Home Group Limited (202420242)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420242

Home Group Limited

30 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) about her neighbour.
2. The resident’s request for a management move.
3. The resident’s concerns about fire safety.

Background

The resident occupied her flat under an assured tenancy on the second floor of a block of flats, together with her partner. The landlord had noted in February 2023 to have regular contact with the resident. In July 2024, it agreed to place a “mental health marker” on her records. It was aware the then ongoing situation was causing her anxiety. It had also recorded she had a spinal injury.
In January 2023, the resident’s neighbour (“N”) moved into a flat on the ground floor of the same block. A few days later, the resident made a number of reports about N’s behaviour. On a number of occasions, she reported him knocking on doors, harassing her, she suspected he was drug dealing, she reported noise, him locking the front door, a large number of visitors and also the police attending. She also made reports to the police.
According to correspondence and internal emails, she made a complaint on 5 May 2023 about how the landlord was handling ASB. She made two further complaints through her MP which were closed on 14 November 2023. Neither reached Stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process.
On 4 April 2024 the resident made a further complaint as follows:
1. The landlord gave N a tenancy even though he did not meet the criteria. N was a drug user, which he freely admitted. She had reported drug use and antisocial behaviour 4 days after N moved in.
2. On 21 January 2023 the resident made a police report due to ASB and drug use and requested an appointment to discuss this matter with the landlord. It did not respond.
3. The landlord installed CCTV on the ground floor of the block of flats on 7 February 2023. The landlord failed to change the SD card as required and accordingly, evidential material was lost.
4. The landlord agreed in June 2023 to install further CCTV but it had not been installed.
5. In March 2023 she raised a community trigger. In June 2023, an injunction was granted against N. He was arrested for a breach of this injunction “almost immediately”. The court rejected the landlord’s application to enforce the injunction citing inadequate paperwork.
6. At a court hearing for a possession order in December 2023, the judge dismissed the landlord’s application as it had issued the wrong notice for the type of tenancy the tenant had been issued with.
7. The landlord had not implemented steps it had told her in January 2024 it would take.
8. On 31 December 2023, N set fire to the block of flats, putting the lives of the residents in danger. The landlord had not attended the property to check that the fire system was working correctly since the fire. It had failed to maintain the building and protect the tenants as per the fire regulations.
9. She wanted the landlord to:
  1. Obtain a possession order against N.
  2. Undertake a fire safety inspection to ascertain the “functionality of the fire system” and carry out remedial works. N’s flat fire door was broken in order to access the fire and had not been replaced/repaired.
  3. Pay her compensation for the last 12 months of ASB and “hundreds of hours” she had spent chasing the landlord and her stress and upset. She had not felt safe in her home for the past 12 months.
  4. Confirm in writing what action it would take to address the ASB if a possession order was not granted.
10. She attached an impact statement describing the impact of N’s behaviour on the resident including her health and how her living environment has deteriorated, as well as N’s conduct and activities.
There followed an internal discussion whether to treat this complaint as an escalation to her previous complaints or as a fresh complaint. The landlord did the latter.
On 30 April 2024 the landlord replied with its Stage 1 response as follows:
1. It set out its process for checking whether a housing applicant met the criteria for nomination by the local authority. Previous ASB were grounds under which it could refuse a nomination. It was reliant on the nominating authority to provide the information to prompt further investigation.
2. It sympathised with the resident’s situation. It had offered a safeguarding referral to the local authority but she “acknowledged” that it would not assist her.
3. It had offered her a move and to review an application for a transfer. She did not require this unless the perpetrator returned to the property. It had offered her a hotel as respite when the ASB activity was “at its height”.
4. There were instances where “action could have been speedier” and “there were errors made on this case” that had delayed the process. This included the error made on the tenancy and the requirements to re-serve notices. It had granted N the incorrect tenancy so it was obliged to withdraw its claim for possession. It agreed this should not have happened. It apologised.
5. There had been “a lot of activity” on her case, and it was “not always possible” to respond as quickly as it should have, particularly during a staff changeover. It apologised.
6. Regarding a fire safety survey following a fire, it said there had been no fire. N had left a pan on the stove which had boiled dry. The heat detector had picked this up and the fire brigade attended. The fire brigade advised there was no damage to the apartment. It would inspect the property when it had arranged access to it.
7. The current CCTV did not provide any usable evidence for either the action by the police or in the possession application. It had arranged to install an alternative system on 2 May 2024. It was not passing the cost on to residents through service charges.
8. It had provided documentation to the magistrates court after N was arrested. The case was transferred to another court but the court failed to pass on the paperwork which was their responsibility.
