Your Housing Group Limited (202506267)

Decision
Case ID	202506267
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Your Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 June 2026

Background

1. The resident experiences anxiety. She reported concerns about the drains to the landlord and later complained that the landlord delayed repairs, missed appointments, and communicated poorly. She said several visits were needed to complete the work and that operatives sometimes attended without notice or missed appointments. In August 2025, the resident ended the tenancy and no longer lives in the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of drainage problems.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of drainage problems.
5. We found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Reports of drainage problems

6. The landlord acknowledged missed appointments and delays in completing repairs and poor communication. It offered proportionate remedies, including an apology and compensation that satisfactorily put matters right.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not issue its complaint responses within its policy timescales. At stage 1, it provided a late acknowledgement, more than 10 working days after the complaint was submitted. Its stage 2 response was also issued one working day late. Although these delays were relatively short, the landlord did not recognise or address them in its formal responses.

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.

Order

Landlords must comply with our order in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our order by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.   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 28 July 2026

Recommendation

Our recommendation is not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow it.

Our recommendation
The landlord should pay the resident £175 as offered in its stage 1 response, if it has not done so already. We found reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of drainage problems based on this being paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 June 2025	The resident complained about a drain blockage that remained unresolved despite several visits. She said contractors failed to complete works, changed appointments without notice, and missed a scheduled visit. She added there was poor communication and rude behaviour from staff when they chased updates, which she said caused distress and affected her wellbeing.
15 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it attended an emergency within 24 hours and made the electrics safe before instructing a drainage contractor. It completed inspections, repairs, and follow‑up works, including CCTV checks, pipe changes, and a drain bung. It arranged further works to improve drainage and prevent future leaks. It acknowledged delays, missed visits, and poor communication during the process. It apologised and offered £175 compensation.
15 July 2025	The resident escalated the complaint. She raised concerns about poor communication and the level of the customer service.
20 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged failings in communication, missed and unarranged appointments, and apologised for the service received. It maintained that the drainage works were appropriate and noted that some jobs were cancelled after the issue was reported as resolved. It said its £175 compensation offered at stage 1 was reasonable and reissued the offer.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that the landlord failed to deal with drainage issues. She said repeated visits and poor communication caused distress. As an outcome, she wanted the landlord to take accountability and improve communication and service processes, recognise learning, and provide further compensation.

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	Reports of drainage problems
Finding	Reasonable redress

8. The resident complained about delays, missed appointments and poor communication in the landlord’s handling of drainage works. In response, the landlord acknowledged inconvenience, delays, and poor communication, apologised, and offered £175 compensation. It said its contractor completed an effective repair, confirmed no ongoing drainage risk, and that its senior surveyor had reviewed and approved the works.
9. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping drains in repair. Its repairs policy set clear timescales – emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent within 5 days and routine within 28 days.
10. In cases where the landlord accepted failures, our role is to assess whether the complaint was resolved satisfactorily and whether appropriate redress was offered, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
11. The landlord responded promptly to the initial reports. After a report in April 2025 and a further report of a blocked drain in May 2025, it attended within 24 hours due to concerns about water affecting electrics. It made the electrics safe and escalated the matter to a specialist drainage contractor. Inspections, CCTV surveys and remedial works followed between late May and mid-June 2025, including excavation and installation of a new gully. These actions were appropriate and broadly in line with its policy timescales, especially given the intensive nature of some of the work.
12. When the resident reported further concerns about water pooling, the landlord investigated and explained that the drainage system was operating as intended. Nevertheless, it agreed to carry out additional works to improve water flow. These were completed by June 2025 and included installing a drain bung and realigning pipework. The evidence shows the system was left functioning correctly with no defects identified.
13. The landlord engaged with its contractor, shared updates, and reviewed the works. The contractor maintained the drainage system functioned properly and that any remaining surface water was due to rainfall, not a defect. A senior surveyor reviewed the works and found them to be of a good standard. The landlord also provided repair records with the resident during the complaint, demonstrating transparency.
14. However, the landlord also acknowledge some failings in its handling of the repairs. There were multiple appointments, including missed and poorly coordinated visits, and communication fell below expected standards. The resident reported distress linked to unplanned visits and the number of operatives attending. The landlord apologised, clarified that appointments were arranged by the contractor, and passed feedback to improve practice. It also managed expectations and cancelled further works once the system was confirmed as functioning. The £175 compensation offered aligned with our guidance for failures that caused inconvenience with no permanent impact.
15. Overall, the landlord’s response was proportionate. It completed the repairs, investigated concerns, explained its actions, and identified learning. While the resident experienced understandable frustration, the landlord’s actions in response to her complaint – apology, compensation, completed works and service improvements – reasonably remedied the complaint.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

16. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2‑stage complaints policy. It aimed to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of the acknowledgement date, and provide stage 2 responses within 20 working days. Its definition of a complaint and these response timescales were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
17. The resident complained on 4 June 2025. The landlord should have issued its stage 1 response by 25 June 2025, in line with its timescales. It did not do so. Instead, on 3 July 2025, after the original deadline had passed, it informed the resident it could not meet that deadline and set a revised response date of 17 July 2025. It then responded within that revised timeframe. Overall, this was 8 working days late. While the landlord’s update helped manage expectations, it did not acknowledge or address either the initial delay or the late notification of the extension in its response.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued one day outside its target timeframe. While the delay was minor, the landlord did not acknowledge or remedy this failing. We made an order to reflect the detriment caused, in line with our compensation guidance, which suggests awards of up to £50 where there has been a minor service failure, such as a complaint response delayed by several days that was not appropriately acknowledged.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. In this case, the landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory.

Communication

20. The landlord acknowledged that its communication fell short. It should ensure that communication with residents is consistent, timely and clear. This includes providing regular updates on progress, informing residents of any delays within policy timescales, and confirming revised deadlines.