From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

One Housing Group Limited (202314813)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314813

One Housing Group Limited

12 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of damp, mould, and a roof leak.
    2. The associated complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. She lives in a second floor flat with her husband. The resident has asthma. The resident’s husband has COPD.
  2. Both the resident and her husband had extensive involvement with the events described in this case. For ease of reference, the resident is referred to as “she” throughout this report, though at times this may be referring to the resident’s husband.
  3. The resident reports that she reported a roof leak on 23 November 2022. She called the landlord for an update on the repair on 5 December 2022. She reported that the landlord attended on 9 December 2022.
  4. On 16 January 2023 the resident reported mould in the property and that the roof leak was ongoing. The landlord attended on 20 January 2023 and carried out a mould wash. The resident wrote to remind the landlord that the leak remained unresolved on 6 February 2023.
  5. The resident complained on 12 May 2023. She said that neither the roof leak, nor the internal damage it had caused, had been fixed. She was unhappy that she had not heard from the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 May 2023.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 1 June 2023. It stated that the repairs had been completed on 4 May 2023. It apologised for the delay in completing the repair, which it advised had been from the resident’s report on 16 January 2023. It offered £100 compensation for the delays in completing the repair.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 June 2023. She disputed the landlord’s version of events and advised that no repairs had been completed to the roof. She said that the landlord had not responded to all elements of her complaint, and that the roof leak had first been raised on 23 November 2022.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 July 2023. The landlord said that the repair to the roof had not been completed on 4 May 2023, but earlier on 26 April 2023. It said that it had completed a mould wash on 30 May 2023 and that the operative “suspected the leak had not been resolved”. It advised that works would follow “soon after” the erection of a scaffold. It offered £500 compensation made up of:
    1. £100 offered at stage 1
    2. £50 for incorrect information provided at stage 1
    3. £50 for failing to complete the repair within “published timescales”
    4. £100 for failing to keep the resident updated
    5. £200 for the impact caused by delays in resolving the damp
  9. Scaffolding was erected at the property on 24 July 2023. The resident contacted this Service on the same day. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the leak, damp, and mould, adding that the £500 compensation offered was not reflective of the impact the issued had on her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident reported throughout the period of assessment that the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould directly caused, contributed to, or worsened, illnesses or health conditions. The Ombudsman cannot draw any conclusions as to the likely cause of any adverse health impacts experienced by the resident. This is better suited to the courts, where cross examinations of medical evidence can be conducted by appropriate medico-legal expert witnesses.
  2. The resident explained that the issues complained about in this case date back to 2010. The resident reports having completed the internal complaints process on a number of occasions previously. Paragraph 42.b of the Scheme however states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. The resident first approached the Ombudsman after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure in July 2023, meaning that any complaints which were concluded prior to July 2022 will not be investigated.
  3. The resident reports that although the landlord attended to complete repairs in February 2024, these were not effective. Works are ongoing but at the time of this determination remain incomplete. The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of these works after February 2024. However, the evidence suggests that there may be complex reasons behind why the works remain outstanding. The landlord has not yet had an opportunity to respond to these concerns through its internal complaints process. As such, it would not be reasonable for the Ombudsman to investigate these concerns at this time. This investigation will not assess events beyond the February 2024 repair.

