Home Group Limited (202505885)

Background

1. The resident’s tenancy with the landlord started on 21 May 2021. She is the sole occupant of a 2-bedroom house. Shortly after moving in, she reported cracks in the property, damp in the bedroom, and other repair issues. Although the landlord inspected on 15 June 2021, it did not take further action as the surveyor left the organisation. This prompted the resident to raise a complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to repair reports for the windows, bathroom, landing, kitchen, utility room, main bedroom, and living room.
   2. The landlord’s response to reports of subsidence at the property.
   3. The landlord’s response to reports of asbestos at the property.
   4. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
   5. The landlord’s response to a leak at the property.
   6. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Severe Maladministration in its response to repair reports for the windows, bathroom, landing, kitchen, utility room, main bedroom, and living room.
   2. Maladministration in its response to reports of subsidence at the property.
   3. Severe Maladministration in its response to reports of asbestos at the property.
   4. Maladministration in its response to reports of damp and mould.
   5. Maladministration in its response to a leak at the property.
   6. Maladministration in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs

4. There were separate, cumulative delays causing the landlord to take 4 years to complete the repairs originally reported. Given the number of delayed repairs, the extent of the delays, and the impact on the resident over time, we find that there was severe maladministration by the landlord.

Subsidence

5. The landlord did not maintain records of the action it was taking on possible subsidence or other structural movement. It also did not clearly and consistently advise the resident of its findings. This was particularly unreasonable as other works were dependent on the findings.

Asbestos

6. After agreeing to survey the property for asbestos, the landlord took over 3 years to investigate and remove asbestos. Again, this was particularly unreasonable as other works were dependent on the findings. Also, it did not act on the resident’s report that asbestos was falling from the ceiling into her kitchen.

Damp and Mould

7. The resident initially reported damp and mould in her bedroom on 1 June 2021. While the landlord considered renewing the gutters, it did not take any steps to mitigate the effect of damp and mould in the resident’s bedroom until July 2024.

Leak

8. The landlord took over 3 years from the initial leak in February 2022 to stop all leaks from pipes under the floorboards.

Complaint Handling

9. The landlord delayed significantly in responding to the resident’s complaint and it did not consistently update her. While it offered compensation, it did not take steps to learn from the outcome of the complaint.

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.

Our investigation

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.

10. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s statutory repair obligations. It states the landlord “must maintain the structure and exterior of your home”. Also, it “must keep in repair and proper working order any installations we provide for heating, water heating and sanitation”. The resident has advised us that the landlord did not carry out agreed works in between viewing the property and moving in. She reported several repair issues on moving in. The landlord inspected on 15 June 2021. As it did not order any works, the resident complained and it inspected again on 15 July 2021. This was an unnecessary delay of a month.
11. When making her stage 1 complaint, the resident listed 27 repairs across her property. The landlord recorded them as:
    1. Bathroom
       1. Sink is not attached, cracks around bowl.
       2. Tiles in bathroom need regrouting and need new silicone.
       3. The toilet wobbles.
       4. Electric shower needs to be fitted to help with the water pressure.
       5. Needs new bath taps and sink taps.
       6. Concrete at back of the toilet has broken down, which needs to be replaced.
    2. Landing
       1. Main bedroom, landing and 2nd room floorboards are loose and dropping. Carpet needs to be lifted for access.
       2. Hole around light fitting needs to be filled.
       3. Holes in cupboard need filling as they were covered in duct tape.
    3. Kitchen
       1. Side door frame is broken all round. Can see outside – needs a new door and frame.
    4. Utility Room
       1. The electric cupboard bangs on the gas pipe every time you open and close it.
       2. Big cracks and hole in the walls need filling and skimming.
    5. Main Bedroom
       1. Mould in resident’s bedroom – need tiles looked at on roof and in loft.
       2. Cracks along bedroom wall – need filling and skimming.
       3. Floorboards under carpet are loose and dropping.
    6. Garden
       1. Trees in garden – tree surgeon needs to be arranged.
       2. Fencing in garden – needs a new panel at the end.
       3. Panels 4 & 5 need replacing and a post is needed to hold them, as they swing in the wind.
    7. Living Room
       1. Double plug socket in concrete and needs filling.
       2. Making good work is required following removal of fireplace.
       3. Subfloor needs levelling around fireplace.
    8. Other
       1. Wires in the loft.
       2. Leak in copper pipe on the landing.
       3. Leak under kitchen sink.
       4. Doors not fitting or shutting as door fixtures sellotaped on.
       5. Letter box broken and banging around.
       6. Back door lock.
12. On or around 17 November 2021, the resident sought an update on the complaint. She advised the landlord had only completed the last 6 jobs noted above. She noted there were instances where the landlord’s repair was not of sufficient quality. For instance, it had poured self-levelling compound to level the subfloor around the fireplace. However, this made her lino floor covering bumpy. The landlord did not dispute this according to its records and stage 2 response. Also, as confirmed in the stage 2 response, the landlord decided to bring forward the planned replacement of the bathroom from 2024 to resolve the issues there. Ultimately, 5 months had passed since the original inspection therefore there was already a delay in the landlord completing repair works.
13. Moreover, the landlord’s Property Management Policy in effect at the time states that “we carry out inspections of properties at the earliest opportunity to identify statutory checks and repairs … necessary to achieve our void standards”. The landlord has not provided evidence that it had taken the necessary steps for resident’s property to meet its void standards prior to her moving in.
14. The resident’s correspondence of November 2021 indicates that further repair issues arose from the initial reports. This included identification of asbestos in the kitchen ceiling which needed to be removed. She mentioned that a leak had caused damage to a kitchen wall and the living room ceiling. She also reported a repair to a sliding wardrobe door.
15. The landlord delayed in completing repairs to cracks and plaster due to ongoing investigations into structural issues at the property. Also, on 14 March 2022 when levelling the living floor, it ascertained that the subfloor may be made up of tiles containing asbestos, therefore a further asbestos test was needed. However, aside from these issues it is not evident that the landlord satisfactorily completed the outstanding works. As a result, the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 22 July 2022. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 26 July 2022 and stage 2 response of October 2022 accepted that the repairs aside from a loose window frame were unresolved.
16. The stage 2 response agreed that a contract manager would inspect the property. However, he did not inspect until 13 January 2023 and did not raise job orders until 31 March 2023. This was 5 months after the stage 2 response which as an unreasonable delay. This showed that the landlord lacked focus, oversight and urgency in resolving the repairs. The delay in completing repairs was further exacerbated by the contract manager leaving. This indicates that there were shortcoming in the monitoring and reallocation of outstanding work issues after the contract manager left.
17. The landlord did not complete repairs to the resident’s property until September 2024. This is because at this time, between 16 August 2024 and 3 September 2024, it decanted the resident to remove asbestos, replaced the ceiling in the kitchen and lounge, and completed other works. It is noted works were delayed in part as the landlord needed to obtain an asbestos report. However, it accepted that in the final stage 2 response that it should have obtained the report and removed the asbestos straight after the initial stage 2 response of October 2022. This was an avoidable delay. With regards to the overall set of repairs, over 3 years had passed since the resident had reported them. By any standard, the landlord’s delay in completing all of them to a satisfactory standard was extremely and unnecessarily long.
18. The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that delays were also caused the poor performance of its former repairs contractor who stopped working at the resident’s property in November 2023. While this may be the case, the landlord ultimately remains responsible for ensuring the resident’s property is in good condition. It has only provided screenshots of repair orders; it has not provided reports or other evidence to show that it monitored the outstanding works and sought to ensure the contractor was completing them to the required standard.
19. The landlord advised the resident on 8 October 2024 that it would close her complaint as it had completed all repairs. On 15 October 2024, the resident advised the landlord she was dissatisfied with the standard of coving that had been installed and for having to decorate herself. She also advised there were outstanding works, in particular:
    1. Floorboards in the bedroom were not repaired.
    2. The asbestos contractor needed to attend further to a bathroom ceiling crack.
    3. All bathroom works were outstanding.
    4. The standard of finish to the lino in the living room was poor.
    5. There was outstanding plastering in the 2nd bedroom.
20. The landlord has not provided evidence that it made a list and checked all the works after the decant. It is therefore not evident that it took all reasonable steps to ensure it had completed all works to a satisfactory standard. The landlord completed further works from December 2024; however following an inspection on 22 May 2025, it agreed that there were still outstanding works. The works were rectifying cracks in the 2nd bedroom and replacing lino flooring. It also noted it would replace the bathroom under a planned works programme. The resident had also in the interim raised a further concern about the quality of tree removal works.
21. As of December 2025, the landlord understands that all repair issues have been resolved aside from reinstalling a radiator that it removed to allow the resident to decorate the 2nd bedroom. The resident has advised us that due to the performance of its flooring contractors, the landlord has agreed to pay for her to employ her own contractor. This is to reinstall her flooring in the living room. She has also advised of plastering works around new front and back doors, the need to replace door strips under doors which have been stuck on, and a dropped floorboard under a pipe that leaked. The resident has also advised that she has spent money on completing works herself. This includes paying a contractor after the landlord’s tree contractor did not remove all the roots or remove all chippings. The resident’s account indicates that the landlord still needs to remedy snagging issues to satisfactorily complete all repairs.
22. Ultimately, there were separate, cumulative delays culminating in the landlord taking 4 years to complete the repairs originally reported. Even then, there remains snagging issues. As accepted in the stage 2 response, there were several reasons for the delays. Failings in safely managing the asbestos caused delays in linked repairs, such as resolving cracks and holes. There was a lack of a single, comprehensive survey of the whole property. While structural investigations also stalled plaster repairs and kitchen works, the landlord was not prompt in investigating and obtaining quotes. Its contractor repeatedly failed to complete jobs satisfactorily such as floorboards and bathroom tiling. The need to appoint alternative contractors caused further delay. Staff turnover, including the original surveyor who left, added to delays. The landlord did not log repairs after the original inspection in June 2021 and the stage 2 response accepted there were 11 inspections over 4 years and lost reports. The resident had to repeatedly chase for updates which heightened her distress and inconvenience.
23. The landlord also accepted that it took time to arrange putting the resident’s items in temporary storage when decanting her. She has advised us that she has paid to carry out works herself and was decanted longer than she expected. The landlord’s delay in resolving tree roots, which she reported as causing damage to an alley and possibly causing subsidence, added to her distress and inconvenience. Given the number of delayed repairs, the extent of the delays, and the considerable impacts on the resident over time, we find that there was severe maladministration by the landlord.
24. The landlord offered compensation in the final stage 2 response. The landlord identified repair areas where there was delay, therefore took steps to justify its award. However, given the length of the delays, its award of £100 for each issue was not proportionate. We consider £100 for each year of delay for each issue to more accurately reflect the circumstances of the case and detriment caused. This does not include the issue of asbestos which we have considered separately. This means the landlord should pay £400 for each of the repair issues, except the asbestos issue, making a total of £2,400.

