Your Housing Group Limited (202428001)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428001

Your Housing Group Limited

29 July 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:
1. Repairs following the resident’s report of a burst water pipe under the kitchen.
2. Repairs to the back door.
The Ombudsman has decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has lived in the property as an assured tenant since November 2012. The property is a 2-bedroom house.
On 13 December 2022 a neighbour reported a leak affecting their property. The water company investigated and found the source was a water pipe under the resident’s kitchen. The resident told the landlord on 13 January 2023 that because of work to fix the leak, she had no kitchen floor and the property was cold. The landlord moved the resident to a hotel while it finished the work.
The resident told the landlord on 11 July 2023 there had been a draught since it replaced the kitchen floor in April 2023. She said the landlord had not fixed water damage under the floor and cracks had appeared because of subsidence. She wanted a survey done on the property.
The resident told the landlord on 27 October 2023 there was still a problem with cold and draughts and this was affecting her health. A surveyor visited the property on 16 November 2023 and arranged a heat loss survey for 22 November 2023.
On 3 January 2024 the resident complained her property was cold. She said a surveyor had visited but she had heard nothing since. She wanted the landlord to fix the draughts so she could live in comfort.
In its complaint response on 31 January 2024 the landlord said following the heat loss survey it did repairs in January 2024. It said it had also arranged to measure the back door and would replace it by April 2024. It apologised for the lack of communication after the visit. It offered £100 compensation for delays and communication failures.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 April 2024. She said she had raised other repairs in November 2023, but the landlord had not done these. She said the landlord had adjusted the back door 4 times, but it was still not right. She said she had medical problems because of the cold and wanted an investigation of damage under the floor.
The landlord inspected the property on 12 June 2024 and then arranged a visit by an independent structural engineer. The independent survey took place on 11 July 2024. This found the property in good repair and no evidence of structural movement.
In its final response on 6 September 2024 the landlord apologised for the delay in responding. It said its survey had found the kitchen floor needed refitting due to the quality of earlier work, but the independent survey had found no evidence of structural movement. It offered £300 compensation for delays, quality of work, and inconvenience.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said there had been a draught in the kitchen since 2020. She said the door had never fitted properly and the cold was affecting her health. She wanted the door fixing and was concerned about damage under the kitchen floor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman has seen the resident said there had been a draught since 2020. The resident first complained to the landlord in January 2024. The Ombudsman would ordinarily only investigate matters brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This investigation will limit its historic scope accordingly but may reference some historic or recent events for contextual purposes.
The Ombudsman has seen the resident made a new complaint about the door and other matters after the landlord’s final response. The Ombudsman cannot consider the new complaint. This is because the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not investigate matters that have not exhausted a member’s complaints process. Once this complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, the resident may bring it to the Ombudsman. Instead, this investigation will look at the events up to the landlord’s final response in September 2024.
In her complaint, the resident said the cold affected her health. The Ombudsman cannot consider this part of the complaint. This is because the Scheme says we will not investigate complaints that concern matters where we consider it more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. While the Ombudsman is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to prove legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions had a detrimental effect on health. Because of this, we are unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the complaint.
However, while we cannot consider the effect on health, the Ombudsman will consider any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced.

The landlord’s handling of repairs following a burst water pipe under the kitchen

The landlord is responsible under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for repairing the structure of the property. This means the landlord has an obligation to repair the resident’s home, including water pipes that are its responsibility. The landlord did not dispute it had responsibility for the repairs.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs, where there is a serious risk to the resident or their home, within 24 hours. It will attend urgent repairs within 5 working days. Reactive repairs are those that pose no immediate risk and which it can do through a mutually convenient appointment. It says it will do these within 28 calendar days.
The repairs policy also says it may need to do inspections before it can arrange a repair. It says it will inspect within 14 calendar days. It says after the inspection, it will plan the repair by following the timescales in its repairs policy.
In December 2022 a neighbour reported a leak affecting their property. Following investigations, the water company found the leak was coming from under the kitchen floor in the resident’s property. The landlord needed to do extensive repairs to fix the leak. Following a report in January 2023 that the resident’s property was cold, the landlord moved the resident to a hotel while it did the work. The resident moved back to the property in April 2023.
