Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Home Group Limited (202219606)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219606

Home Group Limited

29 September 2025

 

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 reports about a boiler leak and damp and mould in the bathroom.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has recorded that the resident is physically disabled. The resident has told it she is clinically vulnerable as she suffers from a severe form of asthma and has no immune system.
  2. The evidence shows the resident first reported a leak from the boiler in September 2020 that she said was leaking onto the kitchen units and worktop. She subsequently reported black mould in the bathroom and that the extractor fan was not working in that room. Following repairs, the resident reported that the mould and boiler leak had returned. In November 2022 the resident told the landlord she wanted to raise these issues, along with the damaged kitchen, as a formal complaint.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 7 May 2024, following contact from her MP. It gave the history of relevant repairs in the property. The main points were:
    1. Bathroom: it explained some older repair reports were no longer available to view, but it could see the resident’s reported mould in the bathroom in December 2020. It said it had arranged to re-inspect the bathroom to find the source of the damp and mould issues.
    2. Kitchen: it said it could see the resident had been reporting issues with leaks and damaged kitchen units since 2022. It said it had booked an appointment to inspect the property on 8 May 2024 and would then raise any necessary work.
  4. The landlord added it was clear that it had not provided a good service in its handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing issues in the kitchen and bathroom. It said that was not the standard it hoped to achieve, and it was sorry that her experience to date had been poor. It also found that its communication had been poor and set out the steps it was taking to improve that. It added it was aware of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2, and it had done so.
  5. On 13 June 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The main points were:

Damp and mould: it said it was aware that works were previously completed by its contractor in 2022 and that extensive works were completed in 2023 for the damp and mould in the bathroom. It said it was sorry for the delays between works and that there were still ongoing concerns with the repair that was carried out. It said this was due to the previous contractor potentially having used the wrong paint in some areas, causing the issues to have reoccurred. It said, although the resident reported this, it did not take remedial action, and it said this was unacceptable. It apologised for the delays. It said, following its recent visit to the property, there was currently no evidence of mould growth within the bathroom, however, it needed to address the poor standard of work that had been carried out previously. It said this work was limited to the bathroom ceiling and an appointment would be made as soon as possible to complete this.

  1. Kitchen: it said, due to the level of work that was needed, it would replace the kitchen in full. It explained the lead time for that work was 4-8 weeks.
  2. Bathroom: it said it would complete further work to the ceiling, but a bathroom replacement was not needed. It also said that no work was required to the tiles as they were secure and flush to the wall and therefore fit for purpose.
  3. Boiler: it said it would replace the boiler within the next month.
  4. Communication: it upheld the complaint about communication. It said it had found multiple occasions where communication had not been in line with its set timescales. It apologised for that and assured her that feedback would be provided to ensure it maintained its standards and effectively communicated with its customers as and when required.
  5. Complaints handling: it acknowledged that her concerns had not been addressed for a long time. It apologised for the delay in raising the complaint initially and for the subsequent delays in handling it. It said it was clear there had been a significant service failure and acknowledged this had caused the resident upset and frustration.
  1. The landlord set out the action it would take in relation to the bathroom ceiling, and kitchen and boiler replacement.
  2. On 17 October 2024 the landlord sent the resident an update on her complaint. It said it had replaced the boiler on 19 June 2024 and had finished installing the new kitchen on 16 August 2024. It noted that the paintwork in the bathroom had further deteriorated. It said it would skim, repaint and re-tile the bathroom. It said these works would be carried out on 4 November 2024. It added it would replace the plaster on the bathroom ceiling on 28 October 2024.
  3. The landlord awarded the resident compensation of £850 made up of £100 for significant delays to the bathroom works; £100 for the significant delays to the kitchen refurbishment; £150 for originally not agreeing to further works in the bathroom; £200 for distress and inconvenience; £150 for time and effort and £150 for disruption.
  4. When the resident approached us, she said the landlord completed the bathroom works in May 2025, not November 2024 as stated. She confirmed all the repairs had now been completed and the mould had not returned. She explained that she has allergy-related asthma and a bowel condition that means she needs to use a colonic irrigation machine daily and then ideally have a shower. She explained the condition of the bathroom made this hard for her as any mould would make her asthma worse. She said the loss of a functioning bathroom meant that for a period of about 11 months she had to shower at other people’s homes and take her medical equipment with her. The resident said the compensation offered did not reflect the impact on her or the fact it took a further 6 months to complete the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident mentioned her health in relation to the events complained about. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the way it responded to her concerns about her health.
  2. We have used our discretion to look at events from 2020 which is the same period covered by the landlord in its complaint responses.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a boiler leak and damp and mould in the bathroom

  1. In the tenancy agreement the landlord undertook to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises. It set out the timescales for repairs. We understand these have been amended subsequently. The latest timescales are set out on the landlord’s website.

