Platform Housing Group Limited (202316250)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316250

Platform Housing Group Limited

Final Report 24 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:
1. The resident’s reports of defects.
2. The resident’s request for an independent Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) level 3 survey.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder, whose lease commenced on 19 October 2018. The property is a 2-bedroom new build house. The landlord has told this Service it is not aware of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
Following the handover to the landlord from the building developer, there was a 12-month defect liability period for the property. The developer was responsible for remedying any defect repairs reported during this period. The defect period ended on 23 March 2019.
On 29 April 2019, a defects inspection was carried out on the property and the following repairs were noted as outstanding:
1. Front and back doors both allowing draughts into the property.
2. Creaking floorboards upstairs.
3. Bath not sealed properly.
The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions during 2019, 2020, and 2021, regarding outstanding defects and repairs. The last contact from the resident regarding outstanding issues was on 26 April 2021, when she resubmitted a copy of the defects report to the landlord.
On 30 October 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord that her previous reports of outstanding repairs and defects had been ignored. She stated she was disabled and suffered from asthma and osteoarthritis, and the ongoing situation was causing her distress. The resident provided a list of issues that remained outstanding, which included:
1. Fencing in the rear garden was starting to fall down.
2. The rear garden was uneven and dangerous for someone with mobility issues.
3. The “drainage strip” outside the front door was broken.
4. The drainpipe at the front of the house was loose.
5. The kitchen cupboard door needed replacing.
6. Electrical sockets had been fitted under the kitchen sink next to water pipes.
7. The skirting board in bathroom needed replacing.
8. Edging tiles were loose on the side of the house.
9. Creaking floorboards upstairs.
10. Kickboards in kitchen had not been sealed.
11. Crack in bathroom ceiling needed to be repaired.
On 23 December 2022, it issued a stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the issues the resident had experienced and the time taken to complete the defect repairs. It stated that it had liaised with the developer regarding the outstanding repairs, but due to the amount of time that had passed since the defect period ended, the developer had no records of the repairs being raised. The landlord confirmed that its own records showed repair requests had been sent to the developer, and the landlord committed to resolving:
1. Bathroom skirting boards.
2. Loose edging tiles.
3. Creaking floorboards.
4. Kitchen kick boards and cupboard door.
5. Crack to bathroom ceiling.
The landlord stated that repairs that were not raised during the defect period were the responsibility of the resident, as per the terms of her lease. The landlord confirmed it would not repair issues with:
1. The rear garden fencing.
2. The uneven back garden.
3. The drainage strip outside the front door.
4. A loose drainpipe at the front of the house.
5. Any other matter that was not raised during the defect period.
The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £100 compensation under the category of “failure of staff to take reasonable care”.
On 13 January 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She contested that the landlord was unaware of a number of defects during the defect period and listed a number of further issues that needed to be resolved, which included:
1. An RICS level 3 survey of the property.
2. The front and rear doorsteps had not been secured correctly.
3. The front door, including frame was not straight.
4. The back door was not sealed correctly and there was a draught.
5. The expansion gap on the side of the house was in the wrong place and the upper brick work was incorrect.
6. The cladding contained gaps under the windows.
7. Draughts coming through the bedroom window.
8. Electrics had blown in the kitchen but triggered the upstairs trip switch which suggested the installation was incorrect.
The resident also declined the compensation offer and stated it was not sufficient for the lack of customer care and attention that she had experienced.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 July 2023. It apologised for the delays experienced, that lack of communication, and the repairs that remained outstanding. It upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord explained that a visit was carried out at the property and a list of 20 outstanding issues was compiled, 18 of which, it agreed to resolve. The landlord stated that at the time of its response, 5 issues remained unresolved, and it set out its plan to address the remaining outstanding defects.
Regarding the resident’s request for a survey to be carried out on the property, the landlord stated it had discussed the matter with the developer and none of the defects reported suggested that such a survey was required.
The landlord acknowledged that the previous offer of compensation was not accepted by the resident and increased the compensation to £2,500, made up of:
1. £800 for delays and length of time taken to complete defects.
2. £1,000 for the distress, inconvenience and upset caused to the resident.
