Home Group Limited — case 202335192

Decision Case ID 202335192 Decision type Investigation Landlord Home Group Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Leaseholder Date 29 January 2026 Background On 10 June 2023 the flat below the resident reported a ceiling leak. The landlord called and texted the resident to gain access to his property but received no reply. It also contacted the resident’s brother to find out where he was. A short time later, the resident let the landlord into his property, and a leak was found.

The landlord asked him to fix the leak urgently. This visit caused the resident to make his complaint. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We found there was: No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Staff conduct The landlord demonstrated it had taken the resident’s reports seriously and set out the action it had taken to investigate their concerns. Complaint handling The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 23 June 2023 The resident’s brother made a complaint on his behalf.

He said: the staff member was “heavy-handed” and treated the resident “like a child” during the visit. The staff member had previously wrongly accused the resident of removing a heat sensor from the kitchen. 6 July 2023 The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said: The resident was responsible for the replacement of the heat sensor. The neighbour in the property below had a leak to his ceiling, so it was appropriate to treat the situation as an emergency. The staff member acted in line with the lease by trying to gain access to the property.

It had spoken to the staff member, who refuted the allegations against them. Its opinion was the staff member had gone “above and beyond” in their response to the situation. It did not uphold the complaint. 21 July 2023 The resident escalated the complaint himself. He said he was unhappy with the response and wanted the staff member to be replaced. 17 August 2023 The landlord issued its final response. It said it had no evidence to justify disciplinary action and could not remove the staff member from their role.

Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate his complaint. He wants the staff member removed or rotated to reduce contact with them. 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 Staff conduct Finding No maladministration The resident said he was unhappy with comments made by a staff member. It is not our role to decide whether the events happened exactly as described or whether the landlord took the right action under its internal processes. These are personnel matters and fall outside of our remit. However, we can assess whether the landlord investigated the concerns properly and whether its responses were appropriate. In his complaint, the resident said the staff member spoke to him in an inappropriate way during the visit.

He said the use of the words “emergency” and “flood” by the landlord could distress a person. He also said the staff member repeatedly told him to arrange a plumber as if speaking to a child. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, water leaking into a property as occurred in this situation is defined as an emergency. The resident’s lease also makes him responsible for repairs inside his property. The landlord had to try several times before it was able to contact him about the leak.

During the visit, which took place on a Saturday evening, the staff member learned the resident was planning to leave the property unattended 2 days later for a period of time. This meant there was a limited time available for the resident to conduct the repairs he was responsible for under the terms of the lease for the leak to be fixed. The evidence shows the landlord took reasonable steps as part of its investigation into the complaint. It held face-to-face meetings with the resident and his brother to understand his concerns.

It spoke to the staff member involved and colleagues who had given advice when the leak occurred. This showed the landlord had taken the complaint seriously. The landlord’s complaint responses clearly and thoroughly addressed each part of the resident’s complaint. It explained why the situation needed urgent action and why the staff member’s use of language was appropriate in the circumstances. It also reminded the resident it was his responsibility to replace the heat sensor which was missing from a previous incident.

In summary, the landlord demonstrated it had taken reasonable and appropriate actions to address the complaint. It was ultimately unable to form a conclusion based on conflicting accounts. However, it offered an apology and gave the resident a single point of contact to report any further concerns. This was a reasonable response in the circumstance as a means to resolve the complaint. While the resident may have been frustrated by the landlord’s visit to his property, the landlord needed to enforce the repairing obligations held by the resident under the terms of the lease to prevent further damage to the flat below.

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff. Complaint Complaint handling Finding No maladministration The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process in line with the Code. Its complaints policy sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints: It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded. It will issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint.

While there were small delays in the landlord acknowledging the complaint at both stages, there is no evidence this caused the resident detriment. The delays did not affect the timeliness of the complaint responses. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord demonstrated good record keeping in respect of the matters we have investigated in the case. Communication The landlord demonstrated good, proactive communication with the resident.

It was timely, transparent and tailored to the resident.