One Housing Group Limited (202428244)

Background

1. The resident lived in a 4-bedroom flat. He reported on 30 April 2024 that rainwater was leaking through the double-glazed kitchen window (fitted in the door). The landlord carried out a water test to the door the same day. Its contractor attended on 23 May 2024 and identified the works would require a window specialist. The resident escalated the complaint to us in July 2025. He said the repair remained unresolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the:
   • Resident’s reports of a leak.
   • Associated complaints.

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

Summary of reasons

5. There was a prolonged delay in resolving the leak to the kitchen door and poor communication by the landlord throughout its handling of the case.
6. The landlord did not escalate the stage 2 complaint within the timescales set out in its complaints handling policy.

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.

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.

7. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will aim to:
   • Meet its repair obligations so its properties are well maintained throughout the duration of the tenancy.
   • Communicate effectively to its customers regarding the delivery of its responsive repairs service.
   • Complete routine repairs within 28 days.
8. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will work to put things right, including making compensation payments where it identifies a service failure. It would consider the level of redress, length of time and severity in deciding the amount of compensation.
9. The actual date the resident reported the leak is not certain from the information seen. However, information in the landlord’s repairs log suggests the resident reported the leak when the landlord attended on 30 April 2024 to attend to an unrelated repair.
10. During its visit on 30 April 2024 the landlord noted the resident’s concerns about the leak, and it arranged further investigation by a window specialist. The landlord said it attended the property on 13 June 2024 and 21 July 2024 but the repairs log does not contain a record of the visits, findings or any recommendations made. This indicates poor record keeping by the landlord.
11. The landlord has not disputed the resident’s complaint that he experienced a prolonged delay in resolving the leak into his kitchen. Following its initial visit on 30 April 2024 the landlord did not revisit the property until 13 June 2024. This was approximately 32 working days after its initial inspection. There was a further delay of 26 working days before the specialist attended on 21 July 2024. We have not seen evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated or that it provided an explanation for the delays.
12. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation for the delays which occurred from 21 July 21 to 9 August 2024. It said the subcontractor intended to return on 22 July 2024 to identify the source of the leak and complete the necessary. It said this was placed on hold because the resident was on holiday. However, there were unexplained delays following the stage 1 response on 9 August 2024.
13. Despite the landlord’s assurances, it failed to follow up the case and provide updates to the resident. The prolonged delays and lack of communication caused the resident distress and frustration. This was expressed in various emails to the landlord, his local MP and to our Service from August 2024 to December 2024.
14. The repairs remained unresolved as of 6 June 2025 when the landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint. This was approximately 14 months after its initial visit. This was not in line with the landlord’s commitment to complete repairs at the first visit where possible or within 28 working days for routine repairs.
15. The landlord said it faced many challenges due to the complexity of the repair. However, it has not shown that it considered the impact of the ongoing leak on the resident, and if it could implement any temporary measures pending a permanent solution.
16. The landlord acknowledged the resident had been inconvenienced due to the significant delays to repairing the window and resolving the leak. It apologised and offered £250 compensation for the distress caused. This was in line with its compensation policy and shows some learning by the landlord. The landlord also said it was in the process of implementing a new scheduling and repairs system which should improve communication where delays to a repair occur.
17. We would have considered this a reasonable offer of redress had the landlord kept to the actions it agreed in the stage 2 response. This was also in consideration of the resident’s reports that water leaked onto his kitchen floor only when it rained. However, we have not seen evidence that the landlord provided updates to the resident following its final response. He advised us that he moved out of the property on 18 August 2025.
18. In conclusion, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s overall handling of the repair. To resolve this, we have awarded the resident an additional £150 for the distress and inconvenience. This brings the total compensation to £400.

What we did not consider

19. The resident said he had been experiencing the leak since in March 2022 but the evidence provided by him and the landlord does not support this. Therefore, we have considered events that occurred from 30 April 2024. This is because the evidence indicates the landlord was first notified of the leak on this date.

20. The landlord will aim to acknowledge complaints within 3 working days of receipt. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint. Where it cannot meet the target, it will provide an explanation including a clear timescale of when it will respond.
21. If a complainant disagrees with the offer of compensation, they can request a review of the amount they have been offered. This will be reviewed independently by the landlord’s compensation panel. Following the response any agreed actions will be monitored through to a conclusion and completed to a satisfactory standard.
22. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint within 4 working days of receiving it. This was 1 day outside the timescales set out in its complaints policy, but within the timescales set out in our complaint handling code.
23. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not inform the resident of the delays to the stage 1 response until the expected response date (26 July 2024) had passed. For best practice, any anticipated delays should be communicated to residents before the response deadline. Following this, the landlord responded on 9 August 2024, ahead of the revised response date. It would have been reasonable to address the delays in its response and apologise for any distress this may have caused. The landlord failed to do this.
24. We have identified significant failings with the landlord’s handling of the stage 2 complaint. This was partly due to delays in escalating the complaint to the next stage of its complaints process. It is noted that the resident requested a review of the compensation on 9 August 2024 and he did not specifically request a review of the complaint. Notwithstanding, the landlord did not refer the request to the relevant team for consideration. Also, it did not respond to subsequent emails and requests from the resident to provide a final response to his complaint. This is not in line with our complaint handling code which advises landlords must progress a complaint to stage 2, if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction.
25. The landlord did not log the stage 2 complaint until 27 April 2025. This was 8 months after the resident requested the review. During this time, the resident chased up the complaint escalation in various emails where he expressed frustration and disappointment at the delays. He asked for our intervention.
26. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 6 June 2025. This was approximately 28 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. The landlord took 209 working days (9 August 2024 to 6 June 2025) to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This fell far outside the 20 working days timescales published in its complaints policy. Despite the prolonged delays, the landlord did not address this in the response or apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused. Also, it did not monitor the actions agreed at both stages of the complaints process in line with its complaints policy.
27. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s overall handling of the complaints. The delays in escalating the complaint caused the resident frustration, time and trouble. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation to address this.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The repairs log provided by the landlord did not contain some of the dates it said it visited or inspected the property. It is important that landlords should update repair records accordingly as this is fundamental to providing a good repairs service.