From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Home Group Limited (202346602)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346602

Home Group Limited

22 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
    1. Broken communal doors to access the building and queries about the costs of repairs.
    2. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a flat situated inside a larger block. The block is accessed by an automatically locking fob operated main front communal door and rear door.
  2. On 9 May 2023 the resident told the landlord that repairs were needed to the communal door because it would not lock or stay closed. The landlord attended on 25 May 2023 and completed some unspecified repairs. On 28 June 2023 residents informed the landlord that the front communal door did not lock and that ‘strangers were entering the building and packages had been going missing’.
  3. On 29 September 2023 the resident reported that he was one of several residents locked out of the building due to issues with the communal door. The resident complained that repairs had been outstanding for ‘months’ and that parcels had been stolen. The landlord attended the same day and resolved the access problem but noted that the lock on the door was still broken. The resident wanted the service charges paid for the previous 6 months to be refunded to all residents.
  4. On 11 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that:
    1. it was sorry there were ongoing issues with the communal door
    2. it was sorry its attempts to make repairs had not prevented strangers accessing the building or stealing parcels
    3. that it would not refund any service charges as these were ‘not for having a door entry’ but for the ‘cost of servicing or maintaining them’
    4. service charge budgets are estimates, but if no repairs were undertaken in a financial year, then these costs would be deducted at the end of the year
    5. its contractor would attend to repair the door on 23 October 2023
  5. On 19 October 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said that:
    1. he had been told the door would be repaired on 4 October 2023, but this did not happen
    2. in addition to stolen parcels, ASB was now happening in the building because of the broken door lock. This included unknown persons drinking alcohol and taking drugs in the communal areas who became aggressive and made threats when challenged.
    3. in a telephone call with him on 11 October 2023, the landlord has said that it would reimburse some of his service charges, but the landlord had now changed its mind
  6. The resident asked the landlord for an update on the repair to the door on several occasions between 24 October 2023 and 8 November 2023. On 1 November 2023 the resident informed the landlord that a non-resident was sleeping in the communal area.
  7. On 15 November 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it was waiting for a specialist part to be manufactured to repair the door lock. It said it could not pay any compensation to only one resident. On 19 November 2023 the resident asked the landlord again to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He added that:
    1. the ASB had worsened, including fights happening in the building and vandalism causing damage to the communal areas
    2. service charge payers would likely have to pay increased charges to repair the damage being done by people accessing the building
    3. the landlord’s communication had been poor and none of its repair dates had been completed as promised
  8. On 21 November 2023 the resident reported that people accessing the building had broken another door at the back of the building. He said that this required repairing as people could also now access the building through the broken back door without permission. He expressed concern that this would incur further cost to be paid as part of his service charges.
  9. The landlord repaired the front door lock on 6 December 2023. On 4 January 2024 the resident described the repair as a ‘temporary fix’ and raised further issues with the front door, including that an internal handle was missing and the door took a long time to close. He reminded the landlord that there were outstanding repairs in the communal areas.
  10. On 4 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
    1. 3 appointments in October and November 2023 had been rescheduled by its contractor until the front communal door was successfully repaired on 6 December 2023
    2. there were delays completing the repair to the communal front door due to supply problems
    3. it had now raised the repairs to the communal areas reported by the resident
    4. it would issue the resident with a further response when it had further information and to discuss the resident’s requests for compensation
  11. On 19 January 2024 the resident reminded the landlord that unknown people were still coming into the building by coming through the broken communal rear door. On 22 January 2024 the resident reported that the front communal door was broken again. On 6 February 2024 the landlord informed the resident it would replace both the front and rear communal doors. On 14 February 2024 the landlord informed the resident it would offer him £500 compensation.
