Home Group Limited (202109458)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109458

Home Group Limited

12 May 2023

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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports that her garden was overgrown and request for a replacement fence.
2. Handling of the resident’s Deposit Builder Scheme application.
3. Handling of works within the property – specifically the removal of polystyrene ceiling tiles and a rewire.
4. Response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for works carried out in the garden.
5. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:

i. Complaint handling.

ii. Record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, complaint 1a falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that: “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints made prior to the completion of the internal complaint procedure”.
Evidence provided to this Service shows that a formal stage one complaint response was issued on 28 September 2016 in relation to these matters. The resident did not escalate the response at that time, and it is considered that there was reasonable opportunity to do this.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme this Service is therefore unable to consider 1a of the resident’s complaint as the original complaint of 2016 has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. However, as part of the complaint 1(d), which was escalated through the landlord’s complaints procedure in 2021, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of money spent on garden works has been considered.

Background and summary of events

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a two-bedroom bungalow. The tenancy began in February 2011, and was terminated by the resident on 1 August 2021.

Deposit Builder Scheme

The landlord’s Deposit Builder Scheme (the Deposit Scheme) helps tenants to build a mortgage, with a view to buying one of its properties as a home. Information on the landlord’s website states that it is different to other schemes, and it will help tenants buy a home by:
1. Providing a discount of £50 a month from rent.
2. Matching the Government’s contributions to a tenant’s Help to Buy ISA (up to £3000) or lifetime ISA (up to £5000).
Through the Deposit Scheme, tenants can either buy the property they live in (where possible), a new home or a shared ownership resale property. To apply for the Deposit Scheme, tenants should complete the expression of interest form, an application form and provide information to verify their identity.
Once the landlord has verified identity, it will carry out some checks to make sure the applicant is eligible. It will also try to indicate whether the applicant will be able to buy the property they are living in, but it cannot always at that stage.
After the landlord has received confirmation that the resident wants to sign up it will arrange a property valuation. On receipt of the valuation report, further checks will be carried out. If there are no issues, it will issue a “price freeze” offer based on the surveyor’s report. The price freeze gives an indication to enable the applicant to plan their savings over the next five years.
Once the applicant has signed up, it will apply a £50 per month rent reduction. The applicant must save this into their Help to Buy ISA or Lifetime ISA, along with anything else they can contribute. This is the “saving stage” and can last up to five years. During this time, it will conduct annual checks to ensure that they are saving regularly.

The resident’s request to purchase the property.

On 21 November 2019, the resident applied for the Deposit Scheme. The landlord responded on the same day and sent the resident an “instruction to proceed” form and requested proof of identity and residency.
On 18 February 2020, the resident returned a signed copy of the “instruction to proceed” form. The property was valued on 19 March 2020 and a copy of the report was provided to the resident on 22 May 2020 along with the “price freeze acceptance” form. The form was signed and returned by the resident on the same day.
On 15 June 2020, the landlord contacted the resident by telephone and email. It apologised that it had not updated the resident for some time. It said that it wished to inform her that there was a treasury restriction on the property. It explained that this was delaying matters, but that its treasury team was in regular contact with the lenders and “appropriate people” with a view to removing the restriction. It advised that it would update the resident further once it was able to do so.
The landlord advised that the position remained the same by email on several occasions in June, July, September, and October 2020. It invited the resident to contact it if she had any further queries. It stated in all its correspondence that it was chasing the removal of the restriction.
On 16 September 2020 correspondence showed that the resident queried whether a discount would apply under the Deposit Scheme as she had been asked this by her mortgage adviser. The landlord responded two days later and confirmed that no discount applied. It provided further explanation about the Deposit Scheme and how it would support the resident. It also provided its contact details if the resident wished to discuss any matters over the telephone.
On 21 October 2020, the landlord requested copies of the resident’s ISA account. The resident responded on the same day and confirmed that she had other savings to contribute so she was ready to buy the property as soon as it was approved.
On 16 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord asking for an update. She said that she wished to know if the house was no longer for sale, as she had “spent a fortune already.” The resident said that she wished to buy the property and she believed it would be unfair if she was unable to do so as she had lived there for a long time. The resident also expressed concern that she had already “wasted time enquiring about the right to buy” but was still hopeful about the Deposit Builder Scheme.
The resident chased the matter on 19 January 2021. On 5 March 2021, the landlord advised that it was still waiting to hear about the restriction release. The resident requested further updates via email on 7 and 22 March 2021. The evidence shows that she also made several telephone calls to the landlord in March 2021.
On 24 March 2021, the resident submitted a Right to Buy application and a Right to Acquire application. The landlord responded on the same day refusing the applications. It explained that the resident was not eligible for the Right to Buy scheme, as she was not a secure tenant. She was also ineligible for the Right to Acquire, as the property was not built/acquired under the eligible funding and the property was classified as being in a rural area.
The landlord added that in relation to the Deposit Scheme application, it was in the process of removing the treasury restriction. It advised that it would update her as soon as this had been done.
On 31 March 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She said:
1. She was unhappy with the “poor communication” regarding her application.
2. She needed an update on what was happening, and whether she would be able to purchase her property.
3. She had spent £5000 on the front and back garden and now the whole property needed re-painting after rewiring which would cost £2500.
There are no records to show that the landlord responded to the complaint.
On 27 April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident. It apologised for the delay and stated that the restriction had been released. It advised that it could therefore proceed and sign the resident up to the Deposit Scheme. In recognition of the delays, it advised that it would backdate her £50 rent reduction.
On 5 May 2021, the resident responded and asked the landlord when the restrictions were removed. The landlord responded on the same day and advised that as the release was carried out with external parties, it did not have that level of detail. However, it had been informed on 15 April 2021 that the restriction was released.
The resident sent a further email on the same day. She said that she had made a series of phone calls and sent several emails about her application for six months and had not received any response. She wished to know why that was and said that she “deserved to know” the details of the restriction release.
The landlord replied on 12 May 2021 and said:
1. It was unable to confirm the exact release date of the restriction, as this information had not been made available to it. It was only able to confirm that it had been notified on 15 April 2021 that the restriction had been released.
2. The process of converting a property tenure from rental to home ownership could be very protracted. It had colleagues in other departments who worked with external bodies to release the charges and restrictions on a property, and this could take some time.
3. The property had been built solely for social housing and rental purposes. The process of changing tenure was therefore complex.
4. While the timeline in removing the restriction may not have met the resident’s expectation, she was of “30 plus” tenants who it was implementing this option for. Due to the above factors, there would “inevitably be lengthy delays.”
5. The option to purchase and providing the Deposit Scheme was something it had implemented for its tenants enabling them to achieve their aspiration of home ownership. The option to purchase was now available to the resident if she wished to proceed.