On 11 July 2023 the resident told the landlord there had been a draught since she moved back to the property. She said she believed the landlord had not fixed water damage to the foundations, and the window and door frames were on a slant. She said large cracks had appeared in walls. She wanted a survey of the property. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence the landlord replied.
Records show the next contact was on 27 October 2023 when the resident’s daughter reported a problem with cold in the property. She said she was concerned about “extreme cold” and subsidence caused by the leak. The landlord sent an internal email the same day asking for an inspection and a heat loss survey at the property.
The landlord tried to call the resident on 7 November 2023. It called again on 8 November 2023 and told the resident it had arranged a survey for 16 November 2023. Records show the survey took place as arranged and a heat loss survey took place on 22 November 2023.
The Ombudsman has found it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange the surveys following the report on 27 October 2023. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not respond to the report of draughts and structural damage in July 2023, and this was a failure. In mitigation, it does not appear that the resident mentioned the property was subject to “extreme cold” until October 2023.
On 29 November and 7 December 2023, the resident asked the landlord for an update on the surveys. The landlord’s records say it tried to call the resident on 7 December 2023. It said it got no answer but left a voicemail message. Following the surveys, the resident could reasonably expect the landlord to contact her about its findings. Although the landlord tried to call the resident after she asked for an update, it did not do so until 7 December and it did not send an email. The Ombudsman has found the lack of an update after the surveys was a failure by the landlord, which caused inconvenience as the resident had to chase for an update.
The resident complained on 3 January 2024 that she had a problem with cold in her home for over 3 years. She said the leak under the kitchen floor was where she had reported the cold was coming from in the past. She said she had heard nothing from the landlord since the surveys. She wanted it to fix the cold. On 17 January 2024, the resident complained there was a problem with the new floor in the kitchen. She said it was bumpy and a trip hazard. The same day the landlord told her it had raised an inspection to check the floor.
In its complaint response on 31 January 2024 the landlord said following the report of cold in October 2023, it arranged surveys in November 2023. It said the outcome had been to replace 3 radiators, replace a slate and re-seal around the flue, and do plaster works in the kitchen. It said it completed this work by 30 January 2024. It said it would provide a report of the findings and apologised that it had not communicated after the visit. It said it had taken steps to ensure it learnt from this. It offered £50 compensation for time taken to complete the repairs and £50 for lack of communication following the surveys.
The Ombudsman has found this was mainly a reasonable response at this time. This is because the landlord set out what work it had done, apologised for inconvenience caused, said it had taken steps to ensure it learnt, and offered a reasonable amount of compensation for the failures it acknowledged. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident had first reported a draught and other problems in July 2023. Although the landlord completed repairs in a reasonable time after the surveys in November 2023, it could have acted sooner if it responded to the report in July 2023. The Ombudsman has seen that the response did not refer to the complaint about the kitchen floor. It would have been reasonable to include this at this stage.
On 4 February 2024 the resident chased the landlord about the kitchen floor. The landlord’s records on 13 February 2024 said it had arranged an appointment for 1 March 2024. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 March 2024 and said the contractor came at the wrong time while she was out. She said she had waited weeks for the appointment. The landlord asked for a new appointment on 1 March 2024 but its records on 1 April 2024 said it still needed to arrange an appointment. Records show the resident chased the landlord on 25 March and 3 April 2024 about an appointment for the kitchen floor.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 April 2024. She said during the visit on 16 November 2023, she told the landlord about cracks in the walls and around the windows. She said she also discussed a draught from the kitchen floor. She said she had medical problems because of the cold and wanted the landlord to investigate damage under the floor. She said she did not feel safe in her home, and it was causing her stress and anxiety. She said she had spent hours chasing repairs and the landlord made appointments that it did not attend or attended at the wrong time.
On 25 April 2024 the resident told the landlord that a job scheduled to look at the kitchen floor on 24 April 2024 had been cancelled. She said she had a text saying there were no operatives available, and the contractor had cancelled the job until 20 May 2024. She said she was “sick and tired” of staying at home only to have jobs cancelled, and this was another delay. She wanted this dealt with as part of her complaint.
