Home Group Limited (202319542)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319542

Home Group Limited

28 January 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

The resident has complained about:
1. The landlord’s response to the sewage leak from her bathroom.
2. The landlord’s response to her concerns about the cleaning that was undertaken following the leak.
3. The level of compensation offered by the landlord.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement that began on 14 February 2018. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the ground floor. The landlord’s record shows the resident has severe depression, anxiety, lack of concentration and a physical health condition. The resident explained to the landlord during the complaints procedure that she has bipolar disorder and diabetes. She also told the Ombudsman she suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder.
On 24 January 2023 the resident called the landlord’s out of hours service to report a sewage leak coming from her toilet and flooding her bathroom. The landlord’s operative attended 10 hours later but required a second operative to clear the blockage. The resident was decanted the following morning, and the blockage was fixed. The landlord also arranged for an environmental clean of the property on 26 January 2023.
The resident was concerned that the property had not been cleaned properly. The next day she reported there was still sewage residue in the property and her carpets were heavily stained. The landlord said it would complete a second deep clean of the flooring in the living room, bedroom, and kitchen.
The resident raised a complaint on 20 March 2023. She said:
1. the landlord had delayed in responding to her initial report regarding the sewage leak. This meant she was left for 26 hours in a property that was not fit for habitation.
2. the landlord had not professionally cleaned or decontaminated the property, and this had severely impacted her mental health.
3. she wanted the landlord to disinfect and decontaminate the property using a specialist cleaning company.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 April 2023. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. it did not respond to the resident’s initial request within the prescribed timescales which resulted in further calls to the out of hours service.
2. it attended the property to clear the blockage and follow on works were required to fix it.
3. the operative that initially attended requested temporary accommodation for the resident but this was not processed until the following day. This was because of difficulty contacting the out of hours colleague. It said it had raised this issue with the relevant management team.
4. it acknowledged the sewage leak had damaged the hallway carpet, and it would consider replacing it.
5. it had raised a second deep clean on 1 February 2023 which was completed. However, due to heavy marks in the carpet a further clean could be needed. As such it was reviewing the completion report for the clean.
6. it had decanted the resident during the time the cleaning works were taking place.
7. given the resident’s concerns it arranged a further deep clean. It said this was carried out to a high specification and the standard of work was reviewed by its surveyor.
8. it was working with the resident’s support worker and Citizens Advice (CAB) to complete further cleaning and decorating works to the bathroom and hallway.
9. it would review the resident’s request for compensation when the outstanding works had been completed. However, any personal items needed to be sent to either the resident’s contents insurer or its public liability insurer.
10. it would review the complaint on 2 May 2023 about the works required. Then it would provide a thorough response to the resident’s appointed contact at the CAB.
The resident continued to raise concerns with the standard of cleaning at the property. The landlord wrote to her on 17 May 2023 and said:
1. it would make a discretionary payment of £443.28, as requested by the resident, to cover additional costs while she was in temporary accommodation.
2. it would conduct a third clean at the property on 23 May 2023 and provide temporary accommodation while this occurred.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 6 June 2023. She said:
1. she remained unhappy with the standard of cleaning at the property and the landlord had not inspected after the final clean.
2. she felt the landlord’s internal communication had been poor which had delayed the completion of the works and the progression of her complaint.
3. she wanted to be reimbursed for the damage to her shower curtain and bathroom trolley.
4. the landlord needed to inspect the property to ensure it was fit for human habitation. She said the property was not disinfected despite this being an environmental requirement.
5. her mental health and deteriorated significantly due to the landlord’s handling of the incident.
The landlord said it redecorated and fitted a new carpet at the resident’s property on 20 June 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 August 2023. It said:
1. it did not respond to the resident’s initial report within prescribed timescales as found in its stage 1 response.
2. it had reviewed the resident’s initial report about the standard of cleaning and carried out a further clean to a “high standard”.
3. it responded to the resident’s further concerns about the standard of cleaning by conducting a third clean. It said it had placed the resident in temporary accommodation during this time.
4. it had already carried out 3 separate cleans to the property it would not carry out a further clean.
5. it intended to carry out redecoration to the hallway and bathroom.
6. if the resident wanted to claim in relation to how the incident had impacted her mental health, she needed to do this through its public liability insurer.
7. it had reimbursed the resident for additional costs at its discretion on 19 May 2023 totalling £443.28.
8. it had delayed logging the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This was because of resourcing issues which had been resolved through recruitment. It offered the resident £75 to recognise this, which would be credited to the resident’s rent account.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 29 September 2023 because:
1. she felt her mental health has been significantly affected by the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue.
2. she felt the landlord’s complaint handling had been “rude” and “unsupportive”.
3. she wanted the landlord to “adequately decontaminate” her property and provide proof of using a specialist raw sewage company.
4. she felt the landlord had caused her financial hardship because it wanted to credit her rent account when it reimbursed her for her damaged items.
5. she was unhappy the landlord had fitted the new carpet in sections as opposed to one piece. She said this was a trip hazard.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident explained that she felt her mental and physical health had deteriorated as a result of the landlord’s handling of the sewage leak at her property. She said the landlord had not adequately considered this or offered a fair level of compensation.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s position and how she feels her medical conditions have been impacted. While this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action may have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. We are also unable to calculate or award damages on this basis. This means the Ombudsman is unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or through a personal injury claim. While we cannot determine liability, we have assessed whether the resident was caused distress and inconvenience as a result of any failings identified.

