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

Yorkshire Housing Limited (202315130)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315130

Yorkshire Housing Limited

25 July 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 resident’s:
    1. Reports of defects and subsequent outstanding repairs to the property.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of a newbuild 3-bedroom house with the landlord. Her lease commenced 18 November 2022.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 3 May 2023, stating that she was having to email again to chase defects which had been reported in the home demonstration in November 2022. The defects had been outstanding for months, no one appeared to be talking to each other, and this was causing her distress. The exterior doors had been rectified but all other defects remained outstanding. She wanted to be contacted urgently and for the defects to be resolved.
  3. In its stage 1 response on 9 June 2023, the landlord stated that following receipt of the complaint, it had attended to assess all of the outstanding defects. It had agreed a list of defects, broken down under 3 categories, and aimed to have all the work completed as soon as possible. It would keep the resident informed until all agreed defects were resolved.
  4. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 6 July 2023. She stated that she was still waiting for work to be completed, which was identified prior to her moving in. She had been told she would receive a weekly call, and that the developer would contact her about her repairs, neither of which had happened. She was told that everything would be rectified within the “stop the clock” procedure. Her mental health was low, having to live in the house, and “being pregnant throughout the ordeal”.
  5. In its stage 2 response on 1 August 2023, the landlord apologised for not keeping the resident fully informed. It had offered £100 for the delays and inconvenience. It had arranged for its developer and subcontractor to attend in July and August 2023. Its aftercare team had been continuously in touch to progress the defects and a new manager had been appointed to ensure they were dealt with. It provided a list explaining which defects had been completed, which were partially complete, and where it had requested dates for completion.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She confirmed, on 18 July 2024, that all defects had been resolved. However, the defect and complaint process had taken considerable time for which she felt she should have been compensated.

Assessment and findings

  1. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence she stated that the situation had caused her distress and impacted her mental health. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.

Reports of defects and subsequent outstanding repairs to the property.

