Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Home Group Limited (202208660)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208660

Home Group Limited

29 January 2024

 

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 concerns about:

  1. Repairs to the lift, garage doors and bin shed.
  2. Communal cleaning and poor condition of the building.
  3. The CCTV system not working.
  4. Antisocial behaviour (ASB) caused by dog nuisance, drug use, and dumped rubbish.
  5. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

2.             The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a 2nd floor flat. She is diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) which the landlord has a record of.

3.             On 26 February 2021, the resident said she had received a letter from the landlord about an increase in her rent. She was dissatisfied with the level of service she had received regarding a number of items listed in her service charge. She said the garage door had not worked for the previous year; the communal areas, including the garage were not to the required standard of cleanliness; and she had been wrongly told the CCTV for the building was working when it was not.

4.             Between February 2021 and August 2021, the landlord received a number of reports about the lift not working in the resident’s building. Contractors carried out repairs and replaced parts to the lift. However, the lift continued to break down resulting in it being out of service on and off, for weeks at a time, throughout this period.

5.             On 17 August 2021, the resident raised a number of complaints to the landlord as set out below:

  1. The lift was always breaking down. She said it had had been increasingly out of action since the landlord chose to repair rather than refurbish the lift.
  2. The garage roller shutter had not worked for around 5 years.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to confirm whether or not the CCTV installed was working. This was because she had previously been informed it was working when it was not.
  4. The internal door from the garage to the communal area of the property was insecure. This had resulted in unauthorised people walking into and sleeping in the building.
  5. The resident described communal areas of the building as ‘filthy’. She said this included the garage area which contained dog faeces, trollies, bags of rubbish, tyres and abandoned vehicles.
  6. There was no light or security around the area of the bin shed. This resulted in the bins being used by non-residents.
  7. An increasing number of resident’s kept dogs, even though they were not allowed. The resident explained that dogs were walking around communal areas, which made the resident nervous. They were also urinating on the post outside the main door to the building, which caused a horrible smell.
  8. A neighbouring property had a sofa on their balcony, which was a fire risk. There was also a strong smell of cannabis coming from neighbouring properties.

6.             The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 24 September 2021. It accepted the lift had continued to break down, since carrying out the refurbishment works. It was carrying out a consultation regarding a new CCTV system and was looking into a new garage roller shutter. The landlord did not agree the property was in poor condition, and explained how it handled reports of ASB. The landlord said it had identified the abandoned vehicles and issued TORT notices, telling owners to remove the vehicles, otherwise the landlord would remove them. It had also raised a repair for a new light to the bin shed, and to secure the internal garage door. The landlord explained the building had a ‘waking watch’ within the building 24 hours per day.

7.             On 25 October 2021, the resident requested the landlord escalate her complaints. She said it had not dealt with her individual complaints and wanted it to address each of them.

8.             The landlord apologised for its delayed response on 5 November 2021, and provided an update to each of the resident’s complaints. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She repeated her request for the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint’s procedure, on 8 November 2021.

9.             On 26 January 2022, the lift contractor made a recommendation to the landlord, for it to replace the flooring in the lift. It said it had identified this during a recent repair and had taped the floor down as a temporary measure. There were 3 further repairs to the lift between February 2022 and April 2022, for which the lift remained out of action for intermittent periods, during this time.

10.        The landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints on 3 May 2022. In addition to its stage one response, it said the following:

  1. The recent lift repair had been successful.
  2. CCTV had been installed and was in full working order.
  3. A new light had been fitted to the bin shed. It was also covered by the new CCTV installation.
  4. The landlord was carrying out 3 inspections a week of the building. Abandoned vehicles had been removed. Bulky items had been removed from balconies and its guards were being directed to deal with rubbish causing a fire hazards, in communal areas.

11.        The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 6 August 2022, stating her desired outcome was for the landlord to improve its response to the cleanliness of the communal areas, and garage of the building. She is also seeking an award of compensation for distress and inconvenience.

12.        The resident has confirmed that the garage door was replaced in August 2023.

Assessment and findings

13.        When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

14.        The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

15.        It is outside our role to establish whether someone has committed ASB but rather we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, taking into account its own internal policies, its legal obligations and industry best practice.

