Home Group Limited (202406373)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406373

Home Group Limited

21 January 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s request for a management transfer.
3. The resident’s reports regarding the standard of communal cleaning.
4. The resident’s concerns about the previous management transfer in 2020.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is aware that the resident has a mental health condition.
In a telephone call with the landlord on 29 January 2024, the resident discussed her ongoing ASB concerns regarding her neighbour. This included her neighbour’s TV noise levels, alleged drug use, and issues with car parking. The resident confirmed that she had reported the ongoing concerns to the police. During the call the landlord said it had not received evidence of the issues. The landlord said it had undertaken ongoing investigations during site visits which included sniff tests and conversations with other residents in the block. It said there was an increased staff presence on site.
The resident raised a formal complaint during a further telephone call with the landlord on 30 January 2024. She said she had experienced ASB issues since moving into the property in 2020, that she felt she had not been listened to, and the landlord was not doing anything. The landlord agreed to raise the complaint on her behalf.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 1 March 2024. It confirmed the following:
1. The landlord said it had logged her reports as ASB cases and her housing manager had kept her updated with action plans and investigations. It said due to general data protection regulations (GDPR) it could not give full details but its actions included speaking to those involved. It said her housing manager was carrying out regular unannounced visits and working closely with the police and council.
2. The landlord said the nature of behaviour the resident was experiencing was a build up of incidents and it needed to demonstrate a pattern to build a stronger case for more robust action. It reiterated the importance of logging incidents and reporting illegal activity to the police.
3. The landlord referred to the neighbour having a dog at the property and confirmed it had not given permission for the dog, but it could visit. It said it had sent warnings and would continue to do so if it continued to cause a nuisance or damage.
4. The landlord said it encouraged the use of video doorbells, however, the resident would need to retrospectively gain permission from it to have one.
5. The landlord said it was disappointed to see the poor condition of cleaning in her block and grounds maintenance. It said the housing manager had fedback that the cleaning had not passed the specification standard. It said it changed contractors in January 2024 and it allowed a mobilisation period. However, it appeared that the contractor had never attended to the resident’s block. It said it had requested an update from the contractor and would look at issuing a service charge refund. The landlord invited the resident to join the housing manager and contractor on a walk–through at the site.
6. The landlord acknowledged the resident had provided more background information but confirmed it would not follow up on parts of her complaint which were over 6 months old.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint on 14 March 2024. She specified that she was unhappy with the response to the issues with her neighbour and in relation to the cleaning and ground maintenance on the estate
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 13 May 2024. It summarised the resident’s concerns and said that:
1. It had investigated the circumstances around her initial approved management move into the property in 2020. It said there was no reason to believe that the resident would not be safe in her new property and it was sorry that she did not find the move helpful. The landlord said that it went outside of its policy to support her with a move at the time.
2. It was satisfied that her ASB case had been handled appropriately. However, there was a failing in its recording of the case in June 2023 and it did not follow its process. It said it had since rectified this and it logged a case on 14 March 2024. The landlord confirmed that the absence of the records on the system would not have impacted the outcome of the actions taken.
3. There had been no internal cleaning from the new contractor starting in January 2024 up until April 2024. A deep clean had since taken place with a schedule in place for ongoing weekly cleaning. The landlord referred to an incident reported by the resident on 2 February 2024 in which she slipped on the communal staircase on a substance spilled on the floor. It provided its insurance details should she wish to submit a personal injury claim.
4. It outlined the circumstances for a management move and confirmed that as there was no evidence to support any of the circumstances, it could not authorise a move for the resident.
5. It partially upheld the response and offered £300 in compensation for failings related to the communal cleaning and its record keeping. £75 was for the lack of cleaning, £75 for the ASB case logging failure, £75 for the resident’s time and effort in pursuing matters, and £75 for the complaint handling delays.
The resident was not satisfied with the stage 2 response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she wanted the landlord to offer a suitable management move, a sincere apology letter, and substantial compensation for its handling of the ASB and her time spent dealing with the wrongdoings. The resident said her mental health had deteriorated as a result of the ongoing situation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident first reported having ASB issues in 2020. However, in line with the above, the investigation will focus on events 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint in January 2024 up to the landlord’ stage 2 response in May 2024. Separate issues, and events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure have not been investigated and are referenced for contextual purposes only.
The resident has referred to her health and how the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to any likely distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of the situation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it is committed to preventing ASB where possible and tackling cases effectively. It states it will use technology such as noise apps, or offer mediation, and monitor how effective its tools and systems are to resolve cases as speedily as possible. It states that early intervention may include using warnings and acceptable behaviour agreements. The policy states that it will investigate reports within an agreed timescale, using a risk assessment matrix to prioritise the most serious cases. It states that it will work with other agencies such as the police and local authority to investigate and tackle ASB.
In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred, who is responsible, or if a property is not suitable as a result of any ASB. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint. We can also assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure and followed good practice, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.
In this case, the landlord accepts, and the Ombudsman agrees, that it did not initially follow its ASB policy. As the landlord acknowledged, it did not open an ASB case, provide an action plan, or complete a risk assessment. Without carrying out those actions, it would have been difficult to sufficiently manage the resident’s expectations. This assessment will consider whether the landlord offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings and whether the landlord’s overall handling of the matter was fair in all the circumstances.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 June 2023. She said that the ASB issues were continuing and that she did not feel the landlord was resolving them. She outlined the issues as a smell of cannabis, rubbish in communal areas, and issues with parking. The resident said people were constantly parking outside her french doors on the footpath, which she said was illegal. She also described it as a safety hazard and said it invaded her privacy. The resident requested the landlord send a letter out as soon as possible.
