Home Group Limited (202332343)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332343

Home Group Limited

28 May 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. A heating and hot water outage.
2. Issues relating to storage and a temporary decant.
3. Concerns about outstanding bathroom repairs and the standard of workmanship.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives is a 1-bed ground floor flat under an assured shorthold tenancy which began on 2 December 2019.
The landlord’s records indicate several vulnerabilities for the resident including mental health conditions, depression, agoraphobia, OCD and chronic pain conditions.
The complaint initiated when the resident returned to her property on 30 December 2022 and found it without electricity (and therefore heating and hot water). The resident was subsequently decanted to allow for electrical works to take place. During this period the resident noted works were also outstanding to her bathroom. On return to her property on 26 January 2023, the resident said that her possessions had been damaged during the decant period and that works remained outstanding to the bathroom. She sought completion of the works and compensation for her possessions and the disruption the situation had caused her.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 6 February 2023. She said that:
1. She had no electricity in her property when she returned to live there on 30 December 2022. This, in turn, caused her to have no heating or hot water.
2. She had been required to be decanted for 32 days and was moved 3 times in this period, to allow for works to be undertaken to her electrics.
3. Her wardrobe and bed had been damaged when they were dismantled and removed by the landlord’s removal workers to a void property.
4. The resident also said that she was not aware where her possessions had been moved to initially. She had later found out that her possession had been stored in the flat belonging to a person who had previously perpetrated anti-social behaviour.
5. When her possessions were returned to her following the decant and storage, they “stunk of damp and cold” and required rewashing.
6. There were outstanding repairs to her bathroom on her return to the property including no flooring being installed, a mouldy bath panel that required replacement, damp skirting boards, tiling issues and no water coming from the bathroom tap.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint “update” response on 14 March 2023 in which it said:
1. There was no evidence of damp and mould in the void property that had been used to house the resident’s possessions.
2. It was willing to attend the resident’s property to assess the damage to her possessions, however the resident had declined this. The landlord provided its insurer’s contact details for her to raise a claim.
3. It had been necessary to decant the resident to undertake the works to her property. During this time, the hotels did not have continued availability, so the landlord had arranged for suitable accommodation to be arranged. The decant ended on 26 January 2023 when the works were completed.
4. During the decant period the landlord had promised that the accommodation would include breakfast and a contribution of £20 towards evening meals. This had initially not happened, but once noted by the resident it had rectified this and had offered to back-pay the expenses incurred.
5. While the resident was decanted, it had also made arrangements for a dog friendly hotel to be provided, so that the resident could take her dog to stay with her.
6. The landlord had raised a repair request for the outstanding issues in the bathroom and an appointment to complete the works had been booked for 29-30 March 2023. The bathroom taps had been booked for completion slightly earlier on 20 March 2023.
On 28 April 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 outcome letter which re-stated the landlord’s position from its stage 1 update, with the following changes:
1. The bathroom repairs had been attended on 30-31 March 2023, however the landlord’s supplier had not delivered the materials needed to complete the work. The works were rebooked and completed on 19 April 2023.
2. Following the works to the bathroom, the resident had reported that the flooring had been laid incorrectly and works to tile edging and the bathroom heater were incomplete. The landlord said it had raised works to address this.
3. The landlord had attended on 20 March 2023 to repair the bathroom taps and this work had been completed on that day.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response noted that the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and had requested an escalation to stage 2. This was not initially noted by the landlord until the resident followed this up on 19 July 2023. The resident said that repairs in the bathroom remained outstanding. This included the bathroom tap, renewal of the skirting board, tile grout, bath panel and heater. The resident also said that vinyl flooring needed to be laid.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 August 2023 in which it said:
1. It apologised for the delay in not logging the resident’s stage 2 complaint escalation. It attributed this to an increase in complaint volumes and a lack of staff resources. It said it had recruited further staff and timescales had now reduced.
