Home Group Limited (202443954)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202443954

Home Group Limited

29 August 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 the landlord’s handing of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the porch roof.
2. Concerns about the kitchen renewal.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 3-bedroom house, since 2017. The resident resides at the property with her 4 children, 1 of whom has physical and mental health vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord.
On 21 October 2024, the resident raised a formal complaint. She said she was unhappy that:
1. Repairs to the porch roof had remained unresolved for “nearly 3 years”. She provided a timeline of events and said that the outstanding issues included:
  1. Water entering the porch, covering the internal walls and floor during rainfall.
  2. The wood supporting the roof was rotting and mouldy.
  3. The door not closing properly.
  4. Her personal possessions being damaged.
2. She had been left without a functional kitchen for 4 weeks. This was because during the kitchen renewal, the landlord’s maintenance contractor had stored the new kitchen units in the porch area. As a result, the units had been water damaged, and new ones had to be ordered.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 November 2024. It provided a timeline of events and said:
1. In relation to the porch roof repairs, it apologised to the resident for the inconvenience it had caused her. It had arranged for its maintenance project surveyor to manage the repairs moving forward, and it would monitor them through to completion.
2. It accepted that the kitchen renewal was delayed due to the damaged units and not completed until 5 November 2024. In recognition of this, it offered the resident £450 compensation, calculated as follows:
  1. £100 for the loss of facility.
  2. £100 for the disruption caused, including multiple appointments.
  3. £100 for the delays.
  4. £150 for the distress and inconvenience.
3. It would also reimburse the resident for the additional food costs she had incurred during the kitchen renewal.
Between 6 November 2024 and 19 November 2024, the landlord reimbursed the resident an additional £405.89 (2 separate payments of £289.79 and £116.10) for the money she had spent on food during the kitchen renewal.
On 10 November 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to query and dispute numerous aspects of its stage 1 investigation findings. On 24 November 2024, she requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said this was because the landlord had failed to respond to her correspondence from 10 November 2024 and had also not contacted her about the outstanding porch roof repairs.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 April 2025. It said:
1. It had made several attempts to resolve the porch roof repairs. The most recent repairs were undertaken “as requested” by the resident’s partner, and the area was sealed “as best as possible” with the materials it had available. It advised the resident to report any further repairs if she was still experiencing issues.
2. It reiterated its apology to the resident for the delays during the kitchen renewal. It had reviewed its offer of compensation and concluded that the resident was entitled to a further £185 (total £924.79) discretionary compensation. The additional amount was calculated as follows:
  1. £75 for poor communication.
  2. £55 for disruption.
  3. £55 for distress and inconvenience.
3. It was sorry for the stage 2 complaint handling delays and offered the resident £75 compensation in recognition of this.
In August 2025, both parties informed this Service that the porch roof repairs remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has described how she feels the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues has negatively impacted on her family’s physical and mental health. While we do not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with the Scheme. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

Repairs to porch roof

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. This includes the external and internal walls and ceilings, as well as the drains, gutters, and pipes. The landlord acknowledges these responsibilities in its repairs policy, and under the repairs and maintenance section on its website.
The landlord’s repairs policy outlines timescales for completion of 2 categories of repairs: emergency and routine. It aims to attend to emergency repairs within 6 hours and to complete them within 24 hours. It describes routine repairs as those which do not affect health, welfare, or security, and which do not cause further damage to the property. It aims to complete these repairs within 14 days.
Throughout the timeline of the complaint, the landlord used several maintenance contractors to undertake the repairs to the resident’s porch roof. For ease of readability, they will all be referred to as “the contractor” throughout the report. In instances such as this, we expect landlords have sufficient oversight of any works been undertaken and hold their contractors to account where appropriate.
Between 24 October 2022 and 25 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord on 4 occasions in relation to the porch roof. She sent photographs and videos that showed water running “rapidly” through the plastic corrugated roof, and pooling onto the floor. The landlord’s internal records show that it raised an inspection on 24 October 2022, which was appropriate. However, from the evidence provided, it is not clear when an inspection was undertaken. This is a record keeping failure. Despite this, it is reasonable to assume that the inspection was undertaken, as the landlord raised a further repair on 14 November 2022 to “replace/repair flat roof”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 November 2022 and 23 November 2022. She was concerned about the contractor’s visit on 18 November 2022 and asked the landlord to explain how it proposed to resolve the porch roof repairs. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident. This was inappropriate. It is also noted that the emails were provided to this Service by the resident and not the landlord, which is further evidence of poor record keeping.
