One Housing Group Limited (202422862)

Decision
Case ID	202422862
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	One Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	24 February 2026

Background

The resident was unhappy with the progress of removing cladding from his building. He was frustrated that works had not started and that timeframes for the completion of the works kept changing.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of remediation works to cladding on the property
2. handling of the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

We have found the landlord responsible for:
1. maladministration in its handling of remediation works to cladding on the property
2. service failure in its complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of remediation works to cladding on the property

The landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to progress the remedial works. It did not communicate clearly and raised expectations unnecessarily. It has not set out a timeframe for considering other ways of completing the works despite a lack of progress in its legal negotiations.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord failed to keep to its timelines and did not acknowledge this. It gave clear responses but failed to address every aspect of the complaint.

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 24 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by poor communication and mismanagement of expectations around the cladding works. 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 24 March 2026
3	Meet with the resident The landlord must organise a meeting with the resident to discuss the cladding works. The landlord must ensure: it understands the resident’s concerns about safety and the status of the works it explains the safety measures it has put in place it explains the current status of the cladding works the meeting is conducted by a suitable senior manager it follows up the meeting by sending the resident a summary in writing	No later than 24 March 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord provides the resident with a target date after which it will consider the legal negotiations to have been unsuccessful. We recommend it sets out the alternative options it will take instead, such as pursuing government funding for the works or making a retrospective claim for the cost of the works from the original contractor.
We recommend the landlord continues to provide quarterly updates to all residents of the building. It should ensure it manages expectations clearly in any updates it provides.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 January 2023	The landlord sent a letter to all residents notifying them it was entering into legal negotiations with the building’s original contractor to begin cladding remediation works. It also confirmed it needed to exhaust this process before applying for support from the government’s Building Safety Fund.
4 January 2024	The landlord sent a letter to all residents notifying them it had started an application through the government’s Cladding Safety Scheme. It said it was arranging a fire risk appraisal of the external walls and was trying to find an engineer to conduct this.
22 March 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint. He said: the landlord had provided inconsistent information to residents about the cladding on the building since 2019 it should have notified him of issues with the cladding when he moved into the property it was managing the remedial works badly and had not kept to its schedule as works had not started it kept changing the timescales for works the building opposite had started remedial works despite being told they were required later than his building and making a claim against the same original contractor
12 April 2024	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. It said: it had limited records of information was provided at the point of purchase and would not be able to investigate in depth as a result the EWS1 form that told it the building did not meet safety standards was issued in 2020 after he had purchased the property it was unlikely that the cladding issue was known to the landlord or the resident’s solicitors at the time he made the purchase it was sorry he was unhappy with its communication and progress made with the remedial works it had provided regular updates regarding the cladding since 2020 and would continue to do so it agreed the process had taken a long time but that it was working with the government and legal advisors to come to an agreement on the start of the works it understood that ongoing negotiations and the lack of a firm timeline increased the residents uncertainty about how things would progress it was awaiting a Fire Risk Assessment of the External Walls (FRAEW) and would update residents on its progress it was partially upholding the complaint as it was unable to give a detailed response about the purchase of the flat it was not upholding the part about its communication and progress with remediation works
28 April 2024	The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated. He said: he could not understand why it was taking so long to conduct the remediation works his solicitor had asked questions about cladding at the time of the purchase the purchase happened 2 years after the Grenfell tragedy and cladding should have been discussed as a high priority matter
28 May 2024	The landlord gave its stage 2 response. It said: its communication had been consistent it appreciated the length of time it had taken for remedial works to take place but that the legal negotiations around the matter were complex it would update the resident once negotiations progressed and committed to continuing with its quarterly updates to all residents it reiterated its position on the sale of the property and that it could not have known about the cladding issue as the building safety reports were issued after the sale
17 December 2025	The landlord sent a letter to all residents. It said negotiations were taking longer than anticipated and that it apologised for the delay. It said it had live applications underway for either the Cladding Safety Scheme or the Building Safety Fund. It said it would update residents in March 2026 unless anything changed before then.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the issue. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint and that works remained incomplete.

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 remediation works to cladding on the property
Finding	Maladministration

What we’re not looking at

The resident complained about the information given to him at the point he purchased his flat in August 2019. We encourage residents to raise complaints while they are still live and evidence is readily available. We will not investigate the purchase due to the amount of time that has passed.
We will investigate how the landlord handled the remediation works following the complaints procedure. This is because it committed to providing ongoing updates around its progress with the works. It is fair and reasonable for us to assess whether its communication with the resident remained consistent after the complaint.

