Home Group Limited (202401054)

Decision
Case ID	202401054
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Home Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	27 November 2025

Background

The resident, a leaseholder of a one-bedroom flat in a mixed-tenure block, has reported leaks, damp, and mould to the landlord since January 2024, stating it affects her son’s health.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Leaks, damp, and mould.
2. The associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp, and mould.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord was not responsible for repairs, but it agreed to investigate the damp and mould problem. There were delays and poor communication in how it managed this. The landlord has liaised with the managing agent about the repairs, but has not created an action plan.
The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 as per it’s complaints procedure.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 06 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £825 that it offered in its complaint responses. This is made up as follows: £675 for its failure to deal with the leaks, damp, and mould. £150 for its failures in handling the complaint. If the landlord has already paid this amount, it must provide documentary evidence of this by the due date. It will then not be required to make any further payment. If the landlord cannot provide evidence that it has already paid this amount, it must make payment directly to the resident by the due date and provide evidence of this.	No later than 06 January 2026
3	Action plan order Complete an action plan outlining the steps the landlord will take to ensure that the managing agent completes the repairs needed. The plan should also confirm the action the landlord will take if the agent fails to complete the repairs within a reasonable timeframe.	No later than 06 January 2026
4	Case review order The landlord must review its handling of the leaks, damp and mould, and the associated complaint. It should highlight any lessons learned. It should write to the resident, setting out the lessons learned, and what it will do to stop similar issues happening again.	No later than 06 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 January 2024	The resident reported cracks and water stains on the bedroom wall. The landlord inspected the property, did a mould wash, and gave the resident a dehumidifier, which she said was too big.
9 April 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said three contractors had visited but the problem wasn’t fixed. She said the damp and mould were affecting her son’s health. She believed the issue was caused by a leak from the walls and the upstairs neighbour’s balcony. She asked for a tank dehumidifier and reimbursement for running costs.
16 April 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It confirmed the complaint was about damp and mould, poor bedroom condition, and lack of a tank dehumidifier. The resident asked for repairs, decoration, and alternative accommodation. The landlord said it offered a standard dehumidifier on 19 February, but the resident declined. It said it doesn’t supply tank models. It raised damp and mould works on 26 March and was waiting to appoint a contractor. The landlord said it would provide a decorating voucher after repairs and explained it only offers alternative accommodation in extreme cases.
2 May 2024	The resident continued to express her dissatisfaction. The landlord issued another stage 1 response. It explained that it is not responsible for repairs, which include providing dehumidifier. The landlord said it was trying to hold the managing agent accountable.
6 September 2024	We asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
4 October 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said the resident was responsible for internal repairs (including balconies) and the managing agent for external/structural repairs. The landlord wasn’t legally responsible for balcony repairs but agreed to investigate because of the impact on the resident and delays by the managing agent. The landlord admitted delays and miscommunication in arranging mould washes and repairs. It said it would arrange another inspection to assess damage and confirm next steps. It would keep working with the managing agent and its legal team to push for balcony repairs. For the dehumidifier, the landlord said it logged the initial order but marked it as an error and didn’t supply a replacement. It would review this at the next inspection. The landlord offered £600 compensation (incorrectly stated as £550 in the letter): £150 for delay resolving damp and mould £150 for failure to provide a dehumidifier £75 for delay resolving the complaint £150 for disruption £75 for the resident’s time and effort
4 December 2024	The resident told us she wanted us to investigate because the landlord hadn’t resolved the issue.
23 May 2025	The landlord issued another stage 2 response after continued contact. It confirmed a leak from the upstairs balcony caused the damp and mould. It completed mould washes and repairs as a goodwill gesture. It admitted further delays since the last response and said it appointed a new contractor on 1 May 2025. The resident refused entry because the balcony wasn’t repaired, so the landlord closed the repair as the managing agent needs to complete this repair. The landlord repeated that the managing agent was responsible for balcony repairs. It said it had paid the previous £600 compensation and offered an extra £225 for further delays and inconvenience.
May 2025 onwards	The landlord continued contacting the managing agent and its legal team to resolve the issue.

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 handling of leaks, damp, and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we cannot look at

We cannot consider complaints about actions or omissions by organisations that are not members of the Scheme. The freeholder and managing agent are not members, so we cannot investigate them. Our investigation only covers the landlord’s actions.