2. It had spoken to the resident on 19 July 2023 to discuss the outstanding bathroom repairs. An inspection was booked for 27 July 2023, however the resident did not reply to this appointment, and it was cancelled. The landlord had rebooked this for 16 August 2023.
3. It had requested proof of purchase and costs of a replacement for the resident’s wardrobe, as she had highlighted this was the possession she was primarily concerned with. The landlord said it would consider whether it could reimburse the resident for this on receipt of the evidence.
4. Its stage 1 complaint response had addressed the issues around storage of the resident’s possession in its stage 1 complaint response.
5. It was still reviewing the handling of the resident’s decant and would respond to this in due course.
The landlord issued its “final response to [the resident’s] complaint” on 27 October 2023. It captured the same complaint points as its previous stage 2 response and said:
1. An inspection had taken place on 16 August 2023 which had identified that the resident’s flooring had been poorly installed. It also found that works were needed to secure the shower riser, renew skirting under the bath panel, redecorate the bathroom and reinstate the blind.
2. It had raised a recall order for the works to the bathroom. It apologised for the workmanship issues and delays in completing the works.
3. The flooring works had been completed on 7 September 2023 and this was confirmed by the resident on 19 September 2023.
4. It had completed repairs to the shower riser bar and painting the woodwork in the bathroom on 2 October 2023.
5. Its contractors had attended an appointment on 26 October 2023 to complete further works, but it was unable to fit the blind on this day. The landlord said it had rebooked this work, including the provision of a new blind if required.
6. It had confirmed that the resident’s possessions were stored in a safe and dry void flat while she was decanted.
7. It had offered to attend the resident’s property to assess damage to her possessions and this had been declined. It had also supplied the resident with its insurer’s contact details, but no claim had been submitted.
8. It had agreed funds to replace the resident’s wardrobe, but it had been unable to contact the resident to discuss this initially. It had now made a payment of £399 on 10 October 2023 in respect of this.
9. It had handled the decant correctly, as it needed to extend this due to the works. It said that it had also made provisions to support the resident with food and access to her dog in this period.
10. It apologised for delays to the works being completed, although it noted that some of this was attributed to not being able to contact the resident. It offered £470.00 compensation comprised of:
  1. £70 for complaint handling delays.
  2. £75 for its failure to resolve the bathroom issues in 2021 when they were first reported.
  3. £75 for poor workmanship that meant further attendances were required.
  4. £75 for the disruption caused to the resident from multiple appointments.
  5. £100 for delays in completing bathroom works.
  6. £75 for the resident’s time and effort spent pursuing the matter to completion.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 29 December 2023 as she did not accept the landlord’s redress for the issues, particularly the level of compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have a statutory duty to maintain the installations for water, electricity and sanitation within the property such as basins, sinks, baths and the electrical circuits within a property. Once notified of a defect, landlords must make a lasting and effective repair in a reasonable time.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out timescales when the landlord will complete repairs:
1. Emergency repairs, such as loss of electricity or water, will be attended to within 6 hours and completed in 24 hours. This may include a ‘make safe’ visit and a further attendance to complete works, where they are more involved.
2. Standard repairs will be completed within 28 days of reporting.

Heating and hot water outage

The resident returned to her property on 30 December 2022. She had previously left the property due to anti-social behaviour and had not been living there for 9 months. On returning to the property, the resident reported that she did not have any electric and this also meant that she did not have heating or hot water. The resident also said that her supplier required an isolator switch to be fitted to the property before it would reinstate power as it was concerned about the electrics in the property.
The landlord decanted the resident from the property on 30 December 2022 and she returned on 26 January 2023.
On 3 January 2023, the landlord’s staff met with the resident and noted that the electrics were not functioning in the property due to accrued debt on the electricity meter. It attempted to contact the supplier on this day, without success. Due to the concerns about electrical safety, the landlord arranged an electrical survey on 5 January 2023, which recommended that the property was rewired.
The evidence shows that the landlord extended the residents decant for the entire period that electrical works were progressed. This included:
1. An appointment being booked on 17 January 2023 to complete the works, however this could not be completed due to personal possessions blocking access.