Scope of Investigation

16.        The resident contributes towards the landlord’s costs, broadly maintenance, management and repair of the building and its grounds, through a weekly service charge. This service is not able to consider complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge, as this falls outside our jurisdiction. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable and the resident can contact the tribunal if she wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint further. The Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s communication in relation to the charges and whether it responded to any questions about the service charge appropriately in line with its legal obligations, its internal policies and industry best practice.

17.        Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident has described that a number of her complaints have been on-going for several of years. However, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports, as listed in this investigation, from February 2021. This was 6 months prior to the resident raising her complaints to the landlord about these matters relating to repairs, cleaning, and ASB.

18.        The resident has informed this service that she continues to report issues with the lack of cleanliness in the building. As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman will review the resident’s complaints until 3 May 2022, which is when the landlord issued its final response. Where the resident has advised the Ombudsman that the cleanliness of the building remains poor, she is advised to report this to her landlord. If she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports, she can raise a new complaint. If she remains dissatisfied once the new complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, she may be able to bring her further complaint to the Ombudsman.

Policies and Procedures

19.        The landlord’s repairs policy states it has 2 categories with which it will respond to repairs:

  1. Emergency – It will respond within 6 hours, and aim to complete repairs within 24 hours, wherever possible. This type of repair includes where there is an immediate risk to safety, security or health, or could lead to serious damage to property.
  2. Routine – It will respond to a routine repair within 14 days. It describes this as a repair that does not affect health, safety or welfare.

20.        The landlord’s property management policy states that it will use competent contractors, and it will challenge them where they fail to meet agreed standards. It will endeavour to consult with residents before it carries out works. Wherever possible the landlord will offer a meaningful choice of products and services.

21.        The landlord’s complaints policy states it will thoroughly investigate all complaints. It will respond in a timely manner and in accordance with legislation, regulation and the Ombudsman.

Repairs to the lift, garage doors, and bin shed.

22.        The landlord’s records and correspondence in relation to the lift show that it was out of service for a significant period between February 2021 and May 2022. The repair logs evidence that the landlord treated its responses to the reports of the lift breaking down as an emergency repair. This was an appropriate response and in line with its repairs policy. There were periods of time in the records, where the contractor was awaiting specific parts, to carry out the repair. This caused delays, which will have impacted the resident. Although it is accepted that waiting for parts was beyond the control of the landlord.

23.        The resident has advised the Ombudsman that walking the stairs with her shopping bags caused her significant distress and inconvenience, the landlord should have looked at prioritising the repair or if this was not possible it could have considered interim measures such as arranging staff to be on site at specific times to help residents with carrying shopping etc.

24.        In November 2021, the landlord told the resident it would look into the damaged lift flooring. On 26 January 2022, the landlord’s lift contractor said that whilst carrying out other repairs, it noted the disrepair to the lift floor. They said they taped the floor down as a temporary repair. The contractor advised the landlord a permanent repair should be carried out. They also provided a quote to complete the floor repair. The resident said that the landlord carried out this repair between October 2022 and November 2023. This service has seen no evidence why this repair took nearly 2 years to carry out. This was an unreasonable delay. This service would expect this type of repair to be completed with 28 days, in line with industry best practice. The landlord has not provided an adequate explanation for the delay, which would have inconvenienced the resident as well as other residents in the building over a significant period of time.

25.        In the landlord’s stage one complaint response on 24 September 2021, it accepted the garage roller shutter did not work. The landlord updated the resident on 5 November 2021 that it was looking to install an alternative garage door. This was an appropriate response as it was seeking to resolve the repair. Between February 2022 and May 2022, the landlord received a design and quote for a bespoke new garage door. There was then a delay, caused by complexities in the original design of the door, which were eventually dealt with by May 2022. The landlord explained the cause of the delay to the resident, in its final complaint response. It was fair the landlord explained this to the resident. The landlord may reasonably have been unable to anticipate that the original design would not work and would need to be adjusted. Therefore, this delay was unavoidable.