25. The resident reported cracks in the property shortly after moving in, on 2 June 2021. The landlord arranged for a building consultant to inspect on 15 July 2021. The consultant recommended the landlord commission a structural surveyor to investigate a crack to the external doorway in the utility room. This was a reasonable approach as a structural surveyor has the expertise to assess whether there was subsidence or other structural movement of the building.
26. However, there is no evidence that the landlord subsequently commissioned a structural surveyor. The landlord’s complaint response of 26 July 2021 said that a structural surveyor would “revisit” in August 2022 to see if there was any movement since the last visit. However, there is no evidence of a prior visit or of any findings made regarding movement.
27. There is also no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with clear and consistent information regarding the possible subsidence or other structural movement. When discussing her stage 2 complaint with the landlord on 27 September 2022, the resident advised there had been 6 inspections of her property. She said a surveyor and a tree surgeon had told her 2 trees in the garden were causing subsidence; however, a different surveyor was now advising trees were not an issue. This indicates the landlord had not provided her nor established a clear position on the causative factors behind subsidence. Indeed, there is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with inspection reports or advised her in writing of the findings prior to October 2022.
28. In the complaint response of 20 October 2022, the landlord said its structural surveyor had provided a report on 28 September 2022. It said the report confirmed structural cracks around the porch area which needed further investigation. It would inspect other cracks reported by resident to ascertain whether they were decorative or structural, including cracks in the kitchen and utility room. However, again, the landlord has not provided a copy of the report. This indicates a further failure by the landlord to maintain or retrieve repair records which it relied on when investigating the resident’s case.
29. There is no evidence that the landlord took prompt steps to investigate cracks or structural issues after the initial stage 2 response. The final stage 2 response accepted that after an initial survey of 24 August 2022, it did not request another survey until May 2024. This was a period of 21 months which again was an unreasonable delay, in particular as other repairs, such as repairs to cracks and asbestos removal, were dependent on the findings. The landlord also did not update the resident during this period which added to her distress and inconvenience.
30. During the decant, in September 2024, the landlord removed 2 trees in the resident’s garden. An internal email sent on 4 September 2024 noted that the loss adjustor’s subsidence expert advised that “the foundations of the estate could be better but no cause for major subsidence, but movement likely”. The landlord has advised us that, currently, there is no significant movement the in property that requires monitoring. It states the porch has slight movement but is not a major issue. There are no new cracks since the removal of the trees and existing cracks are not worsening. There is no evidence that the landlord has conveyed these findings to the resident, which indicates another failing in its communication and record keeping.
31. In this case, the landlord did not maintain records of the action it was taking on subsidence or other structural movement. It also did not clearly and consistently inform the resident of its findings. The resident’s distress and inconvenience was exacerbated by the landlord’s delays in investigating the subsidence and other possible movement.
32. For this issue, we award the resident £500 compensation. This is within the range of compensation within our Remedies Guidance for cases of maladministration. It takes into account cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

