Home Group Limited (202441523)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441523

Home Group Limited

19 September 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about communal defects including loss of heating and hot water and roof leaks.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property which is a 1-bed flat within a larger block of flats. She purchased the property in June 2020. The block sits within a larger development of similar properties owned by private leaseholders and other social landlords.
The heating and hot water system for the block is via communal gas boilers which transfer heat and hot water to individual properties via heat interface units (HIU).
The landlord is the head leaseholder of the property. A third party (the freeholder) owns the freehold of the block. There is a management company which is responsible for the repair and management of the common parts. A managing agent (the agent) conducts the management company’s repairing obligations.
The block was handed over to the landlord by the developer (who was also the freeholder) in 2019. There were defects reported in the block from the date of handover. In 2021 the developer went into administration. A new freeholder purchased the development in late 2022.
On 10 October 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said she had been experiencing frequent loss of heating and hot water since moving into the property 3 years earlier. She said she felt the agent was “mismanaging” the issue and the landlord had taken no action on behalf of residents. The resident also said she had asked it for updates but received “little response”. She was also unhappy it had not attempted to offer “interim arrangements” or carried out any vulnerability checks.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 March 2024. It said its executive team were “aware of issues on the estate” and were committed to working with the agent to find a permanent solution. It said it was doing everything it could to rectify the situation and would continue to meet resident representatives and send weekly updates to residents.
On 12 March 2024 the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response as it did not address her concerns about its communication. She also raised concerns about damage to her property due to roof leaks. The resident asked the landlord to outline what actions it had taken to resolve the repair issues.
On 18 March 2024 the landlord sent a further stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. The agent was responsible for the repairs. It had passed on her concerns regarding roof leaks.
2. There was no timescale for when the agent would carry out repairs. It would try and get clarity on its plans and would update residents.
3. It acknowledged there were times colleagues did not respond to residents who had made contact via the dedicated email mailbox “individually”.
4. It had “no legal power to enforce” the agent to carry out the repairs needed. However, it had been “challenging and seeking a resolution”.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 20 March 2024. She said it had not represented her interests and asked what it had done to challenge the agent’s lack of action. She also said that its communication had been poor and it had not responded to her communications to its dedicated email inbox.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 May 2024. It said:
1. It had no legal right to resolve defects that were the agent’s responsibility. It must adhere to the terms of the lease so as not to “legally compromise the ongoing situation”. It must also safeguard against incurring “further large expenditure” for defects it was not legally responsible for.
2. It continued to advocate with the agent on behalf of residents but was finding it “difficult” to get a response. It had met with the agent’s executives but this had not improved matters. It continued to “challenge” the agent.
3. It had met with the agent and leaseholders to discuss the issues and try and seek resolution.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman as she continues to experience issues with her heating and hot water supply and leaks from the roof.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. The freeholder and agent of the building are not members of the Scheme and therefore we cannot investigate their actions. We have therefore focussed our assessment on the actions of the landlord.
We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
While the resident made previous complaints to the landlord, she did not escalate these to the Ombudsman at that time. She did however escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2025.
Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from August 2023 onwards. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the resident’s complaint. Reference to events that occurred prior to that date is made in this report to provide context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal defects including loss of heating and hot water and roof leaks.

