Home Group Limited (202526750)

Background

1. The property is a ground floor flat in a converted house. The flat above is also owned by the landlord. On 12 November 2024, the resident told the landlord that the neighbour in the flat above had been arrested for threatening to kill her. She said she was going through court proceedings to obtain an injunction against them and wanted to be moved from the property. On 15 July 2025, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her request to be moved and damp and mould in the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB) and request for a management transfer.
   2. Damp and mould in the property.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and request for a management transfer.
5. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
6. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident for its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord failed to make appropriate records, including opening an ASB case, or take reasonable steps to support the resident and investigate her concerns when she reported these in November 2024 and January 2025. After the resident contacted it again requesting a management transfer, in June and July 2025, the landlord failed to appropriately communicate with her about this. Nor did it provide a clear position on offering a management transfer, explaining its reasoning, until its stage 2 complaint response 2 months later.
8. The landlord missed 2 opportunities to inspect the damp and mould in the property sooner. It also failed to address the resident’s concerns over damage caused to her belongings in its stage 1 complaint response, despite these featuring in her complaint.
9. The landlord acknowledged that its stage 1 complaint handler failed to contact the resident as part of their investigation, as they had agreed to. It apologised, made a reasonable offer of compensation and ensured it contacted the resident as part of its stage 2 complain investigation.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

What we have not investigated

10. When escalating her complaint, the resident said that she accepted the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response’s resolution for incorrectly listing arrears on her reference to the local authority. The matter did not feature in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response and therefore will not form part of this investigation.
11. Alongside her complaint, the resident also submitted a subject access request (SAR) to the landlord. She has expressed dissatisfaction with its handling of this. The handling of SARs falls within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and so we will not investigate this. The resident may wish to raise her concerns with the ICO should they remain outstanding.

12. The first record we have seen of the resident contacting the landlord about issues with the neighbour in the flat above hers was on 12 November 2024. On this date she phoned the landlord’s customer service team and said she was seeking a move due to the ongoing issues. The call recording provided to us ends with customer services transferring the resident to the landlord’s anti social behaviour (ASB) team. It is unclear what happened following this as the landlord has failed to provide any further records.
13. On 24 January 2025, the resident’s father phoned the landlord. He told it the neighbour in the flat above had been harassing the resident and made threats towards her, which had been reported to the police. The landlord’s records show that the resident’s housing officer tried to contact the resident on the same day to arrange a home visit but was unable to reach her.
14. The landlord has provided a statement from the housing officer. In this they state that they attended the property on 27 January 2025, but that nobody was home. However, there are no contemporaneous records of this attempted visit. Nor of any steps the landlord took to follow up on it.
15. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will “treat all reports of ASB seriously and take swift action to protect individuals and communities”. When providing the information for our investigation, the landlord acknowledged that “An ASB case should have been logged and investigated in January 2025.” This would have been appropriate given the nature of the concerns raised, which met the definition of ASB contained in its policy.
16. It is important to note that the resident’s neighbour ended their tenancy and moved out of the flat above her in early May 2025. Additionally, on 7 February 2025 the neighbour gave an undertaking to the court not to contact, intimidate or harass the resident. This undertaking lasted for a period of 6 months. Under these circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord not to log an ASB case when the resident next contacted it about the matter, on 24 June 2025. The actions it could take at that point were limited and the resident could refer any breach of the undertaking back to the court for enforcement.
17. On 24 June 2025, the resident contacted the landlord by phone. She asked to speak to her housing officer about a transfer of property due to the issues with her neighbour and the undertaking expiring shortly. The landlord’s customer service team raised a callback for this. It advised the resident that its callbacks had a 10 working day target – which is reflected in its records.
18. The resident phoned again, on 2 July 2025, as she had not heard from her housing officer. The landlord’s customer service team noted that 10 working days had not passed yet, but the resident’s housing officer was on leave and would not return in time to complete the callback. It therefore raised a new callback to another housing officer. Had the resident not contacted it, the landlord would have failed to complete the callback within target.
19. During this call, the landlord also told the resident it would complete an internal safeguarding referral, due to the nature of the concerns she had raised. It advised her to contact it if she had not heard from it about this within 24 hours. The landlord has provided records to show it completed the safeguarding referral. It determined that the resident ‘did not meet the criteria’ and it did not need to take any action.
20. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord communicated this to the resident, even after she contacted it on 3 July 2025 as it had advised her to. This led the resident to feel the landlord was ‘ignoring’ safeguarding concerns, which she expressed when escalating her complaint. The landlord did not appropriately explain the outcome of its safeguarding referral until its stage 2 complaint response, almost 2 months later. This was not in keeping with the ‘person centred approach’ its safeguarding policy says it will adopt.
21. A housing officer completed the callback to the resident on 4 July 2025. Their notes from the call record that they said they would ask the resident’s regular housing officer to contact her when they were back from leave. This rendered the callback largely pointless and failed to address any of the resident’s concerns or progress matters.
22. When the resident made her complaint, 11 days later, she had still not been contacted by her regular housing officer. The first evidence we have seen of them contacting her about this matter was on 29 July 2025 – over a month after she had initially contacted the landlord and it had first raised a callback. This was unreasonable.
23. Following this phone call, the housing officer appropriately made enquiries with the police. The police confirmed that there was a history of allegations between the resident and her neighbour. However, they said they had not received any new reports since January 2025.
24. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 August 2025. In this, it told the resident that “You advised us that to make things right, you would like a managed transfer. Unfortunately, this is not something that we would be able to consider at this time.” This was the first record we have seen of the landlord advising the resident that it would not consider her for a management transfer. Due to this, it would have been appropriate for it to have provided a more detailed explanation of its reasons for this. It did, however, appropriately signpost her to the local authority should she wish to pursue a move through its housing register.
25. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response provided much more detail on its position. It appropriately explained that the resident had not reported any incidents to the police, recorded any breaches of the undertaking to the court, or applied for an extension to this. The landlord’s allocations policy says that it will only offer a management transfer in “extreme circumstances” such as “severe harassment where there is a risk to a person’s safety”. Based upon the evidence available, it was reasonable for the landlord to determine the resident did not meet this threshold at that time.
26. We note that, following her approaching it for assistance, the local authority also assessed the resident’s housing need. It wrote to her on 25 July 2025, stating that it also felt she was able to safely occupy the property based upon the information available to it. This supports the landlord’s position not to offer a management transfer.
27. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord also told the resident that it found no evidence it had not communicated with her. This failed to acknowledge the failings identified above in its communication with her prior to her making her complaint. We note that the resident has said she often contacted her housing officer directly via their mobile phone. Due to this, the landlord may not have had full records of all contact between them to fully assess this. We have referenced this in the learning section at the end of this report.
28. In summary, the landlord failed to make appropriate records, including opening an ASB case, or take reasonable steps to support the resident and investigate her concerns when she reported these in November 2024 and January 2025. This was not in keeping with its ASB policy. While the landlord’s final position to not offer the resident a management transfer was reasonable, its decision may have been different had it considered the matter at these earlier opportunities.
29. After the resident contacted it again requesting a management transfer, in June and July 2025, the landlord failed to appropriately communicate with her about this. Nor did it provide a clear position on the matter without associated reasoning until its stage 2 complaint response 2 months later.
30. Due to the failings identified above we make a finding of maladministration. We order the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £400. This is in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances of maladministration where a landlord’s failings have adversely affected a resident and it has failed to acknowledge these during its complaints process.

