One Housing Group Limited (202318113)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318113

One Housing Group Limited

30 June 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. Communication with the resident.
2. The resident’s reports of concerns about fire safety.
3. The resident’s enquiries about service charges.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bed fourth floor flat under a shared ownership lease that was transferred to her on 1 December 2021. The resident owns 25% of her property.
The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for this resident. In correspondence with this Service, the resident said that the ongoing issues had caused her to feel depressed, anxious, and stressed.
Throughout her formal complaint process and the escalation to the Ombudsman, the resident’s father has been supporting her. Within this determination all references to ‘the resident’ should be read as being the actions of the resident or her father, respectively.
Several parties manage, in combination, the resident’s property, as set out below:
1. The freeholder of the property owns the property, including the structural elements and communal areas. The freeholder is known as the ‘superior landlord’ and is responsible for the setting of rent and service charges and for providing maintenance and communal services to the block, such as cleaning or grounds maintenance. The superior landlord is also responsible for fire safety management within the block.
2. The superior landlord has delegated the day-to-day running of the services it provides to a managing agent. The managing agent acts on the superior landlord’s behalf to undertake the communal services and collect the rent and service charges that have been set from the landlord.
3. The landlord (One Housing Group Limited) leases the resident’s property from the superior landlord under what is known as a ‘head lease’. In turn, the landlord leases the property to the resident. The landlord is responsible for collecting the rent and service charges from the residents, divided proportionately and passing this on the superior landlord, via its managing agent. The landlord does not set or manage the amount of service charge or rent.
4. The resident leases her property from the landlord and operates under the terms of her lease agreement, including committing to pay the rent and service charge apportioned to her property, by the superior landlord. The resident is responsible for paying her contribution of the charges to her landlord, in order that this can be passed back to the superior landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer on 8 September 2022 and said:
1. She was unclear on the management structure between the superior landlord, managing agent and landlord.
2. There had been poor customer service from the landlord, including no communication from the landlord since taking over the property until now. The resident said that she had made over 20 phone calls and sent over 30 emails, which went unanswered until mid–August.
3. She was unable to pay her rent or service charges until August, as she had not been set up with an account to do this, despite requesting this on numerous occasions.
4. There had been a “worrying” increase in rent and service charges. The resident said this equated to a 7.6% increase in rent and 12.7% increase in service charges, since the start of her lease.
5. She was concerned about fire safety in the block, particularly in relation to a locked fire door which separated the east and west blocks. She said that this left residents in her block with only one route of escape in the event of a fire.
6. Residents within the eastern block (where the resident’s property is located) did not have access to the gym or roof terrace, despite paying equal or more service charge than residents in the western block.
The landlord responded on 30 September 2022. It said:
1. It offered its “sincere and unreserved apologies for the difficulties [the resident] described experiencing when attempting to contact One Housing”.
2. Its communication “was not as it should have been”. The landlord explained its targets for returning communication received, for example it said that emails should have been responded to within 2 working days. It said that complex enquiries should have been responded to within 10 working days.
3. There was a range of parties involved in managing the property. The landlord explained the roles of each party, such as the managing agent and superior landlord.
4. The service charge formula can be found in Schedule 5 of the resident’s lease. It said that the rent was based on the retail price index plus 0.5%, as set by the government. It explained that service charges were set by the managing agent, on behalf of the superior landlord.
5. It had attached all previous service charge calculation booklets issued during the resident’s period of living in the property.
