One Housing Group Limited (202332025)

Background

1. The resident lives with her partner in a 2-bedroom terrace house. The tenancy began on 5 November 2007. The resident’s partner had a double lung transplant around 2023. The resident has said she had reported issues with damp and mould since 2019. She said the issue with water ingress had affected many parts of the property. An owner occupier lives next door to the resident. A leak was affecting both properties; the owner occupier carried out minor repairs to brickwork on the resident’s property to try and fix the leak. The owner occupier also disputed the boundary fenceline between the properties. Within this report the owner occupier will be referred to as the neighbour.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. A leak, damp and mould.
   2. Anti social behaviour (ASB).
3. We have also considered the handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of a leak, damp and mould.
   2. Service failure by the landlord in its response to reports of ASB.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to consider the households vulnerabilities. It has been unable to demonstrate that it communicated effectively with the resident or had adequate oversight of its repairs service. Its offer of compensation at stage 1 was not proportionate and it did not attempt to put things right by carrying out the necessary repairs to stop the water ingress within a reasonable timescale. In addition, the landlord’s records were poor and did not detail what action it took, or what works were carried out and when.
6. The landlord failed to understand the full situation between the neighbour and its resident, the failures with its repair service would have added to the continued frustration of the neighbour. The landlord failed to advocate for its resident, her suggestion of a letter to be sent to the neighbour went unacknowledged and the situation escalated after its final complaint response.
7. The landlord promised to review its compensation offer upon completion of all repairs, but we have not been provided with evidence confirming it followed up on this. Given that the repairs remained outstanding for some time following its stage 2 response, the landlord’s complaint process was ineffective in bringing resolution to the resident’s concerns.

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 looked at

8. The Ombudsman does not have the jurisdiction to award damages, nor does it have the necessary expertise to assess liability and determine loss. These are matters within the jurisdiction of the court as we cannot provide a legal determination. The resident should seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this matter further.
9. It is also beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the residents’ wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced.
10. The resident told the landlord in her complaint she had issues with damp and mould for the past 4 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to investigate the issue whilst it is still ‘live’ and sufficient evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion. In view of the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to November 2022, which is 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. Anything that happened before this is considered for context but not formally assessed or determined as part of this investigation.