The landlord has acknowledged that there have been issues with defects in the property and wider block “from the outset”. In a statement to the Ombudsman it said that residents “find themselves in an awful position through no fault of their own, paying very high service charges and living in properties with outstanding defects”. It also accepts that “progress is very slow”. However, it says it has done all it can ensure the agent completes the works required.
Under the terms of the lease the management company (via the agent) is responsible for completing communal repairs. The head lease expressly prohibits the landlord from “interfering” with communal installations and carrying out communal repairs.
The sub lease states that the landlord is “not liable to the leaseholder for any failure or interruption to services provided by the management company” under the head lease.
We acknowledge that the landlord is not obliged to complete the defect works. However, the resident’s legal relationship is with the landlord. As she has no legal relationship with the freeholder or agent, the landlord is responsible for liaising with them on her behalf and advocating for her interests.
The landlord has stated that several surveys have found failures in the design, installation, and commissioning of the heating and hot water system which it describes as “entirely unfit for purpose”. It accepts that the resident has been without heating and hot water for significant periods.
In August 2023 the heating and hot water system failed. The agent completed repairs which temporarily restored the services. However, on 20 September 2023 the resident’s block lost heating and hot water services. The heating and hot water were not reinstated until January 2024, a period of more than 3 months.
We acknowledge that the landlord was unable to complete works to resolve the issue. However, we have not seen that it attempted to mitigate the impact on the resident.
During the time she was without heating and hot water the resident told the landlord that she had a “serious wound” following surgery. She explained she needed to bathe and change dressings regularly and that this was being made “impossible” without hot water. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s communication, this was unreasonable. While the landlord was not obliged to offer the resident extra support, it would have been reasonable for it to do so in the circumstances given her vulnerabilities at that time.
The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that during the extended period where residents had no heating and hot water it decanted several “vulnerable” residents into hotels. It has stated that it asked vulnerable residents to approach it if they needed further support. However, it has not provided us with evidence of this offer. We acknowledge that the landlord was not obliged by the lease to decant leaseholders.
Given the severity of the situation, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact residents individually to ascertain whether they had vulnerabilities and required further support. That it did not do so was inappropriate.
The resident sent the landlord 13 emails asking for updates during the period she was without heating and hot water. It only responded to 4 of these emails. This was unreasonable.
The landlord failed to properly manage the expectations of its residents. Residents reasonably expected that, when they sent an email to the dedicated inbox, the landlord would respond. That it did not have an adequate system in place to acknowledge the emails was unreasonable. If it did not have the resources to respond to each email, it should have explained this.
In October 2023 the landlord contacted the agent and expressed frustration that the agent was not engaging with its attempts to collaborate to resolve the issues. While it had chased for updates prior to this, this was the first time the tone of the communication had was “challenging”.
The landlord has expressed in communications with the resident that it was attempting to maintain “some sort of professional relationship” with the agent so that communication did not cease altogether. We acknowledge the landlord was in a difficult position, however it would have been appropriate for it to challenge the agent sooner.
In October 2023 the landlord advised the resident it had escalated the issue to its legal team. We have not seen evidence that it took legal advice prior to this. By this time the resident and others were experiencing prolonged periods without heating and hot water. The evidence shows that the landlord is now considering legal action against the freeholder and management company. This is reasonable, but should have been considered much sooner.
From November 2023 the landlord began sending weekly updates to residents. This was a positive, albeit delayed, attempt to improve communication about the ongoing repair issues.
The resident has expressed dissatisfaction at the content of the landlord’s weekly update emails. We acknowledge that she was frustrated that the emails contained little in the way of updates or tangible progress. However, we also acknowledge that the landlord was unable to provide information it did not have.
The resident first reported water ingress in February 2024 by emailing the landlord’s dedicated email address. She then chased for a response several times explaining that the leak was getting worse and was causing damage to the property and her belongings.
The landlord apologised for “missing the email” and said it had forwarded the report to the agent who was responsible for dealing with the leak. We have not seen evidence that it did so. Given its initial delay in actioning the resident’s email and the severity of the issue, this response was unsatisfactory. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to directly liaise with the agent on her behalf.
A week later the resident told the landlord said she had not received any contact from the agent. She asked what else it had done to assist her apart from forwarding her email. She explained that the repair issues were having an “awful” impact on her health. The landlord did not respond. This was unreasonable and demonstrated a lack of empathy.
In March 2024 the resident reported a second leak in her bedroom. She said she was concerned the leaks were causing damp and mould. As the landlord did not respond to her report, the resident sent a further email a week later and said it was failing to act on her behalf. The landlord again failed to respond and so the resident sent a further email asking it to update her urgently. She said she was concerned that the leak was affecting the electrics in the property and was causing damp and mould.
It was unreasonable that throughout events on this case the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for a response to her reports. She has described how this has caused her to feel ignored and unimportant. We consider that the landlord’s direct communication with the resident has been very poor.
The landlord contacted the agent and asked it to respond “urgently” to the resident. It told her that it has “escalated” the issue and that it “hoped” she heard from the agent “soon”. We have seen no evidence that the landlord monitored the issue to ensure the agent responded to the resident’s concerns or inspected the property following her concerns about the impact on her electrics. Given her concerns it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect the issue itself.
We note that the landlord has, in some respects, acted above and beyond its obligations. For example, it has written off service charge deficits which it could have passed on to the resident and given her (and other residents) £100 towards her heating costs. This was positive. However, this did not mitigate the impact of the defects on the resident.
The landlord has failed to provide a reasonable response to the resident’s request for an explanation of what action it has taken to represent her interests. It replied with vague statements referred to “challenging” and “working with” the agent to “seek a resolution”. This was also unreasonable.
At the time of this report the resident continues to experience intermittent issues with her heating and hot water and leaks from the roof.
Overall, the landlord has failed to:
1. Communicate reasonably and effectively with the resident.
2. Actively and proportionately challenge the agent.
3. Take reasonable action to mitigate the impact of the defects on the resident.
4. Act promptly in seeking legal advice and considering legal action.
We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal defects including loss of heating and hot water and roof leaks.
The landlord has not acknowledged any failings or offered any redress for them. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards from £600 to £1,000 should be considered where there was a failure which had a significant impact the resident.
The resident has reported intermittent and unreliable heating and hot water for 2 years. She reported that this impacted her recovery and wound care at home following surgery. She has experienced roof leaks for 18 months. This damaged the property and her belongings. The landlord’s communication during this challenging time has been poor and has lacked sufficient empathy for the resident’s situation. This has exacerbated the distress the resident was experiencing. We consider have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £600 in relation to the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble experienced by the resident.