33. After the inspection of 13 July 2021, the landlord agreed to survey the property for asbestos prior to completing repairs to cracks in the walls and holes in the ceilings. It commissioned a specialist asbestos company which surveyed the property on 23 November 2021. The company assessed the property had a low risk of asbestos and that the landlord should manage asbestos in the textured coating of ceilings. The landlord’s complaint response of July 2022 said that it had received the survey report in January 2022. This was 6 months after its decision to conduct a survey. This was an unreasonable delay and there is no evidence that the landlord took steps to chase up asbestos specialists or otherwise mitigate the delay.
34. The landlord’s repair records show that a further asbestos issue arose on 14 March 2022. When levelling the living room floor, it ascertained that the subfloor may be made up of tiles containing asbestos, therefore a further asbestos test was needed.
35. The complaint response on 20 October 2022 noted that the landlord was waiting a date from its contractor regarding the removal of asbestos tiles. It was considering whether to store the resident’s possessions during works. By then, 7 months had already passed since the issue of asbestos tiles arose. It was unreasonable that the landlord took no effective action within this period.
36. The response of 20 October 2022 also noted that the resident was concerned about asbestos in walls and ceilings and holes left after a shower was installed on 29 September 2022. The landlord had previously advised in the response of July 2022 that it would remove asbestos from the property. However, the landlord now stated it would review the asbestos report alongside a structural report. By then, 9 months had already passed since the landlord received the asbestos survey. It was unreasonable that the landlord took no effective action within this period.
37. The resident had advised on 29 September 2022 that asbestos was falling into her kitchen from the ceiling following works in her property. She said that the asbestos should not have been disturbed. The landlord did not note the scales, frequency and extent of debris falling from the ceiling which would have enabled it to respond in a more informed matter. Regardless, the resident’s report should have increased its urgency in remedying the issue as asbestos is a defined hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating system. However, the landlord did not take action to progress the issue until 11 January 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated the resident’s claim about asbestos exposure and took measures to make safe, such as sealing the ceiling. On 11 January 2024, the landlord decided to request a new asbestos report. The delay in part was due to a contract manager not logging the works prior to leaving the landlord’s employment in April 2023. This indicates there was a failure by the landlord to oversee the works to completion as well as to ensure handover of outstanding works between staff.
38. The landlord received an asbestos report on 24 January 2024. However, as not all areas were tested, it requested a further survey. This exacerbated the delay and added to the resident’s inconvenience. The landlord received the new report on 4 April 2024. At this point, the landlord was in a position to proceed with the works to remove the asbestos. However, it did not do so until a further 5 months later, when it decanted the resident. This too exacerbated the delay in resolving asbestos issues and the landlord provided no reason for this further delay.
39. In summary, after agreeing to survey the property for asbestos, the landlord took over 3 years to investigate and removes asbestos. This was caused by a series of delays. The delays were particularly impactful as other works were dependent on the landlord resolving asbestos at the property. In addition, the landlord delayed for 2 years, between September 2022 and September 2024 in addressing the potential risk of asbestos exposure from the kitchen ceiling. Taken altogether, we find that there was severe maladministration by the landlord. For this issue, we award the resident £600 compensation. This is within the range of compensation within our Remedies Guidance for cases of severe maladministration. It takes into account cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