The removal of the polystyrene ceiling tiles.

The resident asked for removal of the polystyrene tiles on 31 March 2021. The landlord attended on 30 April 2021 but was unable to gain access.
The works were raised again on 7 May 2021. The landlord attended on 5 July 2021 but was unable to gain access.
The works were re-raised on 23 July 2021. On 26 July 2021, the resident advised that she did not require the repair as she was moving out.

The rewiring works.

The landlord attended the property to undertake planned rewiring works on 10 March 2021. The works continued on 11 and 12 March 2021. It was then unable to gain access to complete the works.
On 22 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to complain about how the rewiring works were progressing. The resident advised that the contractors had left their tools at the property, and the job had not been finished properly.
On 29 March 2021, the landlord sent a letter to the resident. Within this, it thanked the resident for making it aware of the issues and allowing it to investigate her complaint. It confirmed that works had been raised for the contractor to re-plaster and for an electrician to attend to investigate a non-working extractor fan. It enclosed its complaints leaflet and records show that it logged the complaint as resolved.
On 30 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord by email as she wished to make an insurance claim. The resident stated that the rewiring had resulted in her needing to pay £2500 for the property to be re-decorated, and she was seeking reimbursement.
The landlord contacted the resident that day by telephone and apologised that she was not made aware of the decorating vouchers at the start. It advised that it would issue decoration vouchers to the value of £50 per room straight away.

Stage one and two complaints

On 15 June 2021, the resident made a complaint via her MP. In summary she said:
1. The garden was overgrown when she moved into the property but over the years it became severely overgrown resulting in a fire. She was told by the landlord that maintaining the garden was her responsibility.
2. She asked the landlord to provide a fence, but it refused stating that it was her responsibility.
3. There were no fire alarms in the property. This was reported to the fire brigade who attended and fitted alarms. During the visit, the fire brigade informed the resident that the polystyrene tiles in her living room were dangerous and needed to be removed. She reported this to the landlord who came and inspected the tiles but did not remove them.
4. In 2017 she applied to purchase her property, but it was refused.
5. In November 2019 she was advised that she could have help to buy her property via the landlord’s “Deposit Builder Scheme”. She was advised to open an ISA account which she did. The property was valued at £100,000 in March 2020 and she signed a form in May 2020 to confirm that she wished to proceed. On the basis that she would be able to purchase the property she spent the following:

i. £500 to install a fence.

ii. £2900 on back garden works which included cutting trees down, levelling the ground and putting a patio in.

iii. £1500 on front garden works which included removing trees, levelling the ground, and putting stones in.

She had not heard anything from the landlord about the Deposit Builder Scheme since October 2020 despite sending lots of emails and messages requesting to be called back. When she did hear back, she was told that she could not purchase the property. She was advised not to spend money on the property.
On 6 April 2021, the property was rewired by the landlord. A lot of mess was left which took weeks to rectify. Electric cables were exposed and loose, toilet fans were left not working and most of it left un-plastered.
She received a call from the landlord who informed her that she was entitled to £50 decorating vouchers for each room following the rewire. The vouchers had not been received.
On 27 April 2021 she received an email from her landlord stating that the restrictions on her property had now been removed and she could now purchase the property. At this point she had already made up her mind that she needed to look for a house to rent or buy elsewhere because of the poor communication about whether she could purchase it or not. She wished to be reimbursed £4900 for the amount she spent on the house.

