishings.
    2. A request to provide authority to NHBC to investigate the resident’s case.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a shared owner leaseholder of the landlord. The lease commenced on 4 November 2021. The property is a new build house.
  2. The landlord inspected the property on 20 January 2022 and produced a report detailing 15 defects in the property. This included a request to check the extractor fan and to reseal the inside of the shower, around the bath to address a poor finish.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 March 2022 to advise that most of the issues from his previous complaint had been resolved. However he advised that the developer had cancelled an appointment to clean the carpet due to a fault with the ventilation unit. He reported that a defect with the bathroom flooring had not been resolved.
  4. The landlord inspected the property on 16 May 2022 and found that there were 4 defects. A recall was required for a contractor to attend to the extractor fan. Work was required in the bathroom to replace wet plasterboard behind tiles and to tile this again following water coming through the plasterboard.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 June 2022 to advise that the developer’s bathroom contractor had visited twice and a third visit was required. This caused inconvenience as he had to take time off work. He advised that work to the bathroom floor had been outstanding for 7 months. He requested new carpet as he said that this had been damaged as there had been leaks. He said that following a recent shower leak, that the tiling contractor had not used a protective sheet when removing grout.
  6. The landlord emailed the developer to chase up the outstanding defects on 7 June 2022. It advised of its concern that these defects had been outstanding for several months. It requested the developer to attend to the issues that day. The developer advised the same date that it had sent an appointment to the resident for 17 June 2022.
  7. The resident emailed the developer and landlord on 9 June 2022 regarding 3 cancelled appointments. In response the landlord emailed the developer on 10 June 2022 asking how it would resolve this as “it just really isn’t good enough given the length of time these items have now been open”.
  8. The developer emailed the landlord on 14 June 2022 to advise it had completed work to the shower cubicle on 13 June 2022. Its electrician was attending that day, its flooring contractor had attended on 11 June 2022 and an appointment had been offered for 17 June 2022.
  9. The resident’s MP sent an enquiry to the landlord on 15 June 2022. This detailed that the developer had said it would clean the carpets rather than replace them and would not redecorate the walls. The resident’s shower had leaked 5 times and continued to be a problem. The resident felt that the landlord and developer were slow in responding to this. The resident advised that the issues were outstanding for the 7 months since he moved to the property.
  10. The landlord’s internal email of 25 July 2022 advised that a carpet cleaner had attended the resident’s property to clean the carpet. The landlord stated that the resident was not happy with the condition of his carpets and wanted new carpets. The landlord felt that the carpet cleaner had done a good job.
  11. At the landlord’s request, the resident sent an email to the landlord on 28 July 2022 with some photographs of outstanding snagging issues at his property. The landlord agreed to pass on the resident’s comments to the developer concerning damage to the walls and roof and the condition of the carpets.
  12. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 July 2022 to advise that his warranty provider, NHBC, had been in contact with the landlord in June 2022 to request permission to deal with the resident’s ongoing claim. The resident requested that the landlord grant this permission. The landlord responded the same day to advise that this would be chased up.
  13. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 19 September 2022. In this he reported:
    1. Problems that had occurred with the ventilation system blowing soot in the property that had to be replaced. This had caused staining to his carpets and walls and damage to furniture and soft furnishings.
    2. A leak from the shower that the landlord had failed to rectify within a reasonable timeframe. He experienced inconvenience as he had to take time off work to allow access to 6 different people to attempt to fix it. Once it was fixed, the landlord had organised cleaning rather than replacement carpet which he felt was needed.
    3. That the landlord had delayed a response to a request from the NHBC to grant authority so it could deal with the resident’s case.
    4. As a remedy the resident asked for the landlord to apologise, to replace the damaged carpets, to redecorate the walls and to repair or replace damaged soft furnishings. He requested compensation and authority to be given to NHBC to investigate.
  14. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 29 September 2022. In this it offered £120 for decorating due to the fault to the ventilation unit. It advised that it had cleaned the carpets but would not be replacing these. It stated that the developer was responsible for repairs during the defects period and had organised repairs to the shower including attending to the leak. The resident reported a further issue with the shower on 14 September 2022 and the developer had arranged an appointment for 22 September 2022 to repair it. It advised the resident to report any further defects during the end of defect period inspection that was due to take place.
