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

Platform Housing Group Limited (202315090)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315090

Platform Housing Group Limited

21 November 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 defects in the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and shared owner of the property with the landlord since 27 May 2022. It is a 3 bedroom house and the landlord is a housing association. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The developer handed over the property to the landlord on 30 March 2022, it said no defects were reported at the point of the handover. The resident signed the lease on 27 May 2022, and he said that he reported a scratch on the bath panel and the kitchen worktop. The landlord said defects in the kitchen were reported but it did not provide further details.
  3. On 13 July 2022, the resident reported several defects to the landlord. His list included (but not limited to) defects with the kitchen units and drawers, cracked bricks, a gap in cement, an uneven patio, some water pooling in the garden, a gap under the shower screen, scratches on the bath panel and kitchen worktop and a damaged banister.
  4. Between July 2022 and September 2022, the landlord kept in contact with the developer on the issues raised and provided the resident with regular updates. On 25 August 2022, the developer clarified that it did not consider the scratch on the bath panel as a defect and its reasons for that conclusion. The resident disputed this and said that the damage to the bath panel occurred prior to him moving. On 6 September 2022, the resident made a further report of a problem with the garden draining and water pooling.
  5. On 12 September 2022, the resident reported that some repairs were outstanding, the landlord confirmed its position and plans with the resident. It said:
    1. It completed the following repairs: gaps in cement, the sealant, the patio slabs, alignments of the kitchen units and drawers, the sticking doors and the shower screen gap.
    2. The outstanding defects that the developer agreed to address were the repairs to the banister, inspection of the kitchen door handles, garden drainage, repairs to the cracked bricks, the fencing and the window beading issues.
    3. The other repairs were not considered defects and the developer would not address those.
  6. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 15 September 2022, about its handling of the outstanding defects in his property. It informed the resident on 29 September 2022, that it needed longer to investigate his complaint and would respond by 13 October 2022.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 10 October 2022. It said:
    1. It had been in regular contact with the developer and confirmed that they were in process of resolving the matters and it listed the defects the developer had resolved to date.
    2. It explained that a contractor would contact him for the repairs to the window beading. It said that on 27 October 2022, it would fix the cracked bricks at the rear of the property. It confirmed that the developer had inspected and found no defect with the garden draining and concluded that a heavier than normal rainfall had caused the problem.
    3. It would inspect the kitchen handles to show if the issue was due to damage or a defect. It confirmed that it had tried to contact the resident about the repairs to the banister and left a message to rebook an appointment for this job.
    4. It concluded that it had acted correctly as a landlord in keeping with its defects process and it did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  8. On 10 October 2022, the developer said it had attended to all the repairs apart from the banister. On 21 February 2023, the resident said that some repairs remained outstanding including the repairs to the banister. The landlord offered the resident £100 in compensation to reflect his time and trouble, which the resident said should be reviewed on completion of all the repairs. The 12 months defect inspection took place on 3 March 2023, and found 5 outstandings defects which included the repairs to the garden drainage.
  9. On 8 March 2023, the resident requested to escalate his complaint. The resident said that only some of the kitchen units were replaced and he was told the remaining units had been on order since October 2022. Additionally, he said the repairs to the bathroom and banister were incomplete. The resident also described the distress and inconvenience caused to him and his family.
  10. The landlord disused its stage 2 response to his complaint on 14 April 2023. It said:
    1. It explained its reason for not considering the scratch to the bath and dent in the sink. Namely that those were not reported at the property handover or at the viewing of the property with the resident.
    2. It provided a detailed update of the defects the resident reported. The developer had replaced the kitchen cupboards and repaired the patio window beading. It reiterated the plans for the banister and confirmed that the developer had agreed to carry out the repairs to the bathroom skirting board and lounge ceiling.
    3. It apologised for any miscommunication and shared the actions it took to prevent this from recurring. It also apologised for the delay to communicate its position about not attending to the scratched bath and dented sink, the time taken to rectify the resident’s outstanding defects, and the loss of income he incurred because of missed appointments.
    4. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered to pay the resident £700 compensation. It said this was equivalent to £350 to reflect the delay in resolving the defects in his property and £350 to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident because of several missed appointments.

