Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Home Group Limited (202225677)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225677

Home Group Limited

13 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: –
    1. A leak and associated repairs.
    2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property. The tenancy started on 26 May 2014. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident’s disabled daughter lives in the property at weekends.
  2. On 3 August 2021 the resident reported a leak coming through the floorboards into her kitchen due to a faulty cylinder tank. A contractor attended on 19 August 2021 to fit a safety valve but this did not resolve the issue and a cylinder tank was then ordered. The leak was resolved on 10 September 2021 when the new cylinder tank was fitted.
  3. Further work was needed to rectify the damage caused by the leak. An order was placed on 28 September 2021 to remove all kitchen units and appliances, renew the floorboards and vinyl flooring in the kitchen, plus plastering in the lounge. However, this was cancelled by the landlord on 20 November 2021.
  4. The resident chased the outstanding repairs in March 2022 and the order was raised again on 6 June 2022.  The resident was decanted to temporary accommodation on 4 July 2022 while the remedial work was carried out.
  5. On 6 July 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that she had been calling about the leak for over a year and had been ‘fobbed off’ and that the job had been cancelled by the landlord. She had damp & mould growing up the walls in the kitchen and lounge and sinking holes in kitchen floor. She also said that the leak had caused damage to her carpet in the lounge.
  6. The landlord provided an update regarding the complaint to the resident on 29 July 2022 when the remedial work to the property was underway. It advised the resident to claim for the carpet through the landlord’s insurance and said that it would consider compensation after the repair had been completed.
  7. The landlord told the resident to return to her property on 2 August 2022. However, on her return, she found that there were no kickboards or skirting fitted in the kitchen, a dehumidifier and rubbish had been left and the vinyl floor had not been replaced. The landlord raised an order for this work to be carried out on 11 August 2022 but when the resident returned on 30 August 2022 the property was in the same state.
  8. In the stage 1 complaint response of 4 October 2022, the landlord said that all actions relating to the complaint had now been fulfilled. It offered the resident £280 in compensation. The resident was dissatisfied and requested an escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process on 18 October 2022.
  9. The landlord acknowledged this and said it would only review its offer of discretionary compensation. The stage 2 response of 16 January 2023 offered compensation of £380.
  10. The resident did not accept the compensation offered and said that not all the issues in her complaint had been addressed.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42g of the Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. This Service does not determine liability for damages or award damages in the way that a court might and therefore we are unable to determine liability for the damage to the resident’s belongings or order compensation for these issues.
  2. The Ombudsman will however consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement due to damaged belongings and whether this was handled reasonably and in line with its own policy and procedures.

The landlord’s handling of a leak and associated repairs.