6. It had requested a more detailed breakdown of the service charge amounts from the superior landlord and would pass this on to the resident.
7. The superior landlord was responsible for fire safety in the block. Its managing agent conducted the fire risk assessments annually, in line with the requirements of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. It said the managing agent had last completed this on 24 January 2022.
8. It had raised the fire safety concerns with the managing agent, who had advised the following in return:
  1. There was a ‘stay put’ evacuation process in place in the event of a fire.
  2. Travel via the western block route was longer. It said that evacuation should always be via the shortest route.
  3. The eastern block had a protected stairwell, which was insulated against fire in the event of an emergency, and this provided the best route of escape.
9. Residents were not charged, via the service charge, for any facilities which they did not have access to, such as the gym or roof terrace.
The resident remained dissatisfied and submitted a formal complaint on 26 October 2022. Within the complaint she resubmitted the points that had previously been made in the correspondence to the landlord’s CEO.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 November 2022. It said:
1. It had reviewed its records and could not find any missed emails since 30 September 2022. It said that it had previously apologised for poor communication prior to this in its response on 30 September 2022.
2. The managing agent billed the landlord for services, who then in turn passed this on to sub-lessees, such as the resident. It did not provide these services or set the level of service charge levied.
3. The service charge costs had increased by around £10,000 from the previous year, largely due to inflation, but also due to increased premiums on buildings insurance, which was legally required. The landlord provided copies of the service charge budget for the previous two years.
4. There was some difference between the amounts of service charge paid by different residents as there was a mix of ‘affordable rent’ and non-affordable rent properties within the scheme, who pay service charge separately. In particular, there were more residents managed under non-affordable rent schemes, and therefore the costs could be divided between more properties.
5. It was speaking with other large landlords and undertaking a consultation with the government around the cost of living and the level of rent cap increase.
6. The managing agent had provided the building fire risk assessment and fire strategy. The landlord’s own fire safety team was reviewing this.
7. It had visited the property on 15 November 2022 to investigate the resident’s fire safety concerns. It offered to meet with the resident on site to discuss this further.
8. The managing agent had confirmed the fire safety arrangements were sufficient. The landlord outlined these arrangements to the resident and gave specific details of what the resident should do in the event of an emergency.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 5 December 2022 as she remained dissatisfied with the responses given to her previous complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 January 2023. The landlord reaffirmed its position given in its stage 1 complaint response and re-offered to attend the site the explain the fire safety arrangements in person with the resident.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 15 September 2023 seeking:
1. Improve communications and responses from the landlord.
2. An independent assessment of the fire safety concerns raised.
3. An independent investigation of practices related to the threshold of service charges set and the level of increases.
4. Retraction of a previous demand for service charge arrears.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As part of her complaint, the resident has raised concerns about the payment and levels of service charges.
Paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
On this basis, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the service charge complaint and its communication with the resident, but we will not consider the level or increase of any service charge payments.
This Services understands that the resident raised this element of the complaint with the First Tier (Property Chamber) Tribunal for a judgement in December 2023. Specifically, the case wished to consider the level of service charge and reasonableness of the increases. It is noted that the resident withdrew this case in June 2023 as she had concerns about incurring legal costs.
The only body that can determine the fairness of any service amount or increase is the First Tier (Property Chamber) Tribunal. On this basis, if the resident remains dissatisfied about this element of the complaint, she may wish to consider taking legal advice about reopening her case or initiating a new case with the Tribunal.

