Home Group Limited (202302832)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302832

Home Group Limited

29 November 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 handling of the resident’s reports of her property being cold.
This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 20 January 2020 and is for a fixed period of 6 years. The property is a 2 bedroom mid terrace house. The resident lives with her young child who has asthma, eczema, and a neurological condition.
The resident reported a draft and a gap around her back door frame to the landlord in September 2022. The landlord’s contractors sealed cracks on the floor and recommended the landlord fitted a draft excluder. The resident reported a further issue with the seals on her windows to the landlord on 23 January 2023. The landlord adjusted the keeps and slide bolts, removed all sealant from around the doors and windows, and resealed with fresh silicone on 6 February 2023.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 22 March 2023. She said her child was vulnerable and her house was always cold because the repairs to her windows had not been completed properly. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 11 April 2023. It said it would overhaul the rear door, replace 2 double glazed windows in the door, overhaul all windows, replace any defective parts or seals, install larger radiators in both bedrooms, and apply mould treatment to the affected areas. The landlord completed the work and then closed the complaint as “withdrawn” on 9 November 2023, as the resident had not responded to the stage 1 letter. It also offered the resident £250 to apologise for the delays, number of appointments required and time and effort.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 November 2023. She told the landlord that her complaint had not been resolved. She raised a further formal complaint on 1 December 2023 about the same issues. She said her house was cold because of the front door and balcony windows. She said she had mould on the walls and the landlord had not resolved the issues. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 15 December 2023. It said it would carry out an inspection on an agreed date and ensure the required repairs were completed.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 18 December 2023. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint. It sent the resident a further stage 1 response on 15 March 2024. It said it had inspected the doors and windows on 15 January 2024 and 6 February 2024. It said it found that the windows met the required standards, although the front door had dropped. It said it had raised a job for a borescope survey to assess the insulation within the cavity. It had also carried out a heat loss survey on 12 January 2024 and concluded that a larger radiator needed to be fitted in the lounge.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 16 April 2024. It said it had completed an inspection on 12 April 2024 and found that a number of repairs were required. These were to overhaul the rear bedroom sash window, ease and adjust the front door, treat mould in the living room, and rake out and reseal all windows (internally). The landlord said it would log the works as soon as possible. It also said it would arrange the borescope survey.
The landlord sent the resident a further stage 2 complaint response on 16 July 2024. It said its contractors had attended to complete the repairs to the windows on 29 May 2024. However, they said the works were not required as the windows were in full working order. It said a surveyor had attended on 3 July 2024 and confirmed that the windows were in working order. It confirmed that the windows would not be replaced. It said it had completed other repairs to improve the energy and heat efficiency of the resident’s home, including works to replace the front door in May 2024. It said it had also installed additional insulation in the walls. It said it had offered to install larger radiators in the lounge, although the resident had refused the works due to concerns it would increase her heating bills. It offered the resident £875 compensation for the delays in completing the repairs, time and effort, and the disruption caused.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has had on her child’s health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury must be decided by a court, who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, this Service may consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her child.
The resident has also expressed concerns that the landlord has discriminated against her because of her nationality. The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. The landlord has a duty under the Act not to unlawfully discriminate against a person based on their protected characteristics. The Act prohibits direct discrimination, which occurs where a person treats another person less favourably because of a protected characteristic.
It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the actions, or inaction, of the landlord’s staff amounted to discrimination. Allegations of discrimination are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and response to, the resident was appropriate, fair and reasonable.

The resident’s reports of her property being cold

The landlord’s evidence shows that the resident first raised issues with her property being cold in September 2022, when she reported gaps around the frame of her back door. The landlord responded and sealed some cracks in the floor. Its contractors recommended fitting a draft excluder, however, it is unclear from the evidence provided as to whether this was done.
The resident reported further issues on 23 January 2023 with the seals on her windows. The landlord adjusted the keeps and slide bolts on the doors and windows on 6 February 2023, so that they would pull tighter onto the seals. It also removed the sealant from around the inside of the doors and windows and resealed with fresh silicone.
