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

Home Group Limited (202016837)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016837

Home Group Limited

17 September 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the external doors to the property.
  2. The landlord’s complaints handling has also been investigated.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a three–bedroom semi-detached house, with both a rear and a front entrance. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s responsibility for repair/maintenance of the structure/exterior of the building.
  2. The landlord’s complaints procedure, in place at the time of the complaint, provides for a two stage complaints process, with stage one responses aimed for within 5 working days, and stage two responses within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s property management policy confirms that it will act in accordance with the individual occupancy agreement when consulting before any work is carried out, and that ‘wherever possible we offer a meaningful choice of products and services to help customers personalise their homes’.

Summary of Events

  1. The landlord has confirmed that its first records of any issues relating to the doors at the property were dated September 2017, when the front door was inspected and the frames adjusted.
  2. The landlord records available to this investigation include a note, dated 5 June 2018, which referred to a previous surveyor inspection, also dated September 2017, during which it was understood that the surveyor had confirmed that the doors were ‘beyond repair’ and ‘need replacing’. There is also evidence of an ‘expression of dissatisfaction’ having been logged by the resident in relation to this issue dated 10 July 2018 as she was not satisfied that she would have to wait until the following financial year (2019/20) before the works would take place. There is no evidence of this complaint having been responded to formally and the complaint was listed as ‘resolved’.
  3. The landlord has acknowledged, in correspondence with both the resident and this Service, that works to replace the doors (rear and front) were originally scheduled for 2019/20, but that it no longer retained records of its contact with the resident at that time. It therefore decided to add these works to its planned programme of works. The resident was aware that the doors were due for replacement and there is evidence of her chasing progress on a number of occasions (including 6 March 2018, 21 May 2018, 17 September 2019, 3 and 13 January 2020, 13 July 2020). On 11 August 2020, the landlord advised her that the works programme had been put back by several months due to the impact of COVID-19.
  4. The resident also reported a repair issue, relating to both the rear and front doors, on 13 January 2020, as there were gaps, mice were getting in, and the locks were faulty. The landlord’s records indicate that a temporary repair was completed on 17 January 2020.
  5. The resident chased progress on the door replacement again on 1 October 2020. The landlord responded to her on 16 October, through a telephone call. It said that it would do its best to complete the works in the 2020/21 year, but they may have to be carried over to the following year. The resident disputed the landlord’s view that the works had not taken place the year before due to her failure to grant access; she also said that her front door was not in a good condition.
  6. The resident submitted a formal complaint on 16 October 2020. She said that the replacement doors had been scheduled for July of that year but had not yet taken place.
  7. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 21 October 2020. It said that the doors were scheduled for replacement during the 2020/21 year, however, appointments had been made on three occasions to install the doors, but that no access was granted on each occasion. The works had been added back into that year’s programme of works and they ‘should be completed by March 2021’. The landlord also confirmed that the resident had, in advance of the stage one response, requested that the complaint be escalated to stage two of its complaints process, with a member of the complaints team to contact within 5 working days.
  8. The landlord discussed the case with the resident on 28 October 2020. She said that the doors had originally been scheduled for replacement in 2019, that they were measured in March 2020 for replacement in June 2020 but that COVID-19 had then impacted upon this timeframe. She said that she had no recollection of receiving ‘no access’ cards, that she had been largely at home during the pandemic period and did not understand how she had not been available for any appointments. She also said that she was dissatisfied that there was no evidence of these missed appointments, which she had not been notified of in the first place. In addition, the resident said that rainfall causes her kitchen to flood due to the door issues and that insects and draughts were able to get into her property. She said that she was unwilling to wait until March 2021 to get the doors replaced and could not understand why this could not happen sooner.
  9. On 4 November 2020, the landlord updated the resident in respect of the complaint. It explained that it was having difficulty obtaining records of the history of the case as staff members had since left the organisation. It also said that it would now need to go through its new supplier to get the doors replaced.
  10. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 9 November 2020 to measure the property up for the door replacement but was informed that the household were isolating so could not grant access.
  11. The landlord has provided the proforma that was signed and completed by the resident on 26 November 2020 in relation to her choices in relation to the door installations. In respect of the colour scheme, the resident had the option of choosing white, blue, wine or green and chose the wine option.
  12. The landlord sent a further update on the complaint on 4 December 2020, saying that it was still in the process of reviewing the case. A further update on 16 December 2020 confirmed that the doors had been ordered on 30 November and would take 4-6 weeks to complete installation. On 18 December 2020, it confirmed an estimated delivery date of 21 January 2021.
  13. On 15 January 2021, the landlord provided a further update, confirming that the delivery date for the new doors had been pushed back to 16 February. The resident was clearly frustrated by the ongoing delays in the process and contacted the landlord on multiple occasions. She was dissatisfied that a landlord contractor had concluded, during a recent inspection, that there were no draught issues from the existing doors and requested something to be done as it was ‘very cold’ and her heating had to remain on constantly. The landlord responded, on 5 February 2021, to say that an operative would check the doors to see if they could be adjusted to prevent draughts.
  14. On 11 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to say that an appointment scheduled for that day, in relation to the draughts to the doors, had been cancelled due to staff illness, with a rearranged appointment set for 22 February. The landlord responded on the same date to apologise for the missed appointment.

