Home Group Limited (202007750)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007750

Home Group Limited

5 October 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint concerns how the landlord handled repairs to prevent water leaking into the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
  2. The resident has had ongoing issues with outstanding repairs at the property since at least July 2020. The landlord’s repair logs state that it raised work orders in July and August 2020 to inspect and repair plasterwork as needed, determine if there was any mould or damp in the property, and to repoint the brickwork on the front of the house. Further work was raised in September 2020 to repair a radiator, extractor fan, and light fitting. On 10 October 2020 the resident informed the landlord that her household was self-isolating due to Covid-19. Therefore the internal work was put on hold.
  3. The work resumed in November 2020 and, following a request from the resident, the landlord inspected the roof to determine if it required replacement. The landlord agreed to replace the roof and arranged for an asbestos survey to be undertaken before the work started. The landlord’s contractor recommended improving the drainage in the property, and work orders were raised by the landlord for this work in December 2020. Further work orders were raised on 7 January 2021 to seal the front door and living room window following reports from the resident of water leaks, and to bleed the repaired radiator.
  4. The landlord’s repair logs and internal correspondence state that the asbestos survey, the recommended work from the survey and the roof renewal were completed by 11 February 2021 but there would be a delay to completing the rendering work to the outside of the property due to the weather conditions. The rendering work was confirmed as completed on 18 February 2021 and a post work inspection was arranged for 2 March 2021. The inspection recommended further plastering works, replacement of skirting in the hallway and utility room, to add a banister to the stairs, and to box in the front door steps.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 and 17 May 2021 to highlight concerns with damp patches on the rendering, leaks from windows and the front door, and rubble that had been left in the garden. A further inspection was arranged for 26 May 2021 and work orders were raised for a joiner to attend to complete work to the door trim, to fill up the soakaway and to arrange for the rubble to be removed. The contractor informed the landlord on 10 June 2021 that all work had been completed and a post work inspection held on 15 June 2021 confirmed this.
  6. The resident raised a complaint on 22 October 2020 into how the repairs were handled by the landlord. She described the elements of the complaint as:
    1. The length of time it took the landlord to complete repairs.
    2. She received poor service from the landlord and its contractor when chasing up the status of appointments. Some appointments were also missed, while operatives had turned up on days when no appointment had been booked.
    3. While the landlord agreed to renew the roof, the bathroom and windows in the property also required renewal.
  7. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
    1. Informed the resident that the windows in the properly would be replaced between April 2022 and April 2023 as part of a planned maintenance programme. It also informed the resident that the bathroom was not due for renewal until 2037 and, as its inspection found the bathroom to be in “good serviceable condition”, the renewal date would not be brought forward.
    2. Explained that the damp patches on the rendering were due to different sections drying at different speeds and was not a defect.
    3. Acknowledged that there had been miscommunication between it and its contractors which caused the contractor to attend the property on the wrong day. It also acknowledged that there had been poor communication during the repairs process
    4. Accepted that the length of time it took to complete the work was not to its expected standards and also noted the inconvenience that was caused due to the number of appointments that were required.
    5. Apologised to the resident for the length of time the issues had remained outstanding and the disruption that this had caused. It offered £400 compensation, which it broke down as:
      1. £100 for delays in completing repairs.
      2. £75 for disruption caused by multiple appointments,
      3. £75 for disruption caused by missed and failed appointments.
      4. £75 for poor communication.
      5. £75 for the time and effort spent by the resident pursing the matter.
  8. In referring the case to this Service, the resident has described the outstanding issues to the complaint as that she is still experiencing water leaks into the property from the window and front door. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident has requested that the windows and front door are replaced.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. Section B2 of the tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s repair responsibilities. This states, in part, that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of “the roof, drains, gutters and external pipes. Outside walls, outside doors, window sills, window frames and glass. Internal walls, skirting boards, doors and door frames. Major internal plaster work”.
  2. The landlord’s tenant handbook states that it aims to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 14 calendar days. Emergency repairs and defined by the landlord as a repair that presents “an immediate risk to [a resident’s] health, safety or security”.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering discretionary compensation in circumstances where there has been service failure but the landlord has no legal obligation to award financial redress. The policy does not provide any guidelines for levels of payment, but does note that its offers of discretionary compensation are “primarily modest monetary awards”.

