One Housing Group Limited (202414243)

Decision
Case ID	202414243
Decision type	Investigation
Agent	One Housing Group Limited
Agent type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	10 April 2026

Background

1. One Housing Group Limited is the managing agent for the resident’s building, but it is not the freeholder. The freeholder is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and therefore not in our remit, but the managing agent is. For the purposes of this determination, One Housing Group Limited will be referred to as “the agent”.
2. The resident lives in a block of flats above a car park. He reported repeated sewage flooding in the car park to the agent. In December 2023, following another incident, he complained that the agent was not doing enough to resolve the problem. The agent said it was aware of the issue and had carried out several repairs. It explained it was working with the developer to find a long‑term solution and would update the resident when more information was available.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the agent’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of issues with a sewage pump overflow in the car park.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the agent’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with a sewage pump overflow in the car park.
5. The agent offered the resident reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Agent’s handling of the resident’s reports of issue with a sewage pump overflow in the car park

6. The agent responded to each flooding incident in line with its responsibilities and repairs policy. However none of the evidence shows it took the actions it said it would in its complaint responses. This included keeping the resident updated on the progress of its ongoing investigations, completing regular inspections of the pump, replacing a specific part of the pump or liaising with the building’s developer.

Agent’s handling of the resident’s complaint

7. While there were complaint handling delays at stage 2, the agent acknowledged this in its response and offered a reasonable level of compensation for the delay.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the agent to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Agents must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The agent must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the agent must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The agent must pay the resident £350 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report regarding its handling of the sewage pump issue. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The agent must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date	No later than 08 May 2026
2	Written update order The agent must provide a written update to the resident about the progress of its ongoing investigations relating to the sewage pump issue.   The update should include: –          The actions the agent has taken to identify the fault, including any inspections or work with the building’s developer. –          The agent’s action plan going forward in identifying and carrying out works for a long term solution to the sewage pump issue and subsequent flooding. This must include expected timescales. A copy of this update must also be provided to this Service.	No later than 08 May 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 December 2023	The resident complained to the agent about its handling of an ongoing issue with the car park flooding with sewage. He said the issue had been happening for some time but the agent’s handling of the recent incident that month had been poor and the car park was still covered in sewage.
29 December 2023	The agent issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged there had been some delays in repairing and cleaning up the recent flood. It apologised but said the issue was now resolved. It said it would inspect the sewage pump in question more frequently and replace a specific part that should help prevent the issue reoccurring.
May 2024	The resident escalated his complaint as he said the car park had flooded again that month.
13 June 2024	The agent issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged the car park had flooded again but said it was working with the building’s developer to identify the fault and then complete the repairs. It apologised and said it would update the resident on progress in the coming weeks. It also offered him an alternative parking bay to use while investigations were ongoing.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the agent had failed to take reasonable action to repair the issue with the sewage pumps and the flooding. He said the issue was impacting access to his car and was also unpleasant and unhygienic. He wanted the agent to complete a long lasting repair to the pump and compensate him for the inconvenience caused.

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 agent is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Agent’s handling of reports of issues with a sewage pump overflow in the car park
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

8. When the resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman, he said sewage flooding had been occurring for several years before he complained to the agent in December 2023. He also said the issue continued after the agent’s stage 2 response in June 2024.
9. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. Also, our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. Because of that this investigation has not considered events outside the months leading up to the resident’s complaint to the landlord in late 2023, or after its final complaint response in mid-2024.

