Home Group Limited (202428899)

Decision
Case ID	202428899
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Home Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	24 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat with her daughter who has asthma. The resident complained about a leak into her home and damp and mould. The resident said this was affecting her and her daughters health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlords handling of:
   1. The repair to a leak and subsequent damp and mould
   2. The associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in its response to reports of repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlords handling of the repair

The landlord did not remedy the repairs in a reasonable timeframe despite the resident chasing numerous times. They failed to have appropriate oversight of their contractors and failed to recognise the residents vulnerabilities. Although it recognised some of its failures, it did not offer appropriate remedy to recognise the impact caused to the resident.

5. The landlords complaint handling

The landlord exceeded its own policy timescales for acknowledging the Stage 1 complaint and for responding to both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaints. They failed to include details of how to escalate the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman in the initial Stage2 response which does not adhere to the Code. They then issued an additional Stage 2 response which prolonged the complaints process effectively adding another stage which was a failure to adhere to both their own policy and the Code.

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 and explanation order   The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report and explain how it will prevent similar failings in the future. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of the organisation. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. It explains key issues identified within its Damp and Mould Action Plan and Self Assessment.	No later than 23 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,297.50 for the partial loss of enjoyment of the property for the duration of the issues.  The resident had limited respite from the problems due to number of rooms and areas affected. This has been calculated as a return of 15% rent for the period 01 December 2023 to 19 September 2024 (taking into account the rent increase for 2024/25). This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that payment was made by the due date.	No later than 23 December 2025
3	Compensation order  The landlord must pay the resident £1,925 made up as follows: £100 for time and trouble due to its handling of the complaint. £600 for time and trouble due to its handling of the delayed repair, disruption, poor communication and inconvenience. £175 for 5 missed contractor appointments. £100 for jobs twice being reallocated to new contractors resulting in delays to works. £500 for distress caused   £300 for disruption and inconvenience £75 for time and effort chasing works £75 for lack of communication The landlord can deduct from this figure the £1,100 it has already paid the resident, leaving £825 to pay . This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that payment was made by the due date.	No later than 23 December 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 February 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that she was unhappy with the length of time it was taking to repair a leak into her flat and sort out the damp and mould being caused by this. She asked that the repairs be carried out urgently and for them to provide a timeline for completion. She also mentioned her daughters asthma.
06 March 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint to the resident.
04 April 2024	The landlord issued its Stage 1 response. It agreed to monitor the outstanding repair works and contact her again once all the actions were completed.
26 September 2024	The landlord apologised via email and an offered of £610 compensation as the repairs were now complete.
01 October 2024	The resident requested a Stage 2 complaint be raised with the desired outcome of increased compensation.
07 October 2024	The landlord acknowledged the Stage 2 complaint to the resident.
31 October 2024	The landlord issued its formal Stage 2 response and offered £1,100 discretionary compensation made up as follows: £100.00 complaint handling delays £75.00 loss of facility £100.00 significant delays £150.00 disruption £100.00 service failure for job being re-allocated twice to new contractors £175.00 service failure for x5 failed appointments £75.00 lack of communication £100.00 disruption and inconvenience £75.00 time and effort chasing works £150.00 distress caused   It confirmed the complaint was now closed and explained the next steps if the resident remained dissatisfied.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she felt the landlord should pay a higher level of compensation given the length of time the repair took to be completed and the issues she faced during this time. The leak and all associated repairs were confirmed as complete in September 2024 and there were no outstanding repair issues.

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 repair to a leak and subsequent damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

