Home Group Limited (202504122)

Background

1. The resident lives in a house. She reported a leak and issues with her chimney stack to the landlord. She is unhappy the landlord has not resolved these issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
   2. The landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of roof repairs

5. The landlord delayed in identifying that it needed a party wall agreement to repair the resident’s roof. Its communication with the resident during the issues with her roof was poor. The roof repairs remain outstanding.

Complaint handling

6. There were occasions where the landlord did not follow the timescales in its complaints policy. However, it put things right and awarded a reasonable amount of compensation.

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.

Recommendation

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.

7. The resident first reported a leak in 2021. As so much time has passed, the landlord only has very limited records of what the contractor did then. This means we do not have enough information to check what work was carried out or if it was done properly. Without these details, we cannot assess how the landlord responded to the roof repairs in 2021.
8. The next available information about the roof is August 2023 when following another inspection, the landlord raised repairs to repoint the chimney and replace the lead flashing on 31 August 2023. It set a target date of 14 September 2023 for those repairs in line with the 14-day timeframe set out in its repairs policy for routine repairs. However, the landlord did not meet this target.
9. The resident contacted the landlord to chase up those repairs on 28 September and 20 October 2023. She said the landlord’s contractor had told her the landlord needed the cooperation of the owner of the house next-door via a party wall agreement to complete the repairs. The resident asked the landlord for an update about the party wall agreement 3 further times in 2023. It added to the inconvenience the leak was causing the resident when it did not respond to her. In not having a record of the need for a party wall agreement at that time the landlord did not show it had effective communication with its contractor.
10. The landlord’s repair records show its contractor completed roof repairs on 8 January 2024. However, the records also indicate that further works were raised later in 2024, with only limited details available. Contrary to the landlord’s records, the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint because the repairs were still outstanding. She explained that a contractor had attended on 8 January 2024 but had only inspected the roof. The landlord later accepted that the repairs had not been completed. It is also concerning that the landlord’s records do not include details of the appointment on 23 February 2024, which the resident listed in her timeline. This lack of accurate record keeping again shows the landlord was not effectively monitoring its contractor, which prolonged the time the resident had to live with a leaking roof.
11. The landlord missed another opportunity to check the status of the works when the resident contacted it on 19 August 2024. She reported that her next-door neighbour had put her house up for sale. She was concerned this would delay the party wall agreement further. As it was the landlord had not begun the process of securing an agreement at that time because it considered the repairs complete.
12. While the landlord acknowledged the inconvenience caused by its delays in the stage 1 response, it failed to demonstrate urgency by not committing to a timeframe for scheduling the repairs. Following the stage 1 response the landlord improved its approach when it erected scaffolding and carried out some repairs to the chimney stack at the rear of the property in April 2025.
13. The resident raised concerns about the lack of action on the front of the property because that was where the leak was located. It was not until the landlord’s stage 2 response that it explained it needed to secure a party wall agreement to complete the front of house repairs. This was over 18 months after the resident had first notified the landlord of its contractor telling her a party wall agreement would be needed. This failure to act promptly on the party wall agreement was a key factor in the prolonged delays.
14. While obtaining a party wall agreement would have made meeting the landlord’s routine repair timeframes challenging, the delays were largely caused by its failure to start the process sooner. The landlord had multiple opportunities to identify this requirement and act, but it did not do so until long after the resident first raised the issue. Had it acted promptly, it could have secured the agreement before the neighbouring property was sold, avoiding further delay. These failures show the landlord did not act reasonably or in line with its obligations, and its lack of proactive management was the main cause of the prolonged delays. This added further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
15. After its stage 2 response the landlord told the resident that it was considering a full replacement of her roof due to difficulties in sourcing the existing tiles. It told her that it was waiting for a director to approve that work. It did not keep the resident updated after that and has not confirmed to her whether or not it will be completing a full roof replacement. This lack of certainty has added to her inconvenience.
16. The landlord did not show a joined up approach when it sent its contractor to erect scaffolding on 3 September 2025. The next-door neighbour did not allow it to erect the scaffolding. The resident called the landlord the next day unhappy about how the landlord had handled matters. She said she intended to stop reporting any further leaks because she had lost confidence in the landlord.
17. If the landlord progressed the outstanding repairs following its stage 2 response the £680 compensation it awarded would have been reasonable. However, we have ordered it to pay the resident a further £300 compensation for the continued distress and inconvenience she has experienced in having to chase up the matter with the landlord. This figure falls within the maladministration banding of our remedies guidance and reflects the further failings by the landlord. It failed to act proactively in identifying and contacting the new next-door owner and has not given the resident certainty about replacing her roof. She has told us she is worried by the prospect of another winter in a house that is not weathertight.  

18. 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 the 2024 edition. Our findings are:
    1. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord had a published complaints policy that was compliant with the Code.
    2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint after 4 working days on 21 February 2025. This was in line with the 5 working days allowed by the Code. Under the Code it should have provided its response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement, 7 March 2025. The landlord did not respond until 19 March 2025.
    3. The landlord did not immediately act on the resident’s escalation request. This meant it took 12 working days to acknowledge her stage 2 complaint on 4 April 2025. This was not in line with the 5 working days allowed by the Code. The Code allows landlords 20 working days from their acknowledgement to provide a stage 2 response. Had the landlord acknowledged the complaint after 5 working days as it should have its response would have been due by 25 April 2025. The landlord provided its response on 30 April 2025.
19. The landlord did not provide its stage 1 complaint response and stage 2 acknowledgement in line with the time allowed by the Code. However, it recognised both of these failings in its complaint responses. The £210 total compensation it awarded the resident to recognise the inconvenience caused by these delays was proportionate to the length of the delays.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. Poor record keeping contributed to the failings in completing the roof repairs. Accurate records are essential to show what actions a landlord and its contractors have taken. When records are incomplete, it suggests the landlord’s repair processes are not working effectively. This can lead to unreasonable delays and negatively affect the service residents receive. If it has not done so recently, the landlord should review how it records information from contractors to prevent similar failures in future.

Communication

21. There were periods from when the landlord was aware of the leak that it did not contact the resident and provide updates on when it would carry out repairs. This lack of communication contributed to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and is reflected in the compensation order above.