Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Home Group Limited (202506547)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202506547

Home Group Limited

29 August 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and the associated repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 3-bedroom house, since 2017. The resident resides at the property with her 4 children, 1 of whom has physical and mental health vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 5 November 2024. She said this was in relation to an unresolved roof leak and subsequent electrical issues at the property. She said that she had first reported the issues to the landlord in September 2024 and was specifically unhappy that she had experienced “numerous” delays, missed appointments and “unprofessional” conduct from contractors. She said that the landlord had left her family “at risk, due to unresolved safety hazards”.
  3. The evidence suggests that during a telephone call with the resident on 21 November 2024 to discuss her complaint, the landlord informed her that the roof of the property had been due to be replaced in 2015 before her tenancy commenced. The resident said she was dissatisfied that she had not been informed about this sooner and asked the landlord to include the issue within its complaint investigation.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 December 2024. It said:
    1. The roof had been due to be replaced in 2015 under its planned maintenance schedule. However, the previous tenant had refused the works at the time.
    2. It provided an overview of the events that had occurred in relation to the roof leaks between 23 September 2024 and 13 December 2024. It said it was currently waiting for a quote from its subcontractors before the works to address the outstanding issues could commence.
    3. It offered the resident £950 compensation for its handling of her reports of a roof leak and associated repairs, calculated as follows:
      1. £150 for distress and inconvenience.
      2. £150 for failure to communicate.
      3. £150 for the disruption caused.
      4. £100 for the significant delay in repairing the roof.
      5. £100 for the significant delay in repairing the loft.
      6. £100 for the significant delay in supplying tarpaulin for the roof.
      7. £100 for the significant delay in repairing the water damaged ceilings.
      8. £100 for the significant delay in reconnecting the upstairs light.
    4. It apologised to the resident for its complaint handling delays and offered her an additional £75 compensation in recognition of this.
  5. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 the same day (13 December 2024). The landlord’s internal notes stated that this was because as an outcome to her complaint, she wanted it to replace the full roof on the property.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 April 2025. It provided a timeline of events between December 2024 and April 2025, and said:
    1. It apologised to the resident for its lack of progress to resolve the roof repair. It would contact her to arrange appointments for the outstanding repairs once it had received the quotation for the required works.
    2. It offered the resident an additional £500 compensation for its handling of the roof repairs (total £1,450). The additional amount was calculated as follows:
      1. £100 for significant delays.
      2. £100 for poor communication.
      3. £75 for time and effort.
      4. £150 for distress and inconvenience.
      5. £75 for disruption.
    3. It apologised to the resident for its stage 2 complaint handling delays and offered her an additional £75 (total £150).
  7. In August 2025, both parties informed this Service that the roof repairs remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. On 13 December 2024, the resident told the landlord that she had experienced “multiple” repair issues with the roof since her tenancy commenced in March 2017. The fact that problems were recurring is not disputed, but the evidence suggests that the situation was not continuous. Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it assessed its handling of the roof leak from September 2024 onwards (as per the resident’s request on 5 November 2024). As such, this investigation will also focus on the landlord’s actions from September 2024 onwards. This is in accordance with the Scheme, which states that we may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period (usually 12 months from the matter arising).
  2. On 6 January 2025, the resident asked the landlord to back-date its compensation calculation for its handling of the roof leak to the beginning of her tenancy (March 2017). In August 2025, she also told this Service that this was 1 of her desired outcomes of this investigation. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. Financial damages are a legal matter, and the resident can obtain legal advice if she wishes to pursue her claim through the courts.
  3. The resident has described how she feels the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue has negatively impacted on her family’s physical and mental health. While we do not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with the Scheme. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

Roof leak and associated repairs

  1. The landlord has a statutory and contractual obligation to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This is in accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and reflected in the tenancy agreement. This includes the maintenance and repair of the structural parts of the property, such as the roof.
  2. In accordance with the landlord’s repair policy, the landlord has a “right first-time approach” and aims to complete repairs within predefined timescales, from the date that a repair is first reported. Despite this, the Ombudsman accepts that tracing leaks can be a complicated process. It is not unusual for several attempts to be made before a resolution is found. Nevertheless, the landlord’s repair policy states that it aims to attend to emergency repairs within 6 hours and to complete them within 24 hours. It describes routine repairs as those which do not affect health, welfare, or security, and which do not cause further damage to the property. It aims to complete these repairs within 14 days.
  3. In August 2025, the landlord informed us that during the period of our investigation, it had “endured significant service failure from [its repairs contractor] which resulted in severe disruption, and it was not provided with data on all outstanding repairs when [the contractor] went into administration”. We do not dispute this, and we accept that this was likely to have had a negative impact on the landlord’s delivery of its repairs service. However, we have seen no documentary evidence to show that the landlord explained this to the resident within its complaint responses or during any other correspondence with her. It is our opinion that the landlord should have been transparent with the resident about why it was failing to provide its expected standard of service.
