Homes Plus Limited (202318747)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318747

Homes Plus Limited

10 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of:
1. Defects and concerns about the property after she moved in.
2. Alleged discrimination.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the property since 20 March 2023. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 3 bedroom new build house. The property was, at the time of this complaint, within the developers defect period and the landlord had a contract with the developer with regards to completing defects.
A snagging report, completed on 8 March 2023, highlights an issue with the front door and the doorbell.
On 23 March 2023, the resident reported no water in the property, no electricity in the kitchen and that her front door was not locking. An electrician and plumber attended on the same date. As the resident could in fact lock the front door, the developer arranged for its contractor to attend the following day.
On the 19 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to ask for an update on the outstanding repairs, which were as follows:
1. Garden slabs not as per the original plans.
2. The gas pipe protruding.
3. A water leak under the kitchen sink which was made worse after the site manager plumbed her washing machine in. The water leak continued for 5 days.
4. No electric and water in the kitchen for 2 days.
5. Front door not closing properly.
6. Doorbell not properly attached.
7. Ripped lino in the kitchen after the developers had helped install the washing machine.
8. Cold water temperature in the upstairs bathroom.
9. Airline cracks on the staircase.
The resident raised a formal complaint about the outstanding repairs on 15 May 2023, saying that the landlord had taken no action for over a month. She also reported that the kitchen leak had destroyed some of the grass outside and the contents of her cupboard. The resident sent a further email the same day to ask about the parking allocation as she had 3 spaces in front of her property and the neighbour was using one.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 31 May 2023. It did not uphold the complaint. It defined the complaint and said the resident had requested compensation of £230 for damaged items. The key points were as follows:
1. With regards to the garden slabs, it confirmed the developer had laid the slabs as per the plans and attached a copy of the plans for the resident.
2. With regards to the gas pipe, it confirmed the developer had installed the pipe in line with building regulations, as per the conversation it had with the resident on 29 March 2023.
3. The landlord confirmed, with regards to the water leak under the sink, that the resident had requested help from the site manager to plumb in her washing machine. It confirmed such help was outside of the scope of its development agreement. It understood the site manager attended and trimmed the waste pipe for the resident. It confirmed that the resident had reported the leak on 18 May 2023, which it resolved the following day. It asked the resident to refrain from approaching the developer directly but to report repairs following the correct procedure, as per her tenancy agreement.
4. With regards to a leak in the kitchen that lasted for 5 days, it confirmed the resident first mentioned the water leak on 25 April 2023 and as highlighted by the resident, the leak occurred following the installation of the washing machine. The landlord said it had asked for photographic evidence, which the resident provided on 18 May 2023. Following which, the developer attended on 19 May 2023 to resolve the issue.
5. With regards to the resident reporting no water or electric in the kitchen for 2 days, it said the resident reported this to the landlord on 23 March 2023 and its contractors attended the same day to resolve the issue.
6. With regards to the front door jamming, it confirmed it had made an appointment to investigate this for 24 March 2023 but understood the resident refused access. It confirmed it had asked the developer to rebook the repair.
7. With regards to the doorbell, it confirmed it had asked the developer to attend to refix it.
8. With regards to the ripped lino, it confirmed it had spoken to the developer who attended and as far as they were aware it had caused no damage during the visit.
9. With regards to the water being cold upstairs, it said it fitted all baths a temperature restrictor and the developer therefore would not adjust it.
10. With regards to the hairline cracks, it confirmed this was normal property settlement in new builds and therefore a decorative issue that was the resident’s responsibility.
11. With regards to the parking, it confirmed it had reviewed the land registry and the resident’s property had 2 spaces. It provided the plans to show this.
12. With regards to the outside tap leaking and the damage to the grass, it confirmed the resident reported that issue on 19 May 2023 and it had instructed the developer to attend to resolve the issue.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 1 June 2023. The resident said the response fabricated the truth and that the landlord had discriminated against her. She said the discrimination was in the emails and responses with regards to the repairs she had reported particularly in relation to the water leak and the garden slabs.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 July 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. With regards to the patio slabs, it confirmed it had reviewed the plans again and the developer had completed the patio in line with its requirements.
2. It confirmed it had fitted the gas pipe in line with building regulations.
3. With regards to the water leak in the kitchen, it confirmed the developer had attended the property to adjust the wastepipe as a gesture of goodwill. It confirmed fitting an appliance is a resident’s responsibility. Following the installation, the resident reported a leak but as it was unclear whether the leak was from the washing machine, which would be the resident’s responsibility, or the waste pipe. The resident clarified this on 18 May 2023 and its developer attended the following day to fix the issue.
4. Following the leak, the developer found that a kitchen unit required replacing. It ordered this and gave an appointment for 8 August 2023. It understood the resident had declined this due to it being in school holidays.
5. With regards to the lino in the kitchen, it had liaised with developer who confirmed the resident did not report the issue at the time. As the resident had since confirmed the rip was under the washing machine, it would not replace the lino as it considered it to be cosmetic.
