Home Group Limited (202310296)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310296

Home Group Limited

28 August 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of outstanding repairs following a fire in 2019.
2. Reports of damp and mould following a leak.
3. Reports about restricted accessibility to the communal driveway.
4. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of a 4-bedroom house, owned by the landlord, where she resides with her 3 adult children. The landlord is aware of the household vulnerabilities.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 12 April 2023, stating that there were outstanding repairs to her home following a fire in 2019. The fire had damaged the doors and windows, causing draughts and heat to escape. There was no insulation to the front cavity wall as the fire brigade had removed this and kitchen tiles had been damaged. There were also repairs required to her shower. She was dissatisfied with the surveyor’s communication and length of time the repairs had remained outstanding.
In its stage 1 response on 27 April 2023, the landlord stated that its contractors had attended and carried out repairs to the dry verge edging, mould, and bathroom. It had also resealed the doors, however, the resident had reported that the seals had come away again. It would arrange a return visit to remedy this and was committed to putting right the outstanding repairs.
The resident raised a further complaint on 12 July 2023, about damp and mould in her home following a leak, and outstanding repairs relating to this.
In its stage 1 response on 26 July 2023, the landlord acknowledged the reported leak which had caused damage to the plasterboard and exposed mould as a result. It had raised an order to replace the plasterboard, skirting and coving in the hall. The works were completed on 23 July 2023.
Following contact from this Service the landlord took the decision to combine both stage 1 complaints and escalate to stage 2. It also included issues which had not previously been through its complaints process. This included the resident’s concerns about the accessibility of the communal shared driveway.
In its stage 2 response of 21 August 2023, the landlord listed 20 repairs concerns and provided a detailed response for each. It directed the resident to its insurance department with regard to her claim of damaged belongings following the leak. It said it would consider compensation once all required works had been completed, so it was clear how long she had been impacted by the issues. Progress had been made but there were remaining actions it needed to take to put things right. It anticipated that the work would be completed within 4 weeks, with the exception of the driveway as it needed to agree a way forward.
As advised to do so in its stage 2 response, the resident submitted a claim to the landlord’s insurance department on 11 October 2023. She requested compensation for damages to her personal belongings caused by the leak and subsequent damp and mould, and costs for replacement flooring and redecoration. She attributed some of the damages to repairs and its failure to maintain and carry out repairs to an adequate standard, including faulty doors and windows.
The same day, the landlord’s insurance team instructed its solicitor to act in the matter, which the solicitor later referred to as a disrepair claim. The correspondence between the insurance department and solicitor referred to both repairs and the damaged belongings.
Following the landlord’s final response, it sent a further stage 2 outcome letter on 2 May 2024. This listed all of the resident’s concerns and a timeline of actions it had taken. It stated that she had raised a disrepair claim, a settlement offer had been made, and she had wanted to consider the offer once all repairs had been completed. Despite this, it had identified a number of service failures and offered £305 compensation which comprised £100 for the delay in replacing the doors and window, £75 for its complaint handling, £75 for the time taken to reach a decision about the driveway, and £55 for its failure to repair the shower on the first visit.
Both parties confirmed to this Service, that a settlement was reached in June 2024 in the amount of £5,000.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She was unhappy with how long the repairs had remained outstanding, the level of compensation offered, and stated that the situation had significantly impacted her mental health. The resident has confirmed to this Service that all repairs, including the driveway, have now been resolved.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s correspondence, she reported multiple health concerns including COPD and mobility issues. Both of her daughters had autism and the disruption of repairs had caused distress. She stated that the damp and mould had caused concern due to her and her daughter’s respiratory conditions. She also mentioned that the situation had impacted her mental health.
This Service has investigated how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.
As stated above and demonstrated by the evidence provided to this Service, following the landlord’s final response of 21 August 2023, it referred to a disrepair claim being submitted in its second final response of 2 May 2024. It has been noted that the resident submitted a claim to its insurance department which included repairs issues and the landlord solicitors have treated the claim as a disrepair claim which, confusingly, includes personal belongings. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with the compensation offered in her disrepair claim, she would need to pursue the matter further via the courts.
This Service has considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints and whether its responses were reasonable in the circumstances. In investigating the case, we have considered that the disrepair claim was made separately from the landlord’s complaints process, but we are not able to assess the adequacy of this offer. The resident may wish to consider seeking legal advice on whether the claim was sufficiently dealt with. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure.

