Home Group Limited (202301937)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301937

Home Group Limited

16 August 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of water penetration to the property and associated damp.
2. Complaint handling.
This investigation also considers the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder and has lived in the property, a 2-bed first-floor flat, since March 2017. The landlord is the freeholder of the building which contains both leasehold and rented properties. The resident has advised that she first started experiencing leaks and damp in the property in 2018.
The landlord has stated that it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
In October 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and reported that damp caused by water ingress from the roof was impacting her bedroom and living room.
On 14 January 2022 the repair records show that the landlord carried out an inspection which found:
1. The gutter above the bay window was leaking.
2. The lead flashing on the chimney stack was leaking water into the living room.
3. The loft insulation had been displaced when the loft space was boarded off by the previous leaseholder.

The repair log stated that the surveyor “expressed…concern about this and explained there [was] now a lack of insulation which [would] cause excessive heat loss and condensation problems within the flat and loft space”. The surveyor asked the leasehold team to raise the required repairs.

On 16 June 2022 the resident telephoned the landlord and said she had submitted a formal complaint in February of that year but had not received a response. The landlord raised a stage 1 complaint on 21 June 2022. The resident reported:
1. She had experienced a leak from her roof for 3 years. The landlord had attended to assess the issue but there had been no resolution.
2. During the last assessment in January 2022 the contractor had highlighted that previous repairs had “not been completed to a high enough standard”.
3. She had to “constantly chase up repair works” and the leaks continued causing damage to her property.
On 23 June 2022 the landlord raised a repair for the roof. This was unappointed as the repair log stated there were “no slots” available.
On the same day the landlord tried to telephone the resident to discuss her complaint. It spoke to the resident on 4 July 2022 and wrote to her to confirm:
1. She had made a complaint because:
  1. She had been reporting damp since 2018 from the bay window.
  2. The landlord’s communication had been “poor” and she had received no updates despite regularly chasing for them.
  3. Several possible causes of the damp were mentioned and she had been told it had been resolved but the damp was not “drying up”.
  4. She wanted to know what works had been done and why.
2. It would speak to its surveyor and contractors and then update her.
On 20 December 2022 the landlord provided its formal stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. All damp issues had now been resolved.
2. It had offered her £250 compensation comprising:
  1. £100 for “severe delays” in resolving the complaint.
  2. £75 for “service failure for delays in resolving the issue”
  3. £75 for “disruption to [her] life”
3. She was unhappy with the compensation offer and had expected closer to £1000 considering the “time taken to resolve the issue”.
4. It outlined the timescale of events related to the complaint:
  1. In May 2018 the resident reported damp. An inspection was carried out in June 2018 and a guttering repair was completed in November 2018.
  2. In October 2021 she reported damp again. A further inspection was completed and guttering repairs carried out in December 2021.
  3. Further guttering repairs were carried out in May 2022.
  4. She made a formal complaint in June 2022 and it visited the property in July 2022 as it had been unable to contact her by phone.
  5. It raised an inspection of the bay window roof and chimney flashings, its roofing contractor tried to contact her on several occasions to arrange an appointment.
  6. An inspection was completed on 13 September 2022 and no issues were found with the roof or bay window.
  7. A further inspection was completed on 23 October 2022 to inspect the loft. It was found that the loft insulation had been “displaced” by the previous leaseholder and this was causing “excessive heat loss and condensation build up”.
  8. The insulation was repositioned.
5. It was sorry for the time taken to resolve the issue. It often took time to track the source of water ingress.
6. It understood she remained dissatisfied and so had escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its process. It would provide a stage 2 complaint response within 8 weeks.
The landlord’s records show that it raised a stage 2 complaint on 8 March 2023. On 3 April 2023 it emailed the resident and said:
1. It apologised for the delay between the initial inspection in October 2021 and completion of the works in December 2021.
2. Further delays had occurred following an inspection in July 2022 with works being raised to the contractor in September 2022 and completed in December 2022.
3. It said that the delays had caused disruption to her daily life and that she had spent time and effort chasing for a resolution.
4. It increased its compensation offer to £550 comprising:
  1. £100 for “severe delays” in resolving the complaint.
  2. £75 for “service failure for delays in resolving the issue”.
  3. £75 for “disruption to [her] life”.
  4. £75 for time and trouble in pursuing the works.
  5. £75 for delays and errors in the complaint process.
  6. £75 for errors in logging the repair.
  7. £75 for disruption and the number of appointments required to complete the repair.
The resident rejected the landlord’s increased offer of compensation and asked it to consider refunding the service charges she had paid during the period she experienced leaks and damp.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 11 April 2023. It said:
1. Its stage 1 complaint response had incorrectly advised that the leak, damp and mould issue had been ongoing since 2018.
2. Due to the length of time between the guttering repairs in April 2019 and the damp issue being raised again in October 2021 it did not accept these were the same incident. It would therefore only consider events between the report on 12 October 2021 and resolution on 9 December 2022.
3. It accepted that there were delays in:
  1. Realigning the guttering between October 2021 and December 2021 due to its contractor not accepting the job.
  2. Completion of works to rectify the lead lining of the guttering, relay the loft insulation, and rectify aspects of the roof between January 2022 and May 2022.
  3. Repairs to the leadwork to the bay window roof and chimney flashings and repositioning of the loft insulation between July 2022 and December 2022.
4. It had increased its compensation offer to £550.
5. It would not reimburse the service charges paid as these charges were “not directly related to [her] repair service”.
6. The building fund element of the service charges was for “high-cost component replacements” rather than the repairs required in this case.
In February 2024 the resident escalated the complaint to this Service. She stated that the water penetration had reoccurred “seemingly from the same place” and that she therefore did not consider the issue resolved. She was also unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

