Home Group Limited (202403124)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403124

Home Group Limited

18 November 2024

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:
1. The resident’s concerns about the property’s structural integrity.
2. Reports of damp and mould.
3. Reports of inappropriate staff conduct.
4. The resident’s request for a management transfer.
5. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 3-bedroom house. She has lived at the property since March 2011. The landlord informed this Service it is aware the resident requires support from mental health services.
During 2021 and 2022 the resident made several reports to the landlord that she was concerned about the structural integrity of her property and wanted to be moved. This resulted in a disrepair claim being issued, and on 19 June 2022, an inspection of the property revealed that there was no evidence of structural movement.
On 12 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and reported she had damp within the property. The landlord attended the following day and established there was no damp present, just a water stain, and booked a repair.
On 15 April 2024, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord that she had ongoing damp issues, she had concerns about the conduct of its operatives, and her property was unsafe. When the landlord contacted her the following day to clarify her complaint, the resident added she was unhappy that the landlord was not helping her to move to another property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 June 2024 and stated:
1. It had found no evidence that her property was unsafe.
2. A damp and mould inspection had been booked to take place and a previous repair job for the water stain had been cancelled by the resident.
3. While the resident did not qualify for a management move, it was supporting her to find alternative accommodation.
4. It had been unable to identify when the alleged staff conduct had taken place but would ensure that all future visits were attended in pairs to safeguard all concerned.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 26 May 2024 and said she was dissatisfied with its response. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 June 2024 and stated:
1. An inspection of the property had revealed no damp and mould, and a repair would be raised to address the water stain.
2. It had now approved the resident for a management move and was also assisting her explore other alternate accommodation such as through the local authority and a mutual exchange.
3. It would recontact her once the outstanding repairs had been completed and review any compensation that may be applicable.
The landlord issued the resident a further response on 19 July 2024 and offered her £750 compensation for delays to repairs, poor communication, and failures in its complaint handling. The resident remains dissatisfied and brought the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident’s legal representative served a Letter of Claim on the landlord on 18 November 2021 for disrepair, relating to the structural integrity of the property, in particular:
1. Sunken ceilings.
2. Cracks within the property.
3. Sloped floor.
4. Subsidence.
The particulars of the claim are the same as those put forward for this complaint. While the hearing did not take place in January 2024 as expected, this Service has not seen evidence that the claim has been brought to an end in line with the Civil Procedure Rules.
Paragraph 41.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or where the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given.
This aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because the particulars of such were the same as those that are subject to legal proceedings. If the resident wishes to pursue these aspects of her complaint the Ombudsman advises her to seek legal advice from a solicitor or legal service.

Scope of investigation

In her correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised other matters that have not yet been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 4 June 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.
The resident has told this service that she felt discriminated against by the landlord. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place in a legal sense. A ruling on whether discrimination has taken place as a breach of the Equality Act 2010, is for a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s complaints.
The resident has informed this Service how the issues have impacted on her health. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts.

Reports of damp and mould

On 12 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and reported there was damp in the property, and she had asthma. The landlord inspected the property the following day and identified a water stain from a previous leak that needed to be treated with stain block. A repair appointment was made for 23 April 2024.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it takes a zero-tolerance approach to tackling the issue. It further states the response time to each reported issue will be triaged to determine the level of risk. A high-risk case is defined as one where the resident has vulnerabilities, including asthma, and the response time is 24 hours. The landlord attended the property the day after it was made aware of the issue, in line with its policy.
The landlord’s policy also states that it will use a check list when carrying out an inspection to ensure that each case is approached consistently. It is unclear from the documentation provided whether a check list was completed on this occasion. However, landlord records indicate that the problem was a water stain, rather than damp and mould, and was confined to one small area of the property.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy is silent on timescales for repairs. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed the repair within 28 days. The first repair appointment was arranged for 6 weeks later. It is not clear from the documentation provided why the repair could not be carried out at an earlier stage and whether this delay, or the exact nature of the problem was communicated to the resident.
On 15 April 2024, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord by phone regarding the outstanding repair. The landlord’s records state the resident was informed that her repair had been scheduled for the following week. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with reassurance at this point that there was no damp in the property given the concerns she had already voiced surrounding her health.
When the contractor attended the property on 23 April 2024 to complete the repair, the resident refused access and cancelled the appointment with the landlord by phone due to the contractor’s conduct. Landlord records indicate that a further appointment was not booked during the call as the resident was upset over several issues. The conduct of the contractor is discussed later in the report as it formed a separate element of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 April 2024. It confirmed that the stain block repair had been suspended at the resident’s request and it would attend the repair whenever it was convenient for her. The landlord also advised it had arranged to carry out a damp and mould inspection of the property to provide further reassurance. This was a positive step for the landlord to take and demonstrated it had taken her complaint seriously.
Despite regular contact with the landlord over the following month, the resident did not request for the repair to be rescheduled. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 May 2024, stating she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to all elements of her complaint. The resident did not request a further repair appointment.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 June 2024. It confirmed it would arrange an appointment for the repair to take place and once completed to the resident’s satisfaction, it would review any compensation that may be applicable. The landlord completed the repair on 12 July 2024 and contacted the resident 4 days later to confirm the work had met her expectations. This was a proactive approach for the landlord to take and an attempt to rebuild the landlord / tenant relationship. On 19 July 2024, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for delays to repairs and a further £75 for poor communication.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have scheduled the repair sooner or to have documented why it could not do so. When the resident cancelled the repair, the landlord advised it would reschedule when she was ready. When the resident did not actively chase a reschedule date, the landlord took the initiative to arrange the repair and completed it swiftly, checking back with the resident to ensure she was satisfied.
It is unusual for the Ombudsman to consider reasonable redress for offers of compensation made outside of the landlord’s internal 2 stage complaint process. However, on this occasion, the landlord assured the resident it would review the compensation offer once the work had been completed to her satisfaction and did so in a reasonable amount of time. The landlord’s complaint handling is looked at later in this report.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £225 may remedy service failure where there was a failure which was minimal and short in duration. Considering the delay to arranging the first repair appointment, the apologies made and the offer of compensation, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