Between 25 November 2022 and 22 December 2022, the landlord discussed the repair with the contractor on several occasions. The contractor explained that that the roof was leaking “very heavily” which it attributed to the roof being installed “very poorly”. It suggested replacing the wooden timbers and replacing the plastic corrugated roof. During this period, we have seen no evidence that the landlord updated the resident about the repair (despite her requesting an update on 8 December 2022 and 19 December 2022), which the evidence shows caused her to feel ignored.
The landlord’s repair records show that the contractor attended the property on 11 January 2023 and 12 January 2023 to undertake the repair. However, it is noted that the resident told the landlord (in an email on 23 January 2023) that the contractor only attended the property on 1 of these days, due to the weather. This meant it took a total 80 calendar days to undertake the works, which was inappropriate as it significantly exceeded the landlord’s maximum repair timescales. The contractor informed the landlord that during the appointment it carried out a “like-for-like roof renewal”. It said it was a “tricky job” that may require future adjustments.
The resident spoke to the contractor directly on 16 January 2023 to advise that following the recent repair, the porch roof was still leaking. The parties arranged a mutually convenient appointment to reattend on 21 January 2023. The same day (16 January 2023), the resident also provided the landlord with an update. The landlord’s internal records stated that it raised an inspection to review the work that was undertaken, which was appropriate.
On 23 January 2023, the contractor informed the landlord that during the appointment (on 21 January 2023), the resident’s partner had requested that the roof be replaced again “like-for-like”. It said it did not agree that this was the best option to resolve the leak but carried out the work as per his request. This version of events was mentioned several times by the landlord at later dates. It was also used as explanation by the landlord (to this Service in August 2025) as to why the roof repairs remained outstanding. It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure repairs are undertaken to the specification of its qualified staff. It is our opinion that, even if it was the case that the was repair was undertaken as instructed by the resident’s partner, the landlord still had an obligation to put it right after the fact.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 January 2023 and informed it that the roof was still leaking after the appointment on 21 January 2023. She asked the landlord to confirm when it would be undertaking the inspection. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident, which was inappropriate. It is reasonable to conclude that more effective communication would have improved her experience.
The evidence (an email from the resident on 9 March 2023) suggests that the landlord visited the property on 13 February 2023 to undertake an inspection of the porch roof. This was 29 calendar days after it raised the inspection request, and therefore at odds with its repair timescales. However, the landlord has provided no documentary evidence of this appointment, which is a further record keeping failure. Despite this, in an internal email on 6 November 2024 (during the complaint investigation), the landlord explained its retrospective version of events that occurred during the inspection. This is a conflicting version of events to the resident’s, so in the absence of a definitive record we are unable to make an assessment on this matter.
On 9 March 2023, the contractor attended the property on an emergency appointment. The resident said (within an email on the same date) that the contractor had advised her that there was “nothing [it] could do, and the whole thing would need to be replaced”. She also said that the porch door was “pulling away from the structure and also needed to be replaced”. The landlord responded to the resident 2 working days later (13 March 2023) and asked her to confirm if the contractor had attended the emergency appointment. This was inappropriate, as the resident had already provided the landlord with an update within her previous email (on 9 March 2023). In addition, landlords should have effective mechanisms in place to ensure they receive real-time updates from contractors to ensure their repair records are accurate. The importance of effective communication and record keeping is again highlighted.
The resident requested an update from the landlord about the repair on 15 May 2023. The landlord responded on 16 May 2023 to advise that it had raised an inspection, and its surveyor would be in touch within 10 working days to arrange an appointment. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with this, as it had already inspected the works on 13 February 2023. The numerous appointments, with apparent minimal progress, undoubtedly caused the resident feelings of frustration.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 July 2023 and said that she had still not heard anything about how it was going to proceed with fixing the porch roof. The landlord responded on 24 July 2023 to advise that its surveyor had concluded that there were “no issues” with the roof, and as such no further works had been raised. However, the landlord has not provided any documentary evidence to show when this inspection appointment had taken place, or any photographic evidence to support its assertions. This is a further record keeping failure.
