Trafford Housing Trust Limited (202109324)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109324

Trafford Housing Trust Limited

26 May 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 complaint concerning snagging items and defects in his new build property.

Background

The resident is a shared owner whose lease began on 28 August 2019. The property is a four bedroom house. At the time the lease began, the property was a new build.
The landlord was a housing association that has merged with another housing association since the events detailed in this report. The resident’s property was developed by a housing development company that is owned by the landlord.
For the purposes of this report both the landlord and the developer are referred to as ‘the landlord’.

Complaint policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operates a two stage complaint process. Complaint responses are sent to residents within 10 and 20 working days, at stage one and two respectively.
The policy stated that the landlord must make contact with the resident within 48 hours of receiving the complaint, and seek to understand the issues from the resident’s perspective.

Repairs policy

This Service did not receive information specific to the landlord’s timeframes for attending snagging items, but its repairs policy states that routine repairs are dealt with within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 29 August 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to report a number of snagging items with the property he had recently moved into. The items primarily concerned issues with the patio doors and other windows, including associated poor quality workmanship. The resident also raised issues with the television aerial socket and a mislabelled kitchen switch. He asked that this be given urgent attention. The landlord replied the following day and advised its contractor would contact the resident to arrange access.
On 2 September 2019, the resident emailed the landlord and expressed his disappointment with the contractor’s attendance. He said that the electrician was not properly equipped and had not completed a thorough inspection, leaving him to resolve the issue himself.
On 3 September 2019, the landlord emailed the resident and stated that it had tried to call him to discuss his email, but had only got his voicemail.
On 12 September 2019, the landlord emailed the resident the list of snagging items he had reported on 29 August 2019, with a brief update alongside each. The aerial related items stated that a contractor had attended, and it was awaiting an update. For the window related items, it suggested that its window contractor attend the following day. The landlord’s record stated that subsequently the window contractor had hoped to attend the resident’s property on 4 October 2019, but the resident was not available.
On 2 October 2019, the resident emailed the landlord and provided a “final list of snagging (other than movement related)”. The list included the previously reported window and aerial items, along with additional snagging items.
On 3 October 2019, the landlord emailed the resident and asked if he could provide photographs of the additional snagging items to assist its contractor ahead of attendance. It asked that the resident confirm that the snagging items he wished to add were as follows:
1. Damaged splashback behind the hob;
2. Damaged cooker hood controls;
3. Damaged bathroom mirror;
4. Inside of a fitted wardrobe not properly finished.
The landlord resent its email on 7 and 14 October 2019 but did not get a response from the resident.
On 25 October 2019, the landlord emailed the resident and stated that the window contactor had been trying to contact the resident without success. It asked if the window contractor could attend on 31 October 2019. The resident replied the same day. He said that nobody had tried to contact him, and confirmed that the proposed date was fine providing that all of the window related works were completed.
On 31 October 2019, the resident emailed the landlord, and expressed his unhappiness that his wife had to wait in without the window contractor attending. The landlord replied one hour later, and confirmed the contractor was now at his property. It apologised that he had needed to chase the attendance.
On 12 December 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to ask for an update regarding the snagging. He said that the window contractor had attended without a proper understanding of what he was there for. He enquired about the property movement that had occurred and the associated making good.
On 13 December 2019, the landlord replied to the resident, and stated it had been awaiting the resident’s response to its email sent on 3 October 2019, and resent on 7 and 14 October 2019. It repeated its request for information from that email.
On 17 December 2019, the resident replied to the landlord and expressed his dissatisfaction that the list of additional snagging items that it had asked him to confirm, did not also include the original items raised concerning his windows. He asked that a senior person attend his property or he would withhold his rent.
On 18 December 2019, the landlord’s manager replied to the resident. It listed 16 snagging items that included the window and aerial issues originally reported, along with the additional items it had sought to confirm with the resident in October 2019. It provided an update, comment or query alongside each item. It proposed that the landlord’s manager and its contractor visit the resident to discuss and progress the issues.
