One Housing Group Limited (202427768)

Background

1. The resident became a leaseholder of the property in October 2018. The property is a flat with a balcony on the first floor of a block containing similar properties.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a leak affecting her balcony.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found maladministration by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak affecting her balcony.
4. We have found service failure by the landlord for its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We found that:
   1. The landlord did not arrange works in line with its obligations under the lease. It did not communicate with the resident effectively while work was outstanding. It  did not put matters right through its internal complaints process and the delays have continued since then.
   2. The landlord acted reasonably by recognising delays in its complaint handling, but did not investigate appropriately at stage 1, suitably recognise failings, or demonstrate it had learnt from 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.

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.

6. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide evidence related to the case, including a history of the resident’s reports, repairs, and communication logs. It provided limited information which did not include records of its actions between inspections, or its communication with the resident. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
7. It is evident that the resident has experienced a leak affecting her balcony from at least as early as April 2022. She continued to report a lack of action following her complaint and has explained that the situation remains unresolved. In line with the lease agreement for the property, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the “retained parts” of the building, which includes balconies.
8. The landlord has provided very little evidence to support that it took appropriate actions to resolve the resident’s concerns prior to her complaint in July 2024. There is no evidence to support that the landlord attempted to arrange access to the property above the resident’s following an inspection on 10 June 2022. This was despite it being aware that the leak was coming from the balcony above and job notes showing that it needed to arrange this. While we have not seen evidence to show that the resident continued to report the issue between June 2022 and November 2023, the landlord was on notice of the problem and should have taken steps to resolve the leak.
9. During a visit around December 2023 following the resident’s further reports, the landlord identified a hole in the flooring of the balcony above that was allowing water to leak onto the resident’s balcony and damaging the render. This damage may have been prevented had the landlord taken appropriate steps from the outset.
10. The landlord was obliged to inspect and repair the balcony fault under the terms of the lease agreement and it it is unreasonable that it has not demonstrated that it contacted the neighbour above, or attempted to arrange access. Job notes from 8 December 2023 incorrectly reference needing access to an adjacent property to resolve the leak, rather than the property above the resident’s. When the landlord raised a further repair order on 30 January 2024, almost 2 months later and outside its routine repair timescales of 28 calendar days, it referred to the adjacent property, and the resident needed to call to correct this. This was likely to add to her frustration and could have been avoided had the landlord identified the correct property number from the outset.
11. The landlord has not provided evidence to support what happened between January and July 2024. The resident referenced communication and a survey in April 2024; however, the landlord has not provided evidence of this. Its records also indicate that it handled her concerns as a service request during this time but this is not detailed in its evidence submitted to us. There is ultimately a lack of evidence to support that it took appropriate actions in response to the resident’s concerns about the leak from above. The lack of evidence also aligns with her concern that the landlord did not keep records of communications or surveys.
12. In its communication with the resident in July 2024, the landlord said it had called and written to the neighbour above to arrange access. However, it has not provided evidence of this, and it has not demonstrated that it took suitable actions to resolve the problem at this point.
13. The landlord recognised that the resident needed to continually chase for updates regarding the leak and apologised for its service failures within its stage 1 complaint response on 8 August 2024. However, it did not seek to offer suitable redress in view of the length of time the matter had been ongoing and the time and trouble caused to her.
14. At stage 1, the landlord put the onus on the resident to report the issue to the building insurer. It also said it was only able to notify the resident above of the leak and ask them to contact their insurance provider or arrange a plumber. Alternatively, it said she would need to instruct a private plumber to provide a report to support that the issue related to a structural issue with the building.
15. This advice was inappropriate as the landlord was aware that the leak related to the 2 balconies for which it was responsible for under the terms of the lease, rather than a plumbing issue between the properties. Its response indicates that it did not fully understand the history of the resident’s reports or review previous records when responding. This advice was also likely to cause confusion as the landlord’s records indicate that it had called the resident on 6 August 2024 (2 days prior to the complaint response). At this point, it was waiting for an appointment date from its schedulers for an operative to attend, which it said it would share in its stage 1 complaint response.
16. The landlord recognised that it did not complete the correct “checks” at stage 1, and committed to inspecting, generating a report, sharing this with the resident, arranging appropriate actions, and calling the resident on 27 September 2024 to check the progress of the agreed actions.
17. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a further survey given that there is no evidence of the survey said to have taken place in April 2024 albeit this was likely to add to the resident’s frustration given the number of previous visits. It completed a survey and identified work needed to the balconies on 12 September 2024. This was within a reasonable timeframe following the stage 2 complaint response. However, we have not seen evidence to support that it raised the recommended works or monitored these through to completion as agreed.
18. The resident has said that the matter remains unresolved as of November 2025, over a year later, and the landlord has not completed any repairs. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it has completed the necessary works or explained the reason for the continued delay despite being given the opportunity to do so. It has failed to demonstrate that it resolved the situation within a reasonable timeframe following the complaint, that the delay was in any way outside of its control, or that it communicated effectively with the resident.
19. While the repair issue is external and may not be having a significant impact on the resident’s use of the property, she has spent time pursuing a resolution over a significant timeframe which is likely to have caused inconvenience and frustration given the repeated inspections, and lack of follow-up action. The inspection notes from 2022, 2023, and 2024 indicate that the leak causes salt staining and damage to the external render of the building over time, and it is unreasonable that the landlord has not yet resolved the situation given the potential for internal water ingress if left unresolved.
20. The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation for the resident’s distress and inconvenience was disproportionately low given the length of time the issue was (and is) ongoing, the lack of action or oversight, and the time and trouble, and frustration caused to her. We have also considered that the landlord failed to complete the repairs needed within a reasonable timeframe following the complaint.
21. Our remedies guidance states that compensation between £100 and £600 may be proportionate in instances of maladministration where there was an adverse effect on the resident, but where there may be no permanent impact. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £300, bringing the total to £400 to recognise the time and trouble, and frustration caused by its failings. We have also ordered the landlord to progress the works and monitor these through to completion.

22. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code became statutory in April 2024.
23. It is unclear when the resident first raised a complaint. However, the landlord’s records indicate that it had previously handled the resident’s concerns as a service request that remained “unresolved months later” according to its records from 17 July 2024. It has not provided evidence of the service request or agreed actions. However, the resident previously reported the repair concerns in November 2023. This indicates that the landlord had the opportunity to address the complaint formally via its complaints process, rather than treating it as a service request given the length of time since the original request.
24. On 9 July 2024, the landlord said it would be temporarily closing the resident’s complaint as it had not been able to reach her to confirm a resolution. This was inappropriate as it is evident that, at a minimum, she wanted it to resolve the leak between the balconies, and it had the opportunity to handle the complaint formally.
25. The resident specified that she did not want the landlord to close the complaint on 9 July 2024. It then took 22 working days for it to respond to the complaint at stage 1 of its process. It had 5 working days to acknowledge and 10 working days to answer the complaint (up to 15 working days) and should have responded by 23 July 2024 in line with the Code.
26. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 12 August 2024. While we note that she chased a stage 2 complaint response in October 2024, the landlord has provided evidence to show it sent the response on 10 September 2024. This was within 21 working days and an overall reasonable timeframe.
27. The landlord acted reasonably by recognising the delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response and offering £50 compensation which we find was proportionate to put right the impact of the delay. However, we note that it said its total compensation offer was £444, which was likely to cause confusion to the resident. The landlord also offered £50 compensation at stage 2 for the “late response”, but it did not specify whether this was in relation to its stage 1 complaint response, or an additional offer, which was likely to add to the overall confusion about the level of compensation offered.
28. While the landlord recognised that it did not complete the “correct checks” at stage 1 within its stage 2 complaint response, it did not specify what these were or address any specific failings. As set out above, it provided incorrect information in its stage 1 complaint response in relation to the leak repair. It would have been appropriate for it to have explained what it should have done and what the failings were to demonstrate that it had fully considered the complaint and had learnt from the complaint at the time.
29. In addition, the landlord is expected to address each aspect of a resident’s complaint in its responses. The resident raised specific concerns that it did not keep adequate records of inspections or communication, and that the leak had been ongoing for 2 years. While the landlord recognised service failures in its communication with the resident, it did not seek to put this right, and it did not suitably recognise the length of time she had been reporting issues, or any specific failings in its handling of her reports,
30. The landlord went some way to putting things right. However, it did not recognise the full impact of its failures during the complaint procedure or demonstrate that it had learnt from the complaint. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and ordered it to pay £150 compensation to reflect the adverse impact on the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord should have accessible information about its housing stock and the layout of its buildings to ensure it raises repairs accurately for the correct property. It should also have systems in place to monitor repairs through to completion where a repair involves multiple properties.

Communication and complaint handling

32. The landlord should ensure that it provides regular updates to a resident, and monitors agreed complaint actions through to completion to prevent unreasonable delays following a formal complaint. The landlord should clearly explain its compensation decisions, including whether offers at stage 2 incorporate, or are in addition to, any previous amount.