The resident’s reports of a sewage leak from her bathroom

The resident reported she had a sewage leak from her toilet to the landlord’s out of hours service at approximately 1pm on 24 January 2023. The landlord said it would arrange for a plumber to attend the property within 6 hours.
The resident called the out of hours service again at 9pm to ask for an update because the toilet was blocked and flooding the bathroom. The repair records note the landlord was “unable to access [the] job details”. It logged the work as a priority and asked the operative to call the resident when they were on the way because it was “urgent”. The resident explained to the Ombudsman that during this time she was bailing flooding sewage water into her bath, and this caused her distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s repairs policy commits to attending emergency repairs within 6 hours of a report and to complete repairs within 24 hours. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its emergency repair timescales set out in its policy. This is because the operative attended 10 hours after the initial report. The landlord acknowledged in both of its complaint responses that it did not attend within the prescribed timescales, and it apologised. This was reasonable.
The repair logs show that the operative who attended the property on 24 January asked the landlord if the resident could be placed in temporary accommodation. This was owing to the “severity of the problem and the health risk”. The resident remained at the property. As such, a further recommendation was made by operatives when they attended the next day.
The resident explained to the Ombudsman that during the night she was waiting by her phone for the landlord to contact her. She said that she did not have toilet facilities during this time, that she was in “shock”, and the events had triggered her mental health to decline. When it responded to the complaint, the landlord said it did not process the move to temporary accommodation on the same day. This was because it could not contact the relevant member of staff. It had raised this issue with the relevant manager to review.
The landlord’s decant policy is silent in relation to timescales for providing emergency accommodation. However, the repair logs note that the landlord was aware there was a health and safety risk after its initial attendance on 24 January 2023. As such, it would have been appropriate for the decant to have been facilitated as soon as possible. The Ombudsman considers the landlord failed because it did not respond appropriately to the severity of the situation and failed to decant the resident in a timely manner.
The Ombudsman recognises the landlord acknowledged its delays and apologised through the complaint procedure. It also said it would contact relevant staff members to address the difficulties it had in arranging temporary accommodation. However, the landlord left the resident in a property with raw sewage and without toilet facilities overnight. The resident said this caused considerable distress to her and that her mental health declined as a result. The landlord’s apology and acknowledged therefore did not go far enough.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that there may be occasions where it is “fitting to make a good will gesture or to award compensation”. As such the landlord had discretion to consider the detriment to the resident further to put things right. It is unclear why the landlord did not consider this element of its policy further given the significance of its failures. This was a missed opportunity to address the impact on the resident.
The landlord’s offer to put things right by apologising and providing internal feedback was reasonable but not proportionate. Given the failings and the impact on the resident, we have found maladministration. We consider that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered financial compensation for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused as a result of its failings.
The landlord did not provide a compensation policy or matrix to this Service in response to our request for evidence. Therefore, the Ombudsman has considered what level of compensation would be appropriate with reference to our ‘Remedies Guidance’. This states that awards should recognise the emotional impact experienced by an individual and that this will be unique to them and their circumstances. This includes experiencing any aggravated emotional response because of a vulnerability. With consideration of the facts of the complaint, we consider that an award of £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s initial response to the report of a sewage leak would be appropriate. This is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against the resident’s rent account.

