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

Home Group Limited (202319452)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319452

Home Group Limited

30 June 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Damaged window frames.
    2. A roof leak.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property which is a flat in a block. The landlord owns the freehold of the block.
  2. On 8 June 2023 the resident reported that the window frames in the property required repair. He told the landlord they were allowing water to leak into the property when it rained. He reported a roof leak on 7 July 2023 and said that water was coming through the bedroom ceiling during rainfall.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 August 2023. He said he was unhappy that it had not completed repair work. He told the landlord water ingress was damaging the property.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 30 August 2023. It apologised for communicating poorly regarding the repair work. It said it was committed to completing work to the roof and was aware that the resident had arranged to carry out the window repair at his own expense.
  5. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 11 September 2023. He said he was unhappy that the landlord had not yet arranged the repair work and its communication continued to be poor.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process on 12 October 2023. It said it had completed repair work to the roof on 27 September 2023. It apologised for its delays in completing the work and ‘poor workmanship’ of its contractors. It made an offer of £400 in compensation comprising:
    1. £100 for its delay in completing roof works.
    2. £75 for disruption caused to the resident by multiple visits.
    3. £75 for service failure relating to failed attempts to rectify the issue.
    4. £75 for its poor communication.
    5. £75 in recognition of the resident’s time and effort in pursuing a resolution to the matter.
  7. The resident brought his complaint to us as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He was dissatisfied that it had not offered compensation in relation to the window repair issue.

Assessment

Damaged window frames

  1. The resident’s lease says the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the windows in the property, excluding the glazing.
  2. The landlord’s property management policy states that it takes a ‘right first time’ approach to repairs. It says repairs will be completed within pre-defined timescales. Its responsive repairs policy states it will:
    1. Respond to emergency repairs within 6 hours and complete works within 24 hours.
    2. Complete routine, non-emergency repairs in 14 days
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 June 2023 to report water ingress through the window frames when it rained. The landlord’s records on this report do not specify what action it took in response, thus, we cannot ascertain if it was proportionate. As the resident made contact with the landlord regarding the issue again, on 28 July and 1 August 2023, it is reasonable to assume that it had not provided a lasting fix to the issue.
  4. On 9 August 2023 the resident called the landlord to chase completion of repairs to the windows. It said it was due to attend that afternoon to carry out the repair. Its records note that it attended on this date but was unable to gain access to the property. This is disputed by the resident who in his letter of complaint on 13 August 2023 advised that ‘no-one showed up’.
  5. The evidence shows that the landlord re-logged the repair to the windows on 11 August 2023. It called the resident on 14 August 2023 to advise that it had done so. It is unclear from its records if it confirmed a date that it would attend. Upon visiting on 24 August 2023, it became aware that the repair was no longer required as the resident had already instructed a private contractor to complete the work. Due to this it seems reasonable to assume that communication around its attendance at this time was unclear.
  6. In its stage 1 response on 30 August 2023, the landlord said that it was aware that the resident had completed the window repairs at his own expense. It stated that it was unable to gain access to the property on 9 August 2023. As the resident had made it clear he disputed this attendance it would have been reasonable for it to provide a response to this. It is good practice for landlords to have procedures around ‘no access’ visits. Actions such as photographing the front door and posting a card upon visiting, allow it to evidence attendance. Had the landlord recorded its actions in this way it could have demonstrated this in its response, thus providing clarity on the situation.
  7. In this response the landlord discussed its actions from August 2023 with no reference to the resident’s original contact regarding the windows. Although it was positive that it apologised for its poor communication it failed to offer any redress to him. It would have been reasonable to demonstrate it had fully considered his concerns by discussing events from June 2023 relating to the matter. Its omission of these events served to diminish the fact that the resident had been concerned over water ingress through the windows for 2 months prior to the landlord’s attendance. It failed to address the adequacy of its response at this time.
  8. The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 September 2023 and said he was unhappy with its response to his concerns. He included photographs of damaged window frames and the subsequent water ingress. He said it had failed to act in a timely manner thus forcing him to arrange his own repair to avoid further damage to the property. It responded appropriately by calling the resident on 11 September 2023 to discuss the issue at which point it escalated his complaint.
  9. The landlord made no reference to the issues with window repairs in its subsequent stage 2 response on 12 October 2023. Given its awareness that this issue formed part of the resident’s original complaint and he had provided recent correspondence relating to the matter, this was inappropriate.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 October 2023 and said he was unhappy that it had not offered compensation relating to its handling of the window repairs in its final response. He said that it should consider reimbursing him for the repair he had arranged. It responded by providing details for the resident to contact its liability insurer as its compensation policy did not cover personal property damage.
  11. It is good practice for landlords to provide liability insurance information where damage has resulted to personal possessions. However, as the resident was questioning reimbursement for repair costs this was not an appropriate route of direction in the circumstances. Under the terms of the lease the landlord is responsible to repair the windows. Due to this they cannot be considered as the resident’s personal property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to set out its view on reimbursing the costs incurred by the resident in repairing the window.
  12. There is no evidence that the resident informed the landlord that he would resort to self-help for the repairs before doing so, nor that he provided it with the quotes for the works in advance. He may wish to contact LEASE (Leasehold Advisory Service) for free legal advice on his rights to recover the costs.  
  13. In summary the landlord apologised for its poor communication around the window repairs however its responses did not fully address the resident’s concerns. Its failure to escalate the issue and investigate its response further meant it did not assess if its actions were sufficient and in line with its policy. It failed to recognise the level of inconvenience caused to the resident by its shortcomings and thus did not take sufficient action to be fair and put things right, which would be in line with our dispute resolution principles. We have therefore made an order for it to pay compensation and recommended some actions to resolve the issues. However, our orders have considered that there is no indication of the resident notifying the landlord of his intention to undertake the repairs at his own expense before doing so.