It is acknowledged that the resident initially reported water ingress and subsequent damp in the property in 2018. This investigation has however primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the issue from August 2021 onwards. This is because we expect residents to raise complaints with landlords in a timely manner, and while they are “live”. It is also noted from the evidence that there was a gap in reporting issues between 2018 and 2021. We have therefore regarded the issues relating to this complaint as having commenced in 2021. The report refers to events prior to this timeframe this is only to provide context.

Handling of the resident’s reports of water penetration to the property which was causing damp and mould.

It is noted that in February 2023 the landlord implemented a damp, mould and condensation policy. This was during the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy states that:
1. It will take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
2. Its responsibility for damp in a leasehold property depends on the terms of the lease and what is causing the issue. Where it is responsible for maintaining the exterior of a leasehold property it will be “responsible for rectifying any issues relating to rising or penetrating damp”.
3. It will provide a “timely and reliable response”.
4. It will assess the risk to the household and will respond within:
  1. 24 hours in high risk cases.
  2. 72 hours in medium risk cases.
  3. 10 days in low risk cases.
The resident reported water ingress causing damp to her property in October 2021. Following the inspection the guttering repairs were completed 2 months later in December 2021.
In January 2022 the landlord carried out a further inspection which identified the cause of the damp as the guttering above the bay window, lead flashing on the chimney breast, and displaced loft insulation. The surveyor asked the leasehold team to raise the required repairs but we have seen no evidence that any action was taken at that time. It is unclear why no action was taken, however, that it was not was a failing.
The resident has stated that she contacted the landlord again in February 2022 as she continued to experience water ingress. While the resident’s comments are not disputed, this Service has not seen evidence of this.
On 16 June 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint. At this time she stated that she had been advised by a contractor in January 2022 that previous repairs had “not been completed to a high enough standard”. While we have not seen evidence of this interaction either, this seems to correspond with the landlord’s inspection in January 2022 at which time a contractor was also in attendance.
On 1 July 2022 the surveyor asked the leasehold team to confirm whether it had raised the repairs he requested in January 2022. They replied that this should have been sent to a different team as the building was of mixed tenure.
This Service considers that this is an example of poor communication and cooperation between departments causing avoidable delays. It would be reasonable to expect all departments to have worked together to ensure that the repair was logged in a timely manner so that it could be carried out promptly. That it did not was unreasonable and the prolonged delay causing the resident unnecessary time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
The resident has stated that she has had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates on the repair issues. It is noted that, while the landlord accepts that the resident indeed invested time and trouble in contacting it about the repairs, we have not seen evidence that her contacts have been recorded on its systems. This indicates that there are knowledge and information management issues and that either the landlord has failed to properly record the information or has failed to provide the records to this Service.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on repairs published in 2019, before the events in this investigation, stated that landlord’s should:
1. Clearly record residents’ reports of disrepair, including phone calls.
2. Agree actions and timescales for responding in line with its policies and obligations and confirm these in writing.
3. Inform the resident of any delays and explain why these are necessary.

