Home Group Limited (202221637)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221637

Home Group Limited

28 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s guttering and roof.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. He resided in the 4-bedroom property with his wife from 1983 until May 2024 when they moved out of the home through the landlord’s regeneration program. The landlord has plans to demolish the property, along with the housing estate that it is part of. The plans were in place prior to the resident’s complaint.
Both the resident and his wife have communicated with the landlord and this Service in relation to the works and the complaint. For clarity, this report refers to all communications from both parties as being to/from the resident.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported issues with his gutters in January 2021. He explained that they were overflowing and water was coming through into the bedrooms. The landlord completed repairs on 20 January 2021.
The resident reported the issue again on 27 May 2022, explaining that the gutters were blocked and water was running down his internal walls and pushing the wallpaper out. The landlord attended on 28 September 2022 to clear the gutters. It attended a further time, on 27 October 2022, in response to another report from the resident that his bedroom walls were ‘soaking’.
The resident complained to the landlord on 8 November 2022. He said the contractors had done a bad job at dealing with the gutter clearing. He explained that the hoppers at the front and rear of the house were blocked by leaves, which had in turn blocked the gutter and caused an overflow of rainwater which had leaked into the property. The wallpaper in his bedroom had ‘bubbled’ across the wall, from the ceiling to the carpet, including behind his bed. He noted that he and his wife were senior citizens and he was registered as disabled. He felt it was unfair of the landlord to allow this to continue and expressed concern that they were vulnerable to chest infections due to the damp.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 20 January 2023 and responded on 27 January 2023. It apologised for the delays and said a contractor had attended on 17 January 2023 but had been unable to access the property for unforeseen circumstances. It said it had asked the contractor to rearrange the appointment and provided their details for the resident to chase.
The resident escalated his complaint on 13 March 2023, explaining that the issues had been going on for a long time and the landlord had not contacted him since 27 January 2023.
The landlord provided a ‘stage 1 complaint outcome’ on 12 May 2023, in which it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and updated him on the status of the repairs. It noted its contractor had attended on 11 April 2023 to make the roof slate watertight but apologised that the issues were outstanding. It explained that it had raised further works and it was considering the best course of action to put this right.
Following a request from this Service, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 June 2023. It said it had made progress with his case but there were remaining actions for it to complete before it had fulfilled its commitment to put things right for him. It said it would progress the repairs and offer compensation when it had completed these.
The landlord provided a further ‘final response’ on 14 November 2023 in which it apologised for the disruption caused by the guttering issues. It acknowledged that it had been slow to coordinate repairs and its communication had been poor. It explained that it had put the works on hold because he was moving out of the home. It awarded £400 compensation comprised of:
1. £75.00 for service failures in its complaint handling.
2. £75.00 for service failures in its handling of repairs to the guttering and roof.
3. £75.00 for the disruption caused in relation to the repairs.
4. £75.00 for its poor communication.
5. £100.00 for overall delays in providing a resolution.
The resident reports that the issues persisted up to his move from the property on 28 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has shared concerns with this Service about the landlord’s handling of several other issues. These include its response to his reports about damp and mould throughout the property from other structural causes, its coordination of his move to alternative accommodation, and repairs needed in the new property. The resident has complained to the landlord about some of these issues and it is considering them through the operation of its internal complaints procedure.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, this Service can only consider complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. This is so we can be sure the landlord has had a reasonable opportunity to resolve the issues internally before we intervene. As a result, complaints about other issues fall outside the scope of this investigation. The resident can seek advice from the Ombudsman and refer any complaints that he remains dissatisfied with once they have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
In his complaint to the landlord about the guttering, the resident also raised concerns about how it had overseen repairs to his television aerial. He has confirmed he does not want this Service to investigate this aspect of the complaint. As such, this investigation is focussed on the landlord’s handling of issues with the guttering.
The records show the resident reported issues with the guttering and associated leaks into the property as far back as January 2021. It was nearly 2 years later when he complained about this issue, on 8 November 2022. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be conducted and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the repairs from May 2022 onwards.

Handling of repairs to the guttering and roof

Under Section 11 of the the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the premises in good repair. This includes the external and internal walls and ceilings, as well as the drains, gutters, and pipes. The landlord acknowledges these responsibilities in its repairs policy, and under the repairs and maintenance section on its website.
Under current legislation and its repairs policy, the landlord has a responsibility to ensure its homes meet the Decent Homes Standard and that they are fit for human habitation, considering factors including freedom from damp. The landlord’s policy also recognises its responsibility to take reasonable steps to identify hazards and assess risks, which include damp and mould, in line with the standards of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
Its repairs policy outlines timescales for completion of 2 categories of repairs: emergency and routine. It aims to attend to emergency repairs within 6 hours and to complete them within 24 hours. It describes routine repairs as those which do not affect health, welfare, or security, and which do not cause further damage to the property. It aims to complete these repairs within 14 days.
