Home Group Limited (202315764)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315764

Home Group Limited

23 May 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of problems with his newly installed windows and doors.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. He is self-employed.
3. The landlord installed new windows and doors to the resident’s property on 14 December 2022. On 2 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to say that his test using a thermal imaging tool had shown that heat was escaping through his windows and doors. The landlord inspected his property on 3 February, and it provided a FENSA (Fenestration Self-Assessment Scheme) certificate, which showed that the works were completed and complied with building regulations.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 17 March 2023. He said he wanted it to resolve the drafts coming from his windows and door frames. The landlord responded to his complaint (reference number 6031) on 3 April. It agreed to carry out an independent air test to assess the issues and later completed this, on 12 May.
5. On 15 June 2023 the resident escalated his complaint to the landlord. He said it had not explained the results of the air test to him. The landlord replied on 19 June. It confirmed that it had received the results on 9 June and it would let the resident know what it intended to do after analysing the report. It promised to respond to his complaint within 8 weeks.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 24 August 2023. It gave him a new reference number (8403). It said it would continue to attempt to resolve his issues until it could provide a “full and final Stage 2 response”. It said he could close his complaint rather than leaving it open, and it would “refer the outstanding issues to the relevant teams”. It gave him the details of the Ombudsman. The resident contacted us on 30 August.
7. The landlord undertook works (including to the windows) in October 2023. However, work on the doors remained outstanding. On 2 January 2024 the resident reported that water was entering his property through gaps in the doors. The landlord inspected the doors again and completed repairs at the end of February. In its final complaint response to the resident on 27 March 2024 it apologised for its handling of the matter. It offered him £500 in compensation, which it later transferred to the resident’s bank account.
8. The resident told us that the landlord has completed all of the works to his windows and doors. However, he was dissatisfied with the level of compensation the landlord offered him. He did not think it reflected the time and trouble he had spent chasing the landlord and his time taken off work waiting for contractors.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. The resident has raised issues about the potential loss of earnings. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the loss of a resident’s income. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. We are therefore unable to consider this within this report. However, we can consider the broader distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of problems with his newly installed windows and doors

10. It is evident that works were significantly delayed in this case. The resident had spent time and trouble chasing the landlord in attempts to get his issues resolved. Examples of this were apparent when he chased the landlord for a response on 10 and 27 February, before complaining on 17 March 2023. The landlord’s policy does not outline its timescales for handling its responsive repairs. Nonetheless, in this case the resident first reported issues on 2 February 2023 and the landlord did not start works until 8 months later. Nothing in the evidence fully explains the reasons for the delay.
11. Works can be unavoidably delayed for various reasons. However, where they cannot be completed within reasonable timeframes, basic good practice is for  landlords to keep residents updated throughout. In this case, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, and lacked customer focus. An example of this was following its first complaint response on 19 June 2023. It promised to update the resident on the outcome of its air test (which took place on 12 May). However, the landlord failed to respond in a timely way and the resident chased the landlord for a response on 31 July.
12. The records show that some of the delays occurred due to the landlord experiencing difficulties in employing a specialist contractor to do the works. It acknowledged this delay, and it apologised to the resident in September 2023. It demonstrated that it was committed to resolving the issues and completed the majority of the works (including windows) in late October 2023.
13. In the face of these failings and the resident’s complaints, the landlord’s actions, explanations, apology, and offer of compensation were appropriate remedies. It acknowledged that its contractor’s communication had been “poor”. It accepted there had been delays in its handling of the works, including with its handling the resident’s newly reported repair new issue (of water entering through his doors) in January 2024. Its offer of £500 in compensation was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failings of the scale and nature in this case. Taken together, these remedies were a reasonable response to the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

14. According to its policy, the landlord’s operates a 2 stage complaints process. It updated its policies during the timeframe of this complaint. We did not see clear evidence of its response timescales in its earlier versions. However its later version (5.0) dated 27 July 2023 clarifies it will respond within 10 working days at stage 1 of its process, and within 20 working days at stage 2. Its policy says that it may extend its final complaint response beyond an additional 10 working days, but it should agree this with the resident. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code).
15. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s escalated complaint were significantly delayed and did not adhere to the Code. This was evident when it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 19 June 2023. It said it would respond within 8 weeks, which was outside of the Code’s recommended 20 working day timeframe. The landlord did not respond until 24 August, which was 48 working days after the resident had escalated his complaint. This also represents a failure as it was over its promised response time.
16. The resident said he did not receive the landlord’s response dated 24 August 2023. It sent this to him again on 22 September. In this letter, the landlord said the resident had agreed that his case could be left open until it could find a resolution to his issues. However, there is no evidence that the resident had agreed to an extension. Contrary to this, he referred his complaint to us for help with resolving it. This was a further failure, as the guidance in the Code says “Any decision to try and resolve a concern must be taken in agreement with the resident and a landlord’s audit trail/records should be able to demonstrate this”.
17. The Code encourages early resolution of complaints. It says “it is not appropriate to have extra named stages” as “this causes unnecessary confusion”. In this case, the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint were confusing. Such as on 19 June 2023, when rather than clearly acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 escalation request, it provided another update and labelled its response “stage 1 outcome”.
18. Furthermore, on 24 August 2023 the landlord issued a “stage 2” response to the resident, but then confusingly provided a new reference number. It is unclear why the landlord did this, as this approach was not outlined in its policy. The landlord also issued a further “final response” on 27 March 2024. The landlord’s creation of these additional stages represent another failure, as they were not in line with the Code, nor its 2 stage complaints policy.
19. It is evident that the landlord was attempting to resolve the resident’s issues, hence its reason for leaving the complaint “open”. However, its decision to do so also went against the Code. This says “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 issue, are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident”.
20. In summary, the landlord’s multiple complaint handling failures resulted in a protracted complaints process for the resident, this delayed the resolution of his complaint. It is clear that the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint had been frustrating for the resident, and that he had spent time and trouble chasing it. The landlord failed to specifically acknowledge these failings or offer appropriate redress for it within its final complaint response. This left the complaint handling issue unresolved.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident in relation to its handling of his reports of problems with his newly-installed windows and doors.
22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

23. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £250 for its complaint handling failures.
24. The landlord must confirm compliance with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.