The resident was unhappy with the work completed so she raised a formal complaint on 22 March 2023. She said her house was cold and it did not retain the heat after she had turned her heating off. She said her child had a disability, low immunity, and she had been diagnosed with asthma after being ill in November 2022. She asked the landlord to complete the required work to the windows urgently and to insulate the house.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 11 April 2023. It said it had visited her and it had raised works to overhaul the rear door, replace 2 double glazed windows in the rear door, overhaul all windows in the property, replace any defective parts or seals, install larger radiators in both bedrooms, and treat mould in the affected areas. It said it would consider compensation following completion of the works.
The landlord’s records show that it completed the works to the radiators on 5 June 2023. It completed the works to the windows and doors on 12 June 2023, and the mould works were completed on 19 June 2023. However, this was approximately 2 months after the stage 1 response.
The landlord’s service standards for repairs says it aims to resolve all standard repairs in an average of 28 days. As the overall work took around 2 months to complete from the date of the stage 1 response, the landlord did not act in accordance with the timeframes set within its service standards for repairs. Therefore, its actions were inappropriate in the circumstances. This was particularly so, as it was aware of the resident’s child’s disabilities and how the loss of heat was affecting her.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property on 5 September 2023. This was because the resident had reported that the windows were not closing tightly enough. She also told the landlord that she had expected it to replace more of the double glazing units when it carried out the works to the windows. The landlord found that the double glazing units were sufficient. It said it would, however, replace the handles on the kitchen and front bedroom windows. The handles were replaced on 29 September 2023, this was within the landlord’s timeframe of 28 days for standard repairs.
The landlord closed the resident’s stage 1 complaint as “withdrawn” on 9 November 2023. It also offered her £250 compensation for the delays in resolving the repairs, the number of appointments required, and the time and effort to progress the repairs.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 November 2023. She told the landlord that she did not agree that her complaint should be closed as the issues had not been resolved. She raised a further formal complaint on 1 December 2023. She told the landlord that the house was still cold. She said her boiler could be on for 4 hours or more but the downstairs was still cold. She said it was costing a lot of money to try to heat the house adequately. She said she was getting mould on the walls again because of the cold. She told the landlord that the cold was affecting her daughter due to her disabilities.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 6 December 2023. She said she believed her house would not stay warm because of the windows and the front door. She also said she had to manually turn her boiler on and off because her thermostats did not work properly. She said she had been complaining for 12 months and the issues were still not resolved.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 15 December 2023. It said it would carry out an inspection at an agreed date, raise works to resolve the issues, and review the repairs completed following the previous complaint. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 December 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and she asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord’s contractors visited the resident on 4 January 2024 to complete heat loss calculations for the central heating system. They concluded that she needed a larger radiator in the living room.
The resident raised a repair on 12 January 2024 due to mould forming on her walls around her windows and front door. The landlord visited the resident on 15 January 2024 to inspect the windows. It said the windows had been inspected twice and all seals and parts were found to be working correctly. Therefore, there were no repairs required.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 6 February 2024. As a result, it raised an order for a 3 stage mould treatment. However, this was “abandoned” by the resident on 28 February 2024. It is unclear from the evidence provided why the resident did this, given that she had reported the mould. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord queried this. This was unreasonable as it was aware of the extent of the mould and that there was a child with disabilities and asthma living in the property.
The landlord completed the repairs to the resident’s thermostat on 12 February 2024. Although it carried out the inspection it agreed in its stage 1 response and raised follow on works in relation to the thermostat, it took almost 2 months for the work to be completed. This was outside of the 28 days set within its service standards for standard repairs. Its actions were, therefore, inappropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord asked the resident on 20 February 2024 whether she was happy with the work completed. She responded on 24 February 2024 and told the landlord that she was not happy, as the work completed had not helped her house retain the heat. She told the landlord that she still believed the issue was with her windows and doors.