Reports of damp, mould, and a roof leak

  1. In the evidence available, the water ingress experienced by the resident is often referred to as a roof leak. The landlord has not provided a surveyor’s report and the repair logs do not definitively corroborate that a roof leak is, or was, present. This report refers to a roof leak as the most likely source of water ingress, based on the evidence provided. The moisture present could have other causes. The exact cause of the damp has no bearing on the outcome of this investigation.
  2. The landlord’s Damp and Mould policy states that when damp or mould is reported, it will undertake an inspection. It will investigate to determine the cause and carry out all necessary actions in line with its Responsive Repair Policy. Investigations will be “effective”, will “correctly diagnose the cause” and result in the implementation of “all reasonable solutions and improvements” to eliminate the causes, not just “the symptom”.
  3. The policy further states that the landlord will inform the customer of the findings of the investigations, including “all necessary works, actions and the estimated timescales to complete them, keeping the customer updated throughout the process”.
  4. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states inspections will be completed within 7 calendar days. It aims to complete urgent repairs within 5 calendar days, and routine repairs within 28 calendar days. Urgent repairs are defined as repairs which are required due to “an immediate health and safety risk to our customers”.
  5. The evidence shows that resident first reported a roof leak before the landlord attended on 9 December 2022. The resident reports this as being on 23 November 2022. The repair logs shows that operatives cleared some vegetation and worked on the guttering on 9 December 2022, however there is no more detail available. This calls into question the effectiveness of the landlord’s record keeping. Due to a lack of evidence, we cannot conclude that the landlord’s actions were reasonable or that it carried out the necessary investigations under its policies.
  6. When the resident reported mould and an ongoing leak again on 16 January 2023, it was important that the landlord followed its policies to carry out thorough investigations and raise the relevant works. The landlord did not do this, opting instead to carry out a mould wash, take a moisture reading, and apply an undercoat to the affected wall. There is no evidence that the landlord surveyed the property to establish the cause, as required by its policies.
  7. The resident wrote to the landlord frequently after this date to advise that the leak remained ongoing. The landlord told the resident that a surveyor would but attend on 17 April 2023. There is no evidence this happened. Both parties agree that an operative attended on 26 April 2023, which was 100 days after the resident reported the leak again. This was a significant delay from the 7 calendar days in which it should have carried out a thorough inspection.
  8. The landlord later explained to this Service that these delays were “internally due to operative sickness, which meant the repairs had to be allocated to a contractor due to a lack of resource”. While it is understandable that this may contribute to some delays, there is no evidence that the resident was kept updated.
  9. The landlord later said in its stage 2 response that it had successfully completed the necessary repairs during the visit on 26 April 2023. The resident disputed this, saying that only a temporary repair was completed, after which it advised that “urgent works” were needed. There is no evidence aside from the account of both parties that this visit took place, raising further concerns about the landlord’s record keeping.
  10. It is likely from a description in the landlord’s repair logs, that the visit was recorded in error as having taken place on 4 May 2023. This repair log, alongside internal landlord emails from 27 April 2023, support the resident’s account that further works were required. However, there is no evidence that these were raised. This again demonstrates that the landlord’s record keeping was not effective and that it failed to appropriately monitor the records which it did have.
  11. The resident continued to request that repairs be completed throughout May 2023. On 30 May 2023 the landlord completed a mould wash. The mould wash had first been raised on 19 April 2023, with a target date of 17 May 2023, in line with its Responsive Repairs Policy. This delay therefore reflected a failing.
  12. As a result of the visit on 30 May 2023, further works were raised. This included the need for a scaffold and specialist roofing contractors. At the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the works remained outstanding.
  13. The landlord recorded the repairs as complete on 29 September 2023, but that this was later found to be inaccurate. This suggests that the landlord did not identify and learn from its earlier record keeping failings.
  14. The landlord completed the repairs on 15 February 2024, which was at least 14 months after the resident reported the leak. Although it had multiple opportunities to do so, it did not raise these works until January 2024. It explained that these further delays had been in “approving the quote due to high cost”. It is unclear what this meant and represents a further failing.
  15. The evidence indicates the resident spent time and trouble trying to get the landlord to take action, which should not have been necessary. The evidence reflects that the landlord frequently failed to adhere to its policies and procedures, including keeping the resident updated, adding to her frustration and inconvenience. The resident described how this undermined her relationship with the landlord.
  16. The landlord offered £450 compensation in July 2023for its handling of the repairs at the property. This could have been sufficient to resolve the resident’s complaint, because the offer was consistent with our guidance on remedies.
  17. However, the works were not completed and many of the failings experienced later reoccurred. It took the landlord a further 7 months to complete the repairs.
  18. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that where “a serious failure in service has taken place over a prolonged period of time, or (there have been) an unacceptable number of attempts to resolve the complaint”, compensation of between £500 and £1,000 should be considered.
  19. In conclusion, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp, mould, and a roof leak at the property. This is because:
    1. The length of the delays highlighted in this case were extensive
    2. There were repeated unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issues and poor communication with the resident
    3. The failings resulted in excessive time, trouble, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, extending beyond the date of the landlord’s final complaint response
  20. The landlord is ordered to pay £600 compensation to the resident to reflect the continued poor handling of the repairs following the landlord’s stage 2 response. This is consistent with our guidance on remedies where there have been significant failures.
  21. The resident has since reported that a dedicated damp and mould team have taken over the resident’s case. She reported that works are due to take place. The Ombudsman has ordered that the landlord provide details of these works in the form of an action plan. Timescales have been included so that, if it has not done so already, investigations as well as any works necessary are completed without delay.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the expectations the landlord must meet in its complaint handling. The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. The Code states that landlords should respond to all elements of a complaint.
  2. The landlord did not respond to all elements of the resident’s complaint, namely her dissatisfaction that the landlord said it would not redecorate the property. The resident advised the landlord of this after receiving the stage 1 complaint acknowledgement on 22 May 2023, but the landlord did not respond to it in its stage 1 response. She repeated this in her escalation request, but the landlord again failed to respond to it in its stage 2 response. The reasons for this are unclear. This was a failing.
  3. On 5 May 2023 the Ombudsman determined case202112363. We ordered the landlord to conduct a senior management review into issues highlighted in that case, including its failure to address key complaint issues in line with the Code. Therefore, it is not necessary to order further learning in this regard.
  4. The resident has since advised that this element of her complaint has been resolved. It did however cause additional frustration, time and trouble to the resident. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance states that where a failing has had a short-term impact on a resident causing unnecessary time and trouble, £50 compensation should be considered.
  5. At both stages of the landlord’s complaint process, it provided inaccurate information to the resident. For example, the dates when it attended and its conclusion that the repairs had been completed. The landlord missed multiple opportunities to put this right. It is likely from the evidence that the landlord’s record keeping was responsible for these failings. The resident reported that in later complaint responses, the landlord again provided inaccurate information, suggesting that the landlord may not have learned from this complaint. There was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  6. The landlord offered £50 compensation at stage 2 of the complaints process, because it had given inaccurate information at stage 1. This was appropriate. However, it failed to learn from outcomes or put right its further failings at stage 2. It is reasonable therefore that the landlord pays the same amount again in respect of providing inaccurate information at stage 2 of the complaints process. In addition to the £50 noted above to reflect the resident’s time and trouble as a result of the failings in complaint handling, the landlord is ordered to pay £150 compensation for its complaint handling. The £50 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.