3. £250 for communication failure when attending appointments.
4. £200 for the resident having to move out of her property for repairs to be carried out.
5. £250 for complaint handling.
The landlord also offered to pay overnight accommodation and food costs while the resident moved out of her home for the remaining repairs to take place.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has described how the issue has impacted on her health and wellbeing. It is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions/inaction, and the resident’s health. While we cannot determine whether there was a causative element to the landlord’s actions which has had an effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failures by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of reports of defects

The landlord’s home user guide states that at the end of the defect period, an inspection will be arranged and any previously raised defects will be inspected, as well as new defects. After the inspection, defects will no longer be able to be reported in accordance with the term of the lease/freehold document.
The landlord’s defects policy defines a defect as an issue that is a result of poor workmanship, an issue with design, or a fault with the component or materials used. A defect does not include damage caused by wear and tear. The policy also states during the defect liability period, eligible repairs will be put right by the developer at no cost to the landlord or the resident. Following a defect inspection report, the policy states that the developer will contact the resident and complete the works within 4 to 12 working weeks.
The landlord’s defects policy also states that it will proactively monitor and regularly review the status of all defect repairs, and keep the resident informed at all stages to promote a positive experience, even when things do not go to plan. The evidence shows defects remained outstanding almost 4 years after the defect period expired and shows that the landlord failed to follow its defects policy.
The defect period for the resident’s property ended on 23 March 2019. On 12 April 2019, the landlord carried out a defect inspection and recorded 4 defects that remained outstanding on the property:
1. Creaking floorboards upstairs.
2. Bath was not sealed properly.
3. Front and rear doors to the property were letting in draughts.
4. External wall expansion gap needed filling.
The bath was later removed as part of an adaptation carried out by the resident and this repair was no longer required. It is of note that the inspection report also recorded the garden fence for a neighbouring property was “loose and not firm to the ground”.
As part of managing its services, and in particular managing complaints, a landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications with the resident. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of its record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Significant information was missing from what the landlord provided, such as repair logs and reports from when attempts were made to complete repairs and details of outstanding defects, beyond those contained within the defect inspection report. It is only apparent that visits to the property had been made from emails that discussed such events.
On 30 October 2022, the resident submitted her formal complaint to the landlord and listed a number of required repairs, that she believed were defects, and which remained outstanding to her property. While repairs to the creaking floorboards and the rear garden fence appeared on the defect inspection report dated April 2019, some of the other issues listed below did not:
1. Kitchen cupboard door needed replacing.
2. Bathroom skirting board needed repairing.
3. Edging tiles on the side of the house were loose.
4. Kitchen kickboards were not sealed.
5. Crack in bathroom ceiling.
6. Uneven back garden.
7. Drainage strip outside the front door.
8. Loose drainpipe at the front of the house.
In her complaint, the resident stated that she had made efforts over a lengthy period to try and resolve the outstanding issues with her property, but in response she had continually received inconsistent information or had been ignored. She described her situation as “desperate” and stated she found the entire process stressful and difficult. The resident asked for the repairs to be resolved as she worried about the increase in energy costs that she was likely to incur over the winter period.
It is not clear from the documents provided what investigation work was carried out from the resident’s complaint and the complaint acknowledgement and response. The only contact the landlord had with the resident was to acknowledge her complaint or provide details of an extension to when she would receive her complaint response. Given the defect period ended in March 2019, and the apparent distress the resident was experiencing, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to visit the property to determine why the repairs remained outstanding over 3 years later. This did not happen and was unfair towards the resident.
In its stage 1 complaint response dated 23 December 2022, the landlord apologised that the repairs remained outstanding and stated that some of the repairs listed had been reported within the defect period and for which the developer would contact the resident to arrange for the repairs to be completed. These were identified as:
1. Kitchen cupboard door needed replacing.
2. Bathroom skirting bard needed replacing.
3. Loose edging tiles.
4. Creaking floorboards.
5. Kickboards in kitchen were not sealed.
6. Crack in bathroom sealing.
It is unclear how the landlord reached this conclusion based on the documents provided to this Service. Only the creaking floorboards appeared on the defect report dated April 2019. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to take ownership of the issue and to facilitate contact with the developer to get the repairs resolved.
