Home Group Limited (202202164)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202164

Home Group Limited

24 May 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 water ingress into the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and resides in a one bedroom, third floor flat.
  2. The property was built by a developer in May 2015. The development consists of 73 properties across two blocks. The blocks are a mixture of leaseholder/shared ownership and affordable rent.
  3. Water ingress was initially noticed in late 2017 after the resident first moved in. It occurred intermittently until 2018 and again in October 2020. During this time, the developers and landlord attended to repairs. As the water ingress was initially noticed during the defect period, the developer generally took responsibility for the issues arising. The water ingress intermittently persisted, and the resident previously complained to the landlord about the matter, most recently in March 2021. This complaint was closed upon guttering works being completed.
  4. The resident requested for a new complaint to be opened on 31 May 2021 as new water damage was found around the window frame in the living room and balcony doors. The resident advised that other neighbours were experiencing the same issues in their properties, including the neighbour directly above who was undergoing legal action.
  5. The landlord issued the resident with two stage one complaint responses on 8 July 2021 and 1 September 2021 due to a change over with their complaints system at the time. In summary, the responses said that:
    1. The landlord agreed to investigate the cause of the water ingress following the resident’s most recent report of water ingress reoccurring.
    2. An order was raised on 30 June 2021 for a roof survey and a maintenance surveyor to review the guttering.
    3. It confirmed the complaint would be escalated to stage two following the resident’s dissatisfaction at a lack of progress made to date on the issue and the reported lack of communication.
  6. The landlord provided the resident with interim stage two responses on 29 September 2021, 20 October 2021, and a full final response on 21 February 2022. Within the responses, the landlord advised the following:
    1. The information received following the sub-contractor visit on 31 August 2021 was not a roof survey and contained poor content. Service failures were identified forsub-contractors not carrying out instructions given.
    2. Property consultants completed a survey on 2 December 2021 which concluded there were no major defects with the roof.
    3. Flood testing took place in the block without prior notice being provided to the resident. The landlord acknowledged water had entered the resident’s property as a result. The landlord apologised the resident had not been given prior warning.
    4. The resident was offered £250 compensation made up of £75 for disruption through appointments, £75 for poor communication throughout the complaints process, and £100 for overall delays in progress.
  7. The resident referred the complaint to this Ombudsman on 29 April 2022 and remains dissatisfied as the water ingress into her property is still ongoing, with a solution not identified. She feels the communication from the landlord was poor, and states she is unable to sell her property due to the issues. She doesn’t feel the landlord acknowledged the damages that the floods testing caused to her property. As a resolution to the complaint, she wants a solution identified, works to be completed promptly, and evidence the issue has been fully resolved.
  8. Following the final response, two further surveys were completed, including a leak detection survey on 7 June 2022 and the second carried out earlier this year. The landlord advised this Service that it now believes the cause of the water ingress is likely down to issues with a balcony two floors above the resident. However, it explained its contractors believe the ingress is a result of a blocked drain. The landlord advised that it wanted to rule it out as a possibility and as such, requested in November 2022 for the gutters to be cleared.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs, maintenance, renewal, and improvements of the loads bearing framework and all other structural parts of the building including the roof, joints, and external walls of the building. The timeframe for completing repairs vary depending on factors such as the complexity of the repairs. This Service would expect a landlord to provide reasonable updates to a resident through the period of repairs.
  2. Following the resident’s report of water ingress reoccurring in her property on 31 May 2021, the landlord initially took reasonable steps to arrange for investigations into the cause. The landlord arranged for a photographic survey of the roof to be carried out and for the guttering to be checked.
  3. A photographic survey was carried out on 31 August 2021 by the landlord’s subcontractor, three months after the complaint had been logged and without prior notice of the appointment. Following attendance, the resident raised concerns with the landlord that the sub-contractor did not appear clear on the reason for the visit and had insufficient information to carry out a survey. The landlord agreed in its stage two response that the information received back following the sub-contractor’s visit was poor quality and was not a roof survey, as requested. It added that delays for the appointment were caused by poor communication from the sub-contractor as to when they could attend. The landlord identified service failings and advised the resident that it will be ending their arrangement with the sub-contractor in 2022. This was in line with the landlord’s property management policy where by contractors and sub-contractors will be challenged where they fail to meet agreed standards.
  4. The landlord subsequently arranged for a property consultant to carry out an independent survey of the roof which was completed on 2 December 2021. It was appropriate for the landlord to seek an alternative option given the failures experienced by the sub-contractors during the first visit. There were delays for this roof survey to be completed due to the consultant awaiting safety certificates before accessing the roof. However, the landlord updated the resident on the reason for delays on this occasion.
