Home Group Limited (202233674)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233674

Home Group Limited

29 February 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

The complaint is about the:
1. Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a parking space.
2. Landlord’s handling of the repair to the communal ceiling outside the resident’s property.
3. Landlord’s response to the resident’s concern regarding the standard of grounds maintenance and communal repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a lease for the property which started on 22 November 2012.
The property is described as a 1-bedroom flat situated on the second floor of the block. By the time of the resident’s complaint, the property was at least 10 years old. A parking space is not provided with the property.
The landlord’s internal communication from 15 October 2021 showed that it was aware that repairs were required to the soffits of the building. In December 2021, it decided that the works could not be carried out by its day-to-day contractor and the repairs would be added to its programme of works for the financial year 2023/2024. The following month, the landlord’s internal communication showed it discussed whether the balcony repairs could be considered a latent defect. Also, whether the panels above the balcony required renewal and that the reserve fund had insufficient funds to carry out the work so it would carry out any interim repairs when they were required.
The landlord’s internal records also noted in January 2022 that the resident had informed them in July 2021 that the work to the balcony had not been completed. There were exposed plaster and nails which could be considered a health and safety issue.
The resident complained to the landlord on 13 May 2022 that:
1. There were holes in the roof above his flat and heavy leaks when it rained.
2. He had been advised that he did not have a parking space. However, the council had advised him that he needed a parking space to qualify for a parking permit. Consequently, he kept receiving parking tickets.
3. The block had not been well maintained. The hallway was dirty, walls were scratched, gutters were dirty and the bike shed had not been cleaned. Therefore, he wanted a refund of the ground maintenance service charge.
The same day, the landlord informed the resident that his complaint had been passed to the complaints team.
On 15 June 2022 and 16 June 2022, the landlord tried to contact the resident to discuss the complaint. It contacted him on 17 June 2022 to acknowledge the complaint, advising that it had tried but had been unable to make contact. It requested that the resident provide a date and time for his availability. The landlord spoke to the resident on 20 July 2022, advising of the actions it had taken such as chasing the surveyor regarding the works required to the balcony.
The landlord provided its complaint response on 18 November 2022. It informed the resident that the repairs to the balcony had been placed on a programme of works to start during the financial year 2022/2023. It apologised for the delay to the works starting and advised that the balcony works had been brought forward. Also, the contract with its planned investment contractors had ended and it was arranging for another contractor to start to undertake urgent work.
The landlord also advised that it had found structural issues with the balcony that required investigation and this was being monitored by its maintenance surveyor. It was organising for the temporary lighting for the balcony to be restored and agreed that the resident could have the next parking space.
The same day, the resident escalated the complaint. The resident stated that the landlord had taken too long to complete the works to the balcony and its complaint response had only addressed the lighting to the balcony walkway. The landlord had failed to address the painting of the hallway, a rat infestation and the clearance of the bike shed had only been offered as he had made a complaint. Also, since 2015, he had received parking tickets and requested compensation for the lack of communication, neglect and poor service delivery.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 22 February 2023. The key findings from the complaint are:
1. Parking
  1. Confirmed that the property did not come with a parking space. It apologised for the error in its first stage response and advised that training would be provided to the housing manager.
  2. Signposted the resident to the council regarding the parking permits and stated that his solicitor should have provided advice on his right to park at the property.
2. Grounds maintenance
  1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with the grounds maintenance and that this, including the cleaning of the bike store, had been resolved.
  2. The estates were inspected monthly or bi-monthly. A notice had been served on 29 July 2022 for matters to be rectified by 4 August 2022.
  3. The resident’s concern related to the service charges for the financial year 2021/2022 and the reconciliation process for that year was ongoing.
  4. By October 2023, it would know whether residents needed to be reimbursed for missed visits or services that had not been provided.
  5. It apologised for the time and effort spent by the resident progressing this matter.
3. Balcony ceiling
  1. It had reviewed its repair history which had shown earlier unrelated repairs taking place to the block resulting from leaks from the downpipe and from the roof.
  2. The surveyor had confirmed that the roof leak was separate to the leak from the gutter running alongside the balcony walkway area onto the floor.
  3. It arranged for an inspection on 31 August 2021 for the soffits to be checked. This was passed to the previous contractors on 15 October 2021, but had not been attended. It terminated its contract with that contractor and the work was passed to a new contractor on 6 September 2022.
  4. The balcony was inspected on 6 September 2022 and it was provided with a schedule of works required.
  5. Damaged ceilings were removed, electrics isolated and temporary lighting installed on 10 November 2022.
  6. An inspection by a structural surveyor occurred on 30 November 2022 and the report was received in December 2022 with recommendations.
  7. It was working with building safety and legal team to decide whether to pursue a claim for a latent defect as the materials used on the external walkways were not considered suitable.
4. Outcome
  1. It apologised for the delay in completing the works and the level of service provided.
  2. It accepted that it could have communicated better on the progress of the repairs and that the repairs had not been completed within its time standards.
  3. It awarded compensation of £280, made up of £75 complaint handling failures, £75 for time and trouble for pursuing the repairs and service, £55 for providing incorrect information and lack of information regarding the parking space and £75 for the walkways delay.