On 15 January 2020, the resident replied to the landlord’s email, and asked if it could attend with its contactor on 20 January 2020. The landlord replied the following day. It apologised that its contactor was not available on that date and offered the resident alternatives, including any day the following week.
Over the course of late January and early February 2020, the landlord and resident exchanged emails about the proposed visit. It was agreed that the visit would go ahead on 18 February 2020, and it would be used to view the defects and agree a way forward. The landlord’s record stated that the visit went ahead and that the resident walked the landlord and contractor around the property, while a list of outstanding issues was compiled.
On 2 March 2020, the resident emailed the landlord. He said that he was disappointed with the quality of the snagging work completed. He said he appreciated the speed in which the items were responded to, but that he needed tradespeople who took more care and attention to detail. He stated that he had had his kitchen floor inspected by an independent company who agreed that it had been poorly installed.
On 5 March 2020, the landlord replied to the resident. It said it had passed his comments to its contractor. It explained that the flooring manufacturer had inspected the work of the original installers and were happy with it. It offered that its flooring contractor could attend.
On 12 March 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and offered that the items he had raised could be attended to on 20 March 2020. It apologised that its flooring contractor was not available that day, but offered the 23 March 2020 if the resident still wanted it to attend. The landlord’s record stated that the appointments were later cancelled when it received no response from the resident.
On 9 June 2020, the landlord’s record state that it received an email from the resident that advised he had completed his own work at his property, and asked that he be paid £500.
On 22 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and asked for an update on the outstanding snagging. He pointed out it had been a year since he had moved into the property.
On 26 August 2020, the landlord replied to the resident and stated its electrical contractor was waiting for him to confirm his availability.
During September 2020, the landlord and resident exchanged emails regarding access. The resident highlighted it was difficult for him with his work, and difficult for his wife due to her anxiety. He asked for works to be done either on weekends or evenings, but the landlord explained it could not accommodate this. The landlord suggested that, as a solution, it could attend at the same time as its contractor to act as a liaison and save the resident’s wife from being involved. The resident agreed to this and asked that all the works be batched to minimise disruption.
On 17 September 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and offered that the works could be completed on 12 October 2020. It asked the resident to confirm his acceptance of this date.
On 29 September 2020, the resident replied to the landlord and asked for clarification on what works would be done that day.
On 2 October 2020, the landlord replied to the resident and explained that its contractor was no longer available on 12 October 2020. It said the next available date was 26 October 2020 and asked he confirm his acceptance of this date. The landlord listed 14 snagging items and indicated the nine items it intended to complete on 26 October 2020. It stated that a date still needed to be agreed for three of the items. This included a flooring inspection by its contractor, but it noted that the flooring manufacturer had previously attended and confirmed the flooring installation was acceptable. The remaining items concerned workmanship standards around the windows, and it stated that it had found no fault with this when it inspected on 18 February 2020.
On 7 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident again and asked if he had been able to review its previous email.
On 9 October 2020, the resident replied and expressed his frustration. He said that the windows had not been inspected, and asked when the flooring manufacturer had attended. The landlord replied the same day. Its key points were as follows:
1. The flooring manufacturer inspected all properties before any residents had moved in, but it could still send its flooring contractor once the resident had confirmed his availability.
2. The windows were inspected when the landlord and its contractor did a ‘walkaround’ with the resident on 18 February 2020.
3. It wanted to rectify the resident’s outstanding issues, but could not do so without him confirming his availability.
4. It would check whether the contractor still had availability for 26 October 2020, and asked if the resident could confirm if he was free on that date.
On 29 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and apologised that the director of the flooring company who was due to attend his property had tested positive for Covid-19, and the contractor had no one else who could stand in.
On 3 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord with a list of snagging items still awaiting attention, and a list of defects for the end of the defect liability period (DLP). The lists were as follows:

Snagging items

Kitchen, utility and separate toilet flooring;
Missing soft close and stays from kitchen hardware;
Extractor fan decoration;
Replacement of kitchen double door handle;
Kitchen double door keeps dropping;
Splashback replacement;
Main and ensuite bathroom flooring;
Fuse switch;
Window issues;
Fridge freezer air flow;
Third bedroom wardrobe internals.