Reports of outstanding repairs following a fire in 2019.

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good order.
The landlord’s repairs policy was not provided to this Service, however, its website states that emergency repairs are attended to within 6 hours with an aim to completing repairs within 24 hours. It aims to resolve all standard repairs in an average of 28 days.
The landlord’s repairs records showed that there was a fire at the property around October 2019, caused by an external meter. This impacted the front of the property around the front door and kitchen window. Multiple repairs were carried out at the time including electrical work, deep cleaning of extractor fans, and porch canopy repairs. The kitchen window and front door had been affected by the heat and required “resealing and raking out”. The front door also needed adjusting as it was sticking.
In the resident’s complaint she stated that the door and kitchen window, kitchen tiles, and cavity insulation remained outstanding since the fire. It should be noted that additional repairs were raised and responded to by the landlord over the course of its complaints handling.
The landlord’s repairs records show the following:
1. In 2020 there were general repairs made to taps, extractor fans, trickle vents to windows, and sealant to the bath. There were no repairs raised in relation to the doors, windows, kitchen tiles or insulation.
2. In 2021 there was reference to a leaking joint but no description of where this was located. Other repairs related to extractor fans, kitchen taps and radiators.
3. In 2022, 5 repairs were recorded for boiler issues and leaks under the kitchen sink.
4. In 2023 there were 45 repairs records, dating from March 2023, the time the resident contacted the landlord to report the outstanding repairs.
While this Service does not dispute that the resident had been chasing the outstanding repairs, there was no evidence provided by either party to demonstrate this.
The landlord’s records of 22 February 2023 referred to an inspection of the property to assess the condition of the windows and doors after the fire in 2019. It stated that the resident was chasing contact regarding the door and window which had warped in the fire. A further record of 31 March 2023 referred to her chasing a response and adding that her shower kept losing power.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that it had completed repairs in the bathroom and to the dry verge edging. It had also attended on 18 April 2023 to reseal the windows and doors however the resident had reported that this was coming away again. It would arrange a further visit to resolve this. It apologised for its handling of the repair work and poor communication she had experienced. It had fed this back and would remain in contact until the actions were resolved.
The landlord’s response was appropriate in acknowledging the resident’s repairs concerns, however, it failed to address all of the issues she had raised. It did not refer to the kitchen tiles, shower, or insulation. It appropriately agreed to return to address the seals around the windows and doors. A further stage 1 outcome letter was sent on 22 June 2023 which confirmed that the landlord was pleased that the windows and doors had been repaired. However, it again failed to address the other issues raised in the resident’s complaint.
On 10 August 2023 the resident reported that the kitchen window had been repaired but still moved in its frame. The front door rubber seal at the bottom was missing, and when it rained, water seeped in. The rear door rubber seal was also missing, and the contractor had advised her that it was unable to source a replacement.
In its stage 2 response the landlord listed 20 repairs concerns. This included the doors and windows, insulation, shower, and kitchen tiles. It stated that it had agreed with its contractor to replace the seals on the front door, and if there were any difficulties sourcing parts, a decision would be made about next steps. It would also source seals for the patio door and any issues would be discussed as to how to proceed. It also stated:
1. It did not provide cavity wall insulation in its properties. It accepted this may have been in place prior to the fire, however, it would not replace this as a matter of course. The resident could pursue an insurance claim, and it provided details on how to do this.
2. An inspection was raised to look at the wet room shower to establish the cause of the loss of power. This would be repaired or replaced as appropriate.
3. The kitchen tiles were loose, and grout was damaged in the historic fire. A job had been raised to make good the tiles and either clean or replace the grout.
