Home Group Limited (201904586)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201904586

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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to her hand basin, kitchen ceiling and immersion heater.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. The resident has explained that her kitchen flooring was damaged as a result of a leak recent.  Under paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  3. As the matter of the reported leak and the associated damage to the resident’s kitchen flooring was not considered as part of the formal complaint the landlord investigated and responded to in August 2019, this Service will not be able to consider this matter as part of this investigation. The resident can raise this matter as a separate complaint to the landlord if she has not already done so and she may be able to bring this separate complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Background and summary of events

  1. The landlord raised a repair on 21 March 2019 to paint the resident’s whole kitchen ceiling. The specific reasons for the action are not recorded.
  2. On 12 April 2019 the landlord raised repairs for a blocked basin and for the resident’s immersion heater, which would “trip out” and the resident needed to reset this.
  3. The repair to unblock the resident’s basin was marked as complete on 29 April 2019 and follow–on repairs were raised to jet the drains. The landlord’s records say that an appointment was booked for this for 10 May 2019.
  4. An appointment was also raised for the resident’s bath not draining on 29 April 2019. This was marked as completed the next day. According to the resident’s later complaint, she arranged for the bath drain to be cleared privately due to the urgency of needing to bathe her children.
  5. On 9 May 2019 the landlord raised another work order for repairs to the immersion heater because the previous work order for that day was marked as a ‘no show’. An appointment was booked for 20 May 2019.
  6. On 10 May 2019 the landlord put a note on its system, which said that somebody would attend that night and the resident was not happy with this as her appointment was between 9.30am and 2.30pm and it was past 6.00pm. This was in relation to the work order for the drain. Following out of hours contact between the resident, the landlord and the landlord’s contractor, it was established that the job could not be attended to and would be re-raised. The job to jet the drains, to resolve the issue with the bathroom sink was re-raised on 11 May 2019.
  7. On 14 May 2019 the resident asked to complain about the delays and missed appointment for the blocked basin repair. The landlord subsequently raised a repair for the landlord to jet the drains that afternoon. According to the landlord’s contractor, this was completed.
  8. On 20 May 2019 the landlord visited the property to attend to the immersion heater but left a card as they were unable to gain access to the property.
  9. The landlord spoke with the resident on 24 May 2019. She said its contractors had missed multiple appointments for the blocked basin; her immersion heater was still not working and had to be reset constantly; and cracks in her ceiling had not been attended to.
  10. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 May 2019, following the telephone call, to acknowledge her stage one complaint.
  11. In the landlord’s internal email of 24 May 2019, it said that a work order was logged to paint the resident’s ceiling earlier that year, however the job had been cancelled. It asked that this was re-raised.
  12. On 30 May 2019 the landlord updated the resident that an appointment had been arranged for its contractor to attend to the immersion tank on 6 June 2019. It advised that it was liaising with its contractor regarding the further repairs required at the property and would contact the resident once it had more information.
  13. The resident replied and expressed her dissatisfaction with how the repairs in her property had been handled. She acknowledged that an appointment had been made for the boiler but said that many appointments had been made and broken. The resident did not refer to specific dates of missed appointments.
  14. The landlord advised the resident on 4 June 2019 that, once the repairs had been completed, it would look into the delays she experienced.
  15. On 20 June 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that its contractor attended the property on 6 June twice and was unable to gain access. It asked the resident to confirm if she was still having issues with the immersion heater. The landlord also confirmed that it had arranged an appointment for 24 June 2019 to paint the ceiling in the kitchen. Finally, the landlord confirmed that the issue with the drains at the property had now been resolved as “the line and manhole have been jetted”.
  16. The resident replied on 21 June 2019 that she did not schedule an appointment with the contractors; she said she received a call on 6 June 2019 saying they were outside of her house and the resident said she was not aware of the appointment. The resident asked the landlord to send its final response to her complaint.
  17. On 24 June 2019 the landlord advised the resident that it contacted her on 30 May 2019 via telephone to confirm the appointment for 6 June 2019 and put this in the letter sent her via e-mail on the same date. The landlord asked the resident if she wished to escalate her complaint and, on the same day, the resident confirmed that she did.
  18. The landlord confirmed that it escalated the resident’s complaint on the same day.
  19. Another repair was raised for the immersion heater on 10 July 2019.
  20. On 17 July 2019 the landlord confirmed that its contractor would be attending to the immersion heater on 1 August 2019. Once this repair was undertaken, it would provide a full response to the complaint about works to the blocked basin, kitchen ceiling and immersion.
  21. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 August 2019. It confirmed that works to the immersion heater were completed on 1 August 2019, as scheduled. It also confirmed that some works took longer than it would expect, and it apologised for this. The landlord added that:

a)     The repair order to paint the kitchen ceiling was raised in March 2019 but, due to a contractor changeover and operative availability, this work was not carried out until 24 June 2019.

b)     Works to the immersion heater were initially raised in April 2019 and the landlord was unable to gain access for appointments scheduled for 9 May 2019 and 6 June 2019. Works were subsequently re-raised on 10 June and completed on 1 August 2019.

c)     Works to unblock the basin at the property were raised on 12 April 2019 and completed on 29 April 2019.

