Home Group Limited (202125902)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125902

Home Group Limited

3 November 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s enquiries about her service charge.
    2. A repair to the resident’s shower.
    3. The resident’s complaint and its decision to retract an offer of extra compensation in relation to a broken vase.

Background

  1. The property is a one-bedroom flat. The resident holds an assured tenancy.
  2. The landlord employs contractors to clean the communal areas and perform garden maintenance. Residents pay for these services through a variable service charge levied by the landlord.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord about her broken vase on 7 May 2019. She raised a complaint which went through the landlord’s complaint process in July 2019. The resident contacted the landlord to express dissatisfaction with the gardening and cleaning services charged as part of her service charge on 27 October 2020. The landlord responded on 6 November 2020. It outlined its contract arrangement with its contractors to do the respective maintenance of both issues. The resident reported a shower seal needed replacing to the landlord on 1 April 2021. The landlord’s contractor visited on 25 June 2021 but could not complete the work. They returned on 13 July 2021 to complete the work.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 August 2021 for an update on several queries and raised a new complaint. She was unhappy about:
    1. The compensation previously offered for the vase.
    2. The landlord’s response to her queries about her service charge.
    3. The delay in completing the shower repairs.
    4. The locks on the communal doors.
    5. Missed appointments relating to a change in the smoke alarm.
    6. The delay in the appointment to replace a kitchen light.
  5. The landlord e-mailed the resident on 17 August 2021, advising it had previously responded to the smoke alarm issues, the broken vase, and her queries about the service charge and the kitchen light. It said it would raise a new complaint about the shower repair and if the resident’s complaints about her service charge related to a new complaint. The resident called the landlord to discuss the complaint on 2 September 2021. Both parties appear to have agreed on compensation figures for several issues. The landlord confirmed the compensation offers in writing on 9 September 2021. It said it would provide £79.88 for the smoke alarm delays, £79.88 for the shower repair, £35 for the kitchen light repair and £200 for the broken vase whilst it was still investigating service charge issues. The landlord called the resident around 20 September 2021 to advise it had made these compensation offers in error. The landlord has been unable to provide a recording of this call.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint on 24 September 2021. It did not uphold the complaint. It apologised for previously offering compensation. It confirmed that it had dealt with several issues previously through the complaints process, so it would not consider these further. It said it had investigated the service charge complaints and found no issues. It also said it completed the shower repair within the timescales of its repair guidelines, so it would not offer any compensation. The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 10 February 2022.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 1 March 2022. It did not uphold the complaint. It felt that its previous response about the service charge and shower issues was fair. It also felt that its apology for the miscommunication about compensation was appropriate. It reiterated it would not be offering additional compensation for historic issues it had already dealt with.
  8. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that she would like for it to consider this complaint on 14 July 2022. She wanted her service charge refunded for the gardening and the cleaning services as she felt the contractors had often failed to attend. She also mentioned the services they provided were not often value for money.  She also confirmed that she wanted the Ombudsman to consider the landlord’s handling of her shower repair and the broken vase. She was unhappy the landlord had retracted its offers of compensation for both. To put things right, she has told the Ombudsman she would like the agreed compensation plus fair compensation for the services she has not received.

Assessment and findings

The scope of our investigation

  1. This Service is unable to investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase, including the reasonableness of service charges. The Ombudsman’s role is not to assess the standard of cleaning work, or the amount charged for such works. Instead, this Service reviews whether the landlord has followed a fair process in considering concerns about service standards.
  2. This investigation has also not considered the original handling of the complaint about the broken vase. This is due to the length of time since the event occurred, and the landlord dealt with this matter through its complaint procedure in 2019. This investigation has only considered the landlord’s decision to rescind offers of compensation made as part of its complaint process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about her service charge