The resident continued to report her concerns so the landlord carried out an inspection on 6 March 2023. It said the windows were in full working order and did not need to be replaced. However, it confirmed that it had arranged for a borescope survey to be carried out to assess the cavity wall insulation. It also arranged for repairs to be carried out to the front door.
The landlord sent the resident a further stage 1 complaint response on 15 March 2024. The response said further investigations into the boiler established that there were no repairs needed. However, repairs to the thermostat were completed by 15 February 2024. It said it had hoped to complete the repair sooner but the resident’s availability had caused difficulties in booking the repairs. It said it had carried out inspections on 15 January 2024 and 6 February 2024. It concluded that the windows met the required standards and did not need to be repaired or replaced. Although it confirmed that it had raised a repair for the front door as it was not aligned. It said it had instructed its contractors to complete a borescope survey to assess the insulation within the cavity. It had also carried out heat loss calculations in relation to the central heating. It had concluded that a larger radiator was needed in the lounge. However, the resident had declined this as she was concerned it would increase her energy bills.
The landlord visited the resident’s property on 12 April 2024 to complete a further inspection of the windows. It said the sash windows and seals were in good condition. Some minor adjustments were needed as the rear bedroom had a small gap. It said the rear door was deemed to be in a good condition and it was closing properly. The front door needed a minor adjustment as the gaps were uneven and it had dropped. It also said it would rake out and reseal all windows (internally) due to mould growth on the silicone.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 16 April 2024. It said it was progressing with the works identified during the recent inspection. It also said it had chased the borescope survey and it would provide updates when they were available. It said it would consider compensation following completion of the agreed actions.
The landlord confirmed in an internal email dated 17 April 2024 that it had installed cavity wall insulation following the results of the borescope. However, it has not provided a copy of the survey results to this Service or confirmed when the work took place. The landlord’s records also show that a mould wash was completed to the lounge walls on 29 April 2024.
The evidence suggest that the landlord fitted a new front door on 24 May 2024. Although it is unclear from the evidence provided as to why it had been necessary. The landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property on 29 May 2024 to rake out and reseal around the internal window reveals. However, they did not complete the work as the sealant was not cracked and was still intact. They also checked all windows and confirmed that the hinges could not be adjusted. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day as she was unhappy that the work to re-seal had not been completed.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 13 June 2024. She told the landlord that her property had been very cold for 2 years. She explained that her daughter had disabilities and asthma. She told the landlord that she felt that it was discriminating against her and her daughter. The resident sent a further email on 20 June 2024. She said she could not keep her house warm and her bills had increased by over £100. She said she believed that the windows needed to be replaced. She said her health and her daughter’s health had deteriorated due to the constant cold. She also re-iterated her concern that the landlord was discriminating against her because of her nationality.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord investigated or addressed the resident’s concerns of discrimination, or that it responded to her in relation to her concerns. The landlord has a duty under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) not to unlawfully discriminate against a person based on their protected characteristics. As such, following allegations of discrimination, this Service would expect the landlord to conduct a full investigation and provide the resident with a response. As the landlord cannot evidence that it did this, it would be reasonable to conclude that it did not properly consider its obligations under the Act. This was inappropriate and unfair to the resident.
The landlord visited the resident’s property again on 3 July 2024 to carry out a further inspection of the windows. The surveyor came to the same conclusion that the windows/seals did not need to be replaced. It is unclear from the evidence provided why the landlord continued to inspect the windows when it was clear that it would not reach a different conclusion. It would have been more appropriate and reasonable for it to look at other alternative factors that may have been affecting the heat retention capability of the resident’s property. Continuing to address the same issues not only delayed the possibility of a resolution, but it also unfairly raised the resident’s expectations that the landlord may change its stance on the matter.
The landlord sent the resident a further stage 2 complaint response on 16 July 2024. It re-iterated the work it had completed since the previous stage 2 response. It also confirmed that it had inspected the windows on multiple occasions and found no faults. It offered the resident £875 compensation. This was based on £200 for the delays to complete repairs, £150 for the disruption caused, £75 for time and effort, £75 for the delays in actioning the heat loss survey, £75 for repeat attendances to the thermostat and £300 for impact on the resident.
