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

Home Group Limited (202213572)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213572

Home Group Limited

29 February 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of sinkage in her rear garden.
    2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy of a 3–bedroom house owned by the landlord. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities listed on its systems for the resident.
  2. During an inspection of the resident’s garden for knotweed on 9 June 2021 the resident raised concerns an area of the garden was sinking. A further inspection was booked for 5 July 2021, however, the landlord’s surveyor was unable to make this appointment.
  3. On 17 July 2021 the resident raised a stage one complaint that nothing had been progressed to resolve the sinking garden. The landlord responded on 24 November 2021. It said that the likely cause of the sinkage was drainage issues and it would arrange a CCTV survey of the resident’s drains. It said that if faults were identified it would raise follow on work and if further investigation was required it would liaise with its maintenance team.
  4. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 23 February 2022 during a telephone call with the landlord. The resident said that she had to wait a long time for the stage one response and that she would like works completed to rectify the sinking in her garden. The landlord provided its final response on 13 April 2022. This said that no drainage issues were identified during the CCTV survey and the landlord’s Maintenance Surveyor did not believe the issue to be structural.
  5. The landlord operates an optional third stage independent complaints panel following completion of its internal complaints process. On 8 August 2022 the independent complaints panel issued its response to the resident. This made a number of recommendations for actions to be taken by the landlord. On 7 September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident responding to each of the recommendations made by the panel.
  6. In bringing her complaint to this Service, the resident has said that the sinkage in her garden has not been resolved and the communication from the landlord has been poor.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states “We operate a ‘right first time’ approach for repairs. Where it is possible we complete the repair at the first visit. There may be occasions where this is not possible and we should keep customers informed about when they can expect the repair to be completed.”
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance standard operating procedure states “To provide excellent customer service, customers and supported housing colleagues are kept informed and provided with relevant and timely information at the earliest opportunity and in the manner they choose.”
  3. The resident’s tenancy agreement states “The tenant’s obligations … Gardens (11) To keep the garden tidy and free from weeds and keep the paths in a clear condition.”
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy states “Repairs are split into two categories and each one has a timescale in which the work must be carried out, they are … Emergency (attend within 6 hours and complete within 24 hours) … Routine (within 14 calendar days)”