On 24 June 2021, the landlord acknowledged the complaint by telephone. Meanwhile, on 2 July 2021 the resident gave notice to terminate her tenancy.
On 6 July 2021, the landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement letter and apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint. On 15 July 2021, the landlord sent a “complaint action plan” to the resident. Within this, it said:
1. Garden maintenance was the resident’s responsibility in line with the terms of her tenancy agreement.
2. Issues with the fence had been addressed in its complaint process in September 2016. It explained that the boundary was owned, and it was not its responsibility, so it was unable to reimburse her for the cost of the fence.
3. It apologised that the work to fix the polystyrene tiles had not been completed. It confirmed the works had now been put on the system to be removed.
4. It would investigate the service provided by its sales team in respect of purchasing the property as part of the complaint.
5. It apologised for not providing the decorating vouchers and the service provided during the rewiring works and said that“Now that the resident had left the property, it was unsure of whether these would be of use.”
6. It would not reimburse the resident for the removal and maintenance of plants, trees, or hedges as this was her responsibility. If the patio was an existing patio and needed repair, then it would have arranged the works. The records did not show that any repair works had been reported.
7. It would not reimburse for the cost of the fence and stones as this was the resident’s choice to suit her personal preference.
8. There were still some outstanding issues of the complaint which would be investigated and responded to. It was aware that the resident has requested compensation for the standard of service. It would confirm this in its full response.
9. It agreed to contact the resident on 13 July 2021 with an update.
On 19 July 2021 email records show that the resident contacted the landlord. She said:
1. She had received the complaint response via her MP.
2. She received a document in February 2020 with instructions to proceed with the purchase and one in May 2020 confirming the price freeze of £100,000. These documents confirmed that she could purchase the property, so she spent the money to make the improvements. She would not have done so had she not received this confirmation.
3. The fence was not attached to the neighbour’s or any other property. It was at the bottom of the house.
4. The polystyrene tiles were reported in 2011 and had not been removed.
5. She did not report the missing fire alarms because she considered the fire alarms should have already been provided by the landlord.
The resident sent a further email on 21 July 2021. She asked the landlord to confirm receipt, and for her correspondence to be treated as an escalation request. She confirmed that she was moving out of the property on 31 July 2021 and provided her new address.
On 23 July 2021, the landlord responded and apologised for not responding to the resident’s email of 19 July 2021. It said that as previously advised, it needed to gather information from its sales team before it could respond in full. The landlord added that:
1. It had attempted to call the resident in relation to the rewire and removing the polystyrene tiles. It had also attempted to attend the property but had been unable to gain access. It therefore asked the resident if she could confirm her availability.
2. There was a delay between the closing of the resident’s stage one complaint and the acknowledgement of the stage two (approximately seven working days). During this time, it would continue to assist to arrange the required repairs.
3. It was unable to investigate complaints about incidents or repairs older than six months so it would not investigate the issues relating to the fence, initial condition of the garden and smoke alarms.
4. The lead complaints team may review the request for reimbursement of the costs to renovate the garden as this was linked to the sale of the property.
5. It asked the resident to respond to the following:

i. What part of the stage one complaint remained un-addressed or outstanding.

ii. What part of the response the resident disagreed with and why.

iii. What was the desired outcome.

The resident wrote to her MP on 26 July 2021 to advise that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She provided the MP with an explanation as to why and advised that she wished to receive £4900 compensation. This was then forwarded to the landlord.
On 27 July 2021, the landlord responded to the resident and confirmed that it was still gathering evidence in relation to the complaint about the purchase of the property. It wanted to offer compensation and asked if the resident would agree to wait for that offer before proceeding with the stage two complaint. It added that the stage two investigation would only cover issues that were addressed within the stage one response.
On 29 July 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and the MP. In summary it said:
1. The resident had previously expressed an interest in both the Right to Buy and the Right to Acquire. It was unable to offer a method to purchase the property, as such it signposted the resident to the Deposit Builder Scheme. The Deposit Scheme was not aimed at purchasing a specific property, but rather was in conjunction with the Government led Help to Buy ISA.
2. Under the Deposit Scheme, money is saved in the ISA account and if the resident purchased one of its properties, then it would match a percentage and the Government would match a percentage. It believed this was incorrectly explained to the resident; and the confusion was caused by the methods it had to take to sign the resident up to the Deposit Scheme.
3. It had to arrange for the property to be valued which was the document the resident had to sign. Once the value of the property was agreed it had to communicate with the bank that it was agreeing to sell to enable the resident to purchase one of its properties.
4. The price freeze that the resident accepted was sent to another department to consult with external agencies on the agreement. It received agreement to accept the deposit builder on 27 April 2021.
5. It attempted to contact the resident on 27 April 2021 to advise of the outcome of the Deposit Scheme application and that it could progress with the process if the resident was still interested. This was not an offer to sell the property to the resident as she believed. It considered that the misunderstanding was due to poor communication of the nature of the Deposit Scheme.
6. It apologised for the miscommunication leading to the resident believing she was waiting to purchase her property. It could see how the evaluation of the property and price freeze would have caused her to believe this.
7. It would contact all customers using the Deposit Scheme to ensure that their understanding was correct. It was also updating the information it published to ensure customers had clearer guidance on what options were available.
8. It offered the resident compensation of £205 for the service received. This was broken down as follows:

i. £75 for the polystyrene tiles not being removed.

