Platform Housing Group Limited (202203707)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203707

Platform Housing Group Limited

22 December 2023

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:
1. Request for reimbursement of her service charge.
2. Concerns regarding gas safety at the property.
3. Snagging reports.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called this Service’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’). When a complaint is brought to this Service, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident’s complaint refers to a request for reimbursement of the service charges she has paid whilst the communal grounds had not been attended to.
In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
The Ombudsman cannot review complaints about the level of service charges and determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. Complaints related to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The First-Tier Tribunal can look at whether a refund of service charge should be given. As we cannot look at the level of service charge, we would not be able to tell the landlord to refund or remove this charge. However, we can look at the landlord’s communication around the service charge and whether it followed its relevant policies and procedures correctly.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the property, as part of a shared ownership scheme delivered by the landlord in October 2021. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a new build house.
The resident reported she has suffered from mental health vulnerabilities following the events which caused her to complain.

Landlord obligations

The landlord’s defects procedure states:
1. Following handover and practical completion of the unit from the contractor to the landlord, all defects found by customers are to be reported to the landlord.
2. When reported the defect would be vetted by the landlord to clarify if the report is a defect or a routine repair.
3. If deemed a defect the contractor’s customer care team will be informed and the details of the defect and the name and details of the resident will be issued for the contractor to contact them directly. The contractor will be contacted via email and if necessary or urgent via telephone.
4. The contractor is to contact the resident to arrange carrying out the repairs at a suitable time for the resident.
The landlord’s compensation procedure explains it may consider a further financial award to reimburse a resident where a resident incurs costs or there has been a financial loss.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
1. Are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The resident asked this Service to ensure the landlord:
1. Completes new checks on her gas, electric, building control and air tight tests at the property. She believes the gas leak and gap under the front door showed the landlord’s certifications to be void.
2. Uses the retention monies it holds to rectify matters by the qualified trades rather than relying on the developers workmanship which she described as poor.
3. Completes an independent Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) valuation on the property as she believed the poor brickwork and roofing, along with other issues identified have diminished the value.
This Service has not seen evidence the resident formally complained to the landlord about the certification within her property, other than the gas safety and air tightness certificates. There is also no evidence the resident formally complained about the additional issues listed above. This Service is therefore unable to consider matters which have not been formally complained about to the landlord. This Service recommends the resident brings a new formal complaint to the landlord relating to the additional issues she raised to this Service following completion of the internal complaints procedure (ICP).
This Service understands the resident feels the landlord has failed to properly address issues which has impacted living in the property. We recognise the concerns she reports have affected and caused distress to her and her family.
In relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role or expertise to assess whether a property has specific defects. This is because this Service does not make findings on technical aspects in relation to a property or repairs and it is not within this Service’s expertise and jurisdiction to do so.
The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and reasonably applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation and followed good practice when reaching decisions. Whilst this Service cannot assess the actions post ICP, we can ensure that this is taken in to account and will inform any remedies made. Any reference to events post-ICP will be for context and will not be assessed.
This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the matters until 12 May 2022 when the resident received the landlord’s stage 2 response.

