Home Group Limited (202445423)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202445423 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Home Group Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
30 April 2026 |
Background
- The landlord’s contractor removed a ceiling in the resident’s property without having first checked the asbestos register. It then realised the ceiling contained asbestos. The landlord immediately moved the resident and her 5 children into a hotel. Over the next 3 months they stayed in 5 hotels as the property remained uninhabitable. The resident complained about the distress and inconvenience this had caused her family, particularly as she had mental health issues and 2 of her children were autistic.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a ceiling repair and temporary accommodation arrangements.
- We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- The landlord provided reasonable redress to the complaint about its handling of a ceiling repair and temporary accommodation arrangements.
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Handling of a ceiling repair and temporary accommodation arrangements
- The landlord accepted responsibility for its contractor’s failure to check the asbestos register before removing the ceiling. It apologised to the resident and offered her and her family support while they stayed in hotels. It acknowledged the significant distress and inconvenience caused by the incident. It reasonably compensated the resident for this as well as for costs incurred during the hotel stays and loss of belongings.
Handling of the complaint
- The landlord did not issue a substantive stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. This was not in keeping with the 2-stage process set out in its complaints policy.
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 order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the complaint handling failure identified in this report. It must ensure:
|
No later than 29 May 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should provide the resident with an update on properties which are available to her via the management transfer it approved in February 2026. It should support her with exploring alternative avenues for rehousing. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
28 November 2024 |
The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property to investigate a leak. During the appointment, the contractor removed a ceiling. It then realised the ceiling contained asbestos. The landlord immediately moved the resident and her family into a hotel. |
|
24 January 2025 |
The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the ceiling repair and the significant distress and inconvenience this had caused. The family were still living in a hotel and had been moved 5 times since the incident occurred. The resident explained that her family’s lives had been completely disrupted. They were not living close to friends and family or her children’s schools. Her 2 autistic children were particularly impacted by the unfamiliar environment and change to routine. She was concerned about the additional expenses she was incurring and about the cost of replacing the many household items that had been destroyed. She asked the landlord to find her long-term accommodation. |
|
31 January 2025 |
The landlord spoke to the resident about her complaint. It then sent her an acknowledgement email to confirm it had raised a stage 1 complaint. |
|
6 February 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had spoken to the resident and agreed with her that it would escalate the complaint to its senior management team for a response. It explained that it was therefore closing the complaint at stage 1. |
|
18 February 2025 |
The landlord told the resident it had escalated the complaint to stage 2. |
|
27 February 2025 |
The resident and her family moved into a property owned by the landlord. The resident signed a tenancy agreement for this property and her tenancy of the previous property ended. |
|
28 February 2025 |
The landlord offered the resident £12,793 to reflect the value of items disposed of due to asbestos exposure. It bought her beds, mattresses and a tumble drier. The resident signed a settlement agreement which outlined that this was the landlord’s final offer for loss of belongings. |
|
16 April 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
|
|
Between 6 October and 25 November 2025 |
The resident raised a new complaint about the suitability of the property she was allocated in February 2025. Within this she also complained the landlord had not compensated her for the long-term health risks of asbestos exposure or for the distress and disruption the incident had caused. In its complaint responses the landlord apologised again for the distress and inconvenience caused by the asbestos incident. It offered:
It explained it dealt with personal injury claims through its public liability insurers and advised the resident how she could submit a claim. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate. She felt that the landlord had not sufficiently acknowledged the impact of its contractor’s actions on her and her family’s lives. We recently spoke to her representative who advised us the main outcome the resident seeks is to be rehoused as her current property is unsuitable. |
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 |
Handling of a ceiling repair and temporary accommodation arrangements |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
What we have not looked at
- The focus of this investigation was the complaint raised by the resident in January 2025. During our investigation we considered the second complaint she raised in October 2025 insofar as it addressed compensation for the issues she raised in the first complaint. However, within the second complaint she also complained about the suitability of her new property. We will consider this aspect of the complaint separately under case reference 202514914. In the interim we have recommended the landlord updates her on its available housing stock and supports her to explore alternative avenues for rehousing.
What we looked at
- We acknowledge the significant distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident and her family due to the landlord’s contractor removing the ceiling containing asbestos. They were required to move from their home with no notice, lost many of their belongings and lived in hotel accommodation for 3 months. The adverse impact during this time was particularly severe given the vulnerabilities in the family.
- We recognise that no amount of compensation or apologies from the landlord can undo this distress. It is not possible for it to put the resident back in the position she would have been in had the ceiling incident not occurred. We have, however, considered whether it took fair and proportionate action to mitigate the impact on the family once the incident had occurred. We are satisfied that it did for the following reasons:
- It accepted full responsibility for its contractor’s failure to check the asbestos register before removing the ceiling. It acknowledged this led to the chain of events in which the resident and her family had to move out of their home and into hotel accommodation for 3 months. It apologised in its complaint responses for the significant distress and inconvenience this caused.
