Home Group Limited (202222915)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222915

Home Group Limited

5 February 2024

 

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:
    1. request for information about electric vehicle charging bays.
    2. reports about a communal streetlight not working.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner with the landlord. The property is located on an estate. When the estate was built, the developer installed 6 vehicle parking bays with electric charging points, in accordance with a planning consent granted by the local planning authority. The developer also installed a number of standard parking bays, many of which were leased or let to residents on the estate.
  2. According to the resident’s lease, the property has exclusive use of a designated car parking bay on the estate. The lease prohibits the resident from parking a car elsewhere, “save for the purpose of using one of the electric car charging points provided by the landlord on the estate”. The lease states that the resident is permitted “to use the electric car charging points provided by the landlord from time to time”.
  3. In May 2019, the resident complained that the landlord had sold 3 of its electric parking bays, despite previously promising to retain its electric parking provision. As a resolution, the resident wanted the landlord to consider installing an electric charging point next to his designated car parking bay or allocating him one of the remaining bays with an electric charging point.
  4. In its stage 2 response on 24 July 2019, the landlord said that it would not install an additional electric charging point. However, it would consider an application from the resident to install his own charging point. It clarified that there were 2 unallocated parking bays with electric charging points. It said that it would provide him with a permit, to enable him to use the charging points. While the resident did not escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman, he did ask the landlord to clarify which 2 spaces he could park in with his permit. The Ombudsman notes that there had been some previous confusion about this. There is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with a definitive response to this question.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord several times between February 2021 and 17 December 2021 about communal lighting. The Ombudsman understands that there were significant delays repairing one streetlight in particular, which was the landlord’s responsibility to maintain. The resident also complained that the landlord had not responded to his request for information about how to obtain an e-charge card and who could use the bays with electric charging points.
  6. At the time of the complaint, the landlord had an independent complaints panel. It is understood that the function of this panel was to scrutinise complaints after completion of the landlord’s internal complaints policy and to identify learnings. Between September 2022 and December 2022, the landlord’s independent complaints panel investigated the resident’s complaints about its electric charging bays and streetlighting. The panels final outcome was issued to the resident on 17 January 2023. The findings and the landlord’s final outcomes are summarised below:
    1. Delays fixing the streetlight arose due to a lack of access to the electricity supply, which had been resolved. Repairs to the streetlight were completed on 28 November 2022, but further investigations were required as the light had stopped working again. The landlord was to liaise with the resident about this, which it did.
    2. Despite the resident raising issues regarding access the electric parking bays for several years, the panel felt they were no further forward in achieving a resolution. During its investigation, the panel found that the electric charging points were not connected and may never have been operational. The landlord responded to the recommendations made by its panel. It created an action plan to:
      1. improve its parking signage
      2. remark the electric parking and individual bays
      3. offer to install a lockable bollard on the resident’s designated bay as a gesture of goodwill, to prevent unauthorised parking in his bay
      4. investigate a supplier for the electric charging points and share communications with all residents.
    3. The landlord had not followed its complaint process, which had resulted in lengthy details resolving the issues. The panel felt that staff turnover, poor communication, and record keeping were contributory factors.
  7. On 20 January 2023, the landlord offered the resident £190 compensation. The landlord said that this comprised: £35 in recognition of the resident’s time and effort chasing for updates, £55 for complaint handling failures, and £100 in respect of overall delay.
  8. The resident has since told the Ombudsman, that after several attempts to repair the streetlight, the streetlight had been fully operational since October or November 2023. The resident explained that he had been put off from purchasing an electric vehicle because the landlord had been unable to confirm which electric parking bays he could use, and how to use the electric charging points. To resolve his complaint, the resident wanted compensation, to be granted permission to park in the landlord’s parking bays with electric charging points, and for the landlord to explain how to make use of the electric charging points.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This complaint has been ongoing for some time. We have exercised our discretion to consider events outside of the specific timeline of the most recent complaint process. This is to allow a thorough and proportionate consideration of the events in this matter to inform this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about electric vehicle charging bays.

  1. The evidence shows that the resident had been asking for information related to the landlord’s electric parking bays since 2019.The resident said that the landlord had not provided closure for all concerned parties over the lifetime of the complaint.
  2. Ultimately, the resident had a contractual right to use electric car charging points provided by the landlord, from time to time. The landlord should have had a process in place for managing and maintaining its electric car charging points and bays, following handover of the development in 2015. The landlord should have been in a position to provide accurate and timely information to the resident about those bays upon request. It should not have taken the landlord over 3 years, from when the resident first raised queries about its electric charging points, to find that these had never been commissioned.
  3. The resident told the Service that he remained unclear about which electric parking bays he was free to use. The evidence suggests that the landlord sent a general letter to all residents in September 2019, correcting information given previously to residents about its permit parking. It has not been possible to determine based on fact from the evidence seen if the landlord also confirmed its position with the electric charging bays at this time. However, the Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord wrote to all residents in August 2020, confirming which bays were allocated for use by residents with electric vehicles. It also set out its intention to restrict use of the electric bays to 8 hours at a time with a permit. This suggests that the resident was aware from at least August 2020, which bays he could use and upon what basis.
  4. The resident told the Service that he remained unclear how to access the electric charging points. The Ombudsman considers that the resident would have been aware that the landlord’s independent complaints panel had identified that its electric charging points were not operational. The resident would also have been aware that its panel had recommended that the landlord investigate bringing its charging points into operation. This led the landlord to issue a general letter to all residents in May 2023, setting out its proposals to commission 2 out of its 6 electric charging points. It suggested that these bays could be used by any resident living on the estate with an electric car, with restrictions on parking of up to 8 hours at a time. Other residents and visitors could park in the 4 remaining un-commissioned electric parking bays for a small charge. It is understood that the landlord had limited response to its consultation. The resident did not reply. It is unclear to the Ombudsman from the evidence seen, whether the landlord has now commissioned any of the electric charging points. The resident has indicated to the Ombudsman that the charging points remain non-operational.
  5. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on whether the landlord was required to retain all of its electric parking bays for use by its leaseholders and tenants with electric vehicles. Or if it was required to commission all of its electric charging points. If the resident has concerns that the landlord has sold, allocated, or placed restrictions on any parking bay installed as a planning condition or in contravention of any agreement that may exist with the resident, the resident may wish to consult his local planning authority and / or seek independent legal advice.
  6. When assessing the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman has taken into consideration the actions of the landlord over the timeframe of the complaint and the resident’s circumstances in that same timeframe. While the resident may have been entitled to park in the landlord’s electric parking bays “from time to time” when charging a vehicle, the Ombudsman understands that the resident does not own an electric vehicle. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident had practical concerns in the event that he purchased an electric vehicle. However, the Ombudsman is unable to make an assessment based on what the resident’s circumstances might have been at some point in the future.
  7. Overall, the Ombudsman notes that there was some delay in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about electric vehicle charging bays over the lifetime of the complaint. Information initially given to the resident was incorrect. The landlord did not have adequate processes in place for managing its electric parking bays and had it done so, it might have realised earlier that the electric charging points were not connected. It is likely that the resident experienced frustration, uncertainty, as well as increased time and trouble progressing this matter. On balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a communal streetlight not working.