  1. The landlord’s defects procedure states that the contractor is required to provide a high quality service to deal with reported defects within the defect period. It also states that:
    1. The defect liability period will be 2 years irrespective of tenure, and from the date of legal completion with the first purchaser.
    2. Emergency defects will be responded to within 24 hours. This included loss of electrical power, leaks, insecure doors and windows.
    3. Routine defects must be repaired within 28 calendar days. This included adjusting internal doors, plaster repairs, kitchen unit repairs, and landscaping.
    4. Works should be completed within the defined timescale in all circumstances. The landlord will only consider an extension should the customer fail to provide access, persistent excessive weather conditions or parts/materials not being available under unforeseeable circumstances.
    5. The contractor is responsible for reporting progress on defect repairs. An up to date report on the status of all defects will be provided to the landlord on a weekly basis.
    6. In the event that the works are not completed, or the client is unable to obtain confirmation that the defect has been attended to within the specified repair timescale, the client reserves the right to employ others to carry out the work, and to deduct all costs involved from retention payments due to the contractor. The client will be permitted to do this the day after the repair timescale lapses.
  2. On 7 November 2022 a home demonstration was completed, and a report produced which identified 25 defects. This included issues in the kitchen with drawers catching and missing soft closers, scratched sink and light switches, catching doors and windows which required adjusting, radiators and skirting boards which were not level, and weeding and replenishment of stones and bark in the garden.
  3. On the day prior to completion, 17 November 2022, a further snagging report was produced. This identified 51 snags which provided details of each issue, along with photographs. A snag is a minor imperfection or malfunction which does not meet recognised industry standards, finishings and tolerances. Snags are typically something which is damaged, broken, not fitted properly, and looks unfinished.
  4. There was no evidence provided to this Service, by either party, to demonstrate any communication between the completion date in November 2022 and when the resident raised her complaint in May 2023. However, the resident stated in her complaint that she had been chasing the defects since moving into the property. This was almost 6 months since the defect and snagging list had been produced.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it stated that, after receiving the complaint, it had attended to assess all of the outstanding defects and reported on what had been agreed. It had split these into 3 categories; defects which were sent to its developer, works it would attend with other contractors, and issues which had been mutually agreed were either not defects or would be monitored. It provided a copy of the agreed list of defects. It aimed to have all agreed works completed as soon as possible and would keep the resident informed until all agreed works were resolved.
  6. The landlord’s response was reasonable, having visited to assess the required works, and confirmed a mutually agreed schedule. However, it failed to provide any timescales for when work would be completed. It also failed to acknowledge that the defects and snags, identified in November 2022, had been outstanding for 6 months. This was not in line with its defects procedure which states that emergency defects would be completed within 24 hours and routine defects within 28 calendar days.
  7. The landlord’s records of June 2023 demonstrated that it had been liaising with the developer. It stated that it had inspected all of the defects and deemed them to be valid. The list had been passed to the previous site manager in November 2022 and nothing appeared to have been done. It had forwarded the list to 2 other people following the resident’s complaint and asked for the defects to be completed. It also provided a list of the defects it had taken on to demonstrate the volume it was resolving at its own cost.
  8. In further communication between the parties in June 2023, the resident reported issues with a kitchen leak, a brick becoming dislodged near the roof, a crack in the tiling above the door architrave, and whether she should be reimbursed for carpentry works to the doors following the installation of flooring. The landlord provided responses to each of the resident’s concerns, confirming that it would monitor the crack, and should it become wider it would investigate further. It had raised the issue of the dislodged brick with the developer to attend, its handyperson could attend to the kitchen leak damage, and it confirmed that the resident was responsible for carpentry to doors. It stated that should the developer not complete the defects by 10 July 2023, it would take ownership of these and schedule the work.
  9. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns, however, it is not known why it had not taken ownership of the defects previously, given the defects had been outstanding since November 2022. Its records also had referred to previously reporting the issues to the developer in November 2022, and nothing appearing to have been done. While this Service appreciates that the landlord was pursuing the defects with its developer, it could have taken ownership of the matters at an earlier stage, in line with its procedure, which would have alleviated the delays and distress to the resident.
  10. The landlord’s records showed that the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 6 July 2023. She stated that:
    1. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord and developer. She moved into the property in November 2022 and was still waiting for work to be completed. She had chased for months and been ignored, and she felt disrespected and lied to. Her complaint was finally picked up and she was promised a better experience.
    2. She was advised that everything would be rectified in the “stop the clock” process, this did not happen, and her mental health had been affected.
    3. She was now looking to sell the house and seek assistance via the small claims court. She had a solicitor and an independent construction manager look at the property who advised that it should not have been signed off under NHBC as there were too many things outside tolerance which were health and safety issues.
  11. Following a conversation with the resident, the landlord acknowledged her escalation request. It confirmed that a customer care manager had been appointed with the developer to oversee the defects. It had previously been working with the contracts manager and defect performance was not where it was expected to be. The customer care manager would contact her directly to book in the works.
  12. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for not keeping the resident fully informed. It stated that:
    1. It had offered £100 for the delay and inconvenience.
    2. It had arranged for the developer to attend on 27 July 2023, for its subcontractor to attend on 3 August 2023, and for a plumber to attend on 11 August 2023. As a gesture of goodwill, it had put some bark and pebbles into the front and rear garden areas.
    3. Its aftercare team had been continuously in touch with the developer to progress the defects and a new manager had been appointed to ensure defects were dealt with. It was aware that a list of defects had been agreed with the resident and broken down into categories. It provided a list of defects and said if this did not align with the resident, to make contact.
    4. During a conversation she had raised that some paint had bubbled up following work which had been completed by the developer. This had been followed up with the aftercare team and it would advise the developer. There was also a new potential defect relating to the loft hatch which the resident would send further information to enable it to investigate.
    5. It would continue to liaise with the aftercare team until all defects were corrected and would make contact on 7 August as agreed.
    6. It provided details of completed defects, partially completed repairs and where it had requested further dates for attendance.
  13. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, there was further correspondence between the parties up to May 2024. While this post-dates the landlord’s stage 2 response and scope of this investigation, it demonstrates that a number of the defects continued to remain outstanding. This included external works, identified in the original defect and snagging report.
  14. This Service’s dispute resolution principles are, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord provided a detailed response outlining the position for each defect and offered £100 compensation for the delays and inconvenience. Although the works were being scheduled and undertaken by a third party, the Ombudsman would 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 resolution was being prolonged. However, while this Service appreciates that the landlord was attempting to resolve the matters with the developer, it failed to consider the following:
    1. Although the landlord accepted there had been delays in addressing the defects, and offered £100 for the delay and inconvenience, it did not offer appropriate redress to the resident to recognise the inconvenience, time and trouble the resident had experienced in contacting the landlord about the delays. Its compensation offer was not proportionate to the delay experienced of 8 months.
    2. It failed to follow its defect procedure or monitor repairs on a weekly basis and resolve the defects in line with its procedure for routine defects within 28 calendar days. It could have taken ownership of the defects at an earlier stage.
    3. It also stated that as a gesture of goodwill it had replenished the bark and stones in the garden, however, this was noted in the original snagging and defect reports as being required.
    4. It failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the property being signed off under NHBC guidelines and tolerances.
    5. It also failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint or demonstrate how it would prevent delays in the future.
  15. For the reasons set out above, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects and subsequent outstanding repairs to the property.

