Home Group Limited (202512085)

Background

1. The resident moved into the property in August 2024 following a mutual exchange. She told the landlord shortly after moving in that there was damp and mould in her property. She also noted the driveway was unsafe, the drain cover was damaged and the drainage in the back garden was not adequate. She said she was disabled and there was a risk she would injure herself. She also said she had mental health issues and the situation made her anxious

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding her driveway, back garden and drain cover.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the windows.
   4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding her driveway, back garden and drain cover.
5. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the windows.
6. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in a timely manner. Its communication was also poor at times. The situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress.
8. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns regarding her driveway, back garden and drain cover in a timely manner. Its communication was also poor at times. The situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress.
9. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns regarding the windows in a timely manner. Its communication was also poor at times. The situation caused the resident’s and distress.
10. The landlord did not follow its complaints procedure and there were delays in issuing its complaint responses. The situation caused the resident inconvenience, distress, time and trouble.

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.

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.

11. In considering the landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of damp and mould, it is noted that she has referred to a possible impact upon her health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a person’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court or insurer to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further.
12. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
13. The resident told the landlord on 19 December 2024 that there was damp and mould in her property. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had an obligation to meet its repairing responsibilities as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement. This confirms it is responsible for the structure of the building including internal walls and ceilings.
14. The landlord raised a job on the same day to inspect and treat the damp and mould. Whilst this demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously, there is no evidence it triaged her report to determine the risk level and whether the work needed to be prioritised. Its damp, mould and condensation policy says it will do this. The landlord arranged for the work to be carried out on 3 January 2025.
15. The mould wash was not completed on 3 January 2025. The landlord said this was because its contractor had an unforeseen medical emergency. The appointment was rearranged for 15 January 2025, but again the landlord’s contractor did not attend the appointment and the resident was not provided with an update. This Service’s spotlight review on damp and mould says landlords should clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
16. The situation was likely to have caused the resident inconvenience and distress. She said she had been waiting all day and the situation had made her anxious.
17. The resident told the landlord on 21 January 2025 that the mould had spread and was now in the bedroom. She said it was all along the wall and noted she was ‘‘sick of fighting to get things done.’’ The landlord arranged an inspection on the same day. Whilst the risk level was classified as high, the landlord did not raise a job to treat the mould. It said this was because there was a job already on the system to treat the mould.
18. The resident chased up the landlord on 4 February 2025 and said the work had not been completed and she was struggling with the lack of communication from the landlord. She also said her mental health had deteriorated. The landlord responded on the same day and said it was trying to resolve the matter as quickly as possible.
19. The landlord did not raise a job to treat the mould until 24 February 2025. This demonstrated it did not adopt a proactive approach in seeking to resolve the issue for the resident. It said the work would be done by 12 March 2025. Again, there is no evidence it triaged the resident’s report to determine the risk level and whether the work needed to be prioritised. This was a further failure. The landlord said it would arrange for the property to be inspected. This was appropriate.
20. It is unclear from the housing records when the landlord carried out the inspection. Whilst it noted on 10 March 2025 that no damp was found during the recent inspection, there is no evidence it provided the resident with an update. This Service’s spotlight review on damp and mould says landlords should share the outcomes of surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. The landlord also failed to share a copy of the inspection report with this Service.
21. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
22. In this case, the landlord said it carried out an inspection on 10 March 2025 and there were no signs of damp. It did not acknowledge the delays in treating or inspecting the mould previously reported by the resident. It also failed to offer the resident compensation. This was not consistent with its compensation policy.  This says it will offer compensation where there has been a service failure which causes the resident inconvenience or distress.
23. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 May 2025 and asked it to complete a damp and mould treatment. She said the landlord previously said it would do this but no work had been carried out. The landlord’s contractor told the landlord on 22 May 2025 that it visited the resident’s home earlier that week, but she would not let them into the property. The landlord cannot be held responsible for the delay in inspecting the property at this point. Whilst the resident agreed the contractor could return on 28 May 2025, it is unclear whether the appointment went ahead.
24. The landlord noted on 2 July 2025 in its final complaint response that it carried out an inspection on 19 December 2024 and as a result, raised a job to apply a mould wash to the walls in the living room. It acknowledged the work was not carried out and it failed to take action after a subsequent inspection was raised on 21 January 2025. The landlord also acknowledged there was a delay in carrying out the inspection that was arranged on 24 February 2025 and it failed to carry out the work that was identified during this inspection. This demonstrated it took learning from the complaint. The landlord confirmed a new job had been raised to apply a mould wash to any affected surfaces and it would contact the resident to make an appointment.
25. The landlord offered the resident an apology and compensation for the identified service failures. It has not been possible to establish the exact amount of compensation that was awarded. Based on the information provided it is believed the landlord offered the resident £325 compensation.
26. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because the resident continued to experience problems with damp and mould. The landlord completed a property inspection on 16 January 2026 and identified there was significant damp and mould in the bedrooms. It was also noted the loft insulation was not laid correctly and the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom were not working, although it is not clear from the housing records if this was related to the damp and mould.
27. It is not clear from the housing records what action was taken by the landlord following the property inspection.
28. When all of the circumstances are considered, a finding of maladministration has been made alongside orders to investigate and remedy any residual damp and mould and causative factors at the property. An award of compensation has been made to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident.

