Case Stories

Decision Letter

Mr. M told us that, from day one, his furnace gave off a banging noise whenever he turned the heat on high. He had reported the concern to Tarion, and it was investigated as part of his Year-End conciliation inspection. However, the furnace did not make unusual noise while the Tarion representative was on site. Tarion went to the home a further two times to inspect during the winter months, and each time found the furnace to be functioning normally and heard no unusual noises. Tarion could find no defect and so the furnace was assessed as “not warranted”.   Mr. M disagreed and requested a Decision Letter so that he could appeal Tarion’s assessment decision to the License Appeal Tribunal. Mr. M. received the Decision Letter, but he developed health concerns that prevented him from submitting the Appeal application within 15 days of receiving the letter, a requirement of the Tribunal process.   Once Mr. M. had recovered sufficiently, he asked Tarion to re-issue the Decision Letter. As over a year had gone by since it was first issued, Tarion declined to do so. This is when Mr. M called our office.  We reviewed the file and found that Mr. M’s health issues presented a reasonable explanation for missing the 15-day window for filing the Appeal application and for the delay in requesting that the Decision Letter be re-issued. We recommended that Tarion reissue the letter.  A new Decision Letter was issued, and Mr. M again had the option to appeal Tarion’s decision to the Tribunal.  

New Home Ombuds as a Coach

One of the office’s key responsibilities is to receive and review complaints. This means that we often take calls from homeowners who are extremely frustrated and stressed and who may not be able to clearly articulate their issues. When this happens, we try to help homeowners shape their concerns in a solutions-focused framework. Sometimes, we act as a coach.   We recently received such a call, from a very angry homeowner. Mr. B explained, in a very escalated manner, that he had spoken with several Tarion staff, and he did not feel that they had listened to and addressed his concerns. He said that his most recent interaction had ended with the Tarion staff member ending the call because he had been yelling at them.   Our office listened to and summarized Mr. B’s concerns. He said that cold drafts were coming into his home during winter months. He also said that he has trouble managing his anger at times.   We explained that Tarion has a zero-tolerance policy on verbal abuse and defamatory or derogatory remarks directed at Tarion staff. We clarified that this meant that Tarion staff would end a call if the homeowner yelled or swore at them.   During our conversation, we advised that Mr. B would need to manage his anger when interacting with Tarion staff. We suggested that if he felt that he couldn’t explain his concerns over the phone in a calm manner, he had the option to provide them in writing.   Following our call with him, Mr. B followed the suggestion to communicate through email and Tarion attended his home the following week to investigate the cold drafts.  

Courtesy or Warranty?

Mr. P reached out to the New Home Ombuds with complaints about his Warranty Assessment Report and the Warranty Services Representative who conducted the inspection. Mr. P stated that there were items which the builder had determined to be faulty and which he had agreed to repair.  However, at the inspection, these items were assessed to be not warranted.  Mr. P. believed that this demonstrated incompetence on the part of the Warranty Services Representative.   The Ombuds Office reviewed the file and determined that the Warranty Services Representative had inspected all items using the existing standards of Tarion’s Construction Performance Guidelines and the Ontario Building Code. The assessment process was found to be fair.   The Office advised Mr. P that the job of the Warranty Service Representative is to determine whether or not items listed on the statutory form are covered under the warranty, as outlined in the Ontario Home Warranties Plan Act.   The builder may be willing to repair items that are determined to be not warranted as a goodwill gesture to customers.  This happens frequently and is separate from Tarion’s assessment of warrantability.  The fact that the builder is willing to repair a non-warranted item does not mean that the Warranty Services Representative has made an error or displayed poor judgement.  

Waiting for an Urgent Inspection

On June 27th, Mr. B called Tarion’s Customer Service line about heavy water penetration from the roof that was damaging the ceiling of his 3-year-old home.   He had already submitted a Major Structural Defect form, but was concerned because the water was leaking through the ceiling light fixture, which Mr. B believed to be a safety issue that needed to be addressed immediately.  He had an independent contractor willing to repair the roof right away and he wanted to know whether he could have the repairs done and invoice Tarion. Customer service put Mr. B through to the Technical Desk in order to determine whether the situation was an emergency. He reached the Technical Desk representative the following day, only to be told that the water penetration was a two-year issue and would not be covered under the remaining warranty.  When Mr. B requested this response in writing, he was told that this would not be possible.  In frustration, he contacted the New Home Ombuds to request help. Our Office reviewed the file and as a result the file was escalated to the Manager of the Technical Desk and the Director of Customer Service.  This led to an Investigative Inspection being booked the same day.  This allowed Tarion to review the situation immediately to determine whether it would be covered under the warranty.

