Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Home Group Limited (202300402)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300402

Home Group Limited

29 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about:
    1. Increases in rent.
    2. The landlord’s setting of a fixed service charge.
    3. The landlord’s implementation of an unacceptable behaviour agreement.
    4. The standard of communal garden and grounds maintenance.
    5. The standard of communal cleaning.
    6. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Increases in rent.

  1. Paragraph 42.j of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  2. The resident complained that her rent had increased since 2021 which she believed breached her tenancy agreement. She confirmed this had also taken place between 2016 to 2020 and the Regulator of Social Housing made a decision regarding this period in 2021. The resident has also confirmed she has raised an appeal with the Valuation Office over the matter and is waiting for a decision. As such under paragraphs 42.j of the Scheme the complaint about rent increases is outside the Ombudsman’s’ jurisdiction and will not be considered in this report.

The landlord’s setting of a fixed service charge.

  1. Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord about being charged incorrectly for service charges, which had led to her being undercharged. However, in line with paragraph 42.d. the Ombudsman will not investigate such a complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord for a first-floor flat. The property has a communal hall and stairway and has access to a communal garden.
  2. The landlord implemented a managing unacceptable behaviour agreement (MUBA) with the resident in April 2020. The resident made a complaint to the Ombudsman in 2022 about the landlord’s action. That complaint did not proceed at the time, and was ultimately merged with new complaints she made in 2023. 
  3. The resident spoke with the landlord in person on 17 November 2023 regarding her concerns about the MUBA. She then complained to the Ombudsman that the landlord had not resolved her concerns. She also complained about its general handling of her complaint and about the standard of the communal cleaning and grounds maintenance at the property.
  4. The Ombudsman asked the landlord on 4 January 2024 to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord responded to the communal cleaning issue and MUBA issues only on 25 January 2024, finding no failings in its handling of either.
  5. The Ombudsman sent further requests to the landlord on 29 January and 30 April 2024, asking it to provide responses to the remaining issues. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 May. It found no failings with the standard of cleaning or grounds maintenance. It explained its reasoning for the implementation of the MUBA. It also offered £150 compensation for its delayed complaint response.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 4 June 2024. The landlord responded on 19 July. It found cleaning was being completed to an acceptable standard. However, it confirmed it had identified grounds maintenance failures and appointed a new contractor, and acknowledged it had not reviewed the MUBA as its policy said it should. It offered £300 compensation for that failing, and for its slow complaint responses.
    1. £150 each for its delay in providing its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.
    2. £150 for its failure to review the MUBA.
    3. £150 each for its failure to respond to respective complaints about service charges, rent increases between 2016 and 2020 and annual rent increases.
  7. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman because she was dissatisfied with the compensation the landlord offered.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. The resident raised a number of new issues after the landlord’s final complaint response of 19 July 2024. This included a kitchen and boiler replacement, guttering, communal lighting and handrails. The landlord has provided a further complaint response to some of these issues. The resident has the opportunity to raise these with the Ombudsman should she be dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

Unacceptable behaviour agreement.

  1. In her initial complaint of 22 December 2023 the resident said the landlord implemented the MUBA without explaining what she had done. She also said she was disallowed from using the formal complaints process and no one responded to her request for a review of the process. The Ombudsman sent the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 4 January 2024.
  2. In response the landlord wrote to the resident on 25 January 2024 about the MUBA. It then provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 May and its stage 2 response on 19 July. It explained its rationale for implementing the MUBA. This included the types of incidents that met its criteria under its managing unacceptable behaviour policy. It clearly set out how it would communicate with the resident. It provided a specific email address to which the resident could raise complaints, but explained it would not respond to complaints that had previously completed its complaint process. This was in accordance with its policy and provided a clear channel for the resident to make valid complaints – something she had been concerned the MUBA was preventing.
  3. However, the landlord’s internal correspondence shows that it realised in January 2024 that it had not been following its policy in reviewing the MUBA (which its officers said should have been every 6 months). It acknowledged this in its letter to the resident on 25 January 2024, explaining that it had been waiting for the outcome of the complaint she made to the Ombudsman in 2022 about the MUBA. It said it had become aware at the end of 2023 that the resident had withdrawn that complaint, and acknowledged it should have reviewed the MUBA at that point. 
  4. The landlord’s wait for clarification regarding the MUBA was perhaps understandable, but not reasonable. A landlord is not required in any way to pause or suspend its policies while the Ombudsman investigates a complaint, and it would rarely be appropriate or practical for it to do so. The landlord’s decision meant the resident was not given a fair opportunity to have the MUBA reviewed and was not in accordance with its policy. It should have recognised this and offered an appropriate resolution when it realised its error while investigating the complaint in 2024. It did not do so, apologising and providing compensation only for the missed review at the end of 2023. Accordingly, its mistake went unremedied. In the circumstance of how long the MUBA went unreviewed that was a significant failing.
  5. Overall, the landlord appropriately explained how it was using the MUBA and why. It provided reasonable communication channels, and set out the grounds on which it would decline or accept complaints from the resident. However, its original decision to pause reviews of the MUBA in 2022 and early 2023 was not reasonable, or based on any policy or procedure. It did not fully remedy that failing.

Standard of communal cleaning.

