One Housing Group Limited (202431505)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431505

One Housing Group Limited

31 July 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak to the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 4-bedroom flat. He lives there with his wife. The landlord has informed us it is aware the resident has multiple vulnerabilities.
The resident reported there was a leak in his property on 18 August 2023. The landlord completed a repair 5 days later. In January 2024 the resident reported the leak had returned.
On 23 July 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that despite multiple visits to his property, the cause of the leak had not been traced, and the leak had compromised an electrical socket in the kitchen.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 August 2024. It apologised for the delay in stopping the leak and said it had arranged for a specialist inspection to take place. It offered the resident £300 compensation.
The resident escalated his complaint on 25 August 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 October 2024. It apologised the source of the leak had not been located and said it had arranged a surveyor to attend the property to investigate further. It offered the resident an additional £300 compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In his correspondence with us, the resident referred to several historic leaks at his property that did not go through the landlord’s internal complaints process at the time. While the incidents are similar in nature, there were periods of time between each occurrence when the resident did not experience any leaking. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between 23 July 2023 to 28 October 2024. This being the date 12 months prior to this complaint, through to when the landlord issued its stage 2 response. We consider this a fair timescale for both parties using the discretion we have under our Scheme.
The resident has informed us how the issues have impacted his family’s health. Where we find failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury are better dealt with by the courts because they will often have the benefit of an independent medical expert who can give evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis and cause of any injury. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.