Summary of events

On 20 July 2021, the landlord provided its snag report to the developer. It identified 49 snags.
On 21 October 2021, following inspection of the property with the resident, the resident identified further snags. The landlord emailed the developer the additional details of the reported snags. It explained the majority of the snags reported by the resident were previously reported to the developer at handover, but were not completed within an agreed 14 day period.
On 3 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to advise of a drainage issue and a foul smell within her home.
On 11 November 2021, the developer emailed the landlord to advise most of the defects raised had been completed. It explained it was constantly working through the defects and wanted to assure the landlord of its constant effort to complete them. It also explained some of the defects which were raised were not considered defects.
Between 11 November 2021 and 14 March 2022, the resident emailed both the developer and landlord directly to report further snagging as she discovered them. During this time, the landlord and developer sought to arrange for the works to be completed to resolve the snagging raised and communicated with the resident. The resident was unhappy with the number of issues she discovered since moving into her property and the time it had taken to resolve matters. The developer had also not resolved all of the snags she reported. She therefore made a formal complaint.
On 14 March 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. She stated:
1. She had lived at her property for 4 months and her defect list was over 100 items. The majority of these items were cosmetic. However, some were serious and meant the property should not have passed building control:
  1. she could see daylight underneath her front door but she received a certificate stating the door passed an air tightness test
  2. she had mould present in the loft
  3. there was holes within the plasterboard and fire deterrent wall dividing with the neighbouring property
  4. she experienced a gas leak on 4 March 2022 and was placed into alternative accommodation.
2. She wanted to extend the time in the alternative accommodation however, the policy was not clear for such matters. She could not leave a voicemail due to the landlord’s inbox being full. She had not received a point of contact at the landlord to assist her with matters and ensure the works carried out were completed to the correct standard.
3. The majority of works carried out by the developers were unsatisfactory. She requested a survey be undertaken to thoroughly identify all required works.
4. Legal documentation provided by the landlord to the resident so she could complete, exchange the purchase was contrary.
On 28 March 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It stated:
1. It apologised for the experience the resident had experienced.
2. It noted the resident reported a catalogue of issues, with the most significant issues relating to:
  1. a gas leak
  2. mould under the kitchen cupboard
  3. the front door not being repaired to a suitable standard
  4. the garden being on a slope
  5. several other cosmetic issues.
3. The property was handed over with all relevant certification evidencing inspections and compliance. It had been in constant dialogue with the developer to assist with resolving the outstanding issues for the resident.
4. There was delays due to a maintenance operative at the developer leaving their position and it had been seeking to fill the role. This was the reason appointments had to be cancelled. If the role was not filled, it would outsource the works if an appointment was not imminent.
5. The gas pipework was all checked and certificated as necessary following installation. Had the installation been at fault, the gas leak would have been apparent from the outset and leaks of that nature can occur for many reasons and/or a combination of reasons.
6. Due to the number of issues that have been reported by the resident, an inspection was organised for 31 March 2022 for a member of the landlord’s development team and an independent RICS chartered surveyor to attend the property and review the defects list, and to pick up any further defects if identified. Following the inspection, the developer would be advised of the required works and would arrange the repairs.
7. It would also provide the resident with an action plan once the survey was completed.
8. The developer was responsible for the defects for the first 2 years under the National House Building Council (NHBC) policy. Under the Joint Contracts Tribunal the defect liability period was 12 months, if something was reported between 12 and 24 months the NHBC can pass that on to the builder under the warranty period.
9. It offered £250 compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
On 7 April 2022, the resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2. She stated:
1. She did not accept the gas installation was not at fault.
2. She explained further the major issues she had that were recorded in the stage 1 response, in addition to the cosmetic issues she reported to the landlord previously.
3. The landlord failed to consider the effect the events have had on her daughter and herself.
4. She explained there was poor communication when requesting an extension of the stay in alternative accommodation.
5. She wrote to the landlord on 3 November 2021 regarding poor drainage and a foul smell within her home.
6. She had been unable to fit carpets as she worried the ongoing works would ruin them.
On 12 April 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
On 22 April 2022, internal correspondence at the landlord explained that its final snag inspection was not possible due to cleaners being on site on the day of the handover. It explained it took handover as it was under pressure from buyers who said another delay would make them homeless. It therefore agreed that residents could provide a list of snags during the first 2 weeks of living in the property, which the developer would attend to.
On 5 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to report further defects which were picked up during the surveyor’s visit.
On 9 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and explained following identification of disrepair to the party wall fire barrier, it had appointed a fire consultant to survey the barrier in the property.
On 12 May 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It stated:
1. It acknowledged it did not address the resident’s concerns around its gas leak and the alternative accommodation.
2. It explained there was no set procedure for sending out a gas report to customers. However, those who undertook the repair followed their procedure of reporting back to the developer that all work was complete. As an additional check, the landlord also consulted with its gas compliance team which advised there was no need for a new gas safety certificate. It also arranged for the resident’s stay at the alternative accommodation to be extended until the works were completed.
3. Regarding the various levels of customer experience reported by the resident, it has identified feedback, coaching and training needs to ensure correct processes were followed which it had learnt from. Feedback had also been given to the developer on the issues the resident raised.
4. Following a visit at the end of March 2022, its project manager agreed a snagging list to be passed to the developer for completion by the end of May 2022. It noted some items had already been completed. It acknowledged in the resident’s view needed re-work due to poor workmanship.
5. In respect of the resident’s snagging issues, it explained when it took handover of the property from the developer, due to mitigating factors, its snagging procedure was only partially complete. It was agreed that all customers provided a list of snags during the first 2 weeks which the developer would attend to.
6. It acknowledged its snagging and handover process should have been more thorough. During the defect liability period, works were classified according to their urgency and cosmetic repairs would be completed at any time up to the end of that period. It did not categorise the resident’s cosmetic snags as urgent however, it acknowledged it should have provided a firmer timescale to the resident to manage her expectations.
7. It confirmed dates were agreed to repair the areas of most concern to the resident relating to:
  1. mould, water damage holes in the loft plasterboard and party wall situation with fire safety concerns.
  2. hole under the front door
  3. mould under the kitchen cupboard
  4. electrical item, lack of plug socket behind removeable cupboard.
8. At the resident’s request, it commissioned and paid for an independent building condition report which took place on 3 May 2022. The findings would be shared with the resident once the report was provided.
9. It hoped most of the snagging issues raised by the resident would be completed by the end of May 2022 depending on the availability of the resident and external contractors. The fire barrier works may take longer given the lead time for compiling and responding to any recommendations in the report. It would however keep the resident updated.
10. The resident’s escalation request referred to a drainage issue and associated foul smell. It was not raised in the resident’s discussion with the landlord as part of the stage 2 review. It believed this was now resolved however, if it was still a concern for the resident it would arrange further investigation.
11. It would schedule a weekly courtesy call until the end of May 2022 to ensure the outstanding list was monitored to completion.
12. It offered the resident £350 compensation instead of the initial £250 offered at stage 1.