The landlord also stated that some of the repairs listed by the resident were not reported during the defect period and responsibility would pass back to the resident. These included the issues with the rear fence, the rear garden, the downpipe, and the drainage strip.
The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the property. The lease states that although the resident does not own the property outright, as the leaseholder, she does have the normal responsibilities of a full owner. It further states that the resident is responsible for keeping the premises and boundaries in good and substantial condition. Premises are defined in the lease as including:
1. All buildings, erections, and structures.
2. The service media within and servicing the premises.
3. Appurtenances (an accessory or other item associated with a particular activity or style of living) fixtures, fittings, and rights granted by the lease.
At this stage, it was appropriate for the landlord not to address the repairs to the garden, downpipe, and drainage strip, as they were not reported during the defect period and were the resident’s responsibility to rectify as per the terms of her lease.
When the resident escalated her complaint on 13 January 2023, she listed a number of other issues with the property that she believed were defects. These included:
1. The front door and frame were not straight.
2. The back door had not been sealed correctly causing draughts.
3. The expansion gap on the side of the house was in the wrong place.
4. The cladding at the front of the house had gaps.
5. The bedroom window had a draught coming through.
6. When the electrics in the kitchen blew the trip switch for upstairs was triggered.
In her escalation request, the resident stated that the landlord was denying knowledge of defects, which should have been dealt with much earlier. She also stated that the garden fencing had been continually reported to the landlord by her and a neighbour for a number of years. The resident also requested for an independent survey to be carried out. This is covered as a separate point later in this report.
The landlord’s defect policy states that eligible defect repairs result from poor workmanship or an issue with the design. There is no evidence to show the resident reported all the repairs listed within the defect period.
Repairs began on 1 February 2023. The resident was not provided with a schedule of work, and she subsequently contacted the landlord on 1 and 8 February to follow up repairs. She also contacted the developer on 8 February, providing them with her list of outstanding defects.
On 28 February 2023, the landlord attended the resident’s property to carry out its own inspection and documented 18 outstanding issues with the property, including the fence that it had previously refused to acknowledge as a defect. The inspection report noted the following:
1. Bathroom ceiling settlement crack – developer to repair.
2. Repairs had already been undertaken to floorboards and no excessive creaking was evident upon inspection.
3. Bedroom carpet had not been refitted satisfactorily following repairs to floorboards – developer to attend.
4. All fencing panels, with 1 exception, had been installed upside down and all fence posts were either rotten or had not been inserted deep enough. The developer was to return and replace the posts and refit the panels.
5. While the developer had repaired the loose tiles, there were still draughts in the loft space – developer to return and fill in the gaps with mortar.
6. Rear door was too small and poorly fitted – replacement door needed.
7. Rear door threshold loose and not fitted correctly. A query was raised as to whether damp proof membrane had been fitted.
8. The bedroom window was inspected for draughts, but no obvious cause could be found.
9. The landlord queried whether the windows, in general, were the correct size for the property.
10. The expansion joint appeared to be fitted incorrectly. The developer was required to inspect the issue and provide plans and engineer notes.
11. Poor and wobbly brickwork was noted.
12. Downpipe had been leaking since handover and repairs carried out had not rectified the issue.
13. A query was raised as to whether the cladding had been fitted correctly and whether the windows had been sealed correctly behind it.
14. Front door had been adjusted many times and did not fit correctly. The door was difficult to operate, and a replacement was needed.
15. Front door threshold was poorly fitted.
16. Electric fault in kitchen tripped the upstairs switch. The developer was instructed to send an electrician to establish whether the switches had been labelled correctly in the consumer unit.
17. An electrical socket was situated next to water pipes in the kitchen. It was noted as not being in an ideal position and difficult to access. No plan of action was recorded.
18. Minor settlement cracks were noted.
The landlord also noted that the skirting board in the bathroom, which featured in the resident’s original complaint, had rotted due to an adaptation that had since been made by the resident, and while the developer had recently replaced it, any further issues would not be covered by the landlord or the developer. This was appropriate and in line with the resident’s terms of the lease.