29. The resident told the landlord on 28 August 2024 that the driveway was uneven and the drainage in the back garden was not adequate. She said she was disabled and there was a risk she would injure herself. The landlord responded on the same day and said it would report the issue with the drainage. Whilst this was appropriate, there is no evidence a job was raised.
30. The landlord failed to confirm whether it was responsible for the maintenance of the driveway. It would have been reasonable for it to have done this given the resident’s tenancy agreement is silent on the issue of driveways and the deed of assignment signed by her, stated she accepted the property in its present condition.
31. The resident told the landlord on 29 September 2024 that the drain cover in her garden was damaged and was a hazard given she used a wheelchair. The landlord raised a job on the same day to re-bed the drain cover, with a target completion date of 4 November 2024. This was appropriate and ensured it met its obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement.
32. The repair to the drain cover was not completed by the deadline date and there is no evidence the resident was provided with an explanation why. This meant she was not clear when the work would be done and is likely to have caused her distress. It was evident she was concerned about falling and injuring herself. A further job was raised on 23 October 2024, with a target completion date of 20 November 2024. The landlord inspected the drain cover on 15 November 2024.
33. The landlord raised a job on 25 November 2024 to relay the driveway. This was some 3 months after the resident raised concerns. The delay was inappropriate given the resident’s concerns about safety.
34. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 18 December 2024. She said she reported the drain cover was damaged 2 months earlier and she had been advised that a new one had been ordered. She also said the driveway was subsiding.
35. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This led to her making a complaint on 3 January 2025. Further requests for updates were made during the month and in February 2025. This included noting that she had physical disabilities and was struggling to use the driveway given it was uneven.
36. The work to replace the drain cover and relay the driveway were not completed by the new deadline dates. The landlord raised a further job on 5 February 2025 to replace the drain cover. It reissued the job to relay the driveway on 6 February 2025, with a target completion date of 3 March 2025. An update was provided to the resident on the same day. The landlord told the resident on 4 March 2025 that it was waiting to reassign the work in relation to the driveway to a different contractor.
37. The landlord noted on 29 April 2025 in its stage 1 complaint response that the delay in replacing the drain cover was due to its contractor going into administration. This provided clarity. It said a paving slab was placed over the top of the drain in the interim to prevent any accidents occurring. It also said the job was then closed as it had been determined that the drain cover did not need to be replaced. No explanation was provided by the landlord for the change in the decision. This caused confusion.
38. The landlord confirmed the job to relay the driveway was allocated to a different contractor on 6 February 2025 and it was waiting for a start date. No explanation was provided for the delay in completing the work. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns about the tree stump that was on the driveway. Whilst the landlord offered an apology for the delay in carrying out the work, it did not offer the resident any compensation. This was not consistent with its compensation policy.
39. The resident noted on 29 April 2025 in her complaint escalation request that the drain was unsafe and there was a risk she could fall. She said she was told the job had been cancelled as it cost too much. She also said the driveway was a trip hazard and the tree stump needed to be removed.
40. It is unclear from the housing records when the work to relay the driveway started. The resident told the landlord on 20 June 2025 that the contractor began work on 18 June 2025 and told her it would take a few days to complete. She said the contractor had not returned and her driveway and front garden had been left in an unsafe condition. The landlord contacted the contractor on the same day and it was confirmed they would return on 25 June 2025. The resident was provided with an update.
41. The landlord’s contractor did not return on 25 June 2025 to complete the work on the driveway and there is no evidence the resident was provided with an explanation. This was a further failure.
42. The landlord acknowledged on 2 July 2025 in its final complaint response that the driveway was not relayed by the target deadline date. No explanation was provided on the reason for this. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with an explanation why its contractor failed to attend the appointment booked for 25 June 2025 to complete the work on the driveway. The landlord said the work would be completed on 30 June 2025.
43. The landlord confirmed the tree stump was removed whilst the driveway was being relayed and it would not install drainage in the back garden. It said this was because she was responsible for maintaining the garden. This was consistent with the resident’s tenancy agreement. The landlord also said there was no evidence the water was entering her home and it would dissipate naturally. This provided clarity and ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations.
44. The landlord said it had referred her concerns regarding the drain cover to its maintenance team, who would provide a response.
45. The landlord offered the resident an apology and compensation for the identified service failures. It has not been possible to establish the exact amount of compensation that was awarded to the resident in relation to this aspect of her complaint. Based on the information provided, it is believed the landlord awarded £150 compensation.
46. The landlord’s offer of compensation cannot be considered reasonable redress given the distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident by the delays in replacing the driveway and repairing the drain cover. It is evident she was concerned she would injure herself and she shared these concerns with the landlord on numerous occasions.
47. When all of the circumstances are considered, a finding of maladministration has been made alongside an order in relation to the drain cover. An award of compensation has been made to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident.