2. Recommencing electrical works on 23 January 2023 and completing these on 26 January 2023.
3. Facilitating the supplier to fit a non-prepayment meter on 23 January 2023.
On 2 August 2023, the landlord’s internal records noted that the resident had altered the electrics in the property to install a fireplace and that this had contributed to the electrics tripping and causing a safety concern. It is not clear from the records what evidence the landlord relied upon to reach this conclusion. The landlord felt that it had gone “above and beyond” in dealing with the electrical issues.
From the time the resident reported the electrical issues as part of her complaint, the landlord completed the repairs within 27 days, which was within the timescales shown in its repairs policy. The landlord also took additional steps to decant the resident and progress matters to assist her with removing her possessions. This is discussed further in the next section of this report.
Taking these factors together, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about her electricity, heating and hot water by decanting her and undertaking the required works within the timescales shown in its policy. On this basis, there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.

Temporary decant and storage

As discussed above, the landlord decanted the resident on 30 December 2022 to facilitate electrical works to the property, which included a rewire. The evidence shows that the resident was decanted until 26 January 2023 while the works were completed. The resident felt that she was decanted for an extended period and further inconvenienced by needing to move hotels on 3 occasions in this time.
During the decant period, the landlord committed to arranging breakfasts for the resident via the hotel and paying a contribution of £20 per day towards her evening meals. The resident told the landlord that she had not received the money for her evening meal. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that it had rectified this immediately and offered to repay the resident for any expenses incurred prior to this.
While decanted, the resident expressed concern that she could not have her dog with her in the hotel. In response to this the landlord checked with the hotel that it was dog-friendly and, when the resident was moved, booked further dog-friendly hotels. This allowed her to continue having regular access to her dog within this period. It was positive to note the landlord’s responsiveness to this request.
While the resident was decanted, the works to her electrics were started. On 17 January 2023, the landlord’s contractor said that it could not begin the works due to the resident’s possessions blocking access to areas of the property. The landlord agreed with the resident to remove her possessions from the property to facilitate access. It arranged for removal personnel to collapse the furniture and move it to a void flat for storage. This was reasonable in the circumstances and supported the resident, who had expressed difficulty managing the ongoing situation, alongside her chronic health conditions.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not initially tell the resident where it had stored her possessions. It later came to light that the void flat being used for storage previously belonged to the alleged perpetrator of anti-social behaviour, that had caused the resident to leave her property. Whilst it is appreciated that the former resident did not have access to the possessions or the flat, this should have been communicated with the resident to avoid a breakdown in communication or additional distress.
When the resident returned to her property, she told the landlord that her goods smelt like “damp and cold” and required rewashing. Within its complaint responses, the landlord said that its staff had visited the void flat during the decant period and found no evidence of damp and mould present. It was positive to note that the landlord had visited the property and was able to respond to the resident’s concerns in a timely way, however it did not take any action to assess the possessions for damage. If it had assessed the damage caused, it may then have warranted further compensation or action to provide suitable redress to the resident. This was a missed opportunity, which caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
The resident also said that her wardrobe and bedframe had been damaged by the landlord’s contractors who dismantled and moved it. In particular, she said that her wardrobe was slanted and had not been reassembled correctly. In response to this, the evidence shows that the landlord:
1. Had offered to attend the resident’s property to assess the damage to her possessions to consider if this could be compensated for. The resident declined this.
2. Provided the resident with its insurer’s details in its stage 1 complaint response, to raise a claim for her damaged goods.
3. Discussed the concerns with the resident and identified that her primary concern related to her wardrobe. Within its stage 2 complaint response it asked her to provide proof of purchase and potential items to replace it, so that it could consider this for compensation. On 25 October 2023, the landlord raised a payment for £399 in respect of the wardrobe, to enable the resident to replace it.
Given the resident’s concerns, these were reasonable responses from the landlord, in an attempt to return the resident to the position that she had been in prior to the decant for the wardrobe. It is not clear why the landlord did not assess the damage to the resident’s bedframe or provide any redress for this. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to investigate all elements of the resident’s complaint and provide suitable redress.
