Home Group Limited (202421971)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421971

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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould within the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord; she was added to the tenancy in September 2024. The resident previously resided at the property with her now ex-partner who was the sole tenant at the time. His tenancy began on 1 March 2023. The property is a 2-bedroom semi-detached house. The resident currently lives in the property with her 2-year-old daughter. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, but advised the Ombudsman, she reported her child to have a ‘cough due to mould’ on 21 February 2025 and being ‘ill due to environmental ‘issues related to damp and mould on 3 January 2024.
On 9 May 2023, the resident reported that her blinds were “falling down” due to the plaster crumbling around her window. A further repairs record on 15 May 2023 says the resident complained about damp in the property, “all the walls” were crumbling, and the house was cold no matter how much the heating was on. The landlord inspected the property on 19 May 2023, the inspection report noted that windows had trickle vents, working extractor fans were present in the kitchen and bathroom, and no signs of damp or mould were detected. Following this inspection the landlord raised a works order to overhaul the kitchen extractor as it would not boost and carry out minor repairs to some windows. This works order was completed on 11 July 2023. The landlord raised a further works order on 10 October 2023 as the resident had reported again to not be able to fit blinds, its note stated, “it’s a complaint”. A further works order raised on 13 November 2023, listed numerous repairs “following a survey inspection”. The resident reported water coming through the chimney breast in the master bedroom on 15 November 2023. The landlord attended on 13 December 2023 and re- sealed the windows. It then completed the lead flashing to the chimney and carried out further minor window repairs on 22 January 2024.
The landlord recorded a complaint from the resident on 8 December 2023. The resident said she wanted the repairs to be carried out, the landlord to callback when it said it would and timescales to be stuck to. Her complaint points included:
1. She had reported her blind falling down in May 2023, she had several contractors attend, however despite several promises, works were never carried out as agreed.
2. She said a particular contractor to be “arrogant”, who previously advised that the mould on the ceiling was due to condensation, when it was a roof leak.
3. She said a plasterer had attended, carried out a mould wash to the window, but had no instruction to do any further work.
4. She was still waiting to hear about outstanding repairs which included:
  1. A thermostat sticking out.
  2. Her carpet to be put right following planned works to radiators.
The landlord issued 2 stage 1 responses, the first on 3 January 2024. This included:
1. It said the roof repairs would be completed on 22 January 2024 and that a repair for the window reveal was also booked in for this day.
2. It said it would not close the complaint until these actions were resolved but gave the details to escalate the complaint to stage 2 if the resident remained dissatisfied.
The landlord provided its second stage 1 response on 29 January 2024, which included:
1. It confirmed the repairs on 22 January 2024 were attended to.
2. It confirmed the planned works for the radiators had been completed.
3. It had found some errors in the logging of jobs and number of appointments required to be a service failure, it apologised, and offered £185 compensation, which included:
  1. £55 for delays in the complaint process as its decision letter was sent out late.
  2. £55 for errors found in the logging of jobs.
  3. £75 the number of appointments required.
On 12 June 2024, the resident called the landlord and requested her complaint be escalated. She advised she had escalated her complaint on 22 March 2024 but had not heard anything further. She detailed being unable to contact her point of contact.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 July 2024, following a phone call with the resident on 19 June 2024. This included:
1. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding the winter months as she had advised her daughters health may worsen in cold conditions and damp/mould.
2. The resident had reported damp and mould on the wall behind her washing machine as well as the main bedroom window having an issue with the seal.
3. It confirmed it would visit to assess the damp and mould situation and raise any necessary repair works.
4. It agreed to refit the resident’s carpet as a gesture of goodwill and would arrange this once it had assessed the damp and mould issues.
5. It apologised for the amount of time taken to resolve the complaint and the lack of communication. It said it would give weekly updates going forward.
6. It offered £500 compensation, which included:
  1. £200 for the disruption experienced,
  2. £150 for the service delays since January 2024, time and effort chasing updates, and
  3. £150 for the service failures due to lack of communications and delays logging your Stage 2 escalation request.

Events after the landlord’s complaint process

It is not evident any works were scheduled for August 2024. Evidence has been seen that shows the local environmental health team became involved in August 2024. The resident also chased the landlord on numerous occasions for updates.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 5 September 2024. She said it had been ongoing since July last year and she wanted the landlord to treat the mould and do the repairs it had promised.
On 22 September 2024, the landlord attended and sealed the window frames and carried out a mould wash behind the washing machine.
On 31 October 2024, the landlord attended and replaced 2 double glazed panes in the small bedroom.
In November 2024, the landlord arranged for a PV system to be fitted in the main bedroom, it attended on 18 November 2024 but noted the resident refused this unit to be fitted.
In a call with the Ombudsman on 20 February 2025, the resident said the mould was coming back and said there is lots of condensation around the bedroom windows. The resident advised she declined the fan in the bedroom which had been offered as the bedroom would be too cold.
An independent assessment by a window specialist was arranged for 22 April 2025 of the main bedroom to alleviate ongoing concerns and check thermal readings around the area. This assessment found the window to be in “good order”. The landlord had also provided the resident with a data logger to monitor the conditions relating to condensation in the bedroom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

