Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Home Group Limited (202005646)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005646

Home Group Limited

21 January 2021


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 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 refers to:
    1. The Landlord’s handling of repairs to the Resident’s bathroom. 
    2. The Landlord’s complaint handling of this matter.

Summary of events

  1. Prior to the Resident moving into the property, a number of repair jobs were raised in order to repair the flooring in the bathroom due to water damage and in relation to a leak entering the below property from the Resident’s flat.
  2. On 23 December 2019 the Resident reported a potential leak from her bath; she stated that the bath panel showed rising damp and the floor in the bathroom was lifting. The repair work was reported as completed on 2 January 2020. 
  3. On 29 December 2019 the Resident reported a leak from her bathroom going into the flat below. This repair job was reported as completed on 31 December 2019.
  4. On 3 January 2020 a repair job was raised to investigate the leak and to make good the water feed in the bathroom. The target completion date for this work was 17 January 2020; the repair was reported as complete on 26 February 2020.
  5. A number of bathroom works following the leak were raised on 14 February 2020. This included removing the bath, renewing the flooring and replacing the taps. The target completion date was 29 February 2020.
  6. The Resident raised a complaint with the Landlord over the phone on 26 February 2020 in relation to the issues with repairs in her property following the leak. She stated she was advised that the work would only take a couple of days, but she had been staying with her mum as she did not feel she could stay at the property. She also stated that she reported the repair issues in December 2019, but the Landlord had not inspected the issue until 3 January 2020.
  7. A surveyor attended the property on 11 March 2020 to inspect the bathroom. The Landlord’s records show that the surveyor was unsure about removing the bath as it would leave the Resident without bathing facilities. The Resident advised that she was living elsewhere during the works due to the bathroom and lack of heating in the property.
  8. On 12 March 2020 the Resident called the Landlord to chase the repair work and a compensation claim which had been raised. She expressed dissatisfaction that the works had not been completed despite the target date of 28 February 2020.
  9. The Landlord delivered its proposed stage one outcome over the phone on 14 July 2020. The Landlord’s notes confirm that the Resident was happy that the bathroom works had been completed. The Landlord offered £250 compensation, broken down into £100 for the delays in repairing the bathroom issues, £75 in recognition of the disruption caused, and £75 in recognition of the time and effort the Resident had spent pursuing the matter.  The Landlord’s notes suggest that the Resident was not willing to accept the £250 offered and requested that the Landlord escalate her complaint to stage two of its internal complaints process.
  10. The repair works to the bathroom were reported as complete on 24 July 2020.
  11. The Landlord acknowledged the Resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 28 July 2020 and confirmed it would carry out a management review at stage two of its complaint process.
  12. The Resident responded the same day and confirmed her reasons for the complaint. She stated that when she was offered the property in November 2019, she was told that some work was being carried out on the kitchen and bathroom but when she moved in, only the kitchen had been done. She reported that the flooring in the bathroom had started to lift and that the bath panel was damp. She expressed dissatisfaction that the Landlord had only attended the property when her downstairs neighbour had complained about a leak into their property. She stated that the damp was not good for her daughter’s health and she could not stay in the property as the bathroom was not useable. She stated that the surveyor attended in February 2020 and told her that the work would take around a week and that a dehumidifier would need to be placed. The bath was not removed until the end of March 2020. Following the lockdown, her bathroom works were completed on 25 June 2020 and took two days to complete. She remained dissatisfied with the length of time it had taken to fix her bathroom.
  13. The Landlord emailed the Resident on 7 August 2020 to advise her that the complaint investigation was still in progress and it was awaiting some further information.
  14. The Resident emailed the Landlord on 13 August 2020 and asked for an update in relation to her complaint. The Landlord responded the following day and stated that it was still reviewing the information and it would provide a response by 25 August 2020.
  15. The Landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 25 August 2020 and stated the following:
    1. It confirmed that the repair works to the Resident’s property were completed in June 2020, although the Resident believed that the repairs should have taken place prior to the start of her tenancy.
    2. It acknowledged that the leak had been reported on 4 December 2019, prior to the start of the Resident’s tenancy. Its contractors were on site completing void works, and sourced and repaired this leak. They confirmed that there were no further visible leaks at the time.
    3. It had received the Resident’s report of a leak on 23 December 2019, shortly after the start of her tenancy. She stated that there was a possible leak as the floor in the bathroom was lifting. Contractors had attended the property on 2 January 2020 and found a leak from the electric shower. They established that the mains supply was dripping and causing damage to the walls and flooring in the bathroom. The leak was rectified on this visit and follow-up works were needed.
    4. It stated that the follow-up works were not raised until February 2020 and were not passed to the contractors until 2 March 2020. It acknowledged that this delay was caused by a communication delay and apologised for any inconvenience. It stated that it had not been informed that the bath had been removed on 23 March 2020 and it was not aware that the Resident was staying elsewhere. Once it became aware that the Resident was without bathing facilities, it arranged for the resident to have access to a nearby vacant property to use bathing facilities.
    5. It stated that the works had been scheduled to continue on 31 March 2020 but due to Government restrictions related to Covid-19, this work was postponed. Following the easing of the government restrictions, the work was completed on 24 June 2020.
    6. It did not agree that the leak was known to it prior to the Resident moving into the property and it had found that this was a second, unrelated leak. It recognised that there were avoidable delays in January and February 2020 caused by communication issues. In recognition of the service failure it had highlighted, the Landlord offered an additional £150 compensation. It noted that its total offer of £400 compensation was broken down as £100 for the delay in rectifying the issue, £75 for the loss of washing facilities, £75 for the delay in arranging alternative washing facilities and £75 in recognition of the time and effort the Resident had spent chasing this matter.

