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

Home Group Limited (202013788)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013788

Home Group Limited

19 May 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 concerns the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. reports of a leak in the property.
    2. request for the contractor’s repair report and subject access request.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the contractor’s repair report and a subject access request

  1. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  2. In raising a complaint on 17 August 2020, the resident described delays she experienced in requesting a copy of the contactor’s repair report relating to leaks at the property. In her correspondence with the landlord in September 2020, the resident described further delays she had experienced after making a subject access request (SAR) to the landlord.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about landlords’ responses to requests for information under the Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts. Matters relating to requests for information under the Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts fall more properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and it is recommended the resident contact the ICO if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident it an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association.
  2. Section 3.1 of the landlord’s statement of service document is concerned with repair target times. This states that it aims to attend emergencies within six hours of being made aware of the issue and that routine repairs will be carried out within 14 calendar days.
  3. An emergency repair is defined by the statement of service as “an issue, if left, would seriously affect the property structure, security or constitute a danger to health and safety”.
  4. Standard 10 of the landlord’s property management policy is concerned with responsive repairs. This, in part, states that:

“Emergency repairs are completed first time or are ‘made safe’ with follow-on repairs required. A percentage of completed repairs will be inspected by appropriately skilled staff to monitor value for money and contractor performance.

Where repairs or other works have not been completed satisfactorily or within pre-defined timescales, we offer compensation in-line with Right to Repair Scheme and our compensation policy compliance notes and supporting resources.”

Summary of Events

  1. The landlord’s repair logs state that:
    1. A work order was raised on 16 January 2020 following a report of a leak from behind a kitchen cupboard in the property. This was marked as completed on 16 January 2020. Follow-on work was recommended to refit the kitchen units and the bath panel.
    2. An engineer visited the property on 17 January 2020 and identified the source of the leak as a hot water tap in the bathroom leaking into the kitchen. This was recorded as being made safe on 17 January 2020.
    3. On 20 January 2020 a work order was raised to replace two kitchen units. This was marked as cancelled due to no contact from the resident following two attempts on 24 and 28 January 2020.
    4. On 29 January 2020 a work order was raised following a report of a leak from the boiler. An operative attended on 31 January 2020, fitted new washers and reported that the leak was resolved. An inspection of the boiler occurred on 3 February 2020 and a recommendation was made that a gas engineer make adjustments to the pipework.
    5. On 3 February 2020 a work order was raised again to replace the kitchen units. This was marked as cancelled due to the resident’s concerns that the new units would be a different colour to the rest of the kitchen and that she wished to discuss the matter further before proceeding.
    6. On 13 February 2020 a work order was raised following a report of a leak from the boiler. The job as marked as completed on 13 February 2020 and that it was due to a deterioration of a rubber washer, which was made safe. Follow-on work to replace the washer and the condensate pipe was marked as completed on 26 February 2020.
    7. On 2 March 2020 the resident reported an issue with the mixer tap in the kitchen and that the leak from the hot water tap in the bathroom had not been resolved. An operative attended on 2 March 2020 and noted that the condensate pipe from the boiler into the soil stack, replaced on 13 February 2020, was broken. This had caused any water discharged from the bathroom upstairs to leak in the kitchen through the broken pipe. The operative’s notes also state that the kitchen units’ removal had left the work top without any support and in a dangerous state. Follow-on work to seal the condensate pipe was raised and marked as completed on 12 March 2020.
    8. On 28 July 2020 a work order was raised for a full kitchen refurbishment. This was marked as completed on 10 August 2020.
  2. On 17 August 2020 the resident called the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint. The landlord’s notes of the telephone call described the elements of the complaint as:
    1. Her dissatisfaction with the quality of service she had received from the landlord’s contractors.
    2. This had been an ongoing issue for several years for her and other residents and that she had raised several complaints previously with the landlord relating to poor service she had experienced from its contractor.
    3. It took 11 visits from the contractor to resolve the leak into her kitchen.
    4. The landlord does not take any responsibility for the poor conduct of its contractors or properly inspect their work.
  3. On 18 August 2018 the landlord arranged to meet residents to discuss the issues they had experienced. The landlord called the resident on 21 August 2020 to confirm that the meeting had been arranged for 26 August 2020 and that it had also opened a formal complaint.
  4. The landlord’s summary of the 26 August 2020 meeting states that the resident informed it that:
    1. She reported a leak in the kitchen on 16 January 2020 and that she lost several kitchen cupboards due to damp. She was informed that someone would return the next day so she took the day off work. However, no-one came.
    2. She called the contractor nine times between 31 January 2020 and 18 March 2020 to report the leak. An operative attended each time who informed her that the leak had been repaired, but that the leak always returned.
    3. She found the presence of the contractors ‘intrusive’ and that she had to clean up the mess left following their visits.
    4. She was informed that it was not possible to replace the kitchen units with matching cupboards and would have to have mismatched units. She refused and raised a complaint directly with the contractor. This complaint was upheld and the contactor agreed to install a new kitchen. However, one of the cupboards did not work properly and had yet to be repaired.
  5. Following the meeting, a work order was raised by the landlord to renew the kitchen corner base unit’s door hinges and door handles. The landlord then called the resident on 3 September 2020 to discuss the complaint and her desired outcome. A stage one complaint response was then sent to the resident on 10 September 2020.
  6. The landlord It noted that the resident had wanted assurances that it would provide a better service in the future, asked why the contractor had dispatched unqualified people to her home, and wanted to know where it invests its money as she felt the landlord was only interested in building new homes and not maintaining its existing properties. The landlord then informed the resident that:
    1. It accepted that there was an ‘excessive’ number of visits to identify and resolve the leak. It was initially thought that the problem was located in the bathroom, but later it was determined that the condensate pipe from the boiler was the cause. The contractor agreed to a full refurbishment of the kitchen due to the length of time it took for them to resolve the issue.
    2. It apologised for the delay in resolving the leak and that it would work with the contractor to improve the service it provides.
    3. When an emergency repair is required the contractor will dispatch the closest operation to make safe the issue. Therefore ’you may get a roofer to attend to a leaking toilet as his/her only task is to isolate the leak and report back to the main office’.
    4. It is a non-profit organisation and that all of its revenue is reverted back into its operations and services, including repairs.
  7. The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident that it was arranging an estate day, where landlord and contractor staff members will be made available for all residents to raises any issues or concerns they may have.
  8. On 21 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and gave an overview of the complaint. She described the issues she experienced during the attempts by the contractor to resolve the leak and the ongoing issues she had experienced during the refurbishment of the kitchen. The resident particularly highlighted the comment in the stage one response that stated that the closest operative would attend an emergency repair and not the most qualified. The resident expressed her surprise that this would be the landlord’s policy.
  9. The resident also described the time and inconvenience that the issue had caused and then informed the landlord of the state of anxiety she now felt when having its operatives in her home.
  10. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 29 September 2020. It informed her that the complaint had now been escalated to stage two of its process. It then wrote to the resident on 6 October 2020 to confirm the escalation. It called the resident and wrote several more emails between 6 and 30 October 2020 to update her on the progress of the stage two investigation.
  11. On 1 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord with a list of questions that she would like answered by the contractor. The landlord passed this list on to the contractor on 2 November 2020 and then sent the stage two complaint response to the resident on 5 November 2020. The landlord informed the resident that:
    1. The comment in the stage one response that a roofer may attend a leaking toilet was not accurate. When a repair is reported, information is gathered to ensure an appropriately qualified operative is appointed to carry out the task.
    2. It understood the resident wished to receive a formal apology from the contractor. The contractor did apologise in their own complaints process, but the landlord would be happy to arrange for a senior member of the contractor’s staff to contact the resident. The landlord also apologised to the resident for the poor level of service and lack of communication she received.
    3. The landlord explained that it reviews the repairs service provided to residents during weekly meetings and issues relating to non-qualified operatives and the performance of the contractor would be raised during this process. The landlord also noted that if the contractor had made it aware of the complaint she had raised, it would have raised a formal complaint itself much sooner.
    4. It apologised to the resident and awarded £475 compensation, which it broke down as:
      1. £100 in recognition of delays.
      2. £75 for the disturbance caused by numerous appointments.
      3. £75 for the loss of the full use of the kitchen.
      4. £75 for the contractor failing to properly address the resident’s complaint.
      5. £75 for the confusion and concerned caused by the stage one complaint response.
      6. £75 for the time and effort spent by the resident chasing this matter.
  12. The landlord then informed the resident that while it understood her hesitancy in allowing the contractor’s operatives into her home, it would like to rectify the outstanding issues with the kitchen. The landlord suggested a joint visit by one of its surveyors along with its contactor, or another contractor if she wished, to resolve the outstanding repairs.
  13. Along with the stage two response, the landlord supplied a letter from the contractor which answered the questions asked by the resident in her 1 September 2020 email and a leaflet describing its complaints process. 