Defects

All doors, architraves and skirting had moved;
Bowed bathroom door;
New latch for the garden gate;
Garden pavement allows weeds to grow through;
Silicone in all bathrooms;
Cracked staircase framework;
Cracked windows;
Screw holes from the first floor visible in the ground floor ceiling.

On 3 November 2020, the landlord thought it had replied to the resident, but subsequently realised it had addressed the email incorrectly. The email was resent to the resident on 9 November 2020. It confirmed that the kitchen units, décor around the extractor fan, replacement splashback, fridge freezer airflow and fuse switch would all be attended to on 5 November 2020. It accepted that the flooring inspection, and the issue relating to the patio doors and windows remained outstanding. It acknowledged the defect items the resident had reported that were to be inspected at the end of the DLP.
On 9 November 2020, the landlord attended the resident’s property to complete its end of DLP inspection. The issues the resident had raised were listed on a form and the form was signed by the resident’s wife. It was not clear from the landlord’s form, but its subsequent record stated that the following items were outstanding, and that the resident’s wife had asked it not to do the first two:
1. Electric socket;
2. Inside of wardrobe;
3. Flooring inspection;
4. Patio door handles.
On 17 November 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and offered that its window contractor could attend on 25 November 2020 to replace the patio door handles. It advised the flooring contractor director was still off work sick, but it hoped to be able to confirm an appointment the following week. The resident replied and stated that all works needed to be coordinated for a single day, and that the window contractor had a lot more to do than just the handles.
On 25 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and asked for an update of all outstanding works. He asked for them to be collated to a single day, and for him to be advised when that date would be. He also advised that there was a banging noise coming from the bathroom drain. The landlord replied the same day and advised the outstanding works were the replacement of the patio door handles and an inspection of the flooring. It said they would arrange a date as soon as it had sourced the patio door handles the resident had specified. It advised the banging bathroom drain had been passed to its contractor.
On 1 December 2020, the landlord emailed the resident. It advised the flooring contractor director could attend on 14 December 2020, and that it would ensure the patio door handles were done the same day. It asked the resident to confirm if he could be available. The landlord and resident exchanged further emails without the date being agreed.
On 7 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord. He referred to waiting for information from the landlord’s accounts team and the need for him to always chase, but his email primarily concerned snagging at his property. The key points were as follows:
1. The resident was hugely disappointed with the customer service of the landlord.
2. He had written a snagging list when he moved into the property but over a year later he was still chasing the works.
3. He repeatedly had to prompt the landlord’s team. They would have no idea what works were outstanding and so he had to run through the snagging list each time.
4. The resident said he was now refusing to deal with them, as he was so fed up and annoyed.
5. He asked the landlord to provide a satisfactory plan of how it was going to fix his property.
On 8 December 2020, the landlord emailed the resident a list of snagging items based on the list he had provided on 3 November 2020. It said that it’s contractor had stated that the only outstanding items were the inspection of the flooring and the replacement of patio door handles. It asked that the resident advise of any other items he believed were outstanding.
On 11 December 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and made reference to their earlier conversation. It said it had identified that its flooring inspection, the window issues and the replacement of the patio door handles, were all outstanding items. It said that the resident had mentioned other unaddressed issues in his property. It asked that he send details of any that were not already included in the list sent to him on 8 December 2020.
On 15 December 2020, the resident replied to the landlord emphasising his intense dissatisfaction. He referred to having still not heard from the landlord’s accounts team. He provided a copy of the list of snagging items at his property that he had emailed to the landlord on 3 November 2020.
On 18 December 2020, the landlord replied to the resident’s email and advised it was investigating the matter as a formal complaint. It stated that this would likely take longer than its 10 day service level agreement but that it would keep him updated throughout.
On 21 December 2020, the resident replied to the landlord and asked that it confirm a timeframe for his complaint. The landlord replied the same day and advised it would aim to respond in full by 15 January 2021.
On 12 January 2021, the landlord sent the resident its stage one complaint response. The letter gave an explanation of the landlord’s ‘rent review’ process. The letter explained that an appendix was attached that provided an update on reported snags. The appendix listed 12 snags that it said were complete. It listed two snags that it advised did not need further action, and a further two snags that it said that the resident’s wife had instructed the landlord not to complete. It listed two snags that were still to be completed. These were the inspection of the flooring, and the replacement of patio door handles. It advised a provisional appointment for the door handles of 18 January 2021.
