Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

One Housing Group Limited (202322111)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322111

One Housing Group Limited

25 April 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 the resident’s reports of a leak in her property.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord and occupies a 4-bedroom maisonette in a block of flats. She lives with her husband and 5 children. The landlord has confirmed there are no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
  2. The resident first reported a leak affecting the ground floor of her property on or around 3 April 2023. After numerous attendances by various contractors, the source of the leak was eventually identified as a severed soil pipe on 12 June 2023. Records suggest the leak was eventually resolved by the freeholder of the building on or around 26 June 2023.
  3. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the leak in an email dated 1 May 2023. She said:
    1. It had been 4 weeks since the ceiling in the living room started leaking. She had called the landlord every day in the morning and evening, but the issue had not been resolved and the leak had spread to her bedroom.
    2. Several contractors had attended. Some attributed the leak to the bathtub while others said the cause was the heating and hot water system, which they had switched off, so she had been without heating and hot water for the past month.
    3. The leak was causing mould and “a mouldy smell” and was damaging her flooring, furniture and personal possessions. She had put “buckets everywhere to try and reduce the damage”.
    4. Her boiler room had mould on one side of the wall.
    5. She had 3 children under the age of 16 years and this was negatively affecting their health and hers.
    6. There was also a leak in the corridor outside her neighbour’s property (“Flat A”) and she asked the landlord to urgently fix all 3 leaks.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 18 May 2023, detailed the multiple repairs orders that had been raised in respect of the leak and the numerous attendances by it and its contractors throughout April and May. It stated:
    1. An inspection of the resident’s home on 15 May 2023 found signs of a leak at low level to the bathroom on the first floor, which in turn was leaking down into her ground floor rooms. Standing water was noted around the stack pipe behind the bath but the source of the leak was not detected.
    2. The surveyor found no signs of a leak in Flat A, but a leak could possibly be ongoing in the pipes behind the panelling to the property.
    3. On 17 May 2023, a contractor used a pump to remove standing water around the stack to the resident’s bathroom. This “filled up again within a couple of minutes”, indicating the leak was somewhere on the first floor.
    4. The contractor would arrange an appointment to access the resident’s property, Flat A and another property (“Flat B”), along with a heating engineer, to investigate leaks that could be affecting the resident.
    5. It acknowledged difficulties in tracing the leak. It sincerely apologised for the time it was taking to resolve this issue and the resulting impact on the resident and her family. It also apologised for “the damages that have occurred and for the lack of communication” with the resident.
    6. It had expressed to its teams the importance of timely communication with residents, ownership in such cases, and following up on actions.
    7. With regard to damages to personal items, residents were strongly encouraged to take out contents insurance as the landlord’s policy did not cover these. However, if the resident provided receipts for the damaged items, consideration would be given to these items.
    8. Once the leak was rectified, it would:
      1. Undertake all works necessary to make good the damage to the resident’s property once sufficient drying time had been allowed.
      2. Calculate a payment, in line with its policy, at £3 per day for the loss of heating and hot water based on the number of days the resident had been without each service.
      3. Address the resident’s request for compensation considering the overall delay in completing the final repair and making good.
  5. The resident responded on 31 May 2023, saying she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because the contractors it had sent to her property “have no idea what they are doing” and, instead, asked her where the leak was. She said her neighbours at Flat B and another property in the block (“Flat C”) had not been contacted by the surveyor, as advised to her. She and her neighbour at Flat A had been contacted and waited all day but no one attended. She noted it had been 9 weeks since the leak started and she was disappointed with the “constant delay” in repairing it. She reiterated that the leak was damaging her personal Items, the mould was getting worse, and it was affecting her and her children’s health. She asked for her complaint to be reviewed by a senior manager.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 June 2023, which stated:
    1. Its contractor had accessed and ruled out a leak in 2 of the neighbours’ properties. However, investigation of rising damp on the communal wall next to one of those properties (“Flat D”) found a 4-inch soil pipe was leaking. A temporary fix was undertaken as the full repair required significant works.
    2. It was arranging the necessary access to Flat D and the void space above adjoining commercial premises to repair the pipe. It expected works to begin on 19 June 2023 and the repair to be fully completed by 30 June 2023.
    3. It accepted and apologised for its failure to follow agreed processes, which had delayed the repair. It acknowledged it had failed to meet its published service offer to complete repairs within 28 days of the job being logged. It had also failed to keep the resident updated and progress the work in a timely fashion, causing the resident inconvenience, all of which was avoidable.
    4. Further training was required around monitoring and reviewing follow-on works, and it had addressed this with the scheduling team and staff member involved.
