Home Group Limited (202111326)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111326

Home Group Limited

5 July 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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with the condition of his property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. His tenancy began in October 2020.
3. The evidence shows the resident began reporting issues with the condition of his property in December 2020.
4. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord in February 2021. He referred to multiple issues within his home which included cold and damp air in his bathroom, and problems with his front and back doors. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it said it had completed all work except to the back door. It offered £425 compensation for repair delays, poor communication, and the resident’s time and trouble.
5. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, he said the damp and cold had caused him to develop health problems. He also said the back door repair carried out by the landlord in October 2021 was not done properly, and that the damp and mould issues were ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

6. This Service will not consider the resident’s concerns that the damp and cold may have impacted his health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This complaint would be for a personal injury claim. This is in accordance with paragraph 39 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that such issues are more appropriately addressed by the courts.
7. The resident has also referred to his dissatisfaction with the quality of a repair which was carried out after the completion of the landlord’s complaints procedure. Although the repair was related to the issues raised in the complaint, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint. Therefore this assessment can only consider the landlord’s response to issues and incidents up to the date of the final response. This is in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Handling of concerns with the condition of his property

8. The landlord’s website explains that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of internal and external doors, and window frames and fittings. The website does not set out the landlord’s timeframe for completing non-emergency repairs (ones which do not pose an immediate risk to your health, safety, or security). Nonetheless, it is common for landlords to attend to non-urgent repairs in around 30 days.
9. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website) suggests compensation awards of £250 to £750 are suitable when there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs, or respond to complaints.
10. In the resident’s stage one complaint he raised numerous concerns with the condition of his property. For example, he set out that there was damp air blowing out of his kitchen cupboards, and that his front and back doors were leaking water. He said he had reported these concerns beforehand, and had submitted complaints to the landlord about missed appointments. The landlord’s records show the resident reported issues with his front and back door in December 2020. He also raised concerns relating to his kitchen units. The landlord attended in December 2020 to address the door issues, but it is unclear from its records what work, if any, it carried out. It also attended in February 2021 for a damp survey, and reattended in March 2021 to inspect the condition of the property.
11. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response (dated 5 May 2021) it set out what work it intended to do following its appointments and when work would commence. In its stage two complaint response (dated 14 September 2021), it stated what work it had completed, and reassured the resident that it had all been carried out to the required standard. It explained that its repairs services had been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. It is understandable that the landlord would have been affected by the pandemic, and it was reasonable for it to explain this to the resident. It also acknowledged that it should have communicated its limitations more clearly and regularly during 2021. It also explained what option it was considering in order to address his concerns with heat loss.
12. The landlord explained that it had been in contact with Environmental Health as the resident had spoken to them about his concerns with the condition of his property. It said they had had not recommended any further work. It was reasonable for the landlord to contact Environmental Health to get a second opinion on what work was necessary, and as part of an evidence based approach.
13. The evidence shows that the resident initially raised concerns with his back door in December 2020. Although the landlord attended and attempted to resolve the issue, it did not find a permanent resolution. It completed the repair on 29 October 2021, and offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay. This was a reasonable offer when considering the length of time that the repair was outstanding, and the nature of the repair.
14. The evidence provided for his investigation shows that there were at least three missed appointments (29 December 2020, 15 March 2021, and 9 April 2021). The landlord offered the resident £75 compensation for the poor conduct from its contractors (which is understood to be in relation to the missed appointments). Although the landlord’s compensation policy does not specify, it is common practice where an appointment is not attended, and no prior warning is given, to provide compensation of some form. This will usually range between £10 – £25 per appointment. Therefore, the landlord’s offer for this aspect was reasonable on the basis that there were only three missed appointments. Also, the landlord explained to the resident that it had reminded its staff of what protocols to follow when they were unable to attend appointments.
15. The resident raised a formal complaint on 22 February 2021. The landlord issued its stage one response on 5 May 2021, almost three months later. It acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint on 17 May 2021, and then issued its stage two response on 14 September 2021, and the follow up response on 27 October 2021. It is clear that there were multiple and significant delays from the landlord, and that it failed to act in accordance with its target response timeframes. These delays caused an unreasonable level of contact and chasing from the resident as he was not made aware of when the landlord would formally respond.
16. Nevertheless, in the landlord’s final complaint response it acknowledged its poor communication, and the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the matter, and offered him £150 compensation. This was a reasonable offer given the length of the delays and the nature of the complaint.
17. In total, the landlord offered the resident £425 compensation. Overall, this offer was reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. This is because it was in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (as explained above) as whilst the landlord’s actions would have understandably inconvenienced and frustrated the resident, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show that the landlord’s failings had a permanent impact on him. The landlord took steps to resolve the resident’s complaint by carrying out a damp survey and numerous repairs. It acknowledged its shortcomings, and its offer was proportionate to level of inconvenience they would have caused the resident.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

19. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £425 previously offered if it has not already, as this was the basis of our finding of reasonable redress.