On 9 February 2021, the resident replied by email to the landlord’s stage one complaint response. He said that he was “furious at the partial glossed over response”. He stated that the landlord seemed to have missed what it was he was actually complaining about, and had responded to less than half of his complaint. The key points were as follows:
1. His complaint concerned quality of work and time taken by the landlord to address the snagging issues.
2. The landlord seemed unaware of the status of his property despite the numerous photographs and information he had shared, which is what had led to his complaint.
3. He gave the example of the landlord’s statement that the windows had been inspected and no further action was needed, which he said was untrue.
On 11 February 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and asked if he wished his complaint to be escalated to stage two of its process. It stated that the defect period for his property had ended but acknowledged that there were outstanding repairs. It advised its contractor would remain on site for a few more weeks, and as such would like to arrange access to his property.
On 19 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and said that he wanted whatever was necessary for his complaint to be fully responded to. He queried how the landlord could send a contractor to his property when there was such poor management of what works were needed. He said he was fed up with trades people coming ill prepared with incorrect information and jobs being one quarter completed.
On 23 February 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed his complaint had been escalated to stage two of its process. It also suggested an appointment for the inspection of his flooring, which the landlord wanted to attend with the contractor.
On 25 February 2021, the resident replied to the landlord’s email. He asked the landlord confirm its understanding of his complaint, as so much had been missed from what he assumed was its stage one response. He accepted the flooring inspection appointment, but said that he did not want the landlord to attend with the contractor as when that had occurred previously he had felt ganged up on.
On 1 March 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and said it had left him a voicemail to further discuss his complaint. It confirmed its understanding of his complaint was that it concerned incomplete snagging, the length of time taken to resolve defects, and poor quality workmanship. It said it respected his wish for the landlord not to attend the flooring inspection, but that it would be on the telephone to the contractor during the inspection to ensure all issues are recorded and acted on.
On 3 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord. He confirmed its understanding of his complaint was correct, but also highlighted the landlord’s internal communication issues. He said that most of this had been ‘breezed over’ in the previous complaint response and queried what the landlord’s complaint procedure was. The landlord replied the same day. It sent the resident a copy of its complaint process and referred to the upcoming flooring inspection.
On 5 March 2021, the landlord sent the resident the information it had concerning snagging items. It asked that he update this and send it back, with a view to finding resolution at stage two of its complaint process.
On 9 March 2021, the landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint response. It said that a member of the ‘customer complaint panel’ had also been involved in the review of the resident’s complaint. The key points were as follows:
1. The appendix included at stage one had outlined works that were either complete, not wanted, or outstanding.
2. The appendix had been updated and was attached again. The only outstanding item was the replacement of the patio door handles, which was in hand.
3. It asked that the resident advise if he felt any snagging items had been missed, and it would respond immediately.
4. It accepted that there had been a lot of snags and that the process had been frustrating, but that it had attended and resolved all issues once they were reported.
5. It was satisfied that its stage one investigation and response had been appropriate.
6. It referred the resident to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
On 25 March 2021, the resident replied to the landlord’s stage two complaint response. He said that the landlord’s response had been generic, took no accountability and failed to tackle what he had actually complained about. He provided updated notes on outstanding snagging items and expressed his disappointment at how wrong the landlord’s information was.
On 26 March 2021, the landlord replied to the resident’s email. It said that its stage two response had accepted that there had been more snagging items than it would be happy with, and that it had asked that he report any that he felt had been missed in order that it could respond. It said that it accepted the resident was unhappy with its internal communications, but that the snagging information he had provided had been very limited or in some cases absent.
On 31 March 2021, the resident replied to the landlord and expressed his strong disagreement with the landlord’s comments about the snagging information he had provided. He asked that the landlord clarify its comments. He highlighted that this had been ongoing since September 2019 and repeated his complaint issues. He stated that he had been offered no explanation and now felt as if the landlord was trying to blame him.
The landlord replied the same day repeating its advice that the resident could refer the matter to this Service. It advised that it would put together a chronology of correspondence regarding snagging and defects, and forward it to the resident in due course.