20. The landlord’s records indicate a ‘no access’ appointment dated 18 February 2021 for the checking of the draughts to the existing doors. The resident had emailed on that day to say that she was aware of the appointment and had waited in all day, but that she had to attend her vaccination appointment after 5pm. On 24 February, the landlord confirmed that the new doors would be fitted on 26 February.

21. On 26 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she was dissatisfied that its contractors had attended with red doors to install. She said that all the doors on the estate were brown and that she wanted doors that matched her windows and the doors of her neighbours. She also said that she did not want her property to stand out on the estate.

22. The landlord emailed the resident on 1 March 2021. It confirmed that the doors that had been delivered for installation were in accordance with the choice she had signed for and that the doors had been manufactured to fit her specific property and could not now be changed. It said it could arrange a further appointment to have the installation done, but that it could not guarantee when this would be. The landlord offered her other options; for further adjustment works to take place to her existing doors or for her to purchase her own replacement doors. The landlord did not explicitly state that this email amounted to a formal response under its complaints process, however, it made clear that it would provide her with a formal outcome letter if she remained dissatisfied so that she could pursue the issue externally.

23. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 March 2021. She said that neighbouring properties had already received new, brown doors as part of a previous programme of works, but that she had been required to wait more than two years. She said that the contractor that attended on 26 November 2020 (see above) had maintained distance due to COVID-19 restrictions and had been ‘in a hurry’. She said that she had voiced concern that the colour options provided did not match those of neighbouring properties and had been encouraged to select the ‘wine’ option as, in the contractor’s view, it would not stand out. She said that she could not accept the doors as it might encourage crime and that the contractor had made a mistake that she ought not to be obliged to pay for. She also refused the landlord’s options for her to arrange to replace the doors or for further repairs to be completed to her existing doors as, in her view, it was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve the issue. She requested that the landlord reconsider its decision not to provide her with new doors of her preferred colour.

24. The landlord confirmed to the resident that it was unable to consider different colour doors as the intended door could not be used elsewhere and it was not ‘viable’ to provide a new door for ‘cosmetic’ reasons.

25. On 10 March 2021, the landlord emailed the resident, offering compensation of £325 for failures it had identified in its handling of the case. The breakdown of this compensation order, together with the landlord’s reasoning has been expanded upon in the summary of the final response below, which was sent to the resident when she confirmed that she remained dissatisfied.

26. The resident said, in an email of 15 March, that she was now willing to accept blue doors as a resolution, but not the red ones currently made available. The resident also accepted the compensation offer and there is evidence that this payment was made shortly afterwards. She also said that it was ‘untrue’ to say there had been three previous attempts to install the doors.