The landlord’s initial response was reasonable. It issued a letter to all residents the following day regarding using allocated parking spaces. It also issued another letter regarding smoking cannabis in the building and what action it could take should the issue continue.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 June 2023 and reported noise coming from her neighbour’s flat. She said she had to sleep in her living room due to the noise and that she was hearing “domestic violence arguments almost everyday.” She referred to the neighbour using drugs and having children in the property. She asked the landlord to consider contacting social services and whether the neighbour’s partner is on the tenancy agreement. She said she had contacted her local MP as the situation was making her life a misery and affecting her mental health. She asked for the landlord to issue a warning to her neighbour.
The landlord spoke to the resident on the same day. It confirmed it had sent out block letters to address her recent concerns. The resident said she had reported the latest incident of her neighbours shouting and their intimidation to the police. The landlord encouraged the resident to keep reporting incidents with the police. It said it would chase up the parking issue and was trying “to get to the bottom of things at the site.” It would have been appropriate at this point for the landlord to have opened an ASB case. It should have created an action plan outlining what steps it intended to take to address the resident’s concerns and completed a risk assessment.
Despite not completing a risk assessment, the landlord evidenced that it appropriately considered the risk to the resident. This was through attending multi–agency meetings, recording what support the resident had access to, and completed safeguarding referrals, where necessary.
On 16 July 2023, the resident reported the neighbour’s partner threatening her and having a loud party. She said she contacted both the police and “noise patrol” at her local council. On 21 July 2023 the landlord spoke to the resident who said the noise, parties, and drug use was taking place every weekend and she was having to stay away from her home. The landlord confirmed it was following up and taking action with the neighbours. On the same day, the landlord issued a letter to all residents regarding noise and that the residents should treat the letter as a first and final warning.
On 22 August 2023, the landlord contacted the local council’s community safety officer to enquire if they were aware of the ASB concerns with the resident’s neighbours and explained its difficulties in contacting them. The officer responded to say they sent a letter to the neighbour on 9 August 2023. The landlord spoke to the neighbour on 22 August 2023. The notes stated that it discussed the resident’s reports with the neighbour and it warned the neighbour to keep the noise down. It said if they did not keep the noise down, then further action may follow. This approach was reasonable as the landlord did not have any other evidence at the time to substantiate the resident’s reports.
In this case, it did not appear that there was sufficient evidence for the landlord to take enforcement action. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord advised the resident to provide diary sheets with any ASB incidents which occur and on more than one occasion it advised the resident to download the noise app. Unfortunately, the resident did not provide such evidence.
It is noted that the resident was otherwise in regular communication with the landlord and the police to report her concerns. The landlord has shown that it responded to the resident’s reports on each occasion. As such, the lack of diary sheets may not have affected the overall outcome of the complaint. However, diary sheets can be useful in supporting the landlord to take further action as they can demonstrate the frequency and impact the alleged ASB is having on the resident. Therefore, the landlord’s request for the resident to provide these was appropriate and in accordance with best practice.
On 4 November 2023, the resident asked if the landlord could install a camera outside her property on the landing for safety purposes. Her housing manager responded to say they would discuss this internally, however, it had previously been decided by the landlord that CCTV would not be installed due to the cost. They enquired about the video doorbell which the resident said she was installing. They also referred to the diary sheets and the noise app. It would later transpire that the housing manager should have informed the resident that she needed permission for a video doorbell. However, the overall response was reasonable and proportionate to the resident’s request.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the lack of evidence would have made it difficult for the landlord to take further action. The landlord should have satisfied itself that it had considered early intervention tools it could use such as mediation, liaising with the police, and acceptable behaviour agreements. This would have been in line with its policy. Mediation can be a good intervention tool in cases where a landlord has limited tools available to address the issue and to help neighbours reach an understanding. Similarly, acceptable behaviour agreements can assist a neighbour in understanding the impact of their behaviour on others and holding them accountable. There is no evidence that the landlord considered those options within the timeframe investigated by the Ombudsman.
The resident stated that she had reported a number of incidents to the police. It is unclear from the records provided how much contact the landlord had with the police. The landlord informed the resident in June 2023 that it would involve the police in its investigations but there is no evidence that it did. The only evidence provided of the landlord contacting the police directly was on 19 March 2024. The police responded on 22 March 2024 to confirm the investigations which had taken place over the last year. While the police had not taken any further action, it is disappointing that the landlord has not evidenced that it directly contacted the police sooner.
Overall, the Ombudsman recognises the difficulties in progressing an ASB case with a lack of evidence. The landlord did demonstrate that it took action in response to her reports made, it provided a written warning to the neighbour and it also tried to secure evidence, in the absence of diary sheets and noise recordings. It also cooperated in multi-agency meetings which were held in the interests of safeguarding the resident.
The landlord was evidently mindful of the resident’s vulnerabilities and responded to her reports within a reasonable timeframe. However, its responses were vague at times and did not manage her expectations. The landlord would sometimes attribute this to GDPR. With no clear action plan it would not be clear to the resident or the Ombudsman whether the landlord had fully considered or utilised the intervention tools available to it. The landlord has acknowledged that it should have provided an action plan and this is an example of why they can be so important in such cases.
The Ombudsman would have found maladministration, if not for the landlord’s acknowledgment that it did not officially log an ASB case or follow its processes. The landlord showed it learnt from its mistakes by retrospectively opening an ASB case and creating an action plan. There remains some uncertainty regarding the timeliness of the landlord’s contact with the police and whether the landlord fully considered all the tools available to it. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The resident’s request for a management transfer

