Home Group Limited (202330312)

Decision
Case ID	202330312
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Home Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 November 2025

Background

1. The resident’s tenancy ended on 23 August 2022. After the resident moved out the landlord inspected the property. It identified several repairs which it considered had been the resident’s responsibility to fix. It also found the resident had left items in the property which it needed to remove. It added the cost of resolving these matters to the resident’s rent account. This is known as ‘recharging’.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s decision to recharge the resident after the end of their tenancy.
   2. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to recharge the resident.
   2. The landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s decision to recharge the resident

4. The landlord made its decision in line with its relevant policies. It provided the resident with clear information about the possibility of charges before they ended their tenancy. It also provided the resident with clear explanations about why it had decided to add charges to their rent account.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord did not respond to the complaint in line with its policies or our Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the ‘Code’). It identified this failure in its complaint responses. It offered £55 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. We have found the landlord’s offer was proportionate to its failings and provided a satisfactory resolution to the complainant.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £55 as agreed in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 January 2023	The resident made their complaint to the landlord. They said the landlord had charged them for repairs to damage which had been present when they moved in. They accepted they had left items when they moved out but said they had since paid the landlord for removing these. They asked the landlord to review the remaining charges.
9 February 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It had spoken to the resident a few months after they had started their tenancy. At that time, they had not reported any damage in the property. After the resident gave notice to end their tenancy, it had told them it would charge them if it needed to repair any damage they had caused or remove any items they left in the property. It had tried to contact the resident to arrange a pre-termination inspection. The resident had not responded and it had been unable to agree a suitable time. This inspection would have allowed it to highlight any potential issues before the tenancy ended. It had added the recharge costs to the resident’s rent account on 25 August 2022. The resident made a payment to the rent account on 1 December 2022 but this had been to clear outstanding rent arrears. It would not remove the charges from the resident’s rent account.
16 February 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate their complaint to stage 2. They said they could pay the charges for clearing the property. They repeated they did not believe they should have to pay for the repairs.
25 April 2023	The landlord issued its final response. It repeated the information it had provided in its stage 1 response. It said it did not accept the damage had been present before the resident’s tenancy had started. It was satisfied the charges were valid and should remain on the rent account. The landlord apologised for the delay in issuing its response. It explained this had been due to an increase in complaint volumes and a lack of available resources. It offered £55 compensation in recognition of the delay.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because they remained unhappy the landlord had charged them for the repairs in the property.

 

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s decision to recharge the resident after the end of their tenancy.
Finding	No maladministration

6. The repairs the landlord said it had to carry out were:
   1. Repairing damage to internal doors.
   2. Replacing plug sockets and light switches which had been painted.
   3. Removing stickers from walls and Velcro strips from window frames.
7. The resident disputed they caused the damage in the property. We have not been given any evidence which shows the above issues were present when the resident started their tenancy. We have also not given any evidence which shows the landlord knew, or ought to have known, about any damage before it inspected the property on 25 August 2023.
8. The resident’s tenancy agreement said they would be responsible for repairing or replacing anything they had damaged deliberately, accidentally, or through neglect. This included any damage caused by members of the household or guests. The exception to this was damage caused by normal wear and tear. The agreement also made it clear that, if required, the landlord would carry out repairs and charge the resident for any costs it incurred.
9. The evidence shows the landlord handled the end of the resident’s tenancy in line with its Property Management Policy and the resident’s tenancy agreement. It attempted to arrange a pre-termination inspection. It clearly explained it would charge the resident if it had to repair any damage they had caused or clear any items from the property. It provided this explanation as soon as the resident gave notice to end the tenancy. This allowed reasonable time for the resident to carry out the needed repairs before leaving the property.
10. The landlord’s decision to recharge the resident was one it was entitled to make. It was reasonable for it to not categorise the identified damage as normal wear and tear. And, based on the available evidence, it was also reasonable for it to consider the resident was responsible for the repairs. It provided the resident with clear explanations about why it had charged them.
11. The evidence shows the landlord acted reasonably and fairly in deciding to recharge the resident. For these reasons, we find there was no maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

12. The landlord provided us with a copy of its Complaints, Compliments and Comments Policy which was in use at the time of the resident’s complaint. This policy does not include any information about the timescales in which it would respond to stage 1 or stage 2 complaints. This lack of detail was not in line with our Code.
13. The Code said landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 workings days. Acknowledgement letters sent to the resident show the landlord was working to these timescales at both stages.
14. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued in line with the requirements of the Code. Its final response was issued 20 working days after its stage 2 acknowledgement. However, it took 28 working days to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request. This meant, overall, it took the landlord 48 working days to issue its final response. This was not in line with the Code and was an unreasonable length of time to expect the resident to wait for a response to their complaint.
15. When the resident asked to escalate their complaint, the landlord told them it was taking up to 8 weeks to acknowledge stage 2 escalations. This shows the landlord was trying to keep the resident updated and manage their expectations.
16. In its final response the landlord accepted there had been a delay in issuing its final response. It provided an explanation for the delay and offered compensation to apologise for its failure.
17. There is no evidence the delay caused any significant adverse impact to the resident. The landlord’s offer of compensation, when assessed using our remedies guidance, was appropriate for a situation where a failure had occurred but there was minimal impact. As such, we assess the landlord’s offer of compensation to be proportionate to its failings and it satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord kept appropriate records about its contact with the resident and the decisions it made in this case. We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

19. We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s communication.