Home Group Limited (202318556)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318556

Home Group Limited

04 June 2025

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 reports of:
1. The standard of work carried out during the period when the property was void (empty).
2. Adaptations to the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident had an assured non-shorthold tenancy with the landlord, a housing association but has since ended his tenancy. The resident has physical disabilities that the landlord was aware of.
The landlord completed works to the property whilst it was empty and before the resident moved in. This was the ‘void period’. During this time, the landlord:
1. Completed a rewire to the property.
2. Removed bathroom tiles and replaced them with a wet wall.
3. Removed paving slabs in the garden.
The resident’s tenancy began on 30 June 2023. The landlord sent the resident a £75 decorating voucher on 4 July 2023, and the resident moved into the property on 15 July 2023.
On 9 July 2023, prior to moving in, the resident contacted the landlord and made a complaint about the contractor who carried out work during the void period. He sent the landlord a picture of one of the rooms he was dissatisfied with. The landlord responded to the resident on 10 July 2023 and said that the condition of the property was due to the electrical rewire and that “there isn’t much we can do about this”. It said this was the reason it had sent him a £75 decorating voucher.
On 12 July 2023, the landlord told the resident that bathroom tiles had been removed as they were broken. The resident also confirmed that he understood decorating the property was his responsibility.
On 22 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to make another complaint. He asked why the landlord had removed the bathroom tiles and the garden paving slabs. He also reported that the property needed repairing. He said the property was not adapted to his suit his physical disabilities.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 August 2023 and requested an update on his complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process on 15 August 2023.
At the same time, the landlord also told the resident that he would need to contact his local authority in respect to any adaptations so that an occupational therapist (OT) could carry out an assessment and make a referral to it directly. It gave the resident details for this process.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 22 August 2023. It apologised that he was dissatisfied with the property and said it had made every effort to bring it up to the void standard. It said it:
1. Was not responsible for decorating and would not reimburse the resident any costs he had incurred relating to this. However, it recognised that the wallpaper should have been removed before the tenancy began and offered the resident £150 to apologise for this.
2. Had removed the bathroom tiles and the garden paving slabs as these had been installed by the previous resident and did not meet the landlord’s void standard.
3. Referred to its previous guidance given to the resident regarding the adaptations process.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 August 2024 to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process. He said he:
1. Had not asked the landlord to reimburse him for the cost of decorating the property, but for repairing the walls following the rewire. He said his own contractor had needed to fill in the holes and make good the walls before he could decorate.
2. Remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision to remove the bathroom tiles and said he believed the landlord was treating him as a “second class citizen”.
3. Did not accept the landlord’s offer of £150 as he had spent nearly £3000 on repairing the property.
On 25 August 2023, the resident sent the landlord a hand-written invoice for work carried out by his contractor, dated 9 August 2023. Although the start date of these works is unclear, on speaking with the resident, the Ombudsman understands it to have been around the beginning of August 2023.
The work included repairing the walls, fitting a new bathroom sink, and painting and decorating the property in full. The price of this was listed as £2450. No breakdown of costs was given but the resident’s contractor later advised it had charged the resident around £1800 for repairing the walls.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 request on 29 August 2023. It contacted the resident to discuss his complaint on 7 September 2023, and he confirmed he had spoken with the local authority and its occupational therapist regarding an assessment for adaptations. The resident told the landlord there was a 10 week wait. It agreed to inspect the property in the meantime to see if it might be able to help prior to it receiving a referral from the occupational therapist.
The landlord visited the resident on 11 September 2023 to inspect the bathroom. At the time, the resident asked the landlord if it would fit a larger toilet due to his disabilities.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 September 2023 and told him that it was waiting on a response from a manager in respect to authorising the instillation of a larger toilet. It also asked the resident for any pictures he had taken of the damaged walls prior to them being repaired. The resident responded to the landlord with pictures the same day.
The landlord reviewed the pictures and said that there appeared to be no “real issues with the plaster” apart from a small section at the top of one of the chases (a vertical space in the wall that provides an area for wires to run through), which had not been filled in. The landlord also confirmed that the occupational therapist had not recommended a larger toilet following the assessment and it was querying this with them directly.
The landlord responded to the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 4 October 2023. It said:
1. It was still in the process of querying the resident’s request for a larger toilet with the OT and would update the resident when it had a response.
2. Its void standard was to fit wet–wall panels in place of tiles as they are easier to clean and less prone to defects.
3. It was still deciding whether it would refund the cost the resident had incurred by paying to repair the wall himself.
4. There remained outstanding actions it needed to complete, and it would keep the complaint open.
The landlord provided a further response to the resident’s complaint on 13 October 2023. It said it had raised works for the toilet to be replaced. In regard to the wall repair, it said that “whilst you advised that you did speak with a housing manager about this, we are unable to evident that it had been reported to ourselves to rectify and therefore we are unable to honour a refund request”. It re-offered the £150 compensation it offered at stage one.
The toilet was fitted in April 2024, but the resident said it was too high for him to use. The landlord’s records say the resident was looking to raise a new complaint about this in July 2024.
The resident has since moved out of the property, but it is unclear when he moved out based on the evidence we have seen.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns with the landlord’s handling of fitting the toilet in July 2024. However, this matter was not included in the resident’s original complaint and has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. We have therefore not assessed the landlord’s actions in relation to this as part of our investigation. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which sets out the rules governing our service.

