The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Home Group Limited (202010218)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010218

Home Group Limited

29 June 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 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 concerns:
    1. The landlord’s handling of outstanding defects at the property.
    2. Breaches of data protection regulations by the landlord.
    3. The condition of the wiring in the property.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (The Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Breaches of data protection regulations

  1. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
  2. When raising a complaint and requesting that the complaint be escalated to stage two, the resident raised data protection concerns relating to information on the National House Building Council (NHBC) certificate.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about landlords’ responses to requests for information under the Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts, or any alleged breaches of these acts. Matters relating to how personal data was handled by the landlord fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and it is recommended the resident contact the ICO if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a new-build flat in a communal building. The resident moved into the property in February 2020.
  2. Standard 3 of the landlord’s property management policy relates to new developments. This, in part, states that:

“Contractors are responsible for any defective works that are not in accordance with the contract within the Defect Liability Period where applicable. Repairs that are the result of misuse, abuse or neglect by the customer or home owners, in most cases will be chargeable.”

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

  1. On 5 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord regarding outstanding defects in the property, which she listed as:
    1. The washer/dryer switch was cracked.
    2. There was a fault with the dishwasher.
    3. One of the handles for the blinds had fallen off.
    4. There was an issue with the windows in the living room.
    5. The hinges in the built-in wardrobe were broken.
  2. The landlord replied on 26 June 2020. It informed the resident that the list of defects had been logged and passed on to its contractor.
  3. On 15 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and expressed her dissatisfaction with the service she had received. She queried the balance of her rent account, concerns over the NHBC certificate, and the poor customer service she had received when she had previously raised these issues.
  4. The landlord and resident arranged a telephone meeting for 21 June 2020 to discuss the matters she had raised. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident described issues relating to her rent account, the NHBC certificate, and the outstanding defects. The landlord said it would send the resident more information regarding her rent account and open a formal complaint to investigate the other matters.
  5. The landlord and resident spoke again on 31 July 2020 about the outstanding defects. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it informed her that the Covid-19 pandemic has influenced the response times of its contractors and offered £75 compensation. This was rejected by the resident, who requested to escalate the complaint to stage two.
  6. On 2 September 2020 the resident called the landlord and requested an update on the status of her complaint. An internal landlord email sent on 3 September 2020 noted that the resident was informed that the cracked washer/dryer switch and blinds handle had been passed on to the contractor’s management team to determine if they were considered defects, that the living room blinds and toilet flush had been repaired, and the contractor would be in touch with the resident to arrange an appointment to repair the wardrobe. The email did not address the status of the complaint.
  7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 September 2020 and requested an escalation of the complaint to stage two on the grounds that:
    1. The landlord had not followed its complaint process.
    2. She had experienced poor customer service and communication.
    3. Several defects remained outstanding.
    4. There had been data protection breaches by the landlord.
  8. The landlord replied to the resident on 14 September 2020. It apologised for the delays she had experienced and confirmed that it had closed the complaint at stage one and that it would now undertake an investigation at stage two.
  9. A stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 16 September 2020. The landlord described the elements of the complaint, apologised for the delays in sending a response, and the resolving the outstanding defects. The landlord informed the resident that if delays in completing the work continued, it would look to use a different contractor. It also assured the resident that she was covered by the insurance warranty in relation to the query she had raised relating to the NHBC certificate. The landlord also confirmed that the complaint had been escalated to stage two.
  10. On 23 September 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and enquired if she had any additional comments or questions that she would like addressed in the stage two response. The resident replied and explained that she would like the poor sign-off of the property, the outstanding defects, and the poor communication she had experienced investigated as part of the stage two response. The resident also requested that the landlord consider a compensation payment.
  11. The stage two complaint response was sent on 25 November 2020. The landlord informed the resident that:
    1. It had not properly followed its processes at stage one of the complaint. It apologised to the resident and explained that a manager had undertaken a review of the matter and apologised for the delays she had experienced.
    2. It also apologised for the poor level of communication she had experienced. It explained that it had faced issues in progressing the defect work with its contractor and accepted that this had not properly communicated to the resident.
    3. It had contacted the resident on 19 October 2020 to confirm that it had raised the outstanding defects with a different contactor and that:
      1. The dishwasher was repaired on 19 October 2020 and the washer/dryer switch was repaired on 27 October 2020.
      2. Following the repair of the switch, the resident contacted the landlord and passed on the electrician’s comments that the switch should have failed previous testing. This matter had been raised internally.
      3. The contractor had informed it that it had repaired the wardrobe and that it had taken measurements to replace the broken blind and would be in touch to arrange an appointment to complete the work.
    4. In light of the issues she had experienced, it had awarded £400 compensation. This was broken down as:
      1. £100 for delays in completing defect repairs.
      2. £75 for time and effort in chasing the repairs.
      3. £75 for poor communication.
      4. £75 for not following its complaint procedures at stage one.
      5. £75 for the time and trouble caused to the resident.
  12. The resident replied to the landlord on 26 November 2020 and rejected the compensation offer. She noted that due to the stress and anxiety she had experienced over the previous eight months – that the landlord had breached building regulations in relation to the writing in the property, and that it had also breached data protections regulations – a more suitable compensation offer to resolve the complaint would be £10,000.
  13. The landlord sent a follow-up to its stage two response on 3 December 2020. It disputed that it had breached data protection regulations and provided a copy of the electrical installation certificate the property received from the NHBC. It explained that the compensation it had offered the resident was made in line with its compensation policy and was still available to the resident to accept.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of outstanding defects.

