Home Group Limited (202222257)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222257

Home Group Limited

31 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of a leak from the resident’s radiator.
2. Decision not to replace the resident’s carpet.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy and has lived in the property since 6 December 2004. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has vulnerabilities which the landlord has confirmed to this Service that it has a record of.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 March 2021 to report that he had no heating and hot water in his property. An operative attended within 24 hours and noted a slight drop in pressure. The landlord’s records state that the operative checked for leaks and asked the resident whether he had noticed any leaks, and the resident confirmed he was not aware of any. The boiler pressure was then topped up prior to the operative leaving.
On 22 March 2021 the resident reported that there was a leak from his radiator in the living room which was not able to be contained. The landlord attended and found that the radiator had come away from the wall which had caused a valve to leak. The landlord’s records state that on its previous visit the sofa was directly in front of the radiator however on this visit it had been moved. It speculated that either the sofa had been holding up the radiator, or in the process of moving the sofa the radiator had been impacted. As a goodwill gesture the landlord stated that it lifted the carpet up to help it dry, and that it would deliver dehumidifiers to the property. It also noted that it would arrange for a wet and dry vacuum to be used in the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 March 2021 to say that he believed the operative who attended the boiler breakdown on 20 March 2021 should have noticed the leak, and he therefore wished to make a claim on the landlord’s insurance. The landlord provided him with information on how to claim on its insurance, and the following day, dehumidifiers were delivered to the property. On 29 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to request that the rolled-up carpet was removed from his property as it was too heavy for him to do alone. He reiterated that he felt the landlord was responsible for the damage as the leak was missed.
On 5 April 2021 the landlord’s insurer acknowledged receipt of the claim, and the landlord provided it with a description of events. The landlord attended to clean the carpet with a wet and dry vacuum on 18 April 2021 as it had previously agreed to, however the resident stated that he felt this made the damage to the carpet worse as it had been rolled up by the operative. He also said that the carpet was causing a smell which had permeated the property.
The resident wrote to his local MP on 22 April 2021 requesting support as he felt the landlord should be liable for replacing his carpet. The landlord’s records from the same day stated that based on photographs from the property it was unclear how the radiator had come away from the wall, and that insurance was the best option for the resident to utilise. Records from this time also state:
1. The operative who cleaned the carpet confirmed that the carpet was stained in more places than the water damaged portion.
2. The operative was not sure how the radiator came off the wall without force.
3. The operative who attended the radiator leak suspected that prior to his visit the sofa had been “holding up” the radiator as it was positioned differently compared to the original boiler callout.
Following several emails between the landlord and the resident’s MP on 6 May 2021 the landlord confirmed to the MP that it would contact the resident to discuss his concerns, and if he remained dissatisfied it would open a complaint. A call was made by the landlord to the resident on 10 June 2021 to acknowledge receipt of his complaint. Internal notes from 16 June 2021 indicate that the resident accepted £70 compensation and agreed to close the complaint.
The stage 1 complaint response was sent to the resident on 25 June 2021 which stated:
1. As standard its operatives would check the central heating system for leaks when it attended jobs which related to boiler pressure.
2. It had no previous reports regarding the radiator being damaged, leaking, or not properly fixed to the wall.
3. Under normal circumstances, claims for water damage would be directed to the resident’s contents insurance. As the resident did not have contents cover in place, it agreed to support him by referring the claim to its own insurer.
4. It found that lack of communication and “further delays” had caused him inconvenience and it had offered him £70 compensation which he had accepted verbally.
On 19 August 2021 the landlord’s insurer wrote to the resident to confirm that the claim was rejected. It stated that:
1. It had found no evidence that the radiator had not been correctly fitted to the wall when originally installed in 2013.
2. The radiators had a life span of approximately 30 years so would not have required replacement due to general wear and tear. It also confirmed that the appropriate fixings had been used to install the radiator which were standard throughout all properties owned by the landlord.
3. No previous reports had been made to the landlord regarding this radiator, and the responsibility was on the resident to report any damage to the landlord.
4. It found that it was therefore impossible for the landlord to have foreseen the leak or taken action to prevent it. It had found that the contractors on site had acted appropriately and there was no negligence. The letter also stated that the resident had the right to seek legal advice if he wished.
The MP contacted the landlord on 22 November 2021 to ask whether a complaint was raised as he had not been informed. The resident had also raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. The landlord confirmed that it had raised the complaint, and that stage 1 response had been issued on 25 June 2021 with compensation being awarded and accepted. It confirmed that it had not had a request to escalate to stage 2 and so the complaint was closed. On 29 November 2021 the landlord raised an internal request for stage 2 escalation following its communication with the MP. Notes state that the 8-week timescale for escalation to stage 2 had passed however it would agree to escalate as the resident wished to approach the Ombudsman. A stage 2 acknowledgement was sent to the resident on 3 February 2022, with a phone call attempted the same day.
A stage 2 response was saved onto the landlord’s records on 9 March 2022 where the stage 1 decision was upheld. It was discovered that this response was not sent to the resident, when he made another complaint on 26 January 2023. A further stage 2 response was sent to the resident on 2 June 2023 which stated that:
1. It apologised for its failure to send the previous stage 2 response and the impact on the resident.
2. The resident’s concerns about damp and mould had not been brought up in the original complaint, and it had no records of damp or mould being reported. It was therefore not able to provide an outcome to this issue.
3. It offered compensation for its complaint handling failures which comprised of:
  1. Complaint handling service failure – £150
  2. Communication service failure – £150
  3. Time and effort pursuing matters – £75.
4. It asked the resident to clarify whether he would like the payment to be made to his bank account or his rent account.
The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the leak and water damage to his carpet and has brought his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