    5. In line with its compensation policy, it offered £300 compensation, which comprised:
      1. £50 for failing to complete a qualifying repair under the Right to Repair scheme within 28 days.
      2. £100 for the poor communication with the resident around this repair.
      3. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident and damage to her personal belongings, primarily her flooring.
  7. The resident rejected the compensation offered on 23 June 2023, saying the cost of replacing her damaged belongings would be up to £10,000. She submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman on 26 September 2023. She told us her property was uninhabitable as a result of a “major leak coming from the flats upstairs” and this had caused significant damage to her property and contents. She said “the place stinks” of mould and the landlord was refusing to pay for any damage. She advised she had sustained an injury after a fall due to the leak and she had been affected physically and mentally. She had 4 children under 20 years old who, she said, had also suffered. She has told us she would like compensation for her damaged belongings and felt the amount offered at stage 2 was inadequate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman recognises that this situation caused the resident and her family significant distress as the leak was ongoing for several weeks. Where we find failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish the cause of any health issue, or determine liability and award damages for any health impacts or damage to personal belongings. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. It is understood the resident is taking independent legal advice in relation to personal injury and damaged personal possessions, although formal proceedings have not yet been issued. Therefore, our assessment does not consider these matters further.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in her property

  1. The head lease provides that the freeholder will “maintain in a good state of repair and condition… any common pipes wires drains channels watercourses waterways and service conduits in under or over the Block or the Estate”. The freeholder is also responsible for insuring against, among other things, “bursting and overflowing of pipes”.
  2. The landlord’s internal email of 10 July 2023 stated that it was not aware of the freeholder. This was a significant oversight and points to a key failing on the landlord’s part. This may explain why the freeholder’s obligations were not referenced in the resident’s tenancy agreement, which noted the landlord’s obligation to “keep in repair and proper working order any installations provided by the Association for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity, including… waste pipes”.
  3. Due to its lack of awareness of the freeholder’s role and responsibilities, the landlord failed to engage them at the earliest opportunity or at all. This likely contributed to the delays in resolving the leak for the resident.
  4. From April to June 2023, the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports relating to the leak in her property under its responsive repairs policy. This provides the following repair timescales:
    1. Emergency repairs – including “Burst plumbing or flood or leak that cannot be contained” – to be attended and made safe within 12 hours and any follow-up work to be completed “within a reasonable timeframe”.
    2. Urgent repairs – which include “Severe, visible mould on internal plastered surfaces, such as ceilings or walls“ – to be completed in 5 calendar days.
    3. Routine repairs to be completed in 28 calendar days.
  5. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to deal with the leak in an effective and timely manner. Repair records indicate several contractor attendances throughout April 2023, identifying multiple and “uncontrollable” leaks. Repeated recommendations by the attending contractors for “a full investigation” to trace the leak were not actioned, even though jobs were raised as emergency 12-hour repairs and were marked as “completed”. This demonstrates the landlord’s failure to appropriately monitor the outcome of contractor visits and inadequate oversight to ensure recommendations were followed up.
  6. The severity of the leak was noted in the landlord’s internal email of 26 April 2023: “Masses of water. Pooling under the bath creating a belly of water dripping down in multiple places on the ground floor of the maisonette/flat… This leak also travels, I believe down the corridor and drips in the communal area.” The contractor’s email to the landlord on 2 May 2023 also reported “many active leaks everywhere”. Despite this, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord exercised the necessary urgency to progress investigations into the cause of the leak.
  7. There is no evidence of any communications or updates from the landlord to the resident in April 2023. Records show that the resident repeatedly reported the leak and chased the landlord for progress and updates, culminating in her complaint on 1 May 2023. Although the landlord appeared to acknowledge its poor communication in internal emails, the resident was not updated until it provided its stage 1 response on 18 May 2023. This was unsatisfactory.
  8. Some of the information in the stage 1 response is not reflected in the repair records provided to the Ombudsman, which may point to a record keeping issue. For instance, it was noted that the primary flow and return to the boiler was turned off on 3 April 2023, and subsequent attendances found the leak was still active despite the primary and secondary flow and return being switched off. While this is not reflected in the evidence available to us, it is consistent with the resident’s assertion that she was without heating and hot water from the beginning of April 2023 until after the leak was resolved.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 May 2023 to advise that an appointment arranged for 19 May 2023 to find the source of the leak had not been attended. However, the landlord’s internal email of 23 May 2023 suggests that the contractor had attended but was unable to gain access to Flats A and B. It would have been good practice for the contractor to update the resident of this. Their failure to do so was unreasonable and added to her frustration.