ii. £75 for poor explanation of the Deposit Scheme.

iii. £55 for its failure to issue decorating vouchers.

On the same day, the resident responded reiterating that she wanted £4900 in compensation. She also disputed that the landlord had tried to contact her.
The resident’s tenancy ended on 1 August 2021. On 3 August 2021, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response which confirmed what it had advised in its previous email correspondence with the resident. In summary it also said:
1. It had agreed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two. It apologised for the poor communication relating to buying the property and the purpose of the Deposit Scheme.
2. It understood that the resident rectified her garden as she believed she could purchase her property, but it was unable to reimburse the cost as garden maintenance was her responsibility. It acknowledged that the tenant remained dissatisfied that it would not reimburse. It said this would be reviewed in the stage two complaint.
3. It would not investigate complaints about situations which occurred more than six months ago.
4. The resident accepted the property’s garden having hedges and trees when she signed the tenancy. The resident advised it that the garden was left unmaintained for some years due to her work and childcare being a priority. It would have assisted with some parts of the garden such as the paving, but she did not report any issues to it.
5. The fence at the rear of the garden was not its responsibility and it had already responded to this enquiry in a stage one complaint in 2016. It had checked the boundary again and could confirm that it was privately owned and therefore not its responsibility. It would not reimburse the cost of this.
6. It apologised for its failure to provide the decorating vouchers following the rewire at the property.
7. The polystyrene tiles were reported to its repairs team on 31 March 2021 and a repair was attended on 30 April 2021. The job was cancelled due to no access and not re-reported. It accepted that this repair should have been re-raised.
8. On receipt of the complaint, it raised the repair again but had been unable to gain access on two occasions. It asked the resident to advise when she would be able to facilitate access.
9. It had sought to improve its service and now had a repair tracker system in place for safety and compliance related repairs to ensure that jobs would not be cancelled due to no access. It apologised for not having this system in place when the resident reported the repair.
10. The property was put forward for the Deposit Scheme in November 2019. There was a delay in confirming this was accepted and it did not return communication on this until April 2021.
11. In March 2021, the resident was advised that her tenancy type was not eligible for Right to Buy or the Right to Acquire.
12. It agreed that there had been miscommunication regarding the Deposit Scheme. However, it did not accept that this would result in it reimbursing the costs she incurred for maintaining her garden.
13. It re-offered the compensation of £205.
On 11 September 2021, the landlord sent the resident its stage two response. In respect of the application to purchase the property in summary it said:
1. It apologised for the confusion caused throughout the stage one complaint and within the stage one response. It was clear that there was a misunderstanding from the stage one case handler as the resident had been provided the incorrect information.
2. Its stage one response was incorrect as she was able to purchase her property through the Deposit Builder Scheme. It apologised for the confusion.
3. Information about the scheme was provided to the resident when the scheme was introduced. The correspondence to the resident at this time was consistent and it apologised continually for the delay, and it explained it was out of its control. Once the restriction was released it informed the resident so that she could proceed.
4. It acknowledged that some calls and emails were not responded to during this period, and it apologised for this. It did not consider that this would have impacted the process as the message would have been the same.
5. The Deposit Scheme was in its early stages when the resident applied, and lessons had been learnt since this time. It was reviewing the scheme to ensure customers were fully aware of the potential timescales involved and what to expect from the team.
6. It offered compensation of £185 broken down as follows:

i. £75 for the lack of information provided in respect of the Deposit Scheme.

ii. £75 for the failure to respond to all contacts by the resident.

iii. £35 for the complaint handling failure, and incorrect information given its stage one response.

It would not reimburse costs spent on the property as this was the resident’s choice to do so. The resident was also able to purchase the property but made the decision to not proceed and terminated her tenancy.

