GreenSquareAccord Limited (202105733)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105733

GreenSquareAccord Limited

30 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. the landlord’s handling of a request to level and floor part of their property; and
   2. the associated complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy which started on 19 November 2020. The resident’s kitchen measures approximately five metres by three metres. The landlord has levelled and laid vinyl flooring in part of the kitchen. It has not done this for an adjoining area designated by the landlord as a ‘dining area’ that is left as exposed concrete.
3. The resident believes this to be part of the kitchen for which the landlord is responsible for levelling and flooring. The landlord believes that the exposed area is a dining area for which it is not responsible for.
4. On 3 March 2021, the resident complained to her landlord that where the kitchen vinyl meets the exposed concrete there are bumps. She indicated that she is unable to lay vinyl to the rest of the exposed concrete without paying extra to level it. The resident asked her landlord to either level the exposed concrete or reimburse her for the cost of this.
5. The landlord responded on 11 March 2021, it stated that it contracted the developer to only level the floor of the kitchen and lay vinyl in the kitchen. It explained that it is the resident’s responsibility to deal with the dining area.
6. The landlord clarified with the resident that the contractors graded the leveller into the dining area to avoid a tripping hazard however it agreed to arrange for the site manager and clerk of works to inspect. It said it would ask them to smooth any other uneven aspects of the concrete floor. The site manager attended the property and rubbed the overspill down, but the resident felt that this did not rectify the situation.
7. On 13 April 2021, the landlord responded to say:
   1. The information provided to the resident was in line with the landlord’s current approach to flooring in all properties.
   2. All the landlord’s newbuild properties receive a slip resistant flooring to the wet areas only (kitchen, bathroom and toilets) however the dining area is not classed as a wet area.
   3. Building control and a warranty provider had certified the property.
   4. There was no requirement for the landlord to lay flooring in the dining area, lounge or bedrooms.
   5. It could not deal with the issue raised as a complaint as the flooring of her property was in line with current policy.
8. In July 2021, this Service contacted the landlord to request a response that complied with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord issued this on 22 December 2021, in this it reiterated its position and added that the dining area had a concrete finish as per the landlord’s specification and standard for new build homes. It stated that the contractor used a leveller or latex compound before laying the vinyl to hide any imperfections however this did not mean the floor is unlevel.
9. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on the basis that she finds it unreasonable for the landlord not to have laid flooring to the entire area. She claimed that there has been an overspill which has created an unlevel unfinished concrete area and that due to the size of the area it would be aesthetically unpleasing to put carpet down.

Assessment and findings

Was the landlord’s handling of the floor fair?

10. The landlord explained in April 2021 that it was only responsible for flooring of wet areas and that the dining area is not a wet area. It also indicated that this is in line with the current approach to flooring in all properties. The Ombudsman has reviewed evidence from the resident that the construction company said that vinyl flooring would be provided for kitchens, bathrooms, and WCs. There is no evidence of where these documents are from.
11. The resident accepted in her emails of 3 and 11 March 2021 that she is responsible for flooring the unfinished area. The resident’s primary concern was that she did not feel she should be responsible for levelling the exposed floor and the unevenness caused by residue from the levelling done to the area with vinyl.
12. The tenancy agreement places the obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the floor. However, there is no evidence to say the floor is in a state of disrepair.  Whilst the resident believes the distinction between the kitchen and ‘dining’ area is artificial in their eyes, this Service has not seen any evidence which would show the landlord is contractually required to provide flooring for every part of the property.
13. It is understandable that the resident is concerned that part of their property looks unfinished but there is no evidence that the exposed concrete does not meet building regulations or is unsafe.
14. The landlord responded speedily to the resident’s concern and confirmed it was the resident’s responsibility to deal with the unfinished area. It sent out a contractor to help smooth any overspill, although this was not to the resident’s satisfaction it was a reasonable course of action to take. The resident confirmed in an email on 22 March 2021 that the landlord had removed the overspill. This showed a willingness to help resolve the issues the resident had.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

15. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 April 2021 explaining its position, but its response did not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (hereafter referred to as the “Code”). The code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly.
16. The purpose of the Code is to enable landlords to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly and to use the data and learn from complaints to drive service improvements. It also helps to create a positive complaint-handling culture amongst staff and residents. Compliance with the Code forms part of the membership obligations set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
17. The landlord’s response did not make clear to the resident that it was its final response or alert the resident to her right to refer the matter to this Service. This was a significant omission and breach of the Code. It is important for residents to be aware of their rights and for landlords to inform them proactively of their right to refer a complaint to this Service.
18. This Service referred to the Code in our communication with the landlord in July 2021. However, the landlord’s responses in July and October 2021 showed that it had not understood its relevance, nor had it identified a lack of compliance at that time. The Ombudsman notes the landlord’s self-assessment against the Code and therefore finds that the landlord ought to have known how the provisions applied and that it was required to provide a complaint response much sooner.
19. When carrying out an investigation the Ombudsman will consider whether the landlord dealt with the complaint fairly and will assess this against the requirements of the Code. It is noted that this Service contacted the landlord on 30 November 2021 explaining the lack of compliance with the Code and asking for a response within 10 working days. The landlord did not respond until 22 December 2021, after the Service wrote to it again on 15 December 2021.
20. The complaint procedure was not fair, in that the same member of staff responded to all the resident’s concerns and she was denied a fair process by someone else considering the matter with ‘a fresh pair of eyes’.
21. The landlord did not refer to the standards in its voids policy when consider if its decision was reasonable.
22. The landlord’s overall complaint handling and compliance with the Code was unreasonable. It contributed to a delay in the resident’s complaint progression which caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (available on our website) suggests awards of between £100 and £600 may be made for maladministration where the resident has experienced a detriment which has no permanent impact. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, compensation of £200 would be fair in all the circumstances taking it account the frustration and inconvenience that was caused to the resident.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to level and floor part of their property.
24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

25. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £200 to reflect its complaint-handling failures.

Recommendations

26. It is recommended that the landlord within eight weeks of the date of this report, if it has not done so already in the last 12 months, provide training to all staff that handle complaints. This is to ensure that this is being done correctly, and in line with the Code. The landlord should provide details of this training to the Ombudsman.
27. It is recommended that the landlord offers to floor the dining area to match the rest of the kitchen with the resident paying a contribution.