The landlord raised a new repair on 25 July 2023. The evidence suggests that the contractor attended 2 months later, on 25 September 2023. This was outside of the landlord’s target timescales. In mitigation, the landlord had previously explained to the resident (on 13 March 2023) that it was “doing its very best to keep to [its] standard repair times but the current situation [was] making that difficult in some areas”. However, it is not clear what “situation” the landlord was referring to in this instance, or if the resident would have known what it was. The lack of clarity in the available records has limited our ability to assess the reasonableness of any impact.
The resident informed the landlord that the contractor had turned up unannounced on 25 September 2023. As we have seen no documentary evidence to suggest that it had arranged the appointment with her beforehand, it is reasonable to assume that this was the case. This is further evidence of poor communication by the landlord and/or its agents.
On 18 April 2024, the landlord raised a repair to “fit joist support to corrugated roof”. On 20 May 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that the contractor had attended that day to undertake some repairs, but this had not resolved the issue fully. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s email the following day (on 21 May 2024) and advised her that its maintenance team would contact her within 5 working days. However, we have seen no evidence that it responded to her, which was inappropriate. In addition to the delay, mismanagement of the resident’s expectations would have affected her experience.
During the contractor’s visit to the property on 3 September 2024 (in relation to the kitchen renewal), the resident informed it that the porch was still leaking. She said that “extreme amounts of water” were entering the porch area when it rained and she was unable to open her main front door as the water “gushed” into her house. She also said that her disabled son stored his mobility aids in the porch area, and she was having to cover them over to prevent damage being caused. Upon notice from the contractor the following day, the landlord appropriately raised a repair to inspect the porch. The landlord’s repair records state that the inspection was undertaken on 26 September 2024. However, no further information is available to show what was determined during the appointment. This is a further record keeping failure.
It is evident that the unresolved leaks in the porch also caused delays to the kitchen renewal. However, this will be assessed within the relevant section of the report.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 October 2024 to request an update on the porch roof repair. She listed a range of concerning issues, most notably that there was a “live plug” in the porch near to the water ingress, and she was concerned that it was a hazard. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident, nor that it raised an emergency appointment to ensure the electrics were safe. We find the landlord’s lack of action in this instance inadequate, and at odds with its legal and policy obligations to ensure the resident and property were safe.
Within the resident’s emails to the landlord on 21 October 2024 and 24 October 2022, she said that the leaks had caused damage to her personal possessions. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, which was inappropriate. In this instance it would have been reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to her own contents insurance or offer to refer her to its own insurers, in line with its compensation procedure.
It is noted that on 5 November 2024, the landlord documented on its internal systems that it had spoken to the resident that day and offered her £325 compensation for its handling of the porch repairs, and she “would need time to think about the offer”. However, the landlord did not echo its offer within its stage 1 or stage 2 complaint responses, and we have seen no further reference to the offer. As it was not formally offered within the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP), we cannot fairly consider it within our assessment. We will assess the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response in relation the porch repairs within the complaint handling section of the report.
On 11 March 2025, the resident contacted the landlord via telephone. She said that she was “extremely concerned” that the porch was going to collapse, and she was having to carry her disabled son through the porch when it rained because of the flooding. She followed up with an email on the same day and said that she wanted a different surveyor to assess the porch. Her multiple communications show the distress she was experiencing. In response, the landlord forwarded the resident’s concerns on to the maintenance team the following day and it stated that the roofer was due to be attending that day to survey the area. However, the evidence suggests that this appointment was in relation to an unrelated main roof repair (and is due to be investigated by this Service in case 202506547). This is further evidence that the landlord had poor oversight of the repairs, and a lack of urgency in response to the resident’s obvious distress.