40. The landlord’s Damp and Mould policy states that it should investigate reports of damp or mould to diagnose the issue and as part of void inspection checks. The policy notes that causes can include faulty seals, guttering that is blocked or in disrepair, or subsidence or other movement.
41. On 2 June 2021, the resident reported damp and mould in her bedroom. The Damp and Mould policy states it should complete a risk assessment and carry out an inspection within 10 days in low-risk cases. The landlord did not keep a record of the inspection of 15 June 2021, nor did it take further action after this inspection. It is not evident that it therefore met the timeframe set out in the policy.
42. The building consultant after inspecting on 15 July 2021 highlighted the need for the landlord to remove concrete gutters. This was to stop water ingress into the cavity wall which was causing damp to internal and external walls. It also suggested the landlord check whether the cavity insulation was saturated. It was reasonable that the landlord sought expert advice on the cause of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
43. The Damp and Mould policy states “We will act on independent surveyor recommendations in a timely manner.” However, the landlord then delayed in taking the recommended action. There is no evidence that it checked the cavity insulation. It did not consider the removal of the gutters until inspecting on 16 October 2023. It therefore took over two years to follow up on the building consultant’s inspection which was an unnecessarily long delay. The inspection of 16 October 2023 ascertained that the gutters were in poor condition. There was damp to the first floor under the gutters.
44. The landlord conducted an estate-wide damp survey in 2024. The results supported a major works programme to remove the concrete gutters. The landlord has advised us that it has scheduled the replacement of the concrete gutters with UPVC ones between April and July 2026.
45. It is reasonable for the landlord to complete estate-wide major works under a planned programme. However, it still had a responsibility to deal with the mould in the resident’s property in advance of any planned works. The policy states that “we consider the customer’s individual circumstances and provide a menu of options appropriate to the situation. Options might include, for example, offer of mould kits, dehumidifiers, or further insulation.” There is no evidence the landlord took any steps to mitigate the effect of damp and mould in the resident’s property until it completed “plaster repairs and mould treatment” on 24 July 2024, according to its repair records. This was over 3 years after the initial report, which was an unreasonable delay. The landlord has also installed extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom and completed a temporary repair to a flat roof on 18 March 2025. The resident has not indicated that there is ongoing damp and mould in the property.
46. In summary, the landlord delayed investigating the cause of damp and mould in the resident’s property and deciding on remedial action. It also delayed in taking action to mitigate the effect of damp and mould in the interim. For this issue, we award the resident £400 compensation. This is within the range of compensation within our Remedies Guidance for cases of maladministration. It takes into account cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. It also takes into account that the damp and mould was localised in one bedroom.

47. When discussing her complaint on 27 September 2022, the resident said the landlord had previously completed a repair to her bedroom flooring in February 2022. However, during the works, the contractor had drilled a nail into a water pipe underneath. The resident noted this had caused a leak which damaged her carpet. She further said the landlord had told her to make an insurance claim even though a previous surveyor had assured her the landlord would replace the carpet. The landlord confirmed in its complaint responses that the resident should make a claim to its insurers. As the resident was alleging the landlord was negligent and liable for the damage to her carpet, it was reasonable that the landlord referred her to its insurers.
48. The resident reported that the landlord had not completed works to all the floorboards in February 2022. The landlord returned to complete further works on 9 June 2022, 18 April 2023, 24 July 2024, and 20 March 2025. When completing works on 20 March 2025, it lifted a floorboard and found a pipe had been drilled through. The resident advised the landlord she believed this occurred in February 2022.
49. It is not possible for us to say when nails were drilled into the water pipe under the floorboard. Nonetheless, the parties do not dispute that the landlord’s contractor did this. The landlord failed to take several opportunities to satisfy itself that there were no leaks under the floorboards. This included the times when the resident asked for compensation for a damaged carpet and the instances when it completed further works to floorboards. The landlord may have been able to diagnose a leak when considering repairs to the kitchen and living room ceilings. Ultimately, the landlord took over 3 years from the initial leak in February 2022 to stop all leaks from pipes under the floorboards. This was an extensive and unreasonable delay.
50. For this issue we award the resident £100 compensation for her time, trouble and inconvenience in resolving this issue. This is within the range of compensation within our Remedies Guidance for cases of maladministration. It takes into account cases where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right.

