Home Group Limited (202319764)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319764

Home Group Limited

28 March 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:
1. concerns about the impact of the fire safety rating of the building on her selling her property, and work being undertaken to improve this rating.
2. request that it buy back the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a 2-bedroom flat within a block. The landlord, a housing association, is the freeholder.

Fire safety regulations

In December 2018, the government issued ‘Advice Note 14’ as part of its Building Safety Programme. The advice note provided guidance for owners of high-rise leaseholder buildings where the external wall system of the building did not incorporate Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) and set out checks which owners could carry out to satisfy themselves, and their leaseholders, that their building was safe.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), the Building Societies Association (BSA) and UK Finance agreed in December 2019, a new industry-wide valuation process to help people buy and sell homes and re-mortgage in buildings above 18 metres (six storeys). It introduced Form External Wall Fire Safety Assessment (EWS1) to prove to lenders that external cladding had been assessed by an expert.
The government consolidated its advice in January 2020 and issued ‘Advice Note 14’ ‘Building Safety Advice for Building Owners’ (BSA). Paragraph 1.4 of this guidance stated that “for the avoidance of doubt, building owners should follow the steps in this advice as soon as possible to ensure the safety of residents and not await further advice or information to act” and paragraph 1.5 stated that “the need to assess and manage the risk of external fire spread applies to buildings of any height”.
In response to the guidance some lenders took the view that, if certification could not be provided to demonstrate compliance with the government’s guidance on fire safety, they would be unwilling to offer a mortgage on properties within these buildings as they would have a zero valuation.
The Building Safety Act came into force on 28 April 2022. The Act offers protection to qualifying leaseholders from the cost of work to resolve historical building safety defects.
Records we have seen show that an EWS1 report was completed for the building in December 2020. This gave the building a B2 rating, which meant that remedial work was required.
In February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord about selling her property. In March 2022 she told the landlord she was arranging a valuation of her property. In April 2022 she asked the landlord for information about the EWS1 for the property. Later that month the resident complained to the landlord. She said she had requested the EWS1 multiple times to put her property up for sale and had heard nothing back.
In May 2022 the landlord sent an update on fire safety issues to residents within the block. It said:
1. it had completed surveys and inspections of the block, including an EWS1 report.
2. it was working with building consultants and was aiming towards appointing a contractor in August 2022 and completing works by March 2023.
Later in May 2022 the landlord noted it had sent the resident the EWS1. Following this it wrote to her on 17 May 2022 about her earlier complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding to this. It said it would put in place a “timeline” for maintaining regular communication about how work was progressing.
At the end of August 2022, the landlord contacted the resident asking if she wanted her complaint to remain open. In response the resident said she had spent months discussing selling her flat with the landlord and had incurred costs with a solicitor and in obtaining a valuation. She said she had now received the EWS1 which meant she could not sell the property. She said the way she had been treated, and the money she had lost, was “entirely unacceptable”. In response the same day the landlord said it would contact the resident about her complaint in October 2022.
The landlord sent out further updates to residents of the building in October and December 2022. It said in these that it was still working towards appointing a contractor for the remedial work and hoped to do so before the end of the year. At the end of January 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident about her complaint. It said:
1. it was appointing a contractor in the next few days.
2. it had also been in contact with the developer of the building to seek for it to complete the remedial work.
3. the EWS1 for the building remained B2 until remedial work had been completed, but the cost of this work would not be recovered from leaseholders.
4. it was attaching letters from itself and from its fire engineer to assist the resident with the sale of her property.