Post complaint events.

The landlord’s submission shows that an insurance company attended regarding the repairs to the balcony. The date is not provided and this Service has not been provided with the decision from the insurance company.
The landlord informed this Service on 27 February 2024 that it had decided not to progress with a Section 20 notice to undertake the work to the block. The work to repair the ceiling had been passed to its contractors and it did not have a date for the works to start. Also, it had ended its contract with its grounds maintenance and cleaning contractors in January 2024. The contractor had destroyed the records that it held regarding the cleaning schedules that were undertaken.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord has followed its policies and procedures and acted appropriately. This includes whether the landlord has taken appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s concerns in line with its responsibilities and the actions it took within its complaint process.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a parking space.

The resident informed the landlord that to stop receiving parking tickets, he required a parking space. In its first complaint response, the landlord agreed that he would receive the next parking space that became available. On its review of the complaint, the landlord recognised that the resident had been given incorrect information. It was appropriate that it apologised to the resident and that it reviewed his lease to establish that the property was not sold with a parking space.
The landlord also signposted the resident to the council to ascertain if there was any action that they could take regarding the issue of the parking tickets. Furthermore, it advised that on the purchase of the lease, his solicitor should have told hm whether he was entitled to a parking space. The landlord also identified that there was a gap in its officers’ knowledge and arranged for training on leases to be carried out. These were all appropriate actions.
The landlord also awarded compensation of £55 for the impact to the resident for the incorrect advice that had been received.
This Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from mistakes. Through its complaint process, the landlord identified that the resident had been misadvised and rectified this. It provided the resident with the information source it had relied on. Also, it advised that he could check the reliability of the information by either looking at his lease or checking with his solicitor.
As the landlord was not able to provide him with a parking space, it was reasonable to signpost the resident to the council who are responsible for the management of the highway. The landlord showed that it had learnt from the complaint as once it recognised that its officer had not interpreted the resident’s lease correctly, to prevent this recurring, it arranged for leasehold training to occur. With regard to the compensation award, this fell within this Service’s Remedies Guidance as it acknowledged the landlord’s service failure which had caused disappointment to the resident.
The landlord has accepted that its communication with the resident could have been better and acted appropriately by apologising and through its award of compensation. The landlord actions represent proportionate and reasonable redress.

Landlord’s handling of the repair to the communal ceiling outside the resident’s property.