  5. The landlord explained in its stage two response that the survey completed on 2 December 2021 concluded that no major defects had been identified to the roof, but flood testing as part of a separate investigation had identified a possible source of the water ingress into the property. The stage two response stated it would continue pursuing developers to assist in confirming the source of the ingress and agreeing a resolution. It advised its legal team were now involved as a response had not been received from the developers.
  6. Given the resident had raised complaints about the issue previously and the landlord was aware of ingress into the resident’s property since 2017, the landlord’s assertion that it would pursue the developers without providing a timeframe or a proposed outcome was insufficient and would have caused the resident distress and a loss of confidence in the landlord to resolve the issue. Ultimately, as per the landlord’s responsibilities in the lease, it should have attended to structural repairs to the resident’s property.
  7. The landlord provided this service with two further survey reports dated July 2020 and 27 January 2021. These surveys were carried out during the complaints process as part of investigations of water ingress into the property above the residents. However, the landlord advised it believed the cause of the water ingress to be the same for both properties. As such, the survey findings would be relevant for the resident’s property. The reports contain conflicting findings as to what the cause of the water ingress was. The first report concluded that the flat roofed balcony potentially represents a latent defect due to an inadequate provision of rainwater outlets and an unsatisfactory fall in the roof. The subsequent report in January 2021 stated the cause to be a result of leaks to an upper flat balcony membrane and weathering.
  8. Aside from the guttering being cleared on 14 January 2021 which did not resolve the water ingress, no further repairs were logged by the landlord throughout the complaints process. There was a lack of action taken by the landlord, likely due to uncertainty surrounding the cause of the water ingress. The resident raised concerns through the complaints process about the landlord’s lack of engagement and frequently requested updates. Given the landlord was unsure of the cause of the water ingress, this Service would expect further investigations to be carried out to identify a cause, for example an independent survey. The landlord should have clearly communicated to the resident what next steps would be taken and ideally provided an estimated timeline outlining required works to remedy the water ingress. Without these actions, the resident remained unclear on the cause of the issue and lacked understanding on the next steps. This is likely to have caused frustration to the resident which would have been exacerbated by her not being able to put her property on the market without the required information relating to the cause of the ingress.
  9. The landlord apologised to the resident in its stage two response that she had not been warned that flood testing was being carried out in the building. The landlord explained that the testing took place as part of investigations in another property and advised that moving forwards, its surveyor and head of technical would communicate with each other on a regular basis. However, the reported damage caused to the resident’s property was not addressed in the landlord’s response.
  10. The landlord should have offered to inspect the damages it had caused to the resident’s property as a result of the flood testing with a view to complete appropriate repairs or signpost the resident to make a claim through its insurance. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue and the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident as outlined in the orders below for its failures.
  11. The landlord offered the resident at stage two a total of £250 compensation comprising of £100 compensation for overall delays in progress, £75 for disruption through appointments, and £75 for poor communication. The £75 discretionary payment is reasonable to redress the failings of the disruption caused through the failed appointments by the landlord’s sub-contractors.
  12. The £100 compensation for the ‘overall delays in progress’ is not representative of the lack of repairs carried out over the nine month period of the complaints process. The resident was not regularly updated with details of what was causing the water ingress, nor what further investigations or works would be carried out in light of the lack of progress. Therefore, the £75 compensation for poor communication is also insufficient. The landlord failed to assess the detriment caused to the resident through distress and inconvenience caused by the continuing water ingress into her property over a prolonged period. This Service would expect the landlord to have considered this as part of good practice given the resident expressed dissatisfaction at the handling of the matter and advised she was finding dealing with the matter stressful.
  13. In light of the above there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress in her property. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance (available to read at: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Remedies-Guidance-September-2022.pdf), maladministration is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found failure which adversely affected the resident. This includes instances where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident. The landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £650 inclusive of the £250 already offered. The landlord’s offer of compensation did not go far enough to put things right for the resident given the landlord’s failings throughout the complaints process.
  14. Although further investigations have been carried out following the landlord’s final response, this does not detract from the failings and lack of progress through the complaints process. The resident has advised that the water ingress into her property has not been resolved to date.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of water ingress into the resident’s property.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £650 comprising of:
    1. £425 for the landlord’s failure to take action over the flood testing which affected the resident’s property, a lack of progress establishing a cause of the water ingress into the resident’s property and to account for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount is inclusive of the £100 already offered by the landlord.
    2. £150 for the landlord’s lack of communication with the resident, including a failure to provide regular updates. This amount is inclusive of the £75 already offered by the landlord.
    3. £75 already offered by the landlord for disruption caused by appointments.
  2. The landlord is ordered to carry out an independent survey and provide a report detailing the works needed, including timescales, and act on the recommendations of the survey. The findings should be shared with the resident and this Service.
  3. Evidence of compliance with the above orders should be shared with the Housing Ombudsman within four weeks of the date of this report.