The landlord’s response to concerns about the cleaning that was undertaken following the leak

The resident explained she felt the standard of cleaning was poor and the property was not disinfected during the cleaning. She also said there were parts of the property that had stains and leftover remnants of sewage. The landlord said it responded appropriately because it carried out 3 separate deep cleans of the property, replaced the resident’s carpet, and redecorated the affected areas.
The landlord’s repair records show its operative initially recommended a deep clean for the property on 25 January 2023. The landlord responded reasonably and instructed a cleaning company to carry out an “environmental clean [for a] sewage spill/flood to the bathroom and hallway”. The work was completed on 26 January 2023 and was in line with the timescales in its repairs policy. The works order reflected that the contractor used 4 different chemicals, and the cleaning lasted for 3 hours. The order also contained photographs of before and after the clean. The pictures show heavy staining of the hallway carpet.
The resident explained in her complaint on 20 March 2023 that she felt the landlord had not undertaken a thorough clean. She said this was because there were still stains on the carpet and various dirty patches across the property including the bathroom and the hallway.
It is not in dispute the second clean occurred. However, the records are unclear about when this took place. The records show the landlord raised 2 similar jobs on 31 January 2023 and 1 February 2023. Both jobs were to clean the flooring in the living room, bedroom, and kitchen. The repair summaries note the works as completed on 3 February 2023 and 3 May 2023 respectively. The landlord’s records did not provide further information about the type of clean undertaken or whether this was by a specialist company. It also provided an incomplete works order for one of the jobs. Although whether the clean took place is not in dispute, that the information relating to it is unclear and incomplete is a record keeping failure. The landlord should reasonably have ensured that it maintained an accurate audit trail of the actions taken to clean the property.
The landlord said one of its surveyors attended to ensure the second clean had been carried out to a “high specification”. The resident disputes this and said the property remained contaminated and unclean. The landlord has not provided any contemporaneous evidence relating to the surveyor’s attendance or second clean. As such, it is not possible for us to establish what happened on this occasion. Given the resident was concerned with this element, the landlord missed an opportunity to expressly document what was done during the deep clean and how it had concluded the cleaning was of the expected standard.
The resident’s support worker from the CAB raised further concerns with the level of cleaning on 2 May 2023. The support worker reported there were “marks” and “dust” throughout the property that indicated the clean was not “thorough”. They also said the resident was concerned because raw sewage would have contaminated the area, even if “the areas did not appear to be visibly soiled”. Although pictures were attached to this communication, these were not shared with the Ombudsman.
The landlord agreed to clean the property for a third time. This was reasonable. Both parties agree this took place on 23 May 2023. On 25 May 2023 the resident told the landlord the property remained unclean, and she asked it to take further action. She also explained to the landlord that her mental health had been “severely” impacted by the poor standard of cleaning. The landlord said it would not conduct further cleaning because it had already carried out 3 deep cleans of the property which it had inspected and found to be clean.
The landlord provided a repair summary that detailed the dates relating to the clean on 23 May 2023. However, there was no further evidence provided explaining what type of cleaning had taken place or which areas of the property the cleaning had covered. There was also no contemporaneous evidence that the landlord had reviewed the work and concluded it was to the expected standard. That the landlord agreed to carry out a third clean was reasonable. However, given the resident’s ongoing concerns and that 2 cleans had already been carried out, it is unclear why the landlord did not consider visiting the property so that the resident could highlight areas of concern. While there was no obligation on the landlord to do so, taking action would have been resolution focused.
On 5 June 2023 the CAB asked the landlord to visit the property with the resident so it could address the areas of concern together. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this request. The Ombudsman considers that as the resident remained dissatisfied with the cleaning, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have met with the resident or her advocate to understand the concerns further. That it did not was a missed opportunity. A visit or meeting would have allowed it to review the standard of cleaning while the issue was still live and to have decided whether it needed to take further action. The landlord’s failure to respond caused distress to the resident because she felt the landlord did not want to listen or action her concerns.
The internal communications of the landlord during the second and third cleaning indicated the landlord did not find an issue with the standard of cleaning undertaken. The Ombudsman notes the landlord carried out the additional 2 cleaning jobs to support the resident back to her home and to resolve the complaint. This demonstrated the landlord wanted to help the resident. However, given that the standard of cleaning is a matter than can be very subjective, it would have also been reasonable to have engaged with the resident in a meaningful way earlier in the process so that it could fully understand her concerns and try to address them. While the landlord may not have been able to resolve matters to the resident’s satisfaction, it would have been able to demonstrate that it had taken reasonable and proportionate action to find a solution.
Overall, we have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the cleaning. This is because the landlord failed to:
1. provide adequate evidence about what it did during the second and third deep clean.
2. demonstrate it had assessed the cleaning was to the required standard or managed the resident’s expectations around this.
3. engage meaningfully with the resident about her specific concerns with the standard of the cleaning.
This caused emotional distress to the resident who had explained that her mental health had deteriorated as she considered that her home remained unclean over a period of 6 months (January 2023 to June 2023). The resident also provided evidence that during some of this time, she was having a crisis in her mental health.
The landlord must recognise the emotional detriment to the resident as well as the time and trouble caused by the failures detailed above. The landlord must pay the resident £200 in recognition of this. This is in line with our ‘Remedies Guidance’ for this level of finding.

