Home Group Limited (202331085)

Background

1. The resident lives at the property which is a 4-bedroom semi-detached house. The resident raised issues in October 2023 with communal car park lighting, the standard of grounds maintenance, and a number of property repairs. Later in October 2024, the resident added reports of blockages to a kitchen side-basin. The resident also raised a loss of heating and hot water (following the boiler being serviced) in early 2024. In response, the landlord took a number of steps to deal with these matters. However, some repairs remained outstanding to the date of this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of reports of issues with a side basin and loss of heating and hot water.
3. The landlord’s handling of car park lighting repairs.
4. The standard of grounds maintenance.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of property repairs, including:
   1. multiple internal lights
   2. a bathroom radiator
   3. kitchen cupboards
   4. an external front door ledge.
6. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

7. The landlord’s handling of reports of issues with a side basin and loss of heating and hot water is outside of our jurisdiction.
8. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of car park lighting repairs.
9. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint about grounds maintenance.
10. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of property repairs, including:
    1. multiple internal lights
    2. a bathroom radiator
    3. kitchen cupboards
    4. an external front door ledge.
11. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of issues with a side basin and loss of heating and hot water

12. The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint was already raised and considered at stage 1. 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 the issues with the side basin and loss of heating and hot water as part of this complaint or that those issues exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. Therefore, we have no power to investigate the landlord’s handling of these matters.

The landlord’s handling of reports of car park lighting repairs

13. From the first report of issues with the car park lighting, it took 12 months for works to be completed. Even allowing for delays caused by the need to source specialist equipment to complete these works, this was significantly outside of the timescales as set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord acknowledged failures in relation to completing these works, apologised and offered compensation. However, the repairs remained outstanding for several months after the final compensation offer had been made, which caused additional delays and inconvenience.

The standard of grounds maintenance

14. There were delays in the landlord dealing with the grounds maintenance concerns and we have not seen evidence that it reported the area with the litter to the responsible local authority. The landlord acknowledged failures in relation to its handling of grounds maintenance. It apologised and offered some compensation, which was not broken down specifically to this aspect and prevented us from assessing its proportionality.

The landlord’s handling of reports of property repairs (internal lights/bathroom radiator/kitchen cupboards/front door ledge)

15. There were considerable delays in the landlord’s handling of these repairs with some still outstanding at the time of this investigation. As such, the landlord did not follow up on its complaint responses and demonstrate any learning taken. While it acknowledged failures it did not address all of them, nor all the repairs raised by the resident. As such, its compensation was not sufficient to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

16. The landlord issued 2 stage 1 responses and both were issued outside of the timescales of its complaints policy. This caused confusion as to the stages of its process. It also did not acknowledge timely the resident’s request to escalate the complaint. There were lengthier delays in the stage 2 response being acknowledged and issued. The landlord  apologised for its failures and offered compensation. However, it failed to fully acknowledge all the failures we identified. As such, the compensation it offered for its failings did not reflect the significance of the impact on the resident.

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.

Our investigation

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.

17. The resident first informed us on 2 October 2024 that, following the repair to the leak to the sink, there was now a blockage to a smaller side basin. This was not raised in the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2, and we have not seen evidence that this has been reported to the landlord.
18. The resident said that she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of reports of loss of heating and hot water, and said that she had been reporting faults with the boiler since 2022. The heating and hot water is not raised as part of the original complaint of 2 October 2023, nor is in the request to escalate to stage 2. On 7 October 2024 the resident told the landlord that this issue had started in December 2023 following a servicing of the boiler. This was after the complaint had already been considered at stage 1, and also after the resident’s escalation request of 6 November 2023.
19. The landlord did not reasonably have the opportunity to consider either of these repairs as part of this particular complaint, and if the resident is seeking redress for the landlord’s handling of these she may wish to raise a new, separate complaint with the landlord directly.