- As soon as it became aware of the incident it instigated the emergency procedure set out in its asbestos management plan. It immediately moved the family out of the property and it established an internal emergency action group to investigate.
- It initially offered to place the family in an Airbnb but the resident said a hotel would be more suitable for her children’s needs. It therefore respected her wishes and organised hotel accommodation. Although it moved her to 5 hotels over the 3 month period, this was for reasons beyond its control. For example, hotel availability or hotel management refusing to extend the stay.
- It was in regular contact with the resident throughout her hotel stay and offered her support. This included financial support through upfront payments totalling £16,460 to cover the cost of food, clothing, laundry, taxis and so on.
- It assisted the resident with getting the new property ready for her family to move into. For example, it bought new beds and mattresses, built the beds and put them in the house before the family moved in. It also bought and installed a tumble dryer. It delivered all cleaned, decontaminated belongings that it had salvaged from the previous property. It arranged for taxis to transfer the family from their hotel to the new property on moving day.
- It itemised all belongings that it had disposed of due to contamination. It valued these at £17,317. It paid for some of the lost items directly, such as beds, mattresses and a tumble dryer. It paid the resident £1,000 in advance of moving so she could buy essential items for the day she moved in. It then offered her the balance of £12,793. The resident signed a settlement agreement. The agreement clearly explained that her signature indicated her acceptance that this was the landlord’s final settlement offer. The landlord then paid her the £12,793.
- It gave the resident advice about how she could make a claim to its liability insurers for damage to health. It explained that it did not deal with such claims through its complaints process. This was in line with its complaints policy which states that it will deal with personal injury claims as an insurance matter.
- The landlord did not initially consider paying the resident compensation for distress and inconvenience. This was despite its compensation policies enabling it to do so. However, it put this right in its response to the second complaint in October 2025 and offered her £600. It has since paid this. As it made this offer before we began our investigation into the first complaint, we have taken it into account when reaching our determination. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s compensation guidance and taking into account the £33,777 another financial support it provided, the £600 offered was reasonable.
- The landlord assured the resident in its complaint responses that it would take steps to prevent similar asbestos incidents occurring in the future. It explained that it had put an action plan in place. Its proposed actions included a compliance audit of its contractor and a review of policies, procedures and training. This was in keeping with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
|
Complaint |
Handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The landlord has a complaints policy that aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The policy requires it to acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of receipt. It must then issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. We are satisfied the landlord responded to the complaint raised by the resident in January 2025 in line with these timeframes.
- Although the landlord issued a stage 1 response within the correct timeframe, the response was not substantive. It did not set out its position on the complaint issues raised, did not reach any conclusions and did not address compensation. Instead, it said it was closing the complaint at stage 1 as its senior management team would respond to the resident directly. It suggested this was due to the severity of the case.
- While it was positive the landlord was taking the case seriously, it is unclear why it decided to effectively bypass stage 1 of its complaints process. There was no limitation within its complaints policy that would have prevented a senior manager from issuing the stage 1 response. Alternatively, it could have completed a senior management review and a complaints officer could have outlined the findings in the stage 1 response.
- A mitigating factor is that the landlord discussed and agreed its approach with the resident in advance of issuing the stage 1 response. However, it did not then follow through on its proposed method of handling the complaint. Rather than have its senior management team issue a response as agreed, it instead decided to escalate the complaint to stage 2. This meant that contrary to its complaints policy and the Code, it only provided the resident with one substantive complaint response. We have seen no evidence she agreed to give up her entitlement to receive 2 substantive responses.
- When the resident raised a second complaint in October 2025, she complained the landlord had not compensated her for distress and inconvenience caused by the asbestos incident. In response to that second complaint, the landlord acknowledged it should have offered her compensation for distress and inconvenience within its response to her first complaint. It offered her £150 for this complaint handling failure and has since paid this. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s compensation guidance, this was reasonable compensation for the time and trouble she spent in pursuing the issue.
- However, the landlord’s delay in offering compensating for distress and inconvenience highlights the benefits of a 2-stage complaints process. Had it issued a substantive stage 1 response to the first complaint, it would have had a chance to review its approach to compensation at stage 2. The resident would also have had an opportunity to ask it to review compensation in her escalation request. This may have led to it realising at stage 2 that it had overlooked compensation for distress and inconvenience. This would have saved the resident the time and trouble of raising the issue within her further complaint.
- Although the landlord has reasonably compensated the resident for her time and trouble, it has not acknowledged its failure to provide a substantive stage 1 response. We have therefore ordered it to apologise to the resident for this complaint handling failure.
Learning
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s complaints policy gives it 2 opportunities to investigate a complaint, respond and put things right. It should not bypass either complaint stage regardless of the severity of the substantive issue or if other internal reviews are taking place.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- We found no concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. It provided us with records of its contact with the resident as well as numerous reports demonstrating it carried out a thorough investigation into the asbestos incident.
Communication
- The landlord’s communication with the resident was good. It was in regular contact with her throughout her time in hotel accommodation and offered her support.