31. The resident has said issues with damp and mould in the property date back to the beginning of her tenancy in 2021. The Code allows landlords to exclude matters occurring over 12 months prior to a complaint from its complaint investigations. This is because residents are expected to bring issues to their landlord’s attention, in the form of a complaint, within a reasonable timeframe of them occurring. This enables landlords to carry out effective investigation while records and staff’s memories are fresh and available.
32. In its complaint responses, the landlord used its discretion to look back to its handling of damp and mould in October 2023. Our investigation will therefore also start at that point.
33. The landlord’s records show that it raised a works order for a damp and mould inspection of the property on 31 October 2023. It raised this with a 24 hour service level agreement for it to attend. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that this timescale is applicable to ‘high risk’ cases.
34. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it had cancelled the inspection order “as we were unable to contact you to arrange an appointment”. Its repair records show that it did this on 1 November 2023. Considering it had assessed the damp and mould as ‘high risk’ it was unreasonable for the landlord to cancel the order due to being unable to contact the resident after just 1 day. It would have been appropriate for it to have made further attempts to inspect this potential hazard.
35. The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that the resident had not reported damp and mould to it again until she made her complaint. However, we have reviewed a recording of a phone call of 24 June 2025 in which the resident told the landlord’s customer service team she was trying to speak to her housing officer regarding issues including damp and mould.
36. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that “all colleagues should be alert to opportunities to identify potential problems and need to be aware of how to raise these”. It says it will “make the most of every opportunity to identify and address damp and mould issues”. The landlord’s customer service team failing to act upon her mention of damp and mould during this phone call represents a missed opportunity for it to act sooner. As the resident was unable to speak to her housing officer prior to making her complaint, this meant the landlord did not act upon the damp and mould concerns until 3 weeks later.
37. In a phone call on 15 July 2025, another member of the landlord’s customer service team did appropriately offer to transfer the resident through to its damp and mould team during a call. The landlord should ensure that this practice is embedded throughout its call handling staff.
38. We note the resident has referred to the landlord visiting the property for a faulty plug socket at some point in early 2025, which it linked to damp and said it would follow up on. However, there is no corresponding records in the repair records provided by the landlord to enable us to make an evidence based assessment of this.
39. The landlord raised a damp and mould inspection on 15 July 2025 – the date the resident made her complaint. On this occasion the landlord logged the inspection as low risk, with a 10 day service level agreement to inspect. It is unclear why the landlord’s assessment differed so much from that of October 2023. However, the landlord completed its inspection promptly on 18 July 2025 so there was no detriment to the resident from this.
40. On 23 July 2025, the landlord raised works orders for repairs to the guttering and bathroom extractor fan in the property, which its inspection had identified. However, it failed to raise all the works recommended by the inspector. The landlord did not raise the recommended works to dry out and replaster a section of wall, spanning several rooms, until 15 August 2025 – after the resident escalated her complaint.
41. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the repairs raised on 23 July 2025 had been insufficient and that it was “evident that further works would be required to resolve the wider issues”. It told the resident it had scheduled the plastering work for 7 October 2025 and offered her £100 compensation for the delay in this. This was a reasonable amount, in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances of service failure, for a delay of less than a month in it logging the repair.
42. The landlord also offered the resident a further £300 for the disruption and loss of facilities that the planned plastering works would cause. As the works have still not been completed we will not comment upon this further, but have recommended that it makes payment of this amount once it carries out the works.
43. The landlord’s records show that it completed the guttering repair on 23 July 2025, the same day it raised it. They also show that the landlord completed the extractor fan repair on 3 September 2025. While this is outside of the 28 days its website says it aims to complete routine repairs in, it had previously made appointments and attended on 1 August and 13 August 2025 but was unable to access the property.
44. As established above, the plastering repair is still outstanding at the time of writing. The landlord’s serving of a ‘notice to quit’ on the resident does not form part of the complaint subject to this investigation and so we will not comment upon it further. However, at our recommendation, the landlord has written to the resident offering assurances that should she provide her keys to it to access the property and complete the works these will be returned to her. We encourage the resident to engage with the landlord and assist it in completing the works.
45. As part of her complaint, the resident said her possessions had been damaged by the damp and mould in the property and she had had to dispose of these. It is unclear when this happened and we have not seen any evidence of her raising this with the landlord prior to her complaint.
46. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to make a claim with its insurers for any damaged items she felt it was responsible for. However, it failed to do this until 12 August 2025, when it acknowledged her stage 2 complaint. It therefore missed the opportunity to address this as part of its stage 1 complaint response, despite it featuring in the resident’s original complaint. This formed part of the basis for the resident escalating her complaint.
47. The resident has told us she is unable to provide evidence of her damaged belongings to support such a claim, due to having disposed of the relevant items. However, as established above, we have not seen any evidence to suggest the landlord should have reasonably signposted her to its insurers prior to her complaint.
48. In summary, the landlord missed 2 opportunities to inspect the damp and mould in the property sooner and failed to address the resident’s concerns over damage to her belongings in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord also failed to appropriately raise all recommended works following its damp and mould inspection, however it made a reasonable offer of compensation for the delay this caused.
49. Due to these failings, we make a finding of service failure and order the landlord to pay the resident a further £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

50. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure also complied with the Code. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint within the relevant timescales at stage 1 and 2 of its process.
51. When escalating her complaint to stage 2, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint handler had not spoken to her as part of their investigation – despite having agreed to do so.
52. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for this and offered the resident £55 compensation. This amount is in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances of service failure. We note that the landlord also showed learning from this failing and appropriately contacted the resident by phone to discuss the complaint as part of its stage 2 complaint acknowledgement. Due to this, we feel the landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress for the failing in its complaint handling.

Learning

53. The landlord should ensure that it makes reasonable attempts to rearrange damp and mould inspections after an instance of ‘no access’ and maintains records of these. This will be necessary to evidence its compliance with the requirements of Awaab’s law.
54. The landlord should ensure it has a clear process in place, where a resident has requested a management transfer, to communicate its decision and the reasons for this. This will assist it to manage resident expectations and establish a clear position at the earliest opportunity. If it does not already have one, the landlord may wish to consider creating a separate policy/procedure formalising its approach to management transfers.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

55. The landlord failed to create and maintain appropriate records when the resident first contacted it about the issues with her neighbour in the flat above. The landlord should ensure that details of all contact with residents, including failed attempts, are logged on its systems.

Communication

56. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, which added to the frustration surrounding her complaint.
57. The resident has said she made repeated attempts to contact her housing officer without success. She has said many of these were to the housing officer’s mobile phone. The landlord recommended in its stage 2 response that the resident ensure all contact goes via its customer service team in future. This means it will be logged and auditable. The landlord should consider reminding staff not to provide their mobile phone numbers to residents to support this approach.