48. It is unclear from the housing records when the resident reported concerns about the windows or what the nature of these concerns were.
49. The landlord raised a job on 7 January 2025 to overhaul the windows, but the work was not completed by the target date of 4 February 2025. The job was marked as completed on 12 February 2025. The resident chased up the landlord on 4 March 2025 and said she was expecting its contractor to turn up to complete the follow-up work to the windows.
50. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s query or her subsequent request for updates. This meant she was not clear what action was being taken by the landlord.
51. The landlord noted on 2 July 2025 in its final complaint response that it carried out a property inspection on 19 December 2024 and raised a job to overhaul all of the windows. It said the job was completed on 12 February 2025, but this was disputed by the resident. It noted a new job had been raised on 25 June 2025 and it would contact the resident to confirm the appointment time.
52. The landlord offered the resident an apology and compensation for the identified service failures. It has not been possible to establish the exact amount of compensation that was awarded to the resident in relation to her complaint about the windows. Based on the information provided, it is believed the landlord awarded £175 compensation.
53. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because the resident continued to experience problems with the windows after the landlord issued its final complaint response. The landlord completed a property inspection on 16 January 2025 which identified the sealant around the windows needed to be replaced internally and externally.
54. It is not clear from the housing records what action was taken by the landlord following the property inspection.
55. When all of the circumstances are considered, a finding of maladministration has been made alongside orders to investigate and remedy any ongoing problems with the windows. An award of compensation has been made to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident.

56. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 January 2025.  This was consistent with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. This says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The landlord said it would provide a response within 10 working days.
57. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response by the deadline date and there is no evidence it told the resident there would be a delay in responding. This meant she was not clear when she would receive a response. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code).
58. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on29 April 2025. This was4 months after the resident made her complaint. The landlord did not offer an apology or compensation for the delay in responding. This was not consistent with its compensation policy and demonstrated the landlord did not take learning from the complaint.
59. The resident escalated her complaint on 29 April 2025. The complaint escalation request was acknowledged by the landlord on the same day in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It said it would provide a response within 20 working days.
60. The landlord did not issue its final complaint response by the deadline date or tell the resident there would be a delay in responding. This was a further failure.
61. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 2 July 2025. This was 9 weeks after the resident escalated her complaint and was not consistent with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. The landlord offered the resident an apology and £75 compensation for the delay in responding. The landlord’s compensation offer was not reasonable in the circumstances given the lengthy delays in responding and there is no evidence it took any learning from the complaint.
62. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of maladministration has been made. An award of compensation has also been made to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

63. The housing records provided by the landlord were limited and made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate and clear records so it is able to meet its obligations.

Communication

64. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times and it failed to respond to a number of her request for updates.