One Housing Group Limited (202411325)

Decision
Case ID	202411325
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	One Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	30 March 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a 6th floor flat in the landlord’s block. He complained about outages and repairs to one of the two communal lifts and the absence of an enduring repair. The landlord has no record of vulnerabilities for the resident.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling repairs to the communal lift.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons 

6. The landlord attended most callouts within its policy timescales. However, it did not repair the lift in October 2023, nor attend in December 2023, within its policy timescales. Its technical survey indicates that maintenance of the lift was inadequate. The landlord did not keep adequate records, nor give the resident provide reliable updates. This meant its responses to repeated outages and the resident’s complaint were incomplete and contained inaccuracy. Whilst one lift in the block remained in service at all times, there was a period of extended frustration and inconvenience to the resident in pursuance of an enduring remedy.
7. The landlord did not follow its complaint policy or the Complaint Handling Code. It delayed responding at both stages and did not acknowledge the stage 2 escalation. Its responses were incomplete and did not explain the delays or adequately demonstrate learning. This caused uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident who had to chase for clarifications.

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 27 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 made up as follows: £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of lift repairs (inclusive of the £100 already offered). £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the resident’s complaint (inclusive of the £50 already offered). 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 27 April 2026
3	Update order The landlord is ordered to share its technical report from June 2024 with the resident. It should also explain to the resident: Its action plan for implementing the periodic maintenance inspections recommended in the report. Its ongoing programme and relevant milestones in respect of the proposed lift replacement. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of this by the due date.	No later than 11 May 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 January 2024	The resident emailed the landlord to complain. He said: He had reported the lift out of service on 10 October 2023. The landlord had emailed residents on 12 December 2023 to say the lift had been repaired. The resident said it had not. The lift had broken multiple times between 18 December 2023 and 9 January 2024. The resident said he had reported breakdowns to the landlord and each time repairs had been completed the lift immediately broke down again. It was unacceptable that the lift had been broken for 3 months. It was the larger of the two lifts in the block and was causing long waits. He wanted an enduring repair to be completed.
16 January 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
7 February 2024	In its stage 1 response the landlord said that: It acknowledged several reports of lift failure over previous months and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. There had been technical issues and some instances of vandalism. It had tried to keep residents updated when information was available. Recently its contractor had been unsure about whether to replace or exchange a part. The landlord said the contractor had removed it before it had received the landlord’s instructions. When doing so, further repairs were identified, which contributed to the delay. It had changed contractor in December 2023 to improve the service. Lift repairs were completed on 12 January 2024, and no further breakdowns had been reported. The complaint was partially upheld because some breakdowns were caused by anti-social behaviour beyond its control.
12 February 2024	The resident escalated his complaint and said the lift had not been repaired. He referred to emails from the landlord dated 12, 15 and 25 January 2024 which he said stated the lift had broken and would undergo repair. He criticised the landlord for not having up‑to‑date records of the repair status. He asked for better communication and a lasting repair.
17 May 2024	In the landlord’s stage 2 response it acknowledged communication with its contractor about repair dates could be improved. It also said its change of contractor in December had taken longer than expected. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the impact of the lift repairs and £50 for the complaint handling delay. It said the resident’s feedback had been taken on board and would be used to improve its service.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to this Service on 18 June 2024. He said: The landlord’s communication had been poor. Its stage 1 response was inaccurate as the lift was not working after 12 January 2024. There had been further breakdowns and repair times were unacceptable. He was unhappy with the landlord’s delay replying at stage 2. He accepted the compensation offer of £150 but had yet to receive it.
21 June 2024	The landlord’s records show it commissioned a technical survey in response to repeated reports of long-term issues.
26 June 2024	The survey was completed. It found that maintenance of the lift was below the standard expected to keep it performing effectively. It did not anticipate any major component repairs would be necessary for at least 4 years. It recommended that budgets should be put in place to refurbish or replace the lift within the next 5-8 years. Meanwhile it recommended a minimum of 12 thorough maintenance visits per annum.
4 November 2024	The resident told this Service that the lift was out of service several times between May and October 2024 before lift was finally fixed.