4. It had raised an inspection for the kitchen window, and any action required, would be arranged. A job had also been raised for the dining and living room windows to repair the trickle vents and replace gaskets.
The landlord’s response was comprehensive in detailing the actions it was proposing to take. However, its response in relation to the cavity wall insulation was unreasonable. It should have considered, at the time of the fire, claiming on its own insurance, rather than asserting that the resident should undertake this.
Following the landlord’s final response, further records of 15 September 2023 showed that it had inspected the doors and window. It concluded that the new seal fitted had split where the door had been adjusted and recommended a new door frame. The kitchen window, whilst it looked straight, had melted on the bottom corner from the fire.
Between November and December 2023, the resident reported that she had been unable to leave the property as she was a wheelchair user, the doors were wedged stuck, and difficult to open. This had affected her mental health which resulted in her being admitted to hospital. Contractors had attended and carried out temporary repairs and measured for new doors and a window, however, she had been advised this would take 12 weeks. The landlord’s records referred to this being a fire and health and safety risk and requiring urgent attention.
In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it stated that it had originally placed the order for the doors and window with its contractor in September 2023. At the time the contractors were winding down their service provision prior to the termination of the contract, however, the expectation was that an order would be progressed in line with their contractual obligations. Unfortunately, they did not place the order for manufacture. As soon as it discovered this, an order was placed with the new contractor to attend, measure the doors and window, with a view to replacing them as soon as possible.
A further stage 2 response was sent on 2 May 2024 which again provided a detailed timeline and explanation of the landlord’s actions. It stated that during an inspection in September 2023 its surveyor had confirmed that the doors and window were beyond repair. It also stated that:
1. Its contractor subsequently visited, measured for replacements, and placed orders. On 16 October 2023 it received confirmation that the doors and window had been ordered with an expected lead time of 10 weeks for installation. It explained the situation that occurred with its change in contractors and apologised for the prolonged process.
2. It had received the disrepair claim regarding the doors and window.
3. It noted that the doors had been extremely difficult for her to use due to not functioning correctly. It had carried out temporary adjustments in an attempt to make them easier for her to use.
4. On 7 March 2024 both doors were replaced, and the window was replaced on 28 March 2024.
5. It had noted her request for compensation for the poor service she had received and was aware that an offer had already been made to her in connection with the disrepair claim. Despite this, it had considered her request and notwithstanding that offer, it had identified some specific service failures. Additional compensation was offered in the amount of £100 for the significant delay to supply replacement doors and kitchen window, and £55 for its service failure to repair the shower on its first visit. It apologised for the upset and inconvenience the matter had caused.
The landlord’s compensation offer, of £55 for failing to repair the shower on its first visit, was reasonable and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for service failure in the range of £50 to £100. It is not known, however, why a further £100 was offered for the delay in replacing the doors and window, given that this formed part of the disrepair claim. While it apologised for the upset caused and acknowledged the difficulty the resident had encountered using the doors, its response lacked empathy given the detriment she had reported. It also failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint or say how it would prevent delays from occurring in the future.
This Service understands that the disrepair claim settlement of £5,000 included compensation for the delay in repairing the window and doors. We have, therefore, not awarded any further compensation in relation to the delays. However, this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response due to its lack of empathy and failure to demonstrate any learning from the complaint.

