Home Group Limited (202524478)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord in July 2025 as she was unhappy with a temporary back door repair. She said the temporary repair left her back door insecure with a gap that let rain in until the repair was fully completed 5 days later. She was also unhappy with the landlord’s repair communication. The resident has vulnerabilities that the landlord is aware of.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a door repair.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the door repair.

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

Reasons

4. The landlord’s property management policy states it will respond to emergency repairs within 6 hours to make safe, and where possible it will complete the repair within 24 hours. The policy defines broken external doors that present a risk to home security as an emergency repair. The landlord aims to complete routine repairs within 28 days.
5. The landlord responded to the resident’s report of a broken back door lock within 6 hours as an emergency repair and fitted a temporary lock. This was appropriate and in line with its policy. However, the landlord then failed to act on the resident’s repeated reports (including a video) that the temporary repair was inadequate as the door was not secure and there was a gap that let rain in. She said her young children could push the door and crawl through the gap, and she was worried about a potential break-in.
6. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord stated it would discuss the overall timeframe to complete the door repair with the contractor. This was appropriate given the landlord’s aim to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that it would also seek feedback from the contractor to determine whether anything further could have been done to better secure the door, and to identify any learning from the case.
7. While these actions were positive, they did not fully address the resident’s security concerns. The landlord failed to inspect the property or ensure it remained secure despite the resident’s repeated concerns, which was not in line with its repair obligations. This understandably caused the resident distress and inconvenience during this time, until the lock was fully repaired 5 days later.
8. The resident had also asked the landlord to complete a guttering repair as an emergency repair. It was reasonable, however, that the landlord could not complete the gutter repair as an emergency repair due to the weather conditions and number of personnel needed. The gutter repair was completed 2 weeks later on 4 August 2025.
9. The landlord did not dispute that the gap in the back door allowed rain in, which damaged the resident’s personal items. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord appropriately provided the resident with its insurance details to enable her to submit a claim for damaged items. However, the landlord did not consider the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to the repeated water ingress until the door repair was completed, which was a further failing.
10. The landlord acknowledged its communication failings. It agreed it had incorrectly raised the resident’s expectations about when the door repair would be completed. It also acknowledged that the operative who attended to complete the door repair was someone the resident had specifically requested not to attend. The resident explained that she only agreed to this operative attending as she was only notified when they were already on the way. She said she did not want to delay the repair further and asked a neighbour to be with her in her home while the operative completed the door repair. Landlords should have effective systems in place to accurately record such requests and give due regard to residents’ concerns. This communication failing caused the resident understandable avoidable distress.
11. The landlord offered the resident £105 compensation, made up of £35 for its repair delay, £35 for miscommunication, and £35 for failure to act on her specific repair request. These were positive steps towards putting things right. However, this amount was not proportionate to reflect the impact of its failures on the resident. Nor did it reflect the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s security concerns, or the distress and inconvenience caused by the repeated water ingress.
12. Considering this, the landlord is ordered to apologise and pay the resident a further £150 compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused by its failure to consider her security concerns and repeated water ingress. The total compensation of £255 is in line with our compensation guidance for circumstances where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

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.