There is a record of the resident raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the time the stage 2 escalation was requested. Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. There is no evidence of a formal complaint being made regarding damp and mould, and it was not referenced in the original complaint or stage 1 response. For this reason, the Ombudsman will not investigate the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. If the resident has ongoing concerns with damp and mould, he can make a complaint directly to the landlord.
This Service is unable to assess whether the insurer’s decision not to honour the resident’s claim was reasonable. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. If the resident is dissatisfied with the insurer’s handling of the claim, he may approach the insurer to log a complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the leak

The landlord’s tenancy lists timescales for responsive repairs as 24 hours for emergencies, and 7 days for ‘urgent repairs’. Its website confirms that it has responsibility for the heating and hot water installation within its properties. In its property management policy, it confirms that if works have not been completed satisfactorily, it will offer compensation in line with the ‘Right to Repair Scheme’ guidelines.
An operative attended the property to repair the boiler within 24 hours which is compliant with the set timescales in the tenancy. The Ombudsman acknowledges that both parties have differing accounts of what occurred on the site visit. The resident has stated that the operative did not check for leaks, however the landlord states that operatives check for leaks as standard. The landlord has also noted that the radiator which developed a leak was obscured by furniture on the original visit. The Ombudsman’s role is not to make a judgement on which account is correct, instead we will consider whether the landlord acted appropriately to any repair requests from the resident.
Once the radiator leak was reported to the landlord, it attended within 24 hours to isolate the leak. When it found that the radiator had come away from the wall this was repaired within the appropriate timescale, and the landlord confirmed that the heating and hot water was working following this repair. Dehumidifiers were dropped off at the property 3 days after the leak was isolated, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion this was an appropriate timescale as the emergency itself had been resolved.
The landlord’s original decision to roll up the carpet following the leak may have been well intentioned in that it may have enabled the floorboards to dry out, however, the carpet was then left for several weeks rolled up before the wet and dry vacuuming appointment was completed. It is understandable that this may have been frustrating for the resident, as the carpet being rolled up in the room is likely to have prevented it from drying and caused more damage, despite the landlord’s original intentions. By the time the wet and dry vacuuming was completed, the resident felt that the carpet was too damaged and required replacement.
The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak. Its operatives attended within the set timescales and made the property safe, ensuring that all services were restored. The Ombudsman cannot say with certainty how much it investigated the possibility of other leaks when attending to check the boiler pressure, however when a leak was reported it was attended to promptly. The cause of the leak cannot be determined however, there is no mention of the radiator coming away from the wall from either the landlord or the resident prior to 23 March 2023.

