One Housing Group Limited (202418389)

Background

1. The resident and her family moved to the property in 2023 as part of the landlord’s regeneration programme. The resident and her husband have health conditions which affect their mobility, and the landlord is aware of this. In September 2023, the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of repair requests and adaptations to her property and garden. She later raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and a dripping noise in her bedroom.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for adaptations to the back garden.
   2. The resident’s request for double-glazed windows and insulation in the basement.
   3. The resident’s reports of damp in the bedroom and hallway.
   4. The residents report of a dripping noise in the main bedroom.
3. We also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for adaptations to the back garden.
   2. The resident’s request for double-glazed windows and insulation in the basement.
   3. The resident’s reports of damp in the bedroom and hallway.
   4. The residents report of a dripping noise in the main bedroom.
5. We found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to clearly explain its position on the resident’s requests for adaptations to the back garden. It did not follow its aids and adaptations procedure following an occupational therapy assessment and delayed putting recommendations in place.
7. The landlord did not clearly respond to the resident’s concerns about the windows and insulation. It failed to appropriately consider potential hazards or communicate with the resident.
8. The landlord failed to complete a thorough investigation into the resident’s complaint about damp in her home and gave her inaccurate information in its response.
9. The landlord did not follow up on the investigation into the dripping noise it promised in its final complaint response. It showed a lack of oversight and poor record keeping.
10. The landlord did not follow the timeframes set out in its complaint policy at either stage of the complaints process.

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.

11. The resident said the landlord delayed promised adaptation works to the garden after she moved in, despite being aware of her family’s vulnerabilities and requirements. She said this included work to level the patio and provide a grab rail for a step down to the garden.
12. The landlord wrote to the resident about its regeneration programme in 2022. In a letter it provided at this time, it noted that the resident had medical and accessibility requirements for the household. It also provided information about the programme which said that it would work with occupation health practitioners to ensure homes were ready for residents when they moved in.
13. It is not clear from the evidence available to us when the resident first raised concerns about the garden. However, in her complaint of September 2023, she asked the landlord to make the garden level. She did not directly mention the step into the garden or ask for railings, but explained the uneven garden was difficult for her and her husband to use. She also explained they were still waiting for an occupational health assessment.
14. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the garden in its response. It noted it had delayed in providing aids and adaptations to the property, but it did not reference the garden or include it as part of the outstanding works. It said it had reviewed a previous Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment as part of the moving in process and had requested a further assessment. It said it would consider a private assessment as well.
15. By not responding to the resident’s request at this time, the landlord missed an opportunity to explain its position about the garden. It left the resident without a clear decision about what it could or could not do and likely caused her uncertainty.
16. The landlords record keeping throughout the case was poor. We have seen no evidence of when it requested the OT assessment or if it tried to arrange a private one. Nonetheless, an OT assessment was completed on 17 January 2024, 4 months after its initial response. The report said that levelling the garden was not necessary, but recommended the landlord install a handrail for the two steps into the garden to prevent falls.
17. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy at the time did not have a clear timeframe for completing adaptations. Its website described rails as a minor adaptation, and it said minor adaptations can require an OT assessment first. The landlord did not explain what would happen after the assessment.
18. For major adaptations, it said that after it received an OT report, it would write to the resident within 10 working days to explain its decision. It said, if approved, it would liaise with the local authority and OT and keep the resident updated. It said it usually completed minor adaptations within 15 days of approval. If it could not fulfil an adaptation request, it would provide a full explanation in writing.
19. The report contained multiple recommendations, including major ones, so the landlord should have followed this process. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the recommendations at this point or wrote to the resident to explain its decision about levelling the garden. This was not in line with its procedure and was a failing. It continued to leave the resident without a clear understanding of its position about her requests.
20. In January 2024, the landlord raised other repairs for the rear garden, which included relaying the paving slabs and repairing a wall. It is not clear if it offered to install a handrail as part of this. During the works in April 2024, it recorded that the resident again asked it to level the garden. The landlord said it referred the request to another staff member. We have not seen that the landlord responded to this request, which meant it again did not give the resident a clear answer to her request.
21. In June 2024, an internal email from the landlord said that a further OT assessment was needed for the garden as it was unable to complete this the last time. It also said it had chased a contractor about handrails, and the contractor would be in touch that week. The landlord’s records do not show if it considered a further OT referral. It also did not contact the resident about the handrail. This meant it had still not provided an answer to the resident’s request or completed the recommended adaptations 6 months after the assessment.
22. In its final response of August 2024, the landlord said it was not clear that the resident had raised concerns about the garden adaptations in her initial complaint. However, it noted she had asked it to level the garden and reported it as being uneven.
23. The landlord said it saw no evidence it promised to level the garden, and the OT assessment did not support completing this work. It said the recommended works were a reasonable response to her request, but that she had refused handrails in the rear garden.
24. It was reasonable of the landlord to use the OT report to decide what work it needed to carry out. However, we have seen no evidence it explained this to the resident before its final response. We have not seen any records to suggest that the resident refused the handrails, and the landlord’s records reflect it was waiting on the contractor for the handrails as late as June 2024. We also note that the uncertainty on whether the landlord would level the garden likely impacted the resident’s decision making about the handrail.
25. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. She asked since at least September 2023 for adaptations to the garden space. It did not respond to all points of her complaint or follow its aids and adaptations policy to clearly explain its decision around levelling the garden until 11 months later. This caused the resident uncertainty and time and trouble as she had to raise the issue multiple times.
26. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for any failings. As such, it has not put things right.
27. In its final response, the landlord said it would install the handrail and contact the resident that week. There is no evidence it raised a job or contacted the resident about installing the handrail following its response. A representative for the resident emailed the landlord in August 2024 and raised concerns about the uneven garden. In January 2025, the resident again told the landlord she wanted the garden to be level and a Councillor for the local authority asked the landlord to approve works due to the resident’s husband’s mobility issues.
28. This shows a delay in the landlord following up on its agreed actions for a further 5 months after its final response. We understand that the landlord levelled out the garden, and the resident confirmed in April 2025 that it had completed these works. This meant they did not need the handrails. As such, the delay in progressing the handrail works may not have changed the outcome but likely caused frustration to the resident alongside the landlord’s lack of clarification on the request to level the garden.
29. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to the back garden. We have made orders for the landlord to apologise and pay £300 compensation in line with our guidance for failings that had an adverse impact on the resident.