  12. On 23 February 2024 the landlord issued a further stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
    1. it had raised repairs to the communal area that had been reported by the resident
    2. it would make a decision ‘soon’ about who would bear the cost of repairing the damage to the communal area caused by unknown people who had accessed the building while the door was broken
    3. residents should contact the police regarding allegations of ASB
    4. it had attended weekly meetings with the police due to the ASB the resident had reported, and the police had advised the landlord it would conduct regular patrols in the area
    5. its offer of £500 compensation was made up of:
      1. £100 for delays in repairing the communal door
      2. £100 for the disruption due to the ongoing repair issues
      3. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble
      4. £100 for its communication issues
      5. £100 as an apology for all of the above
  13. On 21 March 2024 the resident approached this Service. He was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the door repairs and his associated concerns. He wanted increased compensation and confirmation that damage caused to communal areas will be paid for by the landlord, and not by residents.
  14. On 28 May 2024 the rear communal door was successfully replaced. As of September 2024, the replacement front door was outstanding. The front communal door was due to be replaced in November 2024, but it is unclear if this was successfully completed.

Assessment and findings

Broken communal doors to access the building and queries about the costs of repairs

  1. Repairs to and maintenance of the common parts of resident’s building are described as a service under the lease agreement. The landlord, who is also the managing agent, is responsible for completing these repairs. The cost of these repairs is paid for by all residents of the building as part of their service charges. There is no indication in the lease agreement or any of the landlord’s policies of any standards or timescales expected of the landlord in completing repairs the common parts of buildings. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that the landlord should complete routine repairs within 14 calendar days.
  2. Following the landlord’s initial repair to the communal front door of the building on 25 May 2023, the evidence shows that the landlord was aware it would not lock from 28 June 2023 onwards. The landlord attended on several occasions to attempt repairs, but the issue could not be resolved. The landlord said that this delay was because it was waiting for parts to be manufactured and supplied to its contractor. It is unclear on what date the landlord’s contractors ordered the replacement part needed to resolve the issue, as the earliest reference seen in the evidence to a replacement lock in repair logs from 2 November 2023. In total, it took 115 working days from 28 June 2023 to 6 December 2023 to resolve the issue. This was beyond the 15 working days set out in the landlord’s policy and was a failing.
  3. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered any temporary steps that it could take to secure the door. This was inappropriate in view of the security issues that were being reported by the resident and was a failing.
  4. The impact of the delay was exacerbated by the landlord’s communication with the resident. For example, it told the resident several dates to expect the repair to be completed, such as on 4 October 2023 and 23 October 2023. However, the resident was not informed when these repairs were unsuccessful. This was a failing.
  5. Our Spotlight Report on Repairs and Maintenance – Repairing Trust, was published in May 2025. It states that effective communication is vital and that poor communication leaves residents uninformed. In this case, the landlord’s poor communication caused avoidable frustration and disappointment to the resident. It also caused the resident to go to unnecessary time and trouble to contact the landlord for updates. There is evidence that some of the emails sent by the resident were not responded to in a timely manner, such as between 24 October 2023 and 15 November 2023, which was a further failing that worsened the resident’s experience. Had the landlord communicated effectively with the resident as described in the Spotlight Report, it may have prevented some of this impact.
  6. The resident reported that the rear communal door had been damaged and required repairing on 21 November 2023. The resident said that it was it was also allowing unknown persons to access the building. The landlord raised this as a repair on 23 November 2023 and attended on 4 December 2023; however, it could not be repaired. It completed a further inspection on 19 January 2023,and the landlord raised a job to replace the door on 23 January 2023, alongside the front communal door which although now secure, had developed further issues and sustained new damage. The decision to replace both doors was appropriate. However, there was a delay of 40 working days in the landlord’s decision to replace the rear communal door from when it was first reported. This was beyond the 15 working days set out in the landlord’s policy and was a failing.
  7. There was no evidence that the landlord considered temporary measures to secure the door while the repair was outstanding. As with the front door, this was a failing, particularly in view of the security issues reported.
  8. The evidence shows that replacing the doors could not be completed within 15 working days because they had to be manufactured. It was not a failing therefore that the 2 door replacements had not been completed at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 23 February 2024. However, we have not been provided with evidence that the promises it made to replace the doors and then resolve the associated security issues was completed.
  9. The rear door was replaced on 28 May 2024, but further work needed to ensure the door would lock. There is no evidence to show if this was completed. The front communal door replacement was still outstanding in November 2024. There is no evidence to confirm that it was ever replaced. This further day was significant, unexplained, and reflects a further failing. In total, one or more communal door repairs or replacements were outstanding for a minimum of 526 days from 25 May 2023 to 1 November 2024. The landlord failed to manage the promises made in its complaint responses to the resident. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has replaced both communal doors at the building, as promised in its complaint responses.
  10. The resident reported that because the building was accessible while the doors were not lockable, unknown persons caused damage to the communal areas. The resident’s concern was that the cost of these repairs would be paid for by residents from their service charges. The resident felt that this was unfair and asked the landlord to bear the cost.
  11. There is no indication in the landlord’s policies or procedures, or in the lease agreement, of how the landlord should have responded to this request. However, the resident asked for a response to this query on several occasions such as on 19 November 2023, 6 February 2024, and 14 February 2024.It is unclear why the landlord did not respond to this request. It promised it would provide the resident with an answer ‘soon’ in its stage 2 complaint response. The evidence shows that the resident was still asking for a response to this point as late as 25 July 2024.This was unreasonable and was a failing. The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a clear written answer to his query about who will bear responsibility for the costs of repairs of these repairs.
  12. In summary, given the above failings, we have made a finding of maladministration. We note that the landlord offered a total of £500 compensation for its delays in repairing the communal door, for its communication, and the resident’s time and trouble. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance in respect of the landlord’s failings up until its stage 2 complaint response. However, given the further delays and poor communication, the amount offered was not proportionate to the impact caused to the resident. We have therefore ordered £750 compensation, made up of £500 for distress and inconvenience, and £250 for time and trouble chasing communication. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer.
  13. There is no evidence that the landlord conducted any learning, particularly from its communication failings in this case. Therefore, in addition to the order to respond to the resident’s query about the cost of communal repairs, the landlord is ordered to complete a senior management review of the communication failings highlighted in this report.

Handling of reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy states that it records all instances of ASB. It states that it will investigate within a set timescale. Investigations will be prioritised using a risk assessment matrix. The landlord’s Communities and Neighbourhood Management Policy states that it will undertake inspections regularly in areas where there are high risk factors, including large numbers of ASB reports.
  2. It is appropriate in the circumstances of ASB described by the resident that the landlord prioritised resolving the door locking issues which allowed unknown persons to enter the building. However, the evidence shows that while this was ongoing, the landlord should have taken separate steps in line with its ASB policy.
  3. The resident first reported ASB on 11 October 2023, when he said that he had been threatened with a knife. He made further reports of ASB to the landlord frequently thereafter. By 27 January 2024 the resident told the landlord that the ASB was happening daily. The allegations varied from packages being stolen from the communal area, residents being threatened, incidents of violence, people sleeping the communal areas, and vandalism. The evidence shows that the landlord did not record any incidents of ASB in line with its ASB policy. The landlord confirmed this in an internal email in September 2024. This was a failing.
  4. The landlord said in an internal email on 22 February 2024 that it had conducted weekly meetings with the police due to several reports by multiple residents of ongoing ASB at the block. However, there is no evidence to support this. The resident first reported ASB of a potentially criminal nature on 11 October 2023. The resident told the landlord on the telephone at this time that he was already in contact with the police. It was appropriate that the landlord told the resident to contact the police again on 29 January 2024.
  5. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will also liaise with third party organisations such as the police to investigate ASB. There is no evidence of if or when the landlord first met with the police. The first reference of the landlord liaising with the police is not until the internal email of 22 February 2024, over 4 months after the first reports of ASB. The landlord has not provided evidence to our investigation to justify why this timescale was reasonable. The landlord also failed to complete a risk assessment matrix to inform its next steps and determine the priority that should be given to the resident’s reports, in line with its policy. This was a failing which was significantly exacerbated in view of the landlord’s failure to consider temporary measures to secure the door, as highlighted earlier in this report.
  6. The landlord’s communication with the resident around his ASB reports was poor. On several occasions such as 8 November 2023 and 19 November 2023, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about ASB. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of the steps it was taking with regard to his ASB reports, such as to meet with police, until its stage 2 complaint response. This was 135 days after the residents first report and was a failing.