The amount of compensation offered by the landlord at stage 2 was reasonable considering the resident’s circumstances and the level of distress and inconvenience caused. The amount awarded by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. However, the resident’s issues in relation to heat loss are still unresolved and the landlord has not proposed any alternative solutions or investigations within its stage 2 response. Had it done so, it is likely that a finding of reasonable redress would have been found rather than a finding of maladministration.
In summary, the landlord did carry out inspections and complete repairs in an attempt to reduce the heat loss from the resident’s property. Although the repairs were not completed within the timeframes set in the landlord’s service standards for repairs. The landlord did offer to increase the size of the radiators and added cavity wall insulation. However, it inspected the windows on multiple occasions even though it was satisfied that they were in full working order. It did not consider any alternative investigations or solutions to address the resident’s heat loss issue. It also did not properly consider the resident’s allegations of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
As a result of these failings, the level of detriment caused to the resident and her daughter, and the continuing issues with heat loss from the resident’s property, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints with 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 22 March 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 11 April 2023. This was 12 days from the date the resident raised the complaint and only just outside of the timeframe set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord sent the resident a complaint closure letter on 9 November 2023. It said it would close the complaint as “withdrawn” as it had not received a response. It is unclear from the evidence provided why the landlord would have considered the complaint as withdrawn. It had only just offered the resident compensation in the letter dated 9 November 2023, and yet it had not given her the opportunity to respond to the offer or to escalate her complaint to stage 2 if she was dissatisfied. It told her that if she wished to re-open her complaint, it would log a new stage 1 complaint. This was unreasonable, as the landlord would be repeating a stage in its complaints process unnecessarily and prolonging the process for the resident without any good reason.
The resident informed the landlord on 18 November 2023 that she was unhappy with its response as her complaint had not been resolved. Instead of escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2, it opened a new stage 1 complaint on 1 December 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 15 December 2023. This was within the timeframe set in the landlord’s complaints policy of 10 working days.
The resident told the landlord that she was dissatisfied with its response on 18 December 2023. She asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord confirmed in an internal email dated 2 January 2024 that the resident wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2, yet it did not do so. The resident chased the landlord for a stage 2 response on 2 February 2024, 20 February 2024, 9 March 2024, and 10 March 2024. As she did not receive a response from the landlord she contacted this Service. We contacted the landlord on 11 March 2024 and asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
Despite our request to escalate her complaint to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a further stage 1 complaint response on 15 March 2024. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (1 April 2022) says at 5.9, if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. Therefore, the landlord did not act in accordance with the Code when it failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2. This was inappropriate in the circumstances as it not only delayed the resident’s escalation to stage 2, but it delayed the resident’s ability to escalate the matter to this Service for investigation.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response letter on 16 April 2024. This was almost 4 months from the original date of escalation (18 December 2023) and significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord also failed to recognise its complaint handling failures within its response. The landlord sent the resident a further stage 2 complaint “review” response on 16 July 2024. However, it again did not recognise its complaint handling failures within the response.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint process was confusing and protracted. It sent multiple complaint responses and failed to comply with the timeframes set within its complaints policy. It also failed to act in accordance with the Code and it did not recognise its complaint handling failures within its stage 2 responses. As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of her property being cold.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,075 (the landlord can deduct from the total any amount it has already paid). This is made up of:
  1. £875 in recognition of the delays, distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of her property being cold.
  2. £200 in recognition of the complaint handling failures and the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling.
3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Instruct an independent specialist who can carry out a full and thorough heat loss survey/thermal imaging survey to the whole property to identify areas where a significant amount of heat is being lost. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a full copy of the survey.
2. Based on the recommendations, the landlord must produce a schedule of works. This must include proposed completion dates. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a copy.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.