Homes Plus Limited — case 202400312

Decision Case ID 202400312 Decision type Investigation Landlord Homes Plus Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 2 April 2026 Background The property is a new build house. The resident reported repairs (guttering not being clipped properly and a flooded back garden) while the property was under warranty with the developer. She was unhappy with the time taken for these to be addressed. What the complaint is about The landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of repairs.

Formal complaint. Our decision (determination) There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling. Summary of reasons The landlord correctly passed on reports of repairs to the building developer, who was responsible for them. There was a delay in providing the stage 2 response but the landlord offered appropriate compensation for this. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right.

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord should pay the resident directly £100 (if not already paid) as offered during the complaints process. This is recognised the inconvenience caused by the late stage 2 response. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 29 September 2023 The resident complained that guttering had not been fixed at the rear of the property.

Her garden was also flooded and she was unhappy with the response from the developer. 19 October 2023 The landlord gave its stage 1 response. It said it had passed the resident’s reports to the developer. It apologised for the delay and miscommunication from the developer that followed. 4 January 2024 The resident escalated the complaint. 12 April 2024 The landlord gave its stage 2 response. It apologised for the delay and said matters had progressed following a property inspection.

It offered £100 for stress and inconvenience caused. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident was unhappy with the time taken for matters to be resolved. She said having to chase the developer caused her stress and anxiety. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint Handling of the resident’s reports of repairs Finding No maladministration As the property was a new build, the building developer was responsible for repairs reported during the warranty period. This was the case for the guttering and flooding in the back garden. The resident first reported the garden was flooding due to lack of drainage on 7 March 2022. She reported the guttering was leaking on 21 November 2022. The landlord correctly passed these issues to the developer.

There was a delay in response from the developer, which was not the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord was not aware the repairs were outstanding until it received the stage 1 complaint in September 2023. The developer then fixed the guttering on 3 October 2023. We accept that it was unfair on the resident that it had taken nearly a year. However, we are unable to assess the developer’s actions, or make a finding on them, as it is not a member of our Scheme. The landlord could have been more proactive in following up the repair as it had an obligation to the resident, even though it was not responsible for the work itself.

In March 2022, following the first report about the garden, the developer said there was no evidence of a drainage issue. In June 2023 the developer told the landlord it believed a lack of maintenance was causing the garden to flood. It said it would not do anything as it did not consider there to be a building defect. While disappointing, the landlord was limited in what it could do with this information. Following the stage 1 complaint, the landlord contacted the resident on 6 October 2023 and inspected the property on 10 October 2023.

This was positive. It identified the paving slabs were laid in a way that caused rainwater to pool and the garden turf had shrunk. It organised a joint inspection with the developer on 3 November 2023. This was helpful and showed the landlord trying to find a resolution for the resident. The developer agreed it would relay the patio and attended to do so on 20 December 2023. Unfortunately, the resident reported that the contractor left before she could answer the door and the work was not done.

The landlord reported this to the developer and there was a lot of communication trying to rectify it. It was evident the landlord was trying to hold the developer to account. The patio was relayed on 4 January 2024. The garden was still flooding and the grass had died so the developer said it would re-turf it in Spring 2024. The landlord contacted the developer in April 2024, holding it to this commitment. The developer said it could not commit to a date due to wet weather.

This was not the landlord’s fault, and it appeared to be doing all it could to move matters forward. In June 2024 the developer did not attend for an appointment and the landlord chased it up. The turf was ultimately relayed in July 2024. The resident reported the new turf was not sufficient and had died. The landlord responded appropriately by asking for photographs and passing this on to the developer. The developer passed the responsibility back to the resident claiming the grass had not been watered sufficiently.

This was frustrating, but out of the landlord’s control. The resident has suffered stress and inconvenience chasing the repairs for a long period. She has not had the use or enjoyment of her garden while it has been flooded. However, the responsibility for this lies with the developer, not the landlord. There is evidence of the landlord chasing the developer numerous times and trying to arrange appointments. Therefore, the landlord has met its obligation of advocating for the resident through this communication.

Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress According to the landlord’s complaint policy, it should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of receiving the complaint. Here it gave the response 14 days later, which was slightly over its target. The stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days of the escalation. The resident was given it 3 months later, in excess of the target.

During this period the landlord was in contact with the developer and the resident trying to resolve the repairs. The delay in stage 2 response did not impact the substantive issue. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the late response. It offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused. This is in line with our compensation guidance and was proportionate for this level of failure. Therefore, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the resident £100 as offered, if not already paid. This finding is made on the basis of the sum being paid, as a failure in service was identified. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) There were sufficient records to allow for the investigation. Communication The landlord communicated with the developer and the resident about the ongoing repairs. The developer does not appear to have communicated well with the resident but this was not the landlord’s responsibility.