One Housing Group Limited (202333530)

Decision
Case ID	202333530
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	One Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bed flat. The resident had a wet room installed in her property by the landlord’s aids and adaptations team in 2022 due to her health conditions. Shortly after the installation, the resident told the landlord that the wet room was leaking into her hallway and son’s bedroom. She told us that the landlord surveyed the property but took no further action. The records show that the landlord undertook repairs in May, July, August and December 2024, however the resident felt the issue was still not resolved and raised a further complaint in December 2024. The resident told us that water still leaks into her hallway and damaged flooring still remains at the time of this investigation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of repairs to her bathroom and boiler.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There has been:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of bathroom repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Bathroom repairs

4. The landlord failed to manage the wet room repair effectively, taking over 11 months to carry out substantive work and repeatedly delaying further actions without clear justification. Poor record keeping meant it could not evidence inspections or a clear programme of works, and it did not address additional damage raised in the complaint. Communication was inadequate, with conflicting updates and incorrect assurances that works were complete, and the compensation offered did not reflect the prolonged distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not act in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) by asking the resident to withdraw her complaint, failing to resolve all issues raised, and delaying compensation without proper follow-up.

 

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order   The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior officer or manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 11 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £754.40. This is made up of: £554.40 for her loss of amenity and use of her shower for 44 weeks between her initial report and the first works being undertaken. This is based on 10% of the Regulator’s average rent for a property of this size in Tower Hamlets and is used for guidance in calculating the compensation. £200 to recognise the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor communication.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 11 December 2025
3	Learning order   The landlord must undertake a review of this case and provide the outcome of the review to us. The review should aim to identify the root causes of the failures identified in this report. In particular it must: Examine the reason the repairs in the resident’s property were significantly delayed. Examine the reasons for its poor communication throughout the handling of the complaint and substantive repair issue. Examine the reasons that its repair records are incomplete and lack contemporary records to support decision making. Assess why the resident was asked to withdraw her complaint by a member of its staff. Outline what actions it can take to prevent a reoccurrence in future. This may include staff training, process changes, alterations to its policies or other actions. How it will implement any learning in a reasonable period of time.	No later than 29 December 2025
4	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date.   If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects the resident’s wet room, tank cupboard, boxing around the pipework and flooring and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the escape of water and whether the landlord has made a lasting and effective repair to this issue with its previous repairs. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve any further issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 11 December 2025

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 June 2023	The resident raised a complaint that her bathroom had been converted into a wet room due to medical needs, but the poor workmanship had made her situation worse as she could not use the shower. The shower failed to drain, and she received conflicting advice on temporary fixes. She sought an urgent assessment of the installation, believing the pump was incorrectly fitted and the floor incline inadequate. She asked for assessment of water damage to the hallway and son’s bedroom and compensation for the failures.
11 July 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, confirming the wet room had been installed by an aids and adaptations contractor. It acknowledged the resident had reported a water leak on 23 June 2023, and an engineer had attended on 27 June, finding no fault with the pump or shower. It had booked a joint inspection for 17 July to resolve differing views between the plumber and electrician before agreeing any works or compensation. The complaint was partially upheld pending further investigation into possible installation faults. The landlord upheld the communication failure, apologised, and said compensation would be discussed within 10 working days of the joint visit.
19 July 2023	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, stating that the issues raised in stage 1 had not been resolved. She reported that contractors had cracked the toilet wall when removing a water tank and had left the cupboard unusable. She said contractors had attended without notice to inspect the bathroom but gave no update or mention of flooring. She also reported that the new boiler installation had damaged ceramic floor tiles and that the boxing around pipework was uneven because different thicknesses of wood were used.
16 August 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response confirming the tank room was left unusable after the storage heater had been removed and agreed to raise a repair. It had booked an inspection for 21 August 2023 to assess painting, tiling, and workmanship, and to arrange further works. A staff member was assigned as the point of contact. The shower screen was still awaiting installation, pending an update from the aids and adaptations team, and the resident was advised to contact her occupational therapist if no update was received by 17 August. The landlord acknowledged poor communication, apologised and offered £100 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to us on 25 August 2024 seeking completion of the repairs and additional compensation. In December 2024, the landlord increased the resident’s compensation to £200. The resident also raised a further complaint in December 2024, which the landlord sent two acknowledgement emails on the same day, one accepting the complaint at stage 1, the other at stage 2.