The landlord’s property management policy states that it will carry out planned maintenance to reduce the amount of day-to-day repairs that are required to its properties. Also, the landlord’s repairs information for homeowners in England (available on-line) states that it recognises the importance of keeping communal areas in repair.
There is no evidence of the specific date when the landlord became aware that repairs were required to the balcony. However, the landlord had been aware since July 2021 that works were required to the soffits. The works were originally planned to take place in the financial year 2023/2024 and the landlord’s decision to bring the works forward to the financial year 2022/2023 was reasonable and reflected the urgency of the repair.
The landlord considered whether the works to the balcony may be a latent defect. While the age of the building would be a determining factor in the acceptance of the claim, it was reasonable for the landlord to pursue this course of action. The reasoning being that if the claim were accepted, this would reduce the costs payable by the leaseholders for any repairs required to the building. However, this decision could have been taken earlier when the landlord first became aware of the repairs required to the balcony. It is noted that the landlord has not informed this Service of the outcome of the insurance claim.
Leaseholders pay for works to the building through its service charge. Therefore, it was reasonable to review the funds available through the reserve account when establishing how it would pay for the repairs to the building. When it established that it did not have sufficient funds in the reserve account to pay for the works, it was reasonable for it to decide that it would fund repairs in the first instance as day-to-day repairs. However, there is no evidence that it promptly did so, even though it had responsibility for the health and safety of its resident.
The landlord had a change of its planned investment contractor which contributed to the delay. The landlord has not explained whether the ending of the contract with its contractor was planned or whether this was an unexpected situation that was outside of its control. Nevertheless, it is inappropriate that there was little progress between mid-2021 and late 2022 despite the potential health and safety risk.
While the landlord in its complaint response aimed to distinguish between the different types of water penetration experienced by the resident from the roof, it failed to recognise the impact on the resident of experiencing roof leaks directly from the roof and those caused by the gutter running along the balcony. It also failed to acknowledge that both types of leaks would cause inconvenience to the resident. This was not reasonable.
The landlord requested that the soffits were checked on 31 August 2022 and the inspection was carried out on 6 September 2022. Also, during November 2022, its contractor attempted to carry out work to the balcony. On realising the works could not be completed, it failed to restore the lighting to the balcony walkway. This impacted the resident and his neighbours as they were left without any lighting in the evening. The lighting was restored a couple of days later. During its complaint response, the landlord failed to fully acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the time taken to complete the repairs and the inconvenience that the resident experienced. This was not reasonable.
The landlord informed the resident that it had found structural issues which required investigation in November 2022. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor as it did not provide any information about what it found and the length of time of the monitoring period. Neither did it provide further information about the next steps it proposed to take when the monitoring period ended.
This Service’s Spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds: complexity and complaint handling (September 2020) sets out that residents should be communicated with frequently regarding repairs to communal areas. Also, residents should be updated and kept informed of progress with explanations for the delay provided and an expected completion dates. Based on evidence seen by this Service, the landlord has failed to do so in this case.
The structural survey was undertaken in November 2022 and received by the landlord in December 2022. The landlord, in its final complaint response, advised that it had not made a decision about the works to remedy the repairs required to the balcony. The landlord has also told this Service that its planned investment contractor will be undertaking the work but no date has been agreed. This is not reasonable. The works to repair the balcony have been outstanding for a significant period of time.
The landlord made a compensation award of £150 through its final complaint response. This was not appropriate as it did not reflect the amount of time that the repairs to the balcony had not been outstanding and the inconvenience experienced by the resident living with an balcony that had exposed plaster and water penetration when it rained outside his door. Furthermore, it had not completed the repairs in a reasonable time or provided regular updates to the resident giving a timescale when he could expect the works to be completed.
A delay in carrying out repairs is not always considered a failure, particularly if the issue is complex. In this case, following an inspection, the landlord’s surveyor decided that a structural survey was required. It is not explained why it delayed in deciding that a structural survey was necessary as the repairs had been outstanding for an inordinate period of time. There were both periods of inaction by the landlord and periods where it failed to communicate effectively with the resident.
Overall, the available information shows that the landlord has been aware for over a year that repairs are required to the balcony and it has not completed the repairs. Furthermore, it has not agreed a date for works to start even though its lack of action is affecting a number of its residents and it is now more than a year since the complaint exhausted its complaints process. This demonstrates that the landlord did not learn sufficient lessons from the complaint.
The landlord has informed this Service that it does not intend to undertake a Section 20 consultation with residents regarding the cost of the balcony repairs. This is of concern as the landlord has a responsibility to be transparent about any charges that will be incurred by residents unless the landlord is not proposing to recover the costs of the works through the service charge. The purpose of the Section 20 consultation is to give residents information about the works it intends to carry out and the opportunity to make observations on the proposed works. This matter was not considered through the complaints process but a recommendation has been made below in this regard.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s concern regarding the standard of grounds maintenance and communal repairs.