  1. It is not in dispute that there were delays finding a permanent solution to fix the communal streetlight. It is noted that the light has since been fixed and the landlord has put processes in place to prevent similar delays arising in the future.
  2. The Ombudsman does not doubt that the resident was caused some frustration by the landlord’s handling of the substantive matter. However, the Service has seen limited evidence to suggest there was detriment to the resident.
  3. On balance, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a communal streetlight not working. This finding is made in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance on outcomes.

The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

  1. It is not in dispute that the landlord did not follow its own policies and procedures in relation to complaint handling. Its own independent complaints panel attributed this to staff turnover, poor communication, and issues with record keeping. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this prolonged resolution of the substantive complaints and led to an unreasonable level of involvement being required by the resident to progress matters to a satisfactory conclusion.
  2. The Ombudsman has seen the landlord’s 2023 self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This shows that the landlord has made improvements to its complaint handling processes and has taken steps to bring its policy in line with the Code. This should support the landlord’s future complaint handling. However, at the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s complaint policy did not clearly set out how it would investigate complaints, the complaint stages, or timeframes for responding. Although the landlord had an independent complaint panel, this was not referenced in its policy and its role was unclear.
  3. The Ombudsman found evidence of confusion by complaint handlers about what stage the resident’s complaints were at. The landlord missed opportunities to acknowledge, log, escalate or refuse complaints that the resident had expressly asked the landlord to register. The Ombudsman noted that the resident repeatedly had to ask the landlord to clarify whether it had logged his complaints. While the Ombudsman was able to make findings based on the information available, the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping in this case made this more challenging.
  4. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. The landlord’s record keeping, and information management in this case was inadequate.
  5. The resident states that he delayed bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman, because he understood that his complaints had to be heard by the landlord’s independent complaints panel first. However, the evidence shows that the landlord repeatedly informed the resident of his right to do this. The Ombudsman also notes that it was the resident’s choice to go to the panel rather than escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman in August 2022, after the landlord realised that it should have raised a new stage 1 complaint in December 2021 about the electric parking bays. However, it is unclear to the Ombudsman whether the resident was aware that this review was to be conducted outside of the landlord’s complaints process. Had the landlord’s complaint policy been clearer, the resident may have brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in a timelier manner.
  6. The Ombudsman has considered whether the redress offered by the landlord was fair in the circumstances of the case. In considering this the Ombudsman took 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. The landlord acted fairly by recognising that there had been failings. It belatedly endeavoured to put things right by progressing the recommendations made by its panel and making an offer of compensation.
  7. The substantive complaint about the streetlight was resolved after some delay. The landlord showed that it had learned lessons by changing its process for providing access to electrical intake cupboards. The landlord attempted to put things right in relation to the resident’s complaint about electric parking bays and electric charging points, following recommendations made by its independent complaints panel. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of compensation was not quite proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.
  8. When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about electric vehicle charging bays.
    2. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a communal streetlight not working.
    3. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping

Orders

  1. The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
  2. The landlord must pay compensation of £400 directly to the resident, reduced to £210 if the landlord has already paid the compensation, it previously offered. This has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as follows:
    1. £150 compensation, in recognition of the uncertainty and increased time and trouble caused to the resident, by the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about electric vehicle charging bays.
    2. £250 compensation, in recognition of the distress and increased time and trouble caused to the resident, by failures in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.
  3. The landlord must write to the resident to:
    1. Confirm which of its electric parking bays the resident may use under the terms of the resident’s lease. If the landlord cannot provide this information to the resident with certainty, it must set out an action plan, with timeline, explaining the steps it will take to obtain and provide a definitive answer to the resident.
    2. Confirm whether its electric charging points are operational and provide the resident with practical guidance on their use, which the resident can easily follow. If the electric charging points are not operational, the landlord must explain in writing, the steps that it is taking to remedy this, if any, and by when.
    3. Confirm its position in regard to the allocation or selling of any electric car parking bays to residents on the estate. Before writing to the resident, the landlord must satisfy itself that its approach is in line with any legal, planning, or policy agreement that may exist.
  4. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.