  15. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage one response and requested that the landlord escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process on 29 September 2022. He advised that the landlord had failed to address all of the complaint issues in its stage one complaint response. This included damage to his curtains and soft furnishings due to the faulty ventilation system.
  16. The landlord conducted an end of defect inspection at the property on 6 October 2022. The snagging list detailed the stained carpets, walls and roof from the faulty ventilation system that state “reported”. It also detailed cracked grout in the bathroom.
  17. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 November 2022. The landlord advised:
    1. That the ventilation unit had been repaired and was now in working order.
    2. It had reported the issues with regard to the leaking shower to the developer. It had reported the resident’s more recent issue of 14 September 2022 to the developer who had made an appointment with the resident to repair it on 22 September 2022.
    3. It had organised the cleaning of the resident’s carpets and would not be replacing these. It offered £80 in respect of cleaning the resident’s curtains and soft furnishings. It offered the £120 previously offered at stage one of the its complaints process for decoration.
    4. It had carried out a defects inspection on 6 October 2022 and remaining defects had been recorded and were “in hand”. It offered £105 compensation in respect of a missed appointment.
    5. It advised that the NHBC now had consent and confirmed that the works being undertaken were being dealt with as defects.
  18. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response and referred his case to the Ombudsman on 15 November 2022. As a remedy, the resident he wished the landlord to complete all outstanding work, to replace the damaged carpets and repaint the damaged walls. He requested an appropriate level of compensation and an apology.

Events after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process

  1. The resident continued to experience issues with defects in respect of the leaking shower. He emailed the landlord on 28 April 2023 to advise that the grout in the shower cubicle had cracked allowing water to leak. He reported that this had happened on numerous occasions. The landlord organised a joint visit with the developer to the property on 26 May 2023.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 July 2023 to advise that the issue with the grout allowing water to leak was unresolved. This was now causing water to leak through the living room ceiling. In response, the landlord emailed the developer to advise it to attend urgently or that it would appoint its own contractor and deduct the cost from the retention fee with the developer. The issue was still ongoing as at 16 November 2023 when the landlord and developer exchanged a number of emails regarding the tile installation and grout. The developer advised of an potential appointment date of 7 December 2023 to regrout.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. put things right, and;
    3. learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident made an earlier complaint regarding snagging issues to the developer on 19 December 2021. The landlord’s records indicate that the developer passed the complaint to the landlord. The landlord’s final complaint response in respect of this earlier complaint was sent to the resident on 3 March 2022. The resident confirmed on 28 March 2022 that the majority of issues raised had been resolved. The resident’s second complaint referred to the Ombudsman was made on 19 September 2022. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, for the purpose of this investigation the timescale considered is 6 months prior to the resident’s subsequent formal complaint to his landlord of 19 September 2022.
  2. The property was a newly built property and as such was within the defects period. This meant that the developer was responsible for any defects within the year after the resident’s lease began. As above, the lease began on 4 November 2021. The end of defects inspection took place on 6 October 2022. It was the landlord’s responsibility to report the resident’s defects to the developer during this period. This investigation has therefore focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the defects with the developer. The resident refers to the National House Builders Council (NHBC) which provides consumer protection through its 10-year Buildmark warranty. If a developer fails to fix defects, the NHBC can investigate and may require the developer to put things right.
  3. The resident reported a number of other defects to the landlord that have not been raised in his formal complaint. This investigation has therefore focussed on the complaint issues referred to this Service. This included the faulty ventilation system and damage caused by this to the carpets and soft furnishings, and the issue with water leaking from the shower. The resident may wish to raise a separate complaint to the landlord if he is dissatisfied with its handling of the other defects.
  4. The resident has referred to the impact of the outstanding issues on his health. However, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on specifically how the resident’s health may have been affected by any errors made by the landlord. Claims of personal injury ultimately, are better suited for courts or liability insurers to decide. The Ombudsman can however consider the overall detriment, inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident due to a landlord’s failings as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his health.

Policies and procedures

  1. The lease agreement requires the resident to carry out repairs in his home, to decorate the property and to provide suitable carpets or other floor coverings. The resident is required to grant access to the landlord and its employees or agents to enter the premises to inspect, repair any adjoining or neighbouring premises.