  1. The resident has explained she raised cleaning as an issue during a face-to-face meeting with the landlord on 17 November 2023. No records of this meeting have been provided. In her complaint, the resident stated she was cleaning windows and doors herself. She noted the cleaning contractor was inaccurately reporting it was completing this. The resident also said she was cleaning the bin storage and picking up litter.
  2. The landlord provided a partial response to the resident’s concerns on 25 January 2024. It confirmed it had completed inspections on 10 and 24 January. It said it was satisfied with the cleaning that was carried out at that point, and that it would continue to monitor periodically. Given that it had just inspected the area its explanation was reasonable.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on the issue because she disputed the landlord’s conclusions about the effectiveness of the cleaning service. In its further complaint responses in May and July 2024 the landlord repeated its original explanation that it was satisfied with the cleaning and would inspect periodically. However, no evidence of a further inspection after January 2024 has been provided. Accordingly, it is not possible to conclude that the landlord had acted as it said it would by inspecting the premises “periodically”, as it did not do so in the 6 months prior to its final complaint response in July. Without inspections it is also not clear how the landlord reassured itself the service was appropriate.    

Standard of communal garden and grounds maintenance.

  1. In the information provided by the landlord for this investigation it acknowledged that performance issues with its garden and grounds maintenance contractor in 2021 and early 2022 led to it arranging an interim contractor until a permanent one was appointed in October 2023. It has confirmed up to October 2024 there have been no rectification notices.
  2. In her complaint of 22 December 2023, the resident said she was having to complete several grounds maintenance jobs herself. She said this included cutting grass, bushes and tree branches, reseeding and removing cuttings.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response of 7 May 2024 the landlord explained it had been taking steps to address the resident’s concerns over the previous years. The evidence supports its explanations, including:
    1. In May 2022 it appropriately explained the details of its emergency contractor. It also explained the basic rectification works they were completing due to the failings of the previous contractor.
    2. In September 2022 the landlord appropriately acknowledged a mapping issue used for grounds maintenance. As such it explained its contractor had been completing additional work without cost to the resident. It also explained it was unable to trim bushes or shrubs due to bird protection guidelines.
    3. In October 2022 it issued a rectification notice to its contractor to remove weeds and fallen fruit.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed it had completed site visits on 17 November 2023 and 24 January 2024. On each occasion, it found minor issues which it addressed but found the grounds suitably maintained. This was an appropriate course of action to review the standards of the new cleaning contractor who had begun in October 2023.
  5. The landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response of 7 May 2024 that it would “closely monitor” the grounds maintenance standards. It repeated this at stage 2 in July.  However, as with the communal cleaning, no evidence of inspections after January has been provided. Without that evidence this investigation cannot conclude the landlord was inspecting as it said it would.
  6. On 17 May 2024 and in her complaint escalation of 4 June 2024 the resident raised further concerns about missed gardening appointments. The landlord discussed this internally on 17 May. It believed there was nothing wrong with the state of the grounds. It said the contractor was “catching up” following the bank holiday. There is no evidence it explained this to the resident to address her concerns. This was a further opportunity to monitor the standard of work which the landlord missed.
  7. Tree maintenance had also been part of the resident’s concerns and complaint. The landlord did not specifically address the issue in its complaint responses. The evidence shows that after it issued its final complaint response it discussed the matter internally. It concluded trees did not form part of the contractors’ responsibility but it had surveyed them and arranged and an arborist to attend. The landlord failed to respond about the trees at any point and there is no evidence it updated the resident about its decision and intentions. This left the issue unresolved and the resident uncertain on its approach.
  8. In summary the landlord had acted robustly with failures by its ground’s maintenance contractor in 2022 and 2023. It effectively managed the change in its contractor and kept the resident informed. However, following its inspection on 24 January 2024 there is no evidence it completed further inspections as it had said it would, and failed to update the resident about its findings and proposals for the trees on the site.

Complaint handling.

  1. The resident raised her complaint with the Ombudsman on 19 December 2023 and the Ombudsman forwarded it to the landlord on 4 January 2024. The landlord provided partial responses to the complaint on 24 and 25 January 2024.
  2. However, the landlord did not provide its formal stage 1 complaint response to the resident until 7 May 2024. Its complaints policy states it will respond in 10 working days. Its response exceeded this by 86 working days.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 4 June 2024. In its stage 2 complaint response of 19 July the landlord inaccurately recorded the escalation date as 21 June. Its complaint policy confirms it will respond in 20 working days. Its response exceeded this by 13 working days.
  4. The landlord apologised and offered compensation of £150 each for the delays at stage 1 and stage 2. In correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident raised concern with the total compensation offered by the landlord. Both amounts offered by the landlord relating to complaint handling were made in accordance with its compensation policy. The landlord’s response to both delays was an appropriate resolution in resolving its poor complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraphs 42.d and 42.j of the Scheme the complaint about the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of increases in rent from 2021 and the landlord’s setting of a fixed service charge is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about:
    1. Its implementation of an unacceptable behaviour agreement.
    2. Communal cleaning standards.
    3. Communal garden and grounds maintenance.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident £550. This is made up of the following:
    1. £250 for its failure to review the resident’s MUBA.
    2. £150 for its failure to monitor the communal cleaning standards.
    3. £150 for its failure to monitor the garden and grounds maintenance standards and address the resident’s tree concerns.
  2. If it has not already done so the landlord must also pay (or re-offer) the £300 compensation it previously offered the resident for the specific issues considered in this report.
  3. Within 8 weeks the landlord must confirm to the resident and Ombudsman a specific schedule or timeframe in which it will monitor communal cleaning and garden maintenance standards on an annual basis. If it has not already done so it must also update her on its plans for the trees on site. This is to ensure the resident’s expectations and confidence in monitoring are met.
  4. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Ombudsman by their respective deadlines.