  1. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an acknowledgment of its error, an apology, a review of its complaint handling and relationship with its contractor, and a compensation payment of £400) 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.
  2. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident. It looked to put things right by investigating how it handled the complaint at stage one and conducting a review at a senior level into its relationship with its contractor. This was an appropriate response from the landlord as it recognised the areas where it had failed in this case and looked to how it could make changes to procedures to avoid a similar situation occurring in future.
  3. The landlord also improved its communication with the resident during the stage two investigation. It provided updates on both the status of the outstanding defects being dealt with by the new contactor and the progress of the stage two complaint.
  4. The landlord explained that its offer of £400 was made in line with its compensation policy on discretionary payments. Section 2 of the policy relates to discretionary payments and states that a payment will be considered when service failure had been identified through its complaint process. The policy does not provide any guidance on the level of payments, other than to note that payments are ‘primarily modest monetary awards”.
  5. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on our website) recommends payments of £250-£700 in cases where considerable service failure has occurred, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. In this case, the resident experienced significant delays in both complaint handling and the repair of outstanding defects.
  6. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the landlord was broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance and was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.
  7. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The condition of the wiring in the property.

  1. Following comments made by the electrician during an appointment on 27 October 2020 to repair the cracked switch for the washer/dryer, the resident raised concerns relating to the condition of the wiring in the property and whether the electrics were fit for purpose.
  2. The landlord sent a follow-up to its stage 2 response where it provided a copy of the domestic electrical installation certificate for the property. The certificate was signed on 25 September 2018 and states that permanently connected current-using equipment, such as the washer/dryer, were in full working order. The job notes from the 27 October 2020 appointment left by the electrician state that he replaced the cracked fuse spur and rewired it to the washer/dryer. There were no notes left relating to any other issues with the wiring in the property.
  3. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the certificates it received from appropriately qualified contractors and on the notes supplied to it following the completion of the repair work on 27 October 2020. The Ombudsman has not disregarded the resident’s concerns. However the resident has not provided any supporting evidence to either the landlord or this Service which suggested further problems with the wiring and electrics in the property aside from the cracked switch. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure in the landlord’s response to this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of its handling of outstanding defects, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the condition of the wiring in the property. 

Reasons

  1. The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by in the length of time it took to resolve the outstanding defects and the delays at stage one of its complaints process.
  2. The landlord apologised and awarded compensation proportionate to the service failures it identified.
  3. There is no evidence that, outside of the cracked switch repaired on 27 October 2020, there were any additional issues with the wiring and/or electrics in the property.

Recommendations

  1. As the landlord’s compensation award made at stage two was taken into consideration when the determination of reasonable redress was decided, it is recommended that the landlord re-offers the compensation to the resident if it has not already been paid.