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

Home Group Limited (202209670)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209670

Home Group Limited

13 November 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. The complaint is regarding;
    1. The standard of remedial works carried out by the landlord.
    2. The length of time taken to resolve the leak.
    3. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom flooring, kitchen ceiling and wall units.
    4. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. It is noted that this complaint had been brought by two residents. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to the communication from both tenants as being from “the resident” singularly. The resident has occupied the property since July 1992 under a secure tenancy.
  2. The resident reported a bathroom leak in September 2020, on 2 December 2020 and 8 December 2020, all of which were responded to by the landlord’s repairs contractor on the same day, but on each occasion, it was unable to locate the source of the leak. On 25 January 2021 the source of the leak was discovered to be a hairline crack in the toilet. It is unclear if the leak was contained that day. The landlord raised a number of jobs that day, including checking the bathroom flooring, replacing the toilet and undertaking make-safe works to the kitchen ceiling.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 30 June 2021 regarding the landlord’s “inefficiency to complete vital repair works”. The resident stated that repair works had not been identified as urgent which was a breach of the tenancy agreement and a failure to safeguard the health and safety of tenants. The resident stated that the ongoing repair works had resulted in a decline in the mental and physical health of their family. The resident listed outstanding works, including, water damage to the kitchen ceiling and bathroom floor, a leak in the bathroom, unsafe bathroom flooring and inconsistent hot water due to boiler issues.
  4. The landlord provided its stage one response on 12 January 2022. It advised that works to the ceiling had been suspended as an asbestos check was required and explained why this check was needed. The landlord confirmed it had made numerous attempts to contact the resident to arrange for the asbestos check with no success. The check was eventually completed on 22 November 2021 and the landlord received the report on 7 December 2021. The landlord had to confirm if the ceiling had been tested, confirmation of this was received on 4 January 2022. The landlord stated it had provided a copy of the report to its repairs contractor and would be instructing them to proceed with the ceiling repair works. The landlord apologised for the service failures and delay in carrying out the work. It advised that it had escalated the complaint to stage two and apologised for being unable to resolve the issue.
  5. The resident provided further information to the stage two complaint on 3 March 2022. They advised that the complaint had been ongoing for over a year and very little improvements had been made. The resident stated the issue with the ceiling had been worsening which had caused one of the cupboards to fall off the wall, causing damage to its contents. In April 2022 the resident also raised concerns over the bath panel and sink in the bathroom.
  6. The landlord provided its stage two response on 30 May 2022. It apologised for the outstanding repairs, delays, disruption, and service failures. It confirmed the boiler issues had been fixed, the toilet had been replaced and the bathroom flooring had been replaced. The landlord apologised for the delays in the complaints process. It confirmed the ceiling works were due to take place on 1 June 2022 and apologised for the delay. The landlord signposted the resident to its insurance team and advised that they could make a claim for any damaged personal items. It offered £800 compensation, made up of:
    1. £75 for disruption due to the leak;
    2. £100 for delays in follow on works to the kitchen ceiling and bathroom floor;
    3. £75 for the disruption of the follow on works;
    4. £75 for service failure regarding the follow on works;
    5. £100 for loss of amenity regarding the intermittent hot water;
    6. £75 for service failure regarding the asbestos check;
    7. £75 for disruption regarding the asbestos check;
    8. £75 for complaint handling failures; and
    9. £75 for time and trouble.
  7. The ceiling was repaired on 1 June 2022, however, follow-up works were required to plaster and paint the ceiling. The follow-on works were completed on 22 August 2022.
  8. The resident remains dissatisfied and by way of resolution would like the landlord to evaluate all of the repairs and complete them to an acceptable standard. The resident would also like compensation for the stress caused and the damage to personal items.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. 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, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint sits outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction;
    1. The standard of remedial works carried out by the landlord.
  3. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. This part of the resident’s complaint related to remedial repair works to a bath panel and sink. This was raised with the landlord after this complaint had been escalated to stage two. Ultimately the complaint regarding remedial works to the bath panel and sink was raised and considered under a separate complaints process, by the landlord. As such it will not be considered within this complaint. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome of that complaint, they should seek to continue with the landlord’s internal complaints process if they have not already done so.

The length of time taken to resolve the leak

  1. The landlord’s property management policy states “we take a right first-time approach and complete repairs within a predefined timescale from the date that they are first reported to us”. The landlord’s tenancy agreement sets these timescales as 24 hours for emergency repairs, 7 days for urgent repairs, and 28 days for day-to-day repairs.
  2. Between September and early December 2020, the resident reported a leak within the bathroom of their property, which was affecting the kitchen ceiling, on three occasions. On each occasion the landlord attended the same day but was unable to find the source of the leak. On either the 25th or 26th of January an operative attended the property and traced the leak to a hairline crack on the toilet pan. A job was raised to replace the toilet, this was completed on 3 February 2021, 8 calendar days following the discovery of the leak source.
  3. Knowing about the leak and the damage it had already caused to the kitchen ceiling, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to treat this repair as an emergency, in order to prevent further damage. As such it would be expected to replace the toilet within 24 hours or put in place a temporary repair to prevent further water ingress. As it did not, this is a failure in service.
  4. It took multiple attempts to find the course of the leak, and while this undoubtedly caused further damage and inconvenience to the resident, the Ombudsman acknowledges the source of a leak can be difficult to identify. At stage two the landlord offered £75 for disruption due to the leak. Considering the landlord did not provide an interim fix while the work order was outstanding, however, this offer of compensation was not sufficient.
  5. Taking into consideration the failure in service shown by the landlord and the impact this failure had on the damage to the property and the inconvenience this caused to the resident, the Service has determined that there was maladministration. In view of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a minimum of £100 would be expected where a failure of this nature has occurred. As such the above offer of £75 is not proportionate.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom flooring, the kitchen ceiling and wall units

