Home Group Limited (202442339)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442339

Home Group Limited

29 September 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property which included:
  1. Drainage
  2. Damp and mould
  3. The shower
2. The landlord’s failure to attend to an emergency repair.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a slug infestation and sealing the door.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident related to his mobility. It was also made aware that the resident had other vulnerabilities related to his mental health during the complaint process.
On 8 October 2024 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. In summary he said:
1. He had been told that the landlord would not fix the drains because of the costs. The manhole cover had sunk which he considered was a health and safety issue.
2. He was unable to use the shower because of the drainage issues. The landlord told him the shower needed to be replaced.
3. He was vulnerable and at risk because of the landlord’s failure to complete the repairs.
On 23 October 2024 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. It had raised a job to install the necessary drains. It had changed the contractor it was using. The new contractor would contact the resident to arrange access for installation.
2. It had inspected the damp and mould in the bathroom on 8 October 2024. It had made a senior member of staff aware that its communication had fallen short following its inspection. It had asked its surveyor to contact the resident to arrange a visit.
3. In respect of the shower repair, it had attended on 29 August 2024 and informed the resident that it would not replace items due to cost. It had requested its surveyor to inspect the shower again.
4. It apologised that it had not treated the resident’s report of a flood as an emergency repair. It had made it senior team aware to avoid the issue happening again in the future.
On 18 November 2024 the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. In summary he said:
1. He was dissatisfied with how long the repairs had taken.
2. He wanted the repairs to be completed as soon as possible and to be compensated for the delays and disruption caused.
On 30 April 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. It had completed a drain survey on 5 November 2024. It then raised a work order on 31 January 2025 for a new manhole cover to be fitted. The works were completed on 3 March 2025.
2. It explained that it had delayed in completing the inspection due to having to allocate the job to another colleague. It did attend on 31 October 2024. It treated the damp and mould and repaired the extractor fan on 15 November 2024. It installed a new fan on 16 January 2025.
3. It inspected the shower and completed the relevant repairs on 19 November 2024.
4. It upheld its finding at stage 1 in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a flood.
5. It had agreed to install a new wet room for the resident. It set out what action it had taken so far. It explained that it needed to investigate the issue with the waste pipes before it could proceed with the installation of the wet room. It apologised for the length of time it had taken.
6. It offered £300 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £150 for its delays in its response at stage 2.
  2. £75 for disruption.
  3. £75 distress and inconvenience.
7. It detailed the matters that still needed to be addressed to resolve the complaint and confirmed a point of contact who would oversee the outstanding matters.
On 27 May 2025 the resident contacted us. He said that the landlord’s complaint response was delayed. The dates within its complaint response were incorrect. Its communication had been poor. He had to resubmit the same issues to the landlord adding unnecessary stress and delays. The landlord had failed to include the sealing of doors and the slug infestation in its complaint response. He wanted £1750 compensation.
In June 2025 we contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident to ask it to set out its position in respect of the slug infestation and the sealing of the doors. On 2 June 2025 the landlord sent a letter to the resident. In summary it said:
1. It had been unable to identify that the slug infestation and door issues were part of the resident’s original complaint. It could however see that it had been discussed throughout the resident’s complaint.
2. It apologised that it had not referenced it in its stage 2 response. It offered an additional £150 compensation in recognition of the handling of the issue and the disruption caused.
3. It could see the issues still remained outstanding so it had passed it to its repair team who would contact the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property

The landlord accepted that it had fallen short in some areas. However, due to the landlord’s failure to investigate its own handling of all of the issues and to promote internal learning, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the individual repairs. This enables us to identify areas of particular concern, and points of learning. It is not possible to determine how the compensation offered was calculated against individual repair issues. As such, we have considered the overall offer of compensation below and whether it fully put things right for the resident, as a whole.

