One Housing Group Limited (202336475)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202336475 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
One Housing Group Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
5 November 2025 |
Background
- The resident was in the process of having numerous repairs completed in his property. During this process, he raised concerns about the quality of service from the contractors and the quality of communications from the landlord.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns throughout the repairs process.
Our decision (determination)
- There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns throughout the repairs process.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord acknowledged its failings such as contractors not completing work to an acceptable standard and its communication delays. It provided clear explanations where necessary and offered practical remedies and next steps. While this was positive, its offer of £50 compensation did not accurately reflect the detriment to the resident.
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.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order
The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 03 December 2025 |
|
2 |
Compensation order
The landlord must pay the resident £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to effectively respond to the resident’s concerns. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.
This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
No later than 03 December 2025 |
|
3 |
Review process
The landlord must review its process for managing repairs and overseeing works. It must tell the resident about the outcome of this review, including how it plans to improve its service in the future. |
No later than 03 December 2025 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
Between 2 September 2022 and 31 January 2023 |
The landlord consistently attempted to engage with the resident to organise completion of the outstanding repairs. |
|
30 March 2023 |
The landlord attended the property with its contractor. Completion of the outstanding repairs was agreed with the resident. |
|
Between 3 and 27 July 2023 |
The landlord and the resident exchanged emails about the outstanding repairs. The landlord confirmed that work could start on 31 July 2023. It provided a programme of works and agreed to supervise the progress. |
|
Between 8 August 2023 and 19 September 2023 |
The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the work had not progressed at the pace expected. He said there was no clear completion date and the contractors were not providing a good service. |
|
30 September 2023 |
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint. The complaint described:
|
|
30 October 2023 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with the contractor and the subsequent delays. The landlord offered dates in November 2023 for the repairs to be completed. |
|
8 November 2023 |
The resident escalated his complaint. He was not satisfied that the issues raised in his stage 1 complaint had been properly considered. |
|
20 December 2023 |
The landlord issued its final response. It addressed the resident’s dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response, the quality of work that had taken place, the outstanding work and the quality of communications from the landlord. It summarised that it would continue with the current process and assess for any snagging items in line with its process. It offered mediation for the resident and contractors and confirmed it would carry out an inspection after completion of the work. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident referred his case to us for investigation as he did not feel the landlord had addressed his concerns or acknowledged its failings. As an outcome he is seeking compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused, acknowledgement from the landlord of its failings and an assurance that it will take steps to improve its service in the future. |
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 |
The landlord’s response to issues with outstanding repairs. |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- We have previously investigated complaints about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of some repairs. Therefore this investigation will focus on events from September 2022 leading to the resident’s second complaint. To avoid duplication, we haven’t looked at how the complaint was dealt with or how long the repairs themselves took. Instead, as agreed with the resident, we have focused on how the landlord dealt with reports of poor service from its contractors and how it communicated with the resident.
- The landlord’s repairs policy says it will always communicate effectively in the delivery of its repairs service. The evidence says that the resident did not cooperate with the landlord’s attempts to make appointments until 30 March 2023, when a visit took place to agree outstanding work. Evidence from 30 March 2023 to 3 July 2023 has not been provided. It is understood from our last investigation that during this time the resident did not wish to have repairs completed. While communication was limited during this time, the landlord acted appropriately by attempting to engage with the resident in the initial months. It would not be reasonable for the landlord to continue its contact attempts when it believed the resident no longer wanted to engage, given that the repairs were not considered to be of an urgent nature.
- In July 2023 the plans for work, including a start date of 31 July 2023, were in place. The resident asked the landlord to address issues found at an inspection. The landlord responded to this within 3 working days. A further 5 working days later, it provided the full scope of works to be completed. The resident asked the landlord to inspect daily. The landlord confirmed that it did not have the capacity to do this but would monitor that the works were progressing. The landlord responded promptly and managed the resident’s expectations. This demonstrated effective communication and a customer– focused approach in line with its policy. However the resident had also asked for a timetable of work which was not provided. If the landlord could not provide this, it should have communicated this to the resident.
- The resident emailed the landlord twice in August 2023 to report that a contractor had failed to attend their appointment on 2 occasions. This was a failing, as the contractor has a commitment under the repairs policy to keep to appointments or inform residents in good time if appointments are changing. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction with the length of time taken to complete work and lack of oversight from the landlord. The landlord has not evidenced that it explained reasons for delays or addressed the missed appointments. It also did not monitor progress and quality of work during this period as it had agreed to.
- Throughout September 2023 the landlord and resident exchanged several emails. The resident said he was not happy with the length of time taken to complete work, the quality of work that had been completed and poor communication from the contractors. The landlord responded promptly to emails during this time. It also agreed to visit the following week to inspect. It has not evidenced that it completed this visit, addressed the contractor concerns or the provided reasons for the delays. This showed a failure to work in line with its repairs policy.
- The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not address reports of poor engagement from the landlord, the lack of supervision as had been agreed or the quality of the work that had been completed. It also referred to historic issues with the shower and failed to address the most recent issues. It offered further appointments for November 2023, which exceeded the timescales previously agreed. It did not explain reasons for this delay. This response was not in line with its complaint policy, which commits to understanding issues and identifying actions to resolve them.
- In its final complaint response, the landlord apologised for not fully considering the resident’s views in its stage 1 reply. It addressed the contractor issues, explaining that some quality concerns would be resolved through its snagging process, which was a standard approach. It confirmed that other problems such as substandard carpet work had been fixed. It highlighted barriers it felt the resident posed, including reports of harassment that led to contractors leaving the property. The landlord acknowledged its own failures, including its communication with the resident and that it did not quality check the work as agreed. It spoke with the team members involved, committed to completing the work, provided a revised scope of works and agreed to a post-inspection. The landlord offered to fund mediation between the resident, its contractors and landlord team members, with the intention of rebuilding trust. That was a reasonable step to take to try to improve relations between the parties.
- It is positive that the landlord admitted fault, offered practical, corrective action and showed a commitment to rebuilding the resident’s trust. The compensation it offered aligned with its policy for low-impact issues such as communication delays and failure to meet service standards. However considering the number of issues and the impact they had, the compensation offered was not proportionate. The final response did not give a completion date for the work, which was an outcome sought by the resident. It repeatedly failed to communicate delays or provide a clear timescale for works. This has led to ongoing uncertainty, the resident having to chase for updates and feel the need to monitor work closely. Therefore, we made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in addition to the £50 offered at stage 2. This is in line with our remedies guidance for instances where the landlord has made an offer of compensation but it does not reflect the detriment to the resident.
Learning
- When the landlord identifies failings, we expect to see that it has taken some learning from this. It would be beneficial for the landlord to reflect on why failings happened and how it can improve service in the future.