Summary of events following the completion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 6 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and repeated his request that it clarify its comment that his information regarding snagging had been very limited and sometimes absent. He referred to having to wait 20 months for resolutions, and to the poor standard of works. The landlord replied the same day sending its chronology of correspondence regarding snagging and defects.
The resident replied immediately stating that he did not see how the chronology answered his questions and repeating his request that the landlord clarify its comments. The landlord replied immediately, stating that the chronology showed several occasions where it had requested snagging information from the resident but that he had failed to respond, or only done so after a number of weeks. It said that this had contributed to the delays.
The resident replied immediately strongly disputing this. He pointed to the ‘walk around’ and over 70 photographs of specific snagging items he had provided. He queried why the landlord’s chronology did not also include the times the landlord had failed to complete promised call backs or requests for information from him.
The landlord responded immediately. It again confirmed that the resident had concluded its complaint process and provided full details of this Service. It listed five snagging items it had agreed to address. The resident replied immediately, asking why the landlord was ignoring the vast majority of outstanding snagging works.
The landlord and resident continued to exchange emails along similar lines over the course of April 2021.
On 30 April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and thanked him for the earlier conversation. It listed five snagging items that it said it would arrange to be completed on the same day to assist with the resident’s work commitments. It said it was still investigating the kitchen floor issue with the manufacturer. It provided a table of snagging items, nine of which the resident had disputed were complete, and said that it said it would revisit and further respond to.
On 7 May 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and offered to attend on 27 May 2021 to complete the five outstanding snagging items it had agreed to.
On 24 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and advised he was not available on 27 May 2021. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the limited amount of work being suggested in a single visit, and asked he be advised on all outstanding items. He also expressed his dissatisfaction with some of the proposed work that had been agreed, with the quality of the inspection that had been undertaken, and with the person who had undertaken it.
The landlord and resident continued to exchange emails along similar lines over the course of June 2021.
On 30 June 2021 the landlord’s manager called the resident. The manager followed the call up with an email. The email advised that, since the call, the manager had reviewed the resident’s comments regarding the lack of visits to his home to inspect workmanship. The key points of the landlord’s email were as follows:
1. It was satisfied it had sufficiently reviewed the remaining defects the resident had raised.
2. It listed the five outstanding snagging items it had agreed to, and advised it could attend to complete the works on either the 16 or 19 July 2021.
3. It advised if the resident did not want it to attend, it would close the matter down.
4. It confirmed this was the landlord’s final position and again referred the resident to this Service.
The resident replied to the landlord on 5 and 8 July 2021, expressing his anger and frustration. He said that it was untrue that all the works listed had been inspected.
On 13 July 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord’s chief executive officer. He complained that he was still chasing up snagging items almost two years after he had purchased the property. He repeated the issues of his complaint. He said that the landlord’s complaint process had been “fruitless” and a “waste of time”. He asked for details of how the landlord intended to put things right.
On 14 July 2021, the landlord replied to the resident. It said it was trying to focus on reaching a resolution, and repeated its points and offer from its email sent on 30 June 2021.
On 20 July 2021, the resident replied to the landlord and said that it had failed to investigate or resolve his complaint. The landlord replied the same day and referred the resident to this Service.
The landlord emailed this Service in January 2023. It stated that it had reviewed its handling of the resident’s complaint in line with its revised and updated complaint and compensation policies. It maintained that it had consistently tried to arrange access to the resident’s property but accepted that, “the issues took a long time to resolve”. It said that it had offered the resident £1200 compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused by the snagging work, “not being carried out within a reasonable timescale”. The landlord advised that the resident declined the offer.
The landlord emailed this Service in May 2023 and advised it was arranging a visit to the resident’s property to discuss the issues the resident considered to be outstanding. The visit went ahead on 16 May 2023.
The landlord has subsequently provided this Service with a list of 53 snagging items that the resident has said are outstanding. The list includes the landlord comments and decision for each item. The landlord has listed seven items that it has agreed to attend to, all of which it noted it had previously agreed to complete, but that it had been unable to agree access to the resident’s property to do so. The landlord provided notes on the remaining items, and its reasoning for not agreeing to complete them. The vast majority were either listed as “not reported at end of DLP”, or as “within acceptable tolerance, homeowner maintenance”.
The resident also contacted this Service following the landlord’s visit on 16 May 2023. He expressed his continued dissatisfaction with the outcomes.

