Home Group Limited (202504624)

Background

1. The resident lives with her husband who has various medical conditions which affect his breathing. She reported damp and mould within several rooms in July 2024. In November 2024 she complained as the landlord had not completed repairs related to the damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. reports of a leak, damp and mould
   2. the resident’s complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a leak, damp and mould.
4. We have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a leak, damp and mould

5. The landlord failed to manage repairs and communication effectively after the resident first reported damp and mould. It took over a year to identify the cause, with repeated delays, cancelled appointments, and poor coordination. It left the resident without cold water for 3 weeks and living in damp conditions for around 18 months. Despite knowing the household was vulnerable, the landlord did not carry out risk assessments, adapt its approach, or provide clear updates, including around temporary relocation.

Handling of the complaint

6. The landlord repeatedly missed its own complaint-handling timescales for both stages, acknowledging and responding significantly later than required. It failed to explain the delays or agree on revised timelines. Additionally, the landlord offered inadequate compensation, addressing only stage 1 delays and not stage 2.

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.

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.

7. The resident first reported damp and mould in her home on 21 May 2024. The landlord arranged an inspection the same day and carried it out around 10 June 2024. There is no evidence of what the inspection found or what work was needed. There is also no record the resident was told the outcome. This goes against the landlord’s value of being accountable. The lack of ownership caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
8. On 13 June 2024 the resident reported a leak in her bathroom. She told the landlord her husband had severe COPD and emphysema, which affected his breathing. The landlord agreed to treat the case as an emergency once the resident confirmed she was available. On 17 June 2024 the landlord spoke to the resident and made the leak safe by isolating the cold-water feed. This was a fair initial response and followed the landlord’s Property Management policy which says it will provide an efficient and responsive service.
9. However, the landlord did not complete the repair within a reasonable time as required by Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The leak was not fixed, and cold water was not restored until 9 July 2024, after the resident chased twice. The resident had no cold water for 3 weeks, and there is no record of any risk assessment or assessment of needs. The landlord has not provided an explanation for this delay. This was unfair and went against the landlord’s value of “caring,” which says it will treat everyone fairly and respect individual needs. The resident had to stay at her daughter’s house until water was restored.
10. On 14 July 2024 the landlord raised a job to check the communal roof for damp issues. The next day, it raised jobs for bathroom replastering and mould treatment. No further action was taken between July and October 2024. This was unreasonable and left the resident living with damp and mould for 3 months without updates, despite the landlord knowing a vulnerable person lived there. This failed to meet its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to a repair within a reasonable time.
11. In October 2024 the landlord tried to complete plastering but cancelled this because the property was too wet. Between October 2024 and July 2025 plastering was attempted 6 more times but could not be completed due to damp. This shows poor repair management and failure to get things right “first time” as set out in its Property Management policy. The resident faced distress, inconvenience, and unnecessary time attending appointments.
12. During plastering attempts in June 2025, the landlord removed radiators and left them against a wall. The resident had to chase the landlord, explaining this was dangerous because of her husband’s mobility issues. There is no record the landlord stored the radiators safely or refixed them promptly. This was unreasonable and caused further distress.
13. Between July 2024 and June 2025 the landlord tried to find the cause of damp and mould. It booked roof work on 14 July 2024, but scaffolding was not erected until January 2025, and roof work was not attempted until March 2025. This delay was unreasonable.
14. When the roof was assessed, the landlord found water ingress was likely causing damp. On 7 March 2025 it raised further work. On 11 April 2025 the contractor found the issue was not the roof and asked for more work. While finding the cause was positive it should not have taken 9 months to assess the roof. This was an unreasonable delay which caused further distress.
15. Follow-on roof work was attempted on 24 April 2025 and 15 May 2025 but was not completed due to poor communication between the landlord and contractor. This further highlighted a lack of ownership and a failure to get things right first time. This continued to cause distress.
16. Roof work was completed on 18 and 27 June 2025. After this, the contractor said the internal walls were still wet and a structural survey was needed. The survey took place, and the report was given to the landlord around 23 July 2025. It recommended extensive work, including cavity inspections, ventilation, replacing damaged flooring, plastering, pipe and drain checks, plumbing repairs, and decoration.
17. While commissioning the survey was positive, it should not have taken over a year from the first damp report to reach this stage. The landlord introduced a new Damp and Mould policy in October 2024 promising a zero-tolerance approach and a risk-based, person-centred response. There is no evidence the landlord followed this policy and completed a risk assessment at any stage.
18. We accept there were some challenges, such as delays due to possible asbestos. Even so, taking 13 months to reach the survey stage was unreasonable and failed in its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to complete repairs in a reasonable time.
19. Between July 2024 and July 2025 the landlord’s communication was poor. The resident had to chase for updates and responses. The landlord did not keep her informed about what repairs were needed or the timescales. Although the landlord knew the household was vulnerable, it did not explain how it would adapt its approach to reduce the impact. This lack of communication went against its Damp and Mould policy, which promised regular updates and clear explanations.
20. Another example of poor communication happened between June and August 2025 when deciding if the resident should move temporarily for repairs. In June 2025 the resident was told a ‘decant’ would be needed, then told it would not be needed, causing confusion and distress. After the July 2025 survey, the landlord contacted her in August 2025 to say a temporary move was needed. The resident did not understand the process, what a temporary move involved, if her husband’s health would be considered when choosing a property, or if she would get help with costs. While it was positive the landlord considered a temporary move under its Property Management policy, it should have explained the process clearly.
21. There is little information about what happened between August and October 2025. Around the end of October 2025, the resident moved to a temporary property so repairs could start. The extensive repair work is scheduled to finish before Christmas 2025. This means that 18 months after the first report of damp and mould, repairs are still not complete. This delay is unreasonable and does not meet the landlord’s Property Management policy or its legal obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
22. We identified a series of significant failures which had a detrimental impact on the resident. As part of its complaint responses the landlord offered the resident a total of £1,310 for delays, communication issues and the distress and inconvenience caused. However, these failures continued even after the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response, and repair works related to the damp and mould are still ongoing.