The compensation awarded

The resident explained that the landlord had not compensated her for all of her damaged belongings during the complaint procedure. This included a bathroom trolley and shower curtains. The resident told the landlord these items were damaged on or around 7 July 2023.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that insurance claims are used to deal with damage to personal belongings or property. The landlord provided the details of its insurer in its stage 1 response on 27 April 2023. This was in line with its policy.
The landlord, not the insurer, then made a payment on 19 May 2023 to the resident as part of a discretionary compensation award. This included various other damaged items. The landlord’s internal communications at the time said this was because the resident had explained she was in financial hardship. As this was after the landlord’s stage 1 response, this set an expectation for the resident that the landlord was willing to consider damaged items through its compensation policy.
The Ombudsman considers it was positive for the landlord to consider any financial hardship and to make a discretionary payment on this basis. However, if it did not intend to make further discretionary payments to cover damaged items, it should have been clear about this with the resident. While the landlord had already appropriately referred the resident to its insurer, its decision to offer compensation for damage to her belongings confused the matter. As a result, the resident did not make a claim to the insurer.
In recognition of the landlord’s failure, it must put things right for the resident by compensating her for these items. Ordinarily, we would ask a landlord to provide details of its insurer to enable a resident to make a claim. However, given the passage of time it is likely that an insurer may not consider a claim now. In recognition of this, we have ordered the landlord to compensate the resident further. We have also ordered a further £50 compensation for the confusion caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her damaged belongings.

Complaint handling

The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy on its website aligns with the timeframes in the Code.
The Code also states:
1. at stage 1, landlords must decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
2. at stage 2, landlords must decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 20 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
The resident raised a complaint on 20 March 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 27 April 2023. This was 27 working days later. The reasons for the delay were unclear. There is also no evidence the landlord explained its delay or agreed a new timescale with the resident. This was a failure to comply with the requirements of the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 June 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 August 2023. This was 60 working days later. This was a failure because it was a departure from the timeframes set out in the Code.
The evidence shows the landlord confirmed it had escalated the resident’s complaint on the same day (6 June 2023). It said this would be “processed” within 8 weeks. The landlord then asked the resident whether she wanted to escalate the complaint on 5 July 2023. It said it needed confirmation of the resident’s intentions and the outcomes she sought to escalate the complaint. After which, the stage 2 team would “process the complaint”. This caused the resident distress because she was confused by this communication as she thought the landlord had already escalated her complaint.
The evidence shows the landlord did not take steps to escalate the resident’s complaint between June and July 2023. This was a complaint handling failure. We acknowledge it is good practice for landlords to understand the intended outcomes of residents. This usually forms part of the investigation into the complaint. However, this should not prevent landlords from progressing escalation requests. As such this contributed to the delay experienced by the resident. This caused her distress because she thought her complaint was escalated by the landlord. It also delayed her from seeking recourse through this Service.
The landlord recognised in its stage 2 response that it had delayed in logging the resident’s escalation request. It said this was because of resourcing issues and offered the resident £75 compensation. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation for its delay at stage 2, the landlord did not consider its delay at stage 1 of the complaints process. Therefore, the compensation did not reflect the full delay experienced by the resident. This was a failure by the landlord to acknowledge the full extent of its failure and try to put things right.
When the landlord paid the £75 compensation, it offset this against the resident’s rent account. The resident told the Ombudsman she felt an offer of compensation ought to be paid directly to her. The resident’s comments are noted and understood. However, the landlord’s compensation policy allows for it to offset compensation against a resident’s rent account in certain circumstances. The landlord therefore acted in line with its policy.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because it delayed in issuing both its complaint responses. Further, the remedy provided did not consider the delay the resident experienced during stage 1 of the complaints process, or the confusion caused by its later communications around her escalation request. To put things right the landlord must pay the resident an additional £100. This is in line with the ‘Remedies Guidance’ of this Service to recognise the impact of these failures on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the sewage leak from her bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the cleaning that was undertaken following the leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the level of compensation awarded.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £750 which comprises of:
  1. £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the sewage leak from her bathroom.
  2. £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the cleaning that had been undertaken.
  3. £50 to recognise the raised expectations of the resident regarding the way it applied its compensation policy.
  4. £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. the landlord must arrange for complaint handling refresher training for relevant colleagues. This is to align the landlord’s working practices with the principles of the Code when it experiences a delay in issuing its complaint responses.
4. upon submission of receipts by the resident, the landlord must compensate the resident for the bathroom trolley and the shower curtains. If the resident cannot provide receipts, the landlord must consider making an offer instead.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews its record keeping practices with reference to our Spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ and share its findings with the Ombudsman.