Communication with the resident

It is not disputed by either party that there was poor communication from the landlord prior to September 2022. This resident said that the issues included:
1. No contact from the landlord from the time she bought the property in December 2021 until August 2022.
2. Over 20 phone calls and 30 emails had gone unanswered.
3. That she had not been set up with a payment account to make payments on her rent and service charges, despite requesting this on numerous occasions. This was then worsened when the landlord issues an arrears notice for this amount.
Within the landlord’s initial response, complaint responses and internally, the evidence shows that it acknowledged that its communication had been poor. This included:
1. Offering “sincere and unreserved apologies for the difficulties [the resident] described experiencing when attempting to contact [the landlord]”.
2. Acknowledging that its communication with the resident after she moved into the property “was not as it should have been”.
3. Acknowledging that “there was a delay in setting up the new resident’s account […] which was due to staff shortages”. It said that it had tried to rectify this as soon as possible however there were queries over the “eligible services” which delayed this further.
4. Noting that the “account was set up but then the [resident] was not contacted to set up the direct debit”.
This combination of communication errors meant that the resident received no contact from the landlord for around 8 months after moving into the property. As a result of incorrect action being taken to set up her payment account, she was also left in a deficit and then required to pay this off in bulk at a later date. In addition, the resident described feeling frustrated and losing trust in the landlord.
In response to these concerns, the evidence shows that the landlord:
1. Offered an apology from a senior officer for the poor communication experienced.
2. Sent flowers and offered a £50 goodwill gesture for the delays in setting up the payment account.
3. Explained its service standards for responding to communications and said that it would work to meet these in future.
4. Checked its records from the time of the complaint onwards and noted that it had no missed calls or emails from the resident after this point. It said that it had previously apologised for failures prior to this.
5. Recognised that it was not required to send a leaseholder welcome pack, as the property was a re-sale property. It said that any legal information and property details should have been provided by the previous resident’s solicitor as part of the sale and purchase of the property.
Taking these factors together, there was a pattern of repeated poor communication with the resident over significant elements of her lease and financial arrangements with the landlord. This can only but have caused the resident distress and inconvenience, which could have been avoided. While the landlord has made some steps to provide redress, it has not taken any action to address the underlying communication failures or provided sufficient financial redress to account for the longstanding failures and significant financial impact that this had on the resident.
On this basis, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident. The landlord must now review its processes for handling communication, including staff training and record keeping. It must also pay further compensation to the resident. Orders and recommendations have been made in this regard below.

Fire safety

Under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022, the freeholder of a property is the ‘responsible person’ for fire safety within the property. In this case, this is the superior landlord. The superior landlord is entitled to delegate the operational completion of fire safety arrangements, such as fire risk assessments, to its managing agent and/or the landlord as ‘duty holders’.
In these cases, the managing agent or landlord are only responsible “to the extent of their control over the premises”. In other words, the landlord is only responsible for the parts of the property over which it has a legal right. In this case, this is the resident’s flat only and does not extend into the communal areas, as these are the responsibility of the superior landlord and its managing agent.
The resident said in her complaints that she was concerned that a fire door between the eastern and western blocks was locked. In the event of a fire, she felt that this reduced the options for escape and put her, and other residents, at risk.
The evidence shows that the landlord took the following action in response to the resident’s concerns following her initial contact to the landlord’s CEO:
1. It passed on the resident’s concerns to the managing agent for comment.
2. It relayed a response from the managing agent’s fire risk assessor to the resident which explained:
  1. The building operated a ‘stay put’ evacuation process, due to the protective measures in place.
  2. The eastern side of the block (where the resident’s property is located) had a shorter evacuation travel time than the western side. On this basis, the western side required two routes, whereas the resident’s side only required one route.
  3. The resident’s escape route included a protected stairwell, which is insulated against fire risks. It said this provided “suitable egress to a place of ultimate safety [and that …] this can be considered satisfactory due to the number of flats in this area and the protected staircase”.
  4. The restricted doors were in place as part of “building security control procedures”. The managing agent said it would consider whether magnetic locks could be fitted, which would open in the event of an emergency.
3. It provided the resident with the building’s fire risk assessment and fire strategy documents. The landlord confirmed that these were completed annually in line with the requirements of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. It said this was last completed on 24 January 2022.
4. It explained the management structure within the building and which parties were responsible for fire safety.
5. It offered for its senior property service manager to conduct a site visit to look at the concerns in more detail if the resident was still concerned following the managing agent’s response.
Within its complaint responses the landlord confirmed it had taken the following further actions:
1. Undertaken a site visit on 15 November 2022 to consider the resident’s concerns.
2. Had arranged for its own internal fire safety team to review the building’s fire risk assessment, which was produced by the managing agent.
3. Gave the resident specific fire evacuation advice in its stage 1 complaint response.
4. Offered to meet the resident at the property to discuss the fire arrangements in more detail in its stage 1 complaint response and reiterated this in its stage 2 complaint response.
Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord actioned the resident’s concerns in a timely way by raising this with the managing agent. In turn, it relayed the comments it received back in detail and undertook its own site visit and assessment of the fire risk assessment. It offered the resident further, in person visits, to offer advice and reassurance. Ultimately, the landlord was entitled to rely on the professional advice it received from the managing agent’s fire risk assessor; however, it also went further to independently review this with its internal fire safety team.
Taking these factors together, there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.