The landlord’s allocations policy which was applicable at the time of this complaint sets out that it may use a management transfer where a life is at immediate risk and/or they cannot enter their home for medical or other reasons (safeguarding concerns).
In cases such as this, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether a resident should be rehoused. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint and correctly applied its policy and procedure when reaching decisions.
It is unclear when the resident completed the form for a management transfer and when it was first considered by the landlord. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 August 2023 to ask when she would receive a response regarding her management move application. The landlord replied to ask the resident if she would like to receive the form for her to complete alongside her supporting evidence for a move. It said the main criteria for an internal move is threat to life and those with mobility needs.
While it is important for the landlord to manage expectations, the information provided was not accurate and suggests that the resident would not meet the criteria. This could have dissuaded the resident from completing the forms. While the landlord made it clear it used its discretion to move the resident previously, in doing so, it may not have been clear to the resident what the criteria was. It should have sent the forms and correct criteria to the resident upon her request. This would have allowed the landlord to properly consider the resident’s request, in line with its procedures.
The records show that the landlord encouraged the resident to complete the management move forms in November 2023. However, it is not clear whether the resident provided them. In the stage 2 response the landlord confirmed it had reviewed the supporting evidence the resident had previously provided and it could not find evidence which would support the move. The landlord also outlined the criteria which was more detailed than the previous criteria provided.
In the absence of the information provided to the landlord it is difficult to determine whether the landlord appropriately considered the resident’s request. While the landlord may not have had enough evidence to support a move related to ASB concerns, it is not clear whether the landlord considered the medical and safeguarding concerns raised by the resident and other parties. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided more information regarding the reasons the request was denied.
Overall, the landlord has evidenced that alongside the request for a management move, it liaised with the resident’s housing contact at the local council and discussed other options such as a mutual exchange. While the stage 2 response provided further details of the criteria to the resident, it was not clear about the reasons surrounding her rejection, which was a failing.
The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer. The landlord must provide the resident with an updated management move form and any guidance for completing the form, should she wish to re-apply.