Reports of inappropriate staff conduct

On 15 April 2024, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord regarding the conduct of its operatives. She stated that one operative had been “inappropriate” and told her information about his life, and another had hugged her a couple of years previously. There are no records of these incidents being reported prior to the complaint being made.
The landlord attempted to contact the resident the same day. Landlord’s internal notes dated 16 April 2024 recorded:
1. The resident was unable to recall specific details of when the incidents had occurred.
2. The complaint related to an operative making inappropriate comments about his daughter’s appearance.
The landlord recorded that due to the resident’s vulnerable state of health and the allegations made, all future visits to the property would be conducted in pairs to safeguard the resident and its staff. This was a swift and proactive action for the landlord to take to reassure the resident that her concerns were being taken seriously.
On 17 April 2024, the landlord compiled a list of operatives who attended the resident’s property since January 2024. Over the next few days, the landlord spoke with each of the operatives about the alleged incidents. None of the operatives had any recollection of the incidents described by the resident.
On 23 April 2024, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord about the conduct of another operative. She stated an operative had attended that morning to complete a repair and when she answered the door to him, he blew smoke into her property and her mouth. The landlord notes recorded this complaint would be added to the existing complaint regarding staff conduct.
In an email to the landlord later that day, the resident referred to her complaint about an operative “talking inappropriately in my home about her niece’s anatomy”.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 April 2024. It said that it had investigated her complaint in relation an operative who was inappropriate and may have hugged her but was unable to find evidence that the allegation had taken place. The landlord stated it had since put in place a policy that would ensure contractors attended in pairs for the safeguarding of all concerned.
Given the non-availability of information about the complaint and the shortage of evidence available, there were limited options available to the landlord. The resident was unable to give specific dates when the alleged conduct took place, with one incident happening a couple of years previous. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident’s property was attended on a regular basis, by different operatives and over a number of years. It is also noted that the resident’s recollection of these events was not consistent.
However, while the landlord undertook reasonable actions to investigate the complaint its response failed to address the complaint regarding a contractor who blew smoke into the property. The date and time of the visit was known to the landlord, and it could have identified the operative in question and addressed this aspect of the complaint. In the absence of any information that suggests the landlord undertook this, or another proportionate line of enquiry to investigate this aspect of the complaint, this Service is unable to conclude that the landlord has fulfilled its obligations to reasonably investigate the resident’s allegations.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 26 May 2024. She stated that the contractor’s conduct was “shocking”, and she was dissatisfied with the response given.
The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 4 June 2024 still failed to address the point above as was omitted at stage 1. This was a failing and left the resident feeling ignored and distressed.
While the landlord’s initial response to this aspect of the complaint was swift and proactive, its omission to address the conduct of an operative who was alleged to have been smoking was unreasonable given it had acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This leads to a determination of service failure. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The resident’s request for a management transfer