26.        In November 2022, the new garage door was due to be installed. However, the installation of the new garage door to replace the roller shutter was delayed because of other urgent works being carried out which overrun. The delay was caused by existing scaffolding blocking areas for the works. The landlord had also failed to inform residents in advance that the works were due to commence. This meant the garage area was not clear for the works to continue. This was evidence of poor communication by the landlord. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep residents up to date of its planned works.

27.        The resident has said that the new garage door was installed around August 2023. This was 2 and a half years after the resident first raised this repair. Overall, this was an unreasonable delay. Taking into account the scale of the work, its complexities and obtaining multiple quotes, so that it was seeking the best value for money, it should not have taken more than a year from when the resident first raised the repair in February 2021.

28.        The resident raised the repair of there being no light on the bin shed, on 17 August 2021. The landlord updated the resident on 5 November 2021 as follows:

  1. The light was repaired.
  2. Its new CCTV system would include this area.
  3. It had written to warn residents in other buildings that unauthorised use of the bins, would result in them being charged.

29.        The landlord’s actions in respect of the repair to the bin shed were appropriate, but there appears to have been a delay in carrying out this work. The landlord has not provided evidence to this service of the date when the repair was carried out. However, it updated the resident on 5 November 2021, that the repair was complete. The Ombudsman would expect this repair to have been completed within 28 days of the repair being raised. The landlord’s policy states it will respond to a routine repair such as this, within 14 days. There was therefore a delay in carrying out the repair. This delay was unreasonable and would have caused inconvenience to the resident as she was waiting longer than she should have been for her concern to be resolved.

30.        For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs to the lift, garage doors, and bin shed.

31.        The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 in compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which set out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. This reflects the landlord failing to initially respond to the resident’s concerns in February 2021. There were also significant delays in the carrying out of these repairs, as well as the time and effort for the resident reporting these matters. The landlord also failed to communicate with the resident about her own needs when the lift was out of service. It has provided no evidence that it considered the detriment the lift being out of action caused the resident in its correspondence with her.

32.        Examples of this level of compensation include where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident but resulted in no permanent impact. Ultimately the repairs were completed so there was no permanent impact, although there was significant distress and inconvenience for the resident at the time when the repairs were ongoing. Amounts in this range are also appropriate where the landlord has attempted to put things right, but its offer has failed to provide a proportionate offer of compensation, as in this case.

Communal cleaning, and poor condition of the building.

33.        The resident raised her dissatisfaction about the cleanliness of the building on 26 February 2021. The landlord has provided no evidence that it addressed the resident’s concerns until she made her complaint 6 months later. This service would have expected the landlord to respond to the resident’s concern about the cleanliness and poor condition of the building. It would also expect it to engage with the resident, to seek to resolve her concerns. The delay would have caused the resident inconvenience as she had to raise the same matter again and may have given her the impression that the landlord was not listening to her or taking her concerns seriously.

34.        The landlord advised the resident that it had carried out inspections of the communal areas 3 times per week. It has provided this service with inspection reports for the years 2021 and 2022 which supports this. It also stated it disagreed with the resident, about the state of the cleanliness of its communal areas. Where there are conflicting accounts over matters such as the level of cleanliness, with no direct evidence to support either account, the Ombudsman cannot say with certainty which version of events is correct. Also, the level of cleanliness is somewhat subjective making it more difficult to objectively determine whether the communal areas were clean enough. However, the landlord acted appropriately in its response to the resident’s concerns by carrying out inspections. In its final response, where the landlord identified failings by its cleaning contractor’s, it placed them on a performance management plan. This was a fair approach taken by the landlord to seek to improve the level of cleanliness, where it identified there was an issue.

35.        Going forward, the Ombudsman would encourage the landlord to engage with the resident over the level of cleanliness of its communal areas. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that this remains an on-going issue. She has submitted further complaints to the landlord about this. Therefore, the landlord should take a positive approach to work with the resident, to seek to resolve her complaint. Examples the landlord should consider include:

  1. Taking photographs as part of its weekly inspections, to accompany its report.
  2. Inviting the resident to an inspection of the communal areas so she can point out any areas of concern and discuss ways to address them.
  3. Encourage its cleaning contractor to use signed weekly cleaning logs within the communal areas of the building, that are visible for residents to see.

36.        Due to the lack of communication, and poor engagement with the resident, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal cleaning and poor condition of the building.

