Home Group Limited (202506127)

U7Decision
Case ID	202506127
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Home Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 February 2026

Background

The landlord moved the resident to another property due to disrepair and safeguarding concerns. When she moved in, she reported that the external doors did not lock and that a water leak had caused damp and mould. She reported a gas leak, exposed electrical cabling, and radiators that did not work. She reported her child has asthma. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to these issues and brought her complaint to us.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of various repairs.
2. Reports to repair the external doors.
3. Report of a gas leak.
4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs.
2. No maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports to repair the external doors.
3. Reasonable redress of the landlord’s handling the resident’s report of a gas leak.
4. Service failure of the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of various repairs

The landlord delayed some of its repairs beyond its policy timeframes and did not keep adequate records to understand how it remedied the issues. It did not keep the resident updated and did not address the safety issues with urgency.

Reports to repair the external doors

The landlord repaired the doors on the same days the resident reported the damage.

Report of a gas leak

The landlord uncapped the gas and allowed the resident to move into the property, despite a gas leak. It apologised for this, acknowledged the failing, and offered compensation, takeaway costs, and a rent refund, which we consider was reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

The landlord delayed in issuing its complaint responses and, although it recognised some failings, it did not acknowledge all of the failings and set out learnings from this.

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 13 March 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £760 made up as follows: £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused for its handling of various repairs £260 for the distress and inconvenience caused for its handling of the gas leak £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused for its handling of the complaint. The landlord must pay the offer directly to the resident by the due date. It must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. It may deduct the £500 it offered in the complaint response from the total figure, if this has already been paid to the resident.	No later than 13 March 2026
3	Specific action The landlord must consider its compensation policy and the tenancy agreement and set out its response to the resident about the damage to their contents and property.	No later than 13 March 2026
4	Specific action The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection and set out an action plan. it must take all reasonable steps to complete the inspection and send the action plan by the due date a suitably qualified person must complete the inspection the landlord must give a copy of the inspection to us and to the resident the action plan must set out the timeframes to complete any recommended repairs from the inspection and what it would do to improve water pressure, such as move the boiler, as it had said it would do in its complaint response 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 kitchen leak, electric cabling and water pressure in the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards the most likely cause of the leak and water pressure issues a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issues (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the property condition or during the works	No later than 13 March 2026
5	Learnings The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures of its handling of the leaks, cabling, and the complaint. It should set out what actions it will take to prevent the failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 13 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord considers further compensation for the resident for the delays in completing the outstanding repairs from the stage 2 response until it completes the repairs.
Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pays the resident £260 for distress and inconvenience, evidences the rent waiver and costs to cover food.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 January 2025 to 24 February 2025	The resident reported that: the external doors did not lock because they were damaged there was a leak from the kitchen sink the cables at the front of the property had electrocuted them their gas supplier found a leak and capped the meter In this time the resident had use of electric heaters. The landlord said it repaired the external doors, the leak in the kitchen, the electric cabling, and the gas leak. It said for the 23 days they were without gas it would not charge rent and it paid £480 into their rent account for food bought whilst the cooker was not working.
16 April 2025 and 15 May 2025	The resident complained that there were repairs outstanding, there was a gas leak when the tenancy began, they had to pay for takeaways and run electric heaters. They said they felt distressed, and the property conditions affected their child’s asthma. They chased the landlord for a response to their complaint.
28 May 2025 to 5 June 2025	The landlord repaired the gaps in the external doors, and the kitchen leak. The resident reported and complained about a leak from their bath which caused damp and mould in the property, there was an issue with the water pressure, and the radiators were too hot and noisy.
6 June 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said it had fixed a leak in the bathroom and kitchen, fixed the external doors and it had repaired the electric cables. It said it had resolved the gas issue and reported the failures to senior management who had acted because its staff did not follow the required processes. It offered £410 compensation, broken down as: £150 for the delay and service to complete repairs £75 for the loss of gas facilities £185 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the gas leak The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on the same day because they were unhappy with the compensation offered.
31 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It reiterated what it had said at stage 1. It said it needed to replace the radiators and move the boiler to remedy the issue with the water pressure. It apologised it had not previously sent an action plan to complete the repairs. It offered £500 compensation, broken down as: £150 for the delay and service to complete repairs £75 for the loss of gas facilities £185 for the distress and inconvenience caused for not identifying the gas leak £90 for the distress and inconvenience caused for its handling of the complaint
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident explained to us that they wanted the repairs completed, compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to them, and money to cover the damage to their contents and property.

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	Report of various repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

In correspondence with us, the resident also referred to a roof leak. We may only consider issues which have been raised as a complaint with the landlord and that have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Therefore, this investigation will only assess the issues raised on 16 April 2025 and 15 May 2025, which the landlord responded to in its complaints process. The resident may wish to raise any new concerns with the landlord as a separate complaint if required.

