Home Group Limited (202423094)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property, a 2-bedroom house since August 2014. The resident reported large gaps around her window (timber) frames in December 2023.

What the complaint is about

2.               The complaint is about the landlords:
   1. Handling of replacement windows and request to install UPVC.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of replacement windows and request to install UPVC.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We found that:
   1. The landlord took a reasonable approach to the resident’s request to install UPVC. The landlord had no obligation to change the windows from timber to UPVC, it considered the request and provided a reasonable response.
   2. However, we found maladministration because:
      1. The replacement windows have remained outstanding since December 2023.
      2. The resident spent time and trouble chasing the landlord over a prolonged period and communication was poor.
      3. The landlord failed to complete remedial repairs as promised in December 2024.

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.

  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.

4. The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including windows and doors. The law obliges the landlord to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The resident’s tenancy agreement acknowledges this duty within its terms and conditions.
5. On 20 December 2023, the resident reported disrepair to her windows and on 28 February 2024, the landlord conducted an inspection. This was a reasonable first step to take, as the landlord was required to assess the condition of the windows. Following the inspection, the landlord raised an order for replacement windows and a patio door. The landlord completed the inspection 48 days after the resident’s report of disrepair, it has not explained a reason the delay, therefore this was unreasonable.
6. On 4 March 2024, the landlord’s contractor confirmed that it was unable to supply and fit timber windows. The landlord cancelled the works and closed the order. There is no evidence that it contacted the resident to explain the issue or appointed a different contractor to complete the works. This was both inappropriate and unreasonable and caused the resident further time and trouble chasing an update.

7. The resident said she made repeated attempts to contact the landlord for an update. In April 2024 the resident requested the support of her MP to obtain a resolution. In May 2024 the MP said it had not received a response from the landlord. This led to the resident raising a stage 1 complaint. It should not take an MP’s intervention or a complaint to encourage the landlord to respond. The landlord’s lack of communication with the resident or MP caused frustration, delayed the resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on the resident.
8. On 19 September 2024, the resident asked the landlord to replace the windows in UPVC rather than timber. The landlord’s internal records show that it gave this request consideration and agreed to meet with the resident’s MP at the property. The appointment was arranged for 6 December 2024, however due to the MP’s availability it was rescheduled for 20 December 2024. The landlord’s records show that between September and December 2024, it acted reasonably in considering the resident’s request.
9. On 10 October 2024 the contractor reported that the resident had not provided access for the windows to be measured. The resident said she wanted the windows to be installed in UPVC not timber and reported that her MP was speaking to the landlord about this. Although, the resident was still awaiting a decision from the landlord, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have allowed the contractors to measure for the replacement windows.
10. On 20 December 2024, the landlord met with the resident and her MP at the property. On 31 December 2024, the landlord concluded that due to planning restrictions and conditions around the sustainable development, replacement windows would be on a like-for-like basis in timber. The landlord took a reasonable approach to the request and provided a reasonable response for the refusal.
11. During an onsite meeting with the resident and MP in December 2024 the landlord agreed to provide draught strips as an interim repair. On 16 January 2025 the resident chased an update. And in February 2025 the landlord informed her that it would not complete the repairs. It was unreasonable of the landlord not to provide the remedial repairs, which left the windows in an advanced state of disrepair throughout the winter period.
12. Following the landlord’s decision on 31 December 2024 to install the windows in timber, the landlord did not communicate its decision to the resident until 28 January 2025. During this period the resident’s MP had approached the local council who said a planning application could be submitted. Given the landlord had made its decision in December 2024, the landlord should have confirmed this promptly to the resident, and the MP if needed. This would have prevented a further 4 weeks of uncertainty and unnecessary action by the MP, which led to the resident having her expectations raised.
13. The records show that delays to the installation have occurred due to the landlord experiencing difficulties in employing a contractor able to supply and fit timber windows. This issue was first identified in March 2024 and was evident again in February 2025 when the resident agreed to the timber windows. The landlord’s evidence shows that in April 2025 it was still in discussion with suppliers. A further update provided to this service suggests it hopes to select a contractor shortly. While complex repairs may require additional time to complete, the 18-month delay to secure a contractor to complete the window replacements is unreasonable.
14. Further, the landlord has applied a 12-month priority timescale to the replacement windows from February 2025. This suggests the landlord is working to an installation date of approximately February 2026. The resident first reported the windows 22-months ago; this should have been considered when applying a priority timescale. The delay will result in the resident embarking on a third winter with disrepair to her windows. This is unreasonable and a recommendation has been made for the landlord to reconsider the priority timescale applied.
15. The landlord admitted some failings and offered £150 compensation. Where there are admitted failings, as in this case, it is our role to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
16. Overall, the landlord’s handling of replacement windows and request to install UPVC  was inappropriate and unreasonable. This is because the replacement windows remain outstanding. While the request for UPVC resulted in a delay, the landlord is yet to appoint a contractor able to supply and install timber windows, despite it being aware of the situation in March 2024. The resident has spent time and trouble chasing the landlord over a prolonged period about the replacement and more recently the remedial repairs. This has showed a fundamental lack of understanding by the landlord of its statutory repair obligations.
17. The failings with regards to the landlord’s handling of replacement windows and request to install UPVC amount to maladministration. Our remedies guidance suggests that compensation is appropriate where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord’s compensation offer of £150 has failed to fully address the detriment and the offer was not proportionate to the overall failings identified by our investigation.
18. Having considered the circumstances we order that the landlord should pay the resident a total of £600. This can be broken down as £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience of the resident continuing to live with disrepair to her windows and £200 for the time and trouble caused to the resident.

19. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively.
20. The resident sent a stage 1 complaint on 7 June 2024 and the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 June 2024, this was 2 days late. While, this is not in line with its policy or the code, the slight delay to the stage 1 complaint response, was unlikely to have any significant impact on, or detriment to, the resident.
21. The resident asked the landlord to escalate to a stage 2 complaint on 19 September 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 October 2024. This was within the 20-working day timeframe.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s contractors confirmed that it was unable to supply timber windows. The landlord cancelled and closed the outstanding works. This demonstrated a significant failing in the landlord’s record keeping.
23. The landlord did not correctly monitor its complaints process which indicates a record keeping failing. It did not provide its stage 1 complaint response according to its policy timescales. Further, it did not acknowledge the failing.

Communication

24. The lack of timely responses to the resident, and poor communication from the landlord were failings. This resulted in time and trouble for the resident and caused her further distress and inconvenience.
25. Within this case, the landlord provided detailed responses to the resident’s MP, however there was no evidence that it applied the same level of detail to the resident. As a result, the landlord and resident, on occasions, communicated via the MP, which inevitably caused some delay.