Home Group Limited (202430564)

Decision
Case ID	202430564
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Home Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a bungalow with his wife. The resident carried out work to the back door of the property after the landlord’s repairs visits did not resolve the matter. He also carried out work to a pipe under the bath which he thought had been damaged by rats.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Pest problems at the property.
   2. The resident’s request for reimbursement of costs incurred for work carried out to the property.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. The complaint about pest problems at the property was outside of our jurisdiction.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs incurred for work carried out to the property.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Pest problems at the property

4. The resident’s complaint was about his request for reimbursement of costs incurred for work carried out to the property. It was also only reimbursement of costs that was escalated to stage 2. Therefore, pest problems at the property did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints process. While we acknowledge the resident and his wife experienced pest problems, these issues were not raised as a complaint and many of the problems occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 response. Therefore, these were not investigated by the landlord, and we have no power to investigate.

Request for reimbursement of costs incurred for work carried out to the property

5. The landlord said it could not reimburse the resident for the costs incurred for work carried out to the property. However, it acknowledged it had not resolved the leak from the back door despite multiple repairs visits, so it compensated the resident for this. The landlord made an appropriate offer of redress for the failings.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses did not include appropriate content in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident an additional £100 to recognise the landlord’s complaint handling failures. 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 30 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 August 2024	The resident made a complaint. He said there had been rats due to the neighbour’s rubbish. The resident said there was a bad smell, so he had investigated it. He removed the bath panel and found rats had bitten through the waste pipes and the flooring. The resident said he carried out the repairs and wanted compensation for the repairs he had carried out himself. He felt the landlord did not maintain the property in the way it should.
30 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said the resident had stated that when it visited, he had been told to send in the receipts for the work he had carried out. The landlord said it needed to investigate this matter. It said it was sorry that the resident was disappointed with reporting issues to it and that he had lost his trust and faith in his landlord. The landlord said it would investigate why it had not completed the repairs, look for evidence of approval for compensation and keep the resident updated throughout its investigation into these matters.
2 September 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had said it would not compensate him for the work he carried out at the property. The resident reiterated that he had been told he would be refunded if he sent in the receipts. He wanted £600 refunded for all the work he had done. The resident said this included work on a leaking back door. He said the landlord had attended 6 times for this and not fixed it, so he decided to fix it himself.
8 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It stated the resident had first reported a leak from the back door on 15 November 2023. The landlord listed 5 appointments it had attended between 15 December 2023 and 5 June 2024 in relation to the back door. It said the resident had not reported the repair to the bathroom piping. The landlord said it would not be able to reimburse the costs that the resident requested. It apologised for any false information the resident may have been given. The landlord awarded the resident £550 compensation and said it would follow up on the pest concerns the resident had raised during conversations about his stage 2 complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident advised us that his complaint was not about reimbursement of costs but about how he and his wife had been treated by the landlord during the pest problems at the property. He wanted an apology and 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	Pest problems at the property.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

7. The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint about a pest problem. Therefore, we have no power to investigate pest problems at the property.

Complaint	Request for reimbursement of costs incurred for carrying out work to the property.
Finding	Reasonable redress