51. The landlord’s complaints procedure in effect at the time of the final stage 2 response states that, at stage 1, it should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It should then send the response within 10 working days of the acknowledgment. At stage 2, it should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and send the response within 20 working days of the acknowledgment. This is in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
52. The landlord’s complaints procedure at the time when the resident submitted her complaint and when the first stage 2 response was sent did not have timescales for responding. We acknowledge that the landlord has since updated the complaints procedure to comply with our Code.
53. After the resident submitted a complaint in June 2021, the landlord took over a year to send the stage 1 response, on 26 July 2022. Regardless of the lack of timeframes at that time, this was a significant delay. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations on how it was handling her complaint and when it would respond. Furthermore, the resident had asked to escalate her complaint on 22 July 2022 due to delays. Therefore, it appears that the response was prompted by the request, and that the delay would otherwise have been longer.
54. The landlord discussed the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 27 September 2022 to ascertain the unresolved issues. At this time, we had introduced the Code which at the time stated landlords should send stage 2 complaint responses within 20 days of escalation. By this standard, the landlord should have discussed the resident’s complaint sooner.
55. The landlord sent an initial stage 2 response on 22 October 2022. In the response, it proposed to continue to progress the complaint until the outstanding issues were fully resolved. It would then provide its full and final Stage 2 response. However, it then took over 32 months for the landlord to send the final response. The delay in the response was intrinsically linked to delay in repairs. However, the Code states that landlords should track outstanding actions required to resolve a complaint and take action promptly. It should provide appropriate updates to the resident. It is not evidence that the landlord consistently and proactively provided updates across the exceptionally extended period of delay.
56. Moreover, the complaint handlers had a responsibility to liaise with staff in the repairs service to ensure that the landlord investigated and resolved the substantive repair issues complained about. It is not evident that this consistently happened or that deadlines were set. The complaint procedure provides a process and framework through which disputes can be resolved. In this case, the landlord did not make best use of the complaints procedure to minimise delays to repairs. It also failed to use the complaint to effectively manage the resident’s expectations on the progress and status of works.
57. The landlord offered £375 compensation for complaint handling in the final stage 2 response. However, resolving a complaint and offering redress also entails putting the matter right and learning from outcomes. As per the Code, landlords are expected to prioritise complaint handling and a culture of learning from complaints. They must look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether service improvements can be made as a result of any learning from the complaint. This includes the handling of the complaint. In this case, the landlord has provided us with a summary of repairs and basic operational insights. However, it did not take the opportunity to assess why it took 4 years for both repairs and the complaint procedure to be exhausted and how it could have mitigated this.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

58. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management notes that “Good records assist housing providers to offer efficient and effective services by ensuring that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information. Clear information is readily available to any member of staff who becomes responsible for a particular matter, easing handovers between staff. Communication with residents is improved when staff are able to access all of the relevant up to date information and get a good understanding of the issue, and what action has been taken (or not taken) and why. If a housing provider is asked to explain what happened, and why, good records will enable it to do so. Poor quality or absent records result in the landlord being unable to answer questions, or being unable to provide evidence to support its explanation – this impacts negatively on its credibility and relationships with the requestor.”
59. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
    2. gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
60. In this case, there were sufficient records taken together with the complaint responses to determine the complaint. However, the landlord did not provide full information around the repairs it ordered, what works it actually completed with dates of completion, and any steps to confirm that works were completed satisfactorily. Also, the records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s complaints and repairs and maintenance teams had followed our spotlight report recommendations.

Communication

61. The landlord should ensure it keeps residents updated around timeframes for repairs, and any delays which are likely to impact on completion times for repairs. If its complaint handling is delayed, it should make sure that it contacts residents to provide an explanation on any delays.