In this case the landlord failed to follow what would be widely accepted as best practice. Had it done so, it may have delivered the repairs in accordance with its policy.

It is noted that in a telephone call to discuss her complaint in July 2022 the resident asked the landlord to provide details of what works had been done and why. The resident was a leaseholder and was therefore required to financially contribute to repair works completed by the landlord. It is accepted that the resident’s request did not necessarily constitute a formal request for information under section 21 or 22 the landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This legislation gives leaseholders the right to request a summary of service charge costs and to inspect receipts and accounts. We however do not consider that the vague and inaccurate timeframe provided by the landlord was sufficient or reasonable in this case.
Internal landlord emails in September 2022 stated that it had carried out a further inspection and raised the following works:
1. Repair the left side of the bay window roof where the lead work was leaking water into the bedroom over the window lintel.
2. Repair the flashings on the rear chimney stack.
3. Reposition the loft insulation.
It is noted that these are the same repairs identified by the surveyor in January 2022. It is unclear why these were not actioned sooner by the landlord. However, that it took the landlord 8 months to raise these repairs was unreasonable.
In October 2022 internal landlord emails described the issue as “never ending” and said there was some disagreement internally about whether the issue was ventilation in the loft or lead flashing on the bay window roof. Further internal emails in November 2022 and December 2022 demonstrate that the landlord was waiting for an appointment for the works raised in September 2022 to be completed.
Internal landlord emails in December 2022 describe its process in cases where works were required to mixed tenure buildings and where the cost of the work would be less than £250 per leaseholder. In such cases the landlord would raise an order to its main contractor to complete the works. In this case the contractor “refused to attend” as it was a leasehold property.
The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for this issue and the delays it caused and has stated this issue was addressed with the contractor and would not reoccur. This Service does not consider that the delay was acceptable. We consider that while its response and attempt to put the matter right when it was identified was reasonable and proportionate; it should not have reasonably taken it a year to identify the cause of the delay.
The records show that the repairs were completed in December 2022. That it took the landlord 11 months to complete repairs that were identified as being of concern was unacceptable.
In February 2024 the resident advised this Service that the water penetration had reoccurred “seemingly from the same place”. This Service made the landlord aware at that time that the issue had not been resolved. In August 2024 the resident advised that the issue was still ongoing and that no works had been carried out.
The landlord has responded to an information request from the Service and confirmed that the resident had reported further water ingress and that a repair was logged on 17 May 2024. It said that an inspection was carried out on 22 May 2024 and follow on works raised to erect scaffolding to allow removal of several tiles above the bay window and renewal of the felt. It would also check the widow lead. These works are booked for 20 August 2024.
It is noted that, while the landlord was asked to provide all repair logs until the current date, there is no record of the most recent reports or attendances. This is further indication of knowledge and information management issues.
Overall, the landlord has unreasonably delayed:
1. Between October 2021 and December 2021 in carrying out repairs to the guttering.
2. Between January 2022 and December 2022 in carrying out repairs to the roof, chimney, and loft insulation.

These delays were primarily caused by issues with the contractor and poor communication and teamwork internally between the landlord’s departments. It is concerning that these failures were not effectively identified by the landlord and this along with an absence of records indicating issues in the landlord’s recording of and application of knowledge and information. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water penetration to the property which was causing damp.

In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on knowledge and information management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. Had it been it may have avoided the service failures identified in this report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Complaint handling.

