Home Group Limited (202433525)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433525

Home Group Limited

27 June 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB).
    2. Requests for a management transfer based on his medical needs.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. In November 2021, the resident reported that a neighbour had dangerous dogs, and he asked the landlord to relocate him to a different property. The landlord responded that the resident could seek a mutual exchange, orif he had a medical condition justifying a move, he could apply for its management move scheme. It investigated the resident’s concerns about the dogs but took no further action.
  3. In June 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that since his previous application to move to a property, his medical condition had changed, and he now required a home with a level-access bathroom. The landlord met the resident in July 2024 to discuss his need to move. It liaised with the resident’s social care team and informed the resident in September 2024 that his application was successful. It advised that to avoid delays, the resident must clear the arrears on his rent account, and he must be registered on the local authority’s housing list.
  4. The resident raised his formal complaint on 27 September 2024. He said there was a current issue with dangerous dogs on the estate. To resolve the complaint, he requested that the landlord acknowledge the distress caused over the years, recognise the impact on his health, pay him compensation, and relocate him to a safe, quiet home near family and work opportunities.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 19 December 2024. It said that the resident needed to be specific about the locations where he would consider relocating. It said that it had reviewed the historical ASB cases but was unable to identify any service failures, and therefore, it could not offer compensation.
  6. In his December 2024 escalation, the resident stated that he had informed the landlord’s CEO about his concerns between 2019 and 2021. He suggested that the complaint investigator contact the CEO for further details about his continued dissatisfaction.
  7. In its 11 February 2025 final response letter, the landlord said it would not investigate historical ASB concerns due to the time that had passed. It said that (in December 2024) it had inspected the estate and witnessed the dogs, but did not identify any issues. It also said that the resident could help his property search by specifying the locations he would consider for his move. It acknowledged delays in responding to his complaints and offered £300 in compensation.
  8. The resident requested that the Service investigate his complaint on 19 February 2025. He said no progress had been made with his move despite the landlord’s assurances. He also said that the compensation offered was inadequate, as he had lost earnings due to clients not wanting to attend the estate. To resolve the complaint, he sought compensation that reflected the distress caused during his 6-year tenancy and the impact on his health.
  9. The resident informed us in June 2025 that there had been no further progress on the issue raised. The landlord told us that the resident has submitted an application for a mutual exchange in recent days.

Assessment and findings

Investigation Scope

  1. In February 2019, a shooting incident took place on the estate where the resident lives. In August 2020, police raided and sealed the property. 6 months later, the resident reported that someone with keys had visited the property, prompting the landlord to install a steel door. There were noASB reports until June 2024. The resident sought compensation for 6 years since his tenure began. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise formal complaints with their landlordsin a timely manner, within 12 months of the issue arising, and bring unresolved issues to the Service within 12 months from the landlord’s final complaint response. As issues become historic, evidence becomes increasingly difficult to obtain, which affects the Service’s ability to fairlyinvestigate the complaint. The landlord’s decision not to investigate historical events was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. As such, events from 2019 to 2021 are outside the scope of this investigation.
  2. Part of the resident’s complaint to us was about the impact that the ASB events he reported had on his health and well-being. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if he want to pursue this option. It will not be considered in this report.

The resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider how the landlord has handled the resident’s complaint about ASB. It is not our role to decide whether the issues reported, in this case, the neighbours’ dogs, amounted to antisocial behaviour. This assessment focuses on whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure, whether it investigated the resident’s concerns appropriately, and communicated with the resident effectively.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that the housing manager will use their experience and judgment to decide how to handle a case and when to close it. It says that the actions taken by the landlord may vary depending on the circumstances of a case. Where possible, the landlord would speak with the complainant, gather evidence from neighbours, visit the alleged perpetrator, and, where appropriate, agree on an action plan. It may also refer the complainant to other organisations that may be able to assist.
  3. On 24 September 2024 the resident posted on the landlord’s social media that 2 of his neighbours had dangerous dogs, and a small dog that was barking through the night. The landlord contacted the resident and requested additional information so that it could conduct an investigation. The resident responded on 26 September 2024 and stated that the dogs were dangerous.
  4. In November 2024 the housing manager and senior housing manager visited the estate together. They spoke with several residents but did not receive any reports about dogs on the estate. They knocked on the door of the alleged perpetrator and heard barking dogs, but the owner was not at home. They scheduled a visit with the alleged perpetrator for 17 December 2024. During the visit, they reported that the dogs were of breeds not covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act. They took photographs of the dogs and noted that “the dogs appeared friendly and docile for the duration of the meeting.” The resident remained concerned, and as a direct response, the landlord sent the neighbour a tenancy caution letter on 27 January 2025. These actions were consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy and appropriate given the nature and scale of the resident’s reports concerns.
  5. In his formal complaint, the resident said that the landlord failed to provide a safe and peaceful environment where he could work from home and invite family and friends to visit. He requested compensation for the “long-term stress” and the impact on his health. Based on this, he requested the landlord to move him to a “safe, quiet home near family and work opportunities”. At the time of the complaint, the main issue of concern he had reported related to the neighbours’ dogs.
  6. In its final response letter dated 11 February 2025, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports and outlined the actions taken to investigate his concerns. It stated that, after a thorough investigation, it was satisfied the dogs had not caused harm and were being well cared for. It also said that if the resident remained concerned, he could contact the RSPCA. The landlord confirmed that the issue, as reported by the resident, did not constitute an ASB, and the case was closed. In its formal response, the landlord stated that there was no service failure and therefore it would not offer compensation. The landlord followed its policy here and demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. The evidence seen in this investigation supports its explanation of its actions and decisions.
  7. The landlord remained resolution-focused, recognising the resident’s wish to move. It explained that there were no active ASB cases to justify relocating the resident. However, it reiterated its commitment to supporting the resident’s move based on any medical situation needs, and also suggested alternative moving options. Its responses to his request reflected the reality of his circumstances and were reasonable because of that. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s subsequent medical transfer application is considered below.
  8. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately and followed its ASB policy and procedures. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns, investigated the matter appropriately and kept thorough records. It demonstrated empathy for the resident’s situation and remained focused on finding realistic solutions. There is no evidence of a failure by the landlord here, and therefore, there is no evidence of maladministration.