What we have looked at

11. In accordance with the landlord’s responsive repair policy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. It is also responsible for making sure the property is fit for human habitation. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time.
12. The landlord said it was first notified of a leak in September 2023. It confirmed it inspected and raised numerous works for inside the property whilst requesting its contractor inspect the roof. The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s report or its report from this time which means we are unable to assess whether it responded within a reasonable timescale. Nonetheless, we understand the landlord had identified there was water ingress which needed to be remedied at the time.
13. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will investigate the cause of damp and carry out repairs in line with its responsive repairs policy. Its responsive repairs policy says that where an inspection is required the landlord will complete this within 7 calendar days. It says it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. Although the landlord has evidenced it carried out some internal works to the bathroom and mould wash to other areas, including the kitchen in October 2023, it has not evidenced that it investigated the cause of the water ingress in line with its responsive repairs policy.
14. The evidence shows the resident raised her concerns over the household’s vulnerabilities to a contractor who noted her partner had just had a double lung transplant on its invoice in October 2023. Although the resident had said she wrote to the landlord in June “begging” for the leak to be sorted out due to her partner having a double lung transplant, the landlord has not provided records of this or its response. The resident further notified the landlord of vulnerabilities in an email on 24 November 2023 and again in her escalation request on 4 April 2024. The landlord apologised for the conditions within the kitchen area of the property and that the resident was having to separate her husband’s crockery to avoid any contamination in its stage 2 response. Although appropriate to apologise, its stage 2 response was 8 months after its contractor noted the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord should have considered its responsibilities under the Equalities Act 2010 and established if there were reasonable adjustments it should have applied such as prioritising the required repairs. Its failure to do so demonstrates its failure to adequately consider the impact of the damp on the household.
15. An invoice from a contractor refers to a report being sent to the landlord about the damp and mould on 29 September 2023. No record of this report or the landlord’s response was provided to this investigation. Furthermore, the resident said in an email dated 4 April 2024 that she had spent 4 years writing to the landlord about the matter, but the landlord has not provided any previous reports made by the resident.
16. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. We would expect the landlord to have detailed records of the actions it took to repair issues as this allows it to track completion and monitor anything which remains outstanding. Detailed records also allow organisations such as the Ombudsman or the courts to assess the landlord’s actions when they are called into question.
17. The resident also referenced the poor communication by the landlord surrounding its visit in September 2023, she specifically wanted the conduct of a staff member looking into as part of her complaint. The landlord failed to evidence it looked into this aspect of the resident’s complaint or provided a response, which was not reasonable and resulted in this part of the resident’s complaint to remain unresolved. It also meant that the landlord missed an opportunity to learn from any failing and put things right for the resident.
18. The landlord advised in its stage 1 response that it had raised an inspection of the roof following its visit in September 2023, there is no evidence of any further actions following this, and the resident said in her email dated 4 April 2024 that she had not heard anything further. According to the information provided to this investigation, the landlord next inspected the property on 6 June 2024, 6 months after the resident had complained about the damp in her property. This amount of time was not reasonable, especially with the known vulnerability of the household at the time.
19. The landlord apologised in its stage 2 response that the source of the damp had not yet been identified and for the condition of the kitchen area. It said its contractor would start investigations the week commencing the 24 June 2024. The resident later requested this be put back to 23 July 2024 due to personal commitments. The landlord attended the property on 3 occasions following its final response before it raised works in October 2024. The landlord then confirmed the internal walls to be dry enough for works to start in January 2025, but works did not start until late March 2025. Again, the records for this investigation do not detail sufficiently what action the landlord took throughout this period or how it communicated with the resident.
20. Overall, the works to the kitchen took 18 months to complete from the landlords first inspection in September 2023. With the known vulnerabilities in the household, this amount of time was significantly unreasonable and caused avoidable distress to the resident. It is of concern the landlord has not demonstrated or confirmed that the external repairs were ever completed. Evidence shows the resident raised concerns in March 2025 about the leak not being fixed but a new kitchen being fitted, again its records do not sufficiently detail the landlord’s response to this. 
21. In this case, the lack of clear records of inspections and repair actions has affected our investigation as we are unable to draw conclusions as to the extent of the damp issues experienced beyond the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord’s record keeping contains minimal details of its actions, the repairs raised and when the work was carried out.
22. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
23. In its stage 1 response the landlord offered the resident a total of £100 compensation for the delays in addressing the roof repair. At stage 2 of the process the cause of the water ingress had not been investigated, and remedial works were still yet to be identified. The landlord said it would review its compensation offer once all repairs were completed. We understand the repairs to have been completed as of August 2025, according to the resident, but we have not been provided with evidence of a revised compensation offer from the landlord. This is not reasonable, especially due to the known vulnerabilities in the household and the length of time it took for the works to be completed.
24. In summary, the landlord failed to consider the households vulnerabilities in its response to the resident’s concerns raised. Its offer of compensation at stage 1 was not proportionate and it did not attempt to put things right by carrying out the necessary repairs to stop the water ingress in a timely manner. Its complaint investigation did not respond to all the outstanding issues the resident raised, and the resident spent time and trouble communicating with the Ombudsman throughout the complaints process in an attempt to get the issue resolved. The landlords record keeping was inadequate and resulted in its inability to understand the outstanding repair need at the property for a prolonged length of time. Taking this into consideration, we have found severe maladministration.
25. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £1400 compensation to reflect the impact of the delays it caused. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. This brings the total amount of compensation to £1500.