Assessment and findings

  1. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an acknowledgment of its errors, an apology, working to improve its repairs service and a compensation payment of £475) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. In this case. the landlord has acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by looking to work with the resident to find an acceptable course to resolve the remaining issues with the new kitchen, and also it implemented a consultation process with residents that resulted in a community improvement plan being sent in December 2020.
  3. This demonstrates that the landlord took on board the issues raised by the resident by making them part of its consultation process. The improvement plan listed areas where the landlord believed it could improve its service and described an action plan it intended to implement within three months to improve its communication, its relationship with residents, its repairs service and oversight over its contactors. If the resident has any concerns regarding the implementation of the action plan, she can raise a new complaint to the landlord about this.
  4. During the complaint process, the resident asked several questions relating to how the work was undertaken to resolve the leak and the landlord’s repairs policies. All of these questions were answered by the landlord in its two responses. When the resident sent an email on 1 September 2020 with specific questions relating to the repair log, this was passed on to the contractor. The contractor’s response was included with the stage two response, where the resident’s queries were addressed line-by-line.
  5. The landlord awarded £475 compensation to the resident and explained how it reached that figure. This award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance and was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of a water leak in the property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The landlord responded to the resident’s questions appropriately and apologised for its errors. It looked to learn from its mistakes by implementing a consultation process with its residents to identify areas where it could improve its service. Elements of the resident’s complaint were highlighted as areas of improvement by landlord as a part of this process. The landlord also offered compensation which was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of its errors.