The resident’s reports regarding the standard of communal cleaning

In response to her complaint, the landlord reasonably acknowledged the poor condition of the communal cleaning and that it had not passed the specification standard on a recent inspection. It outlined that there was a new cleaning contractor but that it did not appear the resident’s block had been attended to. It said it had requested an update from the contractor and would look at issuing a refund if there was no evidence it attended in the last 2 months. It also invited the resident on a walk through of the site with her housing manager and cleaning contractor to discuss expectations. It confirmed that her housing manager would then complete more frequent fortnightly quality checks.
The landlord’s response was appropriate. It showed it had investigated the resident’s complaint and put actions in place to attempt to resolve the issue. It was reasonable for it to consider reimbursing some of the resident’s service charge if it found that the service she was paying for had not been provided.
Prior to the stage 1 response and on 12 February 2024 the resident informed the landlord that she had fallen on the communal stairs due to an unknown substance. The resident said she had landed on her wrist and it was swollen. The landlord responded the next day to say it was sorry to hear about her fall, it asked how her injuries were, and if she had any photos of the substance. It said it would look into it straight away. While the landlord’s initial response was reasonable, there was no evidence of it following up with the resident until its stage 2 response on 13 May 2024. It would have been reasonable to have confirmed any action it had taken from her report and provided its insurance details for her to make a personal injury claim sooner.
In her stage 2 escalation the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She complained that her neighbour was also contributing to the issue by leaving litter and untidy buggies in the communal area. The landlord confirmed that it would contact the neighbour in relation to that. The resident said she did not believe the communal area had been cleaned since September 2023.
The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed that the previous cleaning contractor’s cleaning was not to a satisfactory standard and was sporadic between September 2023 and December 2023. It said this was despite its attempts to engage and manage their performance. The landlord said the new cleaning contractor took over in January 2024 but due to issues during the mobilisation stage there had been no internal cleaning until April 2024. It apologised for the inconvenience and impact on the resident. It confirmed that the area had been deep cleaned and a schedule was in place for weekly cleaning. It said the housing manager was working with the cleaning contractor and would be assessing the cleaning during inspections. The landlord offered £75 for the lack of cleaning.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of unclean communal areas by visiting the estate to review the situation. It then investigated the issue internally and outlined what action it had taken to address the issue. The landlord offered compensation to reflect the service failure which had occurred. The amount was reasonable for the service failure and the amount of service charge which the resident would have paid in that time. However, the Ombudsman finds the landlord should have awarded further compensation to reflect the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the lack of cleaning.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding the standard of communal cleaning.