37.        The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failure, as referenced above. Examples of this include where there has been a failure which caused some degree of distress and/or inconvenience for the resident and where the landlord has failed to act to put it right.

The CCTV system not working.

38.        On 26 February 2021, the resident asked the landlord why she was paying a service charge for CCTV that did not work. An inspection log from July 2021, confirms that the CCTV was not working. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence from the landlord that it responded to the resident’s correspondence at this time. The landlord would have been expected to provide an explanation to the resident about the CCTV. This was evidence of poor communication.

39.        The resident raised a complaint 6 months later, asking for the landlord to confirm whether or not the CCTV was working. The landlord told the resident in its stage one response on 24 September 2021, that it was sending out a consultation about the CCTV. It was appropriate for the landlord to carry out a consultation with residents and provide them with a choice of options for the CCTV. This was also in accordance with its property management policy as mentioned above. However, it was not reasonable that the landlord took 7 months from when the resident raised the issue of the CCTV, for the consultation to take place.

40.        The CCTV was installed by November 2021, which included covering the bin areas and was in line with its consultation with the residents. It was right that the landlord installed a working CCTV system, that was in line with the option chosen by the majority of residents.

41.        However, the Ombudsman, makes a finding of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of the CCTV not working. Although the landlord took the appropriate action eventually, there was a significant delay and evidence of poor communication in its response to the resident. The landlord also failed to address the detriment to the resident in its handling of the CCTV, or the time and trouble taken by the resident in reporting her concerns and raising her complaint.

42.        In line with Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance as mentioned above, the landlord is to pay the resident £150 in respect of this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

43.        The Ombudsman has also considered the service charge to residents, where the residents had been charged for CCTV that was not working. Whilst we will not assess the reasonableness of a service charge, where a service is clearly not being provided, the Ombudsman can consider compensation. The evidence provided shows that an inspection log dated 30 July 2021 is the first date the landlord confirmed it knew the CCTV was not working. Therefore, for the weeks of August 2021 to October 2021 (the last full month before the CCTV was installed) the resident should receive a refund of this aspect of this service charge. The Ombudsman calculates the refund to be awarded to the resident as follows:

44.        The service charge for CCTV is charged at £1.16 per week.

45.        There were 13 weeks from 1 August 2021 to 31 October 2021. Therefore £1.16 x 13 is £15.08.

46.        The landlord is to pay an additional compensation of £15.08 to the resident whilst the CCTV was confirmed as not working.

47.        The Ombudsman also recommends the landlord takes positive steps to provide the same level of compensation to all its residents, whom it charged for CCTV, whilst knowing that it was not working during this period.

Antisocial behaviour (ASB) caused by dog nuisance, drug use, and dumped rubbish.

48.        On 17 August 2021, the resident raised a complaint about nuisance caused by other residents having dogs. This included that the dogs were not on leads in communal areas, and urinating against the post outside of the building. The landlord said it had only received one report of dog related ASB, which it had dealt with. The landlord acknowledged an increase in dog ownership. It said it would be contacting residents to record dog ownership in its buildings. It introduced using a deterrent spray in the doorway areas of the building and the post outside of the building.

49.        The landlord advised the resident how she could make reports about ASB. The response provided by the landlord in relation to the resident’s reports of dog nuisance were both reasonable and appropriate. They were also in accordance with its ASB policy. The landlord took proactive steps to resolve the resident concerns, taking action to protect resident. It also took a proactive approach to find a long-term solution to the resident’s complaint of the dog urinating outside and around the immediate area of the building.

50.        The landlord responded to the residents other ASB concerns raised on 17 August 2021. It set out its response as follows:

  1. It had issued TORT notices to the identified abandoned vehicles. They were then removed from the garage.
  2. Bulky items had been removed from residents’ balconies. It said it had followed this up by sending residents warning letters to ensure compliance, warning them of the fire risk.
  3. The landlord had advised its guards on-site that they were to remove dumped rubbish from communal areas, causing a fire hazard.

51.        The action taken by the landlord set out above, was appropriate. The resident first report these matters on 17 August 2021 to the landlord. Therefore, this was the first opportunity the landlord had to respond. For this reason, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in its handling of ASB caused by dog nuisance, drug use, and dumped rubbish.