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 repairs to the communal lift.
Finding	Maladministration

8. The lease says the landlord will provide services to leaseholders who pay a service charge. These include maintenance of the lifts to a reasonable level and to keep in repair the associated machinery, installations and apparatus. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will make safe faulty lifts within 12 hours and complete repairs within 28 days thereafter.
9. Whilst there are earlier reports of lift outages, the resident first reported the lift outage on 10 October 2023. We have therefore considered events from that date until the stage two response. Other events have been included for context only.
10. The landlord has provided an incomplete audit trail for its lift repairs. It told us that this was due to an organisational merger. It explained that the relevant staff and contractors had left and that changes to its computer systems caused the loss of some legacy records. For that reason, its records of contact with the resident throughout the repair are also limited.
11. Records show that the resident’s neighbour reported the lift outage on 9 October 2023. Its engineer attended that day and noted a recurring fault it could not repair. As the fault had trapped people in the lift, the engineer shut it down pending further inspection. This was appropriate because the lift presented a safety risk.
12. The landlord received a Twitter message from the resident on 10 October 2023, also reporting the fault. The resident has provided us with the landlord’s Twitter reply sent that day confirming a job had been raised and would be attended within four hours. However, we have seen no evidence that an engineer attended that day, having shut the lift down a day earlier pending further investigation. The records show that engineers removed a lift drive for repair on 16 October 2023. The repair was unsuccessful and the engineer quoted for a new part on 1 November 2023. The records indicate a 27‑day delay while the landlord considered whether to repair or replace the drive, but they do not show what decision it reached. While it was reasonable for the landlord to consider cost, the length of this delay was unacceptable. The lack of complete records is also a failing on the part of the landlord.
13. The lift did not return to service until 28 November 2023, which was 50 days after the fault was identified and outside the 28‑day period set out in its policy. This prolonged outage caused the resident avoidable inconvenience and uncertainty. Although the available records do not show that the other lift was out of service during this or the other repairs we have referenced, its availability would have been reduced.
14. The records show six further reports of lift outages between 8 December 2023and 9 January 2024. These includeone reported by the resident on 13 December that the lift remained out of service after a previous breakdown. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is unclear whether these callouts were caused by new faults or ineffective earlier repairs. We therefore cannot assess whether the outages could have been prevented.Again, the available records do not show the other lift was out of service.
15. The evidence does show that some callouts in this period resulted in the lift being returned to service on the same day and all in line with its responsive repairs policy. This was reasonable. However, on 20 December 2023 the contractor could not access the lift because it did not have the correct key. As a result, the lift was not inspected or made safe until 27 December 2023. This delay was unreasonable and non-compliant with the landlord’s policy. This could not but have extended the inconvenience for the resident and potentially presented a safety risk.
16. The landlord has not provided evidence that it proactively updated the resident about the repairs he reported. We have seen an update sent to a neighbour on 12 December 2023, which likely was the same update the resident received. It said the lift had been returned to service the previous day. Due to missing records, it is unclear whether the information contained in this update was inaccurate or whether the lift failed again after the update was issued. This lack of oversight meant the resident could not rely on the accuracy of information provided about the lift.
17. The resident sent the landlord a Twitter message on 4 January 2024 chasing an update on the repair he had reported around three weeks earlier. This indicates that the landlord had not provided him with recent updates and caused him time and trouble in having to make contact. The resident told this Service that this message was followed by a webchat and further emails from the landlord. He also told us that additional webchats took place during the period of the repairs, although the dates are unclear. While it is positive that some updates were provided, the incomplete records mean we cannot assess whether the landlord’s communication was adequate.
18. Records show that jobs were raised and closed on 23 and 25 January 2024 after the resident reported further breakdowns. It is therefore concerning that, in its stage 1 response, the landlord said no further breakdowns had been reported since 12 January 2024. This undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s investigation. The landlord explained that issues with its contractors had contributed to delays (it has not provided us with records relating to this). It said it had changed contractors to improve its service, which was positive. However, it did not address the resident’s concerns about a long‑term solution to the repeated outages or its communication with him. While the landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused, it did not consider compensation, despite its policy allowing for discretionary payments. These failings caused the resident time and trouble in escalating his complaint.
19. When replying at stage 2, the landlord awarded £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the ongoing lift repairs. However, it did not also apologise for these failings, nor acknowledge the absence of compensation offered at stage 1. Although offering redress was positive, the landlord did not meaningfully explain how it would implement a lasting solution to the repeated lift outages or how it would learn from the complaint. While it accepted that its communication could improve, it did not explain what changes it would make. These omissions meant the landlord missed opportunities to put things right and to learn from the issues identified. The lack of clarity about long‑term repairs and service improvements is likely to have caused the resident uncertainty and reduced his confidence in his landlord’s ability to address the problem.
20. Of interest is the landlord’s technical survey, which the landlord implemented in June 2024, after its stage 2 response. This referenced historic sub-standard maintenance to ensure the lift operated effectively.
21. The landlord has since told this Service that it plans to implement the recommendations of its technical survey and replace the lift by 2029. It also said it would continue to address any works recommended by its repairs and servicing contractors. Landlords are expected to keep residents updated about outstanding actions after a complaint has closed, but we have seen no evidence that this information was shared with the resident. This was unreasonable and a missed opportunity to rebuild the resident’s trust in the landlord’s handling of the lift maintenance.