On 20 May 2024 the landlord’s records say it attended and raised a new job as the floor was “breaking up”. On 21 May 2024, the landlord gave the resident an update on her complaint. It said before it sent a full response it would like to arrange a second surveyor to assess her concerns.
Although it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for a second surveyor, this was a month after the resident escalated her complaint and 5 months after she reported a problem with her kitchen floor. In the meantime, the resident chased the landlord for updates, and the landlord missed or cancelled appointments. The resident had explained the effect the cold was having on her and said the floor was a trip hazard. Because of this, she could have reasonably expected the landlord to inspect her property sooner. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will inspect within 14 calendar days. The Ombudsman has found the landlord did not meet the commitments in its policy.
On 6 June 2024 the resident asked for an update. She said she had heard nothing since the last email. The landlord replied on 7 June 2024 and said it was waiting for a date for a surveyor to attend. It said it had chased the surveyor, and they could attend on 13 June 2024. The Ombudsman has found there continued to be a lack of urgency in arranging an appointment and the landlord did not give the resident regular updates.
Following the survey, the landlord arranged for a structural engineer to inspect the property. The inspection took place on 11 July 2024. This found the property in a good overall state of structural and cosmetic repair. It said there was hairline cracking, which was typical of minor movement, and no evidence of major structural movement. It said vibrations during the work in the kitchen could have caused the cracks.
On 30 July 2024 the resident asked for an update. The landlord responded on 31 July 2024 and apologised for the delay in getting back to her. It said it had asked for works on the kitchen floor and would update her once it had a start date. It also said it would update her once it received a copy of the structural engineer’s survey.
The landlord told the resident on 8 August 2024 it had made an appointment for 4 September 2024 to lay a new kitchen floor. It said it was still waiting for the structural engineer’s report and had requested it again. Although it was positive that the landlord confirmed an appointment, the Ombudsman has found there continued to be a lack of urgency from the landlord. This is because 3 months had gone by since the landlord said the floor was “breaking up” in May 2024, and the appointment was another 4 weeks away.
The landlord sent its final response on 6 September 2024. It said the heat loss survey found the heating downstairs was sufficient and there was no evidence of cold spots. It recommended new radiators in the bedroom and bathroom, which it fitted on 6 February 2024. It said it also completed plaster works in the kitchen, replaced a slate around the flue, and repaired the back door.
It also said its surveyor found problems with the quality of work on the kitchen floor and it had arranged to re-fit this. On the structural survey, it confirmed the surveyor’s findings and said there was no evidence of structural movement. It offered £100 compensation for the quality of the work on the kitchen floor and £100 for inconvenience caused by delays to the repair of the floor.
In July 2025 the resident told the landlord that she did not feel the heat loss survey had dealt with her concerns. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the quality of the surveys, but has noted the landlord did the recommended work, which is what the Ombudsman would expect.
However, there were considerable delays in doing the second opinion and structural surveys, and some of the recommended work. In particular, the resident first reported a trip hazard with the kitchen floor in January 2024, and the landlord said it would do the work in May 2024, which was already a delay. However, it did not complete the work until September 2024. This was a significant delay and a failure to follow its repairs policy. During this time, the resident was living with concerns about a potentially hazardous floor.
There were also failures in the landlord’s communication, and problems with missed and cancelled appointments. Records show the resident had to regularly chase the landlord for updates and stayed at home for appointments that did not happen. This caused the resident inconvenience.
The Ombudsman has seen the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by delays to the repairs to the kitchen floor and for quality of the work previously done. It also offered £200 compensation for these failures in its final response, which was in addition to the £100 compensation for delays and communication failures at stage 1.
Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s view that there was maladministration in the handling of the repairs, and the compensation for inconvenience caused was insufficient in the circumstances. This is because the resident first reported a trip hazard in January 2024, and it took the landlord 9 months to repair the floor. This was a significant delay. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman finds maladministration when there has been a significant failure. Because of this the landlord must pay the resident an additional £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused and £100 for the failure to follow its repairs policy.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the back door

Records provided by the landlord show that on 2 May 2023 it dealt with a request to inspect the back door at the resident’s property. It noted the door was not closing properly due to the flooring that it had put down in the kitchen after the leak. It made an appointment for 28 June 2023. It is unclear from the records provided, but following contact from the resident, it appears the landlord brought the appointment forward to 13 June 2023. This was 6 weeks after the report and outside the timescales in the landlord’s repairs policy.
