From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

One Housing Group Limited (202420950)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420950

One Housing Group Limited

1 September 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:
    1. Reports of damp, mould and associated repairs.
    2. Request to be permanently rehoused.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor of a low rise building which the resident occupies with her 2 children. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident however it was aware she was pregnant at the time of the repair.
  2. The landlord confirmed it investigated reports of a leak from the resident’s bathroom in June 2023 but found no issues at the time. On 31 January 2024 the landlord attended to a leak affecting the property below the resident’s flat. It found there was a leak from the resident’s bathroom and instructed repairs which it noted as completed on 27 February 2024. The landlord recorded further reports of a leak on 5 April 2024 and raised repairs. On 8 May 2024 the resident told the landlord there was damp and mould in her home.
  3. On 1 July 2024 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports of severe damp and mould in the flat and said:
    1. a surveyor was scheduled to attend on 26 June 2024 but did not turn up
    2. she did not agree to the landlord’s suggestion of a mould wash as this would not solve the root cause of the problem
    3. she was concerned about the hazards the mould wash chemicals posed for her pregnancy and young child
    4. she was already experiencing significant difficulty breathing for which she had to seek medical attention
    5. both her and her child were regularly falling ill with chest infections
    6. the damp issues had persisted since she moved into the property with leaks from the bedroom window

The resident requested for the landlord to arrange a professional inspection and resolve the issues raised. She also requested compensation for the distress, health issues, and disruptions caused, as well as relocation to a habitable property on a long-term basis. As part of her complaint the resident also raised concerns about the landlord’s response to reports of persistent harassment from her neighbour.

  1. On 6 August 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the complaint. It upheld the resident’s concerns about its handling of the damp, mould and associated leaks. It said it should have remedied the leak in the bathroom during its first appointment which could have prevented the onset of mould or prevented it from becoming worse. The landlord also said it should have investigated alternatives to chemical mould treatment sooner. It outlined the next steps to resolve the issues as follows:
    1. it scheduled necessary repairs to resolve the bathroom leak for 6 August 2024
    2. it was organising external works to address water ingress from the external elevation which was affecting the main bedroom window
    3. it carried out a damp and mould survey on 26 June 2024 and arranged to cut out and make good the affected plasterboard in the child’s bedroom
    4. it was prepared to support the resident into temporary accommodation and provided information about her permanent housing options
    5. the landlord also offered the resident £450 compensation made up of: £300 for the impact on the resident, £100 for not following through to ensure the bathroom leak was resolved and £50 for the delay in responding to her complaint

The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint about its response to reports of harassment from her neighbour and explained it was satisfied it had taken appropriate action in response to the allegations made.

  1. On 16 August 2024 the landlord sent the resident a follow up to its stage 1 response in which it confirmed:
    1. 2 out of the 3 potential sources of damp and mould have been addressed
    2. it anticipated it would take a further 2 weeks to finalise all the works required, including redecoration
    3. it could not offer permanent relocation as the severity of the damp and mould did not indicate an inability to treat the issues, however it continued to offer temporary accommodation
    4. upon completion of all the repairs, it would arrange a convenient date to review ventilation in the resident’s home
  2. The landlord confirmed the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process on 16 August 2024. We have not been provided a copy of the request therefore we do not know whether this was before or after the landlord issued the follow up to its stage 1 response. The landlord confirmed the resident was unhappy the damp and mould issues had still not been rectified and found the compensation offer “insulting”. This is consistent with an email the resident sent the landlord on 20 August 2024 in which she also added that she felt the landlord’s decision to deny her permanent relocation was unjust.
  3. On 11 November 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint. It said all damp and mould issues had been addressed and apologised for not doing so in a timely manner. It confirmed the only repair outstanding was the lino carpet in the washing machine cupboard. It said it would review its compensation offer as soon as this has been addressed.
  4. Unhappy with the landlord’s response, the resident referred her complaint to us for investigation. She said the landlord failed to provide her and her family with a safe and habitable home. She requested for the landlord to resolve the outstanding issues and provide a revised offer of compensation to reflect the seriousness of the situation. The resident has not asked us to investigate the landlord’s response to her concerns about harassment from her neighbour therefore we have not considered this part of the original complaint in our assessment.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said she experienced breathing difficulties and both her and her child suffered frequent chest infections. The resident believes the damp and mould contributed to this, however it is not something we can determine. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident told this Service she had issues with damp and mould in her bedroom soon after moving into the property in 2017. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to investigate the issue whilst it is still ‘live’ and sufficient evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion. As issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as an Ombudsman to conduct an effective review of the actions taken. In view of the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to June 2023 which is when the leak was first reported.