27. The landlord provided its final (stage two) response on 29 March 2021. It confirmed that:

a)     It had agreed to replace the front and rear doors in 2018, though the surveyor who had made this decision was no longer employed and it was not clear what his reasoning had been for agreeing the replacement works;

b)     The replacement works had been added to the 2019/20 programme of planned works, but the works order had been closed in May 2019 with the comment ‘no work needed’ added to the case file. It was unable to confirm why works did not progress at this time, for which it apologised;

c)     It had raised a stage one complaint in October 2020 due to the ‘lack of progress’ on the case. Its review identified that it had made three previous attempts to install the doors, but that these had been ‘no accessed’. The landlord acknowledged however, that the resident disputed this position and that it had no evidence of ‘when the alleged appointments took place’;

d)     The door replacement works had then been added to the 2020/21 programme of works, to be completed by the end of March 2021;

e)     The complaint had been escalated to stage two on 21 October 2020 as the resident remained dissatisfied with progress on the case;

f)       The landlord’s door supplier had changed by this time, which meant that it had to re-commence the entire process, including further measurement. An appointment was made for 9 November 2020, but this was cancelled due to COVID-19 and rearranged for 26 November;

g)     The doors were then scheduled for installation on 21 January 2021, but this was postponed until 26 February as the doors had not yet been supplied. When the contractors attended to complete the installation, the resident was unwilling to proceed due to the colour of the doors;

h)     Having reviewed the resident’s points of concern about the colour, including the comments she made about the contractor appointment of 26 November 2020, the landlord’s view was to uphold its previous decision, i.e. that the resident could have the available doors fitted or for her to retain her existing doors. The landlord confirmed that it could not justify a different outcome based upon ‘cosmetic’ reasons;

i)        The landlord confirmed the number of doors that had been replaced in neighbouring properties, and those that had yet to receive replacement. It confirmed that those awaiting replacement would be offered the same colour options as the resident;

j)        Regarding comments made by the resident during a call of 25 March 2021, the landlord said that it would not paint the newly fitted doors, though she was welcome to take this step herself, it also outlined the process she would need to follow if she desired replacing the doors at her own cost and said it was unable to provide a potential cost for doing so through their supplier as it had negotiated reduced rates with them;

k)     Though it had not provided the resident with her desired outcome, the landlord nonetheless acknowledged that there had been service failures relating to its record keeping (including previous member of staff records) and a change in contractor. It apologised for these failures and offered £325 in compensation, £100 in relation to the delay in replacing the doors, £75 for the time and trouble she had expended in pursuing the issue, £75 to reflect the inconvenience of multiple attendances and missed repair appointments and £75 for poor communication ‘regarding the door replacement and lack of information available’;

l)        In the event that the resident was satisfied to now have the available doors fitted, it asked that she contact within 8 weeks to arrange the installation.

28. The landlord’s records show that the resident was advised, on 19 April 2021, that jobs had been raised to replace the rear and front doors. Following the involvement of the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO), an internal email was sent, on 6 May to confirm that the landlord would either arrange to paint the door or for a new door to be fitted.

29. On 13 May 2021, internal landlord correspondence confirmed that the landlord had changed its position from its final response and would now offer to renew the door with one of its standard colour choices. On 19 May 2021, the landlord’s CEO wrote to the resident, acknowledging service failures in the planned replacement door works, for which compensation had been offered. Though the ‘correct process’ had been followed to date, the CEO acknowledged that the door colour was different to what had been expected and, in order to resolve the case, he was now willing to offer a different colour choice, in accordance with the options available from their supplier.

30. In correspondence with this Service dated 27 May 2021, the landlord confirmed that, following the completion of the complaints process, the resident had remained dissatisfied with the options outlined for the replacement doors. The landlord had then agreed to allow the doors to be changed as it acknowledged ‘the shade of the door may have been different to what was anticipated’. It confirmed that a survey took place on 21 May 2021 with an alternative provider.