The landlord logged a report from the resident on 27 May 2022. He informed it that the gutter was blocked and water was running down his walls, causing the wallpaper to bubble out. The resident contacted it a month later on 20 June 2022 to chase up progress and it informed him that it was taking up to 12 weeks for an appointment. It finally attended on 28 September 2022.
At 4 months this was significantly outside of its timescales for both emergency and routine repairs and was an unreasonable wait. The landlord indicated to the resident that the delays were due to having a new contractor in place. This is not a sufficient reason for it to neglect its duty to keep the home in good repair. While it apologised and thanked the resident for his patience, this was in response to his enquiry and there is no evidence it had proactively communicated with the resident to manage his expectations about the delay. The landlord’s failure to progress a repair within a reasonable timeframe resulted in the resident experiencing poor living conditions and worries about the impact on his health.
The job notes state that the contractor attended to clear the gutters and down pipes on 28 September 2022 and left them in ‘free flowing order’. However, the resident reported that walls in all 3 bedrooms were ‘soaking’ less than a month later. In its correspondence with this Service, the landlord said it raised an emergency job on 27 October 2022 and attended the next day. However, it had logged the resident’s report on 25 October 2022. Regardless of whether it responded within its emergency time frame, it responded within 3 days which can be considered prompt.
The job notes from the contractor’s visit on 28 October 2022 state that it cleared out the front and rear gutters, jet-washed the down pipe at the front, and left the pipes free flowing. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 1 November 2022 and reported that the contractor had not finished the work. He said the contractor had told him they needed a ‘cherry picker’ to fix a joint and would return. The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 November 2022 and said water was coming into his bedroom.
The landlord referred the resident’s concerns to ‘plentific’, its property maintenance platform, on the same day. It is not clear whether this was with the purpose of sharing the resident’s concerns internally, for further information about the work that its contractor had completed, or to raise additional works. It followed up by raising a job on 10 November 2022 for its contractor to attend. It acted relatively promptly with these initial actions but it should have attended to complete the job within 14 days, as per its policy. It instead scheduled the job in 2 months’ time, on 11 January 2023.
This was again, an unreasonable delay. The resident had been clear the issues were ongoing. He had referenced his and his wife’s vulnerabilities and his fears about how the damp could impact their health. This made a full and prompt investigation even more necessary.
According to the landlord, its contractor attended the resident’s property on 11 January 2023 to look at the gutters, but the resident was too ill and did not allow access. However, the resident contacted this Service the following day and reported that the landlord had not turned up. The evidence here is contradictory and it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine whether the contractors failed to attend, the resident refused access, or there was a misunderstanding on either side.
There was a further appointment under a different job number for a contractor to attend on 17 January 2023 to inspect the inside of the property. The resident said the contractor did not attend this day and came the following day instead. However, in his correspondence with this Service, the resident referenced the landlord’s visit on 17 January 2023 and the landlord’s job report is dated the same day. The resident said he refused access to the contractor because they turned up without an appointment and he did not feel comfortable given his and his wife’s vulnerabilities.
There is no clear evidence that the landlord failed to attend on the scheduled date. The resident considered this to be the case and felt understandably anxious about letting the contractor in. However, in the absence of information showing the landlord attended outside of the scheduled date, no fault is found.
The resident also reported that the contractor had only come to take pictures of the wall, rather than to resolve the issues. However, there is no evidence the landlord had yet inspected the inside of the property and it was reasonable that it explored and understood the scale of the issue.
Following these failed appointments the complaints team chased the maintenance team on 4 occasions up to 10 March 2023 to book in a visit. There is no evidence the maintenance team responded until 10 March 2023 when it raised a job, which it then scheduled for 20 March 2023. Throughout this period it failed to progress the works and did not update the resident, resulting in him escalating his complaint on 13 March 2023.
The landlord explained that it closed the job to look at the gutters following no access on 11 January 2023. It explained to this Service that when there is no access, its policy is to close the job and the resident must report the issue again. This was not a valid explanation in the circumstances. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the ongoing issues, it was reasonable for it to take a proactive approach and follow up to address the problem.
Nor does this explanation accurately represent the drift at this juncture. The evidence shows the complaints team made attempts to book the works on the resident’s behalf, but there was no response from the maintenance team. The landlord told the resident that the contractor would contact him directly in its stage 1 response, but there is no evidence this happened. It is not clear whether the resident contacted the contractor on the direct number the landlord had provided in its complaint response. Regardless, the repairs were the responsibility of the landlord and the onus was on it to coordinate an appointment.
