One Housing Group Limited (202411383)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord as it had failed to resolve an issue with water entering her property. She remains unhappy that the landlord failed to consider the loss of use of a bedroom and her damaged belongings.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of water ingress into the property.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into the property
   2. reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Water ingress

5. The landlord failed to take actions in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. This led to a long delay in it fixing the issue. It did acknowledge delays and offer compensation during in its stage 2 response. However, it failed to fully consider the impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

6. While there were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling, it recognised these in its complaint responses, offering appropriate compensation.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not considered

7. There was further water ingress in 2025, after the landlord conducted repairs. The landlord did not investigate this further ingress as part of this complaint. The resident has brought a separate complaint to us about this recurrence. In this investigation we will only consider events up to November 2024, when the landlord initially carried out repairs.

Water ingress

8. The landlord has not provided records relating to the resident’s initial report of water ingress in August 2023. It also has not provided records relating to its visit in September 2023, where it identified that a surveyor was needed. This does not demonstrate good record keeping. The earliest record we have seen is the resident’s email of 17 May 2024, when she raised a complaint about its lack of action.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it needs to carry out an inspection, it will complete this within 7 calendar days. It will then complete any routine repairs required within 28 calendar days.
10. In its stage 1 response of 23 May 2024 the landlord acknowledged there had been delays in it arranging an appointment. It said it had now booked a survey for 9 July 2024, 10 months after it identified this was needed. It did not provide any explanation for the delay or offer any redress. This was not appropriate, as it had not arranged an inspection or repairs within the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
11. The landlord carried out a survey on 9 July 2024, which found that there may be an issue with a downpipe in the garden. We have not seen a copy of this report, which again demonstrates poor record keeping. It raised a job for the downpipe but sent the wrong contractor on several occasions, which was not appropriate.
12. In its stage 2 response of 25 September 2024 the landlord said that a surveyor should not have attended as repairs were her responsibility as a leaseholder. This was not in line with her lease. The lease shows that external pipes, sewers and drains are the landlord’s responsibility, unless they only serve the individual property. The resident lives in a ground floor flat and we have seen no evidence the drainpipes served only her flat.
13. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £200 to recognise delays and poor communication. It said it would attend to inspect drains and pipework to try to locate the source of the water ingress. However, it said it would not give a timescale and was not admitting any liability. It had failed to resolve the issue and could not give the resident reassurance that it would fix it, or when. This was not an appropriate response.
14. The landlord carried out a damp survey on 9 October 2024. It found several issues with downpipes that were not correctly connected to drains/gullies. It noted that there was a high damp reading in the resident’s second bedroom. It believed this would be resolved by carrying out repairs to the downpipes.
15. The landlord carried out repairs in November 2024. We have not seen evidence of the exact date the repairs took place. On 20 December 2024 it carried out a post-work inspection. It found no dampness on the bedroom wall and the resident confirmed there were no further issues at that time. It was satisfied that repairs had been completed satisfactorily, which was a reasonable conclusion at that time. However, it was not reasonable that it had taken 15 months to complete these repairs.
16. During its internal complaints process the landlord directed the resident to make a claim on her insurance for her damaged flooring and belongings. However, contents insurance generally requires damage to have been caused by a sudden, one-off event. The resident told us that the landlord did ask her for a breakdown of the cost of the items she had to replace. She said she provided this information, but the landlord never responded to her. It was not reasonable for the landlord to request this information but take no further action when she provided it.
17. The resident has told us that her insurer was unwilling to cover a claim as it believed the damage was caused by the landlord’s delays in resolving the water ingress. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to reconsider its position on this.
18. The resident also told us she was unable to use a bedroom for 4 months due to the ongoing water ingress. As she is a shared owner, we would not award a partial rent refund. However, we have considered this impact when calculating a compensation award.
19. Considering the circumstances of the case, the £200 compensation awarded by the landlord did not reflect the distress, frustration and time and trouble incurred by the resident. It missed several opportunities to provide a resolution at the earliest opportunity. To address this, we have awarded £600 to replace the landlord’s offer.

20. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord acknowledged the complaint 4 working days after the resident raised it (17 May to 23 May 2024) – this was not in line with its complaints policy, which said it would make contact within 2 working days of the complaint being raised
    2. it sent its stage 1 response the same day as its acknowledgement – in line with its policy timescale of 10 working days
    3. it did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request – this was not line with its policy, which said it would acknowledge the request within 3 working days
    4. it sent its stage 2 response 27 working days after she requested escalation (19 August to 25 September 2024) – outside its policy timescale of 20 working days
21. The landlord acknowledged some delays in its responses and offered £50 compensation at each stage. This offer of £100 was reasonable and in line with our compensation guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord did not keep good records of inspections and work carried out. This likely contributed to its failure to conduct a follow-up inspection after the visit in September 2023. Poor record keeping made it hard for it to respond proactively and effectively. It also impacted its ability to ensure repairs had been completed.
23. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights that without good data management, landlords may struggle to use or analyse information to improve services. The landlord should take steps to improve how it records and uses data. This could include better training, clearer guidance, or more support for staff.

Communication

24. The landlord’s records do not show that its overall communication was good. It did not keep the resident regularly updated throughout the repairs process, relying instead on her to chase it for updates. Its stage 2 response lacked clarity and accountability in terms of its responsibility for repairs, despite it committing to carry out works.