Home Group Limited (202428480)

Background

1. The resident has lived with her daughter in a 2 bedroom house since 2014. The resident reported that roof tiles fell and damaged her car in early 2022. She reported further issues with the roof ties in 2023 and 2024. The resident asked us to investigate because she was unhappy with the quality of the repairs and how the landlord dealt with her claim for compensation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the roof.
   2. The resident’s compensation claim.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s compensation claim.
4. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of:
   1. Repairs to the roof.
   2. The associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. We found that:
   1. The landlord failed to complete some repairs within required timescales.
   2. There were problems with the quality of the repairs conducted in 2023 and 2024 that caused further incidents where tiles fell from the roof.
   3. The landlord reflected well on the failures identified, apologised appropriately, was resolution focused, and made a reasonable offer of redress.
   4. The landlord complied with its obligations to refer the resident’s compensation claim to its insurer.
   5. The landlord recognised that its complaint handling procedures at the time unreasonably prevented the resident from escalating her complaint.

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The resident has told us that the roof repairs between August and September 2024 were unsuccessful. She said the landlord replaced or repaired the roof again in 2025. For our investigation, we will be considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports between January 2022 and October 2024 only. This is the period the landlord considered in its complaint responses. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs in 2025, she may wish to pursue a new complaint with it.
7. The landlord has published its repair responsibilities on its website. These set out the timescales in which it will attend to different repairs. Where there are emergency repairs that present a risk to those inside the property, it will attend within 6 hours and complete within 24 hours.
8. The landlord failed to treat the resident’s early reports of missing tiles from 29 January 2022 as an emergency. It did not attempt any repair until 4 February 2022 or complete any repair until 8 February 2022. During this period, the resident told the landlord her home was freezing cold and she had to stand in her loft collecting water in buckets. She took additional time and trouble seeking help from her MP to urge the landlord into responding to her reports. There were further delays before the landlord’s contractor completed roof repairs in April 2022. These failures caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
9. It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the advice and guidance of qualified contractors when investigating and addressing issues with a roof. Contractors possess the necessary technical expertise to assess the condition of roofing structures and determine the appropriate remedial actions. Where a landlord has arranged for inspections or repairs to be carried out by specialist professionals, and acted in accordance with their recommendations, it is generally appropriate to consider the matter resolved. This approach ensures that its decisions are informed by expert opinion and supports the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations responsibly.
10. Unfortunately, the repairs did not last and the resident reported a loose coping stone in October 2023. The landlord appropriately inspected and passed works to its specialist contractor. However, it closed the repair after the contractor took photos of the roof on 2 November 2023. This upset the resident, who had to report the matter again on 14 November 2023 before tiles again fell from the roof on 23 November 2023. Although it is not possible to know whether the tiles would have fallen if the landlord acted sooner, it is evident that the resident took additional time and trouble pursuing her reports.
11. The landlord responded correctly to the tiles falling as an emergency repair in November 2023. It attended within 24 hours and completed a temporary repair. In her complaint to the landlord on 23 November 2023, the resident asked the landlord to reinstall the roof. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 1 response on 16 December 2023 and it was reasonable to instruct further inspection of the roof before making a decision.
12. The landlord accepted that there were delays which would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience in its stage 2 response in February 2024. It appropriately apologised for the impact the delays had. It was resolution focused and took reasonable steps to identify the cause of the repeat roofing failures. It was reasonable to say it would monitor repairs and review an offer of compensation once the repairs were complete.
13. The landlord surveyed the roof on 13 February 2024. This found several gaps between roof tiles, showing they were not correctly interlocking. It raised concerns about the initial construction of the roof. There was evidence of condensation and black mould on the underside of the roof due to a lack of ventilation. It recommended the landlord strip back the roof covering, repair any damage, replace the damaged felt, and reinstall the roof with the correct tile clips. The landlord promptly passed works to its contractor to complete the repairs recommended by the survey.
14. However, there were further delays beginning the works between February and July 2024. Some of these delays in July 2024 were a result of the resident’s availability but most were the result of issues the landlord had with its contractors. These delays would have contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience. She frequently told the landlord that she was fearful leaving or returning to her home. She was understandably frightened of falling tiles injuring her or her family.
15. Construction started on 8 August 2024, following the erection of scaffolding in July 2024. Shortly after the contractor finished the roof repairs, tiles fell off in the same place on 22 August 2024. The landlord replaced the tiles on 23 August 2024, but the resident was understandably concerned about the quality of the repair given loose tiles appeared shortly afterwards. It was clear from her communication that she remained distressed by the condition of the roof.
16. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is fair in all circumstances of the case. We expect landlords to use their complaints procedure to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
17. We find that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress to resolve the complaint about its handling of pairs to the roof. The landlord did not fully allay the resident’s concerns in September 2024 once the tiles fell from the roof again. Instead, it used its stage 2 follow up outcome letter to state that the roof was under warranty. It could have given more consideration to the resident’s concerns and conducted a follow up inspection of the roof and shared the outcome with the resident. It did not do so and this was a shortcoming by the landlord.
18. However, the landlord did use the remainder of its stage 2 follow up outcome letter to address its failings up to that point. It fairly addressed the full period of delays in 2022 and 2024. It appropriately addressed the problems it had with its contractors and how this contributed to the delays in 2024. It fully considered the additional time that the resident had reported repairs to the roof. Although there were some missed opportunities for learning, the landlord’s offer of compensation showed it tried to put things right.
19. The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies sets out suggested levels of redress where we have identified failures in a landlord’s approach. It is evident from the resident’s reports that the landlord’s failings had a significant impact on her. The repairs delays caused her considerable distress and inconvenience. She took substantial time and trouble reporting repairs, involving third parties, and chasing outcomes. As a result, we would expect compensation above £1,000. The landlord’s significant compensation offer of £1,350 (excluding the amount for complaint handling) reflects the serious long-term failings in accordance with these guidelines.