6. It reiterated its position with regards to parking and reattached the plans confirming the resident had 2 spaces.
7. With regards to the resident’s concerns about discrimination, the landlord said it reviewed the evidence and found nothing to suggest it had discriminated against the resident. It said it had found instances where it had provided additional support to the resident and provided evidence of this.
The developer replaced the kitchen cupboard on 29 August 2023 and that concluded the repairs raised in the complaint.
In referring to this Service, the resident said she wanted compensation for the time, stress and inconvenience caused and to complete all outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord said that as the property was a new build, it was not subject to the timelines as set out in its repairs policy. Instead, any defects found were covered by the contract it had with the developer. Its contract did not specify timescales within which repairs would be completed as it was reliant on when the developer could obtain materials or products.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of defects in the property.

The snagging report from 8 March 2023 completed prior to the resident moving into the property highlights 2 issues in the property, pertinent to this investigation: the doorbell and the seal missing round the front door. Given that the developer and landlord were aware of both these issues, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed these prior to the resident moving in or as soon as possible after she moved in. This would have been particularly important with regards to the front door. Not doing so caused the resident to report this issue again on the day she moved in.
Furthermore, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that the landlord had communicated these repairs to the resident prior to her taking up the tenancy. Landlords need to ensure they inform residents of any repairs prior to the tenancy start-up to manage expectations.
With regards to the issues with the front door, the landlord established that the door locked, it was just sticking and therefore arranged for the developer to attend the following day. Given that there was no security risk at that stage, it was reasonable of it to attend the following day.
However, when the contractor attended the fix the issue the resident was not home. Internal evidence shows the contractor attended to fix the front door and the doorbell on numerous occasions but on each occasion the resident was not in. While the Ombudsman understands this was a development with ongoing works and therefore contractors were on site, it still would have been reasonable for the landlord or the developer to contact the resident prior to attending to ensure she could be in for the appointment. Not doing so caused the resident to spend time chasing the landlord for updates and caused a significant delay in resolving the issue.
The evidence shows, that with regards to the doorbell and the front door issue, the landlord continued to chase the developer for updates on when it would attend to fix the issues. Where a landlord is reliant on a developer during a defects period to complete repairs, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to be in regular contact with both the developer and the resident to ensure a swift resolution of outstanding issue. While, in this case the landlord did continually chase the developer, it was clear that the developer was not taking swift action to fix the issues. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have escalated its request to the developer.
Furthermore, where the landlord is aware that it is has no set timescales for which it expects the developer to attend to defects, it should communicate that to residents to manage expectations and to provide regular updates, even where there is no update to give. Not doing so left the resident frustrated at the lack of action and communication from both the landlord and the developer and led the resident to raise the formal complaint.
On the day the resident moved in, she reported having no water or electricity in the property. The landlord immediately informed the developer, and the issue was resolved the same day. Given the urgency of restoring water and electricity, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange an urgent repair.
With regards to the resident’s washing machine, it is unclear from the evidence when the resident asked the developer for help with plumbing it in, which later caused a leak. However, the resident did not report this leak to the landlord at the time, so the landlord was unaware of it. Therefore, the landlord cannot be held responsible for not addressing the leak until it was informed during a conversation with the resident on 25 April 2023.
Following it becoming aware of the leak, as the resident had said it was from her washing machine, the landlord appropriately asked for further information from the resident. The washing machine leaking would be the resident’s responsibility, as per her tenancy agreement, and therefore given the resident’s assertion that it happened following the plumbing in of her machine, it was reasonable of it to ask for further evidence and clarification from the resident to ascertain responsibility for the repair.
The resident provided this further evidence on 18 May 2023 and the landlord arranged for the developer to attend the following day to rectify the issue. Given the evidence had shown the leak was from the pipe and not the washing much, it was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to attend so swiftly.
As part of the complaint about the washing machine, the resident said that the developer cut her waste pipe while helping with the installation. This incident led her to spend money on a new machine and the resident requested compensation towards the cost of the machine. Although it is unfortunate that the developer’s gesture caused the resident to believe she needed a new machine, the landlord cannot be held responsible for this action as it was not aware the developer had offered such help, especially since the installation of the washing machine was the resident’s responsibility.
Furthermore, the landlord appropriately set out in both its complaint responses the resident’s responsibility and highlighted the importance of approaching the landlord for any help, reporting suspected defects and reminded the resident that the developer providing help to resident’s was outside of its scope.
The resident raised that when the developer attended to help with the washing machine, it had damaged the kitchen floor covering. Given that the resident did not report this to the landlord at the time, the landlord appropriately investigated the issue with the developer who denied that the incident had occurred and that the resident had not reported it to the developer at the time either. Resident’s need to ensure where such incidents occur, they are reported as soon as practicably possible, not doing so makes it is difficult for a landlord to undertake a thorough investigation.
The landlord appropriately asked the resident for evidence of the damaged flooring, and the resident said it was under the washing machine. Since the washing machine covered the damaged floor covering and it did not affect the property’s aesthetics, and because the resident had not reported the issue at the time, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the issue cosmetic and decide not to replace the damaged section.