  1. The landlord’s property management policy states “we take a right first-time approach and complete repairs within a predefined time scales from the date that they are first reported to us”. The landlord’s tenancy agreement sets these timescales as 24 hours for emergency repairs, 7 days for urgent repairs and 28 days for day-to-day repairs.
  2. The landlord was first made aware of damage to the kitchen ceiling as a result of the bathroom leak on 7 September 2020. When the landlord attended on 2 December 2020 it advised that follow-up works would be completed to fix the damage to the ceiling. Make safe works were completed to the ceiling on 26 January 2021, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of what these make safe works entailed. Make safe works are intended as a temporary fix to mitigate any immediate danger to the property or those inhabiting it. The works being labelled as “make safe” infers that the landlord had concerns about risk to the property or those within it. As such the Ombudsman expects make safe works to be undertaken as an urgent priority, therefore a wait of 55 calendar days is significantly outside of the landlord’s repair timeframes. This is a failure in service and the delay may have put both the resident and the property at risk.
  3. The landlord raised a work order and scheduled work to begin on the ceiling on 1 September 2021, 218 calendar days following the make safe works. This is significantly over the 28-day timeframe stipulated for “day-to-day repairs”. Throughout this time the resident had repeated contact with the landlord in an attempt to have the issue resolved. This excessive involvement and need for a formal complaint caused additional stress, inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident. This is a failure in service.
  4. Before completion of any repair works landlords are expected to consider any risks that may transpire to repair operatives and residents. As such the landlord needed to establish if the ceiling repair works could cause disturbance to any asbestos that may be present. On 8 July 2021 the landlord highlighted that an asbestos report from 2014 which was attached to the resident’s property appeared to show photos that were inconsistent with the property in question and stated this should be checked. The landlord spoke with the repairs contractor about these discrepancies on 11 August 2021. It was established that the asbestos report was related to a different property and as such a new report would be required. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to conduct a full investigation once it became aware of a possible issue with regard to the previous asbestos check. Had this been done in July when the discrepancy was first raised, it could have avoided further delays to the repair works.
  5. A repairs operative attended the property on 1 September 2021 and confirmed a layer of Artex was visible on the ceiling. The repairs contractor advised the landlord, on the same day, that an asbestos check would need to be carried out before the works could take place. The landlord commissioned an asbestos specialist to conduct the required check in September 2021, they reported back to the landlord that they had been unable to contact the resident. The landlord attempted to contact the resident repeatedly during September and October 2021. The asbestos specialist arranged a mutually convenient appointment to conduct the check on 22 November 2021. The Ombudsman has seen clear evidence that the landlord attempted to contact the resident repeatedly, by a number of different means, in order to arrange an appointment. As such, it would be unfair for the Ombudsman to find a failing in the length of time taken to conduct the check.
  6. The landlord received the asbestos report on 7 December 2021, confirming no asbestos had been found. The landlord then had to make a further enquiry with the asbestos specialist as the report was not clear on whether the kitchen had been sampled. This was confirmed on 4 January 2022. Considering the purpose of the inspection was to consider asbestos within the ceiling, it is concerning that this was not mentioned within the original report. However, it is not clear to the Ombudsman if this was a result of the landlord not being specific with its request or the specialist not providing the appropriate information. As such it would be unfair to give criticism of this. The job was raised on 7 March 2022 after the resident made contact to advise the work was still outstanding. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to explain why it took two months to raise the job after the negative asbestos report had been received and would not expect the landlord to require prompting by the resident. This was an unreasonable and unnecessary delay to an already prolonged process.
  7. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 April 2022, apologising for the continued delay. The resident reported that wall units in the kitchen had fallen off the wall due to the damage caused by the leak and damaged a number of personal items.
  8. The landlord chased the repairs on 12 April 2022. The repairs contractor advised on 14 April 2022 that the earliest possible start date for the works would be 27 May 2022. The landlord recognised that this would be another significant delay to the repair process and decided to approach other contractors to see if the work could be done any earlier. This was an reasonable reaction and response.
  9. The ceiling was repaired on 1 June 2022, however, follow on works were required to plaster and paint the ceiling. The follow-on works were completed on 22 August 2022. Ultimately it took 23 months from the initial report of damage to the ceiling to the repair being completed. While some delay can be justified in the need for an asbestos report, a delay of 23 months is inappropriate and a serious failure in service.
  10. At stage two the landlord offered compensation for the delays, however it did not distinguish compensation between the kitchen ceiling and bathroom floor. As such the compensation will be discussed for both issues in tandem.
  11. The landlord raised a job on 25 January 2021 to lift and replace the bathroom flooring. The flooring was lifted on 6 May 2021, 101 calendar days after the job was raised. This is outside of the landlord’s repairs timeframes. The floor was left to dry out before new flooring could be laid. The flooring was laid on 27th July 2021, 183 days after the job was raised. While a short delay would be expected to allow the floor to dry, 82 calendar days is excessive and there is no evidence to suggest the state of the flooring was checked at any point during that time. This was an unreasonable delay.
  12. At stage two the landlord offered a total of £475 compensation, consisting of, £100 for delays in the repair works to the kitchen ceiling and bathroom flooring, £75 for disruption of the follow on works required to the kitchen ceiling and bathroom flooring, £75 for service failure regarding the follow on works to the kitchen ceiling and bathroom flooring, £75 for service failure regarding the asbestos testing, £75 for disruption regarding the asbestos testing and £75 for time and effort spent pursuing.
  13. Also in its stage two response, the landlord referred to the wall units causing damage to personal items. It stated that any damage done to personal belongings should be referred to it’s insurance team. It provided the resident with contact details for the insurance team as well as detailing what information the resident would need to provide for their claim. This was an appropriate response which explained the process to the resident and signposted them accordingly to allow them to make a claim.
  14. The Ombudsman has considered not only the number of significant failures in service displayed by the landlord but also the significant impact these failures had on the resident and their family. The resident repeatedly had to chase the landlord and was left for long periods with limited updates and no communication. The resident lived in a property with a damaged ceiling, for over a year, knowing disruptive repair works would be required. Ultimately this amounts to maladministration. Taking guidance from the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a compensation offer of between £600-£1000 would be expected. Also, the landlord’s offer of compensation was made to acknowledge the delay and inconvenience up to May 2022, with a proposal to have works completed in June 2022. Further delays were experienced and as such the works were not completed until August 2022. The offer of £475 is, therefore, not proportionate.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy does not state specific response timeframes, however, it does state “we respond fairly, politely, in a timely manner and in accordance with legislation, regulation and appropriate Ombudsman services.”
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. It states landlords must respond to a stage two complaint within 20 working days, with any delays communicated and not exceeding an additional ten working days without good reason.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 20 June 2021. The landlord provided its stage one response on 12 January 2022, 144 working days following the initial expression of dissatisfaction. This is not in line with the complaints handling code and a failure in service.
  4. In its stage one response the landlord advised the complaint would be escalated to stage two. The landlord provided its stage two response on 30 May 2022, 96 working days following the escalation to stage two. This is not in line with the complaints handling code and is a failure in service.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 May 2022 and requested the complaint be responded to at stage two and closed to allow them to escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman.
  6. By failing to provide formal responses to the resident’s complaint within appropriate timeframes the landlord prolonged the complaints process thus delaying the time taken for the resident to reach an outcome. This delay not only added to the resident’s distress, inconvenience and time and trouble, but also delayed the process of allowing the resident to escalate their complaint to the Ombudsman.
  7. The Complaints Handling Code states “landlords must make their complaint policy available in a clear and accessible format for all residents. This will detail the number of stages involved, what will happen at each stage and the timeframes for responding”. The landlord’s complaints policy does not provide any of this required detail.
  8. In its stage two response, the landlord offered £75 compensation for its complaints handling failures. There were considerable delays in the landlord’s responses with very little communication or clarity given to the resident. The resident had to repeatedly chase responses which caused additional inconvenience to the resident. As such the offer of £75 is not proportionate. Taking guidance from the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a compensation offer of over £100 would be expected.
  9. Due to the current Complaints Handling Code consultation, the Ombudsman will not make recommendations to the landlord to change its complaints process to align with the current code. However, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to take active learning from this experience and consider changes to its process once the consultation has been completed.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the resident’s complaint about the standard of remedial works carried out by the landlord is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the length of time it took the landlord to resolve the leak.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen ceiling and wall units.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is:
    1. To pay the resident £1,400, comprised of:
      1. £250 in recognition of the landlord’s failures in the length of time taken to resolve the leak.
      2. £1,000 in recognition of the landlord’s failures in the handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen ceiling.
      3. £150 in recognition of the landlord’s complaints handling failures.
    2. To provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.