Record keeping

  1. The landlord has a duty to keep and maintain accurate records. As noted throughout this report, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord has frequently failed in this regard. This has significantly impacted the service it has provided in handling repairs, communication, and complaints.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on complaints about repairs was published in March 2019. It states that it is “vital landlord’s keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records”. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) was published in May 2023. It states that “failing to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify [failings], and contributes to inadequate communication and redress”. Both were reflected in this case.
  3. In addition to the complaint handling failings already highlighted throughout this report, there were further failings which impacted this investigation. For example, although the evidence shows regular telephone contact between the resident and landlord over a prolonged period, no call logs were provided. In addition, although multiple surveyors are known to have attended the resident’s property, no surveyor’s reports were provided. There are events which took place which both the landlord and resident agree happened on a certain date, which are not reflected in the landlord’s own records. For example, that scaffolding was erected on 24 July 2023, though the repair logs suggest it was erected in September 2023.
  4. In conclusion, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping, which greatly impacted the service it provided to the resident in both complaint handling and repairs. The adverse effect to the resident has been considered in respect of the other complaint definitions, therefore there are no further orders made in this regard to put things right.
  5. On 20 March 2024 the Ombudsman determined case 202219629. It ordered the landlord to identify learnings from the record keeping failings we found in that case and implement identified changes, with reference to Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management. The failings seen in this case took place prior to March 2024, therefore it would not be productive to make further learning orders at this time.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp, mould, and a roof leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within for weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £1,050 compensation, made up of:
      1. £900 in respect of its handling of damp, mould, and a roof leak. The £450 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.
      2. £150 in respect of its complaint handling. The £50 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.
    2. Issue the resident with a written apology for the failings highlighted in this report. The apology should be issued by a senior manager.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Produce an action plan setting out what investigations and/or works need to be completed to tackle the damp, mould, and water ingress at the property. It should clearly set out the timescales in which it will complete these actions and provide a copy to both the Ombudsman and the resident. Any actions should include a copy of the evidence (such as surveyor’s reports) relied upon to inform them. If these investigations have not yet been carried out, these must be done within 8 weeks, and a second action plan produced within a further 8 weeks.