52.        If she continues to experience ASB within her building, the resident should report it to the landlord. If she remains dissatisfied with its handling of her reports, then she is entitled to raise a complaint about this through its complaints process. If she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, she can then refer her complaint to the Ombudsman for a separate investigation.

The associated complaint

53.        On 17 August 2021, the resident raised her stage one complaint. The landlord provided its written response 28 working days later, on 24 September 2021. This response should have been provided within 10 working days, in line with its complaints process. The landlord did not provide any reasonable explanation why this was delayed. It also did not update the resident that it needed longer to respond to her complaint. The Ombudsman would expect for the landlord to have updated the resident in a timely manner, as it describes in its complaints policy. This was evidence of poor communication and complaint handling by the landlord.

54.        On 25 October 2021, the resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaints. On 5 November 2021, the landlord was right that it apologised for the delay in handling the resident’s stage one complaint. It said it would respond within 20 working days, as well as providing an update by 15 November 2021, about the progress of each individual complaint. The timeline shows that on 16 November 2021, the landlord provided a verbal update to the resident about the progress of her complaints. It was reasonable for the landlord to update the resident on how it was addressing each of her complaints, in order to seek to resolve them.

55.        The landlord provided its stage 2, final response on 3 May 2022. This was 131 days after the resident first requested for the landlord to escalate her complaint. This was an unreasonable delay. It was also 122 days after the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, saying it would provide a response within 20 working days. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (published on our website) sets out an expectation that landlords will provide its final response to a resident’s complaint within 20 working days. This delay was, therefore, unreasonable. It was also not in line with the landlord’s own complaints policy as set out above.

56.        The landlord addressed each of the resident’s complaints as an update. However, a number of repairs as described above in this report, remained outstanding. These considerable delays in completing repairs and complaint handling were unacceptable and would have caused distress and inconvenience for the resident.

57.        For the reasons described above, there is a finding of maladministration for the handling of the resident’s complaints. This includes the poor levels communication and delays in complaint handling. It also failed to work within the guidelines of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, failed to resolve the resident’s complaint, or adequately recognise the detriment caused to the resident in its response. In line with Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance as mentioned above, the landlord is to pay the resident an additional £250 in respect of its handling of her complaint.

Determination (decision)

58.        In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about repairs to the lift, garage doors, and bin shed.

59.        In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of communal cleaning, and poor condition of the building.

60.        In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the CCTV system not working.

61.        In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about ASB caused by dog nuisance, drug use, and dumped rubbish.

62.        In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

63.        The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing within 28 days from the date when this report is issued. The apology is to be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration in the handling of the repairs and expresses a sincere regret for its handling of the resident’s concerns about:

  1. Repairs to the lift, garage doors, and bin shed.
  2. Communal cleaning, and poor condition of the building.
  3. The CCTV system not working.
  4. The associated complaint.

64.        The landlord is to pay the resident a compensation payment of £850 within 28 days of this report. The breakdown of this compensation is as follows:

  1. £350 for its handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs to the lift, garage doors, and bin shed.
  2. £100 for its handling of the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning, and poor condition of the building.
  3. £150 for its handling of the resident’s concerns about the CCTV not working.
  4. £250 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

65.        The landlord is ordered to refund the service charge of £15.08 it charged the resident for CCTV that it knew was not working from 1 August 2021 to 31 October 2021.

Recommendations

66.        The landlord should continue to carry out regular inspections to ensure the quality of cleaning in and around the building. To assist in communication between the landlord and the resident, the landlord could consider communicating with the resident prior to it completing its regular inspections of the communal areas of the building. This would allow the resident to be present during such inspections or the landlord could allow her to raise her specific concerns during the inspection process.

67.        The contractor is encouraged to provide photographic evidence of its cleaning of communal areas to the landlord. This would provide supporting evidence of the works it has completed in case of any future queries.

68.        The contractor is encouraged to use signed weekly cleaning logs, visible in communal areas of the building, for residents to see.

69.        The landlord should refund the service charge of £15.08 for all resident’s it charged for CCTV that it knew was not working from 1 August 2021 to 31 October 2021.