  2. According to the lease agreement the landlord is required to repair and maintain any common facilities.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy details that it will respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours to “make safe”. No timescale is given for routine repairs which it will try and complete in “as little time as possible”. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 3 March 2022 in respect of the resident’s initial complaint clarifies that the target defect repair response are 4 hours for an emergency, 3 days for an urgent repair (eg electrical repairs and water leaks) and 15 days for routine minor repairs. It advised that there are also repairs that are carried out at the end of the defect liability period such as minor shrinkage cracks.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy details that it will deal with “expressions of dissatisfaction within 48 hours (2 working days) to “prevent issues from escalating”. However, it if is not possible to agree with a resident it will move the complaint to its formal process. It will respond at stage one within 10 working days “from acknowledgement of the complaint”. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days “from acknowledgement of the complaint”. If more time is required, it may extend the period to respond by a further 10 working days.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy details that it may be pay compensation between up to £20 to £500 depending on the service failure and impact. For example, it will pay up to £20 either monetary or non-monetary as a goodwill gesture where a resident has been distressed as a result of service failure. It may pay up to £500 when a complainant has had to take unpaid leave from work as a result of the issue, for example, being at home for missed appointments. It may pay compensation where damage has occurred to a resident’s property or belongings that they could not reasonably be expected to claim for through contents insurance.

The resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of repairs required to the property including the shower and shower cubicle, and a faulty ventilation system that caused damage to carpets, walls, curtains and soft furnishings.

  1. The resident reported the shower leaking on several occasions since he moved to the property indicating that it was an ongoing issue that the developer had failed to find a lasting solution to. The landlord reported this to the developer to repair as would be expected during the defects period. Whilst the resident reported on 28 March 2022 that most of the issues from his previous complaint, were completed, he had to contact the out of hours service on 10 May 2022. This was to report that the shower was leaking again. As this was an ongoing issue, it was therefore appropriate that the landlord and developer carried out a joint visit to the property on 16 May 2022. This was a reasonable step to take to ensure that the remaining defects were addressed. It was identified that the wet plasterboard needed to be hacked off and some retiling was required to prevent further water leaking through the walls. However, according to the landlord’s records, the resident reported that the silicone had come away on 11 August 2022. The repair record details that this would “aid a leak risk” which was then realised on 14 September 2022 when the resident reported water leaking through the wall into the room next door. He had reported that up to 7 visits had been made to fix the shower and requested this to be treated as an emergency. He reported the shower leaking again on 5 October 2022. This would have caused considerable distress to the resident as well as the inconvenience, time and trouble in having to report the issue on several occasions.
  2. This was not the end of the matter, as the resident had to report the shower leaking after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident reported further issues with the grout failing and causing water to leak through the wall to the landlord on 28 April 2023. After the developer’s further failed attempt to fix this at the end of October 2023, the developer offered an appointment on 7 December 2023. This was therefore outside of what would be deemed to be a reasonable timeframe to complete the repairs. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord contacted the developer on various occasions in order to chase up the works, generally following the resident’s contact. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord should have more proactively managed the situation. When the landlord was not able to arrange the works with the developer within a reasonable timeframe, it needed to consider alternative solutions. It should have also considered its own repairs policy timescales. This was especially important considering that the resident had reported the leaking shower initially on 8 December 2021 and there had been no lasting solution. The Ombudsman has seen no record that the landlord considered instructing its own contractor to undertake the work recovering costs from the retention fee at an earlier point than 26 July 2023. This caused the resident unnecessary distress. It also caused the resident considerable inconvenience, time and trouble in having to chase up the landlord. There was therefore a failure.
  3. In respect of the landlord’s communication with the resident, whilst it responded quickly to the resident’s chase ups, its communication was not proactive. It needed to ensure that it gave timely updates on the status of the work, how it had chased up the developer and when the resident could expect work to be completed. It did provide updates, but this was more in response to the resident chasing up. Bearing in mind that the resident had already been through the landlord’s internal complaints process it would be expected that the landlord would communicate effectively and not wait for the resident to chase things up. This was therefore a failing.
  4. The resident reported the faulty ventilation unit during the landlord and developer’s joint visit that had occurred on 20 January 2022. The landlord kept in contact with the developer sending a chase up email on 26 January 2022. It kept in touch with the resident advising him that the electrician would be contacting the resident on 27 January 2022 to visit. The unit was switched off at this point and the resident reported to the landlord that the electrician had replaced the unit on 7 February 2022. The landlord’s communication with the resident was reasonable for this particular repair as it kept him updated on arrangements made with the developer.