In respect of the rewire it said:
1. It apologised for the resident’s experience in relation to the rewire. Works were started at the property on 10 March 2021 and continued on 11 and 12 March 2021. It returned to complete the works on 15, 16 and 17 March 2021 but was not able to gain access.
2. The resident contacted it on 22 March 2021 and advised that works were outstanding including issues with the extractor fan and plaster works. The remaining works were raised, and it returned on the week of 5 April 2021 to complete plastering and patching and to resolve issues with the fan.
3. Its contractor confirmed that it had post inspected the works and identified some final snags which were completed. It apologised that due to its contractor not providing information it had not been able to establish a clear timeline for the repairs. It apologised for the disruption caused due to the further works required.
4. The resident contacted its insurance team on 30 March to claim for the re-decoration caused by the re-wire. On the same day it contacted the resident to offer a £50 decoration voucher for each room affected. The vouchers were not issued, and this was not acceptable and should have been followed up.
5. It apologised for the level of service received in respect of the rewire. It should have monitored the works in March to ensure completion despite the access issues. It was disappointed that it did not investigate the complaint she raised in March as it would have prevented avoidable errors with the decoration vouchers and the prolonged timeframe to pick up snagging works.
6. In recognition of the above it offered £225 compensation broken down as follows:

i. £75 for failing to issue the decoration vouchers.

ii. £75 for the lack of investigation into issues when the complaint was raised in March.

iii. £75 for the disruption caused by further works.

In respect of the polystyrene ceiling tiles, it said:
1. The resident reported the repairs on 31 March 2021, but it was unable to gain access when it attended on 30 April 2021. The works were re-raised on 7 May 2021, but it was unable to gain access when it attended on 5 July 2021. The works were raised again on 23 July during the stage one investigation, but the resident advised on 26 July that she did not require the repair as she was moving out.
2. It would usually remove the tiles during the void period, but its records did not show when the tiles were installed or if they were there prior to the resident moving in.
3. It did not have any record of a report to remove the tiles in 2011 as stated by the resident in her stage one complaint.
4. It confirmed that £75 was offered in its stage one response. It would not increase that amount as it had attempted to complete the works on three occasions since the repair was reported.
In respect of reimbursement of costs incurred to rectify the garden and install fencing it explained that:
1. It appreciated that the resident had incurred costs in maintaining the garden, but this was her responsibility under the tenancy agreement. It apologised if the garden was not to the standard she expected when she moved in. However, it had no record of this being raised at the time.
2. It was clearly outlined that the section of the fencing which it did not attend to as part of her 2016 complaint was not its responsibility and was owned by neighbouring property. The resident had chosen to pay for this area of fencing to be repaired despite this information being provided in 2016. It would not provide compensation in relation to this aspect of her complaint.
3. In summary the landlord acknowledged that parts of the complaint highlighted that it had fallen short on several occasions and communication had been an issue throughout. It would feedback to colleagues and contractors so that lessons could be learned as a result. It would arrange training within its complaints department in respect of the incorrect outcome as it appreciated that this would have exasperated matters further.
It offered a further £75 compensation in respect of time and effort the resident had spent pursuing matters. The total compensation it offered therefore was £560.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and offer of compensation and contacted this service.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the Deposit Scheme application

The evidence provided to this Service shows that the resident applied for the Deposit Scheme in November 2019.
There were no standards in place which set out applicable timescales in relation to the Deposit Builder Scheme and how applications should be processed by the landlord. As such, the Ombudsman has assessed the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions.
On 29 November 2019 internal emails show that the landlord completed checks on the property to establish if it was eligible for the Deposit Scheme. The checks confirmed that there were restrictions on the property which meant that consent needed to be provided by two finance providers via The Housing Finance Corporation. It stated that obtaining agreement would “be tricky and not guaranteed because it had not disposed of a property before that had this type of funding.”
The restriction issue was identified promptly. However, it is unclear from the evidence what action the landlord took once it was aware of the issue. It is noted that the issue with the restriction was not communicated to the resident in November 2019. This was reasonable in the circumstances as the landlord still needed to complete checks, and an instruction to proceed had not yet been submitted.
It is not known why there was a two-month delay between the resident’s initial application (November 2019) and the instruction to proceed being submitted (February 2020). However, it is noted that the landlord had asked the resident to provide proof of residency and identification before she could submit the instruction to proceed. There is no evidence to show that there was a delay in the processing of the application by the landlord at this time.
After the instruction to proceed was received, it was three months before the valuation report was provided to the resident. In its stage two complaint response the landlord explained that the delay was because of the Covid-19 national pandemic. The landlord’s explanation was reasonable in the circumstances as the country entered its first nationwide lockdown in March 2020, during which there would have been an adjustment period for most organisations and service provision would have been affected as a result.
When the landlord responded to the formal complaint in June 2021, it advised that there were delays in processing the resident’s application due to the restrictions on the property. It explained that these were out of its control and that it was chasing the matter to try to get it resolved. The evidence provided to this Service shows that this was communicated to the resident by email on several occasions in June, July, September, and October 2020. It invited the resident to contact it if she had any further queries and continually stated that it was chasing the removal of the restriction.
While the landlord had updated the resident between June and October 2020, the updates were generic. It is acknowledged that the landlord did not know when the restriction would be lifted; however, it would have been helpful for it to explain what action it was taking, such as the date that it last chased the matter or the frequency of contact it was making to try to get matters resolved. This could have provided some reassurance to the resident particularly where it was unable to provide specific timescales.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord did not respond to three emails sent by the resident and several phone calls between January and March 2021. This would have caused frustration for the resident but would not have changed the overall outcome as the position, in respect of progressing the application, remained the same.
The landlord acknowledged the failings in the service it had provided, and the poor communication in its stage two complaint response. It offered £150 compensation (£75 for not responding to all contacts and £75 for lack of information given about timescales). This amount was reasonable and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
The landlord contacted the resident to inform her that the restriction had been released eight working days after it had been notified on 27 April 2021. Although this response time is not unreasonable it could have prioritised its response sooner given the length of time the resident had already been waiting.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage two response that the Deposit Scheme was in its early stages at the point the resident applied and that lessons had been learned. It advised it would be reviewing the Deposit Scheme to ensure service was improved in the future, and this was appropriate.
In summary, the landlord acknowledged its poor communication and offered £150 in compensation. The delay and poor communication were frustrating for the resident, who was caused inconvenience, time and trouble. However, the delays in removing the restriction were outside of the landlord’s control as it was reliant on a third party. However, the landlord’s failings caused no lasting impact on the resident. The Ombudsman therefore finds the offer of £150 compensation constituted reasonable redress.