  1. The resident reported the leak on 3 August 2021. As an emergency repair the target response time was 24 hours according to the tenancy agreement. The stage 1 acknowledgement letter stated that the landlord attended on 3 August 2021 however no other evidence was provided to support this. The landlord should have repair logs that are detailed and comprehensive enough to demonstrate whether or not the leak was resolved within the target response time, so this was a record keeping failing on the landlord’s part.
  2. Further work was required to fix the leak and a contractor attended on 19 August 2021 to fit a safety valve. This did not fully resolve the issue and a cylinder tank was then ordered. The landlord attempted to fit this on 2 occasions but could not as the resident was not in.  This was outside the landlord’s control. The new cylinder tank was fitted on 10 September 2021. The overall timescale for the completion of the repair, including sourcing of parts, was reasonable.
  3. The resident told the Ombudsman that she had reported the leak prior to the 3 August 2021. The landlord has provided a log of all repairs reported at the property since 2015 and this does not show any reports of a leak in the kitchen prior to 3 August 2021. In the absence of any evidence to support either version it is impossible to prove or disprove whether such reports were made. Although there was a delay in rectifying the leak, this was due to parts being ordered and therefore there was no maladministration by the landlord in this regard.
  4. The job raised for remedial work on 28 September 2021 was cancelled in November 2021.  The landlord’s records show that this was ‘raised to a new contractor’ however another job was not raised. The reason for the cancellation was also recorded as the landlord not being able to contact the resident however this service has seen no records of any contact attempts. It does not make sense that the job would be raised to another contractor if it had been cancelled due to no access. This was an error by the landlord, the job should not have been cancelled and records should have been kept if contact attempts were unsuccessful.
  5. The resident was advised to claim for the lounge carpet through the landlord’s insurance which was in accordance with its policy and therefore the appropriate action to take.
  6. The order for remedial work was raised again on 6 June 2022 after the resident chased it. A date to carry out the work was booked, and the resident was decanted to temporary accommodation on 4 July 2022. The resident was advised that the work should take 2-3 days to complete however the floor was still too wet to work on. A dehumidifier had to be used by the contractor to dry out the floor and the floor was dry enough for work to be carried out between 26-28 July 2022.
  7. The landlord visited the property on 1 August 2022, however, some works remained uncompleted at that time. Later that day, an internal landlord email confirmed that the sink was plumbed back in, and the cooker had been reconnected so the resident could return to the property. The vinyl flooring wasdue to be fitted at later date.
  8. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day and told them to vacate their temporary accommodation and move back into the property the next day. A final check of the property should have been carried out to ensure that the property was ready to occupy. The landlord should also have made it clear to the resident that the vinyl flooring would be fitted at a later date.
  9. When the resident returned to the property on 2 August 2022, she emailed the landlord to advise that the property was ‘in a terrible state’ and provided photographs.  The dehumidifier was blocking the hallway, the kitchen had no kick boards or skirting boards, there was rubbish in the flat left by the contractor and the vinyl flooring was not fitted. An internal landlord email of 3 August 2022 confirmed that a job was booked in for 11 August 2022 to; replace the kickboards and skirting, remove the insulation and dehumidifier and fit a new back board under the kitchen sink. The resident chose to stay with a friend and then went on holiday.
  10. When the resident returned to the property on 30 August 2022, she found that this work still had not been completed. She contacted the landlord to tell them and the landlord arranged for the contractor to complete the work the next day.
  11. This Service cannot decide whether the property was adequately ready for the resident to return on 2 August 2022 due to inconclusive photographic evidence. However, we can consider the delays and the landlords response. There was a long delay of 11 months between the remedial work being identified and the job being completed. The landlord cannot explain why the original job was cancelled as its record keeping was poor. Its delays in completing the required works were unreasonable. The resident reports that this caused added avoidable distress and inconvenience at an already difficult time. The resident has a disabled daughter who stays with her every weekend but could not while she was decanted from the property. The resident also reports that this change in routine caused added distress to the her and her daughter.
  12. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the remedial repairs.  The landlord offered compensation of £100 for delays with repairs, £55 for time and effort chasing repairs, £75 for poor communication and £75 for disruption.  The Ombudsman does not feel this fully reflects the adverse impacts on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlords Complaints Policy states that “we respond fairly, politely, in a timely manner and in accordance with legislation, regulation and appropriate Ombudsman Services”.
  2. Therefore, the landlord should have responded to the first complaint within 10 working days, but it responded in 63 working days. The resident was not kept informed of the reasons for the delay. She asked for an update on 3 and 13 September 2022 but there is no evidence that she received a response.
  3. On 3 September in an internal email the landlord said that the resident would have to be patient, that the complaint was at stage 2 and “it takes 8 weeks to respond to a stage 2 complaint”.  The complaint was not at stage 2 at this point and stage 2 complaints should be responded to in 20 working days, so the landlord was incorrect, and the statement was at odds with its policy standards. On the 13 September 2022, again in an internal email, the landlord made inappropriate and unnecessary comments about the resident vehicle ownership and recent whereabouts.
  4. It is disappointing to this Service that such unprofessional comments were used within internal landlord emails.  This does not reflect a positive complaint handling culture, or the values set out in its complaint policy.
  5. The stage 2 complaint was responded to after 62 working days. The resident chased a response on 17 November 2022 and 10 January 2023, causing unnecessary time and trouble to the resident. The landlord advised the resident on 10 January 2023 that she should receive this by the end of the next day. Following this several internal emails were sent where the complaints team gathered information to respond to the complaint. This shows that it was only at this point that the complaint was looked at.  This is not in line with the complaint principles in the Complaint Handling Code operated at that time. This says that a complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity, having assessed what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to consider the extra expenses that she had incurred while she was decanted from her flat. The landlord’s Decant policy says “we consider it good practice to ensure our customers are not left out of pocket as a result of the requirement to move through no fault of their own” however it did not consider this request as part of the complaint, and this was also a failure.
  7. The resident also told the landlord about the impact that the decant had on her disabled daughter. The landlord did not consider this impact in its stage 2 response, and this was also a serious failure.
  8. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus, did not answer all the complaint, and took too long. It is also disappointing to this Service that unprofessional comments were used within internal landlord emails.  This does not reflect a positive complaint handling culture.
  9. When all the factors are considered, the Ombudsman finds maladministration because of the multiple failures of the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of a leak and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord must pay the resident £780.00 directly in compensation, broken down as follows:
    1. £280.00 for time and trouble caused to the resident.
    2. £200.00 for inconvenience caused to the resident.
    3. £300.00 for distress caused to the resident.
  2. The landlord must confirm to this Service that the above compensation has been paid within 28 days of this report. Any compensation already paid should be deducted from this amount.
  3. A senior manager must apologise in writing to the resident for the poor complaint handling.  Evidence of this to be provided to this service within 28 days of this report.
  4. A senior manager must undertake a review of this case to identify learning opportunities.  This report as a minimum must consider: –
    1. How the landlord can have enhanced oversight of completed works in similar situations to this case.
    2. How the landlord can ensure that its values are reflected within internal communications.