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

Home Group Limited (202334483)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334483

Home Group Limited

7 February 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:
    1. The temperature of radiators at the property.
    2. Reports of damp and mould.
    3. Reports of repairs to the front door, rear guttering, kitchen electrics, and a step.
    4. Reports of a woodlice infestation.
    5. Request for a letter regarding adaptations.
    6. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

  1. Part of the resident’s complaint concerns the temperature of radiators at the property, which was mentioned to the Ombudsman on 4 January 2024. However, there is no evidence that it was raised with the landlord during the formal complaint process, nor is it evident that the landlord has responded on this matter.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the complaint about the temperature of radiators at the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background

  1. The resident has held an assured tenancy for a house with garden, since 2020. She has mental health issues, and her young daughter is autistic. The leasehold is held by her landlord, a housing association. The village is ‘estate owned’ and subject to restrictive covenants.
  2. It is evident that the resident reported repair issues with her front door, but that there was a delay to repairs. The resident informed the landlord that the delayed repair to the front door had caused damp and mould, as well as woodlice, on 6 January 2023.
  3. The resident also requested adaptations to the driveway and garden under the Disabilities Act. It is evident that the landlord declined this request and so she asked it for a formal letter confirming its position.
  4. The landlord later advised that it repaired the front door on 4 July 2023 and chemically treated the mould on 25 July 2023.
  5. The resident reported a loose back step on 17 July 2023. The landlord’s records show that repairs were completed on 14 September 2023. She also reported broken guttering on 27 July 2023, which the landlord repaired on 14 September 2023. The resident further reported an exposed fuse in the kitchen on 28 July 2023. The landlord repaired this on 24 August 2023.
  6. The Ombudsman has not seen the initial complaint, but the landlord’s stage 1 response dated 11 August 2023 committed to repairs to the step and guttering. It also advised it would chase outstanding actions regarding the mould, fuse box, and the adaptations letter.
  7. The resident escalated the complaint on 5 September 2023 and said that the damp and mould and woodlice were still outstanding. The landlord advised the resident it was not responsible for treating woodlice on 13 October 2023. It also said there was no mould evident at the property on 19 October 2023.
  8. A further damp and mould inspection took place on 9 January 2024. Once again, the landlord said that no damp was evident. On 6 February 2024, the resident reported that the front door still did not close properly.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 13 February 2024 offered £250 compensation for the resident’s time and effort in chasing the issues, including £75 for the lack of communication. It has since said it has raised an order to treat ongoing mould as required.
  10. The resident said she will not accept the compensation due to the effect the matter has had on her mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her communications with this service, the resident has noted concerns about the impact the events had on her mental health.
  2. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her health, she has the option to seek legal advice.
  3. The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord published its ‘damp mould and condensation compliance notes’ in July 2023, after the initial repair for damp and mould was submitted. Section 7.2 of its notes refers to assessing risk and says that where there are certain medical conditions, for example asthma or children aged 12 and under, the landlord must carry out a maintenance inspection within 24 hours.
  2. The policy says that treatment will depend on the issue and severity and follow up regarding the effectiveness of repairs will depend on the issues found and residents circumstances and vulnerabilities.
  3. The landlord’s website says that it aims to have a contractor attend emergency repairs within 6 hours and complete a repair within 24 hours. It aims to resolve non-emergency repairs in an average of 28 days.
  4. In this case, the damp was first reported on 6 January 2023 and recorded as being chemically treated on 25 July 2023. The resident’s family included a child under 12 with asthma so the matter should reasonably have been a priority, even before the new policy was published in July 2023.
  5. The landlord’s repair records show the damp being reported in January 2023 and that a ’24-hour high risk’ inspection was done on 16 May 2023. This is at odds with the stage 1 response dated 11 August 2023, which said that damp was reported 9 March 2023 and that an inspection was raised but the landlord was unable to reach the resident. It said the repair was then raised with a new contractor on 25 July 2023, when a treatment was carried out.
  6. Keeping an accurate audit trail is an important part of a landlord’s service delivery. The Landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it took all reasonable steps when addressing reports of damp and mould. However, in this case, there is a lack of proper records relating to the repair. Nevertheless, whether the landlord addressed the matter in May 2023, or July 2023, this was significantly beyond the timeframes of its policy for either an emergency or non-emergency repair. It is also not evident that it considered any mitigating action or otherwise sought to provide advise to minimise the ongoing impact. This would have caused distress to the resident and her family.
  7. The resident said there was further damp in the bathroom in September 2023. Given the resident’s ongoing reports, the landlord appropriately arranged an inspection on 18 October 2023. The landlord said that there was no mould evident but noted that the resident had not had the heating on for some time. A further inspection on 11 January 2024 by 2 inspectors also reported no damp or mould. The resident was advised to use the bathroom fan to combat humidity as this was found to be switched off. The landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of its appropriately qualified contractors and the advice it gave at this time was reasonable.
  8. It is noted that the landlord also raised a repair to treat further damp and mould a year later, in July 2024. This demonstrates its ongoing commitment to address the issue.
  9. In summary, while the landlord appropriately took steps to address the damp and mould in July 2023, and to reinspect in October 2023 and January 2024, its initial response was unreasonably delayed. It failed to consider any risks in the property and also failed to consider any mitigating temporary steps it could take to address the issue, such as the use of a dehumidifier. Its poor records keeping also means it is unable to demonstrate the timeliness of any actions.
  10. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made. An order for £300 has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This order falls within the range of remedies recommended for instances of maladministration with no permanent impact but where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put right. This sum also considers the vulnerability of the household.