30. In the resident’s September 2023 complaint, she said she had asked the landlord to provide internal glazing and insulation and was very upset when it told her it would not do this. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address this directly but said it appreciated that at times the resident had received conflicting information about what its void works included. The landlord missed an opportunity here to give a clear explanation about what it could and could not do. Its response was not in line with its complaint handling procedure which said it would provide findings and conclusions for every part of a complaint.
31. We have not seen a reference to glazing or insulation again until the OT assessment in January 2024. At this time, the OT reported the property was very cold, the windows were not retaining heat, and the basement was not a habitable space. They noted concerns about the single glazed windows in the bedroom and bathroom and recommended that the landlord assess the heating system and act in line with health and safety standards.
32. There is no evidence of how the landlord considered these recommendations or updated the resident about its decision. This was not consistent with its aids and adaptations policy and left the resident without clarity.
33. In January 2024, it inspected the property and raised repairs to draft proof the basement door and add a thermal board to an external wall, although it is not clear if this was the basement wall. It completed this on 28 March 2024. While it is positive that the landlord inspected the property after the report and carried out repairs, it did not show that it investigated the temperature of the building or kept the resident fully informed.
34. The OT report raised potential hazards, including cold temperatures and concerns about habitability. As the landlord was on notice that a hazard might exist, it should have inspected the property and assessed whether it was fit for human habitation under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It should have recorded its decision and kept the resident updated. There is no evidence it did this, which was a failing.
35. In June 2024, the landlord instructed staff to urgently chase window glazing issues. This suggests the resident continued to raise concerns, but its record keeping means it is unclear what this was in response to.
36. In its final complaint response, the landlord said it had informed the resident that insulation and glazing were not included as part of its void works. It also advised it had not promised to install double glazing throughout the property but had completed work to the living room window in June 2024. However, it incorrectly stated that insulation was not part of the original complaint, despite previously saying it had told the resident it would not provide insulation. Its response gave conflicting information, which was likely confusing and did not show good complaint handling.
37. While it was reasonable for the landlord to explain its position about void works, it did not acknowledge that it had failed to respond to the glazing and insulation issues at stage 1. It also did not show that it had considered the OT’s concerns about cold temperatures or the habitability of certain rooms. While the landlord may not have been able to provide insulation or double glazing through void works, it should have explained if it could provide this after the resident moved in or explored alternative solutions. It failed to show it considered the medical needs of the resident and her family when it responded to her reports about the windows and insulation.
38. Following the landlord’s final response, the resident’s representative raised further concerns about windows and temperature in August 2024. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this. In January 2025, the resident contacted the landlord again. She said it had not completed work promised in its stage 2 response, including addressing the windows. The landlord said that it had not agreed these works but asked for the resident to be updated.
39. The landlord later raised works to install double-glazed windows in February 2025, noting that the whole house needed secondary glazing. In March 2025, the landlord responded to a member’s enquiry, advising that the senior surveyor who was dealing with the case had left the landlord and there was no record of the jobs he had raised. It said it had provided seals around the windows as a temporary fix and would now be considering double glazed windows. It carried out works to the windows in September 2025.
40. The landlord’s failure to investigate the resident’s concerns meant that it did not properly assess the windows in the property until 17 months after her first complaint, and 13 months after the OT report noted a potential hazard.
41. The landlord told us that it had suspended further works to the windows, because it now met thermal efficiency requirements. The resident told us that the property remains very cold. There is no evidence showing how the landlord assessed the temperature or how it considered the ongoing concerns about low temperatures.
42. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s actions and made orders to put this right, including £300 compensation. As the records reflect the issue is still ongoing, we have also ordered the landlord to carry out an inspection.

