Home Group Limited (202521300)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3 bed house. She is disabled and has mobility issues. There are also other vulnerabilities within the household. The resident has damp and mould in her home which she said has affected her and her household’s health and wellbeing.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure for the landlord’s response to the damp and mould.
   2. Service failure for the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acknowledged the delays and lack of communication with the damp and mould repairs. The compensation it offered was proportionate in the circumstances. However, it failed to show learning and did not put things right within the complaints process. The landlord has failed to demonstrate it has completed all the works promised in its stage 2 response and there were further delays in it removing the wet loft insulation due to the landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s disability and vulnerabilities.
5. The compensation offered appropriately reflected the time and trouble caused due to landlord’s acknowledged failures. However, it failed to acknowledge all complaint handling failures and therefore did not put things right within the complaints process.

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.

6. The resident reported that the damp and mould issues have been present in her home for over 10 years. However, we cannot consider concerns that were not raised with the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable timeframe. Taking all circumstances into account, this investigation focuses on events from August 2024 onwards, when the landlord’s contractor identified damp and mould problems in the property, which subsequently led the resident to make a formal complaint in December 2024.
7. The resident reported damp and mould in the living room, kitchen, bathroom, and her daughter’s bedroom. Throughout her complaint, she also raised concerns that the mould was affecting both her own health and her daughter’s. As we are not medical experts, we cannot assess whether the mould has caused any health impacts. The resident may wish to seek independent medical or legal advice about this or consider pursuing a claim through the courts. While we cannot determine any impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord.
8. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will inspect such issues within 24 hours where a resident is disabled or otherwise vulnerable. Despite its contractor reporting damp and mould in the resident’s property on 8 August 2024, a surveyor did not inspect the home until 25 September 2024, which was significantly outside the landlord’s target timescale. Furthermore, most of the works recommended during that inspection were not completed to a reasonable standard until June and August 2025, well beyond the landlord’s 28‑day timeframe for routine repairs.
9. The landlord has acknowledged the delays and its lack of communication around the repairs. It accepted that there had been ongoing water‑ingress issues caused by wet loft insulation, which likely contributed to the damp and mould. It also recognised that problems with the cavity wall insulation, external pointing, and drainage may have further exacerbated the situation. As neither party disputes that the landlord failed in its responsibilities, the question for this investigation is whether the landlord has provided an appropriate remedy to recognise the impact of those failings and to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
10. To do this, we consider both the events which initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
11. In its final complaint response, the landlord arranged for a single point of contact to oversee the repairs. This demonstrated an intention to improve communication and rebuild its relationship with the resident.
12. The landlord also agreed to complete the works recommended by the surveyor, which included refilling the cavity wall insulation, inspecting the wet skirting boards and drains, and carrying out external repointing. However, when we requested evidence in November 2025, the landlord stated that there was no record of a job being raised to inspect the skirting boards. It also confirmed that the drain repairs were still outstanding, despite its records showing that it received a quote for the work in January 2025. At the time of this investigation, 7 months after the stage 2 response, there is still no evidence that the landlord has explained to the resident why these repairs remain incomplete or when she can expect them to be finished.
13. The resident told us she was concerned that the landlord had only repointed isolated areas rather than the entire property. However, the evidence shows that the surveyor recommended targeted repointing rather than full repointing. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to follow this professional advice and carry out the work only in specified areas.
14. In its final response, the landlord said it could not removal the wet loft insulation until the resident had cleared her belongings from the loft. The landlord was aware of the resident’s disability and mobility issues. However, it failed to demonstrate that it sufficiently took into account her support/disability needs or ensure her vulnerabilities were accurately recorded with its contractor. This was a significant failing, particularly given the landlord knew the damp and mould was affecting the household’s health.
15. The landlord removed the wet loft insulation in August 2025, without the resident having to clear the loft. Although it was positive that the landlord worked with its contractor to ensure the works were completed, this was only after repeated communication from the resident to say she was unable to clear the lost. It caused a further 2 month delay and the resident time and trouble chasing the works.
16. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns that previous repairs carried out by the landlord may have contributed to the ongoing damp and mould issues. The evidence shows that the resident raised specific worries about a river flowing beneath the property, which she believed could be causing rising damp. She also reported that her neighbour had required extensive works for the same reason. The landlord did not address this issue in its complaint responses, leaving the resident without clarity or resolution regarding an important part of her concerns.
17. A recent roof leak has further complicated matters, causing additional delays to the replacement of the loft insulation and other remedial works. Our role is to assess how the landlord responded to the issues that formed part of the resident’s complaint. The landlord must be given the opportunity to consider and respond to any concerns before we can investigate them. As the roof leak occurred after the landlord’s complaints process had concluded, it did not form part of the original complaint. It would therefore not be fair or reasonable for us to investigate this issue. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the leak, she will need to raise a new complaint directly with the landlord before we could consider it.
18. The resident told us she would like the landlord to compensate her for belongings damaged by damp and mould. However, we cannot make decisions about negligence, liability, or discrimination, nor can we award compensation in the way a court might award damages. Similarly, we do not assess or award financial redress for damage to personal items, as such matters should be addressed through court or insurance providers. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with its insurance details in its complaint responses.
19. In summary, while the landlord apologised and offered £950 compensation for the delays, poor communication, and the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident, it did not demonstrate that it had completed the works it committed to in its final complaint response. It also failed to take the resident’s disability and vulnerabilities into account when arranging the removal of the wet loft insulation. This led to further delays in addressing the damp and mould, as well as additional distress and inconvenience for the resident. The landlord did not show evidence of learning or that it had fully put things right through the complaints process. We have therefore made a finding of service failure.
20. We have not instructed the landlord to pay additional compensation, as the amount it has already offered is consistent with our remedies guidance and reflects what is appropriate where the landlord’s failings have had a significant impact on a resident. Instead, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and to confirm the outcome of its most recent inspection of the property. It must discuss its agreed actions and timescales needed to resolve the damp and mould, whether any interim measures are required, and review her support needs.

21. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. A formal response should then be issued within 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and within 20 working days for stage 2 complaints.
22. The landlord reviewed its complaint handling in this case. It acknowledged that, although it apologised and offered £100 compensation for the delay in issuing its stage 1 response, it failed to recognise the four‑month delay in escalating the complaint, despite the resident requesting escalation several times. It also accepted that communication with the resident during the stage 2 investigation had been minimal.
23. The landlord informed us that it has addressed training needs with the staff involved. It has also implemented a new system to improve visibility of response timescales, with the aim of preventing similar delays for residents in future.
24. Although the landlord has shown some learning from this complaint, we have made a finding of service failure. This is because it did not acknowledge all of its failings and therefore did not fully put things right during the complaints process. We have not required the landlord to pay additional compensation, as the amount already offered is in line with our remedies guidance and is sufficient to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident. However, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord should review how it records residents’ vulnerabilities and any reasonable adjustments. It must ensure that staff keep these records accurate and up to date, and that relevant information is consistently shared with its contractors.

Communication

26. In line with the guidance issued in our spotlight report on damp and mould, landlords should ensure they clearly and regularly communicate with residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould. The landlord should provide clear, timely and regular updates, including written action plans after inspections so expectations and next steps are transparent. It should also tailor its communication where vulnerabilities are known, ensuring residents are properly supported.