31. In a call to this Service on 10 August 2021, the resident said that she had been contacted about measuring the property in May 2021 and had then been told that the door replacement works would take place within 6 weeks. When this did not happen, she had chased progress and the contractor informed her that it was awaiting approval. Her most recent call had taken place in the last week, during which she had been informed that doors were on order, though it was not clear whether this included the doors for her property. She also said that she continued to experience water ingress from the existing door. She had reported this to the landlord’s repairs team, who had confirmed that it needed replacement.

32. In a further call between this Service and the resident, dated 8 September 2021, the resident confirmed that the replacement doors (brown doors to both rear and front) were installed on 3 September and that she was fully satisfied with the works. Though she was satisfied with the works, the resident stated that the overall delay in resolving this issue had exacerbated her underlying health conditions, including significant levels of anxiety, something that she had made clear to the landlord on multiple occasions.

Assessment and findings

The external doors at the property

33. The landlord has acknowledged that it has failed to retain contemporaneous records from when it first agreed to replace the doors at the property. It acknowledged initial reports about the doors in September 2017, though this related to a possible repair issue that was resolved. However, its records from 2018 refer back to the doors having possibly been assessed as ‘beyond repair’ back in September 2017. In the circumstances, given the landlord’s acknowledgement that it has failed to retain accurate records, it is reasonable to rely on this evidence and confirm that the landlord was aware, back in 2017, that the doors at the property required replacement.

34.It is clear that the resident was dissatisfied with progress on this issue from as early as June 2018, when she complained about the fact that she had been informed that she would need to wait until the programme of works scheduled for 2019/20 for the works to complete. The landlord’s failure to respond to this complaint has been considered in more depth below, however, the landlord decision to add the works to its 2019/20 programme of works presents as unsatisfactory.

35. Having established the need to replace the doors in 2017, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to complete such works within a reasonable timescale. Delaying these works until, potentially the end of March 2020 would have meant that the resident had waited two and a half years from the September 2017 survey. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the completion of the replacement works should have been carried out by the end of the 2018/19 financial year at the latest. It had completed repairs to the doors in September 2017, so it was reasonable to add the replacement works to its programme of works, rather than for it to complete the replacement in line with the tighter deadlines usually outlined in landlord repair procedures – typically 30 days for non-urgent repairs.

36. Completing the works by the end of March 2019 would have meant a delay of a year and a half from the September 2017 survey. This would have given the landlord time to arrange the works, including working with the resident to ensure that she was satisfied with the colour scheme, and would have minimised the chances of further deterioration to the existing doors.

37.In any case, the works did not complete by the end of the 2019/20 financial year and the landlord has acknowledged, and apologised, for having closed the case down in May 2019 on the basis that no works were required. It then added the works to its 2020/21 programme of works and said, in its stage one response that it had attempted to complete the works on three occasions, but had been unable to access each time. However, the resident disputed this version of events and the landlord acknowledged in its final response that it was unable to evidence these attempts to resolve the case. The landlord’s record keeping, as demonstrated by the above chain of events, presents as wholly unsatisfactory. It is also of concern that the landlord considered it appropriate to make unsupported statements in its formal complaint correspondence with the resident.

38. Having delayed beyond the 2019/20 financial year to complete these works, it was unfortunate that the impact of COVID-19 meant a further delay whilst the landlord arranged for contractors to attend, measure up and then fit the new doors to the property. It is also unfortunate that the delay meant that, by the time this process took place, the landlord’s chosen provider had changed, such that the resident’s preferred choice of colour for her doors was no longer available. This resulted in a further delay in completing the replacement works, as when the ‘wine’ coloured doors arrived for installation, in February 2021, the resident was wholly dissatisfied, expressing her concern that they would make her property a target for crime.