43. The resident said the landlord had not completed agreed works to address damp in the bedroom and hallway.
44. In its August 2024 stage 2 response, the landlord advised she had not raised damp as part of her initial complaint. It said there was no evidence she had reported her concerns to the relevant team. It explained that this was a repair matter, for which it would raise an investigation.
45. While the resident did not raise damp in her original complaint, we previously investigated the landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property (under case 202328323). In this, we found the resident had reported damp and mould in the bedroom and bathroom, and the landlord delayed arranging a damp and mould survey promised in October 2023.
46. The OT assessment in January 2024 also recorded mould spores on the wall. In June 2024, an internal email from the landlord stated it had completed a damp inspection and that the resident was awaiting a response from the surveyor. It said it would follow up with the damp report and provide an update.
47. As we have already looked at the landlord’s actions in the period up to October 2023 and made a determination on the landlord’s handling of the leak and the follow up works, we will not comment on that further here.
48. However, the landlord’s position that it was not aware the resident had raised concerns about damp was not consistent with its records. It reflects a further lack of oversight of her case and poor record keeping. It failed to show it completed a thorough investigation into her concerns in line with its complaint handling procedure. It was also silent on the mould issue event after this was mentioned in the January 2024 OT report.
49. After its final response, the landlord requested a survey. It completed this on 17 August 2024. The survey recommended an investigation into a leak and work to address the damp. We note the landlord also carried out damp and mould investigations in line with our previous orders. The resident raised concerns about damp in her dining room in January 2025 and the landlord completed a post-inspection of its works the same month. Given the events since the end of the complaints process, we have made a recommendation above.
50. We have identified failings in the landlord’s handling of damp reports and its communication with the resident. We have ordered it to apologise and pay £150 compensation.

51. The resident said she reported a dripping noise in her bedroom, and the landlord did not investigate or resolve this. She said the noise is still ongoing and constant, and the landlord has not found the source.
52. The first evidence of the resident reporting this was in her stage 2 complaint of July 2024. In its response, the landlord said she had not raised this with its regeneration team before, and it was not part of her original complaint. It said it found no evidence it previously promised works relating to the noise, but it was a repair issue so it would raise this for investigation and repair as needed. Its repair policy states it will complete routine repairs within 28 days.
53. We can see that the landlord requested a survey for the resident’s property, and its records reflect it planned to investigate the dripping noise as part of this. However, the survey on 17 August 2024 did not reference the noise, while the landlord told us it was unable to locate any repairs or communications relating to this matter.
54. The landlord failed to follow up on actions it promised in its final response. It has left the resident without a resolution for over 15 months and again shown poor record keeping which led to a lack of oversight.
55. We have found maladministration and made orders to put this right, including further compensation of £100.

56. The timeframes in the landlord’s complaints policy in use at the time were in line with the Housing Ombudsman 2022 Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its current policy is in line with the 2024 Code.
57. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 September 2023 and raised concerns about its handling of repairs and adaptations. The Code says a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. As such, the landlord should have logged the email as a complaint and acknowledged it within 5 working days.
58. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 21 September 2023, 10 days later. In its response, the landlord explained it first tried to resolve her concerns at the informal stage of its policy before the resident confirmed on 15 September 2023 that she wanted to raise a complaint.
59. The Code states that it is not appropriate to have extra complaint stages as it causes unnecessary confusion for residents. The landlord’s own procedure also required it to register and acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days unless this could be resolved on the day it was made.
60. By not following the Code or its policy, the landlord caused a delay in progressing the resident’s complaint. At stage 2, it said the resident escalated her complaint on 2 July 2024. There is no evidence it acknowledged the complaint, and it responded 24 working days layer. This was not in line with the Code or its own policy, which both required a response within 20 days of escalation.
61. The landlord failed to follow appropriate timeframes at both stages. Although the delays were not large, it caused the resident additional time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. As set out previously, it also failed to respond to all points of the complaint and gave conflicting information.
62. The landlord has not recognised failings in its complaint process and as such it has not taken steps to put this right. We have found service failure and ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £100 compensation.

Learning

Adaptations and repairs

63. The landlord must ensure it considers requests for adaptations in line with its policy and shares clear responses with residents. It needs to complete recommended adaptations in appropriate timeframes and keep the resident updated. This will avoid confusion for residents and reduces the need for residents to chase the landlord.
64. The landlord failed to show if it assessed the potential hazards included in the OT report, or if it established the resident’s home was habitable in light of the reported vulnerabilities and concerns about the windows, insulation and cold temperatures in the property. It needs to ensure it has processed in place to follow up on reports of hazards.
65. The landlord must ensure it follows up on repairs in a timely way. It should provide residents with timescales for repairs and ensure these are followed until completion to avoid delays.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

66. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has an obligation to provide us with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. At times the landlords poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine what actions it took and if it was fair under the circumstances. Its poor record keeping appeared to impact its own handling and oversight of the case, and it gave inconsistent information. It should ensure it is keeping adequate records for all cases.

Communication

67. The landlord should ensure it has processes in place to keep residents updated about repairs and adaptations. It should consider actions it can take to monitor agreed actions through to completion. This can help establish trust between the resident and the landlord and reduces the need for residents to chase for updates.