Complaint handling

It took the landlord 101 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This is a considerable departure from the 10-working day timescale within its own policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its response or offer any redress. This was unreasonable.
The landlord’s response was brief and vague. It did not acknowledge the severity of the situation or the impact on the resident. This was unreasonable.
The Code states that the landlord must address all points raised in the complaint. Its stage 1 complaint response was brief and vague and failed to address the specific issues raised by the resident. It did not address her concerns about its communication, its liaison with the agent, and a lack of “interim arrangements” and vulnerability checks. This was also unreasonable.
The resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with its stage 1 complaint response. This prompted the landlord to issue a further stage 1 complaint response.
There is no provision within the Code or the landlord’s policy for issuing a second stage 1 response. The Code states that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction the landlord must progress it to stage 2 of its procedure. That it did not do so created a 3-stage process and delayed the resident’s access to the Ombudsman. This was inappropriate and a complaint handling failure.
While more detailed than its first stage 1 response, the landlord’s further stage 1 response failed again to address concerns about interim arrangements and vulnerability checks. It also failed to provide any specific information about how it was representing her interests and challenging the agent. This was unreasonable.
It took the landlord 26 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This exceeded the timeframe in the Code and its own policy. It failed to request an extension to the timeframe or acknowledge and apologise for the delay in its response. This was unreasonable.
We note that, following this case, the landlord has stated that it will no longer enter into new developments with complex management arrangements. It has also said it is setting up clear roles and responsibilities for the management of third-party agents. This demonstrates that, in line with our dispute resolution principles, it has learned from the outcomes in this case.
Overall, there was an excessive delay in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This delayed her access to the Ombudsman. It failed to adhere to its own policy and the Code and failed to address all points raised in the complaint. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failings or offer any redress. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards from £100 to £600 should be considered where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal defects including loss of heating and hot water and roof leaks.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £850 which comprises:
  1. £600 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns about communal defects including loss of heating and hot water and roof leaks.
  2. £250 for time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.

60. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must confirm to the resident and this Service what steps it is taking to ensure the terms of the head lease are adhered to. It must also confirm how it will ensure that communication with the resident is improved. It may wish to consider allocating the resident a specific point of contact.