  1. The resident raised concerns about the contractors’ attendance to perform the gardening and cleaning of communal areas at the property. She also mentioned that she was unhappy with the standard of the work completed.
  2. The arrangement is for cleaners to attend monthly and complete several works. The landlord listed the work that contractors undertake in the stage 1 complaint response. Gardening work is undertaken 16 times a year, with 2 additional visits in winter between November and February. Contractors litter pick, tend to shrubs and hedges, remove weeds and moss spray on 3 occasions per year. The resident pays for these services as part of a service charge.
  3. The landlord investigated the cleaning attendance logs. These demonstrated that contractors had attended once a month as per its arrangement. It also reviewed pictures the contractors provided to check their work was up to standard. Contractors had not provided pictures in August, September, or October. However, through the attendance log and vehicle trackers, it was able to confirm their attendance. It also reminded its contractors to take photos each time they attend the residence to help it monitor the cleaning.
  4. The landlord also contacted the relevant co-ordinator about the garden maintenance. It confirmed the attendance records, as well as the exact work that the contractors performed. On each occasion, the contractors perform grass cutting and litter collection. Contractors record this as part of their attendance record. The landlord also considered the amounts the resident pays for this as part of her service charge. It concluded this was a fair amount.
  5. The landlord also mentioned that there had been issues with completing the gardening work. Contractors had been unable to gain access, whilst sometimes residents had already completed their tasks. The landlord fairly explained this to the resident.
  6. Overall, the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns fairly. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries. It spoke with the relevant coordinators, investigated attendance records and considered the evidence available to it in order to establish the fairness of the service charge and the resident’s contractor performance concerns.

The landlord’s handling of a repair to the resident’s shower

  1. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its repairs policy. Nor is this available on its website. The landlord should consider publishing a repairs policy which provides residents with information on the timescales they can expect it to complete repairs.
  2. The landlord logged the shower repair on 1 April 2021 and completed this on 13 July 2021 – 11 weeks later. Before providing its stage 1 response, the landlord offered the resident £79.88 compensation for failing to repair this in a single visit. The contractor had to order a new shower seal, which caused a delay in completing the repair. This was a reasonable reason for the work taking 2 visits.
  3. The landlord based its decision to rescind its offer of compensation upon the fact that the repair took 11 weeks. At this time, the landlord said repairs of this nature could take up to 12 weeks. The landlord has not provided evidence to the Ombudsman that it discussed this with the resident, or that it accurately made her aware of the timescales. There is also no evidence that the landlord informed the resident why it could not complete the work in a single visit.
  4. There was service failure in the landlord’s communication about compensation. It should have been consistent with its messages about what compensation it would offer the resident. The failure to properly communicate undoubtedly caused confusion and distress to the resident. Given the nature of the incident did not leave the resident without the ability to bathe, the time taken to complete the work was not unreasonable by the landlord.
  5. However, the landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation for failing to communicate with her fairly and consistently. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests an amount in this region for a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its decision to retract an offer of extra compensation in relation to a broken vase.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy provided to the Ombudsman did not include timescales. This report has, therefore, used the complaints policy on the landlord’s website. This states that it will acknowledge receipt of complaints within 5 working days and provide a decision or outcome letter within 10 working days. If a resident escalates their complaint to stage 2, it will respond in 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy states that offers of discretionary compensation will be valid for a maximum of 8 weeks. If the complainant does not accept the offer of compensation within this timescale, the offer will no longer be available.
  2. The landlord’s decision not to reoffer additional compensation for the broken vase was based on the fact it had previously offered compensation for the matters when dealing with a previous complaint in 2019. Its reasoning behind this was fair.
  3. However, the landlord failed to communicate with the resident fairly about this matter. The landlord’s failure to correctly manage information did not allow it to recognise it had already made compensation offers for this issue. This meant that it entered discussions with the resident about compensation for the vase, providing figures for an appropriate settlement of the complaint. It did this verbally in a phone call, and in writing on 9 September 2021.
  4. The resident has referred to a call where she felt the landlord rescinded the compensation offer due to her pursuing an additional complaint about her service charge. The landlord has disputed this. Since the landlord did not record this call, this Service cannot make a finding about this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
  5. The landlord failed to answer the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the timescales outlined by its policy. It took until 24 September 2021 to provide its stage 1 response. This was 31 working days.
  6. The landlord’s handling of the stage 2 complaint was within its policy timelines. It provided its stage 2 response in 13 working days to the resident.
  7. The landlord’s responses were fair in content and tone.
  8. The landlord’s combined failure to follow its complaint policy and its miscommunication about compensation represented service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint. For the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident, the landlord should pay her £100.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about her service charge.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in landlord’s handling of a repair to the resident’s shower.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its decision to retract an offer of extra compensation in relation to a broken vase.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within four weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £200 for its failure when handling her shower repair and her complaint.
    2. Provide evidence to this service that it has done so.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider publishing a repairs policy which provides residents with information on the timescales they can expect repairs to be completed in.