It is also concerning to note that the landlord’s compensation was paid to the resident’s rent account, as it was in arrears. The evidence shows that this point was discussed internally by the landlord, as there were conflicting views about whether it should be paid directly to her. While the landlord was entitled under its policy to do this, it was a heavy-handed approach given the financial hardship of the resident and, as a result, the wardrobe has not been replaced to date.
Within this period, it was positive to note that the landlord offered to refer the resident to its financial inclusion team for support on 9 January 2023, to help address wider financial hardship.
Overall, the evidence shows that the decant was necessary to protect the safety of the resident while the electrical works were undertaken. Whilst this was for an extended period of time, this was to facilitate the resident’s possessions being moved and stored to permit access for the electrician to complete the works. Within this period, it is unfortunate that the resident needed to move hotels on 3 occasions, however the landlord communicated this to the resident and made arrangements to support her with providing meals and access to her dog.
The landlord took some reasonable steps in response to the resident’s concerns about her possessions including offering to assess the damage and providing its insurer’s details. It was positive that it provided discretionary compensation for the resident’s wardrobe, but it failed to provide any assessment or redress for the resident’s bedframe. Its choice of paying the compensation to the resident’s rent account also did not take account of her situation and has therefore provided no practical redress for her damaged wardrobe. The resident told this Service that she continues to live out of boxes at the time of this investigation.
Taking these factors together there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint. The landlord must now assess the damage to the resident’s bedframe and provide suitable redress. It must also pay £100 for the delay in assessing this damage, which caused the resident additional time and trouble in pursuing the matter to completion. In line with our remedies guidance, this compensation must be paid to the resident directly and not applied to her rent account.

Bathroom repairs and workmanship

The resident raised a series of works to her bathroom that she said had been reported since 2021. This is not disputed by the landlord as it offered £75 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response for its failure to address these repairs since 2021. This investigation has primarily considered the landlord’s response to the repairs when they were raised as part of the resident’s formal complaint in January 2023.
The resident’s earlier reports included:
1. A tile falling off and causing an injury to the resident.
2. A recently-installed bath panel was mouldy and needed renewal.
3. The extractor fan was “hanging out of the ceiling” and required replacement.
4. The bathroom blind needing refitting after it was removed by contractors during works in the bathroom in this period.
During the course of the formal complaint in 2023, the resident re-raised some of these works, along with new reports such as the mouldy skirting board, replacement of the vinyl flooring and an issue with the tap leaking. The evidence shows that, in response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord:
1. Raised a repair on 22 February 2023 and an appointment was booked for 29-30 March 2023 to complete the works.
2. Attended the appointment on 29 March 2023, however the supplier had not delivered the required materials, so the works were rebooked for 19 April 2023. The landlord said that all the outstanding works were completed on this day.
3. Noted to the resident’s contact on 26 April 2023 advising that the vinyl flooring had been laid incorrectly, edging was missing in the bathroom and the heater still did not have a fuse.
4. Following a period of non-contact from the resident, booked an inspection of the bathroom on 27 July 2023. The landlord was not able to confirm the appointment with the resident due to a lack of response to contact, so the appointment was cancelled and rescheduled for 16 August 2023.
5. Attended on 7 September 2023 to complete the works to the vinyl flooring in the bathroom. On 19 September 2023, the resident confirmed that this had been completed satisfactorily but said that there were outstanding works to the shower bar and painting of woodwork in the bathroom.
6. Attended on 2 October 2023 to fix the shower bar and paint the woodwork in the bathroom. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 October 2023 to advise that the back of the bathroom door had not been painted and that she was still awaiting her blind being refitted. This had first been reported in 2021.
7. Attended on 14 November 2023 to renew and paint the bathroom door and install the resident’s roller blind.
It is not disputed that there were delays in completing the works in the resident’s bathroom. It is noted that some periods of this delay can be attributed to supplier issues and difficulties in reaching the resident to book work. Notwithstanding this, the delays experienced were significant and caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing this matter to completing over an extended period of time.
