Home Group Limited (202223749)

Background

1. The resident lives in a block of 8 leasehold flats. The resident reported that the solar thermal panels on the building that provide hot water to the properties were not working.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of repairs to solar thermal panels.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of repairs to solar thermal panels.
   2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of repairs to solar thermal panels

4. The landlord did not communicate effectively or follow through on commitments. It delayed resolving the issue unreasonably.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not respond to the complaint in line with its policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

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.

What we did not investigate

6. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has stated they were aware of the issues with the solar panels from around 2015. They raised a formal complaint on 10 January 2023. However, there is no evidence they raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when they became aware of the issue. We have not seen evidence they were prevented from raising a complaint sooner. We have considered only the 12-month period leading up to the date the resident made his complaint.

What we did investigate

7. The resident reported ongoing problems with the solar thermal panels on 19 August 2022. Under the lease, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the building’s shared areas. All residents pay for these works through service charges. If repairs cost more than £250per resident, the landlord must follow the consultation process set out in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (section 20). The landlord’s policies do not set out timescales for repairs to shared areas.
8. The landlord raised the repair on 19 August 2022 but then marked it as “issued in error.” On 23 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said the ongoing issues were causing an increase in his energy bills. The landlord saidits maintenance team would contact him, but it didn’t.
9. After the resident complained on 10 January 2023, the landlord carried out a site visit and arranged a contractor survey. It said it would update the resident but again failed to do so. On 15 May 2023, the resident asked to escalate his complaint because he had heard nothing further. The landlord said it would need to carry out a section 20 consultation, as leaseholders would need to contribute to the cost of the repair or replacement. It confirmed a contractor had attended on 15 March 2023 to inspect the panels and provide a quote. The contractor did not provide this quote until 29 August 2023, over 5 months later. The reason for this delay is unclear, and no explanation was provided by the landlord. The landlord’s property management policy states that it will challenge contractors where they fail to meet agreed standards, however it does not set out what these are. There is no evidence that the landlord chased the quote until August 2023. This indicates poor record-keeping and a lack of proactive case management. In its first stage 2 response on 29 August 2023, the landlord admitted it had made no progress since stage 1. It said the leasehold team was now reviewing the quote.
10. The landlord issued a section 20 consultation letter on 4 September 2023, which closed on 6 October 2023. It then sought a second quote, as required by section 20. The evidence shows the landlord struggled to get quotes due to the specialist nature of the work. However, it is not clear why it did not request both quotes at the same time, which could have reduced delays. It is also not clear why the landlord did not begin the section 20 consultation earlier, alongside or prior to requesting quotes, which may have reduced the overall delay.
11. On 8 March 2024, the landlord sent residents the statement of estimates, and the consultation closed on 12 April 2024. The landlord completed the panel replacement on 24 June 2024. This was 676 days after the resident reported the issueon 19 August 2022. Although the section 20 process extended the timeline, the overall delay was unreasonable.
12. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
13. Although the resident did not lose hot water, the landlord’s failures adversely affected him through prolonged delays, increased energy costs, and the time and effort spent chasing progress. The landlord admitted it did not follow its processes when the resident first reported the issue or during the stage 1 complaint. It apologised and offered £300 for time, effort and delays. It also paid half the cost of replacing the panels and credited £250 to each resident’s service charge account in recognition of the delays and higher utility bills. While the landlord acknowledged failings and took steps to put things right, it only offered compensation after completing its internal complaint process. This means it is not reasonable redress under our compensation guidance.
14. The landlord failed to follow up on commitments, communicate effectively and progress the repairs within a reasonable time. This amounts to maladministration. We have made an additional order for compensation in line with our compensation guidance to reflect the impact and the length of the delay.

15. The landlord’s definition of a complaint is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). When the stage 1 complaint was made, the landlord’s complaint policy did not include timescales. It only said it will respond “in a timely manner and in accordance with [this service]”. By the time of the stage 2 complaint the landlord had updated its policy to include timescales. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of receiving the complaint, which can be extended by 10 working days for complex cases. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the request to escalate. This can be extended by 10 working days for complex cases. These timescales now meet the Code.
16. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 1 complaint within the Code’s timescales. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 15 May 2023. Instead of progressing to stage 2, the landlord issued another stage 1 response on 19 May 2023, 90 working days after the original complaint. This second stage 1 response states that the resident has asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 and states he would be contacted within 10 weeks. The landlord did not explain why it sent a second stage 1 response or why it used a 10-week timescale that did not match its policy.
17. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation on 8 August 2023, 60 working days after receiving the request. It then issued a stage 2 response on 29 August 2023, 75 working days after the escalation request. Both timings fall outside the policy and the Code. The stage 2 response said the landlord would keep working on the complaint until it could provide a full and final response. It issued that final stage 2 response on 7 May 2024, 251 working days after the resident requested escalation. These steps did not follow the landlord’s policy. The Code says any process with more than 2 stages caused unnecessary delay. The landlord’s actions created confusion and significant delays for the resident.
18. The landlord failed to track or complete the actions set out in its stage 1 response. In the second stage 2 response, it apologised for this and for the delays caused. It offered the resident £350 for complaint handling failures, made up of £100 for stage 1 delays, £100 for failing to carry out stage 1 actions and £150 for stage 2 delays.
19. The delays, additional stages and failure to complete actions amount to maladministration. The landlord’s offer of compensation was too late to be considered reasonable redress.

Learning

20. The landlord did not follow its own processes and progress a communal repair within a reasonable time.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. Confusion over responses and timescales suggests improvements are needed to record keeping and internal communication.
22. The records did not show active monitoring of the repair. This contributed to avoidable delay. The landlord needs to ensure it has an effective and robust system in place to track and monitor repairs.

Communication

23. The landlord did not keep the resident updated, which led to frustration and escalation of the complaint. The landlord may want to consider if it needs to make any improvements in this area.