Summary

22. The landlord did not complete the repair the resident reported in October 2023 and nor did it make safe the lift in December 2023, within its policy timescale. These were in addition to seven other outages reported in the period to 25 January 2024. The landlord’s technical survey indicates that improved maintenance may have prevented some of these outages. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience. In responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not provide reassurance or manage his expectations about a long‑term solution. This prolonged the resident’s uncertainty and caused further time and trouble, as he had to escalate his complaint to this Service in search of an answer. The landlord’s poor record keeping means it is not possible to assess whether its response to some lift outages should have led it to consider a more lasting repair. Those that do exist, point to instances of poor communication with the resident. The landlord’s record keeping is a further failing.
23. Considering the failures identified and the adverse impacts on the resident, the landlord’s offer of £100 for the impact of the lift repairs was insufficient. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £200 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which the landlord has made some attempt to put right and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint.
Finding	Service failure

24. The landlord’s complaints policy said it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within three working days and respond within 10 working days. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until nine working days after receiving it. It did not define the resident’s complaint. This was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord then took 19 working days to issue its stage 1 response and has not provided evidence that it sent a holding response.
25. The Code and landlord’s complaints policy state complaint responses must include findings and conclusions for each part of the complaint. At stage 1 the landlord addressed some of the resident’s issues. However, it did not refer to the resident’s concern that a lasting repair was needed to the lift, although this was a central issue. The landlord also did not apologise or offer compensation for its complaint handling delays at stage 1, in line with its compensation policy. This failing did not demonstrate that the landlord had taken the resident’s complaint seriously. It caused the resident avoidable time and trouble escalating his complaint.
26. At stage 2, the landlord’s policy said it would call residents within 3 working days of them escalating a complaint, to clarify the unresolved issues. It should then send a written response within 20 working days, and any extension should not exceed a further 10 working days. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint or agreed an extension before it sent its stage 2 response 67 working days after the complaint was escalated. The landlord did not show that it contacted the resident to explain the delay. These failings did not meet the requirements of the landlord’s complaint handling policy or the Complaint Handling Code. The resident was caused further time and trouble chasing the landlord.
27. At stage 2, the landlord offered compensation of £50 for its delay in complaint handling. It did not explain whether this award covered delays at both stages of the complaint or only those at stage 2. The landlord did not address all the resident’s issues, and its statement that “We have taken your feedback onboard and will ensure we use this to improve our services”. was not specific nor meaningful. These failings caused the resident further time and trouble in achieving an outcome to his complaint. They also prevented him from bringing it to this Service sooner.

Summary

28. Considering the landlord’s complaints handling overall, there were delays at both stage 1 and stage 2, and a lack of communication with the resident to explain them. The landlord did not fully address the resident’s complaints about an enduring repair to the lift and its poor communication in terms of updates. For these reasons we find that there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling. We have ordered it to pay the resident £100 to reflect the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. Limited information in the landlord’s records affected our ability to complete a robust investigation. This Service’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report highlights several lessons for landlords about preventing data loss during periods of organisational change, including mergers. The report explains that weaknesses in data and information systems lead to significant service failures and is detriment to residents. To avoid these risks, landlords should stress test systems prior to change.
30. This case featured a variety of communication channels, including social media. Its arrangements to capture and record those communications may have contributed to its process failings in this case. The landlord may wish to consider the efficacy of its post-capture arrangements, if it has not already done so.

Communication

31. The landlord did not communicate well with the resident throughout the repair and complaints processes.