  5. With regard to the carpet staining arising from the faulty ventilation unit that the resident reported at the time, the developer attended on 26 January 2022 but as the ventilation system was faulty it was not appropriate to clean it at this point. The resident then asked for the cleaner to return in his email to the landlord of 7 February 2022. He reported that there was black staining not only on the carpets but to the window frames, doors, glass, walls and units as well. He asked the landlord to report this to the developer. The landlord reported this to the developer the same day which was reasonable.
  6. The landlord advised the resident that the developer had arranged the carpet clean for 29 March 2022.  However, the resident reported on 28 March 2022 that the developer had cancelled the carpet clean due to health and safety issues. He reported that most of the other issues had been resolved. There was further delay with the developer progressing the carpet cleaning as the resident’s MP reported this again on 15 June 2022. At this point, the resident was requesting a replacement carpet.
  7. The landlord’s internal email of 25 July 2022 indicated that the developer had sent a carpet cleaner round to clean the carpets that day. The landlord’s internal email of the same date indicated that the resident was not happy with the condition of the carpets. However, the landlord felt they had been cleaned to a good standard and that a replacement was not necessary. The cleaning had taken place 5 months after the ventilation unit was replaced which was an unreasonable timescale. The resident reported on 28 July 2022 that the damaged carpet remained an issue that he felt should be addressed by the developer. He asked for the landlord to include this on its spreadsheet of defects that it had prepared to pass to the developer following the resident’s report from the previous week. The landlord detailed the stained carpets, along with the staining to the walls and roof throughout the property as “reported” on the list of defects following the end of defects inspection of 6 October 2022. However, the landlord stated that it would not be replacing the carpets in its stage 2 response of 15 November 2022.
  8. With regard to the carpet cleaning being of a good standard that the resident subsequently disputed, the Ombudsman is unable to reach conclusions on this matter. This is due to the fact that the Ombudsman relies on documentary evidence. There is insufficient evidence to verify that the carpets had been irrevocably damaged. Whilst the lease details that carpets are the resident’s responsibility, there was service failure in respect of the fact that the landlord needed to be more proactive in ensuring that the developer carried out the cleaning in a more timely manner. It should have also kept the resident informed of the actions that would be taken to address the issue.  
  9. In respect of the resident’s reports of staining to his soft furnishings, curtains and walls in his stage one complaint of 19 September 2022. The landlord failed to address this in its stage one response. It was not addressed until its stage 2 response of 15 November 2022. This was an unreasonable delay and therefore a failing.
  10. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reported issues for the failings identified. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. Maladministration can include a landlord’s failure to comply with its own policies and procedures, unreasonable delays in dealing with a matter, and behaving unfairly, unreasonably or incompetently. The guidance suggests compensation from £100 to £600 is appropriate for instances of maladministration by the landlord. In this instance, an amount of £600 compensation is appropriate, being £250 in respect of the delays in the landlord’s handling of the defect issues, £250 to reflect the distress caused to the resident, and £100 in respect of the time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing the issues with the landlord.

The resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of a request to provide authority to NHBC to investigate the resident’s case

  1. The resident advised the landlord in his email of 29 July 2021 that the NHBC had contacted the landlord in June 2021 to ask for permission to deal with his ongoing case. There is evidence that the landlord initially followed this up by contacting its management organisation the same day which was reasonable.
  2. However, the landlord did not get back to the resident and this meant that the resident had the inconvenience of chasing the landlord again on 17 August 2021. After this, the landlord contacted its management organisation on 17 August 2021 and on 26 August 2021. The landlord was therefore not proactively dealing with the issue.
  3. The management organisation responded to the landlord on 6 September 2021 to advise that it had received no communication from the NHBC to request permission to act in respect of the resident’s case. The landlord updated the resident on 12 September 2022 and the NHBC sent an email to the landlord the same date to request permission. It can be seen that there was some delay in actioning the resident’s query and a lack of communication with the resident about the issue that would have been appropriate so that the resident was kept informed. This would have then prevented the inconvenience of having to chase up the landlord.
