Home Group Limited (202441591)

Decision
Case ID	202441591
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Home Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 February 2026

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house. The tenancy started in September 2023. The resident has various health conditions including asthma and a mental health diagnosis.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to address damp and mould in the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the garden patio.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was reasonable redress in:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to address damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the garden patio.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.
We have not made any orders.

Summary of reasons

In summary, our investigation found:
1. The landlord did not complete repairs to address the damp and mould within expected timescales under its policy.
2. The landlord did not seek to rearrange the mould wash, after the previous appointment was cancelled.
3. There were issues with contractor performance throughout the timeframe of the repair.
4. The landlord’s communication with the resident was inadequate.
5. The landlord did not carry out a risk assessment or provide the resident with an action plan.
6. The landlord offered to move the resident into a hotel as she could not use the downstairs of the property. But it did not consider if there were any alternative options when the resident declined its offer due to her vulnerabilities.
7. The landlord completed the repairs, made a commitment to install a patio, and provided appropriate redress.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider, if it has not done so already, paying the £2,250 compensation it previously offered the resident during its internal complaint process.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 July 2024	The resident contacted the landlord to report new issues with damp and mould in the property. The landlord raised a damp and mould inspection for 6 August 2024. It also raised a mould wash, which it confirmed that the resident later cancelled. According to the resident, the appointment was cancelled by the landlord.
18 November 2024	The resident raised the stage 1 complaint. The resident said she was unhappy about the length of time it was taking the landlord to complete works to address damp and mould in the property. The landlord sent the stage 1 acknowledgement the next day.
19 November 2024	The resident raised dissatisfaction about the service provided by its contractor. She explained she could not use the downstairs of the property with the works going on, had been unable to prepare food for herself, and suggested it had not taken her vulnerabilities into account. In response, the landlord acknowledged her frustration, explained it was addressing issues proactively, and offered temporary accommodation.
21 November 2024	The resident raised concerns with the landlord about its plan to remove the garden patio, to address the damp and mould. She declined the landlord’s offer of temporary accommodation and indicated she would not provide access for the external works until agreement was reached regarding replacement of the patio. The landlord agreed to put the external works on hold.
27 November 2024	The resident raised frustration with the landlord about its lack of communication concerning the repairs and having to continually chase for updates.
29 November 2024	The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response. The landlord: Recognised the resident’s frustration and the length of time of time it was taking to complete the works. But said it had been reactive and responsive to the works that needed to be completed. Committed to completing the internal and external works it had identified to address the damp and mould. Noted the resident had refused the external works. And reminded her that it did have the right to carry out repairs to the property. Clarified that it would not construct a replacement hardstand in the rear garden. Noted it had provided the resident with some decoration vouchers (£350), had agreed to carry out some additional plastering, and had offered to move her into temporary accommodation. Offered an apology and £150 compensation in recognition of the resident’s time and effort, to try to resolve the complaint.
3 December 2024	The resident raised the stage 2 complaint. The resident said she did not agree with the stage 1 complaint outcome and it should agree to replace the patio.
11 December 2024	The landlord contacted the resident about the stage 2 complaint, after the resident chased it for a response. The landlord noted that the complaint was about ongoing issues with damp, mould, and the flooring. And its decision not to replace the patio. It noted the resident wanted it to replace the patio and compensate her for delays completing the required works. It sent the stage 2 complaint acknowledgement later the same day.
13 January 2025	The landlord reassigned the complaint to a new complaint handler who then contacted the resident. The resident added further points of dissatisfaction, including missed appointments, poor communication, and substandard work by its contractor. She said she was considering denying further access to its contractor and stressed the impact the situation was having upon her.
16 January 2025	The resident brought her complaint to us because the landlord had not provided the stage 2 complaint response within the timescale it committed to. The resident said the landlord should apologise, complete the outstanding work, and pay compensation.
11 February 2025	The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord: Set out the action it had taken to address the damp and mould and to complete internal and external works. Committed to completing the internal works by 28 February 2025. Said it would complete the remaining external works and construct a patio. It noted this work began on 10 February 2025. Noted that it had already paid £684.99 for the damage caused to the resident’s coffee table. Made an additional offer of compensation, amounting to £2,100. This compensation was broken down as follows: £200 for significant delay in completing damp works. £100 for significant delay in recommencing works. £150 for poor service from its contractors. £150 for poor communication during completion of the works. £300 for delays providing the stage 2 complaint response. £150 for poor communication. £150 for disruption caused by missed appointments. £150 for disruption caused by the condition of the property during completion of the works. £150 for loss of facility, as result of being unable to use the downstairs of the property. £150 for the resident’s time and effort associated with progressing the works. £150 for the resident’s time and effort in liaison with it on the complaint. £300 for distress and inconvenience.
2 June 2025	The resident asked us to investigate because she was dissatisfied with the outcome of the stage 2 complaint outcome.
7 October 2025	The resident told us that the repairs were completed by the end of April 2025 and had paid compensation. But said the compensation offered was not enough.

