Home Group Limited (202203465)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203465

Home Group Limited

15 December 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

  1. This complaint is about:
    1. The level of compensation offered by the landlord following a wide range of repair, cleaning, communication, gardening and maintenance issues in the resident’s home and the communal areas of his block.
    2. The resident’s concern that the bathroom in his property was not as advertised when he purchased his flat.
    3. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s enquiries about the solar panels installed in his block.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord that prior to purchasing his flat he was misinformed by one of its sales staff about the colour of the bathroom tiles. The landlord explained the situation in regard to the nature of marketing material not always being representative of the final property and acknowledged a miscommunication on the issue by one of its staff. This complaint is essentially an allegation of misrepresentation, or breach of contract by the landlord in the buying process. Because of that, it is better addressed by way of legal action, as the courts are the more experienced and have the appropriate remit to assess contractual purchase disputes. Accordingly, in line with paragraph 42(f) the issue is not considered in this report.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared-owner of a flat in a block of similar properties. The landlord is the freeholder. The property was newly built when he moved in, in March 2021. The resident’s complaint was originally part of a group complaint with other leaseholders, which then separated out into individual complaints. This investigation centres only on the resident’s specific concerns. There are some crossovers with the group complaint, and these are explained in the background below.
  2. At some point in May 2021 (the exact date is not clear) the resident and a group of other leaseholders sent the landlord a joint complaint. They raised a wide range of issues about: lack of communal cleaning and gardening, individual property defects, lack of contact details, service charges, and queried how the benefits from solar panels on the properties were being used.
  3. The landlord initially responded to the group complaint on 3 June 2021. It acknowledged there had been some problems with the new properties, and addressed each of the issues raised by the group. It apologised, and explained what it had done to address each issue, or was in the process of doing. It said that it would “advise all residents of a compensation offer following completion of the necessary actions.”
  4. The landlord sent a complaint response to the resident on 17 June 2021. It focused on matters specifically relevant to him (which he had detailed as part of the group). Amongst other things, it addressed a bathroom plumbing issue, a failed visit to fix a balcony door problem, a potential design fault in the bathroom, marks on the floors, dirty carpets, communication difficulties with the landlord’s staff, queries about service charges, and the resident’s queries about the solar panels. The landlord offered to have the floors and carpets cleaned, and said that it would offer compensation for some of the other issues “upon closure.”
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint. He confirmed that several issues had now been resolved, but he was waiting for the compensation promised by the landlord. He disputed the landlord’s explanation about the solar panels, and expanded on his concerns about how the panels related to his service charges. He also raised a new issue about noises from pipes.
  6. The landlord sent its escalated complaint response to the resident on 26 July 2021, and a response to the group complaint on the same day. Across the two responses the landlord addressed the delays starting the communal cleaning and gardening, explained the solar panels powered the communal areas and said it would provide more details in due course, and repeated its offer to clean the carpets and marked floors. It provided a schedule to complete the remaining works to the resident’s home, and explained that it noted “your request for compensation, and we will consider this once we have addressed our current priority, which is to satisfactorily resolve all outstanding issues.”
  7. The landlord sent a further letter to the resident in March 2022. It confirmed that the remaining work to his flat had been completed, and noted that it had met with the resident to discuss his concerns about how the solar panels were being used and how that affected his service charges. It explained the enquiries and investigations it had made to understand how the solar panels were being used, but that it had not yet been able to confirm how the energy from the panels was being used. It apologised, and said it would continue to investigate, and provide updates.
  8. Soon after, the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He sought compensation from the landlord for its failings, and remained dissatisfied with its handling of his solar panel queries.
  9. In mid-2023 the landlord wrote to the resident again about the solar panels. It explained its findings in detail, and apologised for the time taken to provide the information. It confirmed again that the panels provided electricity to the communal areas, and that no surplus electricity was fed into the national grid (so no income was being derived), nor was surplus electricity generation being stored. It explained that up to that point there had been no service charges for the solar panels maintenance (or any charges had been refunded). It concluded by describing several options available to better utilise the panels.

Assessment and findings

The level of compensation offered by the landlord following a wide range of repair, cleaning, communication, gardening and maintenance issues in the resident’s home and the communal areas of his block.