20. The resident requested a refund of service charges relating to the maintenance of the car park lighting. The landlord had previously applied a refund of £304.40 to the resident’s rent account in May 2024, but no further refunds have been agreed. Our service does not have the authority to make judgements on the reasonableness or liability for service charges particularly where there is a dispute. To challenge these charges, the resident may wish to approach the First Tier Tribunal Service (Property Chamber).
21. The landlord accepted repair responsibility (as set out in the tenancy agreement) for the maintenance of common areas, including electric lighting.
22. From the evidence we have reviewed, there was a gap of 12 months from when the resident raised this with the landlord in her complaint submission, to the lighting being repaired. Even allowing for the need for specialist components to complete the job, these timeframes are significantly outside of the 56 calendar days as set out in the repairs policy.
23. Both stage 1 responses from October and November 2023 informed the resident that the car park lighting had been inspected on 17 October 2023, and a job had been raised which required specialist equipment to complete. After this, there was no further contact made with the resident until 28 February 2024 when the landlord said that it would reallocate the job to a third party contractor to try and make progress. This was a gap of just over 3 months without any update on these works and showed poor communication.
24. The stage 2 response also noted that a job for these lights was logged on 13 December 2023, which was almost 2 months after the inspection referred to in the stage 1 responses took place. There was no explanation of the outcome of the job previously raised after the previous inspection, or why another job needed to be further raised.
25. In April 2024 the landlord informed the resident that a cherry picker had been booked to resolve this, and that this was booked in on 1 and 2 May 2024. The resident promptly reported to the landlord that this visit had not taken place. After this, we have seen no contact from the landlord to the resident until 1 July 2024, when it said another job had been logged, without an apology for the previous job not being completed.
26. The evidence shows that the car park lighting was attended to and repaired on 2 October 2024. We cannot see that the landlord communicated this to the resident, though the resident and the landlord were in email contact around this time regarding compensation.
27. The resident had reported that the lack of lighting was a security issue, that it made her feel unsafe in this area, and that her car had been broken into during this time. Despite her reports the landlord considerably delayed the repair and missed multiple opportunities to provide meaningful updates to the resident during the life of the complaint, and for several months afterwards.
28. The landlord apologised for its handling of this repair in the stage 2 response, and offered a total of £525.00 compensation for its handling of all the substantive issues of the complaint related to the repairs, including this one. The landlord did not provide any clear breakdown of the compensation and as such, it could not ensure transparency. This also prevented us from assessing whether its level was proportionate to the impact and the severity of the failure as it was not clear how much had been offered for each complaint point. We have therefore awarded separate compensation for each aspect. Our total compensation awarded in the order above replaced the landlord’s offer.
29. We have also found that the landlord could not demonstrate that it had taken any learning as it did not improve its communication with the resident after stage 2. There were also further delays in completing the works without any explanation. As such, we consider £300 to be sufficient to put things right for the car lighting concerns. This is within the range of maladministration in line with our remedies guidance, for cases where the landlord acknowledged failures but failed to fully put things right.

30. Like with the car park lighting point above, we cannot determine whether or not it is reasonable for the landlord to levy a service charge for the grounds maintenance, and the resident would need to approach the First Tier Tribunal Service to challenge these charges.
31. Both stage 1 responses of 31 October 2023 and 23 November 2023 did not address the issues with grounds maintenance. The Code in place at the time stated that landlords should address all points raised in the complaint, and this meant that the landlord missed an opportunity to investigate and resolve these matters at an earlier stage.
32. The landlord’s communities and neighbourhood management policy states that “designated colleagues should be aware of the quality standards for grounds maintenance”. The housing manager for this area said that they only became aware of these issues with grounds maintenance issues on 7 March 2024, which was 5 months after the resident first raised this with the landlord. Once they did become aware, they promptly contacted the resident to try and arrange a joint inspection of the areas in question.
33. It is unclear if the joint inspection took place, but on 8 April 2024 there were internal emails where the landlord accepted responsibility for maintaining the area with the hedges and the evidence suggests this was completed by 22 April 2024. On 15 April 2024 it informed the resident that the area affected by the litter was the responsibility of the local authority (LA) to maintain. The stage 2 response stated that the landlord had reported this littering issue to the LA.
34. The resident has reported to our service that there have been ongoing issues with littering and the hedges not being maintained. However, following the emails between the resident and the landlord where it was agreed that the hedges in question had been cut back (22 April 2024), there has been no further evidence of the resident making further complaints to the landlord about grounds maintenance and as such we can reasonably consider the issue has been resolved.
35. Overall the landlord did not act timely in line with its policies and obligations, though it later took a number of action to resolve the issues.
36. The landlord acknowledged the failings in dealing with the grounds maintenance which we identified in this investigation. However, it failed to provide evidence it contacted the LA for the litter issue. While it apologised, and offered compensation, it did not provide any breakdown. This prevented us from assessing whether its level was proportionate to the impact and the severity of the failure, as it was not clear how much had been offered. We have therefore awarded separate compensation for the grounds maintenance.