Work to remove polystyrene ceiling tiles.

This Service requested the landlord’s repairs policy and/or procedure to establish how the landlord categorised its repairs and the timescales for response at the time of the matters complained of. No policy has been provided despite several requests.
The landlord did provide its repairs and maintenance standard operating procedures to this Service, which is a large document about its internal processes when repairs are reported. The document does not specify what type of repairs are included in the categories, but it states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, responsive repairs within 14 calendar days and repairs with specialist components or major works within 56 days.
This document also states that in respect of standard responsive repairs the contractor will contact the resident, either by telephone or text message, 24 hours before the appointment and check that the resident will be available. On the day of the appointment the contractor will contact the resident to advise its estimated time of arrival on site.
If there is no access the procedural document states that it will attempt to contact the resident by all available means and then make a “no access card drop” advising the resident to contact to re-arrange. Where there are health and safety concerns the job should then be escalated and further attempts should be made to contact the resident after the failed access.
While the resident has said that the polystyrene tiles were in place in 2011, this Service has not been provided with any evidence that a complaint about the presence of the polystyrene tiles was raised prior to 2021. The landlord stated in its correspondence that it was not known if the tiles were present prior to the resident moving in or whether they had been fitted after. This investigation has considered matters raised in the complaint, so the first repair report relating to the tiles which was made on 31 March 2021.
The landlord attended to remove the tiles on 30 April 2021 which was 16 days outside of its own responsive repair timescale. No evidence has been provided to this Service to show that the resident was notified of the appointment. A photograph of a calling card dated 30 April 2021 was provided to show that the landlord attended and there was no access on 30 April 2021.
The landlord stated in its stage two complaint response that it re-raised the works on 7 May 2021. It then re-attended on 5 July 2021 and was unable to gain access to the property. The evidence provided to this Service shows a photograph of the front door of the property with no date stamp or reference to access. Again, no evidence has been provided to show that the resident was notified of the appointment to ensure that she was available. The response time from 7 May 2021 to 5 July 2021 was 58 calendar days which was 44 days outside of its own responsive repair timescale of 14 days.
In the landlord’s stage one complaint response it appropriately explained that it had incorporated a repair tracking system which it hoped would avoid any further issues.
The landlord then stated in its stage two response that a further repair job was raised on 23 July 2021 as a result of the stage one complaint investigation and the job was cancelled on 26 July 2021 as email correspondence evidenced that the resident advised she no longer required the repair as she was moving out.
Overall, the landlord failed to manage the repair and remove the polystyrene tiles within its own timescales. The work had been outstanding for four months before the resident then cancelled it. The landlord did attempt to complete the works on two occasions, but no evidence has been provided to this Service to show that notice of these appointments was given to the resident.
The landlord correctly acknowledged its failing in completing the repair, but the amount offered (£75) was insufficient for the amount of time taken, particularly given the fire safety risk that had already been acknowledged by the landlord. The compensation offered was discretionary, but the landlord did not explain how it arrived at this figure.
The resident had advised the landlord that she was concerned that the tiles were dangerous. By delaying for a further three months the landlord failed to resolve those concerns. The fact that the repair was also part of the complaint was a missed opportunity to put matters right and build a better tenant landlord relationship. This Service has therefore considered the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the compensation ordered.
It is also of concern that the landlord has not provided a repairs policy which is accessible to its staff and residents and a recommendation has been made in respect of this below.

Handling of the rewire.