What we have investigated

There is no evidence showing whether the landlord inspected the property or identified what repairs it needed before the resident’s tenancy began. This was not in line with the landlord’s property management policy which explains it would carry out inspections of void properties to identify repairs. After moving into the property, the resident had to report the repairs set out below.

Reports to repair leaks in the property, water pressure, and the radiators

The landlord inspected the kitchen leak within 13 days of the resident reporting it and told them to report it again if it worsened. It later accepted that it should have addressed the leak at that time. The landlord attempted a repair 137 days after the resident first reported the issue. This delay was inappropriate and did not meet its repair timeframe of 28 days. During this time, it did not update the resident. Its records also did not explain the cause of the leak or how it repaired it. This is a failure of its record keeping.
The landlord attempted to repair the radiators on the day the resident reported that they were too hot and noisy. It repaired the leak under the bath 19 days after the resident reported it. This was in line with its online repair timescales to repair the issues within 28 days. However, there was no detail as to how it repaired the leak and the radiators. There is also no evidence as to whether it assessed and responded to the resident’s report of damp and mould when it attended to the leak. This was a failure of its record keeping and has made it difficult to assess.
The resident explained to the landlord that damp and mould damaged some of their property and some of their belongings. It had not provided a response about damage to the property.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it said it needed to repair the kitchen and bathroom leaks, move the boiler to improve water pressure, and replace the radiators. The landlord said it fixed the radiators instead of replacing them. The resident confirmed that the landlord repaired the bathroom. However, the other repairs were outstanding.

Reports to repair the electric cables

The landlord removed the cables 25 days after the resident reported that the cables had electrocuted them. It was appropriate and in line with its online repair timeframe to repair the issue within 28 days. However, its repair policy says it would categorise a report and respond to it as an emergency to make safe within 24 hours where there may be an electrical fault that presented a risk. In the circumstances, it should have acted sooner.
The resident reported the issue again 5 months later. In the complaint response the landlord said it would remove the cables or make them safe. It tried to remedy the issue outside of its repair timescales and more than 28 days later, on 10 September 2025 and again on 10 October 2025. The landlord said it fixed the issue on 11 November 2025. However, the resident has explained the issue is unresolved.

Summary of various repairs

In the landlord’s complaint response, it recognised some issues, but not those set out under the summary of reasons of this report. It did not set out any learning to prevent the issues happening again in the future. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles, which require landlords to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
Considering the above, we have made orders to put things right. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation in line with our remedies guidance for the distress and inconvenience it caused to them. This includes that the resident moved into a property with multiple repairs, some of which they say remain outstanding, and others the landlord delayed repairing, along with the stress this caused.

Complaint	Reports to repair the external doors of the property
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord responded to the resident’s reports about the external doors on the same days they reported the issues. This was in line with its online repair timescales to remedy issues with access to and from the property as an emergency and within 24 hours.
We therefore have found no maladministration in its handling of this element of the complaint.

Complaint	Report of a gas leak
Finding	Reasonable redress

The parties do not dispute that there was a gas leak when the resident entered the property. The tenancy agreement says the landlord would keep in good repair the gas supply. Its health and safety policy and property management policy say it will service the gas and take reasonable steps to minimise the risk of dangerous defects. The landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm whether it had checked the gas supply or carried out any servicing of the gas appliances or supply for which it was responsible.
During that time, the resident said the gas leak distressed her, and she felt inconvenienced because she did not have working gas for the cooker, heating, or hot water. She offered to pay to reconnect the gas.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it acknowledged its failings and apologised to the resident. It covered the resident’s takeaway costs, waived rent during the gas outage, and offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s offer of redress and the actions it took to put things right were in line with our dispute resolution principles and our remedies guidance, for failures where there had been no permanent impact. We therefore find reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint, providing it pays the compensation to the resident and evidences the actions it said it had taken.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, and the resident should receive a stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2, the resident should receive an acknowledgement within 5 working days, and a formal response within 20 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint 21 working days after the resident submitted it. Since the landlord did not acknowledge it within the required timeframe, it also failed to issue the stage 1 response on time. It acknowledged the escalation of the complaint in the time set out in its complaint policy. However, it sent the stage 2 response 17 working days late. The delays were not in line with its complaint policy and inconvenienced the resident who felt they had to chase the landlord for a response to their complaint.
The landlord had not recognised all the failures set out under the summary of reasons of this report or apologised for these failures. It had not set out learnings to prevent it happening again in the future. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
However, in the landlord’s complaint response, it offered the resident £100 for the delay and quality of its complaint responses. This was in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

The landlord missed an opportunity to set out specific learning points in its responses about its delay to complete repairs. Doing so would have been in line with our dispute resolution principles of putting things right and learning from outcomes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. In this case, some of the records provided by the landlord were unclear and its poor record keeping made it difficult to determine what it had done to remedy the issues, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Communication

The landlord’s communication was poor following the resident’s reports to repair the property, and throughout the duration of the complaint. It failed to provide proactive updates. Better communication would have allowed it to manage the resident’s expectations and may have avoided distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.