Communication Concerns

Ms. K contacted the New Home Ombuds to indicate she was worried that her request for a conciliation inspection had not been received by Tarion.  Ms. K was aware of her responsibilities to request the inspection within a set timeframe and knew that failure to do so could result in her losing the opportunity to have her 30-Day items assessed for warrantability.   Ms. K informed the New Home Ombuds that she had called Tarion to schedule the inspection two weeks prior to the deadline. The call was not picked up and she left a voicemail message at that time, but did not receive a call back from Tarion. One day before the deadline to request the conciliation was reached, Ms. K again called Tarion to determine whether her voicemail had been received. She was informed that no inspection had been scheduled as yet, but that she could still request the inspection online or over the phone. She elected to do so over the phone and was transferred to the scheduling department at Tarion.  Again, the call was not picked up and Ms. K left a voicemail.  When Ms. K contacted the New Home Ombuds, the deadline to request the conciliation had passed and she still had not received confirmation from Tarion that her inspection had been booked.   The Office contacted the Customer Service Department on Ms. K’s behalf and learned that Tarion did attempt to return her original message but that her request for a conciliation inspection had never been confirmed by Tarion.  The Customer Service Department determined that, based on their records, it was clear that Ms. K had attempted to make the request within the given timelines.  Therefore, they agreed to accept the request for inspection although the deadline had passed.  The New Home Ombuds stayed in contact with Ms. K and Customer Service until it was confirmed that the conciliation inspection had been scheduled.   

Mould SOS

Mr. N called us to say that he had informed his builder and Tarion about mould in his home but that Tarion was not taking any action to assist with the situation. When the Ombuds office reviewed the matter, we discovered that Tarion had actually been working diligently behind the scenes to help the homeowner with his mould issue. They had contacted the builder to inform them that the mould was an issue that Tarion required them to investigate and Tarion had confirmed that the builder had contracted an engineer to investigate and identify the cause of the mould. The problem? Tarion had not informed the homeowner of their actions. To the homeowner, it appeared that Tarion had done nothing at all and that their mould issue was being ignored. Lack of communication is a procedural fairness concern that leaves homeowners in the dark about what is happening with their warranty claims. As remedy for this fairness issue, we recommended that Tarion provide Mr. N with a clear, written summary of the next steps in resolving his warranty claim and that they apologize for the lack of communication.

Scheduling Trouble

Ms. N’s builder was not responding to her concerns about water penetration, so she attempted to contact Tarion’s Customer Service Department for information on the warranty process. When Ms. N attempted to reach the Contact Centre, she found that she was unable to get through and ended up leaving voice messages. However, when Tarion employees returned her calls, they did not leave a name or extension number for call back. Instead, Ms. N found herself having to repeat her issues and concerns all over again each time she contacted Tarion.   The New Home Ombuds discussed this issue with Tarion’s Director of Customer Service. The Director informed the Ombuds that this approach is standard procedure because when calls come into the general phone line they are more likely to be picked up live than if they go to an individual staff number.   However, because of the concern raised by Ms. N, the Director agreed that a change would be made to Tarion’s call back process to ensure that Customer Service staff will leave an email address as well as the general phone number when returning a call. This way, customers like Ms. N can email details of their concerns and a specific staff person will be assigned to assist, cutting out the “telephone tag”. This change allows for continuity in addressing issues and prevents the need for homeowners to start over with each interaction.  

Basement Leak

Mr. S was in the process of completing his One Year Form when he noticed water in his basement and a smell of sewage. He contacted the builder who suggested that Mr. S and his family not use water in the home or flush the toilet. The builder indicated that Mr. S’s next course of action should be to include this water penetration issue on his One Year Form when it was time to submit it to Tarion. Mr. S contacted the New Home Ombuds because he believed the situation required urgent attention.   Mr. S had young children in the home and limitations to water usage and exposure to sewage could present a safety concern. He was not willing to wait for year end. The situation was in fact deteriorating and the water in the basement was now ankle deep. Mr. S requested the New Home Ombuds’ help to resolve the situation as quickly as possible. The New Home Ombuds reached out to Tarion’s Technical Desk and asked about immediate action for Mr. S and his family. Within the hour, the Technical Desk had contacted the builder and requested a review of the repairs that day. 

Condominium – Yours, Mine, or Ours

A condominium unit owner contacted the New Home Ombuds to complain that his air conditioner condensate line was leaking into his unit. He informed us that, although the line had recently been cleared, a clog in a common pipe was causing the latest problems. He went on to say that the problem was causing damage to his hardwood floors and was occurring in other condo units. The homeowner stated that he wanted an inspection from Tarion immediately to be sure that it would not recur. Air conditioning systems are often a common element issue which should be reported to the condominium board or property management company. Common element defects are resolved through a common element claims process. Based on a preliminary review of the file, it appeared this may have been an unreported common element problem. The New Home Ombuds referred the issue to both the unit and common element branches of Tarion’s Claims Department, requesting that Tarion contact the homeowner to understand the concerns, and consider if an investigative inspection was needed to determine the origin of the leak and if other units were affected. Tarion decided to perform a site visit the next day with both a unit and common element representative, along with representatives from the property management company. They discovered that the builder had been there the previous week and had removed a clog in the unit owner’s portion of the system. It was determined that the problem was due to a lack of homeowner maintenance and that there had been no recurrence. Tarion later found that there was no evidence to suggest that the common pipe was the culprit and that the same concern was not occurring in other units. Tarion provided a report to the homeowner to this effect. Our office advised the owner that our review indicated Tarion had acted appropriately in quickly responding to his concerns, speaking with his builder and property manager, reviewing all available documentation, and authoring a written response with their conclusions.