 

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of bathroom repairs
Finding	Maladministration

6. The resident first reported an escape of water in her wet room on 23 June 2023. She told the landlord that this left her unable to shower properly as water was pooling and spreading into hallway and bedroom. The landlord’s repair policy would classify this as an urgent repair, requiring attendance and repair within 5 calendar days. The landlord attended within this timescale on 27 June 2025 and arranged a follow up inspection for 17 July 2023 to assess the overall workmanship. We have not been provided with the findings of this inspection and therefore cannot confirm whether it went ahead or whether what it recommended was reasonable.
7. Following this, we found from the landlord’s repair records and complaint responses that it:
   1. Booked a further inspection for 21 August 2023 and committed to providing the resident with a “detailed explanation of the works” to be completed after this inspection. The landlord has not provided the survey report, findings or programme of works to us. Therefore it is not possible for us to verify that the survey took place, the findings or whether any repairs booked were suitable. This is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping. 
   2. Did not undertake the first substantive repair to the resident’s bathroom until 2 May 2024 when it installed a rubber threshold and painted the wet room. This was over 11 months after the resident’s initial report and the landlord’s first survey. The landlord told us that this was due to contractor delays and awaiting input from the local authority’s occupational therapy team, however this does not account for this level of delay.
   3. Completed additional works in July, August and December 2024, including replacing the hallway flooring, installing a new shower hose, fitting a shower screen and a further rubber threshold. This caused additional delays and inconvenience by further reports and repair appointments.
   4. Arranged for a repairs inspector to attend the resident’s property on 30 September 2024. The inspector said that the non-slip vinyl floor had been renewed, but that he had seen a “small amount” of water escape again. The inspector recommended the second rubber threshold be installed to address this, along with a bifold shower door. It is unclear from the landlord’s repair records when the vinyl floor was renewed and whether any follow up works were completed on it. Similarly, the landlord’s repair records do not show if or when the shower screen was installed. These were further failings in the landlord’s record keeping.
   5. Arranged a nominated point of contact for the resident, to discuss all future repairs.
   6. Mentioned installing a pump in the wet room, however this contact note is not dated and we have not been provided any associated repair log. It is not possible for us to know if and when this pump was installed, or what impact this had on the resident’s substantive issue. This is a further record keeping failure.
8. Given the necessity for repairs, it is evident that the initial workmanship in installing the wet room was not completed to a reasonable standard. There has been no evidence provided by the landlord to show whether these works were subject to a post-completion inspection to ensure they met the resident’s needs. This was a failing.
9. Within the complaint process, the resident raised further concerns about damage to her property including:
   1. Damage to her bathroom wall following removal of a water tank, and the tank cupboard being left “unusable” due to “rotten pipes, breeze block wall and rubbish in the bottom”.
   2. Damage to ceramic tiles on the floor, following installation of a new boiler.
   3. Unlevel boxing around pipework, related to the boiler installation.
10. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it would raise an inspection to look at these matters and outline a schedule of works. As set out above, we have not seen evidence of this, or of any follow up works related to these matters. This is a significant failing, as the landlord could not evidence that it considered or remedied various sections of the resident’s complaint.
11. The landlord said in its complaint responses that its communication around repairs had been poor. It acknowledged a service failure, apologised for this and offered £100 compensation comprised of £50 right to repair compensation and £50 for the poor communication. It increased this to a total of £200 in December 2024. Given the length of time taken to undertake repairs, the conflicting advice from the landlord’s contractors and the need for multiple appointments, this was not a reasonable level of compensation to address the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident.
12. Compounding this, the landlord repeatedly stated works were complete when outstanding issues remained. This included in a contact note, where the landlord asked the resident to withdraw her complaint, on the grounds that works had been completed. This shows a lack of oversight of the ongoing repairs and a clear programme of works.
13. Overall, the landlord delayed significantly in completing repairs to the resident’s wet room. This was impacted by its record keeping, lack of case oversight and compounded by poor communication with the resident, over a protracted period, causing her to complain again in December 2024. On this basis, there has been maladministration in this element of the complaint.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint
Finding	Service failure

14. The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says the resident should  receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. The landlord should sent an acknowledgement within 5 working days. The records show that the landlord provided its formal responses within these timescales.
15. However, the landlord’s complaint handling was inappropriate as following the installation of a pump in her bathroom to ask the resident to withdraw her complaint. The resident did not accept this and outlined several aspects of her complaint which remained outstanding. The landlord did not comply with the requirements of the Code to ensure that all elements of the resident’s complaints were resolved and addressed, nor should it have requested that she withdraw a duly made complaint. This was a failing.
16. Within the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it offered £100 compensation to the resident for the failings it had identified. The evidence shows that there was a delay in making this payment to the resident and she chased the landlord regarding this. The landlord said this was due to her not having completed its compensation acceptance form, but the resident said she was not sent this. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up with the resident about paying the compensation outstanding, and it would have been reasonable for it to have done this, in the circumstances.
17. Taking these factors together, the landlord did respond to the complaint in a timely way and it offered some redress for poor communication, which was reasonable in the circumstances. However, the landlord asked the resident to withdraw her complaint and the compensation offered was delayed. On this basis, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and the landlord must now undertake the actions in the learning order to prevent a reoccurrence of these issues.
     

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord’s record keeping in this case has frustrated our ability to assess its actions. It has not provided adequate records of its inspections, repair logs or supporting information such as photographs. There is no evidence of post-completion surveys and the landlord’s communication records indicate repairs, which are not logged elsewhere.

Communication

19. While the landlord issued its complaint responses in a timely way, the communication related to repairs was poor. Additionally, its contractors gave conflicting advice and it did not proactively follow up on the unpaid compensation, leaving the resident to chase for this.