At the beginning of March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord requesting it send her a sales pack. She said she was looking to proceed with the sale as soon as possible. The landlord responded to the resident on 15 March 2023. It said it had been in contact with its EWS1 team. It suggested the resident should wait to sell her property until remedial work had been completed as she may struggle to obtain a buyer pending this.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day. She said that she was “confused” as she understood a contractor had been appointed and that remedial work was underway. She also referred to the landlord’s letter to mortgage providers. She said she saw this as a “green light” to go ahead and had spent further money on a survey. She said:
1. she was struggling financially and that 5 people living in her 2-bedroom flat was “untenable”.
2. she wanted to know if the landlord would consider buying back from her.
On 29 March 2023 the landlord sent the resident an update on her earlier stage 1 complaint. It outlined the position with work and said the resident could escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process if she remained unhappy.
In May 2023 the resident sent 2 emails to the landlord. She said she had sent 4 previous emails in March and April 2023 requesting escalation of her complaint, without any response. She asked what was happening with her complaint. She again asked that the landlord consider buying back her property from her.
The landlord wrote to the resident in June 2023. It apologised for the delay in making contact. It said it was negotiating a solution with the developer regarding the remedial work. The resident responded to the landlord later in June 2023. She asked the landlord about sub-letting her flat or it buying back from her.
In July 2023, after further correspondence with the landlord, the resident confirmed she still wanted to escalate her complaint. She said that nothing had changed and nothing had been resolved.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 20 July 2023. It set out the history of issues and acknowledged the resident’s frustration about the progress of work. It said it remained committed to progressing the remedial work and was due to attend a joint inspection with the developer in August 2023. It noted the resident’s dissatisfaction and said it would escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 complaint response on 31 August 2023. It noted the resident wanted it to buy back the property or allow her to sub-let it. It also noted she wanted it to reimburse costs she had incurred. The landlord said:
1. it apologised for the delay in advising her of the B2 rating of the building and the costs she had incurred while unaware of the issues.
2. it acknowledged progress with remedial work to the resident’s building was slow.
3. it acknowledged that communication should have been sent to the resident earlier to make her aware of the situation.
4. it would reimburse the resident for costs she had incurred if she sent proof of these.
5. it was prepared to allow the resident to sub-let her property to assist her in resolving her immediate housing situation.
6. it had a policy on buyback, which allowed it to do so only in the most extreme cases of financial hardship. It said it could provide the resident with further information if she thought this may apply to her.
7. it acknowledged the complaints process had been long, but it had been tied to a complex issue of addressing the EWS1 rating and this had delayed the response.
8. it had awarded the resident a further £150 by way of apology for the delays in confirming the status of the building and in the complaints process.
The landlord told us that fire safety remedial work has recently been fully completed to the resident’s block.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s home ownership policy from December 2020, which it reviewed in March 2023, sets out its position on downward staircasing (buying back some or all of a resident’s share of the property). This outlines that the landlord will consider each potential buy back on a case-by-case basis. It sets out an application process and states that downward staircasing is regarded as a “last resort” after the shared owner has taken all possible steps to alleviate their financial position.
The landlord’s policy states that the circumstances where downward staircasing will be granted are “exceptional”. It says it will only consider referring an application where:
1. the circumstances have changed, resulting in extreme financial hardship in sustaining the cost of home ownership.
2. the resident is on the “brink of bankruptcy” or under the threat of their home being repossessed.
3. residents can only resolve their financial difficulty by reducing their mortgage.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days.