Roof leak

  1. On 7 July 2023 the resident reported a leak from the roof during rainfall. He said water was coming through the bedroom ceiling. The landlord attended to address this within appropriate timescales on 17 July 2023. It said that scaffolding was required to allow for further inspection and repair of the roof.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord to chase the repair on 24 July 2023. It re-attended the property on 10 August 2023. Despite its previous visit highlighting that scaffolding would be necessary it had not arranged for this to be erected. This meant it was unable to access the roof in order to carry out the repair. When raising his complaint on 13 August 2023, the resident relayed his frustration that despite its awareness of the roof leak, over a month had passed with no resolution yet arranged by the landlord.
  3. The evidence shows that the resident chased the landlord for an update 5 times between 11 and 29 August 2023. He requested a date for the scaffolding to be erected and completion of the repair. There is no evidence that the landlord provided any information to him on the matter in response to his contact. Its lack of communication during this time was unreasonable.
  4. The landlord apologised for its poor communication around the issue in its subsequent stage one response on 30 August 2023. It said that it had inspected the roof on 24 August 2023 and would contact the resident to confirm when scaffolding would be erected.
  5. Despite this assurance, the resident received no further contact from the landlord on the issue, leading to him chasing a response on 11 September 2023. The landlord’s records show that it contacted its contractor for a start date for the works on 19 September 2023. A date to commence work was confirmed on 21 September 2023 for the following week. Its delay to arrange this along with its lack of communication with the resident was inappropriate. Given he had been waiting over 2 months and its stage 1 response had agreed to provide a date for the scaffolding to be erected, it would have been reasonable for it to ensure this was given in a timely fashion. This would have demonstrated the landlord’s dedication to resolving the issue and that learning from earlier delays had been implemented.
  6. It was appropriate that in its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered redress to the resident. It gave a comprehensive breakdown of its actions and set out learning points it was considering. Examples of these such as addressing workmanship with its contractor, were appropriate and demonstrated an understanding of the key issues that had led to the resident’s dissatisfaction. It was reasonable that it confirmed work to the roof had been completed on 27 September 2023 and had contacted the resident after this to ensure he was satisfied with the works.
  7. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  8. The landlord made a total offer of compensation at stage 2 of £400 relating to the roof repair. It was appropriate that the breakdown of this apportioned redress for delays, service failure and poor communication, along with the resident’s time and trouble. This offer is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this, where there was failure by a landlord that adversely affected the resident causing distress and inconvenience. It is our opinion that this offer was therefore reasonable and along with the other steps taken, amounts to reasonable redress.

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged window frames.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to take the following action and must provide evidence of its compliance:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £100 in compensation in respect of its failures in handling his reports of damaged window frames.
    2. This payment must be paid directly to the resident and not to his rent account.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm its position on reimbursement of his costs related to the window repair.
  2. The landlord should pay the resident the total sum it offered of £400 if it has not done so already, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and we make the sufficient redress finding on that basis.