  1. The resident moved into a newly-built flat at the end of its defects period. He experienced a range of repair and defect issues which, while far from ideal, are not uncommon in a new-build property. In general, the presence of these issues was not, in and of itself, indicative of failings by the landlord. The key assessment of the landlord’s service is how it responded to and handled those repair issues.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports of problems with his hot water system (primarily impacting his shower), leaky mailbox, and balcony door. It agreed that it had caused delays resolving them, which had caused the resident inconvenience and frustration.
  3. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the communal cleaning and gardening not having been done for the period up to its final complaint response. It explained why that had happened, what it planned to do about it, and confirmed that the resident would be refunded any service charges related to those services for the period concerned.
  4. In response to the resident’s report that his floors had paint spatters from when the property was decorated the landlord acknowledged his concerns and explained how it would either arrange cleaning or provide compensation.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports of problems communicating with relevant staff members during the settling in period after starting his lease. It explained what had happened, and confirmed the correct communication channels.
  6. The landlord apologised for the failings and shortcomings in its handling of these issues since the resident moved into his home. It explained what it had learnt from his reports and complaints, and how it would improve its services going forward. In response to the resident’s requests, it said it would offer compensation, either for specific issues such as the hot water/shower issue and the marked floors, or overall for its failings. In its final complaint response the landlord explained “We note your request for compensation, and we will consider this once we have addressed our current priority, which is to satisfactorily resolve all outstanding issues.”
  7. The landlord ultimately offered £140 compensation to each member of the original group complaint – of which the resident was part. That was for the communal issues complained about, such as the cleaning and gardening. However, there is no evidence of the landlord doing as it told the resident it would for him: consider compensation for the specific failings he experienced. The resident has also confirmed that he did not receive any such compensation.
  8. The specific impact of each of the uncompensated issues appears to vary. The hot water issue took approximately 6 weeks to resolve, during which time the resident could not adjust the hot water temperature in his shower, and the toilet flushed with hot water. That suggests issues of health and safety risk and expense, which the landlord did not provide compensation for despite promising to. Other issues, such as the balcony door, were not ones for which the resident was aware of an impact, apart from the inconvenience of a missed appointment and difficulties arranging a new one.
  9. Overall, most of the remedies the landlord offered in its responses to the resident’s complaints were reasonable and proportionate: apologies, explanations, and commitments to learn and improve. Nonetheless, even without the landlord’s promises to provide compensation, in line with basic good practice and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code it would generally have been expected to also offer some level of compensation as well, in light of the number and nature of its admitted failings. Not doing so, in these circumstances, meant that it did not reasonably remedy the resident’s complaints on these issues, and was itself a further failing.

The landlord’s responses to the resident’s enquiries about the solar panels installed in his block