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord must keep electrical wiring in good repair and proper working order.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance standard operating procedure (the procedure) states that in respect of planned works it will consult with the resident to explain the proposed work and agree a date for the work to be completed and send a confirmation letter to the customer.
The procedure states that the landlord will contact the resident 24 hours prior and on the day of the appointment to confirm its attendance. If it is unable to access the property, it will leave a calling card and attempt to contact the resident to reschedule the works. If unsuccessful the job will be escalated to a manager or surveyor to get assistance to gain access.
The landlord has provided this Service with a standard template letter that it sends to residents prior to rewiring works. It has advised that a copy of the letter which was sent to the resident is unavailable due to a change in its system. The template letter is an introductory letter which informs the resident that the works will be carried out ahead of April 2022 and that a definitive date would be confirmed by its contractor once the programme is underway.
No evidence has been provided to this Service to show that the landlord or its contractor consulted with the resident prior to the works commencing and what if any information was given to the resident regarding dates and timescales for completion of works.
No evidence has been provided to this Service to show that the landlord was unable to access the property on the 15, 16 and 17 March 2021 as stated in its email correspondence.
The resident stated in both of her complaints that the landlord attended the property at some point in April 2021. She did not however confirm that the works were complete and in fact she stated that the property was left in a poor condition following on from those works. No repair logs or evidence of any visits to the property have been provided to this Service for this date or any dates thereafter.
Internal correspondence dated September 2021 provided two different accounts from the landlord’s contractor. One stated that works were completed on 21 June 2021, but no supporting evidence was provided. Another stated that it had been unable to gain access after the failed access on 15, 16 and 17 March 2021 and that it still required access to do a final test at the property.
The landlord did not address its handling of the rewiring works in its stage one response which was a missed opportunity to put matters right at an earlier stage. It did however acknowledge in its stage two response that it had not investigated its handling of the re-wiring works.
Overall, it is unclear when the re-wiring works were completed. Whilst the landlord states in its stage two response that a post inspection was completed the evidence provided to this Service does not support this. In fact, the electrical installation certificate was not signed off until 16 September 2021 which was after the resident had left the property.
In its stage two complaint response the landlord was unable to confirm a timeline. It failed to provide a reasonable explanation and what it would do to avoid this happening in the future. It also failed to provide evidence to this Service to show how it had satisfied itself that the works were completed to a reasonable standard. That it did not was a failing and has been considered in the compensation and orders made below.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged when responding to the complaint that it had failed to provide the resident with the decorating vouchers when it said it would. The landlord acknowledged that the vouchers would no longer be of use to the resident and offered her £75 for the inconvenience caused as a result of failing to issue the vouchers sooner. This amount was reasonable and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
The landlord also offered £75 for the disruption for further works. It did not explain how it arrived at this figure. The disruption for the further works is unknown as the landlord has failed to supply evidence of what works took place and that the works were completed to a satisfactory standard.
The landlord was therefore unable to appropriately quantify the disruption. The resident has described it as the need to re-decorate but there is no evidence to support her request of £2500. £75 is not however sufficient for the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of and response to this issue. This has been considered in accordance with the Ombudsman Remedies Guidance in the compensation award and orders made below.
The Ombudsman’s investigation of the complaint has been hindered by a lack of clear records, as was the landlord’s ability to fully address the complaint. Record keeping is a core function of a housing service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. They enable outstanding repairs or works to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
In summary there has been maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the rewiring works and record keeping. The delay in completing the works was the cause of inconvenience to the resident. In addition, owing to its poor record keeping, the landlord failed to provide the resident with a clear explanation about how it had handled the works and that it had completed them to a satisfactory standard. The impact of this has been considered in the compensation award, and orders, below.