In her formal complaint, the resident expressed concern that the garden slabs were not laid according to the plans. However, the evidence shows that the developer had laid the patio as per the approved development plans. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord appropriately reviewed the plans, confirmed their accuracy, and provided the plans to reassure her. This response was reasonable under the circumstances.
In her formal complaint the resident also raised that she believed the gas pipe in the kitchen for the supply of gas to the cooker had been fitted incorrectly. When the resident first raised this issue on 29 March 2023, the landlord appropriately arranged for its project manager to attend the property and confirmed the gas pipe was as per building regulations. It reiterated this stance in its complaint response. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident raised with the landlord that her upstairs bathroom tap poured out cooler water compared to her other taps. The landlord responded to say the tap was fitted with a regulator to restrict the temperature. While that may be the case, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have attended to satisfy itself that the restrictor was fitted and adjusted correctly. Not doing so showed disregard to the resident’s situation.
The resident reported hairline cracks on her stairway to the landlord. The landlord advised these were normal in new build properties due to the property settling. However, while that might be the case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have attended to inspect the cracks to satisfy itself that they were in fact hairline cracks as it asserted. Furthermore, it would be useful for the landlord to provide residents with such information, with regards to new build properties, at tenancy signup where residents are moving into new build properties. Doing so would enable the landlord to manage a resident’s expectations, and the landlord should consider this as a point of learning for future residents.
The resident also raised in her complaint that a leak to her outside tap had caused damage to her grass. The evidence shows the resident first reported this to the landlord on 15 May 2023, however, the landlord did not log this with the developer until 31 May 2023. Given that this was almost 2 weeks after the resident had first reported the issue, this was unreasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord then appropriately chased the developer for updates on the repair on 7 June 2023 who confirmed, on 13 June 2023, the repair was completed. Given that this was less than 4 weeks after the resident had reported the issue, this timeframe was reasonable.
On 15 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to raise concerns about the parking arrangements at her property as she believed all the parking spaces in front of her property belonged to her. The evidence shows that the landlord made enquiries with the relevant department to confirm that the resident had 2 spaces and not 3 as she believed. The landlord appropriately communicated this to the resident on 19 May 2023. It was reasonable of the landlord to clarify its position and then reiterate this to the resident at the earliest opportunity.
Furthermore, it helpfully reiterated its position in its stage 1 response and provided the resident with the relevant plans which highlighted her parking spaces.
The resident questioned the status of the car parking spaces and asked the landlord to clarify this with the land registry. In its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated that the parking was as per the building plans, granting her access to only two spaces, and it could not change the allocations. While the Ombudsman understands this may have been disappointing for the resident, the housing development was planned and approved based on the provision of two spaces per property. Furthermore, the third space the resident believed was hers belonged to a neighbouring property, making it impossible for the landlord to reallocate it to her as it was not part of her property’s deeds.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for compensation for a replacement washing machine and a damaged rug following the water leak. However, the landlord did not provide a formal response to this request. Although earlier communication shows that the landlord had refused the request, it would have been appropriate to include this in the complaint response, provide formal reasoning, and consider directing the resident to her insurance company if necessary. Landlords need to ensure they address all elements of a complaint to provide clarity and manage residents’ expectations.
Overall, while the landlord promptly addressed the repairs and the resident’s concerns, its communication about outstanding repairs could have been better. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates and only received information after doing so. Additionally, the landlord spent considerable time chasing the developer to complete the works. It is clear that communication between the developer and the landlord was at times ineffective, leading to repairs being completed without the landlord’s knowledge.
Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of defects and concerns about the property.
A compensation order has been made for £150, made up of the following:
1. £100 for the time and trouble.
2. £50 for distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of alleged discrimination.

The resident has accused the landlord of being discriminatory. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited for a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff and to the corresponding complaint handling.
When receiving complaints about discriminatory behaviour the landlord should complete a full and thorough investigation into the resident’s claims. This includes reviewing any internal records in which the resident believes showed discrimination. In this case, it is not clear if the landlord reviewed the specific communication the resident signposted to it in relation to its communication around the garden slabs and the water leak, which the resident felt highlighted the discriminatory conduct and behaviour by its staff members. Given the resident’s assertion, it would have been useful for the landlord to have documented that it did review the specific communication mentioned by the resident.
Upon reviewing the communication, the landlord concluded that it had not been discriminatory and that it had in fact provided extra support to the resident and it helpfully referred the resident to the extra support it had provided to evidence its assertion.
The resident had expressed concerns about its staff forwarding emails to its complaints team and suggested this was also a form of discrimination. The landlord helpfully provided clarification around the complaints process and the time constraints within which it must reply to complaints raised and therefore its reasoning for including the complaints team within its communication with her. This was helpful and provided clarity to the resident and reassurances that it was not done on a discriminatory basis but due to its complaints policy.
Based on the evidence provided, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it could not conclude that its actions were prejudicial or discriminatory.
Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of alleged discrimination.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of defects and concerns about the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of alleged discrimination.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £150. It must also provide evidence of compliance with this order to this Service within 4 weeks.