Home Group Limited (202322771)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322771

Home Group Limited

25 March 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a boiler replacement and the resident’s request for an updated kitchen as part of the works.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom flat on the second floor of a low-rise block. She has lived at the property since 1986. In 1988, the resident paid to have a new kitchen installed.
On 30 March 2023 the landlord visited the resident’s property to carry out an inspection as part of a boiler upgrade program. During the visit, the resident raised concerns about the damage that would be caused to her existing kitchen and the loss of her airing cupboard. She asked the landlord to provide her with a plan of the work it intended to carry out in writing. The resident chased the landlord for this 4 times during April and May 2023.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 15 May 2023, in which she said:
1. The landlord’s communication with her, before and after the inspection, had been poor.
2. Her kitchen had not been upgraded as recently as other tenants, and she would not sign a disclaimer for the works to be completed.
3. She expected the making–good work to include the tiling of the boxing-in under the boiler in the kitchen.
4. She also wanted the airing cupboard to be installed with an appropriate facility for airing due to the loss of the hot water tank.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 September 2023, which said:
1. Its contractor wrote to the resident on 2 occasions prior to the inspection appointment and it was disappointed that she had not received the letters.
2. It replaced boilers every 15 years and the resident’s boiler was at the end of its life cycle.
3. A stock condition survey of the resident’s kitchen was carried out in 2021 and determined a replacement kitchen was not due until 2032.
4. It was not responsible for re–tiling or alterations to the airing cupboard. But it was happy to arrange a contractor to carry out the works and recharge the costs to the resident.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

This complaint involves a large volume of correspondence and other documents. The resident’s efforts in compiling evidence in support of the matters raised are recognised. While not all documents and events are explicitly referred to, all have been examined and taken into account during this investigation.