Scope of the investigation

We note that the resident has had further communication with the landlord in February 2025 about whether it will consider buying back from her. She said she was, by this time, having to pay the cost of running 2 properties. The landlord responded to her request and explained its position, that it would only consider this in cases of extreme financial hardship. It also noted that the fact the remedial work to the building was almost complete would impact on any decision.
We have not seen that the resident pursued this further by providing the landlord with evidence of her financial position. However, if she has concerns about the landlord’s response to her further request that it consider buying back from her, it would be appropriate for her to raise a fresh complaint about this matter. Our consideration within this investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of matters that were raised in her earlier complaint.

Concerns about the impact of the fire safety rating of the building on her selling her property, and work being undertaken to improve this rating

We acknowledge how difficult this situation has been for the resident and that she has been left in a position, through no fault of her own, where she has been unable to sell her property. We also acknowledge that during this time the situation was complicated by the resident’s custody case and her need for larger accommodation.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Dealing with Cladding complaints, published in May 2021, says:
1. it is essential for landlords to provide a clear road map, with timescales, to all residents.
2. effective communication is vital, and landlords need to assure themselves that their strategy for this is robust, well-resourced and proactive.
3. landlords should always address the individual circumstances presented in the complaint.
It is clear from the landlord’s records that it was taking steps towards compliance with the government’s guidance. The landlord obtained a EWS1 report in respect of the resident’s building in December 2020. It subsequently wrote to residents of the building in August 2021 to explain that it had instructed a fire safety specialist to assess remedial work. However, it gave no explanation at this time of the EWS1 rating, or of how this may impact on the sale of properties.
While the landlord’s correspondence refers to an update letter it sent to residents in February 2022, it has not been able to provide us with a copy of this. We have seen no evidence that it sent any update to residents within the building between August 2021 and May 2022. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on cladding sets out that landlords must ensure they are proactive in providing appropriate and timely updates on a regular basis, at least once every 3 months, even when there is little or no change. The landlord cannot demonstrate it did so and that is a failing in its communication.
In its stage 2 complaint response to the resident the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in advising her of the EWS1 rating of the building. It did not do so until May 2022, and only after the resident had chased this a number of times, in April 2022, and submitted a complaint. The landlord’s internal records note that around this time it was reviewing the results of surveys it had undertaken and considering an action plan for the remedial work. But it should not have left the resident’s questions about the EWS1 rating of the building unanswered. The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident for its lack of response, but this clearly caused her concern and frustration about whether she could progress with the sale of her property.
The resident later set out that she had spent months prior to this discussing selling her property with the landlord’s sales department. The landlord told us that it has since added information to its sales information to make residents aware of the EWS1 rating and the implications this has on selling. That is a positive action. Had this been done earlier it could have avoided some of the frustration and upset the resident experienced at belatedly discovering the implications of the EWS1 rating on her plans to sell.
In the update to the resident in May 2022 the landlord explained that remedial action was required to the building and set out the timeline it was working towards for completion of this work. The landlord sent further updates between August 2022 and February 2023. These appropriately updated the resident about the timescales for the work. The landlord subsequently acknowledged and apologised in its stage 2 complaint response for the time it had taken for remedial work to the property to progress. It appropriately explained to the resident that timelines for work had been impacted by the lack of available contractors and consultants.
The landlord also explained the delays that had been caused as new legislation allowed it to pursue the original developer to undertake the remedial work. We acknowledge this delay would have been frustrating for the resident, as the landlord had previously been near to appointing an alternative contractor. However, the landlord appropriately set out in its complaint response, and in an earlier update, why it had taken this decision. It said that it was pursing the original developer as they were engaging and would potentially complete the work free of charge, whereas a contractor would complete work at the landlord’s own cost. As a social housing provider, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider the financial impact of its decision making, and its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord accepted that it had delayed in confirmed the status of the resident’s building and that she had incurred costs as a result. It agreed to compensate her for these costs. That was appropriate given the failings in communication it had identified, and which are set out in this report.
The landlord subsequently reimbursed the resident £800, for solicitors and valuation fees she had incurred. We noted the resident had also set out additional costs she had incurred decorating her property and in replacing items ready for sale. However, the landlord said it did not consider these costs were “caused” by her inability to sell. We acknowledge that the resident disagrees with this and has set out her view that she will need to redecorate her property again before she can sell it. However, the landlord’s position was reasonable. These were not costs that could be directly attributed to failings it had identified. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident when she queried, on 7 September 2023, its refusal to pay these costs. It should reasonably have done so as it was a further opportunity to clarify and explain its decision on this matter.
While the landlord’s decision to reimburse the costs the resident had incurred was reasonable, it missed an earlier opportunity to address this point. The resident had initially complained to the landlord in April 2022 about the lack of communication about the EWS1 rating. In subsequent emails in August 2022, she expressed her dissatisfaction that she has incurred solicitors and valuation costs. Yet the landlord did not even attempt to respond to this issue. It should reasonably have done so. Its lack of consideration of this point left the resident’s concern unanswered for over a year.
The landlord awarded the resident £150 discretionary compensation in recognition of its delays in confirming the status of the building. However, part of this amount was for the delays in its complaint handling. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and the failings we have identified, we consider that increased compensation is appropriate. This is aimed at fully recognising the impact of failings in the landlord’s communication about the status of the building and the impact on the resident being able to sell her property.
Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the impact of the EWS1 rating of the building on her selling the property, and the work to improve this rating.

