Home Group Limited (202450203)

Background

1. The resident lives in a bungalow which has a single storey brick-built addition, with a flat roof, to the rear. The resident uses this as a utility room. The resident reported damp in this room and is unhappy with how the landlord responded to her reports. She is also unhappy about the landlord’s handling of repairs to her doors and her reports of damp affecting the kitchen.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Repair requests.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair requests.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair requests.

4. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s repairs in line with its policy. However, it appropriately acknowledged this and took proportionate steps to put things right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 2 could have been improved. However, the landlord recognised the impact on the resident and its offer of an apology and compensation was a proportionate way to put things right.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us that she found this situation very difficult and it affected her physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury she considers has been caused by the landlord.
7. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further.
8. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused.

What we did investigate

9. There are three parts to the resident’s complaint about repairs and damp, specifically:
   1. The leaking flat roof and subsequent damp to the utility room and kitchen ceiling.
   2. The front door.
   3. The installation of an extractor fan in the kitchen.
10. The timescales in which the landlord aims to complete responsive repairs are:
    1. Emergency – to attend within 6 hours with the aim to make things safe within 24 hours.
    2. Urgent – to attend within 14 days (for external contractors) or within 28 days (for internal contractors).
    3. Routine – to attend within 28 days. If, however, specialist parts or materials are required the aim is within 56 days.
    4. Measure and fit repair – to attend within 56 calendar days.
11. The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy stated it has a “zero tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.” It committed to triaging the situation upon notification of damp or mould and base its response on this assessment.
12. The policy states it will conduct a maintenance inspection of the issues and will attend:
    1. High risk cases, including households with children or experiencing health issues within 24 hours.
    2. Medium risk cases, including households with no children or vulnerabilities where damp is in multiple rooms, within 72 hours.
    3. Low risk cases, including households with no children or vulnerabilities where damp is in one room, within 10 days.
13. In response to this complaint, the landlord conducted an inspection on 4 July 2024 to establish what work was outstanding. During this it agreed to complete the following repair work:
    1. Inspect roof for damage, chip off render at back door to check for damage. Complete damp works at back door (utility room) once render has been checked. In kitchen, renew two tiles by window, reseal tiles near door.
    2. Renew windowpane, gasket, and door handle in front door. Additionally, it agreed to renew the door handle in the back door.
    3. Install new extractor fan.

Roof repair and damp and mould issues.

14. The landlord accepted that it failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s reports in June 2023, January 2024, and March 2024. While it had contacted its maintenance surveyor in June 2023, no steps had been taken to investigate the resident’s reports.
15. Following an inspection on 4 July 2024, the landlord raised a repair request the same day to address the leak and damp.
16. The landlord agreed a schedule of works with the resident. This started with the inspection of the flat roof and chipping off render next to the back door to inspect for any ingress of water. Additionally, the landlord fitted an extractor fan in the kitchen to aid ventilation.
17. It is noted that the landlord encountered some unexpected delays when the resident raised concerns with the contractors completing the work and how the rendering would be repaired after the inspections. The landlord responded positively to these challenges. It agreed to appoint an alternative contractor and to have nominated staff present, at key points, during the required work.
18. Overall, it has not been possible for us to establish exactly when the repairs were completed. However, the landlord has not disputed that they were delayed. The landlord has not provided evidence that it triaged the damp situation in line with its damp and mould policy and it did not carry out repairs within its agreed timeframes.