Enquiries regarding service charges

Under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, developers of newly built properties can be subject to ‘planning obligations’ by the local authority. These obligations can specify how the land must be used, or restrict its use, and may be subject to certain conditions or timescales.
The resident’s property is subject to a Section 106 planning obligation dated 27 October 2005 which specifies that a certain percentage of the properties in the development must be allocated for ‘affordable housing’. The developer selected the landlord to provide these shared-ownership affordable housing properties.
As previously outlined, the landlord is not the freeholder (owner) of the building and the freeholder has also delegated many day-to-day management aspects to its managing agent. This included the provision of services and the collection of rent and service charges from occupiers.
As part of her complaints and general correspondence, the resident made enquiries with the landlord regarding the levels and increases of service charges. The resident felt that the service charge increases were “worrying” and represented a 7.6% increase in rent and 12.7% increase in service charge. The resident also felt that there was insufficient justification or evidence provided for these increases, particularly within the context of the cost-of-living crisis at the time.
Within the resident’s lease agreement, Schedule 5 outlines the formulae used by the landlord to calculate rent increases, based on the ‘affordable rent’ calculation and Section 7 outlines the right to levy service charges based on costs incurred. While the amount of service charge and rent has not been considered by this Service, the process has been considered below.
In response to the resident’s concerns, the evidence shows that the landlord:
1. Explained the service charge calculation process and how this was divided between residents. This included information about the liabilities of transferred charges between leaseholders when a property is bought and sold.
2. Provided copies of all service charge accounts since the time the resident occupied the property.
3. Provided a copy of the Head Lease agreement between the landlord and the superior landlord.
4. Provided the Section 106 agreement.
5. Relayed the resident’s concerns about service charges to the managing agent. In particular, the landlord requested a more comprehensive breakdown of the services provided and the charges levied. It is unclear if this was ever provided and a recommendation has been made in respect of this below.
Notwithstanding the actions taken above, it is noted that there were communication failures by the landlord in relation to the timeliness and accuracy of information sent to the resident. This has been assessed in a previous section of this report and will not be addressed again here.
Overall, the landlord was not responsible for the setting of service charge levels or any subsequent increases. It also did not provide the services which were being charged for. On this basis, by providing the resident with the information she requested, sending copies of all relevant documentation and referring her concerns to the managing agent, it has acted reasonably in this case. It was also positive to note that the landlord was undertaking wider engagement with other landlords and with government over the affordability of the rent cap increases.
Taking these factors together, there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Scheme there has been:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of communication with the resident.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns about fire safety.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about service charges.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £400 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble spent pursuing the landlord to set up her payment account. This compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her accounts, unless she requests this. If the landlord has paid the £50 it previously offered (or any part of it), it may deduct this from the compensation ordered above.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to undertake a case review to:
1. Identify the root causes of the failure to set up the resident’s payment account why an arrears letter was sent out in error, despite requests from the resident to pay over a protracted period.
2. Identify what impact, if any, the landlord’s systems and record keeping had on tracing and responding to the resident’s enquiries.
3. Assess what learning and process changes are required to prevent a reoccurrence of these delays. The landlord must compile an action plan showing how it will implement any learning or changes identified in a period not exceeding a further 8 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Provide the resident with the detailed service and service charge breakdown that it requested from the managing agent, if it has not already done so.
2. Continue to liaise with the managing agent and superior landlord regarding any ongoing concerns that the resident has regarding the service charge levels, services provided or fire safety arrangements.
3. Provide new residents in cases of resale such as this with an overview of the management structures within the block to clearly identify the roles, responsibilities and legal obligations of the landlord, managing agent and superior landlord.
4. Support the resident with information to assist her to re-open or raise a new claim to the First Tier (Property Chamber) Tribunal, if she wishes to do so.