Post internal complaint process

  1. There was a high level of communication between the landlord, the resident and the developer between May 2023 and September 2023. In May 2023, the landlord agreed to carry out the repairs to the kitchen units and the scratch on the bath. The landlord completed the repairs to the bath in June 2023 and the kitchen in September 2022.
  2. On 12 September 2023, the landlord apologised for the delays in completing the repairs to his kitchen and offered the resident an added £300 in compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scoping of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident reported a loss of earnings due to several missed appointments by the landlord. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s reports, but this Service will not make a decision on the resident’s loss of earnings because it is outside our remit to assess damages. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on negligence nor the causation of, or liability for damages. This would be usually dealt with either as an insurance claim or through the courts. However, we can look at how the landlord dealt with the resident’s request for damages because of alleged loss of earnings.

The landlord’s handling of defects in the property

  1. The Ombudsman appreciates that as the resident had moved into a new build property, he would have been disappointed that the defects occurred. This would have affected his new home experience. However, the Ombudsman recognises that, from time to time, there will be defects which may not have been found during the handover of the property. Shared owners are protected by the defect period and the warranties in place. The existence of a defect alone would not constitute a failure on the part of the landlord.
  2. However, during the defect or warranty periods, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to raise the issue with the developer and act as an intermediary, coordinating matters between the developer and the resident. This is so it can ensure that repairs are appropriately managed, completed to a satisfactory standard and within a reasonable amount of time.
  3. The landlord’s defects and initial repair period policy sets out its approach to managing defects for residents during the Defect Liability Period (DLP) in new build projects. It states that the policy applies to all residents in new build homes. In this case, the resident’s property was handed over to the landlord in March 2022, and had a defect liability period of 12 months. Its defects policy describes that defects result from poor workmanship, the design, or a fault with the part or materials used. It clarifies that this excludes damage caused by wear and tear or the resident. During the DLP period the developer will be expected to put right any qualifying defects.
  4. As per the process set out in the landlord’s defects and initial repairs period policy, residents must report any defect to the landlord who will then report it to the developer. The developer will then be expected to complete the repairs when the issue is reported during the defect liability period. In this case, the resident reported several issues in July 2022. On the receipt of his report, the landlord reported the defects to the developer. This was reasonable from the landlord, and in line with what was expected at that point.
  5. While the works were being completed by a third party, the Ombudsman would nevertheless expect to see that the landlord had done all that it could to manage the situation, to proactively pursue the outstanding works, and to consider alternative solutions where the resolution was being prolonged. In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord remained in contact with all parties throughout the process. This was reasonable and in keeping with its policy to keep the resident informed.
  6. In this case, the evidence shows that in addition to promptly reporting the defects to the developer, the landlord also provided updates to the resident between July 2022 and September 2023. The landlord also showed that within its communication with the resident, it put steps in place to monitor progress by providing a date by which the developer should have contacted the resident about the next step. All those were positive steps for the landlord to take in keeping with its defect policy to report defects to the developer, pro-actively monitor the status of all defect repairs and keep resident informed.
  7. The evidence shows that between July 2022 and March 2023, the developer attended to several defects at the property. The landlord’s defects policy states that it will expect a developer to complete routine defects within 20 working days, those are defects which would not cause serious inconvenience or considered an emergency. It also states that the developer may complete the repairs at the end of the 12 months DLP if those are defects which do not affect the comfort of the resident or restrict the use of the property. In this case, whilst the landlord did not classify the defects reported, the evidence did not show that the resident reported an emergency or urgent repair. Whilst there is high level of communication between the parties, the landlord did not show that it discussed the defects classification or timescale for resolution with the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with clear timeframes and manage his expectations.
  8. Based on the evidence seen, it is difficult to assess the extent of the delays in completing the repairs as the definite date of completion for each repairs was not shared with this investigation. Some defects were attended within the timeframe set by the DLP to attend to the repairs by February 2023, such as the repairs to the patio slabs and the repairs to the banister. The evidence shows that the developer took approximately 7 months to repair the banister. We understand that this would have felt like a long time to the resident, however, the repairs were attended to within the DLP period of 12 months, and therefore within timescale. The evidence also shows that the landlord remained in contact with all parties during that period and handled the matters in keeping with its defects policy.
