Home Group Limited (202504572)

Decision
Case ID	202504572
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Home Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	05 February 2026

Background

1. The resident complained about damp and mould, various repairs and mice in her home.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs.
   2. Damp and mould.
   3. Pests.
   4. The related complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
   3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of pests.
   4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs

4. The landlord promptly inspected the property and raised repairs. It completed most repairs within reasonable timescales, but there were some delays. It acknowledged its failure to previously repair the doors. The compensation was not quite enough to remedy all its failures.

Damp and mould

5. The landlord failed to complete the damp and mould inspection in line with its policy timeframes. It raised repairs quickly after this. However, it has not still completed them all.

Pests

6. The landlord delayed raising pest control works following the inspection. It did not explain the delay or remedy this.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord acknowledged its late stage 1 response. It offered proportionate 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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 05 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £760 made up as follows: £310 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp and mould. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of pests. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 05 March 2026
3	Action Order The landlord is to provide the resident with an update and full scope of works for the outstanding soffit repair. It must include an expected timeframe for starting the works.	No later than 05 March 2026
4	Inspection order    The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.      What the inspection must achieve    The landlord must ensure that the surveyor:  Inspects the paving flags to the front and back in relation to the drainage issues reported and produces a written report with photographs.     The survey report must set out:  The most likely cause of the drainage problems. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 05 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord to pay the resident the £75 as previously offered for its poor complaint handing. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this amount is paid.
The landlord is to contact the resident about the status of the damp and mould repairs following its inspection in December 2025.
The landlord to contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities that should be recorded for the household, to ensure its records are accurate and up to date.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 January 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about multiple repairs issues. This included damp and mould in the bedroom, a gate and fence, doors, the bedroom light, doorsteps, bathroom tiles, a hot water tap, and mice.
14 February 2025	The landlord responded at stage 1. It said: There were no previous reports about the bedroom light, missing doorsteps, or mice. It had no recent reports about the bathroom tiles, or the gate and fence. It inspected damp and mould in 2023. Following the complaint, it inspected and raised repairs. It repaired the hot tap on 20 January 2025. It apologised for its communication about this during a call on 18 January 2025. There had been multiple repairs raised to external doors since November 2023. It raised further repairs to resolve this. It offered £360 of compensation, broken down as £35 for the delay to the emergency hot tap repair, £75 for poor communication, £75 for the time taken to resolve damp and mould, £100 for 6 jobs attended and no resolution, and £75 for complaint handling.
14 April 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She was unhappy with the repairs, the communication and the compensation.
29 April 2025	The landlord responded at stage 2. It said: It apologised for the delay at stage 1. It had now completed repairs to the gate and fence, external door, bathroom, bedroom light, a damp and mould treatment and related repairs. An asbestos test was needed before repairs to the soffit. It would replace front and rear doors. It would complete work to doorsteps and paving flags on 6 May 2025. An inspection found mice droppings but no visible defects or access points. It raised pest control work. An appointment was pending. The compensation offered at stage 1 was fair. It would monitor work to completion.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and compensation. The resident told us repairs were not complete.
After the end of the complaints process	The landlord completed another damp and mould inspection on 8 December 2025. The resident told us the damp and mould was not resolved. She said repairs were still outstanding to flags at the front and back of the property and this was causing drainage problems.

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 repairs
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

8. The resident told us the situation had a detrimental impact on her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are likely 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’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
9. The resident told us repair issues had been ongoing for 14 years. This investigation is focused on the issues raised in the complaint the resident made on 20 January 2025.  Reference is made to earlier events to provide context only.

What we did investigate

Gate and fence

10. On 22 January 2025, the resident reported her gate and fence were in poor condition. The landlord noted it had last repaired this in October 2023. Its records show it received no further reports since then. It reasonably treated this as a new repair and completed the work on 18 February 2025. This took 27 days. The landlord’s property management policy does not include timescales for repairs. The landlord’s website says it aims to complete all routine repairs within 28 days. It met this timescale for the gate and fence.

Windows and doors

11. In her January 2025 complaint, the resident reported draughty windows and doors. The complaint response also said the resident reported water ingress. The landlord confirmed no window repairs were raised previously. The 3 February 2025 inspection found no window faults.
12. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged raising multiple jobs after the doors were replaced in November 2023. These were due to sticking or warping. Following the 3 February 2025 inspection, it attempted a repair on 13 February 2025. At stage 2, the landlord confirmed that replacement of the front and rear doors and frames was pending an appointment. It confirmed this could take 4 to 6 weeks due to ordering materials.
13. The landlord raised the repairs to the door with its contractor on 13 March 2025. This was completed on 27 June 2025. This was an overall timeframe of over 5 months from the resident raising it in her complaint. Furthermore, the landlord confirmed to us that its contractor had attended to the doors 6 times in 2024 without full resolution. Its repair records show multiple appointments, including a repair logged on 15 May 2024, to replace the external door. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not previously retained an oversight of this repair through to completion.