The resident’s request for reimbursement

The tenancy agreement states that the tenant shall maintain and keep in good and tidy order any garden or ground forming part of the premises.
The resident requested £4900 in her complaint for garden maintenance and replacement fencing. As detailed above, this investigation has not considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the garden being overgrown and the fencing in 2016. However, it has considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the matter in 2021, and its decision not to reimburse her.
The tenancy agreement states that the garden is the tenant’s responsibility. Whilst this Service appreciates that the tenant was hoping to purchase the property and she spent the money in good faith, the landlord had not confirmed at the point she spent the money that the purchase could go ahead.
The resident stated in her email correspondence dated 31 March 2021 that she wanted to know if or when she could purchase the property. This evidenced that she was still chasing for confirmation that she could purchase the property. No evidence has been provided to this Service to show that she was told prior to April 2021 that this could happen.
The landlord confirmed that the resident could purchase the property in April 2021. While this Service fully appreciates that the resident was feeling frustrated at this point, the option to purchase was then available. The resident chose not to commence the process of purchasing the property but to terminate the tenancy instead.
In summary there is no maladministration in the landlord’s refusal to reimburse the resident the money she had spent on the property. The landlord appropriately explained its reasons why in its stage one complaint response.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s website states it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy which has been provided does not provide its response timescales. The Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code states that a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within five days.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint by telephone six days after it had been received. It then sent a formal letter acknowledging the complaint 12 days later.
After the acknowledgement was sent there was lots of communication between the landlord and the resident. The landlord issued an action plan and asked for further clarification on the contents of the complaint. Within this action plan, it also responded to some elements of the complaint.
This Service appreciates that the complaint was extensive and covered several issues. However, the landlord’s complaint handling complicated matters as it issued partial responses to some elements of the complaint prior to issuing the final stage one response. Its policy does not state that an action plan is required. This resulted in the resident raising stage two escalations before the stage one response had been issued and compensation had been considered. This made the process confusing and protracted.
The landlord’s stage one response was issued 31 days after the resident’s stage one complaint was originally raised. It may have been more appropriate for the landlord, in accordance with the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code, to have agreed with the resident an extension once the complaint was received. This would have then enabled it to investigate all the issues fully and respond to them all at the same time to avoid confusion. The landlord had however kept in contact with the resident throughout this period, so she was aware that the complaint was being investigated.
The stage two complaint was acknowledged within five days, but the full response was delayed by seven days. This delay however was appropriately communicated to the resident by the landlord within its timescales.
The landlord correctly acknowledged in its stage two complaint response that it had given incorrect information in its stage one complaint response. It offered £35 compensation in respect of this, which was proportionate.
The landlord also correctly acknowledged that although it responded to the complaint it failed to fully investigate the resident’s complaint raised in March 2021 in respect of the rewire and decorating costs. It acknowledged that this was a missed opportunity to put matters right and it offered a discretionary payment of £75.This amount was reasonable and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
Evidence provided to this Service showed that the resident raised another complaint by email on 31 March 2021 about the fact that she had not received any response to her enquires about the Deposit Scheme. The landlord failed to respond or acknowledge to this complaint, and it failed to address it in either of its complaint responses. This would have been a further frustration for the resident and was a failing in its complaint handling and another missed opportunity to put things right. This failing has been considered in the compensation award and orders below.
In respect of the rewire and the removal of the polystyrene tiles it is unclear how the landlord reached its conclusions given the poor record keeping. It is clear that record keeping (retention and retrieval of accurate records) affected the landlord’s ability to accurately respond to the complaint. This is a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling which caused inconvenience to the resident, and has been considered in the compensation award and orders below.
In summary there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the complaint. The landlord failed to follow its complaints procedure and investigate all key elements of the complaints raised.
When it responded to the complaint, the landlord offered £110 for the delays in issuing a response. It also offered a further £75 in respect of time and effort the resident had in pursuing the matter. The failings in the complaint handling caused the resident frustration, distress and inconvenience and additional time and trouble pursing the matter. The amount offered by the landlord was not proportionate considering the impact of the failings on the resident. There were several opportunities that the landlord missed to put matters right. Therefore, an order for remedy is made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident in response to her complaint about its handling of the Deposit Builder Scheme application which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of works within the property – specifically the removal of polystyrene ceiling tiles and a rewire.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for works carried out in the garden.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The compensation of £150 in relation to the landlord’s poor communication was in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s own Remedies Guidance and constituted appropriate redress for the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s Deposit Builder Scheme application.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of works within the property – specifically the removal of polystyrene ceiling tiles and a re-wire, due to its poor communication with the resident regarding the works and its failure to satisfy itself that works were completed to a reasonable standard. There is no evidence that the landlord had taken adequate steps to investigate and complete the works within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord failed to follow its complaints procedure and address all key elements of the complaint. The failings in the complaint handling caused the resident frustration, and additional time and trouble pursing the matter with this Service.
There were failings in the landlord’s record keeping, which affected its ability to resolve some of the issues raised.

Orders

Within four weeks of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1160 which is comprised of:

i. The £560 originally offered (if this has been paid already, it can be deducted from the £1160).

ii. £150 for the adverse effect caused by its failings in the handling of the removal of the polystyrene tiles.

iii. £200 for the adverse effect caused by its failings in the handling of the re-wire.

iv. £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failure to follow its complaints procedure and address all key elements of the complaint.

v. £150 for the adverse effect caused by its poor record keeping.

Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Review its current processes or provide evidence of improvements that have already been made since the complaint for recording repairs to ensure that appointments, progress, communication with the resident and completion of repairs are captured accurately in its records in the future. The outcome of this review should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within six weeks.
2. Provide evidence of how it has or will review information provided on the Deposit Builder Scheme to ensure its residents are fully aware of the potential timescales involved and what to expect from the team. This should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within six weeks.
Within the next six weeks, considering the failings in this case, the landlord should review its approach to:
1. Recording and monitoring complaints.
2. Agreeing extension periods with the resident where a case is complex and further investigation is required before a full response can be provided.
3. Assessment of what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues within the complaint.
4. Compensation offered for delays, time, and trouble.
The landlord should share the outcome of the above review with this Service, also within six weeks. This review should as a minimum include:
1. Any planned changes to its approach, including any staff training, which will reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
2. Any changes already made in its approach, including any staff training which has taken place, which will reduce (or has reduced) the likelihood of similar failings happening again.

Recommendation

The landlord to review the information made available to its residents on repairs. This review should include information on repair categories and timescales, and how this is accessible to both staff and residents. The outcome of this review should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within six weeks.