Paragraph 35(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “a complaint is duly made when it has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the members internal process for considering complaints”. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 July 2024. This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity that took place after its final stage 2 complaint response. The complaint issues raised by the resident continued beyond the timeframe of its internal complaints process. For completeness, and fairness, the Ombudsman has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s final complaint response because the evidence shows that repairs were completed outside the complaints process.
The resident, in communications to the Ombudsman referred to an issue with safety and her windows. It was noted she raised these concerns to the landlord. A landlord must have the opportunity to resolve a complaint through all stages of its complaint procedure before the Ombudsman can assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s response. This is in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme paragraph 42 (a) which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman opinion, are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.
Evidence has been seen that shows the resident considers that the conditions in her property she has experienced has impacted her household’s wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the condition of the property and the households wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her or her daughters health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

Damp and mould

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes the roof, walls, windows, and external doors. The landlord is required to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify its target timescales to complete repairs. As a general rule, the industry standard for responding to routine repairs is around 28 days. This is not a definitive timescale but can be used as a guide to assess the landlord’s response in this case.
The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The Housing Ombudsman Service published a spotlight report on damp and mould report in October 2021, prior to this complaint. This stated that landlords should have a ‘zero tolerance approach’ to damp and mould and be proactive in identifying potential issues. It says that landlords should look beyond the immediate symptoms, such as wet walls, and look to find the cause.
According to the evidence provided, the resident reported on 9 May 2023, that her blinds were falling down due to the plaster crumbling within a window reveal. A subsequent record on 15 May 2023 noted further plaster issues and the resident’s concern about keeping the house warm. The repair records indicate that the resident had a newborn baby at the property. The landlord’s initial action in this case was appropriate, it promptly arranged for a property inspection on 19 May 2023. Upon its inspection, the landlord noted no signs of damp or mould within the property. No further notes from this inspection have been seen, yet the landlord raised repairs on 26 May 2023, “following a survey inspection”. This is indicative of a record keeping failure.
It was following this initial inspection where the landlord’s actions and records were not so appropriate. Its initial works order, raised on 26 May 2023 to overhaul the kitchen extractor as it would not boost and carry out minor repairs to some windows, recorded a no access for the repair to the extractor fan on 16 June 2023 but all window repairs were completed on 11 July 2023. The landlord attended within a reasonable amount of time. It is not evident however, that the landlord raised a follow-on order to revisit the extractor fan, which is not reasonable. This was raised as part of a separate works order on 13 November 2023 as detailed below.
The landlord raised a further works order on 10 October 2023 as the resident had reported again to not be able to fit blinds, its note stated, “it’s a complaint”. This job was completed on 27 October 2023, but no notes indicate any direct further action. A further works order raised on 13 November 2023, which stated, “please see list below from a complaint” and listed further repairs “following a survey inspection”. No records of this inspection have been provided. It completed some window repairs on 27 November 2023 and the remaining repairs, including the kitchen fan, on 22 January 2024. This amount of time is not seen as unreasonable. However, again it is evident there are record keeping failures.
Clear record keeping is core to a repair service and assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate, complete, and accessible records ensure that the landlord can understand what repairs are required, monitor outstanding repairs, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. A system should be in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
In addition, the resident reported a roof leak which was included in her complaint. The resident reported water coming through the chimney breast in the master bedroom on 15 November 2023. The landlord recorded a no access to repair the roof on 14 December 2023, due to the resident’s items blocking access for a ladder, and followed up to complete the work on 22 January 2024. The timescale to complete this repair was reasonable, the delay was due to no fault of the landlord. The landlord failed to acknowledge within its complaint response however, the resident’s concerns raised about its contractor’s response to this issue initially, which is not appropriate.
The landlord noted on 19 June 2024 that the resident still had concerns about the mould in the property and she struggled to keep it warm. The landlord provided evidence of internal communication around this issue but did not arrange to visit the property until 19 August 2024. Within this period, it issued its stage 2 response on 12 July 2024 so it would have been appropriate to arrange the visit before issuing its response. This delay in addressing the resident’s concerns was not reasonable, in addition evidence was provided that within this time the resident contacted the local environmental health team also. It is not clear when the landlord inspected the property, but it raised further works to the windows and mould behind the washing machine on 30 August 2024. Its records say this work was completed on 24 September 2024. This was 52 working days after its final complaint response and 69 working days after its phone call to the resident on 19 June 2023. This amount of time is not reasonable and resulted in further time and trouble experienced by the resident in pursuing a resolution.
It is evident that the resident continued to report issues with damp following this, the main issue being with the main bedroom window developing condensation each morning. The landlord arranged to fit a PV system in November 2024, the resident has advised the Ombudsman on 20 February 2025 that she refused this as the bedroom would be too cold. Although the Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns, it is reasonable for the landlord to offer alternative remedies, decided upon professional opinions, to resolve the issues experienced with the window.
In summary, the landlord carried out works in an attempt to resolve the issues the resident reported, this was in line with its repair obligations and most repairs, once logged were completed in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord advised within its complaint responses that it had found errors in how some repairs were logged, it is not clear what these errors were, but it is evident avoidable delays occurred. The landlord’s failure in this case, was due to poor record keeping, the overall time taken to carry out all the repairs and lack of communication to the resident about the progress of the repairs. Given the failures identified in this report, and the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, experienced by the resident as a result, a finding of maladministration has been made.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account 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. This service will also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience, and the resident’s circumstances will be taken into account.
The landlord appropriately apologised for its identified failings, it offered £130 at stage 1 and £350 at stage 2, a total of £480 compensation to reflect the disruption experienced, the failures in its logging jobs and the time and trouble spent by the resident chasing the landlord for updates. The landlord has been ordered to pay a further £120 compensation to the resident. This figure is in line with our Remedies guidance, in cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord acknowledged some failings, made some attempt to put things right but the amount of redress offered was not proportionate to the identified failings in this report.