What we have not considered

37. While reports of leaks from a kitchen sink were in the resident’s complaint submission, they were not raised in the request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. As those issues have not fully exhausted the landlord’s process and the landlord has not got an opportunity to respond under its complaints process, we cannot investigate them. If the resident wants to pursue this aspect further, she may wish to contact the landlord initially.

What we have considered

38. The landlord accepted repair responsibility (as set out in the tenancy agreement), for the maintenance of the exterior of the property, as well as for installations for the supply of water, gas and electricity. The tenancy agreement also states that the resident is responsible for allowing the landlord access at all reasonable hours of the daytime to inspect and carry out works.
39. The landlord’s standard operating procedure for repairs and maintenance states that contractors should contact residents 24 hours in advance of an appointment to confirm it, and to check that the resident will be at home. It also states that in the event of no-access, contractors should attempt to contact residents by all available means, and to then make a no-access card drop. The resident disputed all instances where the landlord said that she did not give access to contractors, and said that in these cases she was not notified of these appointments.
40. The repair to internal lighting was not attended to for 13 months, while the repair to the external front door ledge remained outstanding for a little over 1 month. The repair issues to the bathroom radiator and kitchen cupboards have not yet been resolved, 29 months (to the date of this investigation) after the complaint was raised. These timeframes are significantly beyond the 14 calendar days for routine works as set out in the landlord’s repairs procedure, or for the kitchen cupboards 56 calendar days where more specialist/major works are required.
41. The stage 1 response of 31 October 2023 defines this part of the complaint as being about ‘outstanding repairs’. In the body of the response there is no mention of the internal lights or bathroom radiator repairs. After the resident’s escalation request, the landlord sent out another stage 1 response on 23 November 2023 which again did not address the internal lights and bathroom radiator. The stage 2 response did not cover the repair to the front door ledge, even though it had been defined in the stage 2 acknowledgement, and the landlord had not yet confirmed in writing that this had been completed. The landlord missed opportunities to investigate and resolve these matters in a timely manner.
42. Following the internal lights being raised in the complaint submission on 2 October 2023, a contractor attended on 9 October 2023 and carded the job as no-access. While there are internal emails saying the landlord had been trying to contact the resident about this, we cannot see any emails from the landlord to the resident about this job, and, as mentioned above, this was not addressed in any of the stage 1 responses. This repair was not then picked up again until 7 March 2024.
43. We have seen evidence of the landlord not providing timely notice for appointments, if at all, or where the timeframes for the appointment were not kept. There were instances of this on 22 April 2024, 20 May 2024, 12 June 2024, 26 July 2024 and 16 October 2024.
44. This job was later attended to and completed on 19 November 2024. The resident agreed that the internal lights had been attended to, but also stated to us that 3 of these lights were still faulty. We have not seen any post inspection arranged and while this was attended we recommend that the landlord conducts further inspection to satisfy itself the issue is resolved.
45. Regarding the bathroom radiator, email correspondence shows that the resident contacted the landlord to request an appointment of 25 March 2024 be cancelled with 11 days’ notice, but that this request was not passed on, and the contractor attended regardless on this date. The stage 2 response said that another appointment on 22 April 2024 was reported as no-access, but we have not seen further evidence of this, and the resident said that an operative did attend, but that they did not have the radiator to fit.
46. A later agreed appointment on 26 July 2024 to fit the radiator was attended to, but was followed on with the works still incomplete, before the job was cancelled on 30 July 2024. After this, there is no evidence of further attempts by the landlord to resolve this, and the resident said to us that this radiator had still not been fitted. Hence we have made the above works order.
47. There are notes that, following an inspection of the property on 13 October 2023, all of the kitchen cupboards were recommended to be replaced. There was a further visit on 10 November 2023 to assess the condition of these units. After this, the landlord did not contact the resident again to update them on this until 28 February 2024. In this email it asked if its maintenance surveyor had contacted the resident to set an appointment, when it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to check this with its own member of staff first.
48. Following a visit from a surveyor on 22 April 2024, internal emails say that a new kitchen was approved, and allocated out to a sub-contractor. An appointment was set for 17 May 2024, but there is no evidence that this appointment was communicated to the resident. The resident contacted the landlord to chase this in June and July 2024, but there is no evidence of the landlord trying to progress this until an internal email when it said the contractor for the job left a card at the resident’s property on 3 October 2024, asking her to contact the contractor directly. There is no evidence on the landlord’s records that the repair was completed, and as such we included this in the above works order.
49. The later stage 1 response of 23 November 2023 said that the resident did not give access for an appointment for a roofer to attend to the front door ledge. It is not clear why the resident would need to give access for external roofing works, and the resident pointed this out in an email to the landlord on 29 April 2024.
50. The resident and landlord agreed that the works to the front door ledge were attended to in late 2023, though the resident said that the underside of this ledge remained in poor condition. While the evidence confirms that works were completed in November 2023, this specific repair was not addressed in the stage 2 response, though it had been included in the complaint definition when the escalation was acknowledged. This meant that the landlord missed further chance to explain the actions it had taken to resolve this issue, including an explanation for delays in completing this repair.
51. Overall, there were delays with repairs with some not evidenced as completed. While there were multiple notes of the resident not giving access, these have been disputed, and in some cases there was a lack of evidence that the landlord’s procedure was followed in terms of confirming appointments with the resident. There were also individual repairs which were not addressed in both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses. There is also limited evidence of the landlord keeping the resident updated on the progress of repairs during the life of the complaint, and for several months afterwards.
52. The landlord acknowledged delays in its stage 2 response, and the impact of this on the resident, and offered compensation of £525 for its handling of all the substantive issues of the complaint related to the repairs, including these.
53. The landlord did not provide a clear breakdown of the compensation and we could not assess this for these repairs. We have therefore awarded separate compensation for each aspect of the repairs to account for the failings we have identified, the time the repairs remained outstanding, including after stage 2, and the inconvenience this caused the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for instances where the landlord identified some failure but did not identify all and failed to fully acknowledge the impact on the resident.