Assessment and findings

The resident began expressing his dissatisfaction with the standard of workmanship in his new build property, and most other aspects of the landlord’s snagging and defects process, from shortly after he moved into his property. In cases such as this, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to attempt to assess individual instances of workmanship; rather it is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports, dissatisfaction and complaint.
The landlord reasonably handled the resident’s earlier snagging reports, and dealt with most aspects appropriately. However, the landlord’s handling of the end of defects liability period (DLP) inspection just prior to the resident’s complaint, and of the complaint itself, was poor and the opportunity to use the complaint process effectively to work towards a resolution, was missed. As such, it is the view of the Ombudsman that this constituted maladministration.
The resident’s initial snagging reports to the landlord mainly concerned issues with the windows and patio doors, as well as issues with the aerial socket. The report was made on 29 August 2019, and it was reasonable for the landlord’s contractor to attend to the aerial three working days later, on 2 September 2019.
The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with several aspects of the contractor’s aerial attendance on 2 September 2019. The landlord attempted to call the resident to discuss this the following day, and followed this up by email when it was unable to speak to him. It was reasonable for the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns in a timely manner.
The landlord’s email sent to the resident on 12 September 2019 offered that its window contractor could attend the following day. Whilst this was very short notice for the resident, it was appropriate that it was well within the 20 working days the landlord’s repairs policy allowed for routine repairs.
The resident sent the landlord a list of snagging items on 2 October 2019, which included items that had not previously been reported. It was appropriate for the landlord to respond the following day on 3 October 2019, and ask if the resident was able to provide photographs of the newly reported items. This would have allowed its contractor to attend the resident’s property better prepared. It was also appropriate for the landlord to attempt to confirm its understanding of the newly reported snagging items in that same email, and to send this email a further two times when it did not get a response from the resident.
However, the landlord’s attempt to clarify the newly reported snagging items does appear to have caused confusion. When the resident responded to it on 17 December 2019, he expressed his dissatisfaction that the landlord was only dealing with the newer snagging items and not those previously raised. This confusion was likely due to the fact that the resident’s response was not sent until almost three months after the landlord had originally enquired. However, it was also avoidable. The landlord had made contact with the resident in the interim period when it had discussed the attendance of its window contractor at the end of October 2019. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to take that opportunity to clarify its position with the resident and proactively seek the information it had asked him for in its email sent on 3 October 2019, and resent on 7 and 14 October 2019. The landlord’s failure to do this meant that by the time the matter was addressed in mid-December 2019, the resident’s frustration had grown and it became harder to resolve the issues raised than it might otherwise have been.
Instead, it was left for the resident to make a general request for an update of the snagging items on 12 December 2019. Whilst the landlord did again reply in a timely manner, it only pointed to the emails the resident had not responded to in October 2019. This led to the confusion and frustration which culminated on 17 December 2019, as described above.
In light of the resident’s dissatisfaction, it was appropriate for the landlord’s manager to intervene on 18 December 2019. It was reasonable for the landlord’s manager to summarise its understanding of the full list of snagging items, and to offer to visit the resident with its contractor to discuss and progress the issues. The resident responded in mid-January 2020 and it was appropriate that the visit went ahead on 18 February 2020. This would have allowed the resident an opportunity to raise the issues he was dissatisfied with, and the landlord an opportunity to view the standard of workmanship.
In March 2020, the resident raised his workmanship concerns with the installation of the flooring. The landlord again responded in a timely manner. It advised that the flooring manufacturer had inspected all flooring installations, and later clarified that this was done prior to any residents moving into the new build development. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of this, however it was appropriate for the landlord to offer to send its flooring contractor to inspect, and to provisionally arrange an appointment. It was reasonable for the landlord to cancel the appointment after it received no further response from the resident.
On 22 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and again requested a snagging update. Discussions continued over email between the landlord and resident over the course of September and October 2020. The resident highlighted that his wife’s anxiety meant that she found the snagging appointments difficult to deal with, and the cost and difficulty this meant for him to keep taking time off work. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer to attend and deal with the contractor at appointments, in order that the resident’s wife could avoid getting involved and without him taking time off work. This demonstrated a resolution focused approach on the part of the landlord.
The resident sent his final snagging list to the landlord on 3 November 2020, and also included a list of further items to be reviewed at the end of DLP inspection. It was appropriate that the landlord attempted to respond the same day, and that the email was intended to keep the resident informed by detailing the items it would complete on 5 November 2020, those that remained outstanding, and those that would be inspected on 9 November 2020 at its DLP inspection. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges it was accidental, there was a service failure when the landlord unknowingly sent the response to itself rather than to the resident. Upon realising its error, the landlord resent the response on 9 November 2020, the same day as the DLP inspection, which would have been confusing and unhelpful to the resident.
