Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel - find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Home Group Limited (202009515)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009515

Home Group Limited

29 June 2021


Our approach

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 
  2. In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak in the bathroom at the property.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 12 February 2007.
  2. On 8 May 2018, the resident reported a leak from her shower, specifically, that the shower tray was leaking, with water running behind the tiles and seeping underneath to the ceiling of the room below. The landlord arranged for the shower to be re-sealed on 22 May 2018, however, on arrival, the plumber determined that a tiler was first required and so the works to reseal the shower were not carried out. On 4 June 2018, a tiler attended the property to re-fix the bathroom tiles and the shower was also sealed.
  3. Six months later, on 12 December 2018, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the shower was leaking again and stated that she believed this could be due to the tiles and that the water was going through the skirting board. On 17 December 2018, the landlord attended and carried out works to repair the leak, however, the following day, the resident reported that the issue was not resolved. The landlord arranged to attend the property for inspection thereafter and scheduled this for 4 January 2019, however this did not go ahead due to no access. 
  4. On 30 January 2019 the resident reported the matter again, stating that the skirting board was now coming away from the wall.  The landlord attended on 8 February 2019 to resolve this, however, a few days later, on 11 February 2019, the resident notified the landlord that the issue remained unresolved. The landlord noted (following attendance on an unknown date) that a surveyor may be required as the multiple works had not resolved the issue. On 15 March 2019, a further inspection took place although.  No further works were raised as a result of this visit.
  5. On 21 March 2019, the resident reported the issue to be unresolved and the landlord recalled the previous repair.  The resident advised she was only available Friday afternoons, however, the landlord attended on the morning of 29 March 2019 and due to lack of access, left a calling card.  In a telephone call on 2 April 2019, the resident advised the landlord the leak may now be resolved but she would monitor the situation. 
  6. The missed visit of 29 March 2019 was rescheduled for 5 April 2019 and went ahead, although the resident reported thereafter that the issue seemed to be with the grouting rather than the shower seal, following which the landlord raised a job and attended the property again on 12 April 2019.
  7. Around 8 April 2019, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about its handling of the reported leak.  She was dissatisfied with the length of time it was taking to resolve the issue and the number of unsuccessful visits, with the leak persisting.
  8. Following this, the landlord tried to contact the resident by telephone and email on 17 and 23 April 2019 but was unsuccessful and so closed the complaint, advising her of this in a letter dated 23 April 2019.
  9. Following further communication, on 14 June 2019 the landlord attended the property again and found the fault to be with the shower tray.  On 19 June 2020 the resident contacted the landlord expressing her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her complaint insofar as it had closed it.  The resident said that she had in fact been trying to get hold of the member of staff dealing with her complaint but had been unable to.
  10. The landlord responded by opening a new complaint, acknowledging the resident had spent a significant time chasing the landlord as to the repairs and reopened an investigation into the leak.  On 19 June 2019, the landlord arranged for the shower tray to be replaced and for works to the tiles to be carried out on 23 June 2019.  The scheduled works were then cancelled by the resident, with her stating she would be unavailable until 4 October 2019.  The landlord agreed with the resident that her complaint would be withdrawn and works postponed until this time.
  11. On 23 July 2019, the landlord provided a stage one response to the complaint. The landlord advised that it had scheduled works to suit the resident’s availability on 4 October 2019 and that it would be in touch on 23 September 2019 to confirm that the complaint and works had been re-raised. On 23 September 2019 the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it had re-raised her complaint and the works to be carried out on 4 October 2019.
  12. On 4 October 2019 the landlord attended and replaced the shower tray and arranged to attend again on 18 October 2019 to carry out works to the tiles. On the date the works to the tiles were due to be carried out the resident called the landlord, advising that she was dissatisfied with the standard of workmanship carried out so far and ten days later, on 28 October 2019, she requested her complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure, due to the length of time it had taken to resolve the issue, the standard of workmanship and a lack of communication from the landlord. 