  4. As the case involves high levels of communication (and to avoid repetition), it has not been possible to detail and assess every event that occurred, although all the evidence provided by both parties has been considered. Therefore, to summarise, between 23 September 2024 and 7 April 2025:
    1. The resident reported several repairs to the landlord. These included (but were not limited to) water ingress through the ceiling in her daughter’s bedroom, cracks in the walls and ceilings, mould in the loft space, and tripping electrics.
    2. The landlord failed to adhere to its repair timescales. A notable example includes the resident not having working lights in the upstairs rooms of the property for approximately 4 months. As the resident has 4 children, this was a potential health and safety risk.
    3. The landlord appeared to lack the appropriate oversight of the repairs and failed to hold its repair contractors to account. It also confused the roof repair with an unrelated porch roof repair (which is due to be investigated by this Service in case 202443954).
    4. The landlord’s record keeping in relation to the roof leak and associated repairs was poor. This subsequently made it difficult for the landlord’s complaint handlers to undertake a comprehensive investigation into the resident’s concerns.
    5. The resident was in regular contact with the landlord, asking for clarity on various matters and chasing it for updates. The frequency and volume of contact from the resident to the landlord suggests there was a breakdown of trust, and the situation was overwhelming for her.
    6. There were multiple occasions when the landlord did not respond to the resident. This caused her feelings of frustration, as well as time and trouble following the matter up with the landlord.
  5. As mentioned earlier, the resident informed the landlord (and this Service) that as an outcome to her complaint, she would like the landlord to replace the roof of the property. It is not within our jurisdiction to determine if the property requires a full roof replacement. Nevertheless, we find the landlord’s communication about the roof renewal confusing. The evidence shows that this caused the resident to feel that the property was not safe for her family to occupy. Examples of the landlord’s contradictory communication include:
    1. On 21 November 2024 and 13 December 2024 (within its stage 1 response) it told the resident that the property had been due a roof replacement in 2015, but the previous tenant had refused the works.
    2. On 10 January 2025, within an internal email, it said that the contractor had approved a roof replacement.
    3. On 14 August 2025, it told us that a roof replacement was “not deemed necessary” during the void period (before the resident’s tenancy commenced).
    4. On 18 August 2025, it told us that:
      1. It did not have a copy of the 2017 void inspection report, for data protection reasons.
      2. The property was built in 1975. The roof had a 50-year life span and was therefore due for renewal in 2024/25 financial year. However, “its current condition means a full renewal was unnecessary” and this had been rescheduled for 2030.
      3. It had sent a letter to the resident on 29 July 2025, requesting that she provide access to survey the property “in readiness for a roof replacement”.
  6. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to consider whether the redress offered has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account the full circumstances of the case, and whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of “be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes”. Our remedies guidance states that landlords should consider making an award above £1,000 where there was a failure that had a severe, long-term impact on the resident (usually applicable in cases where there is a finding of severe maladministration).
  7. Taking all the circumstances into account, it is evident that the landlord’s failures had a detrimental impact on the resident. However, we find that it made a considerable effort to put things right by offering her £1,450 compensation (not including the £150 for complaint handling). Although we consider the landlord’s offer fair and proportionate to the failings identified, we are unable to make a finding of reasonable redress. This is because at the time of our investigation, the repair remained unresolved approximately 49 weeks after the resident first reported it.
  8. The landlord has also provided us with a range of unclear and contradictory explanations as to what action it had taken post-complaint (between 7 April 2025 and 18 August 2025) to resolve the outstanding roof repairs. Examples of these include:
    1. On 7 July 2025, it told us that the roof repair was still outstanding, but it had “coordinated with multiple stakeholders, including the contractor, surveyor, housing manager and [the resident], to conduct a comprehensive survey”. In our opinion, this was an ambiguous explanation which was further exacerbated by the fact it had not provided documentary evidence to support its claims.
    2. On 18 August 2025, it informed us that:
      1. It had mistakenly closed the repairs (to inspect and repair the roof) on its internal systems. As it has not provided any supplementary evidence to support its claims, it is unclear to this Service when this issue occurred. This is a further record keeping failure. Regardless, this was unreasonable and caused further unnecessary delays for the resident.
      2. As mentioned earlier, it said it had sent the resident a letter on 29 July 2025 to request access to the property to undertake a “full survey of the roof in readiness for a replacement”, but it was still “waiting to hear from her”. However, we have not had sight of any documentary evidence of the letter, which is further sign of poor record keeping. Nevertheless, there was a delay of 16 weeks (since it issued its stage 2 response) before it took any apparent action to move the issue forward. This was inappropriate.
      3. Its surveyor visited the property on 18 August 2025 but was unable to gain access as it had not pre-arranged the appointment with the resident. While it is it positive that it was attempting to make progress with the repair, this was another inappropriate action from the landlord.
  9. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and the associated repairs. As such, we have ordered it to pay the resident the £1,450 it offered her within its internal complaints procedure (ICP). We have also made an additional order to address the landlord’s post-ICP failures.