The resident reported that there were incidents of the developer’s contractors attending without notice, and wasted appointments, and reiterated the stress and anxiety the situation was continually causing her. While the landlord appears to have planned to call the resident a week later, no record of the conversation has been disclosed.
From 18 April 2023, the landlord was more proactive in chasing the developer and email updates were requested on a weekly or fortnightly basis. The landlord’s role was to facilitate the repair works by communicating with the developer, and in turn, relaying the information back to the resident. While this Service has noted that the landlord did, at times, have trouble in receiving timely replies from the developer and arranging meetings with them, the landlord failed to provide weekly updates to the resident and most of the communication with her was prompted her contacting the landlord first. This was unreasonable considering the commitment it had previously made regarding the frequency of updates.
On 19 April 2023, landlord internal emails show that an update was provided from the developer in relation to a number of points raised by the landlord. In respect of the front and rear doors letting in draughts, the developer stated that both doors would be readjusted. It is noted that this was different to the landlord’s own inspection report which stated that both doors required replacement.
A further update from the developer on 2 May 2023, stated that work to the expansion joint was not needed as the side elevation of the house had rendered detail, which is why the joint was positioned where it was. Again, this contrasted with the landlord’s own inspection report, which suggested the joint may have been incorrectly fitted as it was not continuous.
Given the inconsistencies between the two sets of findings, the landlord could have explored completing the works itself, however it was also reasonable for it to rely on the developer’s findings give that it would have investigated the defects reported. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to explain this to the resident so that she was not left confused by the differing opinions
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 May 2023 to say she was not happy with the repairs to the windows, as they had just been covered in more mastic. It is not clear when these repairs took place, but the landlord’s inspection report from February 2023 queried whether the windows were the correct size for the property, so it is understandable that the resident was confused. The landlord replied on 22 May 2023, and stated that the windows had been checked and complied with the window schedule for the construction of her property type and included a copy of the schedule for the resident.
In an email to the resident dated 22 May 2023, the landlord confirmed there were four outstanding repairs required at the property:
1. The brickwork would be attended by a contractor on a date to be confirmed.
2. The fence panels that had been incorrectly installed would be attended by a contractor on a date to be confirmed.
3. The creaking floorboards and nail pops had been scheduled for 22 and 26 March 2023.
4. The doors would be attended to by another glazier on a date to be arranged.
The landlord also advised the resident that as a shared owner, she had a right to make a claim under NHBC and it would fully support this claim with the issues she had raised. While the resident was able to raise a claim directly, it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to be proactive and initiate the claim on the resident’s behalf given the current situation.
On 3 June 2023, the resident emailed the developer, which was subsequently forwarded to the landlord. She explained that she had been given dates for the end of June for repair works that were unsuitable as she was going away. The resident said she was becoming increasingly overwhelmed with the situation and the dust from constant drilling was not helping her asthma. The resident said she had reached the point where she would need to be rehoused during the upcoming repairs due to the nature of the work involved. The landlord subsequently arranged to pay for accommodation and food costs while the further repairs to the floorboards were carried out in July 2023. This was a fair and reasonable action for the landlord to take and demonstrated that the landlord was listening to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord chased the developer for updates on 8 and 23 June 2023 in relation to the outstanding repairs. It would appear that appointments had not been attended due to the resident going away earlier than expected in mid-June. However, on 30 June 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to say she was finding it difficult to deal with the situation, due to stress and anxiety, and requested that the repairs be put on hold for up to 6 weeks while she sought the help she needed.
In its stage 2 complaint response dated 27 July 2023, the landlord apologised for not completing the defect repairs in a timely manner and conceded that some of the defects were never formally closed. It said:
1. At the time of writing, only 5 of the 18 issues identified in its inspection report from February 2023 remained outstanding. These were the brick work, the front and rear doors, the creaking floorboards, the nail pops, and the fence.