  1. In recognition of the delays and disruption experienced, the landlord offered the resident “discretionary compensation of £155.00 to be credited to [her] rent account.”
  2. In a call with this Service, on 11 August 2019, the resident provided further information in relation to her complaint. She explained that she was experiencing a reoccurring leak. When the leak initially occurred, the landlord attended and isolated the wiring affected. Thereafter, the landlord agreed to repaint the whole of the kitchen ceiling.
  3. In the landlord’s final complaint response, dated 13 August 2019, it reiterated the details in its email of 9 August 2019 and confirmed works to unblock the basin at the property were completed within the expected timescale. Works were also subsequently carried out to remove a blockage in a drain on 14 May 2019. It apologised that the works to decorate the kitchen ceiling and to repair the immersion heater were delayed. The landlord reiterated its discretionary compensation offer of £155.00 and referred the resident to its ‘complaints leaflet’ if she remained unhappy or needed further information.
  4. Following further contact from the resident, who remained unhappy with the level of compensation offered, the resident was advised that, she could seek to have this reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s website explains that repairs are put into two categories: emergency and non-emergency. If a repair is logged as an emergency, a contractor will attend within six hours and attempt to have the repair completed in 24 hours. According to the landlord’s website, it aims to attend and fix non-emergency repairs in 14 calendar days and allows residents to choose a day and time suitable to them. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Procedure confirm these timeframes, but also allow up to 56 calendar days for repairs where specialist components or major works are identified. None of the repairs reported by the resident were classed as emergencies and therefore all should have been attended to in 14 calendar days.
  2. Where possible, appointments should have been arranged with the resident and, if a repair was running late, good practice would be for the landlord to update the resident.

Painting of ceiling

  1. The resident’s Tenancy Agreement with the landlord says that it is the resident’s responsibility to keep the interior of the premises in good and clean condition and to decorate all internal parts of the premises as often as is necessary to keep them in good decorative order.
  2. As painting the ceiling would be categorised as decorating, this would not usually be the landlord’s responsibility. However, in a call with this Service on 11 August 2019, the resident said that the landlord agreed to paint the ceiling, after works to a leak. This appears to have been a discretionary act. As the landlord is not responsible for decoration, and this Service cannot determine whether the painting was done by the landlord as a means of helping restore something it damaged, the landlord cannot be held to its general repair timescales to complete this. The delay would not be considered service failure in this instance. Nevertheless, the landlord acknowledged that this took longer than it would have expected, and this appears to have contributed towards the overall compensation. Therefore, the landlord has went beyond its obligations in responding to this aspect of the complaint and does not need to do anything further regarding this issue.

Immersion Heater

  1. It is unclear whether the resident was entirely without hot water due to the immersion heater issue, or whether this was an intermittent fault. However, it was noted that the resident was able to reset the system herself, which suggests the problem was intermittent.
  2. The time taken for the landlord to complete repairs to the immersion heater, following it initially raising works on 12 April 2019, were outside of its usual timescales given for non-emergency repairs. However, there were occasions where appointments were booked and did not go ahead. The repair log for repairs to the immersion heater on 9 May 2019 was marked as a ‘no show’.  It is unclear whether ‘no show’ referred to the resident or landlord. On 20 May 2019 the landlord visited the property to attend to the immersion heater but documented that the landlord was unable to gain access and left a card. The landlord attempted to carry out the repair within a reasonable amount of time, following the previous failed appointment, according to its repair targets. As the landlord was not able to gain access, another appointment was arranged for 6 June 2019. The landlord was also unable to gain access for this appointment and the landlord and resident corresponded regarding this in late June 2019, with the landlord asking the resident to confirm whether there were still issues with it.  Another work order was raised on 10 July 2019 and, on 17 July 2019 the landlord confirmed that its contractor would be attending on 1 August 2019.
  3. Although, overall, there were delays in the repair being completed, the landlord was not able to gain access on at least two occasions, which was beyond its control. Following both times, the landlord arranged for another appointment to attend to the immersion heater within a reasonable amount of time and the works were completed on 1 August 2019. While the delays in this instance would, again, not be considered service failure because the landlord attempted to undertake the repairs within its repair timeframes, the landlord has apologised for the delay and offered compensation.

Basin repairs

  1. The works to unblock the basin at the property, raised on 12 April 2019 and completed on 29 April 2019, took 18 days and the works to jet the drains, raised 29 April 2019 and completed on 14 May 2019, took 16 days. These repairs marginally exceeded the landlord’s 14–day target but were otherwise handled reasonably. Therefore, there was no significant service failure by the landlord in respect of these repairs.

Missed appointments

  1. On 30 May 2019 the resident said that many appointments had been made and broken. She did not refer to specific dates of missed appointments, therefore this Service can only look at the landlord’s records to see how many missed appointments there were. The landlord’s repair logs show an appointment for the blocked bath on 29 April 2019 was not attended to, because the resident arranged for this to be cleared herself, and appointments for works to the immersion heater, on 20 May 2019 and 6 June 2019, were attended, but access could not be gained. These would not be considered failed repairs, as they were attempted to be undertaken but not completed for reasons that were evidently outside the landlord’s control. There was, however, an appointment for 10 May 2019 which was missed by the landlord. This was to jet the property’s drains. Additionally, it remains unclear as to why a work order for repairs to the immersion heater on 9 May 2019 was not completed.
  2. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord has apologised for the delays, provided an explanation and confirmed the works were complete and offered to apply a discretionary compensation amount of £155 credit to the resident’s rent account. This amount is in line with compensation amounts that this Service would award residents who have similar complaints and this Service’s Remedies Guidance, published on our website. Therefore, the compensation amount offered was reasonable redress for the service failure identified.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress for the complaint about its handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to her hand basin, kitchen ceiling and immersion heater.

Reasons

  1. While the landlord took longer than it would have liked to complete to some of the repairs, its handling of repairs to the ceiling, immersion heater and blocked basin were overall reasonable. There was, however, evidence of a missed appointment by the landlord on 10 May 2019 to jet the property’s drains. Additionally, it remains unclear as to why a request for repairs to the immersion heater on 9 May 2019 was not completed. The landlord has since provided sufficient compensation for this and has completed the required repairs.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £155, offered in its complaint response of 13 August 2019, if it has not done so already.