Scope of investigation

  1. During the complaint investigation, the landlord and resident agreed that the following repairs would be considered as part of the complaint: the guttering, the living room window, the living room radiator, the drainage channel, external rendering, internal plastering, and the dates for planned work for the renewal of the roof, the bathroom and the windows.
  2. In her correspondence with both the landlord and this Service, the resident has raised concerns about additional repairs which were not considered as part of the complaint to the landlord. Before these issues can be considered by this Service, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond through its complaints process. If she wishes to pursue these issues further, the resident would need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint. This is in line with paragraph 41(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaint procedure.
  3. The resident has said that the repair issues in her property have adversely affected his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord

How the landlord handled repairs to prevent water leaks into the property

  1. Once it was informed by the resident of the issues in the property, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately to the resident’s repair reports. It raised work orders, arranged inspections and correctly classified repair types as detailed above (leaks reported by the resident were classed as an emergency and all other work was classed as non-emergency).
  2. However, the landlord recognised that there were failures in how it handled the repairs. It accepted that there was poor communication and delays in completing the work. This resulted in missed appointments and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the length of time and number of appointments it took to complete the work. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It looked to put things right by improving its communication (following the complaint being raised, the landlord appointed a point-of-contact for the resident. It provided her with regular updates and chased up the resident’s enquires and questions with its repairs team), ensuring the recommended repairs were completed, and offering £400 compensation. It looked to learn from its mistakes by improving its repair service. The landlord has stated that it was working with its contractor to hire more staff to allow it to respond to repair reports in a timelier manner and also clear the backlog of non-emergency repairs caused by the national lockdowns.
  4. It was appropriate, and in line with the guidance set out in its compensation policy detailed above, for the landlord to compensate the resident for its admitted service failures and the inconvenience that this had caused. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (with is available on our website) recommends a payment of £50 to £250 in instances of service failure resulting in some impact on a complainant (the impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved). As examples of when this level of redress should be considered, the guidance suggests:
    1. Repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls
    2. Failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact 
  5. The awards of £100 and £75 awards by the landlord for its serve failures described above were made in line with this guidance. Therefore, the total compensation award of £400 represents reasonable redress from the landlord for the delays in raising repairs, the number of appointments it took to complete the work, the miscommunication that caused failed appointments, and the time, effort and disruption these issues has caused to the resident.
  6. In bringing the case to this Service, the resident has stated that she is still experiencing issues of water leaks from the living room window frame and the front door frame during rainfall. The correspondence provided to this Service shows that the resident informed the landlord of continuing issues with the living room window in October 2021 and again in January 2022. The resident’s emails did not reference the door. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 January 2022 and informed her that a surveyor would be in touch to arrange an inspection of the window. From the evidence provided, it is not clear what the surveyor recommended or if the landlord was informed of issues with the door frame.
  7. Furthermore, it is not clear if the planned work to replace the windows in the property agreed to in the stage two complaint response has now taken place or, if it has yet to take place, if the resident has received a date as to when the work will start.
  8. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord write to the resident to inform her of the current status of repairs to the window frame and door frame. It should also determine whether additional compensation is warranted for the period of time from when the stage two complaint response was sent on 8 August 2021, up to when the issue of water leaks from the window and door was fully resolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled repairs to prevent water leaks into the property which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord write to resident and:
    1. Inform her of the current status of repairs to the window frame and door frame.
    2. Determine whether additional compensation is warranted for the period of time from when the stage two complaint response was sent on 8 August 2021, up to when the issue of water leaks from the window and door was fully resolved. It should inform the resident of its decision regarding additional compensation and how it was reached.