Home Group Limited (202205972)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205972

Home Group Limited

5 June 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 handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for new rear-patio doors.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. In November 2021, the resident reported that there was a draught coming from her rear-patio door. The landlord attended the property and identified that draught proofing was required, and a plastic strip was applied to the bottom of the patio-doors and a seal applied.
4. Between December 2021 and January 2022, the resident reported a draught from the door on a further two occasions. The landlord offered further draught excluders and work, but the resident refused this work as she requested a new door.
5. In March 2022, the resident raised a complaint stating that she had reported a fault with the door in November 2021, and despite having three visits, there was still a gap between the door and its frame which was causing a draught. The resident requested for a new door to be installed as soon as possible, as she was concerned about the increase of gas prices and the effect this would have on her, if the door continued to allow cold air inside.
6. Between April 2022 and July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on a further eight occasions. No repairs were progressed, and no update was provided on the timeline for the replacement door to be installed.
7. The landlord provided a stage one response on 12 July 2022 where it informed the resident that an error had been made on its system, and the incorrect door had been raised for replacement. It confirmed that the maintenance department would be in contact with the resident to arrange for the doors to be replaced. The resident remained unhappy with this response and requested an escalation on 15 July 2022.
8. The resident and landlord did not communicate throughout August 2022. In September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to request a stage two response to be provided and an update on when her rear-patio doors would be replaced. On 26 September 2022, the resident’s contractors gained access to the resident’s property to measure the rear-patio doors, and these were subsequently ordered on the same day.
9. A stage two response was provided to the resident on 5 October 2022. It stated that after reviewing the resident’s case, it had identified that it had mishandled the resident’s stage one complaint response, for which it apologised. In addition, it found that the resident made numerous contacts with itself throughout May 2022 to June 2022, with no response provided to her queries or escalation request.
10. The landlord also identified that there had been an ‘error in understanding’ in relation to the replacement rear-patio doors, and this led to misinformation being provided to the resident. It further identified that whilst it believed that it had ordered the doors in July 2022, this was in relation to a different property which meant that the rear-patio doors had yet to be ordered. However, after a recent visit it confirmed the rear-patio doors had now been ordered and were due to be delivered on 17 October 2022.
11. In light of these failings, the landlord apologised to the resident for the poor service, delays and number of avoidable service failures from both itself and its contractors. In addition, it offered the resident £430 compensation. This was comprised of:
    1. £300 for its failures with regards to the rear-patio doors:
       1. £75 for its poor communication.
       2. £75 for service failure by contractors.
       3. £75 for the overall delay in addressing issues.
       4. £75 towards heating costs due to draught.
    2. £130 for its complaint handling failures:
       1. £75 for complaint handling failures at stage one of the complaints procedure.
       2. £55 for delays at stage two of the complaint’s procedure.
12. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 17 November 2022. She stated that she had waited six weeks from her final response, and the replacement patio doors had not been installed. As a resolution, she requested for the new rear-patio doors to be installed.
13. Between November 2022 and December 2022, the landlord continued to internally communicate about delays to the delivery of the door; however, there was no evidence that this was communicated with the resident during this period.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

14. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good condition. This would include doors. These types of repairs would be deemed as day-to-day repairs as per the tenancy agreement, which should be attended to within 28 working days.
15. The complaints policy states that a stage one response should be provided within ten working days, and a stage two response within 20 working days.