Boiler replacement and request for new kitchen

The landlord’s contractor wrote to all tenants in July 2022, regarding the proposed boiler installations. The letter said tenants would be contacted by a surveyor to arrange a date and time to carry out a survey of their current heating system.
It is noted that the planned boiler installation works were for combi boilers to be installed. This differed from the resident’s boiler, which required a hot water tank in an airing cupboard. The installation would require the removal of the resident’s water tank and some alterations to the resident’s kitchen cupboards, that she had paid for herself.
The resident has told us she made several calls to the landlord in October and November 2022, as she had not received contact from the contractor. She said the contractor had been knocking on doors, rather than contacting the residents by phone and this did not suit her as she was at work when the contractors attended. The resident states she received no meaningful update from the landlord and continued to pursue the matter in February 2023. The landlord has provided no details of the resident’s contact throughout this period.
On 16 March 2023 the landlord arranged for an inspection of the resident’s heating system to take place on 30 March 2023. The landlord has not provided any notes from the inspection.
The resident has told us that during the inspection, the landlord refused a kitchen refurbishment and also refused to adapt the airing cupboard, so it was suitable for her to continue drying washing in it. The resident states she asked the landlord to confirm in writing the works that had been discussed and those that were refused. The resident said she never received this.
The evidence shows the resident pursued this request on at least 4 occasions between April and May 2023, including in her formal complaint. In her emails to the landlord, the resident stated that her kitchen had been installed in the 1990’s and she had not received an upgrade since. She continued to ask for written confirmation of the works to be carried out, including any making–good, as she was concerned that she would be left with repairs that she had to pay for.
The landlord responded to the resident on 18 May 2023, before it had acknowledged her complaint, and said:
1. Its most recent stock condition data indicated that the resident’s kitchen would not be renewed until 2032.
2. As the new boiler was bigger, the contractor would need to adjust the existing cupboards, which required a signed disclaimer from the resident to allow the work to take place as the landlord did not own them. The contractor would try to ensure a good finish.
3. The pipework underneath the boiler would be boxed in and painted.
4. Its specification for boiler renewal did not include an additional radiator for the airing cupboard or shelving to be fitted.
5. Any plasterwork damaged or disturbed would be made good but not painted.
The content of this email, to a large extent, was replicated in the landlord’s complaint responses at both stages. In addition, the landlord added the following:
1. At stage 1 – if at any point the landlord decided the boiler “must” be replaced, it was a condition of the resident’s tenancy to allow the work to take place.
2. At stage 2 – it offered to have a contractor carry out the additional work (tiling of the boxing in and any additions to the airing cupboard) and recharge it to the resident.
The tenancy agreement sets out the responsibilities of the landlord and the resident. Paragraph 11 (xv) of the agreement states the resident is responsible for decorating and to keep in good repair the interior of the property, along with the fixtures and fittings. Paragraph 12 (i) of the first schedule states the landlord is responsible for the heating of space and water, and the installation for the supply of water, gas and electric (but not the fixtures and fittings for making use of that supply).
In some situations, a landlord would be responsible for the fittings and fixtures in the kitchen. However, in this case, the resident had paid for her own kitchen. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to request a signed disclaimer from the resident before carrying out any work on the kitchen.
When a landlord completes work at a property, it has a responsibility to make good areas that are affected. This responsibility does not extend to completing further work, such as the tiling of the kitchen (paid for by the resident) or the fitting of a radiator and shelving in the airing cupboard. It was reasonable for the landlord to refuse to carry out this additional work.
The landlord’s home improvement policy states it is the resident’s responsibility to remove their own installations to allow for essential maintenance. In this case, the landlord had not asked the resident to do this, and the work was to be completed by a contractor, at no cost to the resident. This was a reasonable and solution focused approach for the landlord to take.
While the landlord addressed the communication from the contractor in its stage 2 response, it failed to apologise for the communication failings that followed. This resulted in the resident submitting multiple emails asking the same questions.
In relation to the resident’s request for a kitchen refit, to minimise disruption, the landlord stated her kitchen would not be replaced until 2032, based upon the results of its most recent stock condition survey. The landlord was entitled to rely on this information to inform its decision making.
The Decent Homes Standard is the minimum standard that social homes are required to meet, as set by the UK government in 2006. Paragraph 4.4 of the Decent Homes Guidance 2006 states a property should have “reasonably modern” facilities and services. Homes will not be considered reasonably modern if they lack 3 or more of the following:
1. A reasonably modern kitchen (20 years old or less).
2. A kitchen with adequate space and layout.
3. A reasonably modern bathroom (30 years old or less).
4. An appropriately located bathroom and toilet.
5. Adequate insulation against external noise.
6. Adequate size and layout of common areas for blocks of flats.
However, the guidance also states if a property lacks 2 or less of the criteria above, but meets the rest, it is still classed as decent and it is not necessary for the landlord to carry out modernisation. This further supports the landlord was not obliged to complete a kitchen refit based on the age of the kitchen alone, and its decision was reasonable.
The boiler installation remains outstanding, and the landlord has agreed to repair the boiler, rather than replace it. This is not a long-term solution to the problem and is also not cost effective for the landlord. Should the landlord decide that the boiler must be replaced, in accordance with her tenancy agreement, the resident must allow the installation to take place.
In summary, the landlord’s decision not to complete the installation to the expectations of the resident was reasonable. The landlord committed to aspects of the work it was responsible for and also arranged for the kitchen units to be altered by its contractor in order to assist the resident.
However, the landlord’s communication with the resident was at times poor, causing the resident time and trouble in repeatedly chasing the matter. This leads to a determination of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the boiler replacement. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the time and trouble caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failure where the overall outcome for the resident was not significantly affected.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out the timescales in which it will deal with complaints:
1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint within 5 working days.
2. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded.
3. It will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint.
4. In exceptional cases, where it needs more time to investigate at any stage, the landlord will provide a written explanation to the resident with a clear time scale for its response.
The resident first made her complaint with the landlord on 15 May 2023. She contacted the landlord again on 18 May, 22 May, and 6 June 2023 to repeat her request for a complaint to be recorded. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 June 2023, 21 working days after the complaint was first made. This was outside of the timescales given in the landlord’s policy and was unreasonable.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 June 2023, 2 working days after it recorded the resident’s complaint, in line with its policy.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 28 June 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 September 2023, 51 working days after the escalation request was received. The landlord did not communicate the reason for the delay with the resident. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy and was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not comment upon the delays in its complaint handling or apologise. This was particularly unreasonable given the landlord had identified its failings, and recognised that compensation would be appropriate, in internal emails dated 8 August 2023.
In summary, the landlord failed to record the resident’s complaint in line with its policy, causing the resident to chase the matter on 3 separate occasions. This led to a delay in recording the complaint. While the landlord responded swiftly with its stage 1 response, the same cannot be said for its stage 2 response.
The delays caused and lack of communication with the resident lead to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where the landlord has not acknowledged its failings and made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a boiler replacement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £200 compensation, made up of:
  1. £100 for its failures in handling a boiler replacement.
  2. £100 for its failures in complaint handling.