Home Group Limited (202114665)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114665

Home Group Limited

14 February 2022

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 handling of the resident’s reports of issues concerning drainage and flooding in the property’s rear garden.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.

Summary of events

3. The landlord added a report to its system on 25 August 2020 which stated that it had been contacted by the resident, who had informed it that she wanted to replace the patio but was unable to due to drainage issues in the garden causing flooding. She explained that she was waiting for an inspection of the garden to take place and wanted the landlord to call her back to discuss the matter further.
4. The landlord’s repairs logs state that on 26 August 2020 it raised the delay in inspecting the garden with the contractor and that it was informed by the resident she would not be able to arrange an appointment until 13 November 2020. On 7 October 2020, a work order was raised by the landlord to clear out and inspect the soakaway.
5. The landlord called the resident on 1 November 2020 to discuss the complaint. It then wrote to her on 2 November 2020 to confirm a complaint had been opened.
6. On 24 November 2020 the resident called the landlord to state her dissatisfaction with how it was handling work to resolve drainage issues and to the kitchen flooring. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it was informed by the resident that as a result of flooding in the garden, there was moss growing up the brick walls and that the fence had fallen down on several occasions.
7. The landlord’s repair logs state that a work order was raised on 25 November 2020 to undertake a CCTV survey of the drainage system.
8. The resident called the landlord on 27 November 2020 and requested to raise a formal complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. The conduct of a landlord staff member who visited the property, who was described by the resident as “rude and arrogant”.
   2. The resident had been waiting a number of months for the landlord to resolve flooding issues in the garden and the matter remained outstanding.
9. A surveyor visited the property on 6 January 2021. The landlord’s notes on the visit state that the surveyor found no issue with the drainage and raised work to resolve the issues in the garden. The notes go on to state that the surveyor made the resident aware that, due to the weather, the work would take some time to complete and that the work would be “extensive”.
10. The landlord called the resident on 13 January 2021 to discuss the work and the complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it had agreed with the resident to provide a complaint response when appointments to undertake the work had been confirmed.
11. On 23 February 2021 the resident called the landlord and expressed her frustration that numerous visits to her property had occurred, but no appointment date had been confirmed for when the work would start. She requested that a date be agreed by 8 March 2021.
12. The landlord and contractor met on 26 February 2021 to discuss the contractor’s plans for improving the garden. The landlord then called the resident on 1 March 2021 to update her on what was discussed.
13. An internal landlord email sent on 8 March 2021 stated that it had received a quote from the contractor of £9,040 to remove the patio, install a new patio, clear the drains at the rear of the property, add a trench drain that followed the path area, and to build a retaining wall.
14. A further internal landlord email sent on 11 March 2021 stated that due to the costs involved, it would need to seek another quote for comparison and that it had called the resident the previous day to update her. The landlord received the second quote on 24 March 2021.
15. The resident called the landlord on 22 April 2021 to express her dissatisfaction with the slow progress of approving the work. The landlord’s notes of the call stated that it was informed by the resident that she was considering taking legal action over the matter.
16. The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 May 2021. It apologised for the delays and explained that due to the costs involved, the work first had to be approved by a senior manager before it could go ahead. It then explained that a meeting had been held recently where the senior manager had asked its repairs team to go back to the contractors and request that they look into using different types of materials.
17. The landlord wrote again to the resident on 6 May 2021. It explained that its contractor had experienced issues in contacting the subcontractor who had provided the original quote. A new subcontractor had been commissioned, but they would need to visit the property and undertake an inspection before giving a new quote for the work. The landlord apologised for the further delays that this would cause.
18. On 14 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her that it had received the new quote and had a meeting with the senior manager to discuss it. The quote was deemed as not acceptable as it was higher than the quotes it had received previously and had arranged a meeting with the contractor for 19 May 2021 to discuss the matter further.
19. Following the meeting, the landlord wrote to the resident on 20 May 2021. It informed her that the quote had been amended and that once approval had been given by the senior manager, it would raise work orders and the contactor would then contact her to arrange appointments to commence the work. The resident replied on 27 May 2021 and requested a contact number for the contractor.
20. The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 June 2021. It supplied work order reference numbers for the agreed schedule of work and also provided a contact number for the contractor. 
21. The landlord wrote to the resident with an update on 4 June 2021. It explained that before work on the soakaway could start a tanker needed to attend to empty the drain which was fed by the soakaway, then check for any roots or obstructions that would prevent the soakaway from properly operating.
22. The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 June 2021 and requested an escalation of the complaint to stage two. She described the grounds for requesting the complaint as that she did not believe the work as described by the landlord would resolve the issue and the length of time it was taking to resolve the matter was unacceptable.
23. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that all work was completed during the summer months and that she received reassurance that the planned work would prevent the drainage issues reoccurring.
24. The landlord called the resident on 14 June 2021 to discuss her request and then sent the stage one complaint response to the resident on 16 June 2021. It informed her that:
    1. In line with its complaint policy, it did not consider complaints raised against individual staff members. However, her reports relating to the conduct of the staff member were passed on to the staff member’s line manager to address in line with the landlord’s HR policy and procedures.
    2. It recognised that in the six months since she had raised the complaint, little to no action had been taken to resolve the drainage issue in the garden. It apologised for the length of time it was taking and appreciated the inconvenience and frustration that this had caused to the resident.
    3. It then gave a timeline of events from when the complaint was raised to where the quote and schedule of work had been approved. It explained that it had held weekly meetings with the contractor, but as yet no appointment dates had yet to be agreed.
    4. It acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and the grounds for making it. It informed her that she would be contacted by a member of its complaint team within seven days and expressed its disappointment that it was unable to resolve the complaint to her satisfaction at stage one.
25. On 21 June 2021 the landlord called the resident to discuss the complaint and then wrote to confirm that the complaint had been escalated to stage two, and that it would undertake a management review.
26. The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 June 2021 to enquire if a timetable for the emptying of the drains had been agreed and requested that the work was completed before the school holidays to allow her children the use of the garden. The landlord replied on 28 June 2021 and explained it was waiting to hear back from the contractor.
27. The resident called the landlord on 29 June 2021. The landlord’s notes of the call stated that it was informed by the resident that she had found an operative in the garden who had arrived without a prior appointment. She went on to say that the operative told her that the drains were full of mud and blocked due to recent heavy rain and it would not be possible for them to do any work. The landlord apologised to the resident and stated that it had no record of an appointment on its system.
28. The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 July 2021 and requested an update. The landlord replied and explained that it had escalated the matter to the contractor’s management. It had yet to receive a date for when the drains would be emptied, but the contractor explained that it was an operative from the subcontractor who had attended on 29 June 2021, and they were also unaware of any appointment. The landlord also informed the resident that a contractor manager would be calling her to apologise.
29. Work to pump out the soakaway started on 6 July 2021. On 13 July 2021 the contractor informed the landlord of the results of a CCTV survey it had undertaken, and the landlord informed the contractor that it was satisfied with the schedule of work and requested it provide a start date. The landlord then called the resident to update her.
30. The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 16 July 2021. The landlord informed her that:
    1. It apologised for the ongoing delays and problems with communication she had experienced during the stage two process.
    2. It also apologised for the operative attending the property without an appointment on 29 June 2021 and understood that the contractor had also contacted her to apologise. It explained that its contractor had been in touch with its subcontractor to inform them that appointments must be made before attending and that ID badges need to be visible at all times.
    3. It confirmed the schedule of work and stated that the contractor would be in touch next week to agree a start date. The landlord would continue to provide weekly updates to the resident via email until the work had been concluded.
    4. Once the work had been completed, it would write again to the resident with an offer of compensation in recognition of the poor standard of service she had received.
31. The resident called the landlord on 22 July 2021 and informed it that she had yet to hear from the contractor.
32. An internal landlord email sent on 23 July 2021 stated that it had left voicemail message for the contractor manager requesting that he call the resident.
33. The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 August 2021. She noted that it was now three weeks since the stage two response and the contractor had not been in touch. She requested that the landlord make a compensation offer and provide a final response to the complaint to allow her to progress the matter.
34. The landlord sent a follow-up to the stage two response to the resident, on 2 August 2021, as follows:
    1. While the Covid-19 pandemic had caused staffing issues with both the landlord and its contractors, this did not excuse the poor communication received by the resident throughout the process.
    2. It was taking steps to improve its service by recruiting more staff to clear the backlog caused by the pandemic.
    3. It apologised for the work still being outstanding and the disruption this has caused to her and her family. It then offered the resident £475 compensation, which to broke down as:
       1. £75 for disruption caused due by multiple attendances.
       2. £75 for poor communication.
       3. £100 for the length of time to address repairs.
       4. £150 for the time and effort of the resident in pursuing the issue.
       5. £75 for its failure to resolve the issue within its complaint process.
35. The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident that she had now exhausted its complaint process and advised her on the steps to take to bring her case to this Service should she remain dissatisfied.
36. During a telephone conversation with this Service on 18 November 2021 the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint was that the work to resolve the drainage issues in the garden had yet to be completed and the level of compensation offered by the landlord was inadequate.