Complaint

The landlord operated a 2-stage complaint process. It said that it would aim to provide a full response to complaints with 10 and 20 working days, at stages 1 and 2 respectively. If any additional time was required, its complaints policy says it will advise the resident.
As noted above, there is evidence of record keeping failings in this case. The landlord raised a repair on 10 October 2023, and its note stated, “it’s a complaint”. A further works order raised on 13 November 2023, stated “please see list below from a complaint”. The landlord has provided no evidence of a complaint being made prior to December 2023, nor did it acknowledge this within its complaint process. The resident advised the Ombudsman in September 2024, that she made a complaint in 2023, but the landlord did not receive it. It is clear there is a failing here, but it is not possible, without evidence, for a reasonable conclusion other than a record keeping failure to be made. The landlord has been ordered to consider this within a case review to identify any potential learning outcomes.
Once a complaint was raised on 8 December 2023, the landlord provided its first stage 1 response within 15 working days, just after the new year. This is not seen as a significant delay taking into consideration the potential office closures over the Christmas period. It then provided a further stage 1 response, 18 working days later. The landlord provided escalation details in its initial stage 1 response, if this was an update, then the landlord should have advised of this within its response. The landlord has been ordered to consider this within a case review to identify any potential learning to improve its communication within its complaint process.
In addition, the landlord’s initial complaint investigation, lacked a full response into the resident’s concerns. The resident complained about the service she had received, referring to poor communication and works not being carried out as agreed. The landlord failed to demonstrate at this early stage that it adequately investigated these points and therefore provided no response. It therefore missed an opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint at the earliest stage. It is noted that the landlord acknowledged its poor communication in its stage 2 response.
There was also a failure by the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 and to provide a response within a reasonable timeframe. Although no evidence of the resident escalating her complaint on 22 March 2024 has been provided, the landlord did not dispute this and offered redress in its stage 2 response for its delay. The Ombudsman also notes that the stage 2 response letter was largely a summary of the conversation with the resident and did not substantively engage with the issues raised or clearly set out the landlord’s position on whether it found that there had or had not been failings.
Taking into account that there were multiple failings, the Ombudsman finds that there has been maladministration by the landlord with respect to its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord offered £55 for its delay in providing a stage 1 response and £150 in its stage 2 response for the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint and its communication. While the landlord’s offer made at this point was proportional to the impact caused, it did not demonstrate that it would learn from the failings identified. The landlord has therefore been ordered to carry out a case review and advise the Ombudsman of how it will ensure similar failings do not occur in the future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident, in total, £805 compensation, to include:
  1. £600 for its failures identified in its response to the residents reports of damp and mould.
  2. £205 for its failures identified in its complaint handling.
This compensation replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £685 for this complaint. The landlord must pay this compensation directly to the resident and not apply it to his/her rent account or similar, unless the resident requests this. If the landlord has paid its previously offered compensation of £685, or any part of it, it may deduct this from the amount ordered above.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention and a timescale to review its operational complaint management to ensure:
  1. All aspects of a complaint are captured and responded to,
  2. It fulfils any commitment made in its complaint responses,
  3. Escalation requests are acknowledged and actioned.
2. A review of the record keeping errors mentioned in this report.
3. A review of its communication processes with residents regarding ongoing repairs.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord engage with the resident regarding the available options to resolving the issue of condensation on her window.