Reports of damp and mould following a leak.

The landlord’s damp and mould policy assesses the risk of damp and mould under 3 categories of high, medium, and low risk. The categories refer to where a household member has certain medical conditions and vulnerabilities including respiratory problems, where residents are under 12 or over 65 years old, and where there is damp and mould in all rooms or just in one room where the household spend more than 12 hours.
The landlord’s decant policy states that emergency decants may be required following an emergency which results in the property becoming unsafe or unfit to live in. Examples of emergencies include fire, flood, storm damage, structural damage and severe damp and mould.
The evidence provided to this Service demonstrates that the resident had advised the landlord of an ongoing leak in March 2023. Her water provider had suggested that there was a leak and that her bill was £155 more each year as a result. A further report was made on 2 June 2023 about a leak “coming from somewhere”.
The resident reported a leak on 3 July 2023. This was following a shelf having fallen, and while trying to repair the holes, plasterboard had fallen on her daughter. She reported that there was exposed mould where the plasterboard had been. This had caused distress to her daughter due to her autism and OCD.
The landlord’s records of the same date referred to the leak and repairs required. This included the replacement of plasterboard and removal of flooring in the bathroom and first floor WC to allow drying time. It had provided a dehumidifier and stated that the mould would require treatment, and electrics would need to be checked. The area would need to dry out until 25 July 2023 before repairs could be undertaken. The resident had reported that she was unable to live in the property due to the exposed mould and difficulty manoeuvring around the dehumidifier.
The landlord provided temporary accommodation, in line with its decant policy, for the resident and her family from 3 July 2023 to the completion of the work. This demonstrated that it had acknowledged the resident’s health concerns and considered her household vulnerabilities.
On 5 July 2023 the resident submitted a list of losses and damage to her belongings. She wanted compensation for the loss of shoes and coats as a result of its contractors failing to maintain and fix the property. She asked for the cost of new lino which had been removed and stated that the upstairs was also mouldy in the bathroom and toilet. In her complaint she further reported that there was damp and mould under the hall, stairs and landing carpets.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that it could see that the repair was reported on 3 July 2023. It raised orders the same day to replace the plasterboard, coving and skirting in the hall. Its contractors attended on 6 July 2023 to assess the work and returned on 23 July 2023 to complete the repairs. It had provided a dehumidifier, and its surveyor would post inspect the work to ensure it was completed.
While the landlord took prompt action following the report on 3 July 2023 to resolve the matter, it was evident that the leak had been ongoing for some time. Its response was factual but failed to show any empathy for the situation and failed to acknowledge her reports of damage to her personal belongings.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that the resident had been dissatisfied with the repairs and confirmed that it had re-attended on 17 August 2023 to repair holes and smooth the uneven plaster. It confirmed that she was now satisfied with the repair. It outlined her list of damaged belongings and directed her to its insurance team, providing details on how to make a claim.
The landlord’s response was appropriate in directing the resident to its insurers to make a claim for her damaged belongings with appropriate evidence. It was also reasonable that it re-attended to make good the plasterwork. However, it again failed to acknowledge that the leak had been ongoing for some time.
Following the landlord’s final response the resident submitted a list of her damaged items to its insurance department on 11 October 2023. She requested compensation for damages and losses due to the leak, damp and mould, and the defective doors and windows which had caused condensation and damage to a laptop. She stated that had repairs been completed in a timely manner and to a good standard the damages would never have occurred.
As stated above, the evidence demonstrated that the landlord’s insurance team and solicitor had considered the resident’s claim for compensation as a disrepair claim. It acknowledged that there had been recurring leaks and outstanding repairs. An offer of £5,000 was made, which was accepted, and paid in June 2024 following the completion of the resident’s repairs and complaint.
While the resident’s claim was dealt with separately to her complaint, it is impossible to separate the landlord’s offer under the claim as a different intervention. The issues considered are one and the same. As stated above, its complaints response failed to acknowledge that the leaks had been a longstanding issue. However, the matter was also being dealt with in the insurance/disrepair claim, thus the issue of its duration should have formed part of the consideration.
This Service therefore finds that the landlord responded appropriately to the reports of damp and mould on the basis of the foregoing. This is because it clarified to the resident that it would consider compensation after the works, as she requested, and then it was included in the settlement of her claims.

Reports about restricted accessibility to the communal driveway.