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement states:
1. The landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the home.
2. The resident is responsible for reporting any disrepair or defect that the resident is aware of.
The landlord’s property management policy states:
1. For residents in rented and supported housing, approved aids and adaptations are paid for using local budgets. Adaptations must be supported by an occupational therapist.
2. It carries out property inspections following the completion of void works.
The landlord’s complaints policy mirrors that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states that stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy also states that it will log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days from receipt of the complaint.

The resident’s request for reimbursement for repairs

The only evidence the Ombudsman has received of defects to the property that fall within the landlord’s obligation to remedy is a picture of a small hole at the top of the wall chase that the landlord’s contractor failed to fill in following the rewire. The resident provided a hand-written invoice which did not include a breakdown in costs, and it is unclear exactly how many rooms were affected what kind of repairs were carried out and whether any of the repairs carried out by the resident’s own contractor, save for the wall chase, fell within the landlord’s repairing obligations. On this basis, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the works paid for by the resident himself were the responsibility of the landlord to complete.
Furthermore, the resident paid for these works in August 2023 whilst his complaint was still going through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The Ombudsman understands how eager the resident was to have the work completed and that it was causing him and his wife distress. However, the resident progressing with repairs without notifying the landlord of his intention to do so, impacted its ability to assess the property and remedy any defects in line with its own repairing obligations.
For the reasons set out above, the landlord is not responsible for reimbursing the resident for the costs he incurred completing works to the property.
In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is not responsible for decorating the property. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with decorating vouchers and £150 compensation for not stripping the wallpaper prior to him moving in due to concerns about the condition of the property when it was let. We have taken this compensation into account, but the landlord’s offer did not go far enough to put right its communication errors, as explained below.

The resident raised concerns over the condition of the property and specifically referenced the walls in a discussion with the landlord as early as 9 July 2023. He then raised repair requests as part of his complaint on 22 July 2023. Despite this, the landlord responded at stage 1 to say it was not responsible for decorating the property. The landlord misunderstood the resident’s complaint and did not respond to his request for repairs to the property.
Furthermore, as part of its investigation into the standard of void work, the landlord had to rely on pictures taken by the resident prior to the works being completed. Whilst it had carried out a post-repair inspection, the landlord could not evidence this with any supporting photographs or documents. This was not appropriate, and the landlord should have measures in place to satisfy itself that major works have been completed to an appropriate standard.
In consideration of the above factors, we have found service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the standard of work carried out during the void period. We will order the landlord to apologise to the resident and, in line with our remedies guidance, compensate him £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in responding to his repair requests. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range are appropriate when there has been minor failure by the landlord which has caused the resident distress and inconvenience.

Removal of bathroom tiles and garden paving slabs

Whilst the Ombudsman understands it was the resident’s preference for the bathroom tiles and garden paving slabs to stay in the property, the landlord’s decision to remove them was fair and reasonable. It took into account the recharge the resident might incur should these features need repairing in the future, along with consideration to the void standard and its need to be consistent across its housing stock. The landlord then communicated its decision to the resident promptly. Therefore, there was no service failure in respect to removing the bathroom tiles and garden paving slabs.

Adaptations to the property

The landlord gave the resident advice on contacting the local authority and its occupational therapist on a number of occasions so that it could receive a referral and ensure it fitted the correct adaptations to suit the resident’s needs. This was the appropriate and in line with its adaptations policy.
The landlord also remained open to supporting the resident whilst he waited for an assessment by the occupational therapist. Given the time that the resident might be waiting for an assessment, it inspected the property and considered the resident’s request for a larger toilet although it was not obligated to. It was reasonable for it to query the resident’s request directly with the occupational therapist to ensure the new toilet suited the resident’s needs. As the resident has since moved out, the landlord does not need to do anything further regarding the adaptations.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord acted appropriately and there has been no service failure in respect to the resident’s requests for adaptations to the property.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted his first complaint to the landlord on 9 July 2023. The landlord failed to log this request at the time and only did so on 15 August 2023 after the resident contacted it again. It then responded to the complaint on 22 August 2023, more than 6 weeks after he complained. This was not in keeping with its own published timescales and was a failure by the landlord which would have inconvenienced the resident.
The landlord also took 27 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. Again, this was not in keeping with its own published timescales and was a failure by the landlord. However, this delay was not excessive.
The landlord’s delays in responding to the resident’s complaint was service failure and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above, the landlord is ordered to pay him £100 to acknowledge the time and trouble caused by its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the standard of work carried out during the void period.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 2 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings highlighted by this investigation. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
2. Pay the resident:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the standard of work carried out during the void period.
  2. £100 for failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. The landlord should provide this service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the orders above within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.