Bathroom tiles

14. On 22 January 2025 the resident said the landlord had fitted her bathroom but left the walls without tiles. The landlord’s records show previous bathroom works in 2021. The landlord’s internal correspondence at the time of the complaint stated it fitted a wet wall board and this was acceptable. It is unclear if this was communicated to the resident.
15. The landlord inspected the bathroom on 3 February 2025 and raised further works. These did not include tiling. These were completed on 12 and 21 March 2025, taking 50 days overall. The work included ordering a new basin pedestal. The landlord aims to complete more complex repairs – such as those requiring materials – within 56 days. It completed these repairs within this timescale.

Bedroom light

16. The resident reported the bedroom light not working when discussing her complaint on 22 January 2025. The landlord inspected this on 3 February 2025. It raised a repair on the same day. It completed this on 24 February 2025. This was a timeframe of 35 days. This was outside of its 28-day timeframe for routine repairs although this was a minor delay only and it needed to inspect within this time and raise the repair as further works.

Doorstep and paving flags

17. There is no evidence of earlier reports about the doorsteps or paving flags. In her complaint, the resident said she had no steps at the front or side doors. After the 3 February 2025 inspection, the landlord raised repairs the same day. This was for new steps and to lift and re‑bed paving flags for drainage. The reason for the subsequent delay in booking the work was unclear. The stage 1 response mentioned a repair appointment booked for 2 April 2025. However, there are no records of this appointment taking place.
18. The resident told the landlord in her complaint escalation that flag repairs were outstanding. The landlord completed both repairs on 11 July 2025. It took over 5 months. This was outside the landlord’s repair timescales. The contractor attempted to complete the work earlier on 6 May 2025. Records show the resident asked them to leave. This failed appointment was outside the landlord’s control and contributed to the further delay.
19. It is not clear if the repairs to the paving flags have fully resolved the drainage issue. We have not seen evidence of further reports but the resident told us in January 2026 that she is still experiencing problems with the paving flags and drainage. As such, we have made an order for the landlord to inspect this.

Hot water tap

20. On 18 January 2025, the resident reported out of hours that she had no hot water in the bathroom. The landlord told her it was not an emergency. Its website says loss of hot water is an emergency only where there is no alternative hot water. In her complaint, the resident said the landlord would not attend without information about her vulnerabilities. The landlord completed the repair on 20 January 2025. The records note the resident informed it of a vulnerability that required her to use the bath at that time. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained that asking about vulnerabilities helps it assess urgency. This was reasonable and aligned with its person‑centred service delivery policy. This says it encourages residents to share any adjustments or prioritisation needs.
21. The landlord later appropriately apologised for the call of 18 January 2025. It explained it was reviewing its communication procedures. This demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously. It also offered £35 for not attending the repair within its emergency timeframe of 24 hours. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident about any current household vulnerabilities to ensure its records are up to date.

Repairs summary

22. Overall, the resident raised multiple repairs during her complaint that had not been previously reported. Given the number of issues, it was appropriate for the landlord to inspect before raising the repairs. Following the inspection, it raised and completed most repairs within reasonable timescales. It acknowledged failing to resolve the door issues in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord tried to put things right by completing the repairs and offering £210 compensation. It offered £100 for failing to resolve a repair after 6 jobs, £75 for poor communication, and £35 for the delayed emergency appointment.
23. Considering the overall timeframe for the door repairs, and the delay with the initial appointments for the paving flags and doorsteps, the compensation did not go far enough to fully remedy the complaint. We have ordered additional compensation of £100. This is in line with our remedies guidance for where the landlord’s redress is not quite proportionate to the failings we have identified.