Following the heat loss survey on 16 November 2023, the resident asked the landlord on 29 November 2023 whether it would replace the door. The Ombudsman has not seen whether the landlord responded to this question. However, on 19 December 2023 the landlord raised a job to repair the rear door within 21 days.
The resident complained about draughts and cold in her property on 3 January 2024 but did not mention the door. As part of the complaint investigation the landlord checked its records. An internal email on 5 January 2024 said there had been reports of draughts from under the door. It said it had previously checked this and found nothing.
In its complaint response on 31 January 2024 the landlord said it had done work on the door after the leak. However, following the heat loss survey, it had made an appointment to take measurements of the door on 25 March 2024. It said it expected to do the work on the door by April 2024. The Ombudsman has noted that this date was significantly outside the 21-day timescale referred to in the landlord’s records on 19 December 2023.
On 8 April 2024 the landlord told the resident it had noticed the door inspection was still outstanding. It said it had arranged an appointment for 24 April 2024. In her complaint escalation on 22 April 2024 the resident said she had raised the problem with the door during the visit in November 2023. She said the landlord had adjusted the door 4 times, but it was still not right.
Records show the landlord visited the resident’s property and adjusted the door on 20 May 2024. This meant the landlord did the repair 6 months after it found out it needed to do work through the heat loss survey, and almost a month after the date it said it would complete the work in March 2024. During this time, much of it in winter, the resident told the landlord there was a draught, which meant she was cold.
Because of this, the Ombudsman has found there was service failure as the landlord did not meet the timescales in its repairs policy. This caused inconvenience for the resident as she had to chase the repairs. The resident also lived with a draught longer than necessary. The Ombudsman has also seen the landlord did not mention the delay with the repair in its final response.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman has found service failure in this case as the landlord caused inconvenience to the resident. Because of this the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation for the failures in its handling of repairs to the door.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s customer feedback policy in place at the time of the complaint said it would send a stage 1 response within 10 working days. When a resident escalated their complaint, it said it would respond in 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
Records provided by the landlord show the resident complained on 3 January 2024 about cold in her home and outstanding repairs. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
The landlord sent its complaint response 21 working days later, on 31 January 2024. This was outside the timescales in the landlord’s customer feedback policy. The landlord did not apologise for the delay in its response. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should have apologised.
The resident escalated her complaint on 4 April 2024, and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day. However, the landlord did not send its final response until 6 September 2024, which was 5 months later. In mitigation the landlord apologised for the delay and offered £100 in its final response. Records also show the landlord kept the resident informed by giving regular updates on the complaint.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s final response was reasonable redress in the circumstances, as it acknowledged the delay and offered a reasonable amount of compensation for this.
In its final response the landlord said the delay was due to waiting for the structural survey report. It is unclear why the landlord did not receive a report until September 2024. This was an unreasonable amount of time, which led to a delay in sending the response. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord investigates the cause to prevent a reoccurrence.
The Ombudsman has also noted the landlord did not include all matters complained about in its stage 1 response. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord reviews why this happened in this case, and what it can do to ensure it includes all complaint elements in its responses.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord on its handling of repairs following a burst water pipe under the kitchen.
2. Service failure by the landlord on its handling of repairs to the back door.
In line with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord on its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Order

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident £700 compensation. This is made up of:
1. £600 for failures in its handling of repairs following a burst water pipe under the kitchen. This is inclusive of the £400 compensation previously offered
2. £100 for failures in handling of repairs to the back door.
3. It must pay compensation directly to the resident and not offset it against any arrears.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord investigates the cause of the delay with the structural survey report.
The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reviews what it can do to ensure it includes all complaint elements in its responses.
The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reoffers the £100 previously offered for compliant handling failures if it has not already paid it to the resident.