One Housing Group Limited (202515213)

Decision
Case ID	202515213
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	One Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	2 December 2025

Background

1. In January 2023 the resident reported a leak, which caused mould and damp within her bedroom and stairway. She said the landlord inspected and described the works as urgent, however the repairs remained outstanding. A representative supported the resident throughout the complaints process. For the purpose of this report, we will refer to the resident and her representative as ‘the resident.’

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of a leak and the associated damp and mould.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Severe Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of a leak and the associated damp and mould.
   2. Reasonable redress with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found that:
   1. The landlord took too long to complete the repairs required.
   2. There was evidence of poor communication, confusion, and delays regarding the resident’s complaint.
   3. The landlord failed to follow-up on works appointed to its contractor.
   4. The landlord identified some complaint handling failures, apologised and offered compensation, this was a reasonable approach from the landlord.

 

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: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 19 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,200 made up as follows: £1,200 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of a leak and the associated damp and mould. This must be paid directly to the resident and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 19 January 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord advised that following the end of the internal complaints process in December 2024, that it would survey the roof and flats in relation to the water ingress. If the inspection has already been completed, the landlord must provide the outcome of the inspection to the resident and this service. If the survey has not been completed, the landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the roof of the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: The most likely cause of the leak and associated damp and mould A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue The likely timescales to commence and complete the work	No later than: 2 February 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord, if it has not done so already, should pay the resident £100 compensation as offered within the internal complaints process for the complaint handling failure.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 September 2023	The resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said she had reported a leak to the landlord in January 2023, however the repairs remained outstanding.
16 October 2023	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said: it had completed 2 inspections on 14 February and 16 October 2023, which found that 2 operatives were required for remedial works to proceed because of the height to the stairway an appointment was booked for 24 October 2023 to remove the mould found in the bedroom it upheld the complaint and offered £250 compensation due to the delays involved and poor communication
29 March 2024	The resident escalated her complaint due to a lack of communication and action.
24 September 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said: on 16 October 2023 the repair was passed to its contractor but on 31 January 2024, the contractor said that they do not complete day to day repairs a second contractor was instructed, however they priced too high on 27 June 2024 the repair was passed to a third contractor, who arranged a damp and mould treatment for 7 October 2024 on the 7 October 2024, the contractor attempted access but the resident was unable to accommodate the visit the landlord asked the resident to rebook via the call centre it upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £180 compensation, which comprised of £100 for a late complaint response, £50 for delays and £30 for a missed appointment
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought the complaint to us because she said she could not continue to live in damp conditions. She wanted the landlord to complete the works required and provide compensation for her time and trouble.

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 handling of a leak and the associated damp and mould
Finding	Severe maladministration

What we did not investigate

5. The resident explained that the leak and its timeframe significantly affected her and she was concerned for her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

6. On 14 February 2023 the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection and confirmed that repairs were required to the bathroom, bedroom, and stairway. Further, the landlord described its findings as “very bad and the repairs required completing as soon as possible.” Section 5 of the Decent Homes Standard says a landlord should ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould is listed as a potential category 1 hazard. The inspection was a reasonable first step for the landlord to take, as it was required to identify the cause of the damp and mould before it could carry out repairs.
7. In February, July and on 5, 9 and 16 August 2023 the resident chased the repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident or explained any reasons for the 6-month delay following the inspection. Therefore, we can only conclude that the landlord took no further action and did not act in accordance with its repairs policy of completing repairs within 28-days. Further, it had not considered the urgency of the repair.
8. On 1 September 2023, a contractor attended and said the repairs would take 2 days. On 6 September 2023, the contractor returned to complete the works, however, access was not provided because the resident said she was unaware of the appointment. She said this left her feeling frustrated and therefore she raised a complaint on 25 September 2023. In this case, the landlord failed to apply a reasonable timeframe to the repairs, consider the urgency or that the resident had with an active leak and damp since January 2023. The landlord should have done more to resolve the issue sooner.
9. In October 2023, as part of the stage 1 complaint response the landlord completed a re-inspection, due to the time that had elapsed, a re-inspection was a reasonable response from the landlord. On 24 October 2023 the landlord completed repair works to the bedroom, however confirmed that its contractor was still required to complete the works to the stairway.
10. On 29 March 2024, the resident escalated her complaint because the repair works required to the stairway remained outstanding. She said the contractor attended in February 2024 but could not complete the repair without the right equipment for working at height, she experienced the same when the contractor re-attended in June 2024. The landlord said that delays occurred because its contractor ceased completing day-to-day repairs and the cost provided by a second contractor deemed too expensive. The repair had been outstanding for 14 months and remained unresolved during the peak winter months, when damp and mould problems are most prevalent. This was unreasonable.
11. On 27 June 2024, the landlord confirmed that the works were raised with a third contractor who completed the internal repair works on 8 August 2024. The landlord also told us that the external works were still under investigation and it would re-attend the block and survey the roof in relation to the water ingress. We have made an order for the landlord to confirm its findings to the resident.
12. The landlord admitted some failings and offered £250 compensation at stage 1 and a further £80 at stage 2. Where there are admitted failings, as in this case, it is our role to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
13. Overall, there was significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Repairs remained outstanding from January 2023 until the stage 2 response date of 24 September 2024, a delay of approximately 20 months. The landlord failed to apply a reasonable timeframe or consider the urgency of the repair. The delay was unreasonable and has indicated a fundamental lack of understanding by the landlord of its repair obligations. Further, despite having a damp policy at its disposal, it did not consider applying the principles in this case.
14. The failings with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated damp amount to severe maladministration. Our remedies guidance suggests that compensation is appropriate where there has been serious failings, which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.
15. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident a total of £1,200. This can be broken down as £800 compensation for the distress and inconvenience of the resident continuing to live with outstanding damp and mould and £400 for the time and trouble caused to the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

16. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
17. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 30 September 2023, the landlord provided its complaint acknowledgement on 13 October 2023, and it provided its stage 1 response on 16 October 2023. Both the acknowledgement and response from the landlord were slightly delayed but this was unlikely to have any significant impact on, or detriment to, the resident.
18. The resident escalated her stage 2 complaint on 29 March 2024 and the landlord provided its stage 2 acknowledgement on 4 April 2024 and final response on 24 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on time, however it took 125 working days from the acknowledgement to provide a stage 2 response. The landlord’s response was significantly late and therefore not in line with the Code or its complaints policy.
19. The landlord admitted a complaint handling failing for the late stage 2 response, apologised and offered £100 compensation. Where there are admitted failings, it our role to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
20. The landlord’s apologies and compensation demonstrated good adherence to the dispute resolution principles. It acknowledged that its complaint handling had fallen below its expected standards and offered the resident appropriate redress for this. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate for the landlord’s complaint handling. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to pay the compensation offered in the stage 2 complaint response. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance.

Learning

21. Poor knowledge and information management is a key contributing factor to why the landlord fails to provide an adequate service, particularly in the repairs service and in complaints handling. In this case, we would recommend that the landlord read the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) May 2023.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord demonstrated poor monitoring of its contractors throughout. This led to a lack of oversight, missed appointments and attendance without notice.
23. The landlord did not correctly monitor its complaints process, which suggests a record keeping failing. It did not provide its stage 2 complaint response in line with the Code or its complaints policy.

Communication

24. The landlord provided limited evidence of communications with the resident and we identified failings because it did not communicate proactively. This related to providing information about the repairs and what action was being taken.