Assessment and findings

The Landlord’s handling of repairs

  1. In accordance with the Tenancy Agreement, the Landlord is obligated to repair and maintain the water installations in the property. It was therefore necessary for the Landlord to investigate the Resident’s reports of a leak and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified. The Landlord’s website states that it would aim to attend emergency repairs within six hours and make sure any damage is made safe on the visit. It also states that it would aim to resolve all standard repairs within 14 days. It should also keep the resident updated on the status of any repairs and maintenance work.
  2. The Landlord has acknowledged that the repair works to the Resident’s bathroom had been delayed and that this could have been avoided. The Resident initially reported a potential leak on 23 December 2019 and confirmed that water was leaking into her downstairs neighbour’s flat on 29 December 2019. These initial reports of the leaks were attended to within a reasonable timeframe, although the Landlord needed to raise further work orders to repair the subsequent damage to the bathroom. These works were raised on 14 February 2020, which the Landlord has acknowledged should have been sooner. The works were reported as completed on 24 July 2020 which is 99 working days outside of the Landlord’s 14-day timescale for standard repairs. The Landlord has apologised for the delay, provided an explanation and offered financial compensation to recognise its service failures.
  3. Part of this delay between 23 March 2020 and July 2020 was due to the Government restrictions in place in response to Covid-19. These further delays were outside of the Landlord’s control and the Landlord has stated that the works were completed as soon as the restrictions had lifted. This is reasonable as the Landlord would not be expected to ignore such restrictions to carry out non-emergency works. 
  4. The Resident had requested that the Landlord reimburse her for any rent paid during this period. The Landlord would not be obliged to reimburse the Resident’s rent during this time as it had granted the Resident access to a separate flat for bathing facilities as well as checking with the Resident before removing the bath. The Landlord has acknowledged and apologised that there had been a delay in providing access to separate bathing facilities and explained that this was due to a failure in communication. The Landlord has offered £150 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the loss of bathing facilities and the delay in providing suitable alternative bathing facilities.
  5. The length of time it had taken the Landlord to resolve the issue was unreasonable and does warrant financial compensation, as does the inconvenience caused by the loss of bathing facilities. In view of this, the Landlord has offered a total of £400 compensation. The Landlord has not provided this Service with its Compensation Policy Matrix, therefore we cannot determine whether this amount is in line with its policies,  although it has stated that the individual payments were the maximum level it could offer for the inconvenience caused, which is reasonable.
  6. The Landlord’s offer of £400 is appropriate in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance which states that an amount within this range is suitable where there has been considerable service failure. This may include a resident repeatedly having to chase responses, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that resident or a landlord’s failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.
  7. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident has found the situation distressing and upsetting, the Landlord has offered reasonable redress for the inconvenience caused by avoidable delays in completing repairs and the disruption caused by having to use alternative bathing facilities. The Landlord recognised its service failure in respect to the time taken to complete repairs and responsibly took steps to ensure the work was completed following the lockdown response to Covid-19. There was an initial delay which the Landlord has attributed to poor communication, which constituted a failure in service, but the Landlord subsequently took the opportunity of the formal complaints process to fully investigate the reports, formally confirm its position, and adequately redress those failings by offering appropriate compensation.

The Landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The Landlord’s Complaint Policy states that it has a two-stage process. At stage one the Landlord should aim to resolve the complaint within five working days. If its investigation is likely to exceed this timescale, the Landlord would write to the resident to explain the reasons for any delay and let the resident know when they should receive a full response. If the resident remains dissatisfied after the stage one response, they can escalate their complaint to stage two, where the Landlord should provide a resolution within 20 working days unless there is any reason for needing additional time.
  2. The Resident initially raised her complaint over the phone on 28 February 2020. The Landlord issued its stage one complaint response over the phone on 12 July 2020. The evidence shows that the Resident chased the Landlord for a response on 12 March 2020. The stage one response was provided 88 working days outside of the timescale laid out in the Landlord’s Complaints Policy. It is noted that the repair works were still in progress during this time period, although there is no evidence to suggest that the Landlord explained this delayed response to the Resident or told the Resident when she would receive this response at an earlier date.
  3. Furthermore, the Landlord delivered its stage one response over the phone to the Resident. It is recommended that the Landlord provide written responses at each stage of its internal complaints process for audit purposes and for clarity.  Since there is no formal record of what was discussed on the call, we cannot establish whether this delay had been addressed in its stage one response. The Landlord provided its stage two response within a reasonable timeframe and in line with its Complaints Policy.
  4. The Landlord has not specifically addressed the delay in providing a stage one response to the Resident, although it has acknowledged its service failure in relation to the time and effort the Resident had taken to chase the Landlord for a response. It has also offered reasonable redress for the overall delay in its handling of the matter and its offer of £400 total compensation is reasonable, taking into account the delay in providing a stage one response. The landlord should consider carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that complaints are responded to within a reasonable timeframe.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Landlord offered reasonable redress for the service failures identified in respect of its handling of the repairs to the Resident’s bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The Landlord has acknowledged its service failings and has taken steps to investigate the cause of the delay to repair works to the Resident’s bathroom. The Landlord has offered £400 compensation which is proportionate to the level of inconvenience caused in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
  2. The Landlord has not specifically addressed its delay in providing a stage one response to the Resident; however, it has acknowledged the time and effort the Resident had spent chasing the repair work to her bathroom. The Landlord’s total offer of £400 is a proportionate amount to recognise the delay in its complaint handling as well as the inconvenience caused by the delay in carrying out repair works, and the disturbance caused by the loss of amenity. The Landlord should take steps to ensure that it is providing clear timescales for its complaint responses to its residents to avoid any inconvenience in the future.

Recommendations

  1. The Landlord should pay the Resident its previous compensation offer of £400 in recognition of its handling of the repair works to the Resident’s bathroom and its complaint handling.
  2. The Landlord should consider providing a formal written response to its residents at each stage of its internal complaints procedure for audit purposes and clarity.
  3. The Landlord should consider carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that residents are informed of complaint timeframes and updated as to when they are likely to receive a response.