Events post ICP

On 2 August 2022, the resident contacted this Service with her complaint. She explained:
1. Her defects list was over 190 items long.
2. She moved out of the property after 4 months due to a gas leak. She did not believe there was good communication by the landlord during that period relating to the alternative accommodation.
3. The gas track pipe sits within the cavity of the wall of the property, as well as the copper gas pipe which ran to the boiler. The copper pipe was not insulated correctly or met the standard for installation.
4. A plug socket was missing from a hole in the wall behind a removal cupboard in the kitchen and wires were present. She believed this showed the electrical checks were not carried out correctly as this was not checked.
5. The mould, water damage holes in the loft plasterboard and party wall situation with fire safety concerns have not been resolved since the ICP was completed.
On 4 August 2022, the building compliance testers association confirmed the air tightness test certificate was legitimate and did take place. It explained she would need to return to the developers for any retesting.
On 16 August 2022, the resident contacted Gas Safe. It attended the property and determined the gas supply was not to current standards. It explained within its report the gas installation was not considered to be unsafe however, it determined the gas pipework under the boiler had not been protected correctly due to it being in contact with plaster and expanding foam, which was not in accordance with British standards.
On 7 December 2023, the resident confirmed there was still outstanding works to the spandrel panels which compromised the fire integrity of the property. It was listed as an urgent defect in May 2022. She also explained other defects she reported remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

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 only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.

