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

Home Group Limited (202228400)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228400

Home Group Limited

29 November 2024


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 reports of:
    1. Draughts and cold.
    2. A leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident has been a shared ownership leaseholder at the property since 16 October 2019. The property is a 2-bedroom second floor flat. The date of practical completion of the property was 13 June 2019. The property was then subject to a 12-month defect liability period. The resident has no vulnerabilities.
  2. On 18 February 2020, the resident told the landlord that all the windows in the property were letting in draughts. He said the whole property was cold.
  3. An end of defects liability inspection was due at the property in June 2020. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the developer could not complete it. Therefore, on 17 June 2020, as requested, the resident emailed the relevant contractor to advise it what defects remained outstanding at the property. These included window draughts which he said were a problem in cold weather.
  4. On 26 September 2020, the resident reported that there was a brown stain on his bathroom ceiling, possibly caused by a leak from the roof.
  5. The resident chased the repair of the leak and draughts 16 times between July 2020 and March 2021. He emailed the landlord and contractors and completed web chats. A contractor erected scaffolding in January 2021 so that another contractor could carry out a roof inspection. However, it removed this in March 2021, prior to an inspection taking place.
  6. The builder and the landlord attended the property on 26 March 2021 to review the defects identified in the resident’s email of 17 June 2020. The resident emailed the landlord and contractor on 5 April 2021. He said that he was not happy with the outcome of the visit because the defects had not been fully resolved. He emailed again on 11 May 2021 to chase this up and said that no-one had responded to his complaint.
  7. On 28 June 2021, a contractor attended the property and inspected the leak. It found a disconnected pipe from the vent tile to the fan in the bathroom. This meant that water ran down the pipe into the ceiling. It raised a repair job to stain block a small area and seal around the fan.
  8. The resident chased the landlord and contractors for updates 5 times between June and December 2021.
  9. The resident made a formal complaint on 13 December 2021. He said that he had had a leak in his bathroom since September 2020. Surveyors had told him it was coming from the roof and was the landlord’s responsibility. He said that he also had draughts coming in which he had reported in the defect period, but no action was taken. He said that he had telephoned and emailed many times but had no response. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 15 December 2021. It said that it would aim to respond in 10 working days.
  10. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 18 February 2022. It said that it had reviewed the residents end of defects email, and he had not mentioned the leak on it. It had also contacted the builder who confirmed that they had attended the property to inspect the draughts on 13 July 2020 and found no faults. It said that the resident was now responsible for the repairs.
  11. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 14 March 2022. The landlord emailed the resident on 9 May 2022 to tell him that the lead complaints team would contact him within 35 days. However, it did not. It acknowledged receipt of the stage 2 complaint on 1 August 2022.
  12. The landlord emailed the resident on 26 August 2022 and sent a stage 2 complaint response. This said that it had now found evidence that he had inspected the leak previously and agreed to repair it. It also said it would investigate his comments about window vents. It asked the resident if it could keep the complaint open until it had completed the work to repair the leak after which it would provide a “full and final response”. The resident agreed that the complaint should remain open until the landlord carried out all the work.
  13. The landlord repaired the leak on 21 November 2022 and provided a final stage 2 complaint response on 7 December 2022. It apologised for the delays in escalating the complaint to stage 2 of the process and said:
    1. Draughts – representatives from the landlord, builder and a construction consultant had all visited the property and found no draughts. The property had also been tested for air pressure on completion and the results were within tolerance. It said that the resident had since indicated that the draughts were due to faulty air vents in the windows and a further inspection was carried out on 4 October 2022 with no faults found. Therefore, the landlord would take no further action regarding this.
    2. Leak – since the stage 1 response it had discovered that it had inspected the leak previously and raised a works order to rectify the issue and stain block the area. However, it had closed the job in July 2021 when the contractor could not gain access to do the work. It apologised that it had not informed the resident about the appointment and that it had not reviewed this information as part of the stage 1 complaint response. It said that contractors had rectified the leak on 21 November 2022, and it would make a further appointment to stain block the area.
    3. It offered £205 compensation: £75 for the delays in repairing the leak, £75 for the stage 1 complaint handling failures (lack of contact and investigation) and £55 for the delay in the stage 2 response.
  14. The bathroom ceiling was repainted on 6 January 2023. On 2 February 2023 the resident provided the landlord with photographs taken by a thermal imaging camera which he said showed where cold air was coming into the property. The landlord viewed these and, in an internal email dated 15 February 2023, a technical manager said that there were “a number of anomalies on the thermal images that I wouldn’t expect to see”. The resident advised this Service in November 2024 that the landlord had taken no further action regarding this, and he was still experiencing cold and draughts in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord and resident have provided information regarding activity that happened more than 6 months prior to the date of the stage 1 complaint. We cannot consider this due to the reliability of historic evidence. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (that was current at the time of the complaint).
  2. Further information has also been provided on activities that took place after the stage 2 complaint response. Any reference to these events is for context only and has not otherwise been considered.