The resident’s concerns about the previous management transfer in 2020

It is understood that the resident was offered a management move in 2020 following reports of ASB at her previous property. The resident said she should not have been offered the property she is currently in and felt forced into it by the landlord. She said upon moving in, she experienced ASB straight away, and she was informed that the previous resident had moved away because of it. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was confident that being fully aware of the circumstances at her previous property, it had no reason to believe that she would not be safe in the new one. It said it had gone outside of its policy and used its discretion at the time to support a management move for the resident.
Due to the time which has passed since the management move in 2020, the Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which this can be assessed. From the information provided, it appears the resident did not meet the criteria for a management move at the time. However, the landlord agreed to the move as a way to resolve the ASB the resident was experiencing. As such, it is difficult to establish whether the landlord would have been expected to follow any specific procedure and/or checks associated with a management move at the time.
Overall, the exact nature and recency of ASB reports surrounding the move in 2020 has not been established from the records provided. The landlord has stated that it had no reason to believe the resident would not be safe in her new property and no evidence has been provided to suggest otherwise. As such, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the management transfer in 2020.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered

The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a 2 stage complaints policy in which it responds to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. The policy says that it wants to make it as straightforward as possible for customers to raise a complaint.
On 16 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and said that she would like to raise a formal complaint. The landlord responded to the resident the next day and advised her to make a formal complaint through the website. The landlord’s complaints policy does not state that all formal complaints should be made via the website. It states that it provides a range of options to receive feedback which includes face to face, telephone, email, and via the website. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should have accepted the resident’s email as the formal complaint and in accordance with its policy. It is a failure that it did not do so.
By not accepting the resident’s complaint via email, the resident likely spent time and trouble in continuing to raise her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her reports. When the resident raised a formal complaint again in January 2024, this was via a telephone call which the landlord accepted and then raised a complaint on her behalf. It is unclear why the landlord accepted the complaint in January 2024 but not in July 2023. This is a further example of the landlord failing to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response 2 months after the resident escalated her complaint. The time taken to respond was not appropriate and was not in line with its policy. While the landlord offered £75 for complaint handling delays, it did not explain why there was such a delay or what action it had taken to ensure it would not happen again. In not doing so, the landlord has not evidenced that it learnt from its outcomes and as such its offer of redress was not reasonable in all the circumstances.
The landlord offered a total of £300 in compensation which was broken down as:
1. £75 for lack of cleaning.
2. £75 for the ASB case logging failure.
3. £75 for the time and effort the resident spent pursuing matters.
4. £75 for the complaint handling delays.
As already identified in this report, the Ombudsman does not find the above figure is proportionate to or accounts for the likely distress and inconvenience the resident experienced. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman finds £650 to be a more proportionate figure. This accounts for the following:
1. £175 for the service failings associated with the ASB complaint. This includes the £75 for the case logging failures and an additional £100 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused as a result.
2. £100 for the lack of clarity surrounding the request for a management move.
3. £175 for the service failings associated with the lack of cleaning. This includes the £75 offered for the failure to provide a service and an additional £100 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused.
4. £200 for the complaint handling failures identified and the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s request for a management transfer.
3. The resident’s reports regarding the standard of communal cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the previous management transfer in 2020.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Orders

The landlord must apologise to the resident for the additional failures identified in this report.
The landlord must provide the resident with a management transfer form, along with any criteria and guidance for completing the form.
The landlord must provide the resident with an update on any open ASB cases it holds for her. If outstanding actions are specified, it must provide a timeframe for carrying out those actions and its most recent risk assessment.
The landlord must pay the resident a total of £650 compensation. This is inclusive of the £300 previously offered. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and must not be used to offset any arrears.
The landlord is to provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.