54. The Code in place at the time of the complaint required landlords to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of a complaint being logged, and to issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of a complaint being escalated. The landlord’s complaints policy (also in place at the time) gave the same timeframes for responding at stage 1 and stage 2, and also gave the landlord 5 working days to first acknowledge the complaint at stage 1.
55. The resident raised the complaint on 2 October 2023, and it was acknowledged on 11 October 2023. While the first of the stage 1 responses is dated 20 October 2023, the evidence shows that it was sent out to the resident on 31 October 2023. It took 7 working days from receipt for the complaint to be acknowledged, and a total of 21 working days for the stage 1 response to be issued. These delays were not acknowledged in this initial stage 1 response.
56. Additionally, as has been noted above, this response did not address all the issues the resident raised or some were not explored accurately. For example, the landlord referred to a front door renewal where the resident explained she had not complained about such a repair.
57. The resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 6 November 2023. This was first acknowledged by the landlord in a further stage 1 response on 23 November 2023. This was unreasonable and confusing as to why the landlord responded again at stage 1 and suggested a further internal complaint stage. The stage 2 response was not then issued until 24 April 2024. In total, it took 118 working days from the resident’s escalation request for the stage 2 response to be issued, which is significantly outside of the timescales set out in both the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
58. The landlord acknowledged delays in relation to the complaint progressing and offered a total of £75 compensation to address this. However, this did not go far enough to account for the delays in the complaint progressing at both stage 1 and stage 2, and how it set out its understanding of the complaint at stage 1. We have awarded an additional £75 in line with our remedies guidance for cases as such.

Learning

59. We have asked the landlord to complete a learning review. The landlord failed to retain an oversight over its contractors and procedures to ensure that it could meet its repair timescales. In particular when assessing the reports of the resident not giving access, and updating the resident on the progress of repairs. The points not included in the definition of the complaint at stage 1 also likely led to delays in these matters being referred to the relevant service areas, and the resident being updated on these issues. The landlord needs to know why these failures occurred.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

60. The landlord’s record keeping was sufficient to be able to investigate the complaint.

Communication

61. The landlord did not provide regular updates to the resident on the progress of the car park lighting repair, nor several of the property repairs. This continued for several months after the complaints procedure was exhausted.