6. The first report of damp and mould affecting multiple areas was made on 17 November 2023 but the landlord did not inspect the property until 19 January which was 42 working days later.
7. Their policy says that emergency repairs should be carried out within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 14 days or 28 days if using a contractor and for routine repairs, 28 calendar days. We do not know what priority was assigned to this repair, but the time taken to inspect the issue is longer than all of these.
8. During the repairs process, parts of walls and ceilings were removed and not replaced for several months.
9. The bathroom door was removed and not replaced for 4 weeks meaning there was no privacy when being used.
10. The door to a storage cupboard in the living room fell off due to the effects of water damage and the inside wall was removed meaning you could see straight through into the residents bedroom, again resulting in a loss of privacy.
11. The landlord has acknowledged in internal memos that there were cancelled appointments where the resident was not advised and that she was not being kept informed of other scheduled appointments. There is also internal correspondence saying that a contractor cancelled appointments without giving any reason or notice to the landlord or resident. There were also repeated changes of contractors for one of the jobs which caused further delays to the works. The landlord has not demonstrated that it has a system in place to monitor the reliability of its contractors which resulted in the resident repeatedly having to chase the landlord for updated regarding appointments,
12. Much of the flooring had to be taken up and could not be replaced until the leak was fixed.
13. There was a constant damp smell throughout the flat for many months which made the flat unpleasant to live in. Damp and mould present in the hallway, bathroom, kitchen, main bedroom and living room.
14. An internal email sent in May 2024 shows one landlord team asking another internal team whether the resident had been offered a decant, to which they replied not that they were aware. It is reasonable to take from this that the sender thought this may be appropriate.
15. In June 2024 the resident advised the landlord that she was unable to stay in the flat due to the damp and mould. She said the smell was so bad she couldn’t sleep and that this was having a serious impact on her mental health to the point of feeling suicidal and also affecting her daughters asthma and had to see her GP about this. She advised this was having a detrimental impact on her work and her daughters schooling. They both found it hard to breathe in the flat as being ground floor they could not leave the windows open for security reasons.
16. We are not medical experts so cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. She could seek independent advice regarding this or consider a claim through the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord.
17. Following this, the option of a decant was discussed in two separate landlord meetings in June but there is no record of any decision or communication with the resident over whether this would be agreed or not. In January 2025 the idea of a decant was raised internally by the landlord repairs team but the housing team deemed this as not appropriate. Even if it was reasonable not to offer a decant to the resident, it was not reasonable not to respond to her request and advise her of their decision and the reasons why.
18. The resident repeatedly advised them that her mental health was being affected by the issues and that her daughters asthma was also being affected. Whilst this was noted there is no evidence of this being taken into account.
19. Of 24 entries for related repairs on the landlords repairs system, 14 recorded the household as having vulnerabilities and 10 recorded there being none. Some entries did not say either way. This again indicates that they failed to take into account the households vulnerabilities by not recording these on each repair raised. This could lead to a repair not being prioritised correctly and prolonging the process.
20. The leak was repaired in April but the remaining works were not completed until September. In total it took the landlord 10 months to bring the flat back into good repair.
21. There have been serious failings by the landlord. There was a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. The landlords response to the failures made the situation worse and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship. The failures accumulated over the 10 months as they repeatedly failed to provide updates to the resident which had a seriously detrimental impact on them; demonstrating a failure to provide a service and put things right.
22. They have awarded the resident compensation totalling £1,100 and provided a headline breakdown of this figure. Many of the amounts individually awarded are within guidelines and acceptable to us, but we do not feel that an award of £100 for the significant delays is appropriate and have increased this to £600. The delays were not just significant, but many were as a direct result of both the landlords and their contractors actions.
23. The landlord said in an internal memo that ‘‘loss of facility was due to incomplete repairs to multiple rooms – they were slightly useable but heavily affected which restricted some use’’ and awarded £75 discretionary compensation for this. We do not feel this is appropriate compensation for her loss of enjoyment and facility within her flat and the issues she faced during the time it took for this repair to be completed. We have awarded £1,297.50 for this based on 15% of rent paid for the duration of the repairs and the landlords comments that the areas “were slightly useable but heavily affected which restricted some use”
24. Normally, this level of compensation would be accompanied by a finding of severe maladministration. The level of self-reflection and learning shown by the landlord in its Damp and Mould Action Plan and Self Assessment has brought the overall finding down to maladministration as this shows the landlord is looking to learn from its mistakes and improve services for all of its residents.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

25. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to Stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and Stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
26. They took 9 working days to acknowledge the residents complaint. This exceeded its timeframe of 5 working days. They then took 20 working days to issue a Stage 1 response following the acknowledgement, again exceeding their policy timeframes.
27. They did not apologise or offer any compensation in their Stage 1 response. But they then emailed the resident, apologising and offering compensation over 5 months later, and following completion of the works. In its future correspondence and internal memos it records this compensation as being offered at Stage 1. It was unreasonable not to offer any compensation in the Stage 1 response. It would be reasonable to offer compensation for failings up to that point with assurance of further redress once all issues were resolved.
28. They took 22 working days to issue a Stage 2 response following acknowledgement. This slightly exceeded its own published timescale which gave a maximum of 20 working days. This response offered an increased compensation amount but there was no apology or mention of how to contact the Ombudsman if the resident remained dissatisfied.
29. The Code says the Stage 2 response must include details of how to escalate the matter to the Ombudsman if the resident remains dissatisfied. As this was not included in the first Stage 2 response, this was a failure to adhere to the Code. They did include the correct wording in their follow up Stage 2 response.
30. They issued a second Stage 2 response 3 days after the email, offering a further increased amount of compensation. This response included an apology and details of the Ombudsman. This prolonged the complaint process and added another stage with is a failure to adhere to their own policy and the code
31. The landlord awarded £100 for complaint handling delays which is in line with its policy and which we agree is reasonable. We are not able to record a finding of reasonable redress though as the landlord has failed to identify all of the issues addressed in this report such as the extra Stage 2 response or the failure to include the correct escalation wording in the first Stage 2 response and has instead just mentioned the delays in responding to the complaints.

Learning

32. The landlord has initiated a damp and mould action plan and self-assessment. They have identified areas which need more work including the need to review compensation levels to ensure they are proportionate and fair as part of the complaints review process.
33. Other learning identified includes the need to update their dashboard to show repairs, complaints and disrepair positions and performance tracking.
34. They also plan to review vulnerabilities data to create a more informed view of genuine vulnerabilities to support responses to repairs and maintenance.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. It was difficult to understand which responses were the official Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses as there was a separate offer of compensation made many months after the Stage 1 response, which was consistently referred to as being made at Stage 1.
36. There was also a very informal Stage 2 response email sent to the resident with an offer of compensation, closely followed by a more formal Stage 2 response with a different compensation amount.
37. This was difficult to track from the information provided. It would be much clearer if they just issued one response at each stage.

Communication

38. Overall communication with the resident was poor throughout the repairs process. She had to constantly chase to find out what was happening, what works were planned and when contractors were due at her property.
39. There were occasions when contractors failed to show up and when she phoned the landlord to ask why, they were not aware the appointment had been cancelled.
40. The landlord changed their contractors on 2 occasions to try and improve the service being provided.
41. In April the resident phoned the landlord to ask what the results of the previous weeks inspection had been but they could not provide this as they did not hold any details.
42. They wrote in an internal memo in June 2025 ‘’I’ve spoken with customer today, she was understandably unhappy with lack of communication’’ showing they acknowledged poor communication was an issue.