It is not clear if the contractor attended on 20 March 2023 as there are no records to this effect. On 11 April 2023 the contractor attended to inspect. In its complaint response the landlord said its contractor made temporary repairs to the roof slate to make it watertight and assessed the guttering. It raised a job the following day for its contractor to clear the gutters out. It marked the job ‘completed’ the same day on its repair log. However, within its correspondence on 4 May 2023 the landlord later referenced that the job had been ‘issued in error’ and had been closed, suggesting it had not cleared the gutter.
While it was appropriate of the landlord to make the temporary repair, the resident reported to this Service on 20 April 2023 that the leak persisted and the gutters were blocked. It is not clear whether he shared this information with the landlord, but it was aware that further work was necessary. Its contractor had raised follow on works for the ‘roof and boxed guttering’.
However, within its internal correspondence on 10 May 2023, the landlord said it was unlikely to approve these as the property was due for demolition. It also said it had amended its complaint response of 12 May 2023 to ‘cover’ it for when it ‘inevitably’ would not do the works. It added a generic line stating it had raised further works and was considering the best course of action to put this right.
The Ombudsman appreciates the landlord was due to demolish the property and it may not have been economical for it conduct extensive works. Landlords have finite resources and must allocate them accordingly. The resident had accepted another property and it was undertaking works to get this ready for habitation. However, there was no moving date, nor indication that the move was imminent. While it was reasonable of the landlord to balance the scope of works with cost factors, it should have made sufficient temporary repairs to prevent leaks while the resident remained in the property. Additionally, while its response was accurate, it was vague and fell short of full transparency.
The landlord informed the resident on 7 June 2023 that its maintenance team was reviewing temporary repair options to rectify the leak, demonstrating that it was aware of the ongoing situation. The resident shared his upset about the way he was living and felt nobody was helping. A few days later the resident said he called the landlord to report that the leak had extended to his bedroom ceiling and his bed was wet through. The resident had been discharged from hospital following an operation when this happened. The landlord’s failure to provide a sufficient resolution, temporary or otherwise, was to the clear detriment of the resident and was unacceptable.
The resident has requested compensation for the damage caused to his bed and bedding because of this leak. The Ombudsman cannot assess claims for damages but the landlord should refer the resident to its insurer. A recommendation has been made to this effect below.
The landlord was again vague about the next steps it would take to resolve the issues in its stage 2 response of 14 June 2023. It said it was progressing with the required repairs and had requested that its contractor attend to complete works to the guttering. However, there is no evidence that it undertook further works prior to its stage 2 update on 14 November 2023, which concluded the complaints process.
Within the stage 2 update it explained that it had put the works on hold due to the resident’s move to alternative accommodation. The landlord had offered the resident the new property on 7 July 2023. Within its internal correspondence it said that it anticipated the move would be in mid-October 2023 but it was not until May 2024. Again, while it had scheduled the property for demolition and the resident was due to move, it was inexcusable that it allowed the resident to live with continued leaks for any period.
The resident experienced delays throughout the landlord’s handling of the works for several reasons. Initially it was unable to meet the demand for repairs resulting in lengthy wait times. There was a lack of continuity in progressing repairs, with the complaints team having to pursue the maintenance team to raise and book jobs. Finally, it did not prioritise the works because it did not want to invest in a condemned property. For these reasons, the resident endured poor living conditions for an unacceptable period.
In his communication with this Service in April 2023 the resident reported that black mould was appearing on his ceiling. It is not clear that the resident reported the presence of mould (caused by the leak) to the landlord, but given there was ongoing water ingress it was a reasonable risk. The likelihood and risk of mould was high and the landlord should have taken a proactive approach and factored this into its prioritisation of the repairs.
The landlord provided copies of its internal correspondence to this Service in which the complaints team shared the position of its executive team, in alignment with its damp and mould self-assessment. They said it was required to ensure that, ‘responsive works do not stop where properties are awaiting regeneration/retrofit’. They also noted it should have ‘a clear approach to ensure a decision to pause planned works does not cause an increase in damp and mould’. The landlord failed to follow this policy direction.
While this Service acknowledges the landlord apologised for its failures and offered financial redress, this does not reflect the level of detriment experienced by the resident. It failed to put satisfactory measures in place to alleviate what were unacceptable conditions for the resident for a significant period. This is despite its responsibilities under the HHSRS and Decent Home Standard. It was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and concerns about how the conditions would affect his health, which should have hastened its response.
Taking everything into account, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration. The landlord should take further action to ‘be fair’ and ‘put things right’ for the resident, in accordance with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles. It should pay the resident £600 compensation as remedy for the impact of its failings. This sum is inclusive of the £325 it offered at the conclusion of its repairs process for its handling of the repairs.

Complaint handling

The landlord has provided this Service with its complaints policy which sets out its standards and timeframes for complaint handling. The policy is dated July 2023, which was after the resident’s complaint in November 2022. In the absence of an earlier version of the policy, the Ombudsman has considered the contents applicable to its handling of this complaint.