Request that it buy back the property

The landlord explained its position on buying back properties from shared owners to the resident. It set out that it had a policy in respect of this which allowed it to do so only in the most extreme cases of financial hardship, such as if the resident’s home was at risk of being repossessed. It also told the resident that it could provide her with further information about the evidence it would need to see if she thought this may apply to her. Subsequently the landlord spoke to the resident to discuss her circumstances and noted that she had said she was not at risk of bankruptcy or repossession.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report outlines that landlords are encouraged to explore every reasonable option to support residents, including sub-letting and potentially buy back. However, it is not the Ombudsman’s expectation that landlords automatically offer the option of buying back or downward staircasing. The Ombudsman would expect that the landlord consider whether this was an option it could accommodate in exceptional circumstances.
We fully appreciate and understand why the resident wanted the landlord to buy back from her, given the uncertainty around the timescales for the work. However, the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, and it acted in accordance with its policy. We also note that it agreed to allow her to sub-let her property to assist her in resolving her immediate housing issues, given she had said the space within the property was insufficient for her family.
We have found some failings in how the landlord addressed the resident’s earlier requests for it to consider buying back from her. She had raised this in March, May and June 2023. The landlord responded to the resident about sub-letting on 22 June 2023, agreeing to allow her to do so in view of her circumstances. However, there is no evidence it provided a response to her query about whether it would buy back until its stage 2 complaint response of 31 August 2023. That was several months after her initial query. It was an unreasonable delay in clarifying its position, particularly as the resident had explained her circumstances and why she was seeking to move from the property. The lack of clear response from the landlord would have added to her frustration about the situation she was in.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that it buy back her property. While we have found that its eventual consideration was reasonable, it delayed responding to her request and in providing clarity about its position. With consideration to the circumstances, we have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident aimed at recognising the impact of this failing.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s complaint was unnecessarily protracted. She had initially complained in April 2022 about the delay in it providing the EWS1 form. While it subsequently sent her the EWS1 form, it did not fully address her complaint. It failed to do so even after the resident told it of her dissatisfaction that she had incurred costs in starting the sales process. Instead, it said it would keep her complaint open. But that approach was not in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code), which states that a response to the complaint should be provided when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are complete.
We acknowledge that the situation around remedial work to the building was uncertain and that the landlord may have wanted to provide a more conclusive response to the resident’s complaint. But this resulted in it delaying addressing the concerns raised by the resident. It also meant she was unable to escalate her complaint.
The landlord’s correspondence to the resident about her complaint added some confusion as to the stage she was at within the complaints process. When it wrote to her in March 2023, nearly a year after her initial complaint, it said it was providing her with an “update” on her stage 1 complaint. It set out the position with the remedial work and said the resident could escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process if she remained unhappy. Yet when the resident contacted it in April and May 2023 requesting escalation of her complaint, there is no evidence it took steps to do so. When it eventually responded in June 2023, rather than doing anything to address her request to escalate her complaint, it provided a further update. It was not until the resident made further contact in July 2023 that it took steps to address the matter under the complaint process. The delay escalating the resident’s complaint, despite her repeated requests, was a further complaint handling failing.
Later in July 2023 it provided a stage 1 response, noting it would escalate her complaint to the next stage in line with her request. The landlord’s subsequent stage 2 complaint response refers to an email the resident had sent on 10 August 2023 outlining her remaining concerns. However, this email is not within the landlord’s records. While the resident has not disputed that the points set out in its stage 2 complaint response accurately reflected her concerns, the landlord should have maintained an accurate record of all complaint communication. Doing so would allow it to clearly demonstrate that it had responded to all concerns raised. This was a shortcoming in record keeping.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint was unreasonably prolonged. It took nearly 18 months to progress the matter through its complaints process. During this time the resident spent time and effort chasing the matter and requesting escalation of her concerns. This would have caused her additional frustration and concern and, ultimately, also delayed her being able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman for independent review.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that the resident had experienced delays during the complaints process. It awarded her £150 in respect of this and the delays confirming the status of the building. This does not adequately recognise the impact of its complaint handling failings. With consideration to the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered that the landlord make an increased award to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the impact of the fire safety rating of the building on her selling her property, and work being undertaken to improve this rating.
2. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that it buy back the property.
3. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £1,400, made up of:
  1. £800 previously awarded in respect of the costs the resident incurred.
  2. £150 previously awarded in respect of the delays confirming the status of the building and in its complaint handling.
  3. £100 further payment in recognition of failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the impact of the fire safety rating of the building on her selling her property, and work being undertaken to improve this rating.
  4. £150 in recognition of failings in its handling of the resident’s request that it buy back the property.
  5. £200 in recognition of complaint handling failings.
  6. any payments already made to the resident should be deducted from the total amount.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, within 2 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should write to the resident to confirm the next steps, with proposed timescales, given that remedial work to the building is complete.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should remind complaint handling staff of the importance of timely progression of complaints, in line with its complaints policy and the Code.