23. While paying compensation to recognise the impact to a resident, the repeated failings even after issuing its stage 2 complaint response in March 2025 demonstrates a failure to put things right and learn from outcomes. These failures accumulated over a significant period. Additionally, the impact to the resident was heightened by the failure of the landlord to recognise vulnerabilities and adapt its approach.
24. The landlord will be ordered to pay £1,000 compensation in addition to any amount it has already offered to recognise the ongoing impact, as noted above, following the stage 2 complaint response up to October 2025 when the resident was moved temporarily. This aligns with our remedies guidance.

25. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. The landlord’s acknowledgements and responses at both stages missed these timescales.
26. It acknowledged the stage 1 complaint after 14 working days and responded following the acknowledgement after 12 working days. At stage 2 it acknowledged the complaint after 22 working days and responded following the acknowledgment after 21 working days. The failure to respond within its timescales caused the resident some distress and inconvenience. The landlord failed to explain to the resident the reasons for the delay, nor did it agree any extended timescales. The resident had to chase the landlord for her stage 2 response before it was issued.
27. The landlord offered the resident £75 for its delay in dealing with the stage 1 complaint but did not offer any additional compensation for the delays at stage 2. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 for the impact of the delays at stage 2. This aligns with our remedies guidance for cases where there has been an adverse impact to the resident, but this impact is not permanent.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s record keeping was adequate in this instance. It did keep records of repairs and communication with the resident. Good knowledge and information management is an important tool when dealing with ongoing or recurring issues. This helped its investigation of the complaint.
29. While the landlord’s record keeping was adequate in this case, delays may have been avoided if it used these records to ensure linked repairs are easily identified to its staff. The landlord value of accountability or as it says, “don’t pass the buck – own it”, is key to providing a good service and clear repair records can help meet this value.

Communication

30. This report highlights several failings in its communication. Our spotlight report on Repairs and Maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team followed our spotlight report recommendations.