Home Group Limited (202202705)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202705

Home Group Limited

7 February 2023


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. reports of damage to hall carpet caused by a previous repair and
    2. the related complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has held an assured  tenancy for a three-bedroom terraced house since 2003. There are no vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord.
  2. Following reports of a crack in the resident’s bath in November 2021, the landlord replaced the bath on 23 February 2022. Two days later the resident submitted a complaint that a leak from the newly installed bath had spread to the kitchen ceiling and walls below. The resident said that to resolve the issue, she wanted the repair work completed and compensation for the additional time and stress.  Contractors returned and repaired the bath and made good the ceiling, walls and tiling in the kitchen.
  3. On 11 March 2022 the resident confirmed that she was happy with the work done and on 14 March 2022 accepted £150 compensation offered by the landlord, but said she also wanted money to replace damaged flooring, which had not previously been mentioned. The landlord advised the resident this would be a matter for its insurers.
  4. The landlord’s stage one complaint response on 15 March 2022 apologised for the inconvenience caused by the poor bath installation and said it would be discussing this with the contractor concerned. 
  5. On 14 April 2022 the landlord’s insurance team wrote to the resident and confirmed that in this case, the work was undertaken by contractors, so there was no liability on the landlords. Any action would need to be taken against the contractor, who had their own insurance in place. The contractor’s contact details were given, along with advice to contact the CAB or a solicitor.
  6. Subsequent emails between the resident and the contractors indicate that the contractors made an offer of £50 in full and final settlement in respect of the resident’s hall carpet. This was on the basis that they could have offered to clean the carpet had they been given the opportunity. The resident said she wished to escalate her complaint on 16 May 2022 as she was unhappy with the response from the contractors. The resident said she wanted the stair carpet replaced to match the hallway, although not damaged.
  7. The resident subsequently told the landlord that she could not keep the damp carpet in the house as her daughter had asthma. The landlord advised again that the carpet damage would not be dealt with via the complaints process. The final response letter issued on 17 August 2022 apologised for the delay in the response. It offered a further £35 for the inconvenience of the leak and repairs, in addition to the £150 already paid, and £55 for the delay in the complaint response. The landlord again explained that the damage to the resident’s belongings were an insurance issue and not for compensation.
  8. The resident wants further compensation of £2,000 as reimbursement for the hall and stair carpet and because there was a health and safety issue from the cold bare floorboards with nails in. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has stated that the compensation paid at the first stage of the complaint process was acceptable to her in respect of the inconvenience caused by the leak from the bath, and the related repairs. The resident remained unhappy about the lack of compensation offered for the damage to her hall carpet. This is the complaint that the resident brought to this Service in September 2022.
  2. This investigation does not therefore consider the appropriateness of the compensation accepted in relation to the leak and subsequent work. Instead, it looks at whether action taken by the landlord in relation to the resident’s carpet and the related complaint, was fair and reasonable in the circumstances, and in accordance with the landlord’s policies and procedures.

 

Repair handling

  1. The Assured Tenancy Agreement  signed by the resident in 2003 says at Section 2 (4) that the landlord agrees to keep in good repair and proper working order any installation provided by the landlord including basins, sinks and baths.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy effective March 2022  says at Standard 7 ‘Where a contractor fails in its duty and agrees that compensation is due, it is the responsibility of the contractor to agree an appropriate level of compensation with the customer. We will support the customer and liaise with the contractor to arrange this. Injury or damage to personal belongings, property or homes are dealt with as insurance claims. We reserve the right to re-direct insurance claims to third parties (contractors) as appropriate.’
  3. In this instance, the landlord advised the resident on 14 March 2022 that the issue of damage carpets would be for insurance, rather than via compensation paid in relation to a complaint. The insurance department signposted the resident to the contractors  on 14 April 2022 and this was reiterated over the following months up to and including the final complaint response letter. The advice given by the landlord was timely and consistent and in accordance with its policy relating to compensation and insurance.
  4. It is noted that in her later contact with this Service, the resident stated that removing the damaged carpet presented a health and safety  risk to her family, although there is no evidence that this was previously raised with the landlord or the contractor. Whilst the carpet was removed by the resident herself and not the contractor, this may be something she can raise with the contractor if she does decide to pursue this as there is no evidence that the landlord is responsible for the carpet having been removed and any consequence of this. 
  5. There is no dispute that the resident was satisfied with the compensation relating to the repair and the issue of damaged carpet was not raised by the resident in the initial complaint. The matter was passed to the landlord’s insurers, as it is entitled to do, and the contractor’s response to this and any subsequent offer of compensation is outside of this investigation. Ultimately the landlord has done what it was required to do by referring the matter on to its contractors, and it has acted in a fair and reasonable way by providing contact details and advice to the resident around this. The landlord had initially referred the resident to its insurers, and this does not seem unreasonable given that insurance will be a specialist area and it was prudent to get a formal response on this first.
  6. The landlord’s complaint policy directs the resident to an insurance claim, which it says it reserves the right to re-direct to contractors as appropriate. The Ombudsman is unable to make more direct findings with respect to the damaged carpet.   
  7. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took proportionate and appropriate action in relation to investigating the concerns raised by the resident; and considering them alongside its service standards, and duties and obligations as a landlord.

Complaint handling

  1. Information provided online by the landlord says that stage one complaints should be responded to within 10 working days and stage two within 20 working days. In this instance, the stage one response was not significantly delayed, but the stage two response was two months outside of the timescales.
  2. The landlord apologised for the delay which it said was caused by the volume of cases outstanding and offered £55 compensation to reflect this.
  3. In this instance, the delay did not prevent the resident from resolving the issue relating to her carpet, as she had already been directed to the insurance department before the stage one response.
  4. The landlord has not provided any guidance it uses for compensation, but the Ombudsman’s own guidance suggests sums of between £50 and £100 in cases where there has been service failure which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. This would appear to be the situation in this case. The landlord had failed in its handling of the complaint, but it has apologised and paid compensation.
  5. Therefore, in regard to the complaint handling, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took proportionate and appropriate action in relation to investigating the concerns raised by the resident; and considering them alongside its service standards, and duties and obligations as a landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily in respect of :
    1. The landlord’s handling of the damage to the resident’s carpet .
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint