Home Group Limited (202114889)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114889

Home Group Limited

27 April 2023

 

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 a kitchen refurbishment.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident has declared vulnerabilities, and these are reflected on the landlord’s systems as a ‘long term illness’.
  2. The resident’s kitchen was refitted by the landlord as part of its planned maintenance programme. The work began on 23 July 2021 and concluded on 11 August 2021. During the refit, the resident complained to their MP on 2 August 2021 as the work had been delayed, leaving the resident without a working kitchen to prepare food or access her washing machine. The refit was initially due to be completed within eight to ten working days.
  3. Following completion of the initial refit, the resident informed the landlord that she was dissatisfied with the quality of the finish, the behaviour of a contractor and the delay taken to complete the initial work, including a total loss of electricity to the whole property for approximately 15 hours and a loss of electricity to the kitchen only for 13 working days. The landlord and its contractor dispute the period that the resident was without power to the whole house and state that this was around 8 hours.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage one of the landlord’s complaints process on 16 August 2021. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 14 September 2021. The landlord acknowledged a list of outstanding works and noted that it had not been able to secure appointments as yet with its contractors, but that efforts were continuing. The landlord apologised for the additional three working days that the resident was without use of the kitchen, the period of time without electricity and for the behaviour of one of its contractors, who had subsequently been removed from the project. The landlord noted that its contractor would contact the resident separately to offer £100 compensation for food that had spoiled due to the loss of power.
  5. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 14 October 2021 in which it apologised and offered £675 compensation, which it later increased to £900.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the delay in the poor-quality kitchen work being rectified and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 12 December 2021, seeking completion of the works and payment of compensation previously offered.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping installations for electricity in good repair. The landlord also has a legal responsibility under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for ensuring that ‘facilities for the preparation and cooking of food” are kept in good repair. Additionally, the resident may have a right to compensation where repairs have not been completed in a timely manner. The landlord commits, in its property management policy, to using contractors that are “competent, registered and [who] demonstrate Home Group’s values”. The landlord states that contractors will be held to account and challenged if they fail to meet these standards.
  2. The landlord’s complaints, compliments and comments policy does not give any timescales for responding to complaints from residents. The policy does state, however, that the landlord will respond to complaints “in a timely manner and in accordance with … appropriate Ombudsman Services,” therefore the provisions and timescales in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) have been applied to this investigation. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. It is available to view on our website.
  3. The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy does not give indicative banding or sums of compensation to be paid in the event of complaints. Therefore, the justifications and amounts provided in the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, have been applied to this complaint.
  4. The landlord began a refit (including electrical rewiring) of the resident’s kitchen on 23 July 2021. These works were scheduled to last eight to ten working days, however the works were not concluded until 11 August 2021, a period of 13 working days.
  5. During this period the resident was without electricity to the whole house for eight hours and the kitchen for 13 days. The resident also stated that during the works her fridge freezer went off resulting in her food spoiling. Furthermore, the resident reports that the contractor left her front door open during the installation, leaving her property insecure. The resident also highlighted outstanding works in the kitchen, such as a hole in the wall where an extractor fan was due to be fitted, poorly finished tiling and a problem with her appliances now not fitting flush under the countertop.
  6. At the time of issuing its stage one complaint response on 14 September 2021, the landlord had not been able to secure an appointment with the contractor to complete the outstanding works. In the interim, the landlord had taken action against the contractor and removed one operative from the project. The landlord had also arranged for its contractor to pay £100 compensation to the resident for the spoiled food, lost as a result of the power outage.
  7. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 14 October 2021. By this time some works had been completed, however these had been to a poor standard. Other works were still outstanding. In recognition of this, the landlord apologised and offered compensation amounting to £575. Additionally, the landlord committed to following up with its contractor who had not, at this time, paid the £100 compensation previously offered for spoiled food. The landlord’s compensation offer comprised of payments for delays, disruption, loss of electricity, loss of facility, poor service and time and effort needed to pursue matters.
  8. In the period of this complaint, there is evidence of the landlord making repeated and sustained contact with the contractor through emails, weekly meetings and site visits in an attempt to facilitate this work. Correspondence from the landlord and resident show multiple missed appointments by the landlord’s contractor and other visits where only a portion of the scheduled work was completed. Evidence presented to this Service shows that the landlord pursued complaints with the contractor’s senior management to progress the resident’s complaint. Ultimately, to resolve the final outstanding issue of poorly installed tiles, the landlord arranged an alternative contractor to complete the work. The work was concluded on 18 January 2022.
  9. Overall, the resident was without a functioning kitchen (including electric to the kitchen) for 13 working days and without electric to the entire property for between eight and fifteen hours. This Service recognises the inconvenience that this causes to residents, but also acknowledges that it is usual to be without a kitchen and its amenities for a reasonable period of time during a refit, particularly as this involved a rewiring of the kitchen.
  10. It is noted that the resident also facilitated access to the property for repeated appointments and site visits, some of which were not attended by the contractor. On at least two occasions, the resident arranged for a third party to facilitate this access to the property whilst she was at work, in order to progress the works.
  11. More generally, the outstanding repair work within the kitchen took a total of 124 working days to resolve satisfactorily. Whilst this Service recognises that this period of delay is unreasonable, there has been sufficient evidence presented that the landlord made reasonable efforts to pursue its contractor to complete the works and keep the resident informed about delays between September 2021 and January 22. The landlord has also complained to its contractor’s management and provided an alternative contractor on at least one occasion.
  12. Additionally, the landlord offered the resident increased compensation on 3 December 2021 to account for the ongoing delays. The landlord offered £650 (increased from £575) and the landlord’s contractor offered £250 (increased from £100). The resident accepted this compensation, and it was paid later in December 2021. In cases where a failure adversely affects a resident, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, indicates that compensation of between £100 and £600 would usually be considered. As the landlord has offered compensation in excess of this, this Service considers this to be reasonable redress in this situation.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord issued both its stage one and stage two complaint responses over the timescales given in the Code. The stage one complaint response was issued 21 days after receipt (11 working days over timescale) and the stage two response was issued 22 working days after receipt (2 working days over timescale).
  2. The landlord apologised for the delays and poor service in its stage two complaint response and £150 of the compensation offered was for poor service and time and trouble in pursuing this matter. Whilst this Service acknowledges that these delays in handling the complaint would have caused inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive and therefore the landlord’s apology and £150 compensation provides appropriate redress for these errors.
  3. Taken together, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord has acted reasonably in its handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding works and provided sufficient redress, when considering the compensation and apologies, to resolve the complaint prior to this investigation.

 

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the kitchen refurbishment satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Provide the remedies offered during the complaints process in full to the resident if not already done so, as the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress has been based on these being provided.
    2. Review its processes for booking work with its contractor to ensure that it retains oversight of repairs that its contractor should be progressing.
    3. Review its processes for escalating individual cases with its contractor where it is aware that there are performance failings or, where appropriate, for arranging for an alternative contractor to complete the works.
    4. Ensure that all its staff are aware of the complaint handling timescales and adhere to these when managing complaints from residents.