Home Group Limited (202427524)

Background

1. The resident purchased her share of the new build property in July 2022. During the 24 month defect liability period, the resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom. The contractor referred to in this report is the original build contractor.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould in the bathroom.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. The landlord made an offer of reasonable redress which resolved the resident’s complaint about their reports of damp and mould in the bathroom.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the complaint.

Summary of reasons

4. There were delays in arranging an inspection, but the landlord was not required to take any further action once it had identified that the damp and mould was not caused by a defect. The landlord offered compensation which was proportionate to the failings identified.
5. The landlord issued two stage 1 responses which is not compliant with the Code. However, this did not have a negative impact on the overall handling of the complaint. We have therefore noted this as a learning point for the landlord.

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.

6. In the resident’s referral to this Service, she said she is seeking compensation for bathroom fittings and possessions that she said were damaged by damp and mould. As this was not raised as part of her complaint made in May 2024, it is not something we can comment on during this investigation. However, it is something the resident can raise directly with the landlord.
7. The resident has told us that the issue with damp and mould is still ongoing. The scope of this investigation covers matters up to the date the landlord issued its final complaint response in September 2024, meaning we are unable to consider issues that occurred after this.
8. The lease says that the resident is responsible for fixtures, fittings and keeping the property in good repair, including reporting any defects to the landlord. The landlord’s defects aftercare policy says it is responsible to log reported defects, regularly monitor progress, and ensure the contractor takes appropriate action or escalates matters through warranty arrangements. The contractor is expected to fix non-emergency defects within 30 calendar days.
9. The landlord logged the resident’s reports of damp and mould on 27 February 2024. We have not been provided with the communication between the landlord and contractor after this report was logged, but we have seen evidence that the landlord chased the contractorfor an updatein May 2024. Whenit was unable to obtain an inspection date from the contractor at that time, the landlordarranged for its technical quality manager to inspect the damp on 30 May.
10. Following the landlord’s inspection on 30 May, 2 furtherinspections were caried out in June and July to investigate if any loft defects were causing the damp and mould. One inspection wasby a sub-contractor and the other by a specialist company. The report issued in July by the specialist company concluded that there were no loftdefects. As no defects were identified,the landlord was not required to take any further action. However, it was appropriate for it to provide advice to the resident about managing condensation in her home.
11. The resident then raised concerns about the extractor fan on 19 August. As the resident is responsible for fittings and reporting defects to the landlord, the landlord was not required to inspect the fan prior to being made aware of a potential defect. It acted reasonably once notified by inspecting the fan on 13 September, which was within the expected 30 day timeframe. As no defect was identified, it was not expected to take any further action.
12. When a failure is identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
13. As the landlord is responsible to regularly monitor progress in relation to defect reports, it should have acted sooner than it did to ensure that appropriate action was being taken by the contractor. Its failure to do so resulted in an avoidable delay between February and May 2024.
14. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging this delay and the associated disruption and sought to put this right by offering compensation totalling £110. It also arranged to stain block the wall as a goodwill gesture which was completed in October 2024. Taking into consideration that no defect was identified, the redress offered was proportionate to the service failure identified. It was in line with our compensation guidance for where the landlord’s failings have had an impact which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.

15. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the timescales in the Code.
16. We understand that the resident initially raised a complaint in April 2024 but subsequently chose to withdraw it. The complaint was later resubmitted on 16 May 2024. As the original complaint was withdrawn, we have considered the complaints process from the date the complaint was resubmitted.
17. Although the landlord initially responded at stage 1 within the required timeframe, it later issued a further stage 1 response 45 working days after. This is not compliant with the Code as it should only issue one response at stage 1. The landlord did not clearly explain if the further response replaced the previous one or why it was necessary to issue another stage 1 response. However, the initial response did advise the resident of their right to escalate the complaint to stage 2. As the resident did not request escalation until after receiving the further response, this did not negatively affect the overall handling of the complaint.
18. There were no delays issuing the stage 2 response.

Learning

19. Although the landlord acknowledged there were delays in this case, it did not identify any specific learning. To give residents confidence that lessons have been learned, the landlord could clearly explain what actions it has taken, or will take, to improve its service in the future. This would demonstrate a commitment to improving the service and preventing similar issues in future. 

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

20. The landlord did not provide some records relating to its communication with the contractor.  Maintaining accurate, detailed records and providing relevant information will help to improve transparency and accountability. 
21. This report noted that the landlord issued two stage 1 responses. Where a response is reissued or revised, clearly explaining the reasons for this and how it relates to any earlier decision represents good complaint‑handling practice. Where investigations are ongoing and timescales cannot be met, agreeing and clearly communicating an extension is likely to be less confusing than issuing multiple responses at the same stage and helps maintain transparency for residents.