Associated formal complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 20 working days. Its complaints policy states that with regard to time extensions, “stop the clock,” it will:
    1. Where possible respond to all complaints within the timescales as set out in the policy, however, there may be times where it will use discretion on a case-by-case basis to extend the timescale of a complaint. In such circumstances, and in agreement with the customer, a time extension of up to 10 working days will be approved and the complaint placed on “stop the clock”.
    2. The extension will be confirmed in writing via letter or email. A longer period of extension will be approved where there is good reason to do so. A good reason could be:
      1. The customer is unavailable and therefore unable to provide evidence to support the investigation, for example be in hospital or on holiday.
      2. A delay by a third party, over which it has no control in providing information.
      3. It requires further time to undertake interviews that support the investigation or needing longer to acquire all the information required from multiple sources to enable thorough investigation of a long standing complex case.
    3. Complaints will not be granted a time extension where the resolution requires undertaking works which may take weeks or months to complete. In this case, it will provide the customer with a schedule of works and a time frame in the complaint response.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 9 May 2023, acknowledged by the landlord the same day. This was in line with its complaint policy timescale of 2 working days.
  3. On 22 May 2023 the landlord contacted the resident advising that it required more time to investigate the complaint. This was to allow its contractor time to respond to the defects logged, allow it the time it required to inspect the snag list, and send the list of defects it deemed to be genuine to its contractor. It had “paused the complaint for a while” in what it called “stop the clock.” It would provide an update each Monday and aimed to have all outstanding defects resolved within 56 days. It would be in touch when it was ready to restart the complaint.
  4. It is not unusual for landlords to request a 10-day extension where it requires more time to respond to a complaint. However, in this instance, its request of 56 days to resolve the defects was not appropriate or in line with its complaint policy. Its complaints policy states that complaints would not be granted a time extension where the resolution required undertaking works which may take weeks or months to complete. It should have provided its response, along with a schedule of works, and a timescale of 56 days to complete the defects.
  5. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 4 and 5 July 2023. She stated that she had agreed to the “stop the clock” process, subject to weekly updates as she was concerned it would unnecessarily delay the complaint. She was assured that the additional 56 days provided would rectify the issues. In its response on 5 July 2023, it stated that the stop the clock procedure had ended as it had sent a resolution letter.
  6. While both parties agreed to the 56-day extension, the landlord’s “stop the clock” process was not appropriate or in line with this Service’s complaint handling code. The complaint handling code states:
    1. Under paragraph 6.4 landlords must decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
    2. Under paragraph 6.6, a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.
  7. That said, the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 9 June 2023, 22 working days later, and 12 working days later than its complaint policy timescale.
  8. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 6 July 2023, acknowledged by the landlord on 10 July 2023, 2 working days later, in line with its complaint policy timescale. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 1 August 2023, 18 working days later, in line with its complaint policy timescale of 20 working days.
  9. While the landlord’s responses were not significantly outside its complaint policy timescale, despite its “stop the clock” process, its approach regarding the extension of 56 days led to further frustration and confusion for the resident. This Service, therefore, finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects and subsequent outstanding repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears, £500 broken down as follows:
    1. £300 for time and effort, distress and inconvenience, in relation to the delays in resolving the identified defects.
    2. £100 for time and effort, distress and inconvenience for the identified complaint handling failures.
    3. £100 offered in its stage 2 response in relation to the delays and inconvenience (This can be deducted if already paid).
  2. The landlord is ordered to send a written apology to the resident, by a senior member of staff, for the failings identified in this report.
  3. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations.

  1. The landlord should review its “stop the clock” process to ensure that its complaint policy meets the requirements of the complaint handling code.