Draughts and cold

  1. The homeowners guide given to the resident when he moved into the property said, “all our new build properties come with a 10-year warranty, with the first year of its duration commonly referred to as the defects liability period”. It said that the landlord was responsible for rectifying all specified defects that occurred within the property during the defect liability period at no cost to the resident. It said that residents should report all repair issues direct to the landlord.
  2. The guide also said that towards the end of the first 12 months, the landlord would carry out an inspection with the builder to identify any outstanding defects. However, it said that if any defects were missed “you will still be covered during months 13-24 following works completion – and also covered if a defect was reported but not yet fully resolved”. It also said that at the end of the defect liability period the property remained covered for the duration of the warranty for structural defects only. It defined a structural defect as being less apparent and often requiring detailed investigation to ascertain their cause. An example of which given was “missing insulation resulting in dampness/ mould growth/ cold bridging”.
  3. The standard response times for completion of routine repairs given in the guide was 14 calendar days.
  4. The resident initially reported the issue with draughts and cold to the landlord on 18 February 2020. This was within the defect liability period. The resident raised the issue again in the email he sent in lieu of the end of defect liability inspection on 17 June 2020. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said that the builder had told it that it attended the property on 13 July 2020 and found no issues with draughts. However, this Service has seen no evidence of the outcome or of any notes taken at this visit. There is also no record of the builder or landlord communicating the outcome of this inspection to the resident at the time.
  5. This communication and record keeping failure cost the resident time and trouble because over the next 9 months he emailed the landlord a further 5 times, in addition to the previous 16 times, to chase a resolution.
  6. There is evidence, provided by the resident, that the landlord and builder arranged to visit the property again on 26 April 2021. However, again this Service has seen no evidence of the outcome, what investigation took place, or any notes taken at the visit.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome of this inspection and in an email dated 5 April 2021, he advised the landlord that he was not sleeping due to the cold. He chased a response to this email on 11 May 2021 and 23 September 2021, when he said that he had curtains and blinds over the bedroom window with a blanket over the top and draught excluders on all doors.
  8. He suggested that the issue might be with the air vent, windows, or poor wall insulation and said that all rooms in the property were equally as cold. The landlord responded to this email on 14 October 2021. It said that it had passed the issue to its defects team and said that, as the resident had reported the issue within the first year, then it should be responsible.
  9. The lack of timely responses to the resident’s emails, further record keeping issues, and poor communication from the landlord were failings. Chasing a response cost the resident further time and trouble and caused him further distress and inconvenience.
  10. The landlord did not inspect the property again regarding the draughts until October 2022. This was an unreasonable delay and the landlord offered no explanation for it. It said that it did not find any draughts in the property but observed that the resident had taped up all the window vents and had insulated the bottom of every door in the flat. It also noted that the resident said that he slept in 3 different places around the flat and felt the cold wherever he was. The resident has advised this Service that all rooms in the property have an external wall.
  11. The resident reported the draughts and cold soon after moving in and had clearly had issues with the property being too cold over several years. This should have triggered the landlord to undertake further investigations; however, it did not. The resident asked the landlord if it could check the insulation in the walls after its visit in October 2022, but it did not and offered no explanation for declining to do so. This was a failing to assist the resident with the resolution of a potential structural defect which it says that it will do within the homeowner’s guide. It meant that the resident did not feel that the landlord had carried out adequate investigation which caused him further distress and inconvenience.
  12. Due to the poor communication, poor record keeping, delays, and lack of a thorough investigation, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of draughts and cold.
  13. The landlord did not identify any service failure in its handling of the draughts and therefore offered no compensation in this regard. However, due to the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the delays, poor communication, and inadequate investigation, an order has been made for it to pay £500 compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This is because there was a failure which adversely affected the resident which the landlord failed to acknowledge and made no attempt to put right.
  14. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has since provided the landlord with thermal imaging photographs taken within the property. Internal emails sent after the landlord viewed these indicated that it thought that these showed an issue with the insulation in the property. However, the landlord has taken no further action. Therefore, an order has been made to investigate further.

