Home Group Limited (202328635)

Background

1. There was a fire at the resident’s home. She raised a complaint 6 months later, saying she was unhappy at the lack of action from the landlord. She said repairs had not been completed properly and the property was unsafe for her and her family who were vulnerable. She said her family’s health was impacted.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handing of:
   1. repairs following a fire at the resident’s property
   2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have determined that the landlord is responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its handling of repairs following a fire at the resident’s property
   2. maladministration in its complaint handling

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs following a fire at the resident’s property

4. The landlord acknowledged failures in its response to the repairs and offered apologies and compensation. However, these did not go far enough. It failed to show it had considered the potential impact on the health of the resident and her family.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord failed to keep to its timelines. It did not respond to all aspects of the complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

 Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we’re not looking at

6. The resident asked for compensation for her damaged belongings and made a claim through the landlord’s insurer. The resident received a decision from its insurer on 31 August 2023. It said it would not make any offer of compensation for liability as there was no evidence that the fire was the fault of the landlord. We are unable to comment on decisions that have been made by an insurer so have not investigated this aspect of the complaint. We cannot make liability decisions or ascertain whether the landlord was responsible for damages.
7. The resident said her and her family’s health was impacted by the issue and the landlord’s inaction. We cannot say if its actions directly caused a detrimental impact on health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court where medical experts can assess evidence. We can look at whether the landlord considered the resident’s reports of health issues, and the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings.

What we have looked at

8. The landlord acknowledged in both of its complaint responses that it had been slow to address repair issues following the fire. It said its surveyor attended on 5 January 2023 and requested a further structural survey. However, due to delays caused by administrative errors and capacity issues, the survey did not take place until 1 June 2023. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this was a significant failing. It failed to show that it was following the repair timelines set out in its Responsive Repairs policy or that it had a plan for keeping her informed as its policy says it will.
9. The landlord raised works on 6 June 2023 once the survey had been completed. Its Responsive Repairs policy from the time of the complaint allowed 14 days for the completion of routine repairs but did not set a timeframe for more complex works. Internal emails show the landlord raised works but failed to organise a date to complete them until it spoke to the resident on 28 June 2023. Works were scheduled between 11 and 13 July 2023.
10. Even without a policy timeframe for complex works, it was unreasonable that the landlord knew it was already delayed by 6 months but failed to act urgently to arrange repairs once the survey was complete. It did not show it was taking learning from the process. The resident was put to further distress as the works were not given priority.
11. The landlord logged all repairs as complete from 13 July 2023. The resident raised further concerns about works not being completed effectively and the structure not being safe on 28 July 2023. It acknowledged these concerns and asked her to provide pictures so it could plan to resolve them.
12. When the landlord received photos from her on 18 August 2023, it forwarded them to a manager but did not appear to take any action while the issue was being investigated as a complaint. This was not appropriate. It should have systems in place to be able to progress works in line with policy while they are the subject of a complaint investigation.
13. The resident raised further concerns about the works on 6 October 2023 and again on 6 November 2023. Following each of these reports, the landlord organised a visit to the property and identified follow on works. It was positive that it listened to her concerns and took steps to try and resolve the problems she had identified. It showed it was taking learning from the process.
14. In its stage 2 response on 17 November 2023, the landlord offered the resident a total of £1,105 for failings related to the delay in completing repairs. This included £830 of rent reduction for the loss of the use of her lounge between January 2023 and June 2023. This was an appropriate amount of compensation for the distress and inconvenience she faced as a result of the delay in completing the repairs. This was calculated in line with its Compensation Guidance.
15. The resident said communication had been poor throughout the process. Records show that the landlord did respond to most communication she sent following the fire and over the course of the complaint. However, it was the resident who initiated most contact and had to chase it for responses.
16. For example, the landlord acknowledged in an email on 5 May 2023 that the resident had not been contacted since 30 December 2022 following a call she made to its Customer Service team. She continued to call for updates until a relevant member of staff spoke to her on 15 May 2023 regarding the works. She chased it again on 6 June 2023, having not heard anything since. This pattern continued throughout the complaint process. It was not appropriate that she faced ongoing time and trouble chasing it for updates on the works in her home.
17. The landlord should have made a plan for keeping the resident informed on progress with the repairs as its Responsive Repairs policy says it will. It acknowledged this failing in its stage 2 response and offered total compensation of £150 for its poor communication around the status of works and the time and trouble she faced chasing it.
18. It was reasonable that it apologised for its failing but it did not go far enough. She faced 11 months of inconsistent communication and ongoing time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates on the works. We have ordered further compensation to reflect the extended amount of time she was inconvenienced by its poor communication. This is in line with our remedies guidance.
19. The resident frequently raised concerns about the impact of the fire damage on the health of her and her children. These concerns were also supported by a Social Worker for the local authority in February 2023 in a letter sent to the landlord that cited the potential trauma for the family due to the event and its subsequent health impact.
20. The landlord discussed internally whether the property was suitable for them to remain in on 23 May 2023. It decided it was, based on the fact that only the lounge was affected, but did not show any other reasoning. There is no evidence it made any further considerations about the impact of the issue on the health of her family for the remainder of the process, such as a risk assessment. It is also unclear if it communicated its decision about the suitability of the home to her. It did not give a response to her health concerns in its complaint responses.
21. In its Property Management Policy, the landlord says it will take all reasonable steps to minimise the risk of defects placing residents in danger when completing repairs and works essential for health and safety. It also says it will prioritise repairs for vulnerable customers in exceptional circumstances.
22. Given the nature of the damage and concerns raised around structural integrity and respiratory conditions, it was unreasonable that the landlord was unable to show its considerations around the suitability of the property while repairs remained incomplete. It should have considered prioritising the repair or explained why it was satisfied the works did not require higher priority. The resident was not shown that her concerns about health were being taken seriously.
23. The landlord acknowledged there had been an impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of the household in its stage 2 response and offered £300 compensation to reflect this. It was appropriate that it acknowledged there had been an impact, but it did not go far enough. Its failure to show it was considering the additional needs of her family significantly impacted the resident. An order of further compensation has been made in line with its Discretionary Compensation Policy and our own remedies guidance. We have also ordered it to review its process for risk assessing repairs that may impact vulnerable residents.

24. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code.”)
25. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 12 working days (25 July 2023 to 10 August 2023) which was not in line with the 10 days the Code allows
    2. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 60 working days (25 August 2023 to 17 November 2023) which was not in line with the 20 days the Code allows
26. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was inconsistent. It did not keep to the response timescales or guidelines for requesting extensions set out in its policy. For example, it sent the resident an update on its investigation at stage 1 on 1 August 2023 stating it needed more time to investigate due to staff absences. This was positive and showed an intention to maintain consistent communication with her. However, it failed to set out a clear timescale for when she could expect as response as its policy says it will.
27. After the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request, it failed to give her any updates on the complaint at all until the response came on 17 November 2023, 60 working days later. This was not appropriate and did not show that it had sufficient oversight of the complaints process. It should have agreed an extension to its response deadline once it knew it would run over the normal timeframe as its policy says it will. She was left with no understanding of when or if it was progressing her complaint.
28. It failed to respond to all of the issues raised in the complaint as the Code says it must. It did not address concerns she had raised around the impact of the issue on her and her children’s health, or concerns that the fire alarms were not wired into the mains electricity as a failsafe. This was not appropriate. It missed the opportunity to offer reassurance to the resident and to identify learning from the complaint.
29. The landlord apologised for its poor complaint handling in its stage 2 response and offered £100 compensation. This did not go far enough. The unaddressed complaint points and significant delays warrant a further award of compensation to reflect their impact on the resident, in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

30. The landlord showed an awareness of its failings and attempted to put things right which was appropriate. It could consider whether a thorough risk assessment of both the resident’s needs and the condition of the property would have resulted in a more effective repair response and better outcomes for the resident and her family.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s poor record keeping resulted in delays throughout the process. It could review its approach to the recording of complaints, repair requests and the raising of works to see where there was inconsistency in its approach.

Communication

32. The landlord acknowledged failings in its communication which was appropriate. It could consider whether having a communication plan for keeping the resident updated on the progress of repairs would have resulted in more efficient completion of the work and more reassurance for the resident.