  7. By failing to engage its ASB policy, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had appropriately considered any steps it might take to mitigate some of the ASB that the resident was experiencing. For example, on 23 November 2023 the resident requested that the landlord employ a security guard until the communal door was able to be locked again. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this, which was a failing. The landlord might have deemed it appropriate to do this or take other steps such as to carry out inspections as suggested in its Communities and Neighbourhood Management policy instead, but there is no evidence it considered this.
  8. It is not clear if the landlord’s use of its ASB policy could have changed the outcome of the ASB experienced by the resident in this case. However, the landlord’s failure to try represented a significant failing. The evidence shows that the resident reported repeatedly experiencing distress and inconvenience because of the landlord’s inaction, such as on 27 January 2024 when he said that ASB was occurring ‘every night’.
  9. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance states that where there has been maladministration and the landlord has not made an attempt to put things right, compensation of at least £100 should be considered. The resident often made reports of ASB alongside his reports relating to the communal doors, so we have not considered that the resident went to additional time and trouble with regard to this element of the complaint. However, we have ordered the landlord to pay £400 compensation in respect of his distress and inconvenience, as well as his disappointment in the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB.
  10. The landlord did not identify in its complaint responses that it failed to engage its ASB policy where it was appropriate to do so. Therefore, it did not identify any learning from this element of the complaint. The landlord is ordered to complete a senior management review of its handling of the reports of ASB in this case. It should set out why it did not engage its ASB policy and what steps it will take to ensure this failing do not happen again in the future.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the expectations the landlord must meet in its complaint handling. Landlords should respond to all elements of a complaint. Landlords must acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of being received. Stage 2 complaint responses should be issued within 20 working days of being acknowledged.
  2. Where delays are expected, the Code states that landlord must ‘decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.’ A complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed.
  3. The resident first asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 19 October 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this. The landlord should have acknowledged the request within 5 working days, in line with the Code. The stage 2 complaint response should have been provided by 23 November 2023. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 4 January 2024, which was a delay of 27 working days.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response much of the landlord’s response was missing. It promised to provide a further response when it had more information. However, it is unclear what information the landlord was waiting for. The evidence shows that the landlord had the information needed to respond to more elements of the complaint than it did. For example, of its failings in its handling of repairs to the communal door and of the adverse effect to the resident up to that point. It should have provided the redress it felt was appropriate for the adverse effect to the resident up until 4 January 2024 in that response. It was not reasonable that it took a further 33 working days to provide an offer of compensation and 36 working days to provide its revised final complaint response.
  5. In view of what is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, it may have been better that the landlord issued an ‘interim’ complaint response on 4 January 2024 if it felt that delays were inevitable. However, it should also have provided a clear timescale to issue the remainder of its response to the resident, in line with the Code. It should have ensured that responses to all elements to which the outcome was known were included in its soonest response. The overall delays were unreasonable and there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  6. Our remedies guidance states that where there has been service failure over a short period of time, compensation from £50 should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay £50 compensation in respect of its complaint handling failings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of broken communal doors to access the building and queries about the costs of repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must provide us with evidence that it has:
    1. Paid the resident a total of £1,200 compensation, made up of:
      1. £750 for its failings around the broken communal doors. This replaces the £500 compensation offer already paid to the resident.
      2. £400 for its handling of his reports of ASB.
      3. £50 for delays in its complaint handling.
    2. Written to the resident to provide a decision regarding who should bear the costs of repairs to the communal areas which are alleged to have been caused by third parties, while the communal door repairs were outstanding.
    3. Replaced both communal doors at the building, as promised in its complaint responses.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must provide us with evidence that it has:
    1. Completed a senior management review of the failings highlighted in this case. It should highlight what went wrong and why. It should outline what steps it will take, or has taken, to ensure these failings will not happen again. This must include consideration of, as a minimum:
      1. Its communication with the resident regarding the outstanding communal door repair and his associated queries and concerns.
      2. Its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.