Leak

  1. Paragraph 3.1(a) of the shared ownership lease between the landlord and resident says that the landlord should comply with clause 5 of the headlease. This says that it is responsible for keeping the structural walls, ceilings, and floors of the block and the whole of the structure of the roof in good repair and condition.
  2. The resident reported the leak to the landlord on 26 September 2020. There is evidence that the landlord logged the repair on 2 October 2020, because the roof was the landlord’s responsibility. The repairs log shows that the job was completed on 8 October 2020. However, given that the resident received no communication following the inspection, there are no repair notes, and the resident chased a response on 20 January 2021, it cannot be established that the inspection took place. When the resident chased the repair, the landlord told him that it could not find a previous report of a leak and logged another repair job. This was a record keeping failure that cost the resident further time and trouble.
  3. After the resident chased a response again on 10 February 2021, the landlord told him that a contractor would need to erect scaffolding. A contractor put up the scaffolding the next day. However, despite the resident informing the landlord of this and chasing the repair 8 times, the scaffolding was removed before the roof was inspected.
  4. The landlord’s failure to inspect the repair, keep the resident informed, or respond to emails cost him considerable time and trouble chasing an update response on numerous occasions.
  5. An inspection finally took place 10 months later, on 28 June 2021 when the landlord noted that it was responsible for the leak and ordered follow on work. The repair log states that this repair was closed due to no access. However, there is no evidence that the resident was informed of a follow-on appointment or that a contractor attended the property. This failure cost the resident further time and trouble because he had to complain.
  6. Despite the landlord logging a further repair job to rectify the leak and stain block the ceiling on 19 November 2021, it stated in its stage 1 response that it was not responsible for repairing the cause of the leak. This was incorrect and the landlord’s failure to fully investigate and interrogate all its systems meant that the resident had to contact it again to escalate the complaint costing him further time and trouble. It also caused him distress and inconvenience because he was living with a leak that had caused a stain on the ceiling. It is clear from the email he sent to the landlord requesting the escalation to stage 2 of the process that he also felt frustrated because the landlord had previously told him that it would rectify the problem.
  7. Following further investigation at stage 2 of the complaint process the landlord realised that it had promised to rectify the leak previously. However, it took until 21 November 2022, over 2 years after the resident first reported the issue, to replace the vent kit between the bathroom fan and roof. The ceiling was repainted 2 months later. This unacceptable delay caused further considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  8. The £75 compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings. It did not consider the number of times that the resident had chased the issue and the fact that he had lived with the leak for over 2 years. Therefore, considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order to pay £500 compensation has been made. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer.
  9. Due to the errors, long delay and lack of communication there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy said that it used the definition of a complaint adopted by the relevant ombudsman. The Housing Ombudsman’ complaint handling code (the Code) in place at the time said that a complaint must be defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.”
  2. The resident clearly expressed his dissatisfaction about the service and lack of action taken by the landlord in his email dated 5 April 2021 in which he said “sorry to complain”. It is not evident that the landlord replied, and so he sent a further email on 11 May 2021 and asked for a response to his previous complaint. However, the landlord did not respond to this email either and did not log a complaint. This failure to follow the Code and its policy meant that it did not investigate the issue and use the complaints process to find a resolution at the earliest opportunity. This prolonged the complaints process. It cost the resident time and trouble because he contacted the landlord 4 more times before it logged a complaint. It also delayed the resident’s access to an investigation by this Service.
  3. The Code also said that landlords must respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of logging the complaint unless there was a good reason for an extension which should not exceed a further 10 days.
  4. The landlord took 45 working days to respond to the stage 1 complaint and it did not agree an extension with the resident. This further delay and failure to follow the Code meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution which caused him further distress and inconvenience. It also further delayed his access to an investigation by this Service.
  5. The Code also said that landlords must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of a resident escalating a complaint.
  6. The landlord took 115 working days to provide its first response to the stage 2 complaint. This unacceptable delay was initially caused by the escalation not being logged correctly by the landlord. It cost the resident further time and trouble chasing a response and further delayed his access to an investigation by this Service.
  7. The Code said that “a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issues are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident.”
  8. Despite the long delay in providing an interim stage 2 complaint response, the landlord had still not rectified the leak or completed its final inspection of the property for draughts by the time it sent the response. It correctly told the resident that it would keep the complaint open and advised him that he could contact this Service for advice. However, it had not answered the complaint fully and had not communicated its final decision not to pursue the issue of cold in the property. Therefore, the resident was not fully informed to make a decision about whether he wanted to escalate the issue to this Service. This delayed the progression of the complaint further.
  9. The landlord took 186 working days to provide the final stage 2 complaint response. This was a year after the resident complained initially. This delay was unacceptable and caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience.
  10. The landlord offered £75 compensation for the complaint handling failures at stage 1 of the process and £55 for the delay in the stage 2 response. However, this was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident as a result of the severe delays and other failings identified. Therefore, considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order to pay £400 compensation has been made. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer.
  11. Due to the failings identified, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Record keeping

