Home Group Limited (202516671)

Background

1. The resident lived on the seventh floor of a high rise block. She has mental and physical health conditions the landlord is aware of. On 20 November 2024 the resident reported a heavy leak in her property. On or around 3 January 2025 the landlord found the leak was from the block’s sprinkler system. At the time of her complaint, the resident reported damage from the leak and from an older leak in her bedroom in 2022. The damage included damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to a leak and the associated damage to the resident’s property.
3. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the leak and the associated damage to the resident’s property.
   2. Reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to the leak and the associated damage

5. The landlord did not act in accordance with its repairs policy following the report of the leak. It failed to act in line with its damp and mould policy when the resident reported damp and mould as a result of the leak. The landlord also did not follow through on its commitment to monitor the repairs to the property and failed to complete the necessary works within a reasonable timeframe.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord recognised it failed to respond in line with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It offered compensation that we consider proportionate to address the impact of its complaint handling failures.

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.

What we have not investigated

7. The repair records show the resident reported a leak and water damage in her bedroom in 2022. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of she became aware of the issue. For that reason, we will not investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the leak reported in 2022.

What we have investigated

8. The landlord is responsible for keeping the structure, exterior, the installations such as plumbing systems in working order. It is also responsible for the maintenance of fire safety equipment.
9. The landlord’s repair’s policy states it will attend and complete emergency repairs within 24 hours.
10. The evidence shows the landlord acted in line with its repairs policy when it received the report of the leak on 20 November 2024. It isolated the water supply to the resident’s property on the same day. This was an appropriate action in order to put an immediate stop to the leak. Following this the evidence shows it took the landlord more than a month to identify the source of the leak. This was a failure to complete the repair within a reasonable timeframe.
11. The resident raised her complaint to the landlord on 30 December 2024. She confirmed there was damage to the internal and external areas of the property. The resident said the damp and mould was so bad that she could no longer live in the property.
12. The landlord arranged the delivery of dehumidifiers to the property and raised repairs. These steps were in line with its damp and mould policy.
13. The damp and mould policy states a surveyor will inspect and recommend treatment, and the landlord must act on those recommendations promptly. There is no evidence of a surveyor’s report or a full assessment of the damage in the resident’s property before the landlord raised repairs. By failing to arrange a surveyor, the landlord did not comply with its policy.
14. The scope of the repairs raised extended to the damp and mould in the hallway and skirting board. This suggests the landlord did not assess the damage the resident reported was in her bedroom which she stated originated from the leak in 2022.
15. In its stage 1 responses dated 30 January and 10 February 2025, the landlord agreed to monitor the repairs through to completion. However, the evidence shows this did not happen. The repair appointment took place on 26 February 2025, however, the landlord did not compete repairs to the resident’s flat on this day. The resident said the contractor removed the dehumidifiers, took photographs and agreed to submit them to the landlord.
16. After the appointment on 26 February 2025 the landlord did not arrange any follow up with the resident. It also failed to communicate with the resident about the repairs again until it provided its stage 2 response, 2 months later.
17. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said it had not been able to gain access to the resident’s property to address the damage including, the damp and mould.
18. The landlord has not provided evidence of the attempts it made to confirm the appointments with the resident that it states were missed. During the 4 months between the date the resident had raised reports of damp and mould and the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident raised concerns about the efficacy of the proposed works the landlord said it was trying to arrange. Furthermore, she also told the landlord its contactor had not completed any works when it attended on 26 February 2025.There is no evidence the landlord sought to arrange an inspection of the property as required by its damp and mould policy until the stage 2 response, 4 months later than should have been reasonably expected.
19. The delay to arrange an inspection and its approach to the extent of the works it proposed to do in response to the reports made by the resident was unreasonable.
20. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
21. The landlord’s compensation policy states it can make discretionary compensation awards as a result of a service failure. In this case, it took the landlord a month to resolve the leak. Following this, the landlord did not complete repairs to address the damp and mould and other damage in the property within a reasonable time. In its response to the complaint, the landlord failed to provide the resident with any meaningful updates regarding what repairs it would compete to address all the issues she reported throughout the property.
22. The landlord’s offer of £600 compensation in these circumstances was below being proportionate to the failings we have identified and the impact of this on the resident who confirmed she left the property due to its condition.
23. The resident reported the leaks had caused damage to the floor covering. The landlord’s published guidance states that residents are responsible for their flooring. In line with this, the evidence shows that the landlord provided the resident with details of its insurer and explained how she could submit a claim for the damage to her belongings, which would include the floor covering. This was an appropriate response, as the landlord was ordinarily not obliged to replace the flooring, but there was the possibility its failing may have led to the damage becoming worse. It was reasonable to signpost the resident to a route for potential reimbursement through its insurer.
24. The resident has made us aware that the council offered her a property and her tenancy with the landlord ended in December 2025. The resident said at the time of her update to us, dated 7 November 2025, that the landlord had completed some, but not all remedial repairs to the property.
25. The failures detailed above, together with the delays to provide the resident with a resolution for its failings lead to a finding of maladministration by the landlord. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £1000 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures that have had an adverse impact including emotional impact.

26. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process in line with the Code. Its complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction and sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints:
    1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint at both stages within 5 working days.
    2. It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded.
    3. It will issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint.
27. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 3 January 2025. This was in line with the Code. On 6 January 2025 it confirmed the expected response time of 10 working days. However, it did not meet this timescale and provided its stage 1 response on 30 January, 19 working days after its initial acknowledgement.
28. When the resident escalated her complaint on 4 February 2025, the landlord failed to follow its procedure. Instead of raising the stage 2 complaint, it issued another stage 1 response with an offer of compensation and asked if the resident still wanted to escalate. This caused unnecessary delay and confusion and was a failure to follow the Code.
29. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 28 February 2025 and issued its final response on 30 April 2025. This was also outside the expected timescales. The delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 response and its deviation from its complaints procedure undermined fairness and the resident’s trust in the complaints process.
30. The landlord acknowledged the failures in its complaints handling at both stages of the complaint. It offered the resident £225 in total for the failures in its complaint handling. We consider this amount proportionate because the delays affected the resident but did not cause a lasting impact. The compensation reflects the landlord’s failure to follow its procedure and the inconvenience caused to the resident. This leads to a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

31. The landlord should review the findings of this report and take learning to improve its service. It should ensure it has a process to identify the source of leaks effecting properties as swiftly as possible once affected properties have been isolated. It should also proactively arrange a full assessment of any resulting damage and ensure it monitors ongoing repairs while keeping residents updated.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord provided sufficient records with regard to the issues we have investigated in this complaint.

Communication

33. The landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the outstanding repair works to her property was poor and we have commented on above.