8. The resident raised a repair request for the back door on 15 November 2023. This was because the resident reported the back door was leaking when it rained. The landlord attended on 15 December 2023, but no work was carried out. It was unclear why work was not carried out at this appointment.
9. On 2 April 2024 the resident told the landlord that the back door was still leaking, and the flooring was starting to lift as a result of water damage. The landlord attended on 12 April 2024 and carried out a repair to the weather bar. However, this did not resolve the problem, and the resident contacted the landlord again on 17 April 2024.
10. The landlord attended again on 21 May 2024 and found that either a new seal or new threshold was needed. There was no evidence to show if the resident had his expectations managed about when this work would take place.
11. The resident contacted the landlord again on 23 May 2024 as water was still entering the property through the back door. He told the landlord that he thought the back door had been incorrectly installed. The landlord requested an inspection of the property which it attended on 29 May 2024. We have not seen what the findings of this inspection were. The landlord did not explain what its investigation visit found in its stage 2 response.
12. Another work order was raised on 3 June 2024. It was unclear whether this was as a result of a further report of the leak from the resident or whether this was because of the inspection that had occurred the previous week. The landlord attended on 5 June 2024 to carry out work on the back door. We have been unable to identify what the work was that the landlord carried out on this date.
13. It was not unreasonable or a failing that multiple visits were needed to identify the cause of the leak. We appreciate that causes of leaks can be difficult to identify and can require multiple investigations to resolve. However, the continued leak, reported damage to the resident’s flooring and the repeated appointments is likely to have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and his wife.
14. On 6 September 2024 the resident told the landlord that he had carried out a repair to the back door and that he had replaced his flooring that had been damaged. The resident told the landlord these repairs cost £600, and he requested these be reimbursed by the landlord.
15. The resident also told the landlord that he had repaired a pipe under the bath that he thought had been damaged by rats. He said it had cost him £100 to repair. The resident had not reported this repair to the landlord. Therefore, the landlord did not have the opportunity to address the repair and carry out any required work.
16. The resident told the landlord that he did not report the repair because he did not believe the landlord would carry out the work correctly. He said he did not have faith in the landlord. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had taken the resident’s concerns into account and would ensure these concerns were mitigated in the future.
17. In its stage 1 response the landlord committed to investigating whether there was any evidence that the landlord had been told he would be compensated for the work he carried out. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would not reimburse the resident for the costs he had incurred. The landlord did not provide an explanation why. It would have been reasonable to have explained its decision.
18. During its investigation, the landlord identified that the resident had been told he could make a request for reimbursement in a complaint. While this does not state he would get reimbursed, it may be that this did not appropriately manage the resident’s expectations.
19. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for any false information that may have been provided. This was reasonable. It also said feedback would be provided to all colleagues to ensure accurate information is provided to its residents.
20. The landlord told the resident that it could not approve reimbursement for the works carried out but it had awarded discretionary compensation. It awarded £375 compensation. This was made up of £150 for service failure for a lack of communication in relation to the repairs and for the number of times it attended to repair the back door without resolution. It also awarded £75 for disruption and £150 for distress.
21. This was a proportionate amount of compensation, in line with our remedies guidance. We have found that the landlord made an offer of redress which was satisfactory in resolving the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs incurred for carrying out work to the property.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

22. The landlord acknowledged both the resident’s complaint and escalation request within the 5 working days timeframe stated in its complaints policy and the Code.
23. It also issued its stage 1 response within the 10 working days timeframe stated in its policy and the Code. However, its stage 2 response was slightly delayed and was issued 22 working days after the acknowledgement was sent. This was just outside the 20 working days timeframe stated in its policy and the Code.
24. The landlord did not specifically reference the delay in issuing its stage 2 response, but it listed £100 compensation awarded in its stage 2 response was for complaint handling delays. This was a reasonable amount of compensation for this delay which was in line with our remedies guidance.
25. However, there were other complaint handling failures. The stage 1 response was not appropriate. The response lacked any detail and showed no signs any investigation had taken place to address the resident’s concerns. Instead, the stage 1 response reiterated the resident’s complaint and said it would need to investigate the matters he had raised.
26. The 10 working days stated in the Code to issue the response is the time given to carry out the investigations. The landlord’s insufficient stage 1 response delayed the matters being investigated and the resident getting resolution to his complaint.
27. The stage 2 response was more detailed and showed the landlord had carried out investigations into the matter escalated to stage 2. However, when the landlord awarded compensation in the stage 2 response, it included £75 compensation for a matter not raised at escalation and not referenced in the response. If the resident had raised additional issues during the stage 2 investigation it would have been appropriate to have logged a stage 1 complaint and have investigated the matter.
28. The stage 2 response also did not give an explanation as to why it had made the decision not to reimburse the resident. The Code states that the landlord must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The landlord did not do this.
29. The compensation the landlord awarded was reasonable for the complaint handling delay, but it was not sufficient to put right the complaint handling failures in the content of the stage 1 and stage 2 responses. We have ordered the landlord to award the resident an additional £100 compensation for these matters.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord should ensure it keeps thorough records of the outcomes of inspections and repairs visits. We would encourage the landlord to review the recommendations in our Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management and the key learnings in our Spotlight Report on complaints about repairs and to decide if it needs to take any action to improve its record keeping.

Communication

31. The landlord needs to proactively keep residents updated while repairs are ongoing. Better communication, aided by more robust oversight of jobs, may help prevent residents feeling they need to carry out repairs themselves to be able to get matters satisfactorily resolved.