It is noted that the landlord’s complaint policy from the time of the resident’s complaint did not detail the timeframe in which it would respond to stage 1 or stage 2 complaints.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time stated that landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
On 16 June 2022 the resident telephoned the landlord and said she had submitted a formal complaint in February of that year but had not received a response. While the resident’s comments are not disputed, we have not seen any evidence demonstrating that the landlord was made aware of the complaint in February.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 20 December 2022. This was 129 working days after the resident’s call on 16 June 2022. This vastly exceeds the timeframe outlined in the Code and was wholly unreasonable.
The stage 1 response provided an outline of events relating to the repairs starting in 2018. The timeline provided in the response failed to acknowledge that the landlord had carried out an inspection in January 2022 which identified the cause of the damp and that the repairs had not been raised due to communication failings between its departments. That it did not do so was a failing.
The landlord’s stage 1 response also failed to address all aspects of the complaint. It failed to address the resident’s report that damage was being caused to her property. We have not seen evidence that that landlord sought to ascertain what damage had been caused to the property, and whether this included damage to items such as carpeting, furniture or belongings. This was a failing, and a departure from the Code.
It also failed to sufficiently address the resident’s request for information about what work had been completed and why.
The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for complaint handling delays, delays in resolving the repairs, and “disruption”. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer some redress for the failings it had acknowledged. We do not, however, consider that the compensation offered was proportionate to the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
As the landlord had discussed its stage 1 complaint response with the resident prior to sending its written response it was aware that the resident remained dissatisfied and stated that it would escalate the complaint. This was reasonable.
The landlord advised the resident that it would provide a response to her stage 2 escalation within 8 weeks. It is unclear why it gave this timeframe. While it is acknowledged that the landlord’s complaints policy had no timescales, 8 weeks is a significantly long time to respond to a complaint. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to respond to complaints in a timely manner and promptly as this can help to ensure that matters are put right quickly, and before they get worse. Furthermore, the landlord was obliged by the Code to provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. Regardless, the landlord failed to adhere to its informal timeframe of 8 weeks.
It was 11 weeks after its stage 1 complaint response that the landlord contacted the resident to advise it was looking at the stage 2 complaint. It was a further 5 weeks until it provided its final stage 2 complaint response.
In total it took the landlord 76 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This was completely unreasonable and while the landlord apologised for this delay and provided some compensation, this was not proportionate or sufficient.
The landlord stated within its stage 2 response that, due to the length of time between the reports of damp in 2019 and further reports in 2021, it did not consider the reports to be part of the same repair ‘incident’. We do not find that this was an unreasonable position. The reports were 2 and a half years apart and therefore could reasonably have been caused by different repairs issues.
The landlord’s stage 2 response, however, again failed to address all aspects of the complaint. It did not address the damage caused to the resident’s property or her request for information regarding the works completed.
We consider that, at a minimum, the landlord should reasonably have:
1. Made attempts to identify what damage was caused to the property.
2. Considered whether there was any evidence that it had been at fault for any damage to the resident’s property or belongings.
3. Had discussions with the resident regarding whether she could make an insurance claim for any damage on her own policy or the landlord’s policy.
The landlord advised in its final complaint response that it would not reimburse the service charges paid as these charges were “not directly related to [her] repair service”. It specifically referred to the building fund element of the service charges which had been referred to by the resident and explained that this charge was for “high-cost component replacements” rather than routine repairs. This Service considers that this decision and explanation was reasonable.
We do not however consider that the landlord’s revised offer of £550 compensation was proportionate.
It took the landlord 62 weeks from the date the resident reported the damp in October 2021 to carry out all the identified repairs. During this time the resident’s enjoyment of the property was reduced due to the damp within one of the bedrooms and the living room. We therefore consider that it is reasonable for the landlord to pay £1,116 compensation for reduced enjoyment of the property during this time. This has been calculated using the equivalent social rent for a property of the same size in the same area (based on data from the regulator of Social Housing) and the proportion of the property affected. The Service acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation but considers this to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account.
We also consider that the landlord should pay the resident:
1. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs.
2. £500 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. The landlord’s complaint handling was protracted, which caused the resident further unnecessary distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble. Its complaint handling also failed to provide accurate information, address all aspects of the complaint, or provide proportionate redress to the resident. Therefore there was maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water penetration to the property which was causing damp.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord at director level or above to apologise to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance.
2. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1,916 comprising:
  1. £1,116 for reduced enjoyment of the property due to the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
  2. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
  3. £500 for time and trouble due to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  4. If it has already paid the resident the £550 offered in its stage 2 complaint response, this should be deducted from the amount ordered.
Within 2 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to arrange a mutually convenient appointment with the resident to complete a thorough inspection of the damp in the property. The landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the inspection report along with a full action plan for resolving the repairs within 2 weeks of the date of the inspection.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Scheme the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager to ensure:
1. A self-assessment is completed against the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information management Spotlight recommendations.
2. A review is carried out in relation to how it records specialist inspections, including surveyor reports.
3. The correct storage, retention and supply of information related to repairs and complaints.

The landlord is to confirm compliance with this order within 10 weeks of the date of this report.