39. The landlord’s complaint responses ultimately upheld a decision that it was unable to offer the resident her preferred choice of colour for the doors as her first choice was not available from the new supplier and the doors it had available were tailor made for her property could not be used elsewhere. Whilst the landlord’s reasoning was understandable here, the resident’s sense of frustration was clear and it is commendable that the landlord’s senior management team made a decision, following the completion of the complaints process, to provide the resident with her desired outcome. The resident has confirmed to the Ombudsman that she is satisfied with the new doors she had installed on 3 September 2021.

40. It is not acceptable, however, that the resident was required to wait for four years before receiving the door replacement that had been identified in September 2017. This amounted to a delay in excess of at least two and a half years beyond what would have been acceptable in the circumstances, as detailed in paragraphs 34-35 above. The resident has stated that her mental health has been impacted by this issue, and that she has experienced further detriment in the form of water ingress, draughts and having to use her heating excessively. In the circumstances, the landlord’s offer of compensation, which included £100 for the delay in replacing the doors, is not considered reasonable nor proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of this issue. A further £400 is considered reasonable to reflect the detriment to the resident, calculated at £200 per year of the excessive delay, minus the £100 already paid.

41. The landlord has also paid a total of £150 for its communication failures and for missed appointments that took place on the case. It would have been helpful if the landlord had clarified the specific appointments that the compensation related to, however, in the circumstances, the landlord’s payment is considered reasonable as the amounts paid are towards the higher end of what the Ombudsman typically sees in respect of such service failures.

Complaints handling

42. It is of significant concern that the landlord has failed to evidence that it responded to the complaint raised by the resident in June 2018. Given the number of times that the resident had chased progress on the case during 2018, 2019 and 2020, it is of further concern that the landlord did not raise a complaint in any case. It is important that a landlord recognise the difference between a service request and an expression of dissatisfaction and that it use its discretion to identify when a formal response, through its formal complaint process might be appropriate. Had it done so in this instance, it is likely that the substantive issue would have been resolved at an earlier stage.

43. It is also of concern that the landlord’s stage two response was significantly delayed, from her request for escalation in October 2020 through to its final response of 29 March 2021. It is clear that the landlord was working with the resident during this period and that it kept her updated throughout. However, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to provide a timely complaints process, even where an issue remains ongoing. Whilst the substantive issue might not be resolved by the time a complaint completes the complaints procedure, it is acceptable for the formal response to outline the next steps that will be taken. Where these actions are not then progressed appropriately, a further complaint can then be raised for further consideration, with an appropriate remedy to be offered where the landlord identifies that it has not followed through on any previous agreements. This approach is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (effective from 1 January 2021).

44. In the circumstances, the landlord’s payment of compensation, which included £75 for the resident’s time and trouble, is not considered reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience she experienced in progressing the case to a conclusion.

Determination (decision)

45. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the external doors at the property.

46. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

47. The landlord identified a requirement to replace the external doors at the property in September 2017, but did not complete these works until September 2021, an excessive delay in the circumstances. It was commendable that the landlord ultimately, used its discretion to ensure that the resident received the colour of doors she desired, however, on the basis of the excessive delay, its offer of compensation is not considered reasonable.

48. The landlord failed to respond to a formal complaint on this issue back in 2018 and did not use its discretion to raise a formal complaint when the resident contacted it to express her dissatisfaction on a number of occasions between 2018 and 2020. In addition, when it did progress the case through its complaints procedure, there was a significant delay in providing a final response. In the circumstances, the landlord’s offer of compensation for these service failures is not considered a reasonable remedy.

Orders and recommendations

Order

49. The landlord to pay the resident an additional £550 in compensation, broken down as follows:

a)     £400 in additional compensation for the excessive delay between April 2019 to September 2021 in replacing the doors, at a rate of £200 per year (minus £100 already paid in compensation);

b)     £150 in additional compensation for the complaint handling failures identified.

50. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above order by 15 October 2021.

Recommendation

51. The landlord to share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with relevant members of staff within the organisation.