  10. On occasion, the landlord’s poor communications with the resident led to a mis-management of her expectations and avoidable delay in progressing the investigation of the leak. For example, the repair records suggest that, on 26 May 2023, the resident told the landlord she was “home all day tomorrow” for an appointment to trace the leak. This was raised as a routine 28-day repair, which was inappropriate given the delays up to this point. Additionally, this was not explained to the resident. When the contractor attended on 30 May 2023, they reported that they could not access the property as only a minor was present.
  11. Despite multiple further attendances by numerous contractors across several properties in the block, the leak in the resident’s property was not resolved. This represents a failure by the landlord to conduct urgent and robust investigations into the course of the leak. The concern, distress and frustration this caused to the resident and her family was notable in her stage 2 escalation request.
  12. On 2 June 2023, the contractor advised the landlord that leaks on the resident’s and a neighbour’s heating systems had been isolated and the leak in the resident’s property had stopped. However, the resident’s email of the same date and all other evidence available to the Ombudsman suggest the leak was still ongoing. The Ombudsman appreciates there were multiple leaks affecting the block, which complicated matters and made it difficult to identify the source of the water ingress in the resident’s property. Nevertheless, the landlord did not demonstrate the necessary urgency in investigating and resolving the continuing leak for the resident.
  13. The landlord’s email exchanges with one of the contractors on 9 June 2023 indicated the resident’s dissatisfaction with an attending operative, although it is not clear from this record what happened. Consequently, the contractor cancelled an appointment scheduled for 12 June 2023 and suggested passing the job to another contractor. This demonstrates further inconvenience to the resident.
  14. A report dated 12 June 2023 from another contractor identified a severed soil pipe in a communal wall outside Flat D. Despite the landlord seeking an urgent repair, the contractor offered to attend on 26 and 27 June 2023. Arguably, the landlord should have done more to try to arrange an earlier appointment. However, as it happened, the freeholder intervened and duly resolved the leak.
  15. Meanwhile, the resident had reported damp and mould throughout her property on 25 May 2023. The landlord’s repair records indicate its contractor attended after 20 days, on 13 June 2023, which was beyond the 5-day timeframe specified in its responsive repairs policy. The contractor reported, “There is mould on the ceiling in the hallway, dining room, upstairs bathroom, boiler room and also water is dripping through the ceiling… water is still leaking through the living room ceiling.” There is no evidence the landlord followed this up. It ought reasonably to have done so, perhaps after the leak had been resolved, as damp and mould is a potential hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
  16. The landlord’s repair records show that the “no access” appointment of 30 May 2023 was re-raised in the same terms as the original job, with the wording suggesting that the resident was available for an appointment the following day. This was inaccurate and potentially confusing. That said, there was no detriment to the resident as a consequence of this. The resulting contractor attendance did, however, highlight the resident’s continued frustration with the outstanding leak repair: “tenant refuse to let me in and said don’t send no one to her door again leak has gotten worse and has destroy house”.
  17. The resident has told the Ombudsman that the freeholder became involved when they attended Flat C about an issue and that neighbour informed them that the resident had been experiencing a leak for months. She says they traced and fixed the leak in a couple of weeks. Although it is not clear exactly when the freeholder became involved, the landlord’s internal email dated 3 July 2023 referred to an incoming call confirming that the leak had been fixed on 26 June 2023.
  18. In addition to its failings in resolving the leak and its poor communication, the landlord failed to use its complaints procedure as an effective tool for resolving the resident’s concerns. Although it provided its complaint responses within the timescales provided in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, it did not take the opportunity to meaningfully rectify its handling of the substantive issue or demonstrate it took sufficient learning from the failings it had identified. Further, the compensation offered at stage 2 did not consider the time the resident had been without heating and hot water, as it said it would do at stage 1, nor did it reflect the substantial impact the leak had on the resident and her family for 12 weeks. This was not consistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles – be fair, learn from outcomes, and put things right.
  19. The resident has submitted a number of videos and photographs to the Ombudsman to show the state of her property while the leak was ongoing. While it is not clear when the majority of these were taken, 2 of the videos are dated 22 and 23 June 2023. The videos and photographs show an active and widespread leak, with water dripping from several places in the ceiling into various containers and also splashing onto the floor. It is apparent that the leak affected a number of rooms – a bathroom, a bedroom, a living/dining room, a hallway and a storage cupboard. There is visible damp and mould on the ceiling and walls and water damage to flooring, skirting boards and furniture.