According to the policy, the landlord will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. It will log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. These timeframes align with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident wrote a letter of complaint on 8 November 2023 and posted it to the landlord the following day. It is reasonable to assume the landlord received it by 14 November 2022. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in December 2022 and January 2023 and said the landlord had not responded to his complaint. This Service contacted the landlord on 13 January 2023 and asked it to acknowledge the complaint by 20 January 2023, and to respond to it by 27 January 2023.
The landlord complied with these timescales. However, it had taken a total of 51 working days for it to respond, and it did so only after the intervention of this Service. Its delay protracted the complaints process and caused the resident frustration and inconvenience. Its response also failed to acknowledge or apologise for its delays and the impact of them, which was a failing.
The resident escalated his complaint in a letter to the landlord dated 13 March 2023. The landlord logged it, 10 working days later, on 24 March 2023. While this was over the 5 days outlined in its policy, it is not clear when the resident posted the complaint and when it received it. In the absence of this information the Ombudsman finds no fault for this initial delay.
However, it failed to acknowledge the complaint or provide its response within an appropriate timeframe. Again, the resident asked this Service to intervene. On 27 April 2023 the Ombudsman requested that the landlord respond within 20 working days, by 30 May 2023. The landlord responded on 12 May 2023, with a ‘stage 1 complaint outcome’, in which it provided an update and concluded the stage 1 process. It confirmed the resident’s escalation request and said it would respond within 10 weeks.
It was unreasonable of the landlord to make the resident wait 32 working days for a full response, only to confirm that it had escalated his complaint and there would be further delays. The landlord apologised for the delay, which it said was due to an unprecedented demand on the complaints team. It was appropriate of the landlord to apologise but it gave no assurance to the resident that it was working to address the delay. This left the resident with little hope that it would resolve his concerns in a timely manner. It also delayed the resident being able to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process, and to subsequently bring his complaint to this Service for an independent and impartial investigation.
In accordance with its policy, the landlord can extend the deadline for its response by 10 working days ‘in exceptional cases’. If it requires an extension beyond this it should agree this with the resident. There is no evidence it did so, and in any case 10 weeks is unreasonable.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord a further time on 7 June 2023 and requested that it respond formally within 5 working days. This was the second step in this Service’s 3-step process towards issuing the landlord with a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO). The Ombudsman can issue CHFOs under paragraph 13 of the Scheme. It reserves these for cases where the landlord has failed to respond to a complaint despite reasonable opportunity to do so.
The landlord complied with the Ombudsman’s request and responded at stage 2 on 14 June 2023. This was after 53 working days from the date it had logged the resident’s escalation request. This was an unreasonable delay and the evidence suggests it only prioritised the response because of the involvement of this Service.
The landlord acknowledged that it had work to do to put things right for the resident and said it would advise upon compensation following completion of the ‘necessary actions’. However, this fell short of a full acknowledgement of its failures and it made no mention of its complaint handling delays. The Ombudsman expects landlords to demonstrate our dispute resolution principles when handling complaints. These are – to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. It should have recognised the frustration its complaint handling delays had caused and provided a timely remedy in the form of compensation. It should also have explained how it was working to address the delays.
The landlord kept the complaint open and issued a further response on 14 November 2023 which concluded the process. The landlord went further in explaining what it had done wrong with regards its handling of the substantive issue and offered compensation which included £75 for failures in its complaint handling. While this went some way towards putting things right, it is not considered sufficient remedy.
Overall, the failings in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint amount to maladministration. It delayed in responding to his complaints, and withheld remedy for over a year from his initial complaint which caused the resident frustration and inconvenience. It also failed to provide assurance of the steps it was taking to learn from this and reduce complaint handling delays going forward.
In line with this Service’s remedies guidance the landlord should pay a total of £175 compensation, in recognition of its failures and the impact on the resident. If it has paid the £75 it previously offered it can deduct this from the total. An order has been made to this effect below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s guttering and roof.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £775 compensation comprised of:
  1. £600 for failings in its handling of repairs to the resident’s gutter and roof. The landlord may deduct the £325 it has already offered if this has been paid.
  2. £175 for complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £75 it has already offered if this has been paid.
2. The landlord should share this report with its maintenance team and provide evidence to this Service that it has done so. It should emphasise that:
  1. Staff are obliged to complete responsive works on properties that are awaiting regeneration and ensure that any pause in work does not increase damp and mould.
  2. Staff should oversee and track jobs through to completion.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Refers the resident to its insurer should he wish to pursue a claim for damages due to the leak.
2. Direct its complaint handling staff to its complaints policy and this Service’s Centre for Learning for training on complaint handling standards and timescales.