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	The landlord’s handling of repairs to address damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident put the landlord on notice that there was damp and mould in the property on 30 July 2024. The landlord arranged a damp and mould inspection for 6 August 2024. However, this should have been carried out within 24 hours, given the resident had asthma, in line with its damp and mould policy. It also raised a mould wash, to remove the potential hazard presented by the mould. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not seek to reschedule the appointment after it was cancelled, particularly given its statutory duty to mitigate the risk of harm. We note the landlord’s and the resident’s respective assertions that the other party cancelled the appointment. However, in the absence of conclusive evidence supporting either account, we cannot determine who was responsible for the cancellation.
The landlord inspected the property on 6 August 2024. The landlord identified mould in the kitchen cupboard. And rising damp in the living room, due to the garden patio covering the air bricks. The landlord committed to installing vents and grilles in the kitchen cupboard. This was work was completed on 6 September 2024 within the landlord’s expected repairs timescales. It also committed to instructing an external contractor to address the rising damp in the living room. This was a reasonable course of action for the landlord to have taken if it felt it was unable to complete the job in a timely manner, within its existing resources. But the landlord did not provide the resident with an action plan, with timescales for action, in line with its damp and mould policy.
We accept it may have taken some time for the landlord to source an appropriate contractor to complete the works to address the rising damp. But it was 3 months before the landlord’s contractor began the repairs. This unreasonable, given the landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete more complex repairs within 56 calendar days.
It was unfortunate that its contractor identified additional issues with the property on 14 November 2024 after beginning the job. The landlord inspected the property in a timely manner the next day. It identified that the job was more extensive than it originally thought. But we have seen no evidence that completed a risk assessment or considered if the resident needed any support. This was unreasonable given the potential disruption to the resident from the additional works and her vulnerabilities. And would have been in line with its damp and mould policy.
The landlord offered the resident a temporary move (into a hotel) on 19 November 2024 after she raised concern that she could not use the downstairs of the property due to the works, could not prepare any food, and suggested it had not taken her vulnerabilities into account. The landlord noted the resident did not accept its offer because she was worried about the impact this would have upon her mental health. The resident told us the hotel was some distance away from the property and it did not offer an alternative. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered if there was a different property it could offer. Or that it explored whether there was any other support it could provide if she stayed at the property. This was unfair and left the resident feeling unsupported.
The landlord’s records show that the internal works were completed by 10 March 2025 and the external works were completed by 15 April 2025. However, the resident maintains that the internal works were not fully complete until the end of April 2025. This was significantly in excess of the landlord’s expected timescales for completing complex repairs of this nature. Our investigation identified several reasons for this, including:
1. Missed appointments by its contractors or arriving without the required parts. This happened on multiple occasions, for example example (not an exhaustive list), on 19 November 2024, 27 November 2024, 13 December 2024, 16 December 2024, 20 January 2024, and 6 February 2025.
2. Issues with workmanship and conduct of contractors, resulting in the resident stopping the landlord’s contractors from progressing works, pending further inspection by the landlord. Or the landlord asking its contractor’s operatives to leave the property due to issues with conduct. This happened on several occasions, including on 17 February 2024 and 21 February 2024.
3. The works having to stop, while the landlord changed contractors, after identifying standards of workmanship had fallen short and due to lack of contractor engagement. In total there were 3 different contractors over the course of the timeframe of the repair.
4. The resident refusing progression of external works until agreement was reached with the landlord concerning replacing the patio.
It is not in dispute that the landlord’s communications with the resident over the time frame of the repair fell short. The resident was put to increased time and effort having to chase the landlord for updates, such as on (not an exhaustive list) 25 October 2024, 18 November 2024, and 6 February 2025.
The landlord identified in the stage 2 complaint response, most of the failings we identified in its handling of repairs to address damp and mould in the property, which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. In summary, it recognised the resident had expended time and effort trying to progress the works, its communication had been poor, there had been delays completing the damp works, and its contractors had delivered a poor service and had missed appointments. It also acknowledged the disruption experienced by the resident due to the condition of the property during the course of the works. As well as the inconvenience caused by the inability to use the downstairs area of the property.
The landlord tried to put things right for the resident by apologising for the failings it identified and by providing redress.Over the course of the complaint, the landlord committed to complete all the damp works and construct a new patio. It also offered £1,650 compensation for the failings it identified in its handling of repairs to address the damp and mould, £685 for damage caused to a coffee table damaged by its contractor, £350 in decoration vouchers, and agreed to carry out some additional plastering in the living room.
It also made a commitment outside of its complaints process to issue the resident with a rent refund once the works were completed. The landlord’s records suggest the refund was to be backdated to 14 November 2024, which was the date the works began. The resident told us the landlord paid her roughly £900, which we calculate was roughly half the rent over the period. This seems reasonable, based on the loss of use of the downstairs area of the property.
The overall offer of redress made by the landlord was proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident by the failings we identified, in line with our remedies guidance (published on our website). The landlord completed all of the repairs and installed the patio by the end of April 2025.
Therefore, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to address damp and mould.