26. It is important to note that it is not the Ombudsman role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What we can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it had received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking into account all of the circumstances of the case
27. On 14 November 2023, the resident made the landlord aware that she had been attacked by her neighbour, and the incident had been reported to the police. The resident said she had asked why they had gone onto the roof to fix the leak which prompted the situation to escalate. There is no further detail about the incident itself, or any police involvement, but the resident’s comments suggest it was an escalation of the longstanding repair issue.
28. The resident stated in an email dated 24 November 2023 that she did not want the landlord to ‘prosecute’ the neighbour. The resident said she would have liked to speak to someone rather than discuss the detail of this via email. It is not evident the landlord attempted to speak to the resident following this report but rather closed its ASB case and said that the resident could contact it again should she change her mind about taking action against the neighbour.
29. Although the landlord’s position at this initial stage was understandable, the resident later in her email on 4 April 2024, explained the neighbour had become frustrated due to the lack of action in repairing the leak. The resident felt this was targeted at her despite her reporting it to her landlord and the landlord not taking any action. She suggested a letter to the neighbour politely asking not to carry out repairs to the property would be helpful in deescalating the situation.  It is not evident the landlord responded to this.
30. The landlord also failed to acknowledge the comments made about the fence line boundary in its complaint process. It responded separately after intervention from the Ombudsman to the resident concerns about the neighbour. Its final response simply explained that it had closed the ASB case due to the resident not wishing for action to be taken against the neighbour.
31. It is clear that the landlord did not fully grasp the situation between the neighbour and resident, the risk of escalation, nor did it understand its accountability with the timeliness of its repair service. Evidence was provided that showed following its final response, the situation escalated with the neighbour allegedly becoming abusive and the issue of the boundary remained unresolved for some time. It is not evident that the boundary dispute was resolved by the landlord.
32. Although it is understandable that the landlord has role specific teams to respond to different aspects within its housing management operation, it should consider how it works cohesively between these teams so instances such as this do not result in its residents unable to have their concerns responded to.
33. Overall, the landlord failed to understand the extent of the situation with the neighbour and its responsibility in this case. The failures identified above with its repair service would have added to continued frustration of the neighbour which resulted in further escalation beyond its final response. Throughout, the landlord failed to demonstrate it advocated for its resident, her suggestion of a letter to be sent went unacknowledged and the situation escalated. Taking this into account there was service failure by the landlord.

34. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy at the time of this complaint said it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
35. The landlord received the resident’s complaint and acknowledged it on 20 November 2023. It provided its response on 8 December 2023, which was slightly outside its policy timeframe of 10 working days. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to request an extension. This was a failing which the landlord recognised in its stage 1 response. It apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation.
36. The Ombudsman became aware that a complaint response had not been received by the resident, it asked the landlord in February 2024 to provide its complaint response to the resident. The Ombudsman called the landlord on 27 February 2024 and was advised there was “not an update” on the resident’s account, and a request would be sent to the complaints team. This raises further concerns with the landlord’s record keeping that complaint responses cannot be easily accessed by its staff.
37. The landlord’s stage 2 response was provided after 44 working days compared to its policy which says it will respond within 20 working days. This was a significant delay which the landlord recognised in its stage 2 response. It apologised and offered the resident a further £50 compensation. It is of concern that the landlord has not evidenced any investigation into its delayed responses throughout its complaint process. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to learn from its identified failings in this case.
38. The landlord also promised to review its compensation offer upon completion of all repairs, but we have not been provided with evidence confirming it followed up on this. Given that the repairs remained outstanding for some time following its stage 2 response, the landlord’s complaint process was ineffective in bringing resolution to the resident’s concerns and redress for its undisputed failings.
39. Considering the above, the landlord did not appropriately respond to the resident’s complaint and there were delays at both stages of its process. The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation in recognition of the delays at both stages of its complaint process was proportionate, however it missed an opportunity to remedy the additional failings outlined in this report. As a result, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and ordered it to pay an additional £100 compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there were failings which adversely affected the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. Landlords should maintain appropriate records so they can satisfy themselves, their residents and external organisations like the Ombudsman that they have responded to issues in a way that is fair and reasonable. In this case, the landlord did not provide clear records to demonstrate this or that they had adequate oversight of the outstanding repair need at the property. This indicates more effective record keeping is needed.

Communication

41. Landlords must ensure open and clear lines of communication with residents. In this case, communication was poor and inevitably added to the resident’s frustration and distress. The landlord offered points of contact within its complaint process however the resident raised that this became ineffective on more than one occasion. It is evident that the resident had to chase the landlord for responses.
42. Internal communications indicated a lack of collaboration between departments and a lack of accountability. A landlord is expected to work cohesively between departments to provide a good level of service to its customers.