The resident raised her concerns about the shared communal driveway in May 2023. She stated that the driveway was too steep and inaccessible due to her mobility and health conditions.
The landlord’s records between June and August 2023, referred to the resident’s concerns and stated that it was limited in what action it could take as it did not own the driveway. It acknowledged that the driveway was steep, and another neighbour had also raised concerns due to their car scraping when driving over the tarmac strip. The problem was not only the tarmac strip, but the car park block paving dropped away forming a peak. It had confirmation from its legal team that the area was adopted by the local authority, and it required permission from highways to resolve the matter.
This element of the resident’s complaint had not been through the landlord’s complaints process at stage 1 and was incorporated into the landlord’s final response. In its response it stated that the matter was being investigated and it had checked the title plans to establish which part of the road was adopted and which areas it was responsible for. Its proposal was to ensure that the “peak” between the tarmac and driveway surface was levelled out to reduce its height and undertake repairs to the block paving. Enquiries were being made with the local authority as it required permission. It was keen to do whatever was possible to remedy the situation.
The landlord’s response was reasonable having established that it did not own the tarmac area of the driveway and it required permission to undertake any work. It would have been difficult at this point for it to have provided an estimated timescale for the work.
The landlord’s records between September 2023 and April 2024 demonstrated that it was actively trying to resolve the matter. Records showed that:
1. It had since been informed by highways that the area was not adopted, and another housing association owned the land in question. It had written to the housing association explaining the situation, stating that it needed to be resolved as soon as possible as some residents had restricted mobility, and that its maintenance team could undertake the work with its permission.
2. The housing association did not respond for some considerable time. When it did respond it stated that it was reluctant to give permission as there was a “huge risk” in trying to alter the camber of the existing path. It was likely that all services ran underneath the strip, and it considered the proposal unreasonable. It suggested an alternative solution which the landlord stated did not address the accessibility issue or take into account that the tarmac strip was damaging the underside of residents’ cars.
3. Following an onsite meeting between the landlord and housing association surveyors, the housing association was not prepared to pay for the works to reduce the slope. It suggested that the landlord could pay for and undertake the work with its permission but in later correspondence confirmed it was still considering this option.
In its second stage 2 response of 2 May 2024, the landlord stated that there had been a delay in dealing with the driveway due to it not owning the land. It had met with a representative of the housing association to discuss the driveway in February 2024, and it was collectively attempting to resolve the issue. Discussions were ongoing and it would continue to try to reach a mutual agreement. The landlord offered £75 compensation for the time taken to reach a decision about the driveway.
This Service appreciates that the situation would have been frustrating and distressing for the resident. She advised that she had reported the matter when she moved into the property. While we do not dispute that the matter may have been reported previously, she would have been aware of the camber of the driveway when viewing and accepting the property in 2012. She advised this Service that the issue with the driveway has now been resolved.
The landlord demonstrated that it had made every effort to resolve the matter in consulting its legal team, highways department, and the housing association who owned the land. It would have been challenging for it to resolve the matter as it had no permissions to undertake any work to land it did not own. Its response was reasonable in offering compensation for the delay in finding a resolution to the matter given that it was not within its control. This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports about restricted accessibility to the communal driveway.

Associated formal complaint.

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
Both of the resident’s stage 1 complaints were acknowledged and responded to within the landlord’s complaint policy timescales.
It is not known, however, why further “stage 1 complaint outcome” letters were sent. This was confusing given that it had already responded. If these were intended to be complaint closure letters, the landlord should ensure that its communications are clearly defined as such.
The landlord took the decision to combine and escalate both stage 1 complaints following contact from this Service. It also included issues the resident had raised with the Ombudsman, which had not been through its complaint process. This Service appreciates that it has tried to combine all of the resident’s concerns to provide a comprehensive response. However, this is not best practice as it confuses its complaint handling process, and was not in line with this Service’s complaint handling code which states:
1. Paragraph 5.7, where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response if they are relevant, and the stage one response has not been issued. Where the stage one response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 21 August 2023. By combining the complaints, it was unable to demonstrate that it had responded within its complaint policy timescales, given that this was 4 months following the initial stage 1 complaint and 1 month since the second complaint.
The landlord sent a further stage 2 response in May 2024, almost 9 months following its final response and offered £75 for its complaint handling. While the landlord should have considered this in its final response, its offer was reasonable and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for service failure in the range of £50 to £100.
This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved the complaint about its handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs following a fire in 2019.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved the complaint about its handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Reports about restricted accessibility to the communal driveway.
3. Associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to send a written apology, by a senior member of staff, for the failings identified in this report, with respect to its handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs following a fire in 2019.
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above order.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident £305 offered in its second stage 2 response in May 2024 if not already paid.
The landlord should reconsider its position in relation to the cavity wall insulation near the front door and window if this was not covered in its disrepair claim compensation payment.
The landlord should ensure that if it is sending complaint closure letters, they are clearly defined as such to avoid any confusion.