9. It apologised for the failings throughout. It set out next steps.
10. It offered £250 consisting of £100 for the length of time the ASB case had been ongoing, £75 for the disruption and inconvenience caused and £75 for the service failures.
On 16 May 2024 the resident asked to escalate the complaint as follows:
1. She felt the complaint should be investigated by someone more senior than the members of staff she was complaining about, not the same level or less senior.
2. The response was due 23 April 2024 but she only received it on 7 May 2024.
3. She had said all residents in the block needed to be updated.
4. It had discriminated against the resident by not vetting N. The landlord had admitted it had not vetted him at a residents’ meeting on 29 April 2024.
5. N had said in front of the previous manager that he was a drug user.
6. There has been no response to her GP’s letters as to safeguarding.
7. The two nights hotel accommodation was not suitable for her partner due to his work.
8. She had requested an internal management move but this had been refused.
9. There was a fire even without flames. There was extensive smoke. The fire door was damaged and had not been assessed by a fire assessor.
10. The landlord installed a camera in March 2023. The landlord had not collected the data in a timely manner.
11. The resident requested £15,000 compensation.
On 5 July 2024 the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. The local authority did not provide all of N’s information in relation to his history. It needed to improve its communication and engagement with the local authority when assessing persons nominated for a property.
2. It acknowledged that the Stage 1 response did not adequately address “several critical aspects”.
3. It acknowledged that it did not take action in a timely manner or provide adequate support. It apologised for the service failures identified and for the impact this had had on her wellbeing. The actions taken did not align with its policy. There were opportunities for more prompt action, and errors in managing this case resulted in an unnecessarily prolonged process. There had been a high level of activity, it did not respond as swiftly as it should have done. This was particularly true of a period without a housing manager in post.
4. It did not agree that it had failed to monitor the CCTV. The CCTV system had not yielded usable evidence for either police action or the possession application.
5. A court date was set for 4 July 2024 for the possession case. The judge had ordered the case to be sent to a full trial. The closure order was still in place until midnight on 15 July 2024. From 16 July 2024 onwards, N had given an undertaking to the court he would not return to the property or to the block. If N returned to the property, it would inform the court. It would continue working with the police to support the case.
6. The resident had experienced considerable anxiety. It would continue to do all it could to support her. She may want a safeguarding referral and a move if N returned after 15 July 2024.
7. It would consider a Management Transfer.
8. Its operations manager was still continuing to contact Adult Social Care (ASC) for updates and to work with other agencies to address N’s housing situation.
9. It offered £1,600 compensation consisting of £300 for its failure to take timely action, £200 for its failure to issue correct paperwork, £200 for poor administration and record keeping, £200 for the CCTV, £200 for minimal support and poor response times, £100 for failure to resolve complaint within timescale, £100 for time and effort pursuing matters and £300 for distress.
10. If she wished to progress her claim for the impact on her wellbeing and submit a claim for personal injury, it referred her to its insurance team and set out what detail to provide.
In February 2025 the landlord increased its offer to £2,800 consisting as follows:
1. £500 for its failure to take timely action in relation to the allegations of ASB
2. £300 for its failure to issue correct paperwork resulting in delay to court proceedings.
3. £300 for “poor administration and record keeping”
4. £300 for the time taken to install new CCTV
5. £300 for its poor communication, minimal support and poor response times
6. £300 failure to resolve complaint within timescale
7. £300 time and effort pursuing matters
8. £500 for the distress caused.
On 31 January 2025, the resident made a further complaint. The landlord responded with a further Stage 2 reply. The letter was not dated. We deduce from the context of the letter that it was sent before N vacated the property. The response stated as follows:
1. The complaint was about the resident’s concerns relating to the handling of anti-social behaviour from July 2024 onwards including poor communication and the resident’s request for a management move. Where there was further evidence of breach it was being “actively used” as evidence. It was seeking repossession. It was working with the police, local authority and support networks. It was monitoring the CCTV. It was committed to communicating and was responding to emails. It would move to weekly updates. It was, however, limited about what it could share due to data protection.
2. Her request for a management move had been accepted. She was on the waiting list. It had not been aware that her ex-partner lived in the area where it had offered the resident a management move. The police were not aware either. It apologised. It would offer a property when one became available. It was difficult to say when that might be. It did not have any other properties in her area but it would inform her of any properties in the surrounding areas. It had informed the local authority in order to increase stock available to her.
3. It did not find service failure in these aspects and therefore did not offer further compensation.
The resident vacated the property in March/April 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

We note the resident made 2 complaints in 2023 about the same issue and a further complaint covering the period from July 2024 about the ASB. There was a discussion within the landlord in April 2024 whether to escalate her previous complaints or treat her April 2024 complaint as a fresh complaint. The complaints overlapped. The Stage 2 response of December 2024 covered the period of the ASB from the date N moved in. On 31 January 2025, the resident made a further complaint about the events from July 2024. She escalated it in February 2025. The landlord replied with an undated Stage 2 response.
We consider it fair to investigate the entire period from January 2023 to March 2025, covered by all of the resident’s complaints. This is because:
1. the further events from July 2024 were closely connected to her original complaint
2. the landlord reviewed its compensation for all the previous complaints in February 2025
3. we will consider whether the landlord has abided by its assurances in its Stage 2 response, resolved the issue or brought about improvements d) it would not be practical or fair to either party to consider the complaints separately.
The resident’s complaint of January 2025 addressed a number of issues including the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB and her request for a management move. As these issues were part of her 2024 complaint and are interlinked, we have investigated both these aspects. We have not investigated the remaining issues such as the repairs. We have investigated her complaint about fire safety which arose from the incident in December 2023, namely about the functionality of the system and the fire door. We have not investigated her complaint about whether the landlord carried out routine checks of the fire detector system in the block as this is a separate complaint with the landlord.
The resident reported how the events complained of affected her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions or lack of actions has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and /or mental health. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman does carefully consider what a resident tells us about how they have been affected by the issues in their complaint, including the overall impact on them. We may, where appropriate, set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by a landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

There was no dispute as to the resident’s reports of N’s behaviour. It was so serious as to warrant intervention by the police and the police to apply for a closure order. We understand how difficult it must have been for the resident living in close proximity to N and how the circumstances must have caused her frustration and anxiety.
We assume that N’s tenancy was subject to the same terms and conditions as the resident. According to the resident’s tenancy agreement, N was prohibited from doing anything likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to other tenants, was not to make threats, or commit any acts associated with the illegal use or supply of drugs at or from the premises.
The landlord was entitled to seek possession of the property under the Housing Act 1988 if a tenant had broken an obligation of their tenancy agreement, had been guilty of conduct causing, or was likely to cause, nuisance or annoyance to their neighbours, or had allowed the use of the premises for immoral or illegal purposes. Possession would be at the discretion of the court. A court must give possession on grounds where a property has been subject to a closure order.
Part of the resident‘s complaint was that the landlord should not have let the property to N at all. The resident told us that N informed the resident within the then housing manager’s hearing at sign up that he was a drug user and had a serious mental illness. We do not have the landlord’s notes of the meeting. We do not know whether this conversation occurred before or after N had signed the tenancy agreement. According to the resident, the landlord admitted to not doing full checks in a residents’ meeting.
As part of investigating the resident’s complaint, on 5 May 2023, the landlord made enquiries with the local authority as to what enquiries had been made when N applied for the tenancy. We cannot share all the details but we will summarise. According to its internal report, there was no evidence of concerns. N had mental health issues and was vulnerable. He had been granted a management transfer. He self-declared he had no history of ASB or unspent convictions. The local authority will have already carried out checks before accepting an application on the housing register. However, the landlord also makes its own enquiries. There was no evidence of the landlord making further enquiries in this case. The landlord at Stage 2 stated it would review its processes. We will make a recommendation in that regard.
Part of the resident’s complaint was that she was discriminated against, given the landlord had carried out checks on her and not N. The landlord did not address this aspect. It was unreasonable not to do so. The resident was understandably upset if the landlord did not carry out proper checks. However, we did not see any indication that the difference in approach was unfair treatment arising from a disability of the resident or amounted to discrimination. The landlord should have addressed this point and explained its position on the resident’s concerns.
The landlord took a number of actions soon after N had moved in. This showed it had in mind N’s obligations and exercised its own duties and powers in law. Those actions included:
1. It liaised with the police from 6 February 2023, if not sooner. The evidence showed a number of communications between the landlord and the police including in May, June, September and November 2023.
2. It issued warnings to N in February and May 2023. It allocated its senior operations manager to the case.
3. It prepared a number of action plans. It arranged residents’ meetings. It attended community trigger meetings.
4. It carried out a risk assessment of the resident.
5. It liaised with ASC including in May, July 2023, January, April and June 2024. It made numerous efforts through ASC to have alternative housing secured for N which would have been a quicker way to resolve the problem.
6. It installed CCTV in or around 20 March 2023 and in May 2024. In October 2024, it extended the CCTV.
7. It pursued legal proceedings. It instructed solicitors in mid-March 2023. It served an injunction with a power of arrest on 16 June 2023. While unsuccessful, it applied for committal proceedings. It served a notice seeking possession on 16 June 2023 and, while also unsuccessful, it issued possession proceedings. When they failed in December 2023, it served a fresh notice seeking possession in January 2024 and issued fresh possession proceedings in February 2024. It was entitled to rely on legal advice from its solicitors as to its strategy.
8. It is not clear why the possession order of 11 October 2024 noted that the landlord withdrew the mandatory ground for possession. The landlord told the resident and us that it could not share the court order with the resident due to confidentiality. This may have been a misunderstanding of the status of the hearing. However, the court made a possession order, albeit suspended, without the need to go to trial, which would have taken considerably longer.
9. However, in January 2025, it issued final warnings to N it would seek repossession. In March 2025, it applied for a warrant of eviction following the resident’s reports. It obtained permission to exercise the warrant in April 2025 at which time N vacated the property in any event.
The landlord acknowledged that it made a number of errors during the case including as follows:
1. It had granted N the “wrong type” of tenancy. It had, on paper, granted him an assured shorthold tenancy instead of an assured tenancy. This meant that it mistakenly considered it was entitled to rely on section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (“no fault eviction”) which would have potentially made it less complicated to seek repossession. This error led to the landlord’s possession case failing in December 2023. This in turn meant that the landlord was obliged to re-serve a fresh Notice Seeking Possession and start proceedings again in February 2024. This wasted many months.
2. While it installed CCTV, there were a number of issues with it including delays to installation and issues with the card in May 2024. The landlord was obliged to ensure that the CCTV was compatible with its data protection duties. Given the uncertainties of litigation, it is not possible to speculate if this would have affected the outcome of the committal and possession proceedings. While it was not clear whether this impacted on the injunction and committal proceedings, the landlord accepted it was at fault.
3. It did not always update the resident in a timely manner.
While the landlord’s errors delayed proceedings, it was faced with a number of difficulties where there was no evidence this was the fault of the landlord. They included as follows:
1. It issued an application for N’s committal for breach of the injunction. The application did not reach the bar required for a committal, which is beyond reasonable doubt.
2. There were difficulties with some of the witnesses.
3. Court hearings are listed in accordance with the court diary and are outside the parties’ control.
4. At the April 2024 hearing in the second set of proceedings, N raised that he lacked mental capacity to conduct proceedings. He also raised a defence that he was under a disability under the Equality Act 2010. The court adjourned the case in order to for N, or his solicitors, to obtain medical information.
There were some delays to the landlord’s complaint responses. It did not address the resident’s question about which member of staff should respond to a complaint. The landlord’s policy is not clear on this point. However, we consider that having a specified complaint handler was reasonable. Our code requires that a person or team is assigned to take responsibility for complaint handling. The evidence showed that the officer made internal enquiries. In any event, the complaint was reviewed by the landlord’s Chief Executive. In the main, the landlord acknowledged its errors and delays in its complaint handling and offered compensation.
In or around February 2025, the landlord reviewed its compensation and increased it to £2,800 for its handling of the ASB and its complaint handling.
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 considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
We recognise the extreme distress and worry caused by N’s behaviour. The resident described to the landlord the impact on her and how much time was taken up with these events. We consider that while there were errors, the landlord’s actions demonstrate that it took the impact on the resident into account. We have noted that N was away from the property from 17 January 2024 to 16 January 2025 and vacated the property for good in March/April 2025. We recognise that the resident expressed concern and distress even while N was away from the property, given the prospect of his return. There was further distress when N returned. While the process of eviction was lengthy, the delays were not entirely due to the landlord. The process was delayed in 2023 but gained momentum in early 2024 onwards. The delays in 2024 were due to the delays in litigation. The evidence showed the landlord was proactive in working at N not returning to the property outside the litigation.
In all of the circumstances, even given the considerable impact on the resident of the ASB, we consider that the landlord’s actions and the sum of £2,800 represented reasonable redress for the complaint and the associated complaint handling. This because the landlord acknowledged its failings, it took steps to address the ASB, and it offered significant compensation.