To provide redress for the delays in completing the repairs, the evidence shows that the landlord apologised to the resident and paid her £400 compensation comprised of:
1. £75 for a failure to resolve the repair issues when first reported in 2021.
2. £75 for poor workmanship which then necessitated further attendances.
3. £75 for the disruption caused by multiple appointments.
4. £100 for the delay in completing the bathroom works.
5. £75 for the time and effort spent by the resident pursuing the matter to completion.
Taking these factors together, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the handling of bathroom repairs satisfactorily.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint procedure in which it commits to responding to complaints in the following timescales:
1. Stage 1 – 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 – 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out a number of key principles that landlords are required to adhere to in the management of complaints. This includes the following:
1. Landlords must operate a two-stage process without any additional or informal stages as this causes confusion and delay.
2. Landlords must respond to complaints within the timescales in the Code. This is 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is to avoid extending the complaint process or delaying access to the Ombudsman.
3. Landlords must not extend the timescales for responding to complaint by more than 10 working days. In cases of extensions this must be clearly explained to the resident and the Ombudsman’s details must be provided.
The landlord’s compensation policy indicates that it will consider compensation for the following:
1. Loss of facilities – £15-75 depending on severity.
2. Disruption to the resident – £15-75 depending on severity.
3. Service failures – £15-75 depending on severity.
4. Delays to complete works over timescales – £15 plus £3 per day until completed, up to a maximum of £100 per repair.
The evidence shows that the resident first escalated her stage 1 complaint to stage 2 on 28 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 1 complaint response and issued its stage 2 response 74 working days later on 15 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged that it had not noted the resident’s escalation until she had chased this up on 19 July 2023.
The landlord said that its stage 2 response was delayed because of an increase in complaint demand and a lack of staff resource. It apologised for this and said it had undertaken recruitment, which was reducing the timescales. This was an appropriate response, given the level of delay, particularly as the landlord also offered £70 compensation in its second stage 2 response to account for these complaint handling delays.
Both the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code indicate that the landlord must only issue one response to each complaint stage. This is to avoid confusion and further delays in the complaint process. The evidence shows that:
1. The landlord issued a “stage 1 complaint update” on 14 March 2023, prior to its formal response later on 28 April 2023.
2. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 August 2023. It followed this with a second stage 2 response on 27 October 2023.
This caused 4 complaint responses to be issued instead of 2, which elongated the process and caused unnecessary additional time and trouble for the resident. This was also contrary to the landlord’s own complaints policy and was a failing.
Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord was delayed in issuing its stage 2 complaint response after it failed to correctly acknowledge and log the resident’s complaint. Within the complaint process it also issued additional responses, which were not within its policy process. There is evidence of the landlord taking steps to address this with an apology, compensation of £70 and process changes, including additional recruitment to meet the demand.
On this basis, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint handling elements of this complaint satisfactorily.
The landlord is recommended to undertake a review of the complaint handling processes in this case, to identify why additional complaint responses were issued and what action it will take to prevent a reoccurrence of this in the future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there has been:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response on a heating and hot water outage.
2. A service failure in the landlord’s response on issues relating to storage and a temporary decant.
In accordance with 53(b) of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves:
1. The concerns about outstanding bathroom repairs and the standard of workmanship satisfactorily.
2. The complaint handling elements of this complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Assess the damage to the resident’s bedframe and provide its position, in writing on any suitable redress. This may include compensation, referral to its insurer or other appropriate action.
2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the failure to assess the damage to her bedframe and the additional time and trouble caused by pursuing this matter to completion.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Pay the compensation previously offered in its stage 2 complaint response, if it has not already done so, as this is the basis on which a finding of reasonable redress has been reached.
2. Undertake a case review to determine why additional complaint responses were sent in this case and what action it could take to prevent a reoccurrence of this in the future.