On 2 June 2023, the landlord provided the resident with a form to request a management move. It also set out the requirements the resident needed to meet to be considered for a move, which included:
1. Supporting evidence form a court or the police to say she needed to move due to high risk of harm.
2. Supporting evidence to show she could no longer access her home due to injury.
The resident did not provide the required evidence and on 4 October 2023, the landlord recorded it would speak to the resident about alternative housing options such as bidding on properties through the local authority or arranging a mutual exchange. Records of this discussion have not been provided to this Service.
On 2 April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord on 4 occasions in relation to concerns about the structure of her property. The landlord replied to the resident the same day and stated that numerous inspections of the property had been conducted at her request and no structural issues had been found. The landlord stated it was aware the resident had registered with the local authority for alternative accommodation and asked the resident how she was getting on. The resident did not reply.
The resident formally complained to the landlord on 15 April 2024. The request for a move did not feature within her complaint. However, the landlord spoke to the resident the following day and established that the resident was unhappy that the landlord was not helping her move to another property. Landlord internal records dated 17 April 2024 indicate the landlord was trying to help the resident find alternative accommodation via the bidding process.
In its stage 1 response dated 24 April 2024, the landlord stated was providing support to the resident with her local authority application and had also encouraged the resident to consider a mutual exchange. The landlord stated the resident did not qualify for a management move as she did not meet the necessary criteria.
The landlord’s management transfer policy states that it will consider moving existing customers to alternative accommodation where their life is at immediate risk and / or they cannot enter their home for medical or other reasons. In the absence of any evidence to satisfy the requirements it was appropriate for the landlord to decline the application for a management move. Furthermore, the landlord’s efforts to support the resident in other ways to find suitable alternative accommodation were reasonable.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 21 May 2024 to carry out a further inspection of the property. Internal landlord notes state that the resident had since been approved for a management move but she was refusing alternative properties, stating they were unsuitable.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 26 May 2024 and stated she was dissatisfied with its response and felt she was not being moved because the landlord had no properties available.
Landlord internal notes dated 30 May 2024 indicate the landlord was still supporting the resident to find alternative accommodation, but the resident would only consider properties in one particular area due to her family support networks and would not consider a flat.
On 4 June 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It stated the resident had been approved for a management move, and it was working with her to find suitable accommodation. The landlord also acknowledged the stipulations the resident had previously made in relation to acceptable properties.
While the landlord initially declined the resident’s application as she did not meet the criteria for a management move, the landlord subsequently altered its position and approved the resident’s application for a management move in order to provide an acceptable outcome to the resident. Any delay that subsequently occurs while awaiting the availability of a suitable property is reasonable when considering the limitation of supply given the resident’s request for a particular area and a certain type of property. Landlords are limited by the stock they hold. The landlord’s actions to support the resident in exploring other avenues for rehousing such as via the local authority bidding scheme or through a mutual exchange have been positive and supportive.
The landlord was not obligated to provide the resident with a management move in the circumstances and its actions to support the resident have been reasonable, fair and in excess of what might ordinarily be expected. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request for a management move.

Complaint handling

A landlord’s complaint handling process is an essential aspect of its overall service delivery provision. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision.
The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 14 April 2024. The landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement the same day. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will record and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. This was in line with its policy.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 April 2024, 8 working days after the complaint was made. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will issue a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. The landlord acted in line with its policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address the resident’s complaint regarding her concerns of structural integrity. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will not investigate complaints where a court is considering the issue. Given a claim had been issued, it was appropriate for the landlord not to deal with this aspect of the compliant. However, Paragraph 6.18 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2024) states that a landlord must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The landlord failed to do this, which resulted in the resident feeling like this aspect of her complaint had been ignored.
On 26 May 2024, the resident escalated her complaint as she was unsatisfied with the landlord’s response. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 4 June 2024, 7 workings days after the escalation request was made. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Again, the landlord acted swiftly and in line with its policy.
However, the stage 2 response covered two separate complaints that the resident had registered with the landlord, including allegations that are not considered in this report. This caused some confusion to the resident. The landlord also omitted the resident’s allegation regarding staff conduct. This was a further failing in line with paragraph 6.18 of the Code.
In its response, the landlord stated it would assess any compensation due after the outstanding actions had been completed. While this demonstrated the landlord wanted to put things right for the resident, the Code states a landlord’s internal complaint’s procedure should consist of only 2 stages. Stage 2 is the landlord’s final response. Any offer of redress the landlord wishes to make should be done within the 2-stage process, in line with the Code.
At the request of this Service, the landlord issued a further stage 2 response on 19 July 2024 to address the entire complaint, including the allegation that was previously missed from its earlier response. The landlord apologised for its failures in complaint handling and offered the resident £300 compensation, made up of:
1. £150 for delays in complaint handling.
2. £150 for errors in the handling of the complaint.
This final response was issued 39 working days after the landlord received the resident’s escalation request. This was outside of its complaint policy timescale of 20 days.
Although the landlord responded swiftly to the resident’s complaint in issuing its complaint responses, the amalgamation of other complaints led to some confusion and aspects of the complaint being missed. This could have been avoided by treating the registered complaints separately and issuing two separate responses.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £300 may remedy maladministration where there has been no permanent impact on the resident.
It is unusual for the Ombudsman to consider reasonable redress for offers of compensation made outside of the landlord’s internal complaint process. However, on this occasion, the landlord revised its stage 2 response on the instruction of this Service and identified it had failed to handle the resident’s complaint appropriately. The apologies made, the timely review of its previous response and the compensation offered lead to a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41.c. of the Scheme, the complaint relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the property’s structural integrity is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of inappropriate staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £100 for its failings in handling the resident’s reports of inappropriate staff conduct.