Complaint	Handling of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

24. In her complaint on 20 January 2025, the resident told the landlord there was damp and mould in the bedroom. At stage 1, the landlord said the resident had reported this in 2023. It was not clear if this report related to the bedroom. The landlord’s records show a report of damp and mould in relation to the bathroom logged on 12 July 2023. It completed this on 20 July 2023. We have not seen the inspection records. The landlord confirmed to us that this report related to the bathroom. Its record keeping here was unclear.
25. In response to the resident’s complaint that the guttering was blocked and potentially causing damp and mould, the landlord raised a repair to clean these. It completed this on 23 January 2025. This was within the 28-day timeframe in its repairs policy.
26. The landlord inspected the property on 3 February 2025. This was 14 days after the complaint. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation compliance document says it will use triage tools to assess risk. For high-risk cases (residents with health conditions or vulnerabilities), it will inspect within 24 hours, for medium risk this is 72 hours, and low risk is 10 days. It did not inspect within these timeframes or show it had risk assessed the case. This was a failure.
27. The landlord raised damp and mould repairs promptly on 3 February 2025 following the inspection. This was in line with its damp, mould and condensation compliance document. This says it will act on surveyor recommendations in a timely manner. It raised a mould wash and stain block to the bedroom, refixing tiles at the front of the property, and a soffit renewal.
28. The landlord did the mould wash on 13 February 2025. It completed repairs to the tiles on 18 February 2025. The landlord’s damp and mould compliance document does not include timeframes for works. However, it appropriately completed both repairs within its 28-day timeframe for routine repairs. The landlord now has a damp and mould policy with clear timeframes.
29. At stage 2, the landlord said an asbestos test was needed before completing work to the soffit. The landlord confirmed to us that it received the results for this on 19 November 2025. This was 9 months from raising the repair. This far exceeded its timescale of 56 days for more complex repairs. The landlord confirmed to us that part of the delays were due to contractor issues and testing the incorrect area. There is no evidence it kept the resident updated. Records show the resident chased for updates in March and September 2025. The landlord failed to appropriately monitor this repair to completion.
30. The landlord told us in November 2025 that it was reviewing the condition of the soffit following the test. The current status of the repair is unclear. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to provide the resident with an update on this, including timescales.
31. The landlord completed another damp and mould inspection in December 2025. It is not clear if this was in response to a new report or a follow-up. It noted no damp in the bedroom, but mould to the window sealant and in the corner of the room at low level. It stated remedial work was needed. This included a mould clean, resealing the window, and repairing a leak to the front downpipe. The resident told us in January 2026 that a mould wash and repairs were not complete. We have recommended the landlord contact the resident about this further outstanding work.
32. Overall, the landlord had not fully completed the damp and mould repairs raised in February 2025 by the time of its stage 2 response. Delays continued into late 2025. It offered £75 compensation for the time taken to resolve the issue. This was not enough to remedy the failures identified. It also did not account for the ongoing distress and inconvenience caused by the outstanding work. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered an additional £325 for the adverse impact on the resident.

Complaint	Handling of pests
Finding	Service failure

33. The landlord’s repair policy provided does not mention pests. Its website states it is responsible for pest infestations caused by structural issues, such as cracks or gaps. This aligns with its tenancy obligation to keep the structure and exterior in good repair. It says if it is a resident’s responsibility, it will tell the resident who they need to contact.
34. There is no evidence of previous reports about mice entering the property before the resident raised the issue on 22 January 2025. She said mice might be accessing the home through gaps in the kitchen cupboards. The landlord inspected the property on 3 February 2025. This was within its 28‑day routine repair timeframe.
35. The landlord’s inspection on 3 February 2025 found mice droppings but no visible defects or access holes. Records show it raised work with its contractor on 10 March 2025. The reason for the delay in raising the work is unclear. The contractor attended on 25 March 2025 and set baits and traps. It completed follow‑up visits on 2 and 24 April 2025. The works were marked complete. It took 45 days from the landlord raising the job to completion. This is within its 56‑day target for repairs requiring longer timescales. This was reasonable given the need for repeat visits for pest eradication.
36. However, the landlord has not explained why it did not raise the pest control works sooner after its inspection on 3 February 2025. This delay likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord failed to acknowledge its delay and put things right for the resident. We have ordered compensation in line with our remedies guidance for where there was a minor failure which the landlord did not fully put right.

Complaint	Complaint handing
Finding	Reasonable redress

37. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024 sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. It must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy complies with the timescales in the Code.
38. The resident complained on 20 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged this on 22 January. It issued the stage 1 response on 14 February. This took 17 working days. This exceeded its policy and the Code timescales. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to extend the complaint.
39. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered £75 for poor complaint handling but did not explain this was for the late response. At stage 2, it acknowledged the stage 1 delay, apologised, and confirmed the £75 was intended to address this.
40. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint on time at stage 2. The landlord offered discretionary compensation in line with its compensation policy and our own remedies guidance. This remedy was proportionate to the time and trouble caused.

Learning

Complaint handling

41. The landlord should respond to complaints within the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. It should ensure it communicates with residents about delays.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

42. The landlord’s records and its complaint responses show conflicting information about the resident’s initial reports of damp and mould in the bedroom. Landlords should maintain accurate records of repairs. Clear, correct, and accessible records provide an audit trail. It also enhances the landlord’s ability to respond to problems when they arise.

Communication

43. The landlord failed to appropriately keep the resident updated on the progress of outstanding repairs. It should consider how it can ensure that residents are kept informed where repairs cannot be quickly resolved.