Rear-patio doors

16. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the external doors in the property in a good state of repair. Landlords are entitled to opt to repair damaged items such as external doors rather than replacing them.
17. In this case, the landlord attended the property on three occasions between November 2021 and January 2022 and identified that whilst there were gaps between the door frame and the door, this was able to be resolved by installing draught excluders on the doors. The landlord was entitled to rely upon its contractors reports that the doors could be repaired in the first instance. Therefore, the landlord’s initial attempts to repair the doors throughout November 2021 to July 2022, were reasonable actions to take as it was believed that it could be repaired, and a replacement was not necessary.
18. However, it became clear in January 2022, that the door required replacing. From the evidence provided, there was no action taken by the landlord to either measure for the new rear-patio doors, or arrange for this to take place until July 2022, where it was identified that the incorrect door had been raised for replacement. Despite identifying this in July 2022, the landlord did not attend the property until September 2022 to measure for the new doors, meaning a further two-month delay occurred after it had been identified. The landlord has not provided an explanation as to why these further delays occurred, and as such these were unreasonable.
19. It is acknowledged that some of these delays have occurred due to the materials required not being delivered. The evidence shows that the landlord did chase up this matter on a number of occasions, which it would be reasonably expected to do in these circumstances. This delay was unavoidable and, therefore, it was outside of the landlord’s control. However, the landlord should have made the resident aware of the delay to manage her expectations. This aspect of the matter was not in-line with the landlord’s obligations to the resident.
20. Furthermore, it remains unclear if the door has yet to be installed. The last communication this Service received in relation to the door was in December 2022, where the door had not been installed. The evidence surrounding this is unclear. However, as the resident had been waiting over a year for new patio-doors, the landlord should act within the next four weeks to have the door installed if it has not done so already.
21. There was also a lack of clarity internally by the landlord as to what door required replacing, and this formed part of the delays. In April 2022, the landlord informed the resident that the door was scheduled to be replaced during planned maintenance in 2022/23. This continued to be relayed to the resident throughout May 2022, June 2022 and July 2022, despite her raising concerns that she had received a letter in relation to her front door and not her rear-patio door. This led to delays and evidenced the landlord’s poor record keeping, and ultimately led to an unnecessary level of involvement of the resident in the repair’s procedure which would have inevitably caused her a degree of distress and inconvenience.
22. The landlord apologised for these errors and awarded the resident £300 compensation considering its failings. Whilst this compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website), owing to the evidence that the rear-patio door has yet to be installed and the poor communication hat has continued to occur in this case, this Service deems this compensation offer to be insufficient.
23. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £200 compensation for its continued poor communication and the further delay in the replacement of the patio doors following the landlord’s final response, bringing the total payable to £500. This award is inclusive of the £300 previously offered to the resident, and if this has been paid it can be deducted from the £500 award. This compensation is in line with this Service’s Remedies guidance which suggests amounts of £100 to £600 for cases where there has been service failure which adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact.
24. With regards to the resident’s request that the landlord consider the increase in her energy bills due to the property losing heat through the draughty doors. It is acknowledged that the £300 compensation the landlord offered the resident included £75 towards the energy costs. If the resident remains unhappy with this, she should contact the landlord and request a review of this amount. No evidence has been provided which suggests that this information was provided or requested during the complaint process.
25. It would then be appropriate for the landlord to request any evidence the resident has that shows an increase in her energy bills and then review its compensation offer based on what evidence it receives. In order for the landlord to determine whether this request was reasonable, it would need sight of the resident’s utility bills for the period whereby the door needed repairs and utility bills from a similar time period in a year when the door was not in need of repair in order to determine what changes in energy usage could be attributed to the door repairs.

Complaint handling

26. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one response should be provided within ten working days and a stage two response within 20 working days.
27. The resident raised her complaint on 14 March 2022, but did not receive a response until 86 working days later, which was 76 working days outside of its policy obligations. This was an excessive delay to the complaints process. Similarly, at stage two, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 15 July 2022, as per the landlord’s complaints policy a response should have been provided within 20 working days; however, it was not received until 58 working days later on 5 October 2022, which was 35 working days outside of its policy obligations. Overall, these delays led to significant delays to the complaint procedure which would have inevitably caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
28. The landlord recognised this failure and awarded the resident £130 compensation for its complaint handling failure at stage one of the compensation procedure and providing a stage two response. This compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests amounts of £100 to £600 for cases where there has been service failure which adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way it handled the resident’s request for new rear-patio doors.
30. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint its handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

31. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £500 compensation. This is inclusive of the £300 previously offered for its poor handling of the repairs to the resident’s rear-door.
    2. Contact the resident and inform her when she can expect her rear-patio doors to be replaced if this has not occurred already.
32. These actions should be completed within four weeks of this report and confirmation sent to this service when this has been done.

Recommendation

33. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £130 compensation offered for its poor complaint handling. The finding of reasonable redress being dependent on the landlord doing so.
    2. Consider any evidence the resident may provide in relation to an increase of her energy bills.