One Vision Housing Limited (202412221)

Decision
Case ID	202412221
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	One Vision Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	16 December 2025

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about damage caused to his possessions and flooring following a leak from the kitchen tap. He disagreed with the landlord’s decision not to compensate him for his items.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:

• A leak and resultant damage.
• The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the leak and resultant damage.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord attended and isolated the leak within its emergency timeframe. It gave the resident appropriate advice by directing him to claim under contents insurance. This was consistent with its policy. The landlord reasonably offered £200 goodwill payment for the delay in providing a dehumidifier. However, the landlord did not address all of the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses, including questions about a 10-year warranty and a neighbour experiencing the same issue. It also showed poor communication when delays occurred in replacing internal doors, which likely caused inconvenience. It did not identify or remedy this issue.
6. There was no maladministration in complaint handling. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint within the timescales set out in its policy at each stage. Although the stage 1 acknowledgment was 1 day late, this was a minor delay and does not amount to a service failure.

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 20 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300, made up of: £100 for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its handling of the leak and resultant damage. £200 gesture of goodwill offered at stage 2, if this has not already been paid. 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 20 January 2026
3	Dehumidifier compensation review order The landlord must write to the resident with its response to his request for reimbursement of electricity costs incurred from running the dehumidifier. If it agrees to reimburse the resident, the landlord must confirm what evidence it requires to process the claim, such as copies of bills or reasonable estimates. Any resultant compensation must be paid directly to the resident.	No later than 20 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 October 2023	The resident reported an uncontainable leak after his kitchen tap came off. He was unable to turn the water off, so the kitchen flooded. The leak soaked electrical appliances, including his oven and laptop.
12 December 2023	The resident complained to the landlord that a leak damaged his carpet, cooker and computer. He said he had no electricity for a week, which forced him to throw away food and eat out. He asked the landlord to compensate him for these costs. He also reported extra expenses for running a dehumidifier and wet vac. The landlord recommended that he claim on his insurance. However, he said he could not insure the property because it was new, and the postcode was not active. He added that repairs were still ongoing and asked for compensation for his losses.
15 December 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It said it would respond within 10 working days.
21 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and said there was no service failure. It said it had responded promptly to the resident’s reports of the leak and completed the required work effectively. Based on the timeline, it concluded its actions were reasonable. It also confirmed it was not aware of any issues in the block that suggested a defect with the taps.   The landlord called the resident the next day to explain its decision. It said it did not uphold the complaint and recommended that the resident take out contents insurance. It disputed the resident’s claim that insurance was unavailable for new properties, noting the resident had lived there for 2 and a half years when the leak occurred.
6-8 January 2024	The resident escalated his complaint as he disputed the landlord’s decision that there was no claim. He said a leak left his home flooded, damaged electrics, and made his cooker unusable. He reported delays in receiving drying equipment, having to clean up himself and losing his laptop and food. He incurred extra costs for eating out and higher electricity bills. He asked for a new carpet and laptop, plus compensation for food and heating. He attributed the issue to poor workmanship, noted similar problems for neighbours, and said the property should be covered by a 10-year warranty. He also contacted his MP and asked for a visit from a manager.
11 January 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would contact him within 10 working days.
16 January 2024	The landlord issued its final response and said: It attended the property 2 hours after the leak began and repaired the tap. For safety reasons, it instructed the resident not to use the electrics until the affected area had dried. It said it provided a dehumidifier and later carried out repairs to an internal door and skirting board. The landlord said that it acted promptly to complete all necessary works. It claimed that the leak was unforeseeable and therefore it was not responsible for any resulting damage. It advised the resident to claim on home contents insurance. While acknowledging that the resident could not obtain insurance in June 2021, the landlord said there had been sufficient time since then to purchase cover. It also noted that the property was a relatively new build and it would not normally expect such repairs within the first few years. It accepted it could have delivered the dehumidifier sooner. It offered £200 as a goodwill gesture but did not accept liability for the leak or damage, saying that the issue was unforeseeable and it had completed repairs without delay.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident explained he was still unhappy as felt the landlord was responsible for the damage to his possessions. He said a neighbour experienced the same issue. He reported significant damage to his possessions, including a sofa, carpet and laptop, which he had to dispose of. He said the landlord only provided drying equipment a week after the leak and that he was unable to use electricity for a week. The resident also said he lost food and incurred extra costs by eating out.