Drainage

We acknowledge the length of time the resident states the issues with drainage have been present and how frustrating this would have been. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have raised his concerns sooner so that the issues could have been investigated by the landlord while they were ‘live'”. Given the passage of time, we have only investigated the landlord’s response from August 2024 onwards. This is because it was the landlord’s response to these reports that led to the resident raising his formal complaint.
The records show that the landlord attended the property to consider the drain covers in August 2024. The resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the visit because he was told by the contractor that they would not dig up the floor to complete the required repair. It is unclear whether the landlord responded. The resident chased the issue several times in September and October 2024. The records do not show that the landlord responded.
On 8 October 2024 the resident reported the drains were overflowing and sewage was coming into the property. The landlord attended to clear the blockage on 9 October 2024, but it is unclear what action it took or what it advised the resident. This is a record keeping failing.
The landlord said within its stage 1 complaint response that it had changed contractor and that a new job would be raised to install the appropriate drains. It failed however to properly consider its own handling of the matter. If its failings in dealing with the drains were because of the change in contractor, it failed to fully explain what had gone wrong. It did however raise a new job to try to get the issue resolved.
The landlord attended at the end of October 2024 and installed drains. It completed a drainage survey on 5 November. We have not seen a copy of the drainage survey to be able to determine what jobs were raised from this. The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that following the drainage survey it had raised an order for a new manhole cover. However it did not raise the order until almost 3 months later on 31 January 2025.
The works were then completed a month later on 3 March 2025. It therefore took approximately 8 months for the drainage issue to be resolved. The landlord’s website states that it will complete standard repairs within 28 days. The landlord failed to explain what caused the delays within its complaint responses. This was a missed opportunity for it to resolve matters sooner. The time it took to complete the repairs was outside of its own timescales and therefore a failing.
Furthermore, the records fail to show that the landlord clearly communicated with the resident about its findings following its repair visits in order to provide details of the required works and when they would be completed. It was evident that the resident was emailing the landlord regularly during the complaint period for updates. The records do not show that the landlord kept the resident adequately updated.
In summary the landlord failed to provide an explanation for the delays. It failed to show how it had communicated with the resident, and its record keeping was inadequate.

Damp and mould

The records show that mould was mentioned in a previous complaint in 2022. The complaint was not escalated to us. The records do not show that any further issues relating to damp and mould were raised until 8 October 2024. This investigation will therefore focus on the landlord’s response from October 2024.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy does not provide specific timescales for it to attend. It states that it has a risk-based approach so that its responses are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord raised a job in response to the resident’s report. It explained in its stage 2 complaint response that this needed to reallocated on 25 October 2024 to another colleague. The records show that a survey was completed on 31 October 2024. The survey found issues with ventilation and the wet room.
In response to the survey the landlord completed a drain survey, cleared blockages to the shower tray, and completed a mould wash. It also overhauled the extractor fan. These repairs were all completed by 19 November 2024 which was in accordance with its own timescales and appropriate.
However, the records show that the landlord’s communication fell short during this period. The resident was contacting the landlord throughout this period for updates. He had asked for details of the required repairs, and he had to chase this. He told the landlord that it had failed to attend an appointment on 18 November 2024 despite him waiting in. The records show that the landlord did provide the repair and appointment details after the resident had chased it up. It is unclear whether it responded to the resident’s concerns about the missed appointment.
The landlord provided details of a series of further works which were raised after January 2025. These included patching up where an old fan used to be in the kitchen. A new plaster cast vent was fitted in the living room and gutters were refixed. It is unclear whether further issues were reported after November 2024 and if so by whom.
The records do show that the resident contacted the landlord in February 2025. He said that he had taken time off work to facilitate access for boxing in of the new fan, but the repair had not been completed. The landlord inspected the property the next day and confirmed that there were still issues. In March 2025 the landlord met its contractor at the property to discuss next steps.
There are no records to show how the landlord had kept the resident adequately updated during this period. The resident told us that he had to make good some of the works himself due to the landlord failing to attend to make good. Due to the lack of records, we are unable to establish exactly what happened. This shows poor record keeping and a failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we are not able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
In summary the landlord’s poor record keeping meant that we were unable to fully assess its handling of the matter. Its communication with the resident also fell short. The resident had to spend time chasing the landlord to ascertain what action the landlord was taking and when works would be completed.

The shower

We acknowledge that the resident states that there were historical issues with the shower. The records provided show that he raised issues with the shower in 2022 as a formal complaint. The complaint was not escalated to us. The records show that he raised the issue again in August 2024. Given the time lapse between the reports, we will consider the landlord’s response from August 2024 onwards. This is because the landlord’s response was what led to the resident raising his formal complaint.
The records show that the resident informed the landlord that he had been told in August 2024 that the shower plug would not be repaired due to cost. He said that a supervisor then attended and told him that a new shower tray was required. The records also show that the landlord attended on 2 occasions in August 2024. However, the records fail to show what action the landlord took during or following its visits in August. This shows poor record keeping which has been a continuous finding throughout this investigation.
The records do show that the resident continued to chase the landlord in September and October 2024 for an update. He also expressed concerns about drainage and the shower pressure. The evidence does not show that the landlord responded. This then led to the resident raising a formal complaint.
The landlord failed to investigate its handling of the matter in its stage 1 complaint response. It did however raise an inspection which was completed on 31 October 2024. The inspection concluded that initial checks should be made to unblock the shower and then a follow-on investigation into the falls of the waste and the design. The landlord attended to renew the shower plug and clear the blockage on 19 November 2024 which was appropriate and within its own timescales. The records also evidence that the landlord discussed what action it was taking with the resident at that point.
In February 2024 the records show that the resident had informed the landlord that there were still issues with the shower. In March 2025 the landlord met its contactor at the property and determined a new wet room was appropriate, but further investigations were required before it could install this. The records fail to show how it kept the resident updated during this period. The landlord did however confirm its position within its stage 2 complaint response. The records show that the new wet room was installed in May 2025.
In summary the landlord’s record keeping was inadequate. Once the complaint was raised the landlord did take action. It failed to evidence however that it had appropriately communicated with the resident. However it did consider how it could resolve the matter by installing a new wet room, which was reasonable in the circumstances.