  13. In response, the landlord arranged to attend the property on 20 December 2019 to carry out an inspection and had wanted to carry out an additional inspection after that, which the resident refused, due to the number of inspections that had already gone ahead.  Therefore, works were raised on the basis of the 20 December 2019 inspection. The works were as follows:
    1. Repairs to shower tray – replace non–draining shower outlet/trap.
    2. Shower cubical tiling – remove shower door and extend tiling out by minimum of half tile width from the top of shower tray up to ceiling both sides which will allow for the shower door to be refitted further forward to close up any gap between shower door and front top lip of the shower tray. Re-seal newly fitted shower door (gaps filling up with water and hard to clean).
    3. Shower room flooring – replace vinyl flooring damaged due to the installation of new shower tray.
  14. On 29 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident, having re-raised her complaint. The landlord acknowledged there had been delays in carrying out the works which it said were due in part to the resident’s restricted availability and in part due to it underestimating the length of time it would take to complete the works.
  15. On 9 December 2019 the resident telephoned the landlord and again advised that she would like her complaint escalated to stage two of its complaints procedure due to poor complaints handling, delay to carrying out the repairs and disruption caused.
  16. On 14 January 2020 the landlord confirmed the works it would be carrying out and the resident advised that works to the skirting and walls was also required.  The landlord declined to carry out these works as they were considered to be cosmetic but offered the resident decorating vouchers in order to this is herself, which she declined to take.  The landlord then decided to carry out these additional works.
  17. The landlord offered to complete the works on 25 January 2020, however, the resident stated she was unavailable on this date and asked for them to go ahead on 13 February 2020 instead.  At the appointment on 13 February 2020 the operatives repaired the drip trap to the shower, however, broke a tap and then determined that more time would be required to complete the works.  The additional time was not discussed with the resident.
  18. On 14 February 2020, the operatives re-attended to repair the tap but a new tap was required instead.  The resident advised she was not available for further works until 28 February 2020.  On 28 February 2020 the resident contacted the landlord about the poor standard of workmanship, which led to the landlord visiting the property and inspecting the repairs on 5 March 2020, at which further works were agreed.
  19. On 10 March 2020, the landlord sent its stage two response to the complaint. It upheld the complaint, expressing its sincere apologies for the inconvenience and frustration caused.  The landlord offered the resident a total of £650 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £75.00 for loss of facility in relation to the time the resident was unable to use the shower;
    2. £75.00 for failures in complaints handling;
    3. £75.00 for time and effort spent by the resident in chasing repairs;
    4. £75.00 for poor communication;
    5. £150.00 for disruption caused by multiple repair appointments, and;
    6. £200.00 for overall delays.
  20. On 20 March 2020 the outstanding repairs were completed.
  21. On 23 March 2020 the resident requested her complaint be escalated to the landlord’s ‘independent complaints panel’ due to the length of time it had taken to resolve the leak, the attitude of contractors carrying out the works and additional damage caused, lack of communication, poor complaints handling.
  22. On 2 April 2020 the landlord emailed the resident advising that the matter could be dealt with as a disrepair claim rather than a complaint that would go to the independent panel, due to the amount of compensation (£3,500) she was requesting and asked her to confirm she was satisfied with this approach. On the same date, the resident responded that she was satisfied with this approach and asked the landlord to take the matter forward on this basis.
  23. On 25 May 2021 the landlord’s insurance team confirmed that it has a disrepair claim for the resident, which was with its solicitors for investigation and an outcome had not yet been reached.

Reason

  1. Paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings”.
  2. A disrepair claim constitutes a legal process, whereby the matters complained about – in particular, delay, quality of workmanship and distress and inconvenience caused – will be considered, with an amount of compensation for damages consequently being offered, having made an assessment of this.
  3. The Ombudsman cannot go behind a legal decision and with the legal process already underway, despite a decision having not yet been reached, it would be inappropriate for this Service to make its own separate finding. This Service is unable to assess and determine damages in the same way as a court and in filing a legal disrepair claim, the resident has commenced the appropriate proceedings for the outcome she is seeking. As such, the resident’s complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
  4. The Ombudsman would like to apologise for the length of time it has taken to confirm our jurisdiction in respect of the complaint.  Jurisdiction is a complex matter and to come to a conclusion on the complaint a thorough assessment the facts had to be completed first.