Repairs to front door, rear guttering, kitchen electrics, and step

  1. As referred to above, the landlord’s website says that it aims to have a contractor attend emergency repairs within 6 hours and complete a repair within 24 hours. It aims to resolve non-emergency repairs in an average of 28 days.
  2. The resident reported the front door repair on 6 January 2023. The landlord has confirmed it was repaired on 4 July 2023. The landlord’s records also said that the door and frame were renewed on 19 May 2023, but it is not clear if this related to the front or rear door as both were attended to at different times. The resident also advised that the front door could not be locked on 20 April 2023. 
  3. Given the security implications, especially when the resident had been fleeing domestic violence when she was placed at the property, the landlord should have considered whether a door that would not lock should have been an emergency repair. It is not evident it did this. Instead, it took at least 4 months to resolve, far beyond the timescales of even its non-emergency repairs. There was no reasonable explanation for this delay, which would have caused distress to the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has said the front door was still difficult to close in February 2024. There is no evidence that this was raised with the landlord, and the resident should contact it again to raise a repair if this is still a concern.
  5. The resident reported broken rear guttering on 27 July 2023 and the landlord’s repair records shows this as being booked in for 22 August 2023. This was reasonable and in line with its policy. The resident reported the same repair again on 25 August 2023 and this was shown as attended to on 14 September 2023. While it would have been frustrating that the first repair was unsuccessful, the Ombudsman understands that it can take multiple attempts to resolve some repairs, and so the landlord’s responses were reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. The resident reported a broken kitchen fuse on 28 July 2023. It appears that when the fuse box was being moved, the cover was damaged, and the fuse was exposed. The landlord’s repair logs indicate that this was repaired on 24 August 2023. Given that the resident’s daughter could reach the electric fuse, the landlord should have considered whether this should have been treated as an emergency repair. However, once again, it is not evident it did so.
  7. The resident reported a loose back step on 17 July 2023 and the landlord’s records show this was completed on 14 September 2023. This was beyond the timescales for a non-emergency repair, and it is not evident that the landlord kept the resident informed about the reasons for any delay. This would have caused her distress and inconvenience.
  8. In its formal responses, the landlord offered £175 for the delay in the various repairs raised by the resident. While it was appropriate that it recognised the impact of the delays, this offer was not proportionate to the distress caused to the resident across multiple repair issues. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made in the circumstances. An order for £300 has been made to reflect the impact caused to the resident and to reflect her time and trouble chasing the issues. This order replaces the landlord’s previous offer.
  9. This sum is within the range of remedies recommended by the landlord for cases of maladministration where a failure adversely affected the resident. It applies here where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Woodlice infestation

  1. The resident reported woodlice on 6 January 2023. She raised this as a concern in both her initial complaint and in her complaint escalation. It is not evident that the landlord provided its position until 13 October 2023, despite having had multiple opportunities to do so. This would have been frustrating for the resident.
  2. The landlord has said that it is not responsible for woodlice. However, it has not provided a policy to support this, and no guidance could be found from the landlord online in respect of woodlice, or who has responsibility for pests in its properties generally. It also did not point to the tenancy agreement or provide any advice as to whether the local authority may be able to assist.
  3. Had the resident been informed that it was her responsibility to treat the woodlice within a reasonable time of the problem being reported, she could have dealt with it sooner.
  4. The Ombudsman notes that the resident said the woodlice were still present in February 2024. Given that there is no evidence to support that the landlord is responsible for treating woodlice at the property, the resident should consider making her own arrangements to have the woodlice treated, if this remains a concern.
  5. In summary, while it is not evident that the landlord was responsible, it did not respond appropriately or in a timely manner to the reports of woodlice. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made. An order for £200 compensation has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This sum falls in the range of remedies recommended by the Ombudsman when there is no permanent impact, but the landlord has not acknowledged its failings and made no attempt to put the matter right.