  9. The Ombudsman recognises that there were some disputes about some defects not considered as such by the developer and its decision not to address those repairs. We cannot make findings against the decisions or actions of the developer as they are not a member of the scheme. The Ombudsman recognises that the developer’s decision left the resident in limbo, as he disagreed that items such as the scratch to the bath panel and the damaged kitchen units were his responsibility to resolve. The Ombudsman is an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. Where there are conflicting accounts, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to put right this failure.
  10. In this case, neither party could agree when the damage or defects to the bath panel and the kitchen units occurred. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident argued that the damage happened prior to him moving in and he said that he had reported those issues when he bought the property. The landlord had no record of those reports and concluded that the resident first reported the issues in July 2022, several weeks after he moved in. Without the evidence to support either accounts, the Ombudsman cannot determine that there was a failure by the landlord.
  11. Whilst without evidence, we cannot determine when the repairs or defects occurred, we expect the landlord to make its position clear about which defects would not be attended to by the developer. In this case, in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged its delay in clearly communicating why the developer would not attend to some of the repairs and apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident. Whilst this was reasonable from the landlord, the delay in communicating this left the resident with uncertainty about the next step. This caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issue as a complaint.
  12. Additionally, from the landlord’s own admission, there were delays completing some of the repairs and several missed appointments, which caused inconvenience to the resident. As previously mentioned, the landlord’s defects policy sets the timeframe to complete the repairs. The evidence shows that the resident reported an issue with his garden drainage in July 2022. Whilst we acknowledge that the landlord kept in contact with all parties throughout, despite regular contact between all parties, a year later the repairs were planned for but remained outstanding at the end of the DLP. The resident has confirmed that all defects have now been resolved. Nevertheless, there were long delays in resolving the issue and the landlord’s actions were not in keeping with its defects policy timeframe to handle such matters.
  13. The landlord’s defects policy states that it will proactively monitor and regularly review the status of all defect repairs and where there are unreasonable delays, it will take a view on taking the responsibility for resolving the matter. In this case, the landlord decided in May 2023, that it would resolve the issue of the bath panel and the kitchen units, this was 9 months after the developer clarified that those were not defects and it would not attend to those. Whilst this would have reassured the resident that the landlord was committed to resolve the matter to his satisfaction, it took a long time for the landlord to make that decision.
  14. The landlord reported that the repairs to the bath panel and the kitchen units were completed by 5 September 2023. Whilst its defects policy states that it will attend to such repairs within 20 working days, it took another 77 days to complete the repairs to the kitchen units. The Ombudsman understands that it can take time to get parts needed to complete a job and that the landlord provided regular updates to the resident and explained it had to order the kitchen units, which was reasonable However, it took 3 months to complete the repairs. Those were unreasonable delays in resolving the issues, especially as the resident had first reported the problem in July 2022.
  15. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord acknowledged the delays and length of time it took to resolving the issues raised by the resident. In its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, it apologised for the delay in communicating its position about not attending to the scratched bath and dented sink, the time taken to rectify the resident’s outstanding defects, and the loss of income he incurred because of missed appointments. This was reasonable from the landlord, it showed that it recognised its failings and their impact on the resident. It also offered the resident £700 compensation to reflect the impact on him. It later offered a further £300 to reflect the additional delays after its internal complaint process. This was reasonable from the landlord, it showed that it recognised its service had fallen short of what it expected and offered to pay compensation to the resident to reflect the impact on him.
  16. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s defects reports was in keeping with its defects policy and what we would expect of the landlord dealing with such issues. It communicated well with all parties, it considered alternative options to resolve the issue which were not considered defects. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord. Nevertheless, and from its own admission there were delays in resolving some of the defects reported by the resident and it offered to pay £1000 compensation to the resident. The landlord said the compensation was equivalent to £350 for the unreasonable delays in rectifying the defects and giving misleading information at the viewing. A further £350 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience experienced by the resident, with an added £300 to reflect the delays which occurred post ICP.
  17. After considering the evidence of the case, the Ombudsman determines the landlord has offered redress to the resident in relation to his complaint about its handling of the defects in his property prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The landlord’s resolution of the reported defects, its apology and offer of compensation reflect the failings identified in this report. Therefore, this results in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’

Determination

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

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord makes good on its offer to pay the resident £1000 in compensation, if it has not already.