What we investigated

10. The resident’s lease states the agent is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the service media in the resident’s building, including the sewage infrastructure. The schedule states the agent provides this service through its estate services team.
11. The resident’s building was a new build, however the year it was built is unclear. The building’s developers were still involved with the building and any potential defects.
12. The resident complained that the agent was not doing enough to resolve the ongoing issues with an overflowing sewage pump in the building’s car park. He said the car park had flooded with sewage on numerous occasions and each time the agent had consistently taken a long time to repair the leak and clean up the sewage. His allocated car parking space was right next to the faulty pump and therefore access to his car was always impacted.
13. At stage 1 the resident said the car park was still covered in sewage following the most recent flood in December 2023. At stage 2, he said the car park had flooded again in May 2024 and was still flooded. He wanted it to fix the pump to prevent the issue reoccurring, clean up the sewage and offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
14. At stage 1, the agent said it repaired the sewage pump within 24 hours of the report but accepted there were delays in cleaning due to a misunderstanding with its contractor. It apologised and said it had spoken to the teams involved to prevent a repeat. It also said it would inspect the pump every 3 months instead of every 6 (as it did currently) and replace a part in the septic tank to reduce the risk of further flooding.
15. At stage 2, the agent acknowledged the car park had flooded again and apologised. It said it was working with the developer to find a long-term solution and continued to inspect the pump to identify the fault. It asked its caretaking team to disinfect the car park regularly to reduce the smell and temporarily moved the resident’s parking space to limit the impact on his car. It said it would update him on progress in the coming weeks.
16. Parts of the agent’s responses were reasonable. Following the December 2023 flood, it arranged for its contractor to attend and repair the pump within 24 hours of the report. This was in line with its lease obligations and repairs policy for emergency issues. Although there was a delay in cleaning the car park, this was completed within 6 calendar days. The agent acknowledged the delay and apologised.
17. The reoccurrence of flooding in May 2024 did not, in itself, indicate a service failure. Some repairs are complex and may require further investigation before a lasting solution is found. Each time flooding was reported, the agent attended and carried out repairs in line with its repairs policy and arranged cleaning to address the impact.
18. It was also appropriate and good practice for the agent to temporarily relocate the resident’s parking space while investigations continued. This reduced the impact on his access to his vehicle and the risk of further damage.
19. However, other aspects of the agent’s response were not reasonable. The evidence does not show that it carried out regular inspections of the sewage pump. This was not consistent with its stage 1 response, where it said inspections were taking place every 6 months and would increase to every 3 months. Regular inspections were important to identify issues early and reduce the risk of further flooding.
20. The agent also said at stage 1 that it would replace a component of the pump to help resolve the issue. Nothing in the information provided shows that work was completed.
21. The evidence also does not show that the agent was working with the developer to address the ongoing flooding, despite saying it was liaising with them to find a long‑term solution. Engagement with the developer appears to have been necessary to identify the cause of the repeated failures and complete effective repairs, so there should be evidence of it.
22. In addition, the agent did not keep the resident updated on its investigations or when works were expected to be completed. This was not in line with its stage 2 response, where it said it would provide updates within weeks.
23. Overall, the agent responded to each flooding incident in line with its repairs policy. However, it did not deliver the actions it said it would. This included working with the developer, replacing parts of the pump, completing regular inspections, or keeping the resident updated.
24. Orders have been made above for the agent to pay £350 compensation to recognise these failures and the inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount is based on our compensation guidance for a complaint and failings of similar scale and nature. The landlord is also ordered to provide the resident with a written update on its investigations into the sewage pump fault and its action plan for resolving the issue.

Complaint	Agent’s handling of the resident’s complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

25. The agent’s complaint policy says it has a two stage complaints process. Its policy complied with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code from 2022 (the Code).
26. There were no issues with how the agent handled the resident’s stage 1 complaint as it responded 10 working days after receipt. This was in line with both its policy and the Code.
27. In the agent’s stage 2 response it said the resident escalated his complaint on 10 May 2024. A copy has not been provided. Nevertheless, it responded 23 working days later which was outside the 20 working day deadline set in both its policy and the Code. However, it acknowledged this failing, apologised and offered him £50 compensation for the delay. This was reasonable given the short length of delay.
28. Overall, while there were delays with the agent’s stage 2 response it appropriately acknowledged this failing, apologised and offered a reasonable amount of compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The agent did not have a robust record of key parts on this case. This included records of any communication it had with the building’s developer and any regular inspections of the sewage pump. The agent is reminded of the importance of keeping robust records. It should consider reviewing the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge information management for further guidance.

Communication

30. The agent’s communication with the resident was poor. It failed to keep him regularly updated on when repairs, or subsequent clean ups, would be completed. It also failed to update him on its ongoing investigations into the sewage pump fault. The agent is reminded about ensuring it maintains clear communication with residents.