Conclusion

There were delays in the landlord’s handling of some of the repairs which it failed to explain. The landlord did however ensure that action was taken when the resident raised his complaint, which was appropriate. The landlord’s records overall were poor which made it difficult for us to fully assess its handling of all of the issues. The landlord also failed to show that its communication with the resident was adequate. Given the number of required repairs, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with an action plan. This would have ensured that the resident’s expectations were managed and that he was kept informed.
The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable. The landlord’s failings caused the resident further time and effort having to chase for updates. He was also put to the inconvenience of facilitating access on multiple occasions without being adequately informed of what work the landlord was doing.
The landlord offered £150 compensation for disruption, distress and inconvenience. We consider the amount to be disproportionately low. Particularly considering the failings identified above and the number of repairs which included damp and mould. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that £350 would provide adequate redress for the failures identified. This is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure which adversely effected the resident and although the landlord made some attempt to put things right the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.. We have also made orders below for the landlord to consider how it can improve its record keeping and communication.

The landlord’s failure to attend an emergency repair

The landlord acknowledged its failing in respect of its response to the out of hours emergency repair within its complaint responses. It apologised which was appropriate. It considered learning by way of providing feedback to the appropriate team. This was also appropriate. It failed however to consider how it could put matters right and whether compensation was appropriate. We have therefore found a service failure in the landlord’s failure to attend to the emergency repair. This is because the failing, although for a short duration, likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. We have ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation which is in line with our remedies guidance.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the slug infestation and sealing of the door

The records show that in January 2025 the resident informed the landlord that he had to put foam around the door to prevent slugs and water coming in. He informed the landlord that this needed to be fixed properly.
The landlord attended on 27 May 2025 to put sealant around the doors and windows. This was 4 months after the resident had made the landlord aware and outside of its own timescales. The landlord completed preventative works in respect of the slugs and it instructed pest control to attend in July 2025 to treat the slugs. This was however 6 months after the resident had made the landlord aware of the slug infestation. The landlord has failed to provide any explanation for the delays. Furthermore, there are no records to show that the landlord kept the resident informed during its handling of the issues.
The resident was put to further time and effort chasing the landlord and pursuing his complaint. He was also left living with the uncertainty of when action would be taken. The above failings amount to maladministration. This is because the failing adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. We have ordered the landlord to pay £150 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord acknowledged that it had discussed the slug infestation and the door sealant during the complaint process but failed to mention it in its responses. It offered £150 compensation for the disruption this caused. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The stage 1 and 2 complaint responses were used to update the resident on what it was going to do next rather than investigate whether it had done all it could. The responses lacked any investigation and curiosity about how it had handled the issues. By failing to consider what had gone wrong it missed the opportunity to consider learning outcomes.
In summary the landlord’s complaint handling fell short. However, the £300 total compensation it offered was in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there were failures which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact. The compensation was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s failure to attend an emergency repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the slug infestation and sealing of the door.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £550 compensation. £150 of the landlord’s compensation offer can be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience likely caused in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its failure to respond to an emergency repair.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about the slug infestation and sealing of the door.
The landlord should within 8 weeks complete a review into the failings identified in this investigation to identify how it can prevent similar happening again. The review should be undertaken by officers who were not involved in the original complaint, with a particular focus on:
1. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store information accurately which reflect its own and contractors’ actions.
2. How it monitors its repairs to ensure that follow up action is completed in a timely manner.
3. That teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping the resident updated and recording the communication.
The landlord must share the outcome of its review with this Service, also within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

The reasonable redress finding is dependent upon the landlord paying the resident the £300 it offered for its complaint handling failures.