The landlord’s handling of damp, mould and associated repairs

  1. The landlord was required by section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and under the terms of the tenancy agreement to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It was also responsible for making sure the property was fit for human habitation under s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The existence of any hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System was a relevant factor to assessing fitness for human habitation. Related repair or other remedial action was required within a reasonable period.
  2. The landlord said it was first notified of a leak from the resident’s bathroom on 26 June 2023. It confirmed its plumber inspected all areas that had a water source and reported there was no leak visible at the time of his visit. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of the plumber’s report or the exact dates of the inspection which means we are unable to assess whether it responded within a reasonable timescale. Nonetheless, we understand the landlord had satisfied itself there were no leaks which needed to be remedied at the time.
  3. The landlord’s records show it identified a leak from the resident’s bathroom during a visit on 31 January 2024. It said it resealed the shower screen and raised another job to replace the shower bar which it found to be leaking. Its records say it “completed the works described” on 27 February 2024. However, in its stage 1 response to the complaint the landlord said it had no notes on the system to confirm whether the shower bar was fitted. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will carry out routine repairs within 28 calendar days. However, the absence of detailed records as to what works the landlord carried out on 27 February 2024 means we are unable to assess whether it complied with its repairs policy and resolved the leak.
  4. The landlord said it received further reports of a leak affecting the resident’s property on 5 April 2024. It booked an appointment on 9 April 2024 but had no record to confirm this was agreed with the resident. It also said its SMS appointment notifications failed to send. The landlord was unable to access the property on the date scheduled and agreed a new date with the resident but changed this later without informing her. The second appointment on 17 April 2024 failed as the resident was not in. The landlord said it would rearrange but it did not do so and closed the job instead. This meant the landlord failed to investigate the leak in accordance with its responsive repairs policy.
  5. Similar issues occurred after a plumber attended on 16 May 2024 and found there was a leak from a radiator. The landlord raised 3 jobs to repair this between 13 May 2024 and 4 June 2024, however it did not send the SMS notifications to the resident. Each time the landlord was unable to access the property on the dates scheduled and it closed the jobs without contacting the resident to rearrange.
  6. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will contact its customers as far in advance as possible to advise them of scheduled appointments. However, due to issues with its SMS notifications, the landlord failed to notify the resident of the dates its operatives were due to attend. It has not provided evidence to show it attempted to contact the resident via any other means. This was a failing which resulted in multiple missed appointments and delayed repairs.
  7. The resident reportedthe presence of damp and mould in her home on 8 May 2024. The landlord’s records show it raised a job on its system on 13 May 2024 for “mould in quite a few rooms, some black, some green”. The plumber who visited on 16 May 2024 confirmed there was water staining. However, there is no evidence the landlord inspected the mould.
  8. The landlord said it spoke to the resident on 26 June 2024 when she declined mould washes due concerns about the harmful effects of the chemicals on her pregnancy. There is no evidence of any visits by the landlord until 16 July 2024 when it carried out a damp and mould survey. This identified the presence of damp and mould spots or stains on the walls across the entire property, including both bedrooms. The survey confirmed there was water ingress from the side elevation around one of the windows in the main bedroom. It also confirmed there was an ongoing leak which caused rising damp on the bottom walls of the property. It recommended immediate repairs of these issues.
  9. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will investigate the cause of damp and carry out repairs in line with its responsive repairs policy. The responsive repairs policy says that where an inspection is required the landlord will complete this within 7 calendar days. It says it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days, however it classes cases where there is severe, visible mould on internal plastered surfaces as urgent with a completion timescale of 5 days. In this case the landlord inspected the mould over 9 weeks after the resident originally raised her concerns. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s policies and therefore unreasonable.