What we have looked at

Our guidance sets out that when investigating a complaint relating to the government’s guidance on fire safety and cladding, we will consider:
1. the landlord’s long-term plans for compliance with the guidance and if they are fair and reasonable
2. how it communicated with shared owners/leaseholders about the situation and if this communication was appropriate
3. how it responded to the individual circumstances of the resident

Long-term plans

The landlord notified residents that issues with the safety of the cladding on the property had been identified in a summary defects report on 25 June 2020 and the need for remedial works was confirmed in the EWS1 form on 17 September 2020. This was reasonable and showed it understood the importance of the issue.
The landlord’s long term plans were established in a letter to residents on 19 January 2023. It made clear that it was taking legal action to make the original contractor undertake the works. It also said that, if this was unsuccessful, it would be able to make a claim through the government’s Building Safety Fund. It was appropriate that it set out a clear picture of its options for progressing with works.
However, little progress was made in the landlord’s negotiations from this point onwards. Between 27 April 2023 and 10 March 2025 its only movement was that some contracts for the work had been drafted but not agreed on. It regularly told residents in its quarterly updates that any timescales it set out for progress were estimates. While this was reasonable, it did not set out a timeframe for when it would consider negotiations to be unsuccessful so it could take another route to complete the work. The works remain incomplete at time of this report. It has not considered whether the impact of the ongoing negotiations has been fair on residents and if it should pursue a different method of funding the works. It could have conducted a resident impact assessment or something similar to show it was trying to learn from the process.
The landlord’s approach to elements of its long-term plans was inconsistent. In a letter to residents on 14 September 2023, it said the building had been placed on its procurement list. It said tendering would likely take place before the end of 2023 with the aim of starting works at the beginning of 2024. However, its next update letter on 14 December 2023 said tendering would not happen before the end of the year because it was in the process of setting up a compliant procurement framework. It was unreasonable that it raised expectations around progress but had failed to adequately prepare for the process by creating the framework in advance. It did not show it had sufficient oversight of its long-term plan. The resident was put to further frustration and uncertainty as it set unrealistic targets.

Communication

The landlord’s communicated consistently from January 2023 onwards, following a reliable quarterly schedule as it promised. This was positive and showed a commitment to keeping residents informed. However, the content of the updates was inconsistent and failed to give a clear picture of how the works were progressing. For example, its update letter on 5 July 2024 said negotiations were progressing well and that a fire engineer’s report would be published in the next few months. However, its update on 7 October 2024 noted that the engineer’s survey would not begin until 14 October 2024. Subsequent letters showed that the report itself would not be available until the end of the year. Its was unreasonable that it was not clearer about the timeframes needed to make progress with the different elements of the work.
The landlord unreasonably raised expectations of when works would progress despite saying its timescales were estimates. In its quarterly letters to residents, it frequently set out expected times that certain actions would take place, including tendering processes, conclusion of legal negotiations and the start of works. For example, its update letter on 3 January 2025 said it was aiming to conclude negotiations by Spring 2025. Future updates moved this aim to Autumn 2025. Its most recent letter from 17 December 2025 said they would conclude in the ‘next couple of weeks.’ It was unfair that it set out estimated dates for progress but repeatedly failed to meet these. The resident faced ongoing uncertainty as a result.
Our spotlight report on cladding highlights the need for regular and accurate communication as a way of preventing distress to residents. However, regular communication alone is not sufficient if it gives an unclear or contradictory picture of progress. While we appreciate that the process has been complex, the landlord’s communication could have been clearer and more consistent throughout. This would have better informed and built trust with the resident, who said he could not understand why the process was taking so long.

The resident’s circumstances

In his complaint, the resident raised clear concerns about the safety of the building. He mentioned feeling stuck in an unsafe flat without any sign that works were being completed. While the landlord acknowledged his frustration with the length of time the process was taking, it did not mention his safety concerns. This was not appropriate. It should have shown that it considered ways to offer him more reassurance about his safety.
The landlord could have clearly explained the safety measures it had put in place following the cladding defect report. We understand it put a waking watch team in place for 24 hour monitoring and renewed its alarm systems. It was unreasonable that it did not offer more reassurance to the resident in its responses when it had taken some action in response to increased safety concerns.
The landlord’s overall approach to the handling of remediation works was unreasonable. It is appropriate that compensation is ordered for the ongoing distress caused by mismanaged expectations and inconsistent communication the resident has faced over several years. We have considered this order in line with its Compensation Procedure and our own remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code.”)
As can be seen from above:
1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 14 working days (22 March 2024 to 12 April 2024) which was not in line with the 10 days the Code allows
2. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 19 working days (28 April 2024 to 28 May 2024) which was in line with the 20 days the Code allows
The landlord’s complaint handling was inconsistent. It failed to meet its timeline for the stage 1 response and did not ask the resident for an extension as its policy says it will, which was not appropriate. While it improved on its response time at stage 2, its lack of acknowledgment that it had missed its timelines showed it had insufficient oversight of the complaints process. This contributed to the resident’s ongoing distress, especially given the longstanding issues with delays to cladding works and his concerns around poor communication.
The landlord’s responses were clear and set out an understanding of the main complaint points. It explained its reasoning well and used its records to support its findings. However, it failed to address all points raised in his complaint when it gave its responses as the Code says it must.

Learning

We have previously investigated the landlord in relation to works on the resident’s building. It could review whether the steps it has taken since previous investigations have improved communication effectively. It could also reflect on whether its continued reliance on legal negotiations remains fair to residents given the limited progress.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord could reflect on whether clearer record keeping would have improved its complaint handling and responses.

Communication

The landlord’s communication followed a regular pattern but was impacted by inconsistent messaging. It could reflect on whether the language it used unreasonably raised the resident’s expectations and whether providing more clear information would have reduced the confusion he felt around its progress with works.