  4. There was some further delay in the landlord actioning the NHBC permission once this was sent through on 12 September 2022. This led to a further chase up by the resident on 29 September 2022. The landlord had to chase this up again with its management organisation. The Ombudsman has not seen a record of when the consent was actually provided indicative of the record keeping issues. However, it advised the resident in its stage 2 complaint response of 15 November 2022 that the consent had been provided by this point. This was 4 months after the resident raised the issue with the landlord. There was therefore service failure as the landlord’s actions were delayed for what should have been a relatively straightforward issue to resolve. As could be seen above, the landlord’s communication with the resident was reactive rather than proactive.
  5. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, as above, suggests that for cases of service failure that compensation of between £50 to £100 is appropriate. Service failure can include delay in getting matters resolved and failings to acknowledge and put things right. In this instance, £100 compensation is appropriate to reflect the delay in responding and lack of communication with the resident about the issue.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The resident’s stage one complaint was sent to the landlord on 19 September 2022. The landlord’s stage one response was sent within its complaint policy timescale on 29 September 2022 which was reasonable. However, it failed to address all of the resident’s complaint issues, namely the resident’s report of damage to his curtains and soft furnishings. A stage one complaint response is an opportunity for a landlord to address all of the complaint issues and to seek to resolve these in a timely manner. The landlord missed this opportunity and this meant that the resident was understandably not happy with the stage one response. He would have felt that the landlord had disregarded his complaint issues which was not appropriate.
  2. The resident’s escalation request was sent on 29 September 2022 but the landlord failed to acknowledge this until 19 October 2022. This was unreasonable as the resident would have felt that the landlord was ignoring him. The landlord’s stage 2 response was delayed and was sent to the resident on 15 November 2022 which was 33 working days after the resident requested the escalation to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. This was therefore a failing as the landlord had not responded within a reasonable period and in line with its complaints policy above. The landlord’s communication was not adequate as it needed to advise the resident of when he could expect a stage 2 complaint response in line with its complaints policy.
  3. The landlord’s complaint policy is non-compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Code which is a statutory requirement. The Code is published on our website and sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The landlord’s policy contains a pre-complaint stage, or stage zero advising that when an expression of dissatisfaction is received it will attempt to resolve this within 48 hours to “prevent issues from escalating”. It also states that it will respond at each stage within the timescales set “from acknowledgement of the complaint”. The Code advises that a landlord should respond at stage one within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint and within 20 working days from receipt of the complaint at stage 2. The landlord should therefore pay particular attention to the complaint stages when it conducts a self-assessment of its complaints policy. The Ombudsman’s revised Code is due to be published on 1 April 2024 and the landlord should refresh its self-assessment based upon the new Code. It should then ensure that it updates its policy so that it reflects the new Code.
  4. The landlord offered some compensation at stage 2 amounting to £305 comprising £80 in respect of cleaning the curtains and soft furnishings, £120 for a decoration pack offered at stage one, and £105 in respect of a missed appointment. It appropriately apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident. The amount of compensation offered as part of the landlord’s complaint resolution was reasonable reflecting the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of repairs required to the property including the shower and shower cubicle, and a faulty ventilation system that caused damage to carpets, walls, curtains and soft furnishings.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of a request to provide authority to NHBC to investigate the resident’s case.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Issue a written apology to the resident in respect of the failings identified in this case. This includes the communication issues, the landlord’s delays in progressing the outstanding issues with the developer and its consideration of alternative action that could be taken and for the complaint handling issues and non-Code compliant complaints policy.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £700 in further compensation which is made up of:
      1. £600 in respect of the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of repairs required to the property including the shower and shower cubicle, and a faulty ventilation system that caused damage to carpets, walls, curtains and soft furnishings.
      2. £100 in respect of the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of a request to provide authority to NHBC to investigate the resident’s case.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to progress the outstanding works in the property with the developer to ensure satisfactory resolution to the leaking shower. It should provide evidence of completion of the work to this Service within a further 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaints policy once the Housing Ombudsman’s revised Code is published on 1 April 2024. It should undertake a self-assessment of its complaints policy (using our self-assessment toolkit available on our website) to inform its review. It should publish its revised policy within 12 weeks of the publication of the revised Code.
  2. It is recommended that within 12 weeks from the date of this report that the landlord reviews its approach to the handling of the defects period for new build properties. It should develop its policy so that residents are clear on how to report defects, the expected timescales for issues to be resolved and points of contact to escalate issues.