On 18 March 2025, the landlord and contractor discussed the porch roof repair and confirmed that the plastic corrugated roof needed to be replaced. However, we have seen no documentary evidence to show that it raised a repair or that it informed the resident of its proposed plans. This is a further record keeping failure.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response (on 7 April 2025), it advised the resident that “should [she] have any further issues with the porch, to report this to [it]”. This was an unacceptable comment because the resident had already informed the landlord on numerous occasions that the issue remained outstanding, and it had itself established just 2 weeks prior that the plastic roof needed to be replaced. This may indicate inadequate communication between the landlord’s internal departments.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 April 2025. She said that the contractor had attended that day and “abruptly” left the property when questioned about the works. The contractor provided the landlord with a conflicting version of events. Due to a lack of documentary evidence, we are unable to make an assessment on this matter. Despite this, we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident to discuss a way of moving forward with the repair. This was unreasonable. It was also inappropriate that the copy of this email was provided to this Service by the resident and not the landlord.
Taking all circumstances of the case into account, we have made a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the porch roof. This is because:
1. It exceeded its repair timescales on several occasions, and at the time of our investigation the repair remained unresolved approximately 3 years after the resident first reported it.
2. It lacked the appropriate oversight of the repairs.
3. Its record keeping was poor.
4. Its communication with the resident was inadequate.
5. It failed to recognise the impact the repair was having on the resident and her family, including her disabled son.
6. It did not address the resident’s concerns about her damaged possessions.
7. It did not identify or apologise to the resident for the failures highlighted in this report. Consequently, it did not offer her any compensation within its ICP.
To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay her compensation that is proportionate to the failings identified in this report. We have considered the landlord’s compensation procedure, applied our own remedies guidance, and taken into account the distress and inconvenience caused and the resident’s reduced enjoyment of her home during this period.
We understand that in August 2025, the parties agreed that an inspection of the porch roof would be arranged. This is positive progress. Despite this, we have still made an order to ensure the issue is fully resolved to the resident’s satisfaction.

Kitchen renewal

The landlord’s property management policy states that during planned maintenance works (which includes kitchen replacements), it will consider the needs of its customers and make adjustments where reasonable.
Based on the available evidence, the kitchen renewal commenced between 1 October 2024 and 2 October 2024. On 8 October 2024, the resident contacted the landlord’s contractor. She said she had informed the kitchen manufacturer (which had delivered the kitchen units on 7 October 2024) that it would need to protect and cover the units, as it had placed them in the leaking porch area. She said that she had concerns about this and was worried the units were going to get damaged. Given the resident’s comments, it would have been appropriate for the contractor to arrange an urgent visit the property to ensure the units were adequately protected. In mitigation, it is accepted that the contractor responded to the resident to advise that it was due to attend the following morning (9 October 2024) to fit the kitchen units.
The evidence suggests that during the appointment on 9 October 2024, the joiner identified that the units had been damaged by the porch roof leak. The resident informed the landlord and maintenance contractor of the issues the same day and stated that she did not want the damaged units installed.
On 10 October 2024, the landlord’s internal notes stated that the resident felt that the maintenance contractor had tried to “pressurise” her into having the damaged units installed, until the new ones arrived. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to raise the resident’s concerns with the contractor and update the resident afterwards.
The resident told the landlord within her request to make a complaint (on 21 October 2024) that the contractor had informed her on 11 October 2024 that the kitchen units order would be “fast tracked”. Again, while we do not dispute the resident’s comments, based on the lack of documentary evidence available, we have been unable to make an assessment on this.
We understand that the delays and subsequent lack of kitchen caused the resident a significant inconvenience. In mitigation, we accept that the delivery delays were somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. In such circumstances we have considered how the landlord and its contractors communicated with the resident and drove progress of the works during this period. Overall, we find that the landlord acted appropriately because:
1. The contractor contacted the kitchen manufacturer the next working day (on 10 October 2024) to order the replacement units.
2. Between 13 October 2024 and 23 October 2024, the contractor contacted the resident on 6 occasions to advise her that it was still waiting for the replacement kitchen units to be delivered.
3. Following the resident’s request to make a complaint on 21 October 2024, the landlord took ownership of the outstanding issues and repeatedly chased the contractor for updates.
4. On 24 October 2024, the landlord informed the resident that the units would be available “next week”. It is noted that the resident informed the landlord that would be inconvenient, as it was half term and her children would be at home.