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 the resident’s reports of a leak and resultant damage.
Finding	Service failure

7. The landlord attended within 2 hours to isolate the leak, meeting its emergency repair timeframe. On 1 November 2023 it raised an urgent job to check the electrics after the resident reported his cooker tripping. The landlord’s records say an electrician attended on 2 November 2023, disconnected appliances, noted the sockets were dry and told the resident to let appliances dry overnight. The resident disputes this and says he was without electricity for a week. He said he had to throw food away as a result. We cannot verify this due to conflicting accounts.
8. After isolating the leak, the landlord arranged delivery of a wet vac and dehumidifier. Its records show delivery on 2 November 2023 and collection on 9 November 2023, though the resident disputes these dates. In its final response on 16 January 2024, the landlord offered £200 as a goodwill gesture for the delay in delivering the dehumidifier. This was reasonable given its policy does not set timeframes for delivering drying equipment.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy says that residents are strongly advised to take out their own home contents insurance. Similarly, its compensation policy says that it will not pay compensation for damage or loss of items that would be covered by the resident’s own contents insurance. The resident said he did not have insurance, explaining he could not obtain it when he first moved in because the property was new. The leak occurred over 2 years after the resident moved in, and the landlord said insurance would have been available by then. Given this, it was reasonable for the landlord to recommend that the resident claim under his contents insurance for the damage to his belongings form the leak.
10. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about a 10-year property warranty, or that a neighbour experienced the same issue. This was a service failure. The landlord accepted responsibility for repairing the tap. It could have clarified its position on any warranty with the resident. The landlord later provided evidence showing the neighbour’s tap problem occurred after the resident’s report, meaning it was not aware of any pattern at the time. The landlord’s failure to address all of the resident’s complaint points likely caused frustration.
11. The landlord completed repairs to the resulting damp and damaged skirting within its routine repair timescales of 20 working days. The landlord’s final response on 16 January 2024 said it had acted promptly, including repairing an internal door. However, it delayed replacing internal doors damaged by the leak. The landlord raised a repair on 3 November 2023 for 2 damaged doors, but it did not replace the doors until 7 February 2024. It booked an appointment for 23 November 2023. The landlord said this failed due to no access, although this is not noted in its repair records. The resident chased the works on 21 December 2023 and raised concerns again during a home visit on 8 January 2024. The landlord’s records show the required doors were out of stock. Under its repairs policy, where manufactured parts are required or repairs cannot be completed within 28 days, the job should be classified as ‘Priority X’, with residents kept informed of expected timescales. While the delay was partly due to ordering specific doors, the landlord did not provide updates or explain the extended timeframe. This was contrary to its policy and likely caused inconvenience.
12. Finally, the landlord did not address the resident’s request for reimbursement of additional electricity costs from using a dehumidifier. It should have responded to all aspects of the complaint and clarified its position on the resident’s request for reimbursement of the electricity costs relating to using the dehumidifier.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

13. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (2022). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
14. At Stage 1, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 3 working days, 1 day outside of its policy timeframes. This minor delay does not amount to a service failure. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response within 10 working days.
15. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its timeframes at stage 2.

Learning

16. The landlord should ensure complaint responses address all issues raised by residents, even where it considers them outside its liability. Clear explanations would have reduced any likely frustration. The landlord should also improve communication during delays, particularly when parts are out of stock, to manage expectations and maintain trust.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord referenced a ‘no access’ on 23 November 2023 in an internal email, but this was not recorded in the repair records. Accurate and consistent record keeping is essential, particularly for managing appointments and evidencing actions taken. Failure to keep clear records can lead to disputes and undermine confidence in the landlord’s service.

Communication

18. The landlord did not address all of the resident’s complaint points, including concerns about a 10-year warranty, the neighbour’s similar issue, and electricity costs. Its communication during delays in replacing internal doors was poor, as it failed to explain that the required doors were out of stock. The resident chased the landlord twice, yet the landlord still did not provide clear updates. This lack of clarity likely caused unnecessary frustration.