One Housing Group Limited (202337553)

Decision
Case ID	202337553
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	One Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	20 July 2026

Background

The resident’s representative complained that the landlord was not sending all the resident’s correspondence to him as he requested. He was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so he asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to use a correspondence address.
We have also investigated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to use a correspondence address.
2. Service failure in relation to complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Request for the landlord to use a correspondence address.

The landlord did not show how it came to its decision not to approve the resident’s request. It did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities or consider whether it had any duties under the Equality Act 2010.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. It also did not look at whether it could investigate its handling of the first request rather than just the decision.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 14 August 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £170 made up as follows: £120 for time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for to use a correspondence address £50 for time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 14 August 2026
3	Contact order The landlord must: contact the resident’s representative and confirm the resident’s current needs, health conditions and vulnerabilities confirm what, if any, reasonable adjustments it can make for the resident under the Equalities Act 2010 review the resident’s request for a correspondence address, using its discretion, once it has a full picture of the resident’s circumstances write to the representative with its decision and reasons for the decision	No later than 14 August 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 January 2024	The resident’s representative made a complaint after receiving correspondence relating to service charges to the property. They said that all correspondence should have been sent to a correspondence address in line with an earlier request.
18 January 2024	The landlord informed the representative that it would not accept a complaint as there had not been any service failure.
23 May 2024	Following contact from us, the landlord sent a formal complaint response to the representative. It confirmed it would send non-service charge and rent related correspondence to the correspondence address. But it would continue to use the property as a formal service address. It said that although there was a statutory need to issue service notices to the property, it did have discretion to send copies to a correspondence address. It explained that it could not accept complaints for issues relating to statutory responsibilities but apologised for not explaining why it rejected the complaint or directing the resident to us.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The representative wants the landlord to ensure that it sends notices to the correspondence address and considers the resident’s vulnerabilities.

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 handling of the resident’s request for it to use a correspondence address.
Finding	Maladministration

The evidence we’ve seen does not show when the representative first asked that the landlord redirect correspondence. They contacted the landlord on 15 December 2023 to ask why service charge notifications still went to the property despite an earlier request for redirection. It responded on 8 January 2024 explaining that the only way to guarantee that all correspondence was sent to the correspondence address was for the resident to set up a mail redirect with Royal Mail. Although this suggestion would achieve the representative’s desired outcome, they told the landlord and us they were unhappy with the added cost it would incur.
The landlord told the resident on 18 January 2024 that it had a statutory obligation under the lease to serve documents to the leaseholder. We have not seen evidence of this. The lease says that it will normally send formal notices to the property to ensure legal service. But it also allows the landlord to send notices to another address, at its discretion, at the resident’s request.
The landlord should have made a reasoned decision based on the relevant circumstances, including the legal basis, the risk of disclosure, the type of information sent, and whether it needed to send the correspondence by post. The evidence does not show that the landlord considered these points, so it has not shown that it exercised its discretion reasonably.
The landlord should have considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010 once the representative informed it that the resident has disabilities. It did not ask for any information and did not consider whether it should make any reasonable adjustments such as sending copies to the correspondence address or via email to the representative.
For the reasons above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to use a correspondence address. As such, it must pay the resident £120 compensation in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience the representative experienced. This is consistent with our compensation guidance for a failure which the landlord has not acknowledged or attempted to put right. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the representative to take a full account of the resident’s current circumstances.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
The policy says it will not accept complaints about decisions it made to meet statutory obligations, or decisions made in line with legislation or regulation. However, the policy allows the landlord to consider complaints about how it handled the matter.
The landlord gave inconsistent reasons for rejecting the complaint. On 18 January 2024, it said it would not raise a complaint because there had been no service failure. It later told the representative it had refused the complaint because it would not consider matters relating to its statutory obligations. The landlord should have clearly explained its reason for refusing the complaint at the time.
The representative told the landlord that the resident had age-related health conditions and disabilities when they first made the complaint. There is no evidence the landlord asked for more information about those circumstances. It should have considered whether it could investigate its handling of the correspondence request, in line with its complaints policy once it became aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s decision not to investigate the correspondence issue was consistent with its policy. However, it did not consider whether it could investigate its wider handling of the situation. It did not address the resident’s vulnerabilities or explain clearly why it rejected the complaint. For this reason, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord must pay the resident £50 compensation for the time and trouble caused by these complaint-handling failures. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance for a failure that caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the matter.

Learning

The main failure across both complaint aspects was the landlord’s handling of resident vulnerabilities. Where residents or their representatives inform the landlord of potential disabilities, it should gather all relevant information and ensure this is visible to all staff. This will ensure it is aware of any need for reasonable adjustments at the earliest opportunity. The landlord may find it useful to refer to the reasonable adjustments guidance on our website.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

This case highlights the importance of clearly documenting the assessment and rationale for decisions made in response to resident requests. Comprehensive records can help staff explain decisions, manage resident expectations, and provide clear and consistent responses.

Communication

Providing clear and prompt explanations of decisions is important. In this case, proactive communication may have helped the resident’s representative understand the landlord’s position and managed expectations. Our spotlight report on Attitudes, Rights and Respect refers may support the landlord with more effective communication to aid service delivery for vulnerable residents.