Reports of sinkage

  1. On 30 April 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report that she suspected Japanese knotweed was growing in her garden. The landlord arranged an appointment for one of its contractors to inspect for 4 May 2021 and informed the resident. This was an appropriate investigative step and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
  2. On 2 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord by phone to report that its contractors had missed two appointments concerning the knotweed. The landlord’s records show the resident was informed of appointments to take place on 4 May 2021 and 21 May 2021. However, the landlord’s records also show this appointment was not attended until 9 June 2021. This was unreasonable, a failure in the landlord’s aim to provide ‘excellent customer service’ and was 25 days outside of its repairs timescales.
  3. Following its inspection on 9 June 2021 the landlord’s contractor reported back that there was no Japanese knotweed. However, they had noticed the garden was sinking and that it required a maintenance surveyor inspection with possible ground survey. We understand from the resident a further inspection took place on 5 July 2021, however the landlord’s surveyor could not attend. The appointment was attended by a member of the landlord’s staff and its contractor.
  4. Following this, the landlord failed to follow up with the resident between its inspection of 5 July 2021 and the resident contacting it by email to chase on 2 November 2021. This was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. It resulted in a significant delay and additional inconvenience to the resident having to chase the landlord.
  5. On 26 November 2021 the landlord’s contractor undertook a CCTV survey of drains in the resident’s garden. This was a reasonable investigative step albeit significantly delayed. However, following the survey the landlord failed to follow up with the resident until she requested escalation of her complaint in February 2022. This was unreasonable as it resulted in delays and caused further inconvenience to the resident.
  6. On 22 February 2022 the landlord undertook a further inspection of the resident’s garden. The landlord’s repairs policy states ‘where possible the customer experience will be enhanced by minimising the number of visits to a customer’s home by maximising the work that is done at each visit.’ This was the fourth inspection of the issue by the landlord or one of its contractors and was unreasonable.
  7. The landlord provided its final response on 13 April 2022. It stated that in its maintenance surveyor’s opinion the sinking was not due to a structural issue. It concluded the landlord was awaiting feedback from its Maintenance Surveyor if further works were to be undertaken. There is no evidence the landlord followed up with the resident following its final response to clarify if works were to be undertaken or not. This was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s commitment to keep resident’s updated.
  8. The landlord operates an optional independent complaints panel as a third stage to it process. A further inspection of the garden was undertaken on 6 July 2022, the complaints panel took place on 14 July 2022 and it provided its response on 12 August 2022. The panel made a number of recommendations to the landlord and on 7 September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming its response to the panel’s recommendations.
  9. Its letter stated that the resident had been provided with a copy of the CCTV survey, refused an offer of top soil and grass seed and it would be monitoring the sinkage every 8 weeks. However, the landlord has since confirmed it failed to follow up with the resident following this response and no monitoring took place. This was unreasonable and not in line with the commitments given to the resident in its letter dated 7 September 2022.
  10. In its submissions to this Service the landlord has said that garden repairs are the resident’s responsibility as outlined in her tenancy. However, there is no evidence the landlord has ever informed the resident of this. Each time the resident has contacted the landlord it has either booked an inspection of the issue, failed to respond or informed the resident it was awaiting further information. If it is the landlord’s opinion that the repair is the resident’s responsibility then this should have been communicated far earlier in the process. The landlord failed to do this resulting in disappointment to the resident and increased expectations.
  11. As part of its stage two response to the resident the landlord has offered £110 compensation for delays in responding to the resident’s initial inspection request and time and trouble chasing updates. While positive the landlord has acknowledged some failings, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion the award of compensation does not go far enough in acknowledging the resident’s experience. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord has identified and applied any learning from the process, which is one of the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. Overall, the landlord was too slow to respond to the resident’s initial reports, caused unnecessary delays and failed to keep the resident updated. All of this amounts to maladministration and a series of orders are set out below.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 17 July 2021. The landlord’s complaints policy, in use at the time, did not explicitly outline the timescales in which it would respond. The Ombudsman understands this has since been updated. It did state ‘We respond fairly, politely, in a timely manner and in accordance with legislation, regulation and appropriate Ombudsman services.’ The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code at the time outlined that landlord’s should respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days. However, the landlord did not respond to the resident until 24 November 2021. This represents a delay of 16 weeks and was unreasonable. As a result of the delay the resident was put to further inconvenience chasing a response to her complaint.
  2. The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process on 23 February 2022. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code at the time outlined that landlords should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord failed to meet this deadline and did not respond to the resident until 13 April 2022. This represents a further delay of 3 weeks and was unreasonable.
  3. In its stage 2 response to the resident the landlord has offered £75 compensation for the delay in progressing the formal complaint. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion this does not go far enough in recognising the resident’s experience because there were significant delays in the landlord replying to the resident’s complaints, which meant she had to chase the landlord for updates. The landlord’s handling of the complaint amounts to maladministration.
  4. It is noted the landlord has recently implemented a revised complaints policy and has written to the Ombudsman setting out the actions it is taking to improve the complaint experience for residents. Had it not been for this complaints handling training would have been ordered as part of the Ombudsman’s review of this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of sinkage in her garden.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within the next 6 weeks and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman:
    1. Arrange a survey of the garden to determine, if there is sinkage and what the cause is.
    2. Write to the resident, copy to this Service, with the results of the survey and setting out responsibilities. If the landlord is responsible for any works identified it should set out a timetable for when works will be completed.
    3. Pay the resident the sum of £375 compensation. (Please note, if the £185 previously offered to the resident has been paid this can be deducted from the overall total). This consists of:
      1. £250 for the delays, inconvenience and distress caused to the resident through the landlord’s handling of her reports about sinkage.
      2. £125 for the delays and inconvenience caused to the resident through the landlord’s handling of her complaint.