The landlord’s decision not to replace the carpet

According to the resident’s tenancy, internal decoration including floor coverings are the responsibility of the resident. While the landlord has responsibility for resolving emergencies such as leaks, any water damage would only be rectified by the landlord if there was evidence of a failure by the landlord. In the landlord’s resident handbook, all residents are encouraged to take out contents insurance to ensure they can be compensated for any damage to their belongings.
When the landlord determined that the resident did not have contents cover, it was reasonable for it to refer to its own insurer, particularly given the resident’s statements that the first operative had missed the leak. While this Service acknowledges that the resident was unhappy with the decision by the insurer to deny his claim, as stated above the Ombudsman will not be making any findings on whether this decision was appropriate as it is out of our jurisdiction. It is not clear to this Service whether it was communicated to the resident that the insurer may deny his claim, and what would happen if it did. No other alternatives were given to the resident, such as agencies or funding sources who could support him to replace the carpet if the claim was denied.
There is no record of any reports made by the resident to say that the radiator was installed incorrectly or had come away from the wall. Given the severity of the radiator leak, the landlord’s statement that this may have been caused by an impact or damage rather than wear and tear was understandable.
This Service cannot say with any certainty how the radiator came away from the wall. It is also not possible to say whether the carpet would have been salvageable if the landlord had not rolled up the carpet. While the wet and dry vacuum appointment was delayed, there is no way of knowing whether this would have made a difference if the carpet had been left in its original position. We acknowledge that the resident’s request for the carpet to be removed was not responded to, even though he had reported that it was causing the property to smell. However, the tenancy agreement states that floor coverings such as carpets are the responsibility of the resident.
It was appropriate that it referred the case to its insurer, installed dehumidifiers and attempted to clean and dry the carpet back to a usable state. Despite this, the communication with the resident on what would happen when the case was passed to the insurer was not clear and may have inadvertently raised his expectations.
The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to replace the resident’s carpet following the leak. Although there were instances of poor communication, the decision not to replace the carpet was consistent with the tenancy agreement and its insurers position given that there was no clear evidence that the leak was caused by any inaction from the landlord. It attempted to improve the condition of the carpet following the leak, although the decision to roll up the carpet may have impacted the effectiveness of these attempts. A recommendation will be made at the end of this report for the landlord to provide the resident with details of funding providers who may be able to help him with the cost of a new carpet.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy from 2021 did not contain a process map or resident guide for the complaints process. It is therefore not possible for the Ombudsman to determine whether its conduct at the time was compliant with its internal procedures. In order to determine whether the landlord acted appropriately, the Ombudsman has assessed its actions against the current resident complaint guide on its website, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). While the code was not in place at the time of the complaint it acts as a baseline comparator for best practice.
The complaint was originally acknowledged on 10 June 2021 and the stage 1 response was provided 12 working days later. This would be compliant with current guidelines set in the Code. It is unclear when the original complaint was logged as the resident’s dissatisfaction was mentioned on several occasions in correspondence with the MP, however the landlord stated it would attempt to resolve the resident’s issues informally before logging a complaint.
The Code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.” The resident had indicated that he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision making and with the operatives attending his property as early as 29 March 2021. The landlord should have logged the complaint at the earliest opportunity, and its failure to do so created confusion and delays when the resident approached his MP for support. The landlord’s communication with the MP was poor, and the MP chased for updates on several occasions.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident accepted compensation at stage 1 and agreed to the complaint being closed. There is no record of a request being made by the resident for complaint escalation until the landlord’s communication with the MP in November 2021. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the matter closed, and positive that it agreed to escalate despite the set timescale for escalation having passed.
The stage 2 acknowledgement was sent 46 working days after the request, which is considerably higher than the guideline in the Code of 5 working days. The original stage 2 response was created 25 working days after acknowledgement, which fell slightly outside the timescale given in its current policy and the Code, of 20 working days. However, as this was not sent the stage 2 response only reached the resident the following year, 332 days after the acknowledgement. In the response the landlord acknowledged the delay and apologised, however there was no explanation given for the delay in acknowledgement or for the original stage 2 response not being sent. The landlord did not provide updates to the MP in a timely manner; however, this Service acknowledges that this may have been caused by the confusion around the stage 2 response.
Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for the resident to reflect the service failures in its complaint handling. The lack of response from the landlord may have led the resident to feel as though his complaint had been disregarded and caused him frustration. Nonetheless, there is no record of the complaint response being chased by the resident between the date the stage 2 request was acknowledged, and 26 January 2023 when he attempted to make another complaint. When the error was discovered by the landlord it compensated for the service failures and acknowledged them. The Ombudsman finds that the compensation offered was in line with this Service’s remedy guidance.
The Ombudsman has therefore concluded there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak on the resident’s radiator.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to replace the resident’s carpet.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord should:
  1. Ensure that if the compensation has not been accepted by the resident, it is offered again. The resident should be given a choice on whether he receives it into his bank or against his rent account.
  2. Provide the resident with information of any local financial support services that he may be eligible for, such as the Council’s ‘Household Support Fund’.
2. The landlord should ensure there is a clear communication strategy in cases where there is involvement from an MP. Regular updates should be provided, along with copies of any requested paperwork, provided the resident has given consent.