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

Home Group Limited (202339639)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339639

Home Group Limited

27 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 the landlord’s handling of:

a. repairs to the resident’s boiler.

b. repairs to the resident’s radiator.

  1. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint, including its response to the resident’s concerns about discrimination.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord’s records state the resident has some vulnerabilities. The resident’s representative made the complaint to the landlord on her behalf. For ease of reference, the representative’s actions will be referred to as the resident’s throughout this report.
  2. On 4 December 2023 the resident reported the boiler was leaking. The landlord attended the same day, providing the resident with temporary heaters. The boiler was repaired the next day.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 4 December 2023. They said the water supply and boiler had been turned off and the landlord left 2 temporary heaters. The resident felt this was disability discrimination. The resident also reported the radiator in the hallway was not working. The resident requested compensation and for the repair issues to be resolved.
  4. The landlord visited the resident on 15 December 2023. The landlord inspected damage to a kitchen unit, caused by the repair to the boiler. The landlord said the unit did not need replacing. During the visit, the condenser pipe was showing signs of leaking. The landlord offered to raise an emergency repair.
  5. On 19 January 2024, the resident contacted the Ombudsman as they had not received a complaint response. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 26 February 2024, requesting the complaint response be issued to the resident by 4 March 2024.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s initial complaint on 1 March 2024. The landlord confirmed that it had escalated the complaint to stage 2, “all actions relating to your complaint have been fulfilled” and apologised for the delays in providing a complaint response. The landlord offered £360 compensation:
    1. £100 as an apology for the delays.
    2. £75 for delaying escalating the complaint to stage 2.
    3. £55 for the disruption caused by the initial emergency repair not being               attended within timescale.
    4. £55 for the number of appointments required to complete the works.
    5. £75 for the time and effort in progressing the works and managing the leak.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 March 2024. The landlord:
    1. Said the original boiler repair had been completed within the appropriate timescale and explained what an emergency repair is. It had fixed the boiler on 5 December 2023.
    2. Apologised for the delay in replacing two radiators and the subsequent repair.
    3. Offered 2 options regarding repair of the base unit in the kitchen. 
    4. Explained that it had repaired the condenser pipe within the appropriate timescale, but acknowledged it was disruptive due to a recent boiler check.
    5. Apologised for complaint handling failures and said it had now changed complaint handling processes.
    6. Said that it was unable to reimburse loss of earnings but can award compensation for disruption for missed appointments.
    7. Disagreed there had been any discrimination and apologised if the resident felt there was.
    8. Increased the offer of compensation to £400, made up of £225 for complaint handling and £175 for the delays and disruption relating to the repairs.
  8. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s compensation offer in its stage 2 response and referred the complaint to the Ombudsman on 8 March 2024.

Assessment and findings

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s repair policy, the landlord had a “right first–  time approach.” It aimed to complete repairs within predefined timescales, from the date that a repair is first reported. The Ombudsman was unable to verify from the available evidence the landlord’s expected timescale for completing boiler and radiator repairs. However, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord was expected to complete identified repairs within a reasonable timescale of being notified of the disrepair.
  2. The landlord had a discretionary compensation policy, which set out its approach to compensation. The landlord could award between £15 and £75 compensation, where a resident had been caused disruption or where there was an identified service failure. The landlord could award up to a maximum of £100 for significant delays conducting repairs.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.

  1. The landlord attended the original boiler leak within 6 hours and provided the resident with temporary heating. It reattended the property the next day and fixed the boiler. This was a reasonable response because it attended promptly after the first report to provide temporary heaters and then repaired the boiler within a day of that first report. Providing the temporary heaters minimised the inconvenience to the resident.
  2. During the landlord’s home visit on 15 December 2023, the resident was offered an emergency appointment to repair a leaking condenser pipe. It offered to attend that evening, or it would log the repair on 18 December 2023 and visit that afternoon. The resident took time off work on 18 December, but the landlord did not attend until 21 December 2023. It is unclear why the resident was advised it was an emergency repair as the landlord’s records show a target date of 25 December 2023. It was reasonable for the resident to expect the landlord to repair the issue on 18 December 2023 as this is what the landlord had said would happen. This will have caused the resident inconvenience.
  3. The landlord set ‘target dates’ for the repairs in this case. The boiler repair target dates were within a timescale which the Ombudsman considers to be reasonable and were met by the landlord.
  4. On 15 December 2023 the landlord also inspected damage to a kitchen cupboard from the boiler leak. The landlord told the resident the cupboard “did not justify repair.” There are conflicting records if a repair was discussed with the resident on 15 December 2023, however the landlord offered 2 repair options in its stage 2 response. The resident confirmed they wanted the cupboard repaired but wanted compensation “because of the significant inconvenience and disruption this will cause”. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that, to date, no works have been completed to the kitchen cupboard. It is recommended that the landlord reoffers the resident a repair and once the work is complete, confirms its position on any further compensation request from the resident.
  5. The landlord missed opportunities in its complaint responses to recognise and apologise to the resident for its communication failures. The landlord offered an emergency appointment to the resident and then failed to deliver and meet the resident expectations. The landlord’s stage 2 response states it “sees no issue with the response time although it was evidently disruptive”. The landlord offered £75 compensation for “disruption” for both the boiler and radiator repair.
  6. The landlord did not apportion its offer of compensation between the boiler and radiator repairs in its final response. We have therefore assumed that the amount was evenly split between the two issues, and that the amount offered by the landlord in recognition of the service failures of its handling of the boiler repairs amounted to £37.50. The landlord acknowledged that the resident incurred time and trouble. The offered compensation is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, appropriately compensates the resident for the miscommunication and resulting inconvenience. It was therefore an offer of reasonable redress which in our view resolved this part of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s radiator.

