One Housing Group Limited (202444402)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202444402

One Housing Group Limited

14 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs following a mutual exchange.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in the property, a 4-bed flat, with her children. She moved into the property in October 2023 by mutual exchange.
The resident has disclosed that she has mental health issues and that her child has a disability.
On 24 June 2024 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said she was unhappy about the landlord’s response to the following repairs:
1. Leaking shower and cracked tiles.
2. Roof leak through the hallway ceiling.
3. Leak through her daughter’s bedroom wall.
4. Damp on the bathroom ceiling.
5. The bathroom light turned off automatically when people were in the shower as it was on a sensor. This was a safety issue.
6. A radiator wasn’t working following a leak.
7. A gap under the kitchen door and damage to a bedroom door.
8. The intercom did not work as it was wired to a light switch.
9. She had removed the fire alarms as they kept beeping which was impacting her child who had sensory issues.
10. The landlord had not completed a gas or electricity check when she moved in.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 July 2024. It acknowledged that there were “numerous issues” in the property that required attention. It went on to explain that it had booked appointments to address the shower leak, tiling issues, internal and external door repairs, defective bathroom light, and the roof leak. It apologised for failing to meet its repair deadlines and offered the resident £120 compensation.
The resident responded to the landlord on 23 July 2024. She explained that her complaint was not about money but about ensuring the property was safe for her family which had disability needs. She said that the landlord had not addressed her concerns about the intercom, radiator, and fire alarm and asked it to arrange for a surveyor’s inspection.
On 18 September 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said her repairs were still outstanding despite her chasing them.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 21 October 2024. It acknowledged that it had not yet completed the repairs and said it would book appointments to do so. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused and offered £50 compensation for the impact of the delays and £50 for its delayed complaint response.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2025 as the repairs remained outstanding. The works were completed in July 2025.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs following a mutual exchange.

The resident moved into the property by mutual exchange in October 2023. Over the following 6 months she reported repair issues which later became subject to her complaint. It is not clear whether these repair issues were present prior to the exchange taking place.
In its information submission to the Ombudsman the landlord said that the mutual exchange process “does not usually require any formal inspections to be completed by [the landlord]”. This is because the properties are exchanged on an “as seen” basis.
We acknowledge that there is no obligation for the landlord to inspect the property prior to a mutual exchange. However, its policy states it will do so. That it did not was a failure to adhere to its own policy and was unreasonable.
The resident reported the repairs referred to in her complaint between November 2023 and June 2024. The landlord accepted responsibility for these repairs within its stage 1 complaint response and confirmed this stance in its final response.
It then took the landlord 7 months to carry out a survey of the property. The landlord has acknowledged that there was a delay in carrying out the survey but has not provided any justification for this. This was inappropriate.
In May 2025 the landlord drew up a schedule of works. It passed the work to its contractor in June 2025. The works were completed at the end of July 2025 and post-inspected by the landlord.
The landlord’s repair policy states it will complete routine repairs within 28 days. It has not indicated that it intends to complete the works outside its responsive repairs policy as planned or major works. Therefore, that the landlord did not complete them until 9 months after its final complaint response was unreasonable.
Within her complaint the resident raised concerns that the landlord did not complete gas and electric checks when she moved into the property.
At the start of a new tenancy the landlord is obliged to provide gas and electric safety certificates. When a mutual exchange takes place, a new tenancy is not formed. Instead the tenancy is assigned to the incoming tenant. There is no obligation on the landlord to complete gas and electric checks prior to a mutual exchange taking place or to provide copies of the certificates. However, the landlord’s policy states that it will ensure that valid certificates are in place.
While the landlord was not obliged to carry out new checks, it should reasonably have responded to the resident’s concerns. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge her concerns, outline its policy, and explain that valid certificates were in place. That it did not was unreasonable.
It is an obligation of membership of the Scheme for landlords to provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. In this case we asked the landlord to provide copies of gas and electric safety certificates for the property. However, it has only provided certificates from 2025. We are therefore unable to determine whether there were valid certificates in place when the resident moved in.
Throughout her contact with the landlord the resident has stressed the impact the repair issues have had on herself and her children. She has also stressed that the impact was worsened due to the family’s vulnerabilities.
The resident made the landlord aware within her mutual exchange application that she had mental health conditions and that her child had a disability. It is therefore unclear why the landlord advised the Ombudsman that it does not have any vulnerabilities or disabilities recorded for the family. We have ordered the landlord to contact the resident to obtain further information so it can update its records.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. Complete an inspection of the property prior to the mutual exchange in line with its policy.
2. Respond to the resident’s concerns regarding the gas and electric safety checks.
3. Complete the repairs within a reasonable timeframe and in accordance with its policy.
4. Provide copies of valid gas and electric safety certificates from when the resident moved into the property.
5. Record the resident’s vulnerabilities.
We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for failings and delays in relation to the repairs. It has also offered £170 in compensation in relation to these failings. We do not consider that the compensation offered is proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident over a prolonged period. Nor have we seen evidence that the compensation calculation took into account the increased impact on the family due to their vulnerabilities. We have therefore ordered the landlord to replace its previous offer of compensation with £600 for distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

On 13 June 2024 the landlord told the resident it had raised her concerns regarding outstanding repairs at its “informal resolution stage”. It did not raise a formal complaint until 24 June 2024.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that it is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘informal resolution stage’) as this causes unnecessary confusion. We note that there is no reference to an informal stage within the landlord’s own complaints policy. It is therefore unclear why it dealt with the complaint this way. That it did so was inappropriate.
It took the landlord 21 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This is double the timeframe outlined in the Code and its own policy. The landlord failed to acknowledge this or provide redress. This was unreasonable.
The landlord slightly exceeded the timeframe in the Code and its policy in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It did however apologise for this and offered the resident £50 compensation. This was reasonable.
The Code recognises that landlords will not always have completed all outstanding actions by the time a complaint response is issued. We advise that in such cases, the complaint response should contain an action plan with timelines. The landlord should monitor the action plan and keep the resident updated on the progress of any outstanding actions until they are completed. The landlord failed to do that in this case. This was unreasonable and the landlord’s complaint handling process has failed to bring about a resolution to the complaint.
Overall, the landlord delayed in recording a stage 1 complaint as it inappropriately handled the complaint informally. It failed to respond to the stage 1 complaint within target timeframes and did not acknowledge or provide redress for this. Ultimately the landlord’s handling of the complaint failed to resolve the issues reported by the resident and therefore did not fulfil its purpose.
While the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for its complaint handling delays at stage 2, it did not offer compensation for its other complaint handling failings. We have therefore ordered it to increase its compensation payment to £100.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs following a mutual exchange.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £700 which comprises:
  1. £600 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs following a mutual exchange.
  2. £100 for time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.
  3. This amount includes the compensation offered by the landlord in its complaint responses. If it has already paid the resident £220, this can be deducted from the above order.
3. Contact the resident to obtain further information regarding the family’s vulnerabilities and any required adjustments so it can update its records accordingly.
4. If it has not already done so, provide the resident with copies of the gas and electric safety certificates for the property.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must review its policy and procedures for mutual exchange inspections. It should ensure it is clear whether it will complete inspections or not.