Complaint

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the garden patio

Finding

Reasonable redress

The patio at the rear of the property (installed by a previous tenant), was present when the resident took on the tenancy. The landlord decided that it would be best to remove this patio, to prevent excess water running towards the property after heavy rainfall, which might cause further issues. It told the resident on 21 November 2024 that it would carry out some external ground works but it was not obliged construct a new concrete slab, as the patio was a non-standard component. The landlord maintained this position in the stage 1 complaint response on 29 November 2024.
The resident challenged the landlord’s position at stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint process. The resident argued that its position was unfair because she had not been explicitly told, when she accepted the tenancy, that the patio had been installed by a previous tenant and would not be replaced if it was ever removed.
The landlord reviewed the resident’s representations in light of its current policy framework. The landlord’s complaint handler suggested within internal communications, that it ought to be really gifting non-standard components to incoming residents at the point of letting. And suggested a clear policy should be established to define the respective responsibilities of the landlord and residents regarding non-standard items. In particular to this case, it committed to seeking managerial approval for the construction of a replacement patio.
The landlord held an internal meeting on 27 January 2025. The landlord agreed to construct and gift a new patio area to the resident, after it removed the old one, which it later did.
The landlord recognised during its complaint investigation that its decision concerning the patio was unfair, in the circumstances of the case. And made a commitment of action, which put things right for the resident. Therefore, we find reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement patio.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) set out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). Our findings are:
1. The landlord has a published complaints policy, which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of response timescales.
2. The landlord raised the stage 1 complaint on 18 November 2024. It sent the stage 1 acknowledgement the next day and the stage 1 complaint response on 29 November 2024. Therefore, the landlord acted in line with its policy and the Code.
3. The resident raised the stage 2 complaint on 3 December 2024. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 11 December 2024, which was 1 working day late.
4. The landlord should have issued the stage 2 complaint by 13 December 2024. However, it was unable to do so, as its complaint handler had taken unplanned leave. The landlord identified this on 13 December 2024 and reassigned the complaint to another complaint handler. But it did not tell the resident this, which left her unclear of its intentions. The landlord did not write to the resident explaining that it would require an extension or clarify when she could expect its response. This was in contrary to its policy and the Code.
5. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 January 2025, which was 30 working days of the stage 2 complaint acknowledgement. The landlord told the resident that it was able to issue the stage 2 complaint if the resident wanted. But it was still waiting for information, which might influence the compensation it was able to offer. It is unclear if the parties agreed a new date for issue of the stage 2 complaint response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with our contact details, given it noted that the resident was dissatisfied with time it was taking to issue the stage 2 complaint response. But we noted the resident was already in contact with us at this point, so the likely detriment was minimal.
6. The landlord could have been more proactive with its communications, regarding the progress of the stage 2 complaint. The resident chased the landlord on multiple occasions for complaint updates, including on 11 December 2024, 24 January 2024, 3 February 2025, and 6 February 2025. The landlord recognised at stage 2 that there had been inadequacies in its communications, for which it apologised and offered £150 compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
7. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 11 February 2025, which was 41 working days after the landlord issued the stage 2 complaint acknowledgement. So, exceeded the expected response timescales under the landlord’s policy and the Code. The landlord recognised in its stage 2 complaint response that there had been delays in its complaint handling at stage 2. It apologised for this and offered £300 compensation, which again was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
The landlord recognised there were failings in its complaint handling and made a reasonable attempt to put things right. Therefore, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Our investigation found examples where the landlord showed learning. For example, the landlord did not have a process in place to reassign a case, where a complaint handler was off work unexpectantly. But has since put measures in place. And now reassigns complaints when a complaint handler is off work for more than 2 days.
Our investigation found examples where the landlord recognised there had been failings / shortcomings. But it was unclear if the landlord identified and understood the reason for those failings / shortcomings and considered what it might do differently in the future. So, we have asked the landlord to conduct a learning review, as follows:
1. The landlord recognised there were inadequacies in its communications. The landlord needs to know and understand why this occurred and whether this is a wider problem within its organisation.
2. The landlord changed contractors 3 times throughout the timeframe of the complaint due to issues with conduct and workmanship. The landlord should consider if any adjustments need to be made to its current approach to selecting external contractors and its process for overseeing works.
3. It remains unclear whether the landlord acted on its own observation, that a clear policy regarding the letting of properties with non-standard components. The landlord is advised to consider the merits of implementing such a policy, if it has not already done so.
Our investigation found no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment, provided the resident with an action plan, or considered other means to support the resident after she indicated she was unable to move into the hotel due to her vulnerabilities. The landlord needs to understand why this happened and consider whether there is a need for additional staff training.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

It was possible to make a decision in this case, based on the evidence seen. However, there were some discrepancies between the information that the landlord and resident provided to us. For example, the resident states that the internal works were completed later than the landlord’s records show. The resident was also able to recount communications she had with the landlord and its contractors, which were not evidenced by the landlord.

Communication

The landlord’s communication in this case fell short, which the landlord acknowledged during its own complaint investigation.