Concerns regarding gas safety at the property

This Service recognises the resident raised concerns with the landlord’s handling of the gas safety after she experienced a gas leak in March 2022. Understandably this was a concerning event to occur at a new property.
The landlord has provided evidence the gas supply at the property had been certified to the required standard. It also reassured the resident the developer sent out a Gas Safe contractor to respond to the gas leak and ensure it was fixed. This was a legal requirement and it was confirmed the leak was made safe and the resident could return to the property. The landlord’s evidence has shown it took all required legal steps to respond to the gas leak. It also confirmed it was not required to obtain a new certificate. The landlord has shown it followed procedure and legal requirements to resolve the gas leak with the developer. Its handling of the matter was appropriate.
The resident explained she experienced communication issues relating to the extension of her stay in the alternative accommodation and the information she received was confusing and contradictory. She also said the landlord’s phone line options were unclear and the voicemail inbox was full. This caused her distress. Whilst the hotel stay was provided by the developer, this Service would expect to see the landlord remained informed of updates and next steps with the developer and facilitated good communication. The landlord has not provided evidence of the discussions which took place around this date. However, its stage 2 response explained the resident contacted its out of hours line and it arranged for the extension of the hotel stay on the evening before the resident was scheduled to leave the hotel. Whilst this Service does recognise this had an impact on the resident, the landlord took reasonable steps to ensure the matter was resolved with the developer and the resident could return to her home. It has also shown good practice by identifying coaching and training needs for itself and the developer which it had shared and would learn from.
This Service does note that following the ICP, the resident made contact with a Gas Safe engineer and an inspection found the insulation around the pipes did not conform to British standard, although the installation was not determined unsafe. Whilst this information is concerning, a Gas Safe engineer inspected the supply when responding to the gas leak, it was therefore unfortunate the engineer did not recognise a defect around the insulation. The landlord was reliant on the developers handling of the matter and could only confirm the information it received from the developer. The landlord’s response to the gas safety issue was reasonable and it complied with all legal requirements, in the Ombudsman’s opinion its handling was no maladministration.

