Home Group Limited (202507784)

Decision
Case ID	202507784
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Home Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	4 December 2025

Background

The resident has lived under an assured tenancy with the landlord since 3 August 2016.
The resident reported issues with damp and mould throughout the property on several occasions. She was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to offset compensation against her rent account.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Request to have compensation paid directly to the resident.
3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould
2. Request to have compensation paid directly to the resident.
3. Complaint.

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

There were some failings in how the landlord handled the reports of damp and mould. However, it appropriately identified them all in its complaint response, apologised and offered the maximum amount of compensation its policy allowed and was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Compensation request

The landlord incorrectly said the resident was in arrears in its stage 1 response and therefore was incorrect in saying the compensation offered would be offset against them. Nevertheless, it recognised this mistake at stage 2, explained how the error occurred, apologised and agreed to pay her the compensation directly. This was in line with its policy and what the resident requested.

Complaint handling

There were significant delays to the landlord’s responses at both stages of the internal complaints procedure. However, it acknowledged these failings in its response, apologised and offered the maximum amount of compensation it policy allowed for the delays.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
December 2024	The landlord made a part 36 offer to the resident, via her solicitors. The offer was for its handling of multiple issues in her property, including damp and mould. It offered her financial compensation as well as promising to complete works to a section of guttering its surveyors had highlighted in a report from May 2023, and in a supplementary report from October 2023.
20 February 2025	The resident raised a new complaint to the landlord. She said it still had not resolved the damp and mould issues despite multiple inspections. She wanted the issue fixed, compensation for mould damage to some of her belongings and a copy of the February 2025 surveyor’s report.
2 April 2025	The landlord’s stage 1 response included a copy of the requested report. It said it had arranged for most of the works identified in the report to start on either 7 or 8 April 2025. It offered her £75 compensation for complaint handling delays. It said this compensation would be offset against her rent arrears rather than paid to her directly. Regarding compensation for her personal belongings, it advised she would need to raise a claim with its insurance team and how to do this.
3 April 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She remained unhappy that the damp and mould issues were still not resolved despite planned upcoming works. She wanted it to pay the stage 1 compensation directly to her as well as £500 for her damaged belongings.
8 July 2025	The landlord issued it stage 2 response. It acknowledged that damp and mould work due to start in April 2025 had been cancelled by its contractor. It said it then had concerns the surveyors report from February 2025 was “unsatisfactory” and wanted a more invasive survey to be completed instead. This new survey had taken place early that month and once it received the report it agreed to complete any works identified. It also acknowledged it had mistakenly said she was in arrears at stage 1 and agreed to pay any compensation to her directly instead. It apologised for further delays to works and its complaint handling, as well as its compensation error and offered her, in total, a further £525 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the damp and mould issues were still ongoing. She also said she had not heard anything about her insurance claim she submitted earlier in the year. She wanted the landlord to resolve solve the damp and mould issues and reimburse her for £500 worth of damage to her belongings.

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	Damp and mould handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we did not investigate

The resident received an out-of-court settlement for several issues at her property, including damp and mould. As part of the settlement, the landlord agreed to complete repairs listed in its surveyor’s reports from May and October 2023. The only repair noted was fixing a hole in the guttering.
The Ombudsman may not look into any work or actions promised in relation to matters raised as part of court proceedings. In this case legal papers were issued but did not proceed further due to the settlement. They centred on damp and mould issues experienced in 2023 and earlier, following which the landlord undertook inspections in October 2023. As the legal action concerned repairs up to October 2023 this investigation considers events after that date.

What we investigated

The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will be proactive in dealing with the issue. If a resident does not allow access for inspections or works, the policy says it will take necessary action in order to gain access.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says she must allow the landlord, and any of its contractors, access to her property for inspections or repairs.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer up to £75 for each service failure it identifies. It says a resident must raise an insurance claim with its insurance team for any damage caused by the landlord to personal belongings.
The resident complained the landlord was not doing enough to effectively resolve the damp and mould issues despite completing multiple inspections. She wanted it to complete repairs that would resolve the issue. She also wanted it to compensate her for £500 worth of mould damage to her belongings. At stage 2 she said she disagreed with its decision to not complete the works identified by its surveyor in February 2025.
Across both the landlord’s responses it said it was doing all it could to resolve the damp and mould issue. At stage 1 it said its contractor would complete the all the repairs identified by the surveyor in February 2025 in the April.
At stage 2 the landlord explained the contractor had cancelled these works shortly before they were due to start in April 2025 due to staff availability. It explained that soon after that it reconsidered the survey’s scope and recommendations. It queried this with its survey contractor, and subsequently decided to do a new survey to ensure the correct repairs were identified. The new survey was delayed due to the resident initially not allowing access, but was completed in July 2025. It identified a range of works, which the landlord committed to start in October..
The landlord apologised for the last minute cancellation of works in April 2025, the extra inspections, poor communication on both it and its contractors part and delays in completing the damp and mould works overall. It offered her £75 for the five failings it identified, totalling £375.
Overall the landlord’s response was reasonable as the evidence supports what it said. Its stage 1 response was issued prior to the works it quoted in its response were cancelled by the contractor. Its response, to complete the works identified by the surveyor, was appropriate as the evidence shows at the time it had no concerns with the quality of this report and felt it was the appropriate course of action to resolve the damp and mould.
Likewise, the landlord’s stage 2 response is supported by the evidence. It was not ideal that the contractor cancelled works in April at short notice, or that the landlord only queried the surveyors report after works were cancelled. Nevertheless, it had concerns about the original survey and this was further backed up by the surveyor themselves when it queried the report with them. It was therefore reasonable for it to arrange for a more detailed survey by a senior surveyor to ensure any subsequent works were most likely to resolve the damp and mould.
The landlord recognised the impact further delays, cancelled works, poor communication and inconvenience of further inspections had on the resident. It apologised, which was appropriate to do given the failings identified. It also offered the maximum amount of compensation its policy allowed for all five failings, totalling £375 which was reasonable given the impact caused.
The evidence shows that, as the landlord promised in its stage 2 response, it did go on to raise works identified in the second surveyor’s report and these works started in October 2025.
Furthermore, the landlord followed its policy regarding claims for damaged belongings. It was appropriate for it to explain the resident needed to make an insurance claim and provide details on how she could do this.
Overall there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould issue. Nevertheless, it appropriately identified these failings in its response, apologised, offered a reasonable level of compensation for the impact caused, and undertook to complete the necessary work. The grounds on which it decided to arrange a further survey were also reasonable and in line with its repair obligations.

Complaint	Compensation payment request
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s compensation policy says if a resident has outstanding arrears any compensation offered will be offset against this.
When the landlord issued its stage 1 response it offered the resident £75 compensation. It said she was in arrears and therefore this would be offset against them as per its policy.
When the resident escalated her complaint she said the only reason she was in arrears was because she was withholding her rent until damp and mould works were completed, which was dependent on the landlord’s actions. She therefore felt it should pay any compensation directly to her.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said it had mistakenly said she was in arrears in its stage 1 response. Instead it had realised she was only in arrears at the time of its response as she was in between monthly benefit payments on her rent account and not actually in arrears. It apologised and agreed to pay any compensation directly to her.
The landlord recognised it had made a mistake in its stage 1 response, explained this clearly and apologised, which was reasonable for it to do. It appropriately rectified the mistake by offering to pay her the compensation directly, as she requested, as well as the additional compensation it went on to offer.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints or stage 2 escalations within 5 working days of receipt. It the aims to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and stage 2 responses within 20 working days of acknowledgement. It says it can extend either deadline by a further 10 working days if required.
There were delays in the landlord’s responses at both stages. For stage 1 it took 29 working days to issue its response. At stage 2 it took 62 working days. Both responses far exceeded the timeframes set out in its policy and its handling was therefore not appropriate.
However, the landlord acknowledged these delays in both its responses. It apologised, which was appropriate to do given the delays caused. Additionally at both stages it offered the resident £75 for each delayed response, totalling £150. This was reasonable as it was the maximum amount its compensation policy says it could offer for this service failure and reflected the significant delays.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Overall the landlord’s record keeping was good. It had thorough records of repairs and surveys as well as internal communications.

Communication

There was a lack of communication from the members of the landlord’s staff who were the resident’s point of contact for the damp and mould works. However, it recognised this in its stage 2 response and offered appropriate compensation for this failing. Going forward the landlord should points of contact maintain regular contact with residents.