Boiler leak and the kitchen replacement

  1. The evidence shows the resident first reported a leak from the boiler in September 2020 and again in early December 2020. The repair log says that repairs were completed but no detail was given of the action taken. The repair log says in December 2020 that some kitchen units had started to “rot away” due to the leak from the boiler. There is no evidence of any action by the landlord at that time to remedy this.
  2. In mid-2022 the resident told the landlord that she had been told the kitchen would be replaced. It was reasonable for the landlord to decide to inspect the kitchen, which it did in September 2022. At that time the landlord noted at least one kitchen unit needed replacing. However, there is no evidence that it took action at that time.
  3. In late November 2022 the resident reported another leak from the boiler and told the landlord that the kitchen unit under the sink had “collapsed” due to the leaks. The evidence suggests a boiler repair was completed at that time. However, in early December 2022 the resident reported the repair had not worked and the leak was “uncontrollable” when the heating was turned on. A repair was carried out on 9 January 2023 to replace the affected pipe. The time taken to complete this repair was not appropriate. This was likely an emergency repair given it was affecting the heating and could lead to serious damage of the property. It should therefore have been made safe within 24 hours in line with the landlord’s repairs timescales. Given it was mid-winter, and the leak was affecting the ability to heat the property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided alternative heating. There is no evidence it did so.
  4. Over a year later in mid-April 2024, the resident reported another leak from the boiler. The evidence suggests it was resolved the next day. The operative noted that a new kitchen would be appropriate. By that point, the resident had reported the kitchen as being “unusable”.
  5. The landlord agreed to replace the kitchen in May 2024 and did so in August 2024. It agreed to replace the boiler on 13 June 2024 and did so within a week. This was a reasonable timescale. The time take to replace the kitchen once a replacement had been agreed was in line with the landlord’s timescale of 90 days for major works.
  6. The resident lived with a kitchen with at least one unit that was rotting away and not useable for some 4 and a half years. There is no evidence the landlord tried to repair or replace the units affected by the leak. That was not appropriate as it was responsible for the repair of the kitchen units under its repair obligations.
  7. Where the landlord has accepted it has made errors, it is our role to consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies. We recognise that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s health condition) may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
  8. The landlord offered compensation of £100 for the delay in replacing the kitchen. It did not recognise its failure to carry out appropriate repairs to the kitchen following damage as a result of the boiler leak. Additional financial compensation of £200 is appropriate to reflect the likely distress, inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor handling of kitchen repairs. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a failing that adversely affected the resident but did not have a permanent impact.

Bathroom including damp and mould

  1. The resident first reported black mould in the bathroom in December 2020. The landlord noted it should inspect. There is no evidence it did so.
  2. The evidence shows the resident reported the extractor fan in the bathroom was not working in March, April and June 2022. On each occasion the landlord either overhauled or replaced it. There is no evidence the landlord carried out work to remove the mould until August 2022, some 2 and a half years after the resident’s first report. That delay was not appropriate.
  3. In October 2022 the landlord acted reasonably by skimming and repainting the bathroom ceiling. However, within weeks the resident reported the paint was peeling off and soon after that the black mould had returned. In December 2022 the landlord replaced damp skirting board, panelling and boxing in the bathroom which was an appropriate step to take. It took action to try to find the cause of the damp and mould by inspecting the roof. The evidence suggests that no defects were identified.
  4. The landlord delayed carrying out a mould wash of the bathroom and repainting until March 2023. That delay was not appropriate as it was not in line with its repair timescales. It was also not reasonable because by that time the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and that she had been advised not to enter the bathroom where mould was present.
  5. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response the poor standard of work in the bathroom in March 2023 and said it would rectify this. It confirmed the mould had not returned. After a further inspection it agreed to skim the walls and ceiling of the bathroom and repaint and carry out some retiling and extend the tiling. It said these works would be carried out in early November 2024, but evidence shows that the landlord had to reschedule due to a “mix up”. The resident refused an appointment in December 2024 as the landlord did not give sufficient notice. This work was completed on 17 May 2025.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged the delays between works and that there were still ongoing concerns with the bathroom repair which had caused the issues to recur. It acknowledged its lack of action and apologised for the delays in rectifying matters. It offered compensation of £600 for its mishandling of the bathroom repairs.
  7. In line with our remedies guidance, we consider additional compensation of £900 is appropriate here to reflect the significant impact on the resident who told the landlord she had been unable to use the bathroom for almost a year due to her health condition. She explained she had to carry out a medical procedure daily in the bathroom of friends and family before using their shower. We consider the likely distress and inconvenience of this to have had a significant impact on the resident. The sum we have ordered also reflects the fact that, due to the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord’s failings would have had a more severe effect on her compared to other residents in the same position without her vulnerabilities. We note that we would have found severe maladministration in this case but for the steps taken by the landlord to put matters right by completing all the repairs and awarding compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. In November 2022 the resident raised concerns with the landlord that, even though she had been dealing with a complaints manager for several months, the landlord was not dealing with its handling of her reports of repairs as a formal complaint. The next day the landlord confirmed it would log this as a formal complaint. However, there is no evidence the landlord did so or that it responded to the complaint. That was a significant failing.
  2. The landlord raised a complaint on 23 April 2024 following intervention from the resident’s MP. The stage 1 response was issued within the timescales of its complaints policy; there was a slight delay at stage 2.
  3. In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged that the resident’s concerns had not been addressed for a prolonged period of time. It said that due to “a miscommunication and oversight” on its part it did not progress the resident’s complaint of November 2022. It acknowledged significant service failure. It offered compensation of £150 for time and effort. In line with our remedies guidance, we consider additional financial compensation of £100 is appropriate here for the likely frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports about a boiler leak and damp and mould in the bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must take the following action and provide evidence of compliance to us within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident the sum offered in its follow up complaint response of £850 if it has not done so already
    2. Pay the resident additional compensation of £1,200 made up of:
      1. £200 for the likely inconvenience and frustration caused by failing to address kitchen unit repairs.
      2. £900 for the likely distress and inconvenience as a result of being unable to use the bathroom for almost a year.
      3. £100 for the likely inconvenience and frustration caused by its complaint handling failings.
      4. These sums should be paid direct to the resident and not off-set against arrears where they exist.