  1. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide all email correspondence regarding the resident’s reports of the leak and draughts. The landlord provided some email correspondence which mainly concerned events that happened after the stage 2 complaint response. However, it did not provide any emails sent prior to October 2021 including the emails in which the resident complained initially.
  2. The resident provided copies of 44 emails, not provided by the landlord, which he sent to and received from it between 18 February 2020 and 14 September 2022. Without these, the full extent of the landlord’s failure to respond to emails from the resident would not have been apparent and it would not have been possible to carry out a full investigation of the case.
  3. As evidenced above, there were also issues with the record keeping regarding repair visits.
  4. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of correspondence and action taken. Good record keeping is vital to evidence that a landlord has taken appropriate steps and given appropriate advice. Failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents.
  5. Given the above the landlord’s record keeping was inappropriate and there has been maladministration in this regard.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of draughts and cold.
    2. Handling of his report of a leak.
    3. Complaint handling.
    4. Record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise. A senior member of staff to apologise in writing for the failures identified in this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident directly a total of £1,400 in compensation. Any compensation already paid should be deducted from this amount. This is broken down as follows:
      1. £500 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the draughts and cold.
      2. £500 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leak.
      3. £400 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
  2. Arrange a date to carry out a full inspection of the property to ensure that all reasons for the cold that the resident is experiencing are fully investigated. This should at a minimum include:
    1. A full inspection of all the windows and doors and vents.
    2. Appropriate investigation to identify any issues with wall insulation.
  3. The landlord must commit to provide its position in writing to the resident within 3 weeks of its inspection. It must provide the outcome of the investigations and detail any actions it will take. This should include an action plan with timescales regarding when it will complete any required actions. Within this, it should also provide a response to the thermal images provided by the resident and what action it will take regarding these.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, a senior member of staff is to carry out a review of this case to identify the cause of the record keeping failures. It should provide a report regarding the to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of the date of this report.
  5. The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme in relation to responding to complaint handling. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the case already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to the landlord. The landlord should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.
  6. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.