5. The contractor then informed the resident that it had scheduled an appointment for 1 November 2024 to fit the kitchen units.
The kitchen units were installed on 1 November 2024. However, the resident informed the landlord on 4 November 2024 that she still could not use her oven or washing machine and other snagging work was still required. We find it inappropriate that the resident had to chase an update on the outstanding works. It is our opinion that the landlord and its contractor should have had the appropriate oversight to ensure works were completed satisfactorily without the need for intervention from the resident.
Correspondence between the resident and landlord shows that the appliances were fitted on 5 November 2024. This meant it was a total of 35 calendar days that the resident had a non-functional kitchen. Based on the evidence available, it is not clear to this Service what the landlord’s target timescales were for completing a kitchen renewal. However, it is reasonable to assume that its response exceeded the timescales. This is because it apologised to the resident for the delays within both complaint responses.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to consider whether the redress offered has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account the circumstances of the case, and whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of “be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes”.
The landlord’s discretionary compensation procedure states that it can award:
1. £75 for “extreme” impact on the customer, due to loss of cooking facilities.
2. £75 for “extreme” disruption.
3. £75 for “extreme” service failure.
4. A maximum of £100 per repair for severe delays (8 days or more).
Additionally, our remedies guidance states that landlords should consider making an award of between £100 and £600 where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident (usually applicable in cases where there is a finding of maladministration). When considering the level of compensation, it appears that the landlord also took into account the resident’s individual circumstances (evidenced in an internal email on 5 November 2024) and used its discretion to increase the award beyond what its compensation procedure allowed. We therefore find the landlord’s offer of £635 (£450 at stage 1 and £185 at stage 2) reasonable.
Our remedies guidance also states that landlords should compensate complainants where there is evidence of financial loss as a direct result of its actions. We therefore find it appropriate that the landlord also compensated the resident £405.89 for the additional food costs she had incurred during the kitchen renewal.
Taking all circumstances into account, it is evident that the landlord’s failures had an adverse impact on the resident. However, it is positive that the landlord made a considerable effort to put things right. Overall, we therefore find that the landlord’s total offer of £1,040.89 was sufficient to resolve this complaint satisfactorily. A finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord”. The landlord’s complaints policy also adopts this definition and confirms that the landlord follows the Code in its approach to complaints.
On 16 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord about the porch roof repair. She stated that she had “not heard from [the landlord] with regards [the issues] and [she] felt let down in the way the situation had been handled”. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s email, which was inappropriate. Additionally, in our opinion, the landlord should have recognised her comments as dissatisfaction and escalated the issue to a formal complaint, if she wished to do so.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, the policy states the landlord will provide a written explanation to the complainant, containing a clear explanation of the expected timescales for the response. If an extension beyond an additional 10 working days is required, this will be agreed with the complainant.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it thanked the resident for “getting in touch on 24 October 2024” about her complaint. This was inaccurate, as the resident provided us with a copy of her original complaint, which shows that she raised the complaint on 21 October 2024. Although this error is likely to have had minimal impact on the resident, we expect landlords to ensure accurate records of complaints are maintained.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 October 2024. This was within 5 working days, and in accordance with the timescales outlined in its complaints policy.
The landlord dated its stage 1 response as 4 November 2024. However, the evidence shows that it did not provide the resident with a copy of the response until 6 November 2024. This is a further record keeping failure. Nevertheless, this was a response time of 7 working days, and still in line with the landlord’s complaint handling timescales.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it provided 2 separate sections about the porch roof repairs. It named the first section “outstanding porch repair”, and the second “repairs to your porch roof”. This was confusing, and the evidence suggests that within its timeline of events, it included repairs and commentary in relation to repairs for the main roof. It also failed to include key aspects of the timeline in relation to the porch roof repair. This was inappropriate and is depictive of poor complaint handling. The resident also raised this within her email to the landlord on 10 November 2024. However, the landlord failed to respond or address her concerns, which was inappropriate.
We also find it contradictory that the landlord apologised to the resident for its handling for the porch roof repairs but did not explain where things had specifically gone wrong, nor did it offer her any compensation in recognition of this. This was at odds with our dispute resolution principles.