Snagging reports

The Ombudsman appreciates as the resident moved into a new property, she would have been disappointed where a considerable number of issues had been discovered within a short period of her occupancy. This would have impacted on her new home experience.
The Ombudsman does however recognise, that from time to time there will be defects and snagging in new build properties which may not have been identified in the initial build. Shared owners are therefore protected by the defect period and the warranties in place, and the existence of a defect (or defects) alone would not constitute a failure in the landlord’s service.
During the defect period however, or where works remain outstanding after this time, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to act as an appropriate intermediary coordinating matters between the developer/manufacturer and the resident, in order to ensure that repairs are appropriately managed and completed to a satisfactory standard. This would also include ensuring that the repairs which have been reported are passed on to the developer/manufacturer and arranged within a reasonable amount of time.
As works were being scheduled and undertaken by a third party, it is accepted that matters were to an extent out of the landlord’s control. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect to see that the landlord had done all that it could to manage the situation, proactively pursue the outstanding works and to consider alternative solutions where resolution was delayed.
Within its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged when it took handover of the property from the developer, due to mitigating factors its snagging procedure was only partially completed. It therefore asked the resident to complete a snagging report on their home which would then be submitted to the developers. The landlord’s reasoning for this was due to buyers reporting they would be homeless if completion did not happen. Whilst it is understandably frustrating to the resident the landlord did not complete its final snag inspection, the circumstances for taking handover to prevent buyers from being without a home was reasonable, and it put in place a plan which would allow further snags to be reported by the resident.
It was noted the resident had reported approximately 100 snags, which she informed this Service was over 190 snags when bringing her complaint. The resident acknowledged the majority were cosmetic however, there was more serious concerns she had relating to:
1. mould, water damage holes in the loft plasterboard and party wall situation with fire safety concerns
2. hole under the front door
3. mould under the kitchen cupboard
4. lack of plug socket behind removeable cupboard
5. air tightness in the property.
This Service recognises the property was a new build home and any snags reported within the warranty period were the responsibility of the developer.
The evidence provided by the landlord suggests it did not delay in reporting the snags from the resident to the developer and regularly communicated with the developer to resolve the issues for the resident. The resident was understandably frustrated by the delays caused to fix the snags she reported. However, this Service recognises the landlord had no control over the timeframes. The landlord acted reasonably within its complaint responses and communicated with the developer to ensure the higher priority snags reported by the resident were prioritised and it provided provisionally agreed repair dates in May 2022 following discussions with the developer. It also explained the cosmetic snags could be repaired at any time during the warranty period.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged it had not communicated effectively with the resident to explain the snags which were categorised as cosmetic could be completed at any time during the defect liability period. Whilst the landlord did not communicate this information with the resident initially, it showed good practice to acknowledge its mistake and that its initial snagging process was unsatisfactory following its ICP investigation. It did however, fail to ensure a thorough snagging procedure was in place when it took handover of the property and did not manage the resident’s expectations regarding the timescales for the cosmetic snags to be repaired. Although this Service accepts there was mitigating circumstances for doing so and it put in place an alternative action plan.
The landlord showed good practice in its handling of the large number of snags reported within the scope of this investigation, acknowledging a surveyor was required to complete a full assessment of the property in line with the snags reported by the resident. Within its stage 2 response, it explained it would share the findings with the developer and request these be resolved.
The resident has reported concerns with the works carried out by the developer in response to some of the reported snags after the ICP was completed. The resident informed this Service she contacted the NHBC and was advised it would be appropriate for the landlord to arrange for an independent level 3 building survey. This Service is unable to investigate the landlord’s actions relating to this survey as it is outside of the scope of investigation. However, it would expect the landlord to carry out all steps to ensure the snags were resolved for the resident within the warranty period or provide an explanation as to why certain snags did not meet the threshold to be resolved and why it would not complete further surveys.
It is clear to the Ombudsman that the resident spent a significant amount of time pursuing her case. As well as having to chase the landlord excessively for a response or update, the resident also had to make time for several appointments and inspections and works. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord attempted to recognise the resident’s inconvenience with an offer of £350 compensation within its stage 2 response. The level of redress was appropriate and in line with our guidelines for a finding of maladministration. This Service does note that following the ICP, the resident has reported she was not kept updated and there was still outstanding works which had not met the timescales provided by the landlord. A recommendation has been made at the end of this report for the landlord to contact the resident and produce an action plan to resolve the outstanding snags.
This Service also recognises the resident has raised concerns with the surveyors report and it was not what she expected, with some of the snags she reported not considered or reported to the developer. This Service has made a recommendation the landlord discusses the matters further with the resident. If a resolution cannot be provided following completion of the ICP, it should record a further complaint relating to these issues.
T he landlord’s overall handling of the snagging issues was appropriate and it acted reasonably to report the resident’s snags to the developer and arrange for a survey to be conducted where there was a large number of snags reported by the resident. The landlord identified its failings, showed learning from these and apologised. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress provide by the landlord in response to the snagging reports.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of her service charge is considered outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of concerns regarding gas safety at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s snagging reports.

Reasons

The landlord ensured the correct gas safety certification was in place and followed its required obligations. It responded within appropriate timescales to the report of the gas leak and worked with the developer to agree alternative accommodation in a timely manner for the resident. .
The landlord acted appropriately to report the resident’s snags to the developer and arranged for a survey of the property to inspect the snags reported by the resident. It offered reasonable redress for its communication failings.

Recommendations

The landlord is to:
1. Contact the resident and review if any snags remain outstanding and take into account any recommendations that have been made in the inspection survey report dated May 2022, following the ICP.
2. Agree any further actions for snagging or routine repairs and confirm who is responsible for completion.
3. Agree timescales for completion with the resident.
The landlord records the resident’s vulnerabilities.