  20. The scale of the leak clearly had a significant impact on the resident’s and her family’s use and enjoyment of the property. The Ombudsman is satisfied the leak was sufficiently serious that the living/dining room and ground floor bedroom were unusable until the leak was resolved. The resident has also told us that living without heating and hot water was particularly difficult for her and her family while they observed the month of Ramadan, which ended on or around 20 April 2023. In the circumstances, the offer of £300 compensation – which suggests medium impact under the landlord’s compensation policy – was inadequate. The resident’s requests for reconsideration of the compensation to take account of the serious impact of the leak were refused by the landlord, which was a missed opportunity.
  21. Where a resident alleges that a landlord is responsible for health impacts and/or damage to their personal belongings, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to signpost them to its insurance team or process. This is because insurers specialise in determining matters of liability. Insurance claims can be time sensitive, so it is best practice for a landlord to refer the resident to the relevant process as soon as possible.
  22. Given its multiple failings in its handling of the leak, it was inappropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to her own contents insurer in relation to her damaged personal belongings. It also failed to address her claims of health impacts to her and her family. Its omission in this regard was unfair and inconsistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. That said, the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord subsequently identified its oversight and, on 2 August 2023, invited the resident to provide further information so that its insurer could consider her claims.
  23. Overall, it is appropriate to make a finding of severe maladministration because:
    1. The landlord was not aware of the freeholder’s role and repair obligations and, consequently, failed to engage them at the earliest opportunity or at all.
    2. The resident’s reports relating to the leak, damp and mould were not dealt with in line with the timescales set out in the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
    3. Despite multiple attendances by the landlord and its contractors in April and May 2023, the leak could not be traced. The landlord did not monitor the outcome of contractor visits or follow up on recommendations. It failed to take effective and timely action to investigate and resolve the leak for the resident.
    4. The resident was left without heating and hot water for 12 weeks while she waited for the leak to be traced and fixed.
    5. The landlord’s communications with the resident, and those of its contractors, were poor throughout and she repeatedly chased it for progress and updates.
    6. The landlord did not initially signpost the resident to its insurance process, as it should have done, in response to her claims of health impacts and damage to her personal belongings.
    7. The landlord did not utilise its complaints procedure as an effective tool for resolving the resident’s concerns.
    8. The compensation offered at stage 2 suggested medium impact to the resident. It did not adequately reflect the severe and long-term impact of the leak on her and her family and the time the household had been without heating and hot water.
  24. No orders have been made for any remedial works to the resident’s property as it is understood the freeholder completed works to make good the damage caused by the leak. Similarly, in line with the scope of the investigation established above, the remedies ordered do not take into account personal injury, health impacts or damage to personal belongings.
  25. The resident has told the Ombudsman she has an open plan living room/kitchen/diner and it is understood the living/dining area was affected for the full 12-week period the leak remained unresolved. The resident reported that the leak had spread to her bedroom on 1 May 2023, meaning this was affected for 8 weeks until the leak was resolved. The videos and photographs show the extent of the leak in these rooms was sufficiently serious to render them unusable. Therefore, in line with its compensation policy, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to award payments for loss of room/facility based on 30% and 8% of the weekly rent for 12 and 8 weeks respectively for loss of use of the living room and bedroom. These payments have been calculated as follows:
    1. Living room – (weekly rent £187.41 x 0.3) x 12 = £674.68.
    2. Bedroom – (weekly rent £187.41 x 0.08) x 8 = £119.94.
  26. The payments for loss of rooms/facility go some way towards addressing the impact on the resident and her family. However, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to award additional compensation in recognition of the significant amount of frustration, distress and inconvenience caused in the 12 weeks it took to resolve the leak. The failings were sufficiently serious and the resulting impact severe enough to justify an award at the maximum level for a high impact payment under the landlord’s compensation policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in her property.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its failings in this case, in accordance with this Service’s apologies guidance. The apology should be made in writing by the landlord’s chief executive officer.
    2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £1,794.62, which comprises:
      1. £674.68 in respect of loss of use of the living/dining room, calculated as 30% of the weekly rent for 12 weeks.
      2. £119.94 in respect of loss of use of the bedroom, calculated as 8% of the weekly rent for 8 weeks.
      3. £1,000 for the frustration, distress and inconvenience caused to her and her family as a result of its multiple failings in the handling of the leak in her property.
      4. These sums should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
      5. If the landlord has already paid the resident the £300 offered in its stage 2 response, this amount may be deducted from the total above.
  2. The Ombudsman orders that, within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must carry out a review of its handling of matters in this case. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area(s) that handled the resident’s case. A report detailing the outcome of the review should be shared with its governing body and the Ombudsman, and should identify:
    1. What went wrong, what it has learned from the resident’s experience, and what it would do differently to avoid the same happening again.
    2. Any staff training needs and/or changes to its procedures required to ensure repairs and complaints are accurately recorded, appropriately investigated, and addressed in a reasonable and timely manner.