The landlord’s communities and neighbourhood management policy sets out that residents should live in clean, safe and well-maintained neighbourhoods.
The resident complained that the landlord had failed to maintain the building. He provided examples stating that the hallway was dirty and the gutters and bike shed had not been cleaned. The landlord’s service standard with its contractor at the time stated that estate cleaning should occur on a monthly or bi monthly basis. In its complaints review, the landlord accepted that for the month of July 2022, the cleaning standard was not met and it had issued a rectification notice.
The landlord acted reasonably when it advised the resident that it would not consider his concerns about pest control as part of its complaint review. The resident did not raise his concerns about pest control until 2 months after he had raised his complaint. Further, the landlord appropriately arranged for pest control to attend. Therefore, it was reasonable to treat the resident’s concerns as a service request.
The landlord has informed this Service that it is unable to evidence the inspections or the cleaning that were carried out to the resident’s building as the contract with its grounds maintenance contractor had ended and the records were destroyed. Therefore, it had no evidence to support its position outlined in its complaint responses that it had carried out regular cleaning and inspections to the building. This Service’s spotlight report on repairs (March 2019) informs landlords that they have a responsibility to have oversight of any services that are delivered by its contractors. It also has a responsibility to keep records to ensure that its contractors were complying with the terms of the contract.
This Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) identified the difficulties that can occur when the information was held solely by the contractor. This left the landlord without relevant information – therefore, it could not address or evidence what had occurred, such as in this case. This is not reasonable.
Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations. The landlord’s omissions indicate poor record keeping in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. The investigation highlights the importance of landlords keeping clear, accurate and easily accessible records. Had it done so, it may have been able to assure the resident and this Service that it acted in accordance with its own policies.
In its complaint response, the landlord informed the resident that it would refund any service charge due for the financial year 2021/2022 for the grounds maintenance and cleaning as it was in the process of calculating this. The landlord’s submission to this Service does not show that it has done so. Therefore, an order is made about this below.
Given the failings identified in relation to this element of the resident’s complaint, a finding of maladministration has been made.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint procedure states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 days of being received and respond at its first stage within 10 working days. At its final stage, it will provide its complaint response within 20 working days.
The resident made his complaint to the landlord on 13 May 2022. The landlord’s submission shows that it tried to contact the resident on 15 June 2022 and 16 June 2022 but was not successful. The landlord was successful in speaking with the resident on 20 July 2022. This approach to speak with the resident to clarify the complaint was in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. However, the landlord did not meet its acknowledgement standard, to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days, and the attempted contact with a resident should not hold up the complaints process.
The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 18 November 2022. It failed to meet its complaint handling target to respond within 10 working days as it took 132 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint. Furthermore, as outlined above, the complaint response was inaccurate in terms of the advice it gave the resident regarding the award of the parking space.
The resident escalated the complaint on the same day (18 November 2022) and the landlord failed again to meet its complaint handling target as it responded on 22 February 2023. This was 65 working days after the resident requested that the landlord review his concerns. This was not reasonable as the resident experienced an unacceptable delay waiting to obtain the landlord’s position on his complaint.
The landlord awarded overall compensation of £130 for its complaint handling failures. This included £55 for the parking error (which has been assessed above) and the remaining £75 for the complaint handling delays alone. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principes are: be fair, put things right and learn from mistakes. While the landlord has apologised to the resident and made an award of compensation, there is no evidence that it has learnt from this complaint and its compensation award was insufficient given the complaint handling delays extended over a period of around 8 months.
This Service has recently made a wider order about the landlord’s complaint handling through another case determined by this Service (202213850). As the landlord is to respond to this Service by the middle of April 2024 setting out its finding from its complaint review, an order has not been made for the landlord to improve its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of the llandlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a parking space.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the communal ceiling outside the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern regarding the standard of grounds maintenance and communal repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an overall compensation award of £725 (inclusive of the £225 offered through its complaints process), made up of:
  1. £400 for the inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its delay in progressing and completing the necessary repairs to the balcony;
  2. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its failure in the handling of his concern regarding the standard of grounds maintenance and communal repairs;
  3. £225 for the inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
3. If it has not already done so, assess whether there are health and safety works required to make the balcony safe, including the provision of a temporary ceiling, while the full schedule of works is pending. It should write to the resident with its plan to complete any interim works and full repairs.
4. If it has not already done so, calculate whether any refund is due to the resident, and to the affected neighbours, for the grounds maintenance and cleaning for the financial year 2021/2022. The landlord is also to inform this Service whether any refund is due.
Within eight weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should review its handling of this case and create an action plan to show how it will avoid similar failings in future. This should include:
1. A surveyor inspection of the balconies to similar and/or neighbouring blocks to assess whether they have a similar fault to the one occupied by the resident.
2. Consideration of how it will ensure that residents living in blocks where structural repairs to balconies are needed are kept informed of progress of the relevant investigations.
3. Consideration of how it will ensure that its contractors complete planned repairs within agreed timescales and what steps it will take when it is apparent that the planned repairs are overdue.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord is to pay the resident the £55 compensation it awarded through its complaints process for the error in its parking space advice (the Ombudsman’s reasonable redress decision is made on the basis that this compensation is paid).
If it has not already done so, the landlord is to write to the affected residents explaining whether it intends to carry out the Section 20 consultation for repairs to the balcony. If it does not intend to carry out the Section 20 consultation, it should explain this decision to residents and advise how the balcony works will be paid for.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) to identify and improve the record keeping in its planned investment service. The aim should be to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained of works raised and completed, including resident contact.
The landlord should reply to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations.