Home Group Limited (202428656)

Decision
Case ID	202428656
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Home Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	15 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom bungalow. Her tenancy commenced on 19 April 2024. She has physical and mental health vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for new flooring.
   2. Reports of heating issues.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for new flooring.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heating issues.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. 

Summary of reasons

Request for new flooring

5. The landlord had no obligation to replace or provide flooring in the property.

Reports of heating issues

6. The landlord attended to the resident’s reports of repairs within its target timescales and evidenced that it treated her concerns seriously.

The complaint handling

7. The landlord exceeded its complaint handling timescales and did not apologise to the resident for this.

Putting things right

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order   The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 13 November 2025
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 13 November 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 May 2024	The resident informed the landlord that she was unhappy with its handling of her request for new flooring in the property. She said she was also unhappy that it had not issued her a decoration voucher.
11 May 2024	The resident told the landlord she was disappointed that the radiators in the property were not due to be replaced until the 2025-26 financial year.
20 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: Flooring It would not replace the tiled flooring in the hallway as it was in a good condition and was gifted to the resident at the start of her tenancy. It accepted that a leak had occurred in the kitchen after the resident had moved into the property. This had damaged the lino flooring that was already in situ. As a goodwill gesture it agreed to remove the damaged flooring but had no obligation to replace it. It was unable to supply carpets for the other rooms in the property as this was also the resident’s responsibility. Heating Its void inspection had confirmed the radiators were in working order. However, the full heating system was due to be replaced via its planned works programme within the 2025–26 financial year. It was not previously aware of any issues with earth cables in the living room but would arrange a repair to resolve the issue. Decoration voucher It apologised to the resident for failing to issue a £200 decoration voucher it had previously offered her. It confirmed this would be sent to her via email on 22 May 2024.
3 June 2024	The resident requested to escalate her complaint. She said this was because she felt it was the landlord’s responsibility to fit new flooring in the property. She also said that the radiators were not working properly, and that the landlord’s decision to not replace the boiler until 2025-26 meant she was unable to decorate the property in the meantime.
10 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It maintained that the flooring was gifted to the resident, and it was therefore her responsibility to replace. It had recently inspected the heating system, and it was found to be in working order. However, it committed to replacing the full system between April 2025 and June 2025.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of her request for new flooring and reports of heating repairs as she said she was unhappy with its final response.
10 October 2025	During contact with us, the resident said the landlord replaced the full heating system in April 2025 and she had recently paid for some new flooring in the property. As an outcome, she said she would like the landlord to pay her compensation.

 

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for new flooring
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

8. The resident told us this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have therefore not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
9. The resident informed us that the landlord removed the tiled flooring in the hallway in October 2024 (as it contained asbestos) and she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of this. However, we have seen no evidence that the resident raised this issue as a formal complaint. As we have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first, we have not considered this within our assessment. If the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord has dealt with such issues, she may choose to make a further complaint, then refer it to this Service for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

What we did investigate

10. The landlord’s repair and maintenance guide says that residents are responsible for floor coverings. Additionally, the landlord’s home guide states that residents are responsible for replacing carpets and flooring. It also states that residents should protect the contents of their home by taking out a home contents insurance policy.
11. The landlord’s property management policy states that it may agree to leave items in the property (left by the previous resident) if they are in a good condition and do not pose a health and safety risk. At the start of the resident’s tenancy, the kitchen had lino flooring, and the hallway was tiled. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said that during a conversation with the resident before she moved into the property it had agreed to gift her the flooring. The resident told us that she disputed the landlord’s version of events. The landlord was unable to provide evidence of this conversation. Although we do not dispute the resident’s comments, due to the lack of documentary evidence available, we are unable to make any further assessment on this matter.
12. The evidence suggests that the landlord provided the resident with financial support for floor coverings when she previously moved into a different property. On 27 February 2024, the landlord informed the resident that if she moved again it “would not be able to contribute financially to any costs [and] she would need to take into consideration the cost of moving, including decoration and carpets”. While we accept that the landlord had financially assisted the resident with carpeting her previous property, we have seen no evidence that it was under any obligation to do so again. We find the landlord’s explanation to the resident about this to have been clear and transparent.
13. On 29 April 2024, the resident informed the landlord that she had a containable leak under the kitchen sink. The landlord promptly attended the property within its target timescales (on 2 May 2024) and resolved the leak. On 8 May 2024, the resident told the landlord that she believed the leak had started before she moved into the property and it had caused damage to the kitchen flooring. Again, while we do not dispute the resident’s comments, we have seen no documentary evidence to support her assertions.
14. The evidence suggests that during an inspection appointment on 10 May 2024, the resident informed the landlord that the hallway tiles were a “health and safety issue when wet”. The evidence shows that the landlord assessed the area and determined that it “was not slippy”. We are satisfied that the landlord’s decision making during this process was informed by the assessment of qualified contractors and staff, and therefore appropriate.
15. We have seen no evidence that the landlord has a responsibility to maintain or replace floor coverings. As such, we find its stance within its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses fair. Additionally, despite not having any obligation to do so, the landlord agreed to remove the kitchen flooring as a gesture of goodwill, which was an appropriate exercise of discretion in the circumstances. It is noted that the resident turned down the landlord’s offer.
16. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it appropriately provided the resident with a link to its website regarding repair responsibilities. This stated that the resident could claim on her own contents insurance when something was water damaged from a burst pipe.
17. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of no maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of heating issues
Finding	No maladministration

18. The landlord’s property management policy states that it aims to ensure its homes meet the Decent Home Standard and considers the needs of its residents when planning individual property improvements.
19. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it aims to attend emergency repairs within 6 hours and complete them within 24 hours. It aims to resolve non-emergency repairs in an average of 28 days. This includes radiator faults.
20. On 18 March 2024 (prior to the resident moving into the property), the landlord completed a void inspection. The evidence shows that it did not identify any issues with the heating system or radiators.
21. On 23 April 2024, the landlord completed a gas safety check at the resident’s property. The records show that the boiler was in full working order, and no follow-on works were required.
22. Between 23 April and 10 May 2024, we have seen no evidence that the resident raised any issues about the heating system. We are therefore unable to find any failures in the landlord’s handling of the issue during this period.
23. On 11 May 2024, the resident informed the landlord that during an inspection of the property the previous day (on 10 May 2024), the surveyor had said that it would not install new radiators in the property until the 2025-26 financial year. She said she was unhappy with this as they were “over 30 years old”.
24. Based on the above, we find the landlord’s stance at stage 1 (on 20 May 2024) – that the radiators were working and therefore would not be replaced via its planned maintenance scheme until 2025-26 – to be fair and in accordance with its property management policy.
25. The landlord’s repair records show that during the inspection appointment on 10 May 2024, the landlord identified that the radiator pipe in the living room was loose and leaking. It appropriately raised a repair the same day and attended 10 working days later (on 24 May 2024) to resolve the issue.
26. On 2 June 2024, the resident informed the landlord that one of the radiators in the property was not working. The landlord attended within its target timescales on 14 June 2024. The operative noted that the radiators were “getting red hot but [were] not heating rooms and therefore recommended system distribution pipework upgrade and radiators replaced”.
27. On 24 June 2024, the landlord appropriately reattended the property to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the heating and radiator output. The resulting report concluded that “no major cold spots were found, the boiler appeared to be operating correctly, all radiators were heating and leak free, and the current radiator output for all rooms were sufficient”. Based on the evidence available, we are satisfied that the landlord’s decision making during this process was informed by the assessment of qualified contractors and staff, and therefore appropriate.
28. We accept that planning and budget restraints can sometimes impact the timescales of planned work programmes. It was therefore positive that the landlord discussed the resident’s circumstances internally and committed (within its stage 2 response) to bringing the boiler replacement forward to early 2025-26. The evidence shows that the landlord arranged temporary accommodation for the resident while the full heating system was replaced in April 2025.
29. Given the observations above, we have made a finding of no maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

30. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states that landlords must have a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, landlords should provide a clear explanation to the complainant on the expected timescales for the response. The landlord’s complaint policy is consistent with the requirements of the Code.
31. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it confirmed that it had raised, acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy. However, our investigation has found that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint after 7 working days (on 14 May 2024), which exceeded its timescales. In mitigation, it issued its stage 1 response within a further 4 working days (on 20 May 2024), which meant it took a total of 11 working days to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s complaint. This was within the total timeframe of 15 working days (5 for acknowledgement and 10 for the response) permitted by the Code.
32. The landlord again acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint after 7 working days (on 12 June 2024). This exceeded its policy timescales. It then appropriately issued its stage 2 response within a further 20 working days (on 10 July 2024). Although not considered an excessive delay (a total of 2 days), the landlord did not identify the failing or apologise to the resident within its final response.
33. As there were unacknowledged short delays at both stages, we have made a finding of service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation to put things right for her. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance.

Learning

34. The landlord’s complaint handling was generally positive, and the resident informed us in October 2025 that she was satisfied with the actions of its complaint handler. However, the landlord should ensure that its complaint handling is appropriately reviewed as part of the overall investigation and that appropriate redress is offered where any failings are identified.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord’s record keeping was generally satisfactory. However, it was unable to provide evidence of a phone call in relation to the flooring (that it had with the resident before she moved into the property) which it referenced within its stage 1 response. The landlord should endeavour to keep contemporaneous records of all conversations it has with residents.

Communication

36. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the handling of the substantive issues and complaint was overall positive and timely.