On 9 November 2020, the landlord completed its DLP inspection at the resident’s property. It was appropriate that the issues the resident had raised were listed on the landlord’s form, which it could then update with the outcomes of the inspection and get the resident’s signed agreement to. It was however not reasonable that both the form and the landlord’s use of it, failed to serve these basic functions. The copy of the form provided to this Service listed the items, but only showed some ticks or vague comments alongside them. The landlord has said that the signature shown on the form is the resident’s wife’s. Given the landlord was aware of the resident’s wife’s anxiety, and of the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction, it would have been appropriate to ensure the resident himself agreed to and signed the DLP form. It is not clear whether the resident was even in attendance at the inspection and, if he was not, it is reasonable to conclude this may have been another consequence of the landlord’s failure to correctly send its email on 3 November 2020. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation concerning the landlord’s use of its DLP form.
Discussions between the landlord and the resident continued until the resident’s email sent on 7 December 2020, that detailed his significant dissatisfaction with the snagging process to date. The Ombudsman acknowledges that a large number of emails were being exchanged, and that the resident had been dissatisfied with many elements since moving into his property. Nevertheless, this email was markedly different from the resident’s others, and it was unreasonable that it took the landlord until 18 December 2020 to recognise it as a formal complaint.
In reaching a decision in these circumstances, the Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord has acted reasonably, and whether the redress offered is appropriate and proportionate to the failures identified. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s actions and offer of redress were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, Put things right and Learn from outcomes, as well as our own remedies guidance.
The landlord’s complaint policy said that it would contact residents within 48 hours of a complaint being made to ensure its understanding of it. The landlord’s failure to do this was evident in its stage one complaint response, which the resident understandably described as seeming to have entirely missed the point of his complaint. The landlord did advise the resident that his complaint would take longer to investigate than the 10 working days stated in its policy. However, as it had already taken 10 working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint, and then failed to address its substantive points in its response, it was not reasonable that the landlord took at least 21 working days to respond at stage one of its process, on 12 January 2021 (subject to its Christmas operating hours).
The resident expressed his intense dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response and its failure to deal with the substantive issues, on 9 February 2021. Whilst the resident did not explicitly state that he wished his complaint to be escalated, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to recognise it as such. It was therefore unreasonable that it took a series of emails, and a further 13 days, for the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its process, on 23 February 2021.
The resident asked the landlord to confirm its understanding of his complaint two days later, and on 3 March 2021 queried how its complaint process worked. This was again indicative of the landlord’s failure to follow its own policy and discuss the complaint with the resident to ensure a common understanding.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 9 March 2021. It was appropriate for the landlord to list the snagging items it considered to be outstanding, and to offer assurance that it would respond immediately if the resident advised of additional ones. It was also appropriate for it to acknowledge the volume of snagging items that there had been, and the frustration this had caused the resident. However, given the failings detailed above, it is difficult to understand how the landlord could reasonably describe itself as satisfied with the appropriateness of its stage one response.
After the resident’s complaint had been duly made to the Ombudsman, the landlord advised that it had reviewed its handling of it against its newly revised complaint and compensation policies. The landlord said that its review had accepted that “the issues took a long time to resolve”, and had resulted in it offering the resident £1200 compensation, for the inconvenience and distress caused by the snagging work, “not being carried out within a reasonable timescale”.
The landlord’s subsequent decision to complete a further review of the resident’s complaint did indicate a willingness to learn, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. However, there was little evidence of this at the time of the original complaint investigation. Furthermore, the landlord’s summary reference to ‘how long the issues had taken to resolve’ also calls into doubt what it had learnt from the complaint, as it is clear that the resident continues to view the issues as far from resolved.
Nevertheless, the landlord’s original complaint investigation did acknowledge the high number of snagging items the resident had experienced, and its subsequent review did accept how long the matter had taken. Whilst the time taken by the resident to respond to the landlord on some occasions, and his difficulties in providing access, were also contributory factors, the landlord concluded that the snagging work had not been undertaken within a reasonable timeframe, which the Ombudsman would concur with. The resident made clear throughout how frustrating and stressful he found the overall matter, as well as the impact on his wife, and this was the case for much of the 20 months prior to the landlord’s final complaint response.
The landlord’s subsequent offer of compensation was within a range the Ombudsman would recommend for long-term failings that have had a significant impact on the resident. However, the offer was not made until some two years after the time of the resident’s complaint. Therefore the landlord failed to effectively put things right, and missed the opportunity to learn lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles and we have therefore found maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint concerning snagging items and defects in his new build property.

