Home Group Limited (202414371)

Decision
Case ID	202414371
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Home Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 November 2025

Background

1. The resident and his wife are both wheelchair users. Following an occupational health (OT) assessment in 2023, the local authority funded and installed a remote-control operated mechanism on his kitchen window to overcome difficulties the residents had with opening it. The following year the resident applied to install the mechanisms on all other windows at his own expense. The landlord approved his request and outlined the conditions that should be met, including that he would be responsible for the maintenance of them. The resident was unhappy with the tone of the letter informing him about the required terms and conditions and that he would be required to pay for the upkeep of the mechanisms.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Request to make a window mechanism adaptation.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to adapt his windows.
4. There was, however, service failing in its handling of the complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Window adaptations

5. The landlord’s response was reasonable because it clearly explained the conditions as required by relevant guidance and gave a satisfactory rationale for using standard wording. It acknowledged that legal terms feel impersonal and took steps to feedback internally and invited the resident to suggest improvements.

Complaint handling

6. The responses were respectful and aligned to the landlord’s policy to take a positive approach, share feedback, and invite suggestions for improvements. However, it failed to meet its stage 2 timescale and address an element of the resident’s 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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by someone senior. 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 £50 for its complaint handling failings. It must provide evidence this has been paid by the due date.	No later than 06 January 2026

 

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 April 2024	The resident made a new complaint that the letter approving his adaptation request was “rude” and “aggressive” and the conditions were unreasonable.
13 May 2024	In the stage 1 response, which was confirmed by phone and then in writing (on 14 May), the landlord apologised that the resident was unhappy with the tone of the letter. It said it had fed back his comments to the legal team. It also said that it had followed its adaptations policy in advising he was responsible for maintaining the mechanisms.   The resident escalated his complaint on the same day because he was dissatisfied with the response. He said he believed the landlord should accept liability for the mechanisms because he blamed it for a past fall his wife had and that they had paid a lot of money for the upkeep of their home.
26 June 2024	The stage 2 response explained that the letter used standard wording for consistency and because adaptations have strict terms and conditions that must be followed. The landlord recognised the resident found it impersonal and confirmed feedback was given to its legal team but could not say this would lead to any changes. There was no change to its position on the maintenance of the mechanisms.
After the complaints process ended	On an occupational therapist’s recommendation, the local authority approved works to install the mechanisms on all windows using a DGU.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us because he was unhappy with the response. He advised that he found the letter offensive and that, because of the landlord’s conditions, he did not go ahead with the adaptation which has caused inconvenience. He was also dissatisfied with the way the stage 2 investigation was handled because he said the landlord’s officer did not speak to him before reaching a decision. The resident said this led to his concerns not being fully considered. As an outcome, he wants the landlord to acknowledge its letter was inappropriate and make changes to the wording.

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	Window adaptations
Finding	No maladministration

7. The landlord’s response to this aspect was reasonable because the tenancy agreement states that adaptations may be subject to certain conditions and it was necessary for it to explain what these were in a clear and transparent way. It also provided a satisfactory explanation for using standard wording to explain the conditions of its agreement. While true, the landlord also recognised that the use of legal terms could come across as impersonal. It was reasonable for it to share the resident’s feedback with the relevant team for consideration. The landlord also invited the resident to share suggestions for ways the content could be improved, which was in line with its customer commitment to work with its tenants to improve services.
8. The landlord’s position on the mechanism being the resident’s responsibility to maintain is consistent with its approach outlined in its adaptations policy. It is also in line with the tenancy agreement which states the landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance of installations it provides, and the structure of the building. While this would include the windows, it is reasonable that it excluded the electric mechanisms. There is nothing in the policy that states conditions can be appealed or altered, so we cannot see that the resident’s reasons for believing they would or should have changed the decision.
9. Considering the above, we have found no failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s adaptations request.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

10. The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code required it to issue its stage 1 response to the complaint within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days. Both timeframes are calculated from the date of its acknowledgement of receipt, which must be sent within 5 working days of receiving a complaint. The landlord appropriately met the stage 1 timescale but failed to meet the stage 2 service standard by 5 working days and without putting the resident on notice of the delay. It did not acknowledge or apologise so it missed an opportunity to put things right in the complaints process.
11. The resident advised us that he recognised the matters surrounding his wife’s fall were historic and did not expect them to be investigated, but that he believed it was relevant context the landlord should have considered at stage 2. Records show that the landlord did make attempts to discuss the complaint with him by telephone. Its officer spoke with his wife about it instead on 5 June 2024. This was reasonable because she was both a joint tenant and a person affected by the issues raised. Importantly, the landlord sent a written acknowledgement to the resident confirming the aspects complained about and this gave him an opportunity to respond to correct or clarify.
12. While the above actions were appropriate, the resident’s reasons for escalating had been clearly recorded. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not reference his views about why he felt it should take responsibility for the mechanisms. We have not seen this made a material difference to the decision. And the landlord likely could not provide its own view on this if this was not something it had previously had an opportunity to investigate and respond to. However, it caused the resident a degree of time and trouble because it was one of his reasons for referring his complaint to us.
13. According to the complaints policy, the landlord took a “positive approach” to complaints and sought to treat residents with respect and to learn from feedback. The tone of both responses was, in our view, in line with its approach. It showed respect for the resident’s perspective, shared his feedback with the relevant department, and invited him to make suggestions for how it could make its response more personable.
14. In view of the above, we have found service failure because the landlord did not meet the prescribed timescale and it did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint. We have ordered it to put things right, in line with our guidance on remedies.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

15. The records in this case were of a good standard because they showed what happened and when.

Communication

16. Based on the records, the level of communication was adequate because the landlord, at both stages, spoke to or attempted to speak to the resident to understand his concerns. It sent acknowledgments, as it should have.