Home Group Limited (202452515)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat. He has experienced a number of leaks due to a faulty communal roof. The resident has health conditions, and he has advised the damp and mould, caused by the leaks, has impacted on his health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A leak and resulting damp and mould.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A leak and resulting damp and mould.
   2. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a leak and resulting damp and mould

4. The leak has been ongoing since September 2024, and the repair is not due to be completed until spring 2026. There were significant delays in completing the repair, and the communication with the resident was poor.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

5. There was a significant delay in issuing the stage 2 response. The resident also had to contact the landlord for updates on several occasions.

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.

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 did not consider

6. The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of his reports of damp and mould had a detrimental impact on his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. What we did consider
8. On 27 August 2024 the landlord logged that there was a leak from the roof coming into the resident’s flat. The landlord is responsible for leaks to communal areas, as per the lease. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend to emergency repairs within 6 hours, and standard repairs within 14 calendar days. The landlord’s repairs policy does not give details on what repairs it considers to be an emergency. It may have been appropriate for the landlord to consider how severe the leak was, to determine whether an emergency appointment was needed. We have not seen it did this. The landlord noted that it had scheduled an appointment on 19 September 2024. This was outside of its repair’s timescale for standard repairs.
9. On 23 September 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint. He said the landlord did not attend the appointment on 19 September 2024 and he had no contact to advise him about this. He made the landlord aware that he had health conditions and that he was concerned about the effect of damp and mould on his health. The landlord contacted the resident on 26 September 2024 to discuss his availability for a new appointment. The landlord scheduled a new appointment for 3 October 2024. However, this was cancelled due to the operative being sick. We understand that sickness can result in last minute cancellations. However, this was the third incident of a short notice cancellation. We expect a landlord to work with its contractors to ensure it has enough resources to attend appointments in a timely manner.
10. On 3 October 2024 the resident told the landlord that he felt mould on his chest, and he had brought mould repellent and a step ladder to tackle the mould. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that where a resident has medical conditions, it will attend within 72 hours. We have not seen evidence that the landlord attempted to visit the property to inspect and tackle the mould. We consider this to be unreasonable as it is not inline with its damp and mould policy.
11. On 4 October 2024 the contractor advised the resident was refusing access. The landlord clarified with the resident that he was not refusing access, but that he was unavailable on the date the contractor had given him. The resident also said that access to the roof could not be got through his property, and it was the roof that needed inspecting. He said access was through a neighbour’s property. On 10 October 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to say that no one had attended on 7 October 2024. It is unclear from the communications from the landlord, whether this appointment had been cancelled due to the resident’s availability. We consider that landlords should ensure that its communication is clear, to manage residents’ expectations.
12. In its stage 1 response, dated 11 October 2024, the landlord said that it had attended a meeting with its maintenance team due to the cancellations to date. It agreed a new appointment for 16 October 2024. This was an appropriate response from the landlord. However, it noted it would deal with the damp and mould once the roof had been fixed. Whilst it was likely the mould would reoccur due to the ongoing leak; the landlord should have considered the residents health conditions and whether there was an interim resolution it could provide. We have not seen that it did this.
13. On 16 October 2024 the resident confirmed that someone had been out to the property and taken photos of the roof. He asked the landlord for an update on what the next steps were. The landlord did not respond to this email and the resident chased an update on 28 October 2024. We consider that the landlord should be proactively updating the resident on repairs. We have not seen evidence it was doing this.
14.  On 7 November 2024 the landlord attended the property and identified that the leak had caused damp and damage to the property. On 13 November 2024 the landlord said it needed to do further inspections to the roof, and it required scaffolding. It said it had obtained a quote for this and asked internally whether it could proceed. The landlord subsequently identified that the issue may be a latent defect, and it needed to discuss with the developer if they were liable for the costs. While we recognise that this is likely to have led to a delay, we note that the scaffolding was not erected until 19 March 2025. There is no evidence that any temporary repairs were carried out in the interim, and we have not seen evidence that the landlord made any attempt to tackle the damp and mould. We consider that the delay was significant and that the landlord has not taken reasonable action to minimise the impact on the resident.
15. The resident chased the landlord several times, regarding the roof repair. There is no evidence that the landlord was proactively updating the resident on the repairs, and we consider this is likely to have caused frustration.
16. The landlord acknowledged poor communication in its stage 2 response. However, we note that the resident continued chasing the repairs after this time and expressed his frustration at not getting any updates. We consider this to be a failing, as the landlord had committed to improving its communication with the resident.
17. At the time of the stage 2 response, the landlord was unable to provide a schedule of works, as it needed to do a further inspection. It was subsequently identified that a full roof replacement was needed. At the time of writing the report, the landlord has not completed this repair. Whilst we recognise there were complications in determining who was liable for the repair costs and that the work was extensive, we consider the delay in completing the works to be unreasonable.
    able.
18. In its stage 2 response, the landlord awarded a total of £800 compensation. It broke this down as £225 for disruption caused by a failed appointment, £200 for distress and inconvenience, and £375 for service failure (case handling). It was reasonable of the landlord to acknowledge its failings and offer compensation. However, the landlord did not clearly specify that any part of the £800 related to its complaint handling failures discussed below.
19. It is good practice for landlords to be explicit in how they apportion compensation, particularly where multiple failings have been identified. In the absence of a clear breakdown, we have exercised our discretion in determining how the compensation should be allocated. We consider the full £800 an appropriate amount for the delays and failings relating to the roof repair, in line with our remedies guidance for significant delays.
20. However, although the landlord offered reasonable compensation for the failings identified, due to the repair still being outstanding and the continued communication failures, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak which resulted in damp and mould.
21. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord will replace the roof in the spring of this year. We are aware that in late 2025 the resident was offered temporary accommodation but declined this. The resident has advised that there is now a roof covering in place which has stopped the leaks. On submitting evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord noted that it has now offered mould treatment to the resident, but that he declined this. It is positive that the landlord has explored options to support the resident. However, we consider these interventions should have been offered at an earlier date.
22. The Ombudsman cannot assess matters that have not been through the complaints process. As such, we cannot assess the additional delays after the stage 2 response. However, the landlord should consider whether additional compensation should be paid, given the communication issues and that the repair is still outstanding.

23. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The complaints policy complies with our Code (April 2024)
24. The landlord responded at stage 1 within 14 working days. This was within the timescales of its complaints policy.
25. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It took 94 working days which is significantly outside of the timescales.
26. The resident regularly chased his stage complaint and expressed his frustration that his complaint handler was not responding to him. The landlord has noted that the caseworker was absent due to sickness. Where a complaint handler is off for a significant period of time, we expect a landlord to ensure that another member of staff takes ownership of the complaint, to minimise the impact on the resident.
27. Due to the delays and poor communication, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Although the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays, as stated above it would have been appropriate to have awarded compensation specifically for its complaint handling failures. As the landlord did not make such award, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 for these failings. The amount is proportionate for the time and trouble likely incurred. It is within the amounts set out in our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact.

Learning

28. On submitting evidence, the landlord has undertaken a significant review of the events of this complaint. It has provided a comprehensive update of the works moving forward and has acknowledged where there were service failings. We consider it positive that the landlord has reflected on the resident’s experience and identified where it needs to make improvements. We would encourage the landlord to share these findings with the resident, in order to rebuild the landlord/resident relationship.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord appears to have kept comprehensive records.

Communication

30. We have found several communication failings. We would encourage the landlord to be proactive in its communication, rather than only being responsive when the resident has requested an update.