Reasons

The landlord’s complaint process should have represented an opportunity to put things right and learn from the outcomes, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. Whilst it may not have been possible for the landlord to fully meet the resident’s expectations, it failed to use this opportunity to appropriately respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction.
The landlord’s initial complaint response was issued without it following its own policy of contacting the resident within 48 hours to ensure an accurate understanding of his complaint. This resulted in a poor stage one response that mainly addressed matters that it was clear were not the resident’s primary concern. This would have left the resident feeling that he had not been listened to, as the landlord did not demonstrate it understood what his complaint was about. The landlord’s final response did at least make its position clear, but it again mainly failed to address the resident’s specific points of dissatisfaction.
Whilst the landlord was not solely responsible for the delays, it acknowledged the high number of snagging items and time taken to address them, which would have been inconvenient and stressful for the resident. The landlord’s subsequent compensation offer was a reasonable attempt to recognise this. However, as it was made so long after the resident’s complaint, and the landlord failed to demonstrate any learning with the substantive issues still unresolved, it did not represent reasonable redress.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Writes to the resident to clearly explain the outstanding work it is proposing to do, including timescales, and provides a copy of that letter to this Service.
3. Reoffers the resident the previous £1200 compensation payment it offered to him for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review its process and documentation for completing its end of DLP inspection.
The landlord should advise this Service of its intentions in regards to the above recommendation within four weeks of the date of this report.