What we can look at

This complaint is about how the landlord managed leaks, damp, and mould, including the resident’s request for a dehumidifier. We have included the dehumidifier issue as part of this complaint rather than treating it separately.
The landlord is the head leaseholder. The freeholder owns the block, and a management company is responsible for common parts. A managing agent performs the management company’s repair duties.
The developer (also the freeholder) handed the block over to the landlord in 2019. Residents reported defects from handover. The developer went into administration in 2021, and a new freeholder bought the development in late 2022.
On 23 January 2024, the resident reported water stains and cracked walls. The landlord said the cracks were her responsibility but arranged a survey to check they weren’t serious. The landlord could have explained repair responsibilities more clearly but acted reasonably by arranging a survey.
The survey took place on 12 February. The landlord gave the resident a dehumidifier, which she said was too big, but took no further action and failed to respond for six weeks. While the landlord initially helped, its lack of follow-up and communication was a failure.
The landlord raised a complaint and sent its stage 1 response on 16 April. It said it couldn’t provide a tank dehumidifier, noted the resident rejected the one offered, and confirmed it had raised damp, and mould works but was awaiting a contractor. It said it only offers alternative accommodation in extreme cases.
The landlord’s explanation about the dehumidifier was reasonable, but it didn’t explain delays in arranging works. Since it committed to act, it should have done so within a reasonable timeframe.
The lease makes the management company, through its agent, responsible for communal repairs. The head lease prohibits the landlord from conducting communal repairs or interfering with communal installations. The sublease states the landlord is not liable to the leaseholder for any failure or interruption to services provided by the management company.
On 2 May, the landlord issued another stage 1 response. It said it wasn’t responsible for repairs, including providing a dehumidifier, and confirmed it was pressing the agent to resolve balcony and roof issues. The landlord’s explanation was reasonable but late. It had shared general updates with leaseholders but should have clarified responsibilities when the resident first raised repairs.
On 4 October, the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It repeated its explanation, admitted delays and poor communication, and offered £600 compensation. It incorrectly stated that the total was £550 in its response.
The landlord’s response and the compensation it offered were reasonable.
After the stage 2 response, the landlord delayed the works again. It completed some works in October but failed to update the resident or act for over five months after this. This was a failure.
On 23 May 2025, the landlord issued another stage 2 response, acknowledged delays, and offered an extra £225 compensation. This was reasonable as the landlord again identified its failings and offered a reasonable level of compensation. The landlord offered compensation totalling £825, of which £675 relates to leaks, damp, and mould.
The landlord does not have to complete defect works. However, the resident’s legal relationship is with the landlord, not the freeholder or agent. The landlord must consult with them and advocate for the resident.
This is a complex issue affecting the whole development and taking time to resolve. The landlord contacted the agent regularly, sought legal advice, and gave weekly updates to all leaseholders. This was reasonable.
However, the landlord has not provided the resident with an action plan to show how it will ensure that the agent completes the repairs and what action it will take if it does not. While the landlord has consulted with its legal representatives and has had discussions with the parties involved, it would be reasonable to expect it to have an action plan in place. If it had an action plan in place, the landlord would have had clear direction in the steps it would follow to escalate the issue. The lack of any plan meant that there was internal confusion and a lack of clarity of what action it could take, and in the information it gave to residents.
The landlord went beyond its obligations by surveying the property and treating damp and mould. This shows it tried to support the resident. However, it delayed action and failed to keep the resident updated or monitor works proactively.
The landlord acknowledged its failings and offered fair compensation. It also said it will avoid new developments with complex management arrangements and set clear roles for managing third-party agents. This shows it has learned from this case.
We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp, and mould.
We have ordered the landlord to provide evidence to show that it has paid compensation of £675 to the resident, as outlined in its complaint responses. If it is unable to provide evidence that it has made the payment, the landlord is required to pay the amount directly to the resident.
We have ordered the landlord to provide the resident with an action plan for the repairs. This should show the steps that it is taking to ensure the agent completes the repairs, and the action that it will take if the agent fails to do so.
We have also ordered the landlord to send the resident a written apology addressing its failings.
Finally, we have ordered the landlord to review its handling of these issues and produce a report outlining its findings and any improvements it could make. It should write to the resident to outline the lessons learned and the steps it will take to avoid similar issues in future.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy says it must acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days after acknowledgment at stage 2. This is inline with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code says landlords must escalate a complaint if the resident remains dissatisfied and make reasonable efforts to understand why.
After the landlord issued its stage 1 response in April 2024, the resident repeatedly contacted it to express dissatisfaction. The landlord did not escalate the complaint. Internal emails in September 2024 say the resident requested escalation, but the landlord did not action this. This is a failure.
The landlord issued 2 stage 1 responses in April and May 2024 without explaining why it didn’t escalate to stage 2. This is another failure as the landlord issued 2 differing stage 1 responses about the same complaint.
On 23 May 2025, the landlord issued a second stage 2 response covering delays and communication issues since the previous stage 2 response. While it was positive that the landlord addressed these issues, it should have raised them as a new complaint. If it had issued a stage 1 response instead, the resident could have responded and escalated under its procedure.
The landlord’s compensation offers included £150 to address the delays in it resolving the resident’s complaint. This amount is reasonable.
However, while the landlord has acknowledged the delays in it providing complaint responses, it did not address its failure to follow its complaints procedure or escalate the complaint.
We find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
As stated previously, the offered compensation of £825 to the resident. This includes the £150 for the delay in resolving the complaint. We have ordered the provide evidence to show that it has paid this to the resident.
We have also ordered the landlord to send the resident a written apology addressing its failings and to review its handling of this complaint.

Learning

The landlord failed to escalate the complaint in line with its policy and the Code. It should proactively identify when residents remain unhappy and escalate. If unclear, it should ask residents if they want escalation.
The landlord should clarify responsibilities early. It could have clearly explained leaseholder and managing agent responsibilities at the outset to avoid confusion and unrealistic expectations.

Communication

The landlord often delayed responding to the resident about her complaint, forcing her to chase updates.

The landlord provided regular updates to all leaseholders about discussions with the agent and freeholder. While the issue is outside its control, this commitment to keep leaseholders informed is positive.

Record keeping

There were instances in which the landlord was unsure what action contractors had taken. The landlord should maintain accurate logs of inspections, contractor appointments, and communications to ensure transparency and accountability. This will help the landlord to be more proactive in monitoring and escalating repair issues.