Assessment and findings

37. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
38. The policy goes on to state that in exceptional cases it may take longer than its timescales to provides the responses and in these cases, it will keep the complainant updated on the progress of the complaint
39. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering a discretionary compensation payment within its formal complaints policy as a result of its service failure and this payment would be separate from any statutory compensation that it is be obligated to pay.
40. In its complaint responses, the landlord accepted that the length of time it was taking to complete the drainage work was unacceptable and that the resident had experienced poor communication. The landlord apologised, explained what steps it had taken internally to improve its procedures and offered £475 compensation for its service failures.
41. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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.
42. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and explaining what it did wrong. It put things right by apologising to the resident and awarding appropriate compensation. It looked to learn from its errors by improving the communication between its contractors and its repair teams by organising regular meetings.
43. The compensation payment was made in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £250 to £750 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests:
    1. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant
    2. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; to make adequate adjustments
44. In this case, the landlord accepted the length of time it was taking to schedule the work was unacceptable and that the resident had received poor communication particularly when she had attempted to agree to appointment dates with its contractors.
45. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that it kept in regular contact, provided updates and replied to the resident’s emails, telephone calls and text messages. However, the evidence also shows that both the landlord and the resident had encountered difficulty in receiving replies and information from the contractors, which had resulted in an operative attending without prior notice and the agreed schedule of work yet to be completed. As the contractor is acting on behalf on the landlord, it was appropriate for it to take responsibility for this poor service. A payment of £475 was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
46. It should be noted that this report only assessed the compensation offered for the time period covered in the landlord’s formal complaint. The resident has forwarded an email to this Service sent on 7 February 2022 which suggests the drainage work still remains outstanding. It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord review its compensation offer in light of the ongoing delays, then to write to the resident to inform he of its decision.
47. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

48. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled the resident’s reports of issues concerning drainage and flooding in the property’s rear garden which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Reasons

49. The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by the significant length of time it was taking to complete repairs, the poor communication she had received, and the distress that this had caused to her. The landlord apologised and awarded compensation proportionate to the effect of these failures on the resident.

Recommendations

50. It is recommended that the landlord review its compensation offer made to the resident in light of the ongoing delays since the conclusion of the complaint process, then to write to the resident to inform her of its decision.