The resident’s requests for a management transfer based on his medical needs

  1. The landlord’s lettings and allocations policy states that, in certain cases, it may relocate existing residents to alternative accommodation in situations involving immediate risk to life or medical reasons where residents cannot access their property. The policy emphasises that such actions would be limited to emergency situations.
  2. In June 2024, the resident informed the landlord that his medical needs had changed, and he now required an accessible bathroom. The landlord met with the resident on 5 July 2024 to discuss his need to move. It then wrote to the resident on 12 July 2024, confirming that it had contacted his social worker to gather evidence to support his transfer application. The local council conducted a housing needs report on 10 September 2024, confirming that the resident required a wet room and that the property was not suitable for adaptation.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident on 13 December 2024 and confirmed that it had submitted his application. It properly managed his expectations, stating that if approved, it would not be a quick move because there were 10 people ahead of him on the waiting list. It also said that the resident must meet certain conditions before the landlord could offer him a property:
    1. The resident must clear the arrears on his rent account. It offered the resident assistance in filling out the relevant forms for financial support.
    2. The resident must register for housing with the local council and bid for properties on the council’s choice-based letting portal. In response to the resident, it confirmed that there was no charge for using the portal.
    3. The resident would need to show that he had attempted mutual exchanges. It explained that this was often the quickest way to find an alternative property.
  4. On 20 September 2024, the landlord informed the resident that he had been accepted onto its management transfer scheme. It asked the resident to specify the areas where he would be willing to move. In June 2024, the resident stated he would accept any property with an accessible bathroom. However, in September 2024, he added that he would also need a hospital nearby. He requested that the landlord search its properties to find a suitable one close to a hospital. Additionally, in September 2024, he said that he was a churchgoer and needed a church and a Christian community to engage with. In his September 2024 formal complaint, he sought a prompt transfer to a safe and quiet home, close to family, community, and opportunities for work.
  5. The resident cleared his arrears in January 2025. In its final response letter in February 2025, the landlord stated that the resident needed to register on the council’s housing waiting list. It added that once registered, it could offer the resident a suitable property that would become available within 6 weeks.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer was reasonable. It met with the resident to discuss his needs and reasons for wanting to move, and liaised with the council to arrange a housing needs assessment. It managed his expectations from the outset, making it clear that this was not a quick process. It clearly explained what conditions the resident needed to meet, and repeatedly outlined the ways he could assist himself and the landlord to secure a move at the earliest opportunity. According to the evidence, it offered the resident an alternative accommodation in its final response letter, and internal emails confirmed it awaited the resident’s engagement with its offer. There is no indication in the evidence seen for this investigation of a failure in the landlord’s actions.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident raised his formal complaint on 27 September 2024. Against a target of 10 working days, the landlord responded 59 working days later on 19 December 2024.
  2. The resident escalated his complaint on 19 December 2024. Against a target of 20 working days, the landlord responded 35 working days later on 11 February 2025.
  3. The landlord acknowledged that its Stage 1 response was late. It also recognised delays in escalating the complaint to Stage 2 and in responding at Stage 2. It apologised to the resident and offered £300 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  4. Where a landlord has accepted that it has made errors, it is our role to consider whether the redress it offers puts things right and resolves the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own remedies guidance.
  5. The delays in handling the complaint will have understandably caused the resident inconvenience and frustration. Nonetheless, given the landlord’s reasonable actions regarding ASB and the resident’s request to move, the delay would not have significantly changed the overall outcome for the resident. In that circumstance, the landlord’s £300 compensation was fair and in accordance with our own remedies guidance. Together with its apology, the landlord has taken appropriate steps to remedy and resolve its poor complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to move property based on his medical needs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint, satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £300 it offered during its internal complaint process. The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.