Door Repair

19. We have not seen evidence that the resident reported concerns about the door prior to her complaint. The repair records show the landlord last attended to the door in January 2023.
20. Following its inspection on 4 July 2024, it raised a repair request the same day for an overhaul on the front and back doors. On 27 July 2024, the door handles were replaced and the front door measured for replacement glass, in line with its routine repair timescales. The glass pane was replaced on 30 August 2024, 34 calendar days later, in line with its measure and fit timescales.
21. The resident raised an issue again with the door on 26 September 2024, saying there was a gap around the door and the lock was not engaging correctly. This was attended on 9 October 2024, in line with its repair’s timescales. The operative reported that it was working on their inspection.
22. The resident continued to raise issues with her front door throughout the complaints process. However, as the landlord could find no fault with the door, it made a management decision not to reattend the resident’s reports.
23. While we understand this would have been disappointing for the resident, the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff in this situation and therefore was entitled to make this decision.
24. We find that the landlord undertook a proportionate investigation into the issues with the door and made a fair decision based on what it found. However, we also find that the landlord did not explain its decision to the resident at the earliest opportunity. This is likely to have caused the resident continued frustration.

Kitchen extractor fan

25. The resident told the landlord, while raising her complaint, that she had been told the kitchen needed an extractor fan to be fitted. However, the landlord’s evidence shows that there was no outstanding request for an extractor fan to be fitted at the time of the resident’s complaint.
26. However, the landlord responded appropriately and raised a request for this to be fitted the same day it conducted its inspection of the property. The extractor fan was fitted 4 days later, in line with its repair timescales.

The landlord’s overall response

27. Where there are failings by a landlord, we will consider what the landlord did to put things right. In this case the landlord offered an apology and compensation as redress.
28. The resident lived with unresolved repairs and damp for an unreasonable amount of time. She experienced significant inconvenience during the works with multiple repair visits needed to resolve the issues. She also sought the help of her local councillor and local authority to progress matters with the landlord. This could have been avoided if the landlord had carried out repairs correctly at the earliest opportunity.
29. Our remedies guidance provides for compensation in the range of £600 to £1000 for situations where there was failure by a landlord that significantly affected the resident.
30. The landlord awarded £1,450 compensation for its failures in the handling of the repair requests. It broke down the compensation as follows:
    1. Significant delay – £200 delay to resolve roof leak.
    2. Significant delay – £200 delay to resolve damp and mould issues.
    3. Service Failure – £150 poor communication.
    4. Service Failure – £150 lack of action to resolve repairs.
    5. Disruption – £150 numerous appointments required.
    6. Disruption – £150 repeat attendances.
    7. Time and effort – £150
    8. Distress and inconvenience – £300.
31. We find the landlord’s assessment and offer of compensation to be a proportionate way to put things right.

32. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was published in April 2024.
33. The landlord’s complaints policy, applicable at the time, was compliant with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
34. The resident raised her initial complaint on 17 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged and issued its stage 1 response in line with the timescales of the Code.
35. The landlord’s records note that the resident first mentioned escalating her complaint on 28 August 2024. The records show that, in response to this, the landlord spoke with the resident and provided appointment dates for the repairs to progress. However, it has not provided evidence that it clarified this with the resident, and this was a short coming.
36. The resident raised her escalation request on 17 December 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 31 December 2024, 8 working days later. It issued its stage 2 response on 24 March 2025, 58 working days after its acknowledgement. This was 38 days working days later than required, to comply with the Code’s timescales.
37. It was, therefore, appropriate that the landlord used it stage 2 response to apologise for this. It also offered compensation of £150 for its “delay to provide complaint outcome” as redress to put things right.

Learning

38. Since this complaint, the landlord has updated its damp and mould procedures in line with legislation changes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication.

39. Part of the resident’s complaint was that she had been told by the landlord’s maintenance supervisor during site visits to expect certain repairs. The landlord has not provided any record of these visits. This suggests record keeping failures at that time.
40. The landlord did, however, acknowledge that there were occasions that it failed to raise repair requests and it used its complaint responses to apologise for these failings.
41. The landlord has also not provided evidence that, in response to the residents concerns about damp, it considered the level of risk (if any). This is a shortcoming since its response times, in line with its policy, are dependent on these assessments.
42. It is evident that the landlord’s communication with the resident improved significantly once she raised this complaint and its records of events since that point have been comprehensive.