Adaptions letter

  1. There is no specific guidance or policy provided by the landlord to govern when the landlord should respond to enquiries from the resident. In such a case, the Ombudsman will consider what is reasonable and fair in all the circumstances.
  2. The resident wrote to the landlord requesting permission for a driveway and higher fence at the property on 6 January 2023. The landlord responded on 12 January 2023 to say that this was being considered.
  3. The landlord declined permission for both the driveway and the increase to the height of the fence and on 9 March 2023, and the resident subsequently requested a letter confirming this. The landlord then told the resident on 19 July 2023 that she would need an Occupational Therapist assessment for the fence and driveway which the landlord would then consider.
  4. On 28 July 2023, the resident was made aware that the adaptations could not be done due to the village being ‘estate owned’. She said she wanted this in writing on headed paper for her appeal to the local authority for suitable housing. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide its position on such a letter within a timely manner.
  5. The resident repeated her request for this in her complaint dated 3 August 2023 and the landlord’s complaint response dated 11 August 2023 said it would chase it. It did not provide a timeframe for this action, which would have been helpful.
  6. The resident chased the letter again in her complaint escalation dated 5 September 2023 and the landlord’s further communication dated 12 September 2023 said it would follow this up with the legal department. The landlord acknowledged the issue again on 22 September 2023 and in its stage 2 response of 18 October 2023. At no point did it give an indicative timeframe for the letter or explain why there was a delay. This would have caused distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  7. The landlord discussed the issue internally on 6 February 2024 when it was aware that the resident was in court regarding her daughter on 14 February 2024 and needed the letter concerning the adaptations. Its legal department confirmed the covenant not to adapt the property and the landlord issued a further response on 13 February 2024 confirming this. The landlord offered £75 for its lack of communication.
  8. Throughout the period of the complaint, the landlord was aware that the resident required the letter for a court hearing and the seriousness of the matter, relating to rehousing in a property suitable for her vulnerable and disabled daughter. The landlord should have been clear about the timeframe needed for the letter, and the reasons, and it should have provided this to the resident as soon as it received the relevant advice. Instead, its confirmation took a further 7 months. Even then, it was only noted in its complaint response, which included on a complaint response including other sensitive issues which may not have been appropriate for sharing with third parties.
  9. While it was appropriate that the landlord recognised the impact of its delay, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the significant time which elapsed without adequate communication. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made. An order for £200 has been made to reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience, along with the time and trouble she expended chasing the issue.
  10. This sum falls in the range of remedies recommended by the Ombudsman in instances where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.   

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord says the initial complaint was received on 25 July 2023, although the resident says it was submitted in May 2023. No evidence has been provided to support either position. This points to poor record keeping by the landlord, as it should ensure it has accurate records of all complaints received.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 18 August 2023, which was outside of its published timescales. The resident requested that the complaint be escalated on 5 September 2023; however, the landlord then provided a second stage 1 response on 12 September 2023. This was not in accordance with the complaint policy, or this service’s Complaints Handling Code, both of which state that a final response should have been issued.
  4. The resident made a further request to escalate the complaint on 13 September 2023 and a stage 2 response issued on 18 October 2023. This was outside of the 20-day deadline. Additionally, the response noted that which advised that a ‘full and final’ stage 2 would be issued when all matter were resolved. This was not appropriate as the final response should be issued in accordance with the policy, not only once outstanding repairs have been completed. This potentially delayed the resident’s ability to refer her concerns to this service.
  5. The landlord issued a further stage 2 complaint decision on 13 February 2024, 3 months over the original deadline. Overall, there were 4 complaint responses issued, when there should have been 2, and there were unreasonable delays throughout.
  6. The landlord offered a sum of compensation including £75 for its overall lack of communication, but did not refer specifically to complaints handling. This sum has been treated as relating to the adaptations letter for the purposes of this investigation.
  7. Given its delays and its failure to follow both its own complaints policy and the Code, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for £150 has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  8. This falls within the Ombudsman’s range of remedies for cases of maladministration where there is no permanent impact. 

Determination (decision)

  1. As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the complaint about the temperature of radiators at the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Reports of repairs to the front door, rear guttering, kitchen electrics, and a step.
    3. Reports of a woodlice infestation.
    4. Request for a letter regarding adaptations.
    5. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,150, comprising:
    1. £300 for its failures relating to the damp and mould;
    2. £300 for delays to repairs;
    3. £200 for its poor communication in relation to the woodlice infestation;
    4. £200 for the delays relating to the adaptions letter;
    5. £150 for its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord remind salient complaints staff of the correct procedure to ensure the landlord’s complaint process is followed, with appropriate appeal rights at each stage.