An effective complaint resolution requires a process designed to put things right. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it had arranged for its maintenance project surveyor to manage the repairs and would monitor them through to completion. In light of this explicit commitment, we find that its lack of action and ownership to undertake the repairs promised was particularly inappropriate. It is our opinion that the landlord should have monitored the agreed actions through to resolution, with regular updates to the resident using an agreed method.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 24 November 2024. Within an internal email on 25 November 2024, the landlord stated that the resident had requested to progress her complaint to stage 2, which it was “trying to avoid”. In our opinion, this was an inappropriate comment. Landlords should have a positive complaint handling culture and should not discourage residents from escalating their complaints.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 3 December 2024. This was 7 working days from the date the resident requested to escalate her complaint and therefore exceeded the landlord’s complaint handling timescales.
Within the landlord’s acknowledgement email (on 3 December 2024), it asked the resident to confirm when she was available to discuss her complaint. The resident responded on 10 December 2024 and said that she was available that day. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident, which was inappropriate. It was also unreasonable that a copy of this email was provided to this Service by the resident and not the landlord. This is further evidence of poor record keeping.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord informed the resident in advance of any anticipated complaint delays between 10 December 2024 and 3 March 2025. This was at odds with its complaints policy, and we find that effective communication during this period would have improved the resident’s experience.
On 4 March 2025, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on her complaint. The complaint handler apologised to the resident on 13 March 2025 and explained that the delays were due to a “period of absence”. We acknowledge that landlords can face challenges in complaint handling due to the availability of staff. However, we expect them to have robust mechanisms in place to ensure staff leave and absence does not impact complaint handling.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 April 2025. This gave a total response time of 87 working days. This was an excessive delay and at odds with the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy. It is noted that the landlord offered the resident £75 compensation for the delays. For this failure alone, we find this an acceptable offer.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said that in relation to its handling of the resident’s report of repairs to the porch roof, it had already offered her £450 compensation, plus an additional £289.79 (total £739.29). This was incorrect, as it had actually paid her a total of £855.89 at this point. While there is no evidence that this error had a detrimental impact on the resident, it is a further record keeping failure. We expect the landlord to keep accurate records of its compensation payments.
The Code states that landlords must use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes to service delivery. It therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain in its final complaint response what action it had taken to ensure that the failings it had identified (in its handling of the complaint and substantive issues) would not happen again. In not doing so, the landlord has not evidenced that it learned sufficiently from the complaint.
To summarise, we find that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was poor, and it is our opinion that it did not go far enough to put things right for her. It is for this reason that we have made a finding of maladministration. Additional compensation has been ordered to reflect the failures not accounted for by the landlord’s offer, in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the porch roof.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its response to the resident’s concerns about the kitchen renewal.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman by the same date:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be from a staff member of director level or above.
2. Pay the resident £1,450 compensation. This must be paid directly to her and is made up as follows:
  1. £1,250 for its handling of her reports of repairs to the porch roof.
  2. £200 for its handling of her complaint. This includes the landlord’s offer of £75 at stage 2, and an additional £125 for the failings identified in this report.
  3. For the avoidance of any doubt, if any of the compensation that the landlord previously offered the resident has already been paid, it can be deducted from the total above.
3. Consider offering further compensation to the resident following the completion of the porch roof repairs. This should cover the period from 7 April 2025 until the time the repairs are completed. The landlord should inform the resident and this Service of its intentions regarding this order within the 4 weeks, including any calculation it proposes to use.
4. Contact the resident to confirm if she would like it to contact its insurers in relation to her damaged possessions, following the porch roof leaks.
5. If it has not already done so, arrange an independent survey of the porch roof, at a time agreed with the resident, to identify any outstanding or new issues.
The landlord should share a copy of the resulting report with the resident and provide her with a schedule of works to resolve any issues highlighted in the report. It should also provide her with a single point of contact who will provide regular updates on a frequency agreed with her. It should ensure that all the recommended repairs are resolved within 12 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

Our finding of reasonable redress (for the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the kitchen renewal) is made on the basis that the resident receives the £1,040.89 that the landlord previously offered her. Therefore, if the landlord has not already done so, it should pay this directly to the resident. This is in addition to the £1,250 ordered above.