  1. On 5 December 2023 the landlord identified 2 radiators needed replacing. A job was raised the same day, with a target date of 19 December 2023. This repair is not included in the repair log provided however both the landlord and resident acknowledge the new radiators were installed on 9 January 2024. This meant the landlord took 35 days. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s repair obligations and what is reasonable in the circumstances and has found that it acted slightly outside the expected timeframe.
  2. The resident reported one of the newly installed radiators was not working on 9 January 2024. On 11 January 2024, the landlord and resident discussed the issue. There is no record of what was agreed during this call. The landlord’s repair records show a repair was not raised until 22 January 2024, which was an unreasonable delay in logging the repair. The radiator repair was completed on 26 January 2024 within 17 days of the issue being reported.
  3. The Ombudsman has identified that the landlord failed to respond to the resident, after they had requested an update, on multiple occasions. This meant the resident had to spend time and effort in chasing a response from the landlord. This added to what was already a frustrating situation for the resident.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it apologised and acknowledged a “clear service failing”. It offered £100 for delays in resolving the radiator replacement and subsequent repairs and £37.50 disruption as a result of multiple repair appointments. This was in line with its compensation policy and demonstrated that it understood the detrimental impact the situation had on the resident. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord has offered reasonable redress. The compensation offered was in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy and in our view appropriately recognised the impact on the resident. Taken together, we are satisfied that the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation were reasonable redress to resolve this part of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint, including its response to the resident’s concerns about discrimination.

  1. The landlord is required to adhere to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which specifies that stage 1 complaints should be dealt with within 10 working days, unless additional time is agreed. Stage 2 complaints should be dealt with within 20 working days, unless additional time is agreed.
  2. Section 1.2 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling code states “A complaint must be defined as: ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.’
  3. The landlord recorded the resident’s original complaint as dated 6 December 2023. The Ombudsman has reviewed evidence which shows the resident clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service on 4 December 2023. The landlord sent an acknowledgement 9 working days later.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response in 61 working days, significantly over the committed response time of 10 working days set out in its complaints policy. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated its delay, in line with its policy, to the resident. This delayed the resident receiving a resolution. The landlord apologised in its stage 1 response and offered compensation of £100.
  5. The landlord did not keep the resident updated on the progress of the complaint. On 15 December 2023 and 19 January 2024, the landlord agreed to escalate the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed do to so, due to administration failures and inaction from employees. The resident therefore had to incur time and trouble in chasing complaint responses on at least 2 occasions, via the Ombudsman.
  6. However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord offered a full apology and accepted that it had not progressed the complaint within the expected timeframes. The resident was offered a total of £225 in respect of both the complaint handling failures and the amount of time spent chasing the complaint. Considering the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, this amount is consistent with what we may have ordered in similar circumstances. We therefore consider this to have been an offer of reasonable redress which recognises the impact of the landlord’s failures in complaint handling.
  7. The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. The Act requires any person or organisation which carries out public functions to have ‘due regard’ to how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in doing so.
  8. In their complaint and contact with the landlord, the resident suggested that they had been discriminated against on the basis of their disability. We cannot find a landlord has breached the Equality Act. However, we can decide whether a landlord failed to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.
  9. The Ombudsman expects landlords to take residents’ concerns about being treated differently seriously, investigate and provide a response. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it missed an opportunity to fully address the resident’s complaint of discrimination. It should have ensured its response covered all issues the resident was dissatisfied with, and it could have asked for further information to understand why the resident felt they had been discriminated against. The failure to explore the resident’s concerns would have meant that they were not reassured that they had been treated fairly. It failed to show them that it had taken the matter seriously.

32. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, while it did not analyse the complaint of discrimination in any detail, it reassured the resident that the service failings were not as a result of discrimination and apologised if the resident felt it was. Again, the landlord could have done more to explore the resident’s concerns and consider why the resident felt they had been discriminated against.

33. Whilst we acknowledge the resident’s concerns about how they were treated, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord failed to give due regard to its responsibilities under the Equality Act. We have however made a recommendation to the landlord to ensure that it clearly addresses such concerns in the future.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint about its handling of the repairs to the resident’s boiler.
  2. In accordance with 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint about its handling of the repairs to the resident’s radiator.
  3. In accordance with 53.b the landlord, the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint about its handling of the associated complaint, including its response to the resident’s concerns about discrimination.

Recommendations

36.   The landlord should re-offer the resident total compensation of £400, if this has not yet already been paid. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid. The payment must be paid directly to the resident and not their rent account.

37.   The landlord should reoffer the resident a repair to the kitchen cupboard and once the work is complete, confirm its position on any further compensation request from the resident.

38.   The landlord should remind staff responding to complaints to ensure that all concerns raised in a complaint are adequately addressed. For example, when a resident suggests that they have been discriminated against, the landlord should ensure that it asks for more information if needed and then clearly explains its position on the concern.