  1. It is evident in the information provided by both the resident and the landlord that solar panels were an element of the original building development required for planning permission. The panels were a feature described in the property marketing brochure.
  2. The resident has explained that maintenance and upkeep of the solar panels was one of the service charges listed in the resident’s original schedule of charges when he moved into the property. Also listed were charges for electricity usage in communal areas. Nothing has been seen in this investigation showing an explanation of how any power generated by the solar panels would be utilised. It was therefore understandable that the resident (both as part of the original group, and then later on his own initiative) queried their usage and impact on his service charges.
  3. The landlord’s first response to both the resident and group was simply that the solar panels were used for the communal areas, but it gave no specific details. The resident subsequently pushed for more information about how they were being used, because he saw he was to be charged for power to the communal areas, as well as panel maintenance. Amongst other things, he queried how much was being generated and consumed, and whether excess power was being sold to the grid, stored, or lost. While such questions would seem to be predictable, the landlord was clearly not able to provide the requested information in the short term. It was not unreasonable the, that it committed in its final complaint responses to investigating further, given that this was a potentially complex and technical issue.
  4. It took the landlord a further 6 months to provide further information to the resident, in March 2022. It explained in detail the steps it had been taking to find details about the panels’ operation, such as its office staff physically inspecting them to see whether meter readings could be taken. However, nobody had been able to interpret the meter data. It said it had not yet been able to identify how the panels were being used. This was partly because staff involved with the building handover from the developers no longer worked for the landlord, and the only technical information it had (in the form of manuals) was of no use at explaining what the panels were doing. It is clear that the landlord was taking steps to identify what was happening with the panels, but it is also clear that, overall, the landlord did not know much about them. This situation points to significant failings somewhere in the landlord’s new build processes whereby an important technical element of its property is not understood by the landlord’s staff, at an early stage of its ownership.
  5. The evidence provided includes a very detailed assessment and investigation by the landlord of the situation with the panels, and of the questions and issues the resident had raised. The document is undated, but appears to have been written in late-2022. The resident has said that he recalls seeing the report, but not its contents. The report provides a technical assessment of the solar panel issue from the original building planning stage, through the handover, and to the present. It covers both the nature of solar panels of the type used, and their usage in the resident’s property, including the service charges for their maintenance (which the report notes had either not resulted in any specific charges for the panels). The report refers to a survey by an external company, which was done in August 2022. The survey confirmed that the solar panels were active and supplying power to the communal areas during daytime (for things such as lights, fire alarms and related safety systems, and intercoms). At night, power came from the relevant electricity supplier (and thus incurring service charges). It explained that the panels were producing more electricity than was being used, and set out several ways in which greater benefits could be derived from them (such as installing batteries to store excess power generated during the day, for use at night).
  6. The landlord’s report notes that the information it received did not allow it to specifically explain how much power was being used and generated, as the resident had asked, but it did identify a range of learning points from it. The report was detailed and thorough, and demonstrates a clear awareness by the landlord of the need to both address the resident’s queries and concerns, as well as its own understanding of its property. However, this was done almost 18 months after the resident purchased his home. The delay again points to shortcomings and failings in the landlord’s wider processes.
  7. The landlord sent its final response on the issue in June 2023. It summarised the findings from its investigation, and confirmed that there had been no charges for servicing the solar panels (and any charges made had been refunded). It confirmed that the panels were reducing the service charges for electricity to the communal areas, and explained the options available to the resident (and the other leaseholders) for better utilising them. This response, in conjunction with the actual investigation report was a reasonable explanation and reply to the resident’s concerns and queries, and reflected the information the landlord had available. The question of exactly how much power is generated remains unknown, but presumably is something that the improvement options suggested to the residents will address if necessary. For the purposes of this investigation, there is not enough evidence available to robustly assess whether that uncertainty constitutes a service failure, because the actual charges to the resident for communal area electricity will be able to be evidenced by the landlord, so it can show and justify his charges.
  8. If the resident then wishes to dispute the actual level of his service charges it remains open to him to approach the First Tier Tribunal, who have the remit to make binding findings on the reasonableness of service charges.
  9. Accordingly, the landlord eventually provided a reasonable response to the resident, but it was excessively delayed, and showed that for a long time the landlord did not understand the nature and features of its property. The landlord apologised for the delays, but it did not acknowledge the amount of effort and time the resident had put into chasing the issue to a conclusion, which he should not have needed to do. The landlord confirmed that there had been no service charges for the solar panels themselves, so there was no impact to the resident in that regard, but the circumstances of the complaint should have also included compensation to the resident for his time and trouble. That omission meant the complaint was not appropriately remedied by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in regard to the level of compensation offered following a wide range of repair, cleaning, gardening and maintenance issues in the resident’s home and the communal areas of his block.
  2. In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its delayed responses to the resident’s enquiries about the solar panels installed in his block.

Orders

  1. In light of the failings found in this investigation, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident compensation of:
    1. £300 for its failure to appropriately compensation the resident in regard to the repairs, communication, and other issues for which it acknowledged failings.
    2. £250 for its delay providing meaningful information to the resident about the property’s solar panels.
  2. These payments must be made within the next 5 weeks, and evidence provided to this Service.
  3. In its investigation of the solar panels the landlord identified a range of learning points, such as the lack of documentation received by the landlord during the property handover from the developer. Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord must provide information showing what changes and improvements it has made in relation to the failings identified in both this investigation, and its own.