2. A contractor would assess whether the doors were fitted correctly.
3. A further contractor would “attend to the fence panel to fix it into place”.
4. It wanted to resolve the issues within a timeframe of 3 months from 1 August 2023.
5. It increased its compensation offer from £100 to £2,250 (minus the complaint handling aspect) to address the failings it had made.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident and informing her of action it was going to take to put matters right.
The landlord’s defect policy states that routine defect repairs will be carried out within 20 working days. While it is not clear from the documents when the other repairs took place, it was not reasonable for the resident to still be waiting for repairs to be carried out 5 months after the last inspection report. This failing led to prolonged distress and inconvenience for the resident.
The resident declined the compensation offered as the level of compensation it offered to the resident was disproportionately low when the length of these repair delays and the impacted on the resident is considered. It also failed to consider any additional heating costs that the resident had incurred due to having draughts coming through both doors for a lengthy period of time.
The resident has told this Service that some of the repairs have still not been resolved to date. The landlord emailed the resident on 31 August 2023 and informed her the developer had stated there were no faults with the rear door and as such, no repairs would be carried out. This was additional conflicting information, which would have caused the resident additional confusion.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 September 2023 to inform her that the developer had since assessed the fence and stated the fence was installed correctly and there was only one fence post loose. This also contradicted the landlord’s own inspection and as a result, the resident refused the repair as it would not solve the issue. The resident has since paid to have the fence replaced herself. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this was at a cost to the resident, it is not the landlord’s responsibility to replace the fencing in these circumstances.
It is also apparent that other work such as draughts to the loft space and the brick work were put on hold when the landlord began to liaise with the NHBC regarding a claim on behalf of the resident in September 2023. This claim has not been progressed to date and they are waiting for the resident to supply evidence of when the defects were reported to the developer. It is clear from the landlord’s complaint responses that the landlord has access to this information, and it may be appropriate for it to take the lead and assist the resident in this regard
The landlord appropriately acknowledged that it mismanaged the defects process and did not record or action repairs that were appropriately reported by the resident in 2019. By deviating from its own defects policy, the landlord has left the resident with issues, which should have been resolved at the end of the defect period. It is however appropriate to acknowledge that a period of this time was impacted by the restrictions imposed as part of Covid-19, where developers were impacted on resolving issues.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident also stated that despite numerous emails and phone calls to both the landlord and the developer in the first 24 months of occupying her home, no action was taken by either party. She said she felt ignored and did not realise she had the ability to raise a complaint and take the matter further. The ongoing situation has caused the resident distress, inconvenience, and expenses that she would not otherwise have incurred, such as increased heating bills and paying to replace the rear fences. The resident’s reluctance to pursue the issues further at the time is indicative of a loss in confidence in the landlord to provide a functioning repair service, and a breakdown of the landlord and tenant relationship.
When investigating complaints, the Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord 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’.
We will only order a landlord to pay compensation if we find evidence of service failure or maladministration that has not been put right. In addition, we must be satisfied that compensation is the most appropriate action that will put things right in the circumstances of the complaint, or at least go some way in doing so.
All compensation calculations are based on what is considered fair in the circumstances of the case. The landlord’s compensation offer at stage 2 was £2250, which was broken down as:
1. £800 for the delays and length of time defects and the review took to be completed.
2. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience and upset caused.
3. £250 for additional communication failure when attending appointments.
4. £200 for having to move out of the property to allow works to be carried out.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
As the landlord’s offer of £1000 was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance I am satisfied that it was fair in the circumstances and was suitable redress for the failures identified.
The landlord’s also offered an addition £1250 for time and trouble and smaller failures. This was also fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of a request for an independent RICS level 3 survey

The resident’s request for an RICS level 3 survey was not included in her formal complaint dated 30 October 2022. However, upon escalating her complaint on 13 January 2023, she stated that she was still waiting for the survey to be carried out and paid for by the landlord “as promised in the meeting back in December.”
It is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether a RICS Level 3 survey is required, but to assess the landlord’s handling once the resident requested this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 May 2023, repeating her request for a survey at the landlord’s expense. On 22 May 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and said it would address her request in its stage 2 complaint response, once the defects had all been resolved.