  10. We understand that in August 2025, the parties agreed that an inspection of the roof would be arranged. This is positive progress. Despite this, we have still made an order to ensure the issue is fully resolved to the resident’s satisfaction.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, the policy states the landlord will provide a written explanation to the complainant, containing a clear explanation of the expected timescales for the response. If an extension beyond an additional 10 working days is required, this will be agreed with the complainant.
  2. The landlord failed to adhere to its complaint handling timescales at both stages of its ICP. This is because it took:
    1. 12 working days to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint (she made a complaint on 5 November 2024, and it acknowledged it on 21 November 2024). This was a delay of 7 working days.
    2. A further 16 working days to provide the resident with its stage 1 response (on 13 December 2024). This was a delay of 6 working days.
    3. 6 working days to acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 (she made the request on 13 December 2024, and it acknowledged it on 23 December 2024). This was a delay of 1 working day.
    4. A further 79 working days to provide the resident with its stage 2 response (on 7 April 2024). This was a delay of 59 working days, giving an overall stage 2 response time of almost 4 months.
  3. We find that effective communication during this period would have improved the resident’s experience. However, it was appropriate that the landlord recognised and apologised to the resident for the delays within its complaint responses and offered her £150 compensation (£75 at stage 1 and a further £75 at stage 2). For these failures alone, we find this was a reasonable offer from the landlord.
  4. Within the resident’s request to make a formal complaint, she said that the operative who attended the property on the evening of 24 September 2024 was “unprofessional and appeared intoxicated”. We understand that the events that occurred were upsetting for the resident. It is not, however, within our remit to determine if the conduct of a landlord’s staff member and/or contractor did or did not happen as described in a complaint. Instead, it is our role to determine how the landlord responded to the allegations. Responding to complaints about staff conduct allows landlords to investigate, provide their version of events, apologise if deemed appropriate, and clarify any misunderstandings.
  5. The landlord appropriately highlighted the resident’s concerns about the contractor within its complaint acknowledgement on 21 November 2024 and again at the beginning of its stage 1 response on 13 December 2024. However, it did not provide the resident with the outcome of its investigation within its complaint responses. We accept that the landlord may not have been able to share sensitive or confidential personnel information with the resident. However, we find its apparent lack of response inappropriate, and the evidence shows it caused the resident to feel that it was not taking her concerns seriously. If the landlord had conducted an investigation but was unable to share the outcome, it should have informed the resident of this.
  6. As mentioned earlier, within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it provided an overview of the substantive issues. However, within the body of its response it mainly quoted the resident’s version of events, rather than stating the findings of its own investigation. We welcome the fact that the landlord’s compensation calculation breakdown was comprehensive and highlighted specific failings within its handling of the roof repairs. Nevertheless, we find that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain how it had responded to the resident’s reports of repairs in line with its legal and policy obligations.
  7. A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to review its handling of the substantive issue, as well as the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, we find that the landlord did not appropriately assess its handling of the roof leak, as it only assessed its actions from December 2024 onwards (rather than from September 2024). This meant it missed an opportunity that may have led it to identify some of the failures highlighted by this investigation.
  8. The Code states that landlords must use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes to service delivery. It therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain in its final complaint response what action it had taken to ensure that the failings it had identified would not happen again. In not doing so, the landlord has not evidenced that it learnt sufficiently from the complaint.
  9. An effective complaint resolution requires a process designed to put things right. The landlord’s failure to undertake the repairs within target timescales has already been assessed within the previous section of this report. However, this is also a failure within its complaint handling, as following the closure of the stage 2 complaint the landlord failed to take ownership and monitor the outstanding actions through to completion. This was unreasonable and caused further inconvenience for the resident.
  10. Overall, we consider that the amount of compensation offered by the landlord (£150) for its complaint handling was low and failed to account for all the failings identified within this report. It is for this reason that we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  11. An additional order of compensation has been made, which is proportionate to the failings identified and has been calculated in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman by the same date:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident £1,750 compensation. This must be paid directly to her and is made up as follows:
      1. £1,450 for its handling of her reports of a roof leak and the associated repairs. This includes the landlord’s offer of £950 at stage 1 and £500 at stage 2.
      2. £300 for its handling of her complaint. This includes the landlord’s offer of £75 at stage 1, £75 at stage 2, and an additional £150 for the failings identified in this report.
      3. For the avoidance of any doubt, if any of the compensation that the landlord previously offered the resident has already been paid, it can be deducted from the total above.
    3. Consider offering further compensation to the resident following the completion of the roof repairs. This should cover the period from 7 April 2025 until the time the repairs are completed. The landlord should inform the resident and this Service of its intentions regarding this order within the 4 weeks, including any calculation it proposes to use.
    4. Arrange an independent survey of the roof, loft space and affected rooms at a time agreed with the resident, if it has not already done so, to identify any outstanding or new issues.
  2. The landlord should share a copy of the resulting report with the resident and provide her with a schedule of works to resolve any issues highlighted during the survey. It should also provide her with a single point of contact who will provide regular updates on a frequency agreed with her. It should ensure that all the recommended repairs are resolved within 12 weeks of the date of this report.