The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Home Group Limited (202010713)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010713

Home Group Limited

6 April 2021


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 level of compensation offered by the landlord in respect of delays in ensuring a gas supply to the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident submits that, prior to moving into the property on 17 January 2020, she was aware that the gas needed to be recommissioned, but this could not be arranged until the tenancy began. The landlord has said that, at the time the tenancy began, it provided a “void incentive” in which it provided the resident 4 weeks rent free from the beginning of the tenancy.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 January 2020 to request that the gas be reconnected. The landlord said that its contractors attended the same day but were unable to gain access. The resident has said that no-one attended the appointment.
  3. A new appointment was arranged for 23 January 2020 and the landlord has said that this attendance took place, and the job was recorded as closed the same day. The resident has said that, during the visit, it was identified that there was no gas meter in the property, and one would need to be fitted before the gas was re-connected.
  4. The landlord has said that the next contact it received from the resident regarding the reconnection of the gas was on 26 February 2020. The resident has said that between 23 January and 26 February 2020 she was in contact with the gas supplier attempting to arrange for a new gas meter to be fitted. She says the gas supplier told her the landlord had the meter removed on 27 November 2019.
  5. The landlord has said that the reconnection of the gas supply was completed on 6 March 2020.
  6. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 14 April 2020 as she was unhappy with the length of time it took to resolve the gas supply issue. She said she had needed to spend time at other properties as her property was too cold to stay in and she did not believe she should have to pay rent for this period. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 April 2020 and offered £324.55 compensation for the disruption caused by the gas meter installation.
  7. On 1 June 2020, the resident advised that she was unhappy with the compensation offered, and the landlord issued a Stage 1 response on 9 June 2020. It acknowledged that it had taken an unacceptable amount of time to resolve the issue of the gas supply which resulted in the resident being without full facilities for just over 6 weeks. It apologised for the poor service provided. It explained that its offer of compensation was a deduction of the rent from 14 February to 6 March 2020 and noted that the resident had a 4-week rent free period from 17 January 2020. It noted that the resident had already asked for the complaint to be escalated to Stage 2.
  8. The resident told the landlord that she wanted an additional 4 weeks rent free, so that she did not lose out on the initial rent-free period provided as an incentive to move into the property.
  9. In the landlord’s Stage 2 response of 13 July 2020, it again apologised for the delays in reconnecting the resident’s gas supply. It said it had reviewed the complaint again and increased its offer of compensation to £460.20 (the equivalent of 6 weeks of rent reduction), which was in addition to the 4 weeks reduction provided at the beginning of the tenancy.
  10. The landlord responded to an email from the resident requesting clarification on the amount offered on 13 July 2020. It apologised and said that there had been a miscalculation and the total amount offered was £448.14, being the amount of 6 weeks rent for the period of 17 February to 6 March 2020, when the works were completed.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has previously acknowledged that the delays in completing the reconnection of the gas constituted a service failure and that the meter should have been replaced prior to the property being let to the resident. As the resident has not raised any points in respect of this, the Ombudsman has not specifically considered this course of events, but rather has focussed on the compensation awarded in response to those identified service failings.
  2. The landlord has said that the compensation amount offered was within the guidelines of its discretionary award scheme but, having reviewed that policy, the Ombudsman cannot find any guidance on the amounts to be awarded and in what circumstances. The provided policy only offers definitions of what discretionary compensation is. As a result, it is not clear how the landlord applied these ‘guidelines’ to the specific facts of this case. Therefore, the Ombudsman can only consider what it believes to be reasonable in the circumstances, taking account of its own Remedies Guidance and the guidelines contained therein.
  3. The resident has said that during the period that she was without a gas supply she had to stay elsewhere due her property being too cold. Given the time of year, between January and March 2020, the Ombudsman would expect that a resident would need to use the property’s heating in order to make the property habitable. As a result, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider a compensation payment as a rent-free period, on the basis that the property was deemed to be uninhabitable. The issue then arises around the period covered by this compensation payment, given that the first four weeks of the tenancy were an incentive rent-free period anyway.
  4. The landlord’s compensation offer was clearly made on the basis that financial redress was only given for the period of delay after the rent-free incentive period had ended, thereby including the incentive period within the compensation offer. This effectively negates the benefit of the initial rent-free period which was for a separate ‘void incentive’ outside of any repairs process. Therefore, whilst it is accepted that the resident did not have any actual financial loss in respect of the first four weeks (by way of rent payments for that period) she has been materially disadvantaged by not receiving the incentive as it was intended.
  5. The tenancy was signed on the basis that the resident would be able to live in a habitable property immediately, with the benefit of a 4-week rent free period. However, it emerged that the property was not in a habitable condition (and the landlord has compensated on that basis) so the resident has not had the benefit of a proper rent-free period. As a result, the compensation offered by the landlord should not have included the incentive scheme within the sum, and an order is made below for additional compensation to be paid in that regard.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has previously accepted that it should have replaced the gas meter prior to the tenancy beginning and that there was an unacceptable delay in resolving the issue. Its offer of compensation was reduced to take in to account a separate incentive provided to the resident at the beginning of tenancy. The landlord has said on several occasions that its offer of compensation is in addition to the incentive. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that any compensation award should cover the first 4 weeks of the tenancy as the inclusion of the incentive payment removes the benefit of that payment from the resident.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay to the resident a total of £772.69 compensation (the landlord’s offer of £448.14 plus £324.55 for the 4-week incentive period). Any sums already paid to the resident in respect of this complaint may be deducted from this sum.