The management move

The evidence showed that the landlord declined giving the resident a management move in November 2023 as she did not meet the criteria. We have not seen the policy or further explanation. However, it offered the resident temporary respite in a hotel in November 2023. It offered a temporary move, should N return to the property in July 2024. It offered to review her application for a management move in April 2024.
The landlord reviewed its decision in October 2024. On 24 October 2024, the resident viewed a property. The landlord made further enquiries and had its own concerns. It is assumed it withdrew the offer accordingly which was reasonable. This showed it had the resident’s needs in mind.
It offered her a further property in January 2025. The landlord’s explanation was reasonable that it had not been aware that her ex-partner lived in the area. Its response to offer her a further move was reasonable. It extended the areas so as to provide further options. We do not attribute fault to the landlord because it had been unable to offer another property because of its lack of stock. We do not find service failure in the landlord’s handling of a management move.

Fire safety

On 1 January 2024 the police reported to the landlord that N had left food on the hob. The fire service attended and forced N’s front door. There was no fire damage only smoke from burning pasta. The landlord considered an inspection at the police’s suggestion. Given the report, the surveyor did not consider it to be necessary. On 4 January 2024 the resident expressed a number of concerns stating the lock “was not correct” and the door frame was bent. She accepted that the alarms and detectors were functioning.
We are concerned the landlord did not inspect the front door, given it would have been damaged by the fire brigade gaining entry. The landlord did not address this concern in its Stage 2 report. That was unreasonable, given the importance of fire safety.
However, a fire safety assessment was carried out on 6 August 2024. According to visit logs, the fire detector/alarm system was checked in January, May and June, November and December 2024. According to the landlord’s Stage 2 response, the incident was picked up by a heat detector. This indicated that the system worked and the incident did not escalate. While fire safety is of paramount importance, the landlord was entitled not to undertake a separate assessment of its systems other than those carried out routinely. Precautions are about avoiding the risk of fire and, in this case, limiting spread.
According to the landlord’s note for this report, the landlord inspected the property on 4 or 24 September 2024. The maintenance surveyor checked the “front door and all secure, no fire damage or damage to the door. No fire damage to the walls following the pan that boiled dry, walls clear and clean”. While we prefer to see contemporaneous records, we have seen some photographs of the property which, while not of the front door, showed clean walls. We do not, therefore, see any reason to doubt this report by its surveyor.
While we are concerned that the surveyor did not inspect the front door sooner, the evidence showed that the landlord carried out checks its fire systems and the property was in good order. In all of the circumstances, we do not find service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a specific fire assessment.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) about her neighbour.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendation:
1. The landlord should have an internal procedure, if it does not already have one, to improve its communication and engagement with the local authority when assessing person’s nomination for a property, investigate what the local authority does and, in the light of that, review its processes.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding this recommendation within 4 weeks of this report.