  10. Following the damp and mould survey, the landlord confirmed its operatives attended on 6 August 2024 and addressed 2 out of 3 leaks. The landlord has not provided us with evidence of the exact works carried out, however it confirmed the leaks it addressed were related to the washing machine and bathroom. On 7 August 2024 the landlord carried out a mould wash behind the resident’s wardrobe and inspected the guttering which was causing water ingress around the bedroom window. The guttering was cleared on 21 August 2024. Due to the delays in responding to the reports of these issues, the repairs were already outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
  11. It is unclear from the evidence provided what other actions were carried out by the landlord in respect of the mould identified in the resident’s home. The survey recommended mould washes in multiple areas and said dehumidifiers might be required for drying out, however there is no evidence the landlord provided these. In its email to the resident dated 16 August 2024 the landlord said it anticipated a further 2 weeks to complete the remedial work, including drying out and decorative repairs. Its stage 2 response dated 11 November 2024 confirmed all damp and mould issued had been resolved. However, the landlord has not evidenced what actions it took.
  12. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. We would expect the landlord to have detailed records of the actions it took to repair issues as this allows it to track completion and anything which remains outstanding. Detailed records also allow organisations such as the Ombudsman or the courts to assess the landlord’s actions when they are called into question. In this case, the lack of clear records of repair actions has affected our investigation as we are unable to draw conclusions as to the extent of any damp and mould issues which remained outstanding after August 2024.
  13. On 2 September 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and said the shower was still leaking, she was yet to receive a dehumidifier, and she discovered mouse droppings in the flat which she believed were due to gaps in the walls inside the cupboard. The landlord acknowledged the email and said it would respond as part of its stage 2 complaint response. However, its stage 2 response failed to address these concerns. The landlord said the only repair outstanding was the lino flooring in the washing machine cupboard but made no reference to the walls or the shower leak.
  14. The resident chased the landlord in January, February and March 2025 and said the previous issues she raised remained unresolved. She said there was still damp and damage in the bedroom. According to the evidence, the landlord did not respond until 22 May 2025 when it arranged an appointment to inspect the issues raised. This was over 8 months after the resident originally raised her concerns in September 2024 which was unreasonable.
  15. The landlord provided us with evidence which confirms it carried out decorative work between 21 and 24 July 2025. This included works in the cupboard and bedroom but the evidence does not detail the extent of the issues which were present before the repair. In her communication with this Service, the resident said she still had issues with mould in her bedroom in June 2025.
  16. The landlord completed the remedial works over 11 months after the timescales it originally promised in August 2024. This was an inappropriate and an unreasonable length of time to leave the remedial work outstanding. The delay showed a lack of urgency from the landlord and left the resident and her children living with outstanding issues in their home for an extended period of time.
  17. In its stage 1 response to the complaint the landlord offered the resident a total of £400 compensation for the delays in addressing the leaks and its response to the damp and mould reports. At stage 2 of the process the remedial works were still outstanding, and the landlord said it would review compensation once all repairs were completed. We understand the repairs have been completed as of July 2025, but we have not been provided with evidence of a revised compensation offer from the landlord.
  18. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered 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 the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  19. The landlord’s offer of compensation at stage 1 was in line with its compensation policy for unacceptable delays in providing services. It attempted to put things right by carrying out the necessary repairs to stop the leaks. It also offered temporary accommodation to mitigate the impact to the resident. However, the landlord failed to follow through on its promise of completing the outstanding works within the timescales it set out, and it did not respond to the outstanding issues the resident raised. Therefore, the landlord failed to put things right and, on that basis, we found maladministration.
  20. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £500 compensation to reflect the impact of the delays it caused. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. This brings the total amount of compensation to £900.
  21. We have asked the landlord to confirm the extent of the works it carried out in July 2025 and whether anything remained outstanding, however we have not received a response. Therefore, we have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any outstanding damp and mould concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused

  1. The resident requested to be permanently rehoused due to the delays in the landlord’s handling of her damp and mould concerns. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will consider rehousing if a medical professional advises this to be the most suitable option. It says it will do so in accordance with its lettings policy and local arrangements which apply within the local authority areas. While we understand the resident said her health was impacted, we have not seen evidence of a medical professional opinion stating rehousing on a permanent basis was necessary.
  2. In its response dated 16 August 2024 the landlord explained the case did not meet its criteria for permanent relocation as the severity of damp and mould did not indicate it could not be treated. However, it offered the resident temporary accommodation until the issues were resolved which was reasonable to attempt to mitigate any impact on the resident and her family.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord also provided detailed information about the resident’s housing options. Overall, the landlord’s response to the request was reasonable and in line with its policies, therefore we found no maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint 16 working days outside of the timescale set out by its complaints policy which says it will respond within 10 working days. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to request an extension until the response was already late. This was a failing which the landlord recognised in its stage 1 response. It apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation.
  2. The landlord issued a follow up to its stage 1 response on 16 August 2024. This was the same day it said the resident requested to escalate her complaint. This response created an additional stage in the landlord’s complaint process which is not in line with its complaint handling policy or our Complaints Handling Code (the Code). It was sent from a senior member of the landlord’s staff and provided an update on the repairs progress. While it is welcomed the landlord updated the resident on the actions it took to put things right, it did not need to create an additional complaints stage to do so. This practice could lead to confusion for residents as to the stage their complaint is at.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 response was provided after 61 working days compared to its policy which says it will respond within 20 working days. This was a significant delay and there is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to update her on the reason for it. It also failed to respond to the resident’s requests for an update. In addition to this, the response was provided by the same senior member of staff as the additional stage 1 response. The landlord’s complaints policy says stage 2 escalations will be reviewed by a senior manager not previously involved in the complaint. This meant the landlord breached its policy and the Code.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response also failed to address the resident’s email from September 2024 which it said it would in its acknowledgment. This was relevant to the present position of the repair and meant the landlord had missed an opportunity to address the resident’s concerns in a timely manner. The landlord also promised to review compensation upon completion of all repairs, but we have not been provided with evidence confirming it followed up on this.
  5. Considering the above, the landlord did not appropriately respond to the resident’s complaint and there were delays at both stages of its process. The landlord’s offer of £50 compensation in recognition of the delays at stage 1 was proportionate, however it missed an opportunity to remedy the additional failings outlined in this report. As a result, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and ordered it to pay an additional £100 compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there were failings which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be permanently rehoused.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report. A senior manager must make the apology on behalf of the landlord.
    2. Pay the resident the total sum of £1,050 compensation broken down as:
      1. £450 previously offered if not already paid.
      2. Additional £500 for any distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its handling of the reports of damp, mould and associated repairs.
      3. £100 for the time and trouble likely incurred by the resident as a result of its handling of the complaint.
      4. This money should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against her rent account.
    3. Contact the resident to confirm whether she has any outstanding damp and mould concerns and if so, inspect the property. Within 2 weeks of the inspection the landlord is ordered to confirm in writing to the resident and this Service an action plan, with timescales, for carrying out any works identified during the inspection.
    4. Contact the resident to arrange an inspection to review the ventilation in the property.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to carry out a a management review of the case to identify specific changes/service improvements that it will be making to ensure that:
    1. appointments are arranged with residents in advance, in line with its responsive repairs policy
    2. its repair records are comprehensive and include detailed information regarding the works completed at each appointment
    3. any phone call communication with residents are clearly documented and can be provided to this Service on request.

 

  1. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.