20. The resident told the landlord that when the tile fell from her roof in January 2022, this damaged her car. She said that she had to pay the excess on her car insurance and claim through her insurance to repair the damage. She said this claim contributed to increased insurance costs each year following the incident.
21. The landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports of damage to her car was reasonable. It correctly referred her to its liability insurer to consider the damages claim in February 2024. This was an appropriate response in the circumstances and it was reasonable to rely on the decision of its insurer regarding any liability.
22. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that it was unable to compensate for damage caused to her car. Its insurance team had investigated and found no liability. This was also a reasonable response and showed that it had taken her report seriously.
23. The landlord also later referred the matter back to its insurer in 2024 once the survey found problems with the installation of the roof.

24. The landlord’s complaint handling policy was compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It states that it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue responses at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
25. The resident complained on 23 November 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within those timescales on 6 December 2023. It issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the resident’s second request to escalate her complaint from 29 January on 2 February 2024.
26. However, the landlord’s procedures at the time caused the resident undue time and trouble. She initially sought to escalate her complaint on 23 December 2023. The landlord’s decision to send a stage 1 closure letter on 2 January 2024 unreasonably prevented the escalation of the resident’s complaint through its procedure.
27. The landlord’s decision to keep the complaint open to review compensation at stage 2 in February 2024 was reasonable. The repairs were ongoing at the time and this approach allowed the landlord to later offer compensation that reflected the full detriment caused. Its response was therefore resolution focused and did not preclude the resident from escalating her complaint to us.
28. The landlord has acknowledged in its communication with the Ombudsman that its additional follow on responses unreasonably delayed its handling of complaints. It has reviewed its complaints handling procedures and removed these additional steps.
29. The landlord appropriately reflected on the delays in its complaint handling in its follow up response in September 2024. Its offer of £150 compensation for these was reasonable in the circumstances. The amount reflects our Guidance on Remedies where a delay had an adverse impact on a resident.

Learning

30. The landlord should have arranged a follow up inspection after it repaired the roof in September 2024. This would have allayed the resident’s concerns, especially given the number of times the roof had failed to that point.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. There were broadly no issues found with the landlord’s record keeping. There was some reference to calls made between the resident and officers of the landlord with no contemporaneous records available to us so the landlord may consider improving this aspect of its record-keeping.

Communication

32. There were failures in 2022 with the landlord’s communication with the resident. She reported being told by the landlord several times that the roof repair was not an emergency. This did not reflect the situation and caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.