On 8 and 23 June 2023, internal emails between the landlord and the developer suggest that the survey request had been acknowledged but was marked as “to be discussed” in both emails. It is unclear from the documents provided when this discussion took place.
In its stage 2 complaint response, dated 27 July 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s survey request. It stated that following discussions with the developer, there had been no defect reported that would suggest a survey at the level of RICS level 3 was needed. The landlord explained that on a neighbouring development, there had been a requirement for some properties to have this survey carried out due to the timber frame construction of the properties. It further explained that the resident’s property was brick construction and would not experience the same issues as the other development. The landlord further advised that the resident had the right to claim under the NHBC, and the landlord would support her if she wished to pursue this.
There is no legislation or policy that places any obligation on the landlord to arrange an RICS level 3 survey on the property. The landlord has satisfied itself that the extent of the issues does not require RICS level 3 survey and it was reasonable for the landlord to come to this conclusion

Complaint Handling

A landlord’s complaint handling process is an essential aspect of its overall service provision. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 30 October 2022, and included a list of defects that she believed were still outstanding. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 4 November 2022, and said it aimed to issue a response by 18 November 2022.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it will not recognise a complaint for matters that have not been brought to its attention within the previous 6 months. Despite this, the landlord accepted the complaint and acknowledged it within 5 working days, in line with its complaints policy. This was a positive step for the landlord to take to promote good landlord/tenant relationships.
The landlord contacted the resident on 18 November, 2 December, and 16 December 2022, to extend the date of her complaint response. The last contact suggested that she would receive the response by 19 December 2022.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will aim to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days. However, it acknowledges that some complaints are more complex than others and may take longer. The policy states that in these situations the landlord will contact the resident to extend the date of the response. Given the complex nature and scale of the resident’s complaint, it is reasonable that the landlord required more time to address all the points made and acted in line with its policy.
On 23 December 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. This was 4 days later than the date given to the resident. The landlord apologised for the delays in providing a response.
The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint and offered the resident £100 compensation for the “failure of staff to take reasonable care”. The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation may be relevant in circumstances where staff have not taken reasonable care. However, the policy does not say how the compensation amount will be calculated.
On 13 January 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. Within her escalation request, she listed several further outstanding issues with her property that had not been covered in her original complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 20 January 2023. This was sent within 5 working days, in line with its complaint policy. However, it is unclear whether the acknowledgement gave the resident a date that she could expect to receive her stage 2 response by.
The landlord contacted the resident on 13 February, 2 March, 30 March and 15 May 2023 to extend the date of her stage 2 complaint response. The last contact suggested that she would receive the response by 12 June 2023.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will aim to issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days. However, it acknowledges that some complaints are more complex than others and may take longer and in these situations the landlord will contact the resident to extend the date of the response. While it is accepted that the resident’s complaint was complex, it was unreasonable for the landlord to expect her to wait over 6 months for a response.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 July 2023, 45 days after the date it informed the resident she would receive it. This was a significant failing and a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations. While it is accepted that the landlord remained in contact with the resident at the time, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge it was unable to meet the 12 June 2023 deadline.
In its response, the landlord apologised for the delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint and offered £250 compensation for its failings in this regard. The landlord also acknowledged the impact of the delays to repairs, the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and failings in communication.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £250 may remedy maladministration where there was a failure that had significant impact on the resident. Considering the delays to the complaint responses being issued, the missed dates for issuing those responses, the apologies made and the offer of compensation, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of defects.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in landlord’s handling of a request for an independent RICS level survey.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Pay the £2500 compensation to the resident, if it has not done so already, as the finding of reasonable redress was contingent on this payment being made. It is recommended it provide evidence to this Service of this payment within the next 4 weeks
2. Ensure its systems are updated to accurately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities, as already disclosed by her in October 2022.
3. Liaise with the resident if she requires support with the NHBC claim.
4. Liaise with the resident about her increased heating bills with a view to providing compensation for increased costs as a result of the landlord’s failures to conduct defect repairs in an appropriate timescale. The landlord should avoid placing onerous evidence requirements on the resident. If the landlord chooses not to provide a payment to the resident, it should encourage her to utilise its complaint’s process to seek redress.