Leak

On 18 August 2023 the resident reported a leak coming through the ceiling of his property. The landlord’s notes recorded the repair was completed 5 days later. It is unclear from the notes what work was carried out.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining installations for the supply of water. The flats above the resident are occupied by tenants of the landlord.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the timescales in which it will attend repairs:
1. Emergency repairs will be attended within 4 hours and made safe within 12 hours. This includes leaks cannot be contained.
2. Urgent repairs will be completed within 5 days.
3. Routine repairs will be completed within 28 days.
There was no indication in the landlord’s notes that the leak was unable to be contained. Therefore, the landlord’s response was in line with its policy.
The landlord raised a repair to replaster the damage caused by the leak on 8 November 2023. The work was completed on 7 December 2023. It is accepted there was likely to be a delay in raising the job as the walls and ceiling needed to dry out. The landlord completed the repair 29 days later, just outside of the timescales set out in its policy.
On 10 January 2023 the landlord raised a repair to “inspect and report back water damaged worktop…” The landlord’s notes do not contain the full extent of the work required. The job was marked as complete on 14 May 2024, 3 months later than the policy timescales allowed. The reasons for this delay are not documented.
The resident recalls the landlord’s plumber attending his property on 23 January 2024. The resident said the leak had returned in the same place and the plumber was unable to identify the cause on this visit as they did not have the correct equipment. The landlord’s notes contain no mention of this visit, which suggests there may be gaps in the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord raised a further repair for a leak on 15 March 2024. The landlord’s notes recorded water from the leak was causing the resident’s electrical sockets to trip. The repair was attended the same day in line with its policy for emergency repairs.
The landlord raised a further job on 18 March 2024 to cut a hole in the ceiling to find where the leak was coming from. It is unclear from the landlord’s notes what priority the job was given. The job was marked as complete on 17 April 2024, 30 days after it was raised. The landlord’s notes do not record what was found during the inspection.
The evidence shows the leak had been ongoing for at least 2 months, it was affecting the electrical sockets in the property and the resident was extremely vulnerable by virtue of his age and medical conditions. It would have reasonable to expect the landlord to have prioritised the jobs required to fix the issue as urgent, given these circumstances.
The resident reported the leak again on 12 and 18 July 2024. The landlord attended both jobs in line with its policy timescales after these reports. However, there are no notes to determine what work was carried out.
The resident raised his complaint with the landlord on 23 July 2024. He said:
1. Despite numerous visits the leak continued to come through his kitchen and bedroom ceiling.
2. On a daily basis he needed to empty containers he had placed out to catch the leak.
3. A socket in the kitchen had been “compromised” leaving wires exposed and was a health and safety risk.
4. Both he and his wife were in their 80s, had multiple health conditions, and the situation was causing them “unbearable stress”.
The resident’s complaint was acknowledged the same day. However, there is no evidence the landlord acted on the residents reports of exposed wires in the area where the leak was. The landlord’s failure to act promptly on reports of what was potentially a serious health and safety issue was a significant failing on its part.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord attempted to access the flat above the resident on 24 July and 5 August 2024 to investigate the leak. On both occasions the landlord was unable to gain access. There is no evidence to show the landlord tried to contact the neighbour to arrange access prior to these visits.
The resident chased the repairs with the landlord on 7 on 14 August 2024. He attached videos of the leak and pictures of the containers used to catch the leak. One picture shows a container placed on the top of a high-level kitchen cupboard, just under ceiling height. Given the levels of constant water flow mentioned by the resident, the height of the containers, and his vulnerabilities, the landlord should have been aware it was extremely difficult for the resident to contain the leak.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 August 2024. It is likely the date of the response is incorrect as it refers to upcoming appointments that predate the response itself. In the response the landlord apologised for the delays and inconvenience caused and committed to resolving the situation quickly. It said:
1. A specialist contractor would attend the resident’s property, and the property above, on 19 August 2024 to identify the source of the leak.
2. An electrician would attend on 6 September 2024 to examine the electrics in the property.
3. It would keep the resident informed and provide him with updates.
4. It offered the resident £250 compensation, made up of:
  1. £200 for the impact of the ongoing leak and the disruption caused.
  2. £50 for lack of communication.
The evidence shows the resident raised his concerns regarding the electrics on 23 July 2024. The appointment offered in the stage 2 response was over 6 weeks after the landlord had been informed of the issue. This delay was unreasonable and not in keeping with the landlord’s policy timescales.
The landlord’s compensation procedure in place at the time (dated April 2022) states payments for delay and distress will be made based on the level of the landlord’s responsibility for the loss or inconvenience and the impact on the household. The procedure states:
1. A medium impact is when inconvenience and / or distress has clearly been caused. A repeated failure of low impact could result in the impact being increased to medium. Highest level of compensation is £250.
2. A high impact is when a serious failure in service has taken place. This could be due to the severity of the event, or a persistent failure has occurred over a prolonged period of time, or there have been an unacceptable number of attempts to resolve an issue. Highest level of compensation is £500.
The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with a medium impact failing. However, the impact to the resident, evident in his communications with the landlord, together with the prolonged delays in resolving the issue, reached the high impact determination in the landlord’s compensation procedure. The level of compensation offered by the landlord was unreasonable and not aligned with its policy.
The resident escalated his complaint on 25 August 2024. The resident confirmed he was visited on 19 August 2024 but said the team in attendance did not have the appropriate tools to investigate the matter. The landlord has been unable to provide us with a copy of the inspection report for that date. Nor has it been able to confirm an electrician attended the property on 6 September 2024. Without this information, we are unable to conclude the landlord met the commitments it made to the resident in its stage 1 response.
On 13 and 25 September 2024 the resident contacted the landlord for an update. He said the leak was ongoing and he was now emptying the water 3 times a day. This suggested the leak was getting worse. From the documentation provided, the landlord did not act upon this new information. This was unreasonable and another example of the landlord failing to do what it said it would in its complaint response.
On 28 October 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. Again, it is likely the date of the response is incorrect as it refers to upcoming appointments that predate the response itself. The landlord said:
1. It apologised for any inconvenience caused by the delays.
2. A surveyor would attend the property on 21 October 2024 to review the leak and “hopefully” find a resolution.
3. It offered the resident an additional £200 compensation, bringing the total to £450.
While the landlord offered some plan of action going forward, the response failed to reassure the resident. It also failed to account for why the previous inspection it arranged had been unsuccessful.
The landlord has been unable to provide us with any documentation from the surveyors visit scheduled for 21 October 2024. Furthermore, the landlord did not provide the resident with any updates despite him chasing it on 29 October and 4 and 25 November 2024.
An email from the resident to the landlord dated 24 March 2025 suggests the leak may have been stopped. However, the landlord has provided no evidence to show it has successfully resolved the source of the leak. In his email the resident raised concerns about mould and damage to his property caused by the leak. It is unclear what action, if any, the landlord has taken.
The resident has told us the situation remains unresolved. He is unsure as to whether the leak has been successfully stopped and the damage caused by the ongoing leak has not been addressed. The resident said the situation had been difficult to deal with for him and his wife due to their age and medical conditions.
In summary, the landlord’s record keeping contains minimal details of the repairs raised and the work carried out. This makes it difficult to understand what action the landlord took in respect of each report of a leak and whether it acted in accordance with its obligations.
The evidence that has been provided shows there were significant delays in identifying the source of the leak to the resident’s property and effecting the repair. The landlord only began to investigate the properties above the resident 7 months after it was made aware the leak had returned. While some of the delays were due to being unable to access the neighbouring properties, the landlord failed to demonstrate it had an effective plan to escalate the issue. It is reasonable to expect the landlord would have processes and policies to account for such circumstances in order to prevent ongoing damage to effecting neighbouring properties.
The lack of an effective plan to take action to prevent the leak damaging the resident’s property led to the situation deteriorating. It initially caused damage to the property, led to the electrical supply being compromised, and the resident is now experiencing mould in the bedroom, which is reasonable to assume is a consequence of the leak. The landlord’s failure to prioritise an inspection of the electrics after the resident raised concerns was of concern given the safety implications.
The landlord failed to recognise the urgency of the situation when its initial attempts to repair the leak failed. The landlord was aware the resident and his wife were vulnerable. The landlord failed to demonstrate empathy for his situation and failed to provide him with any updates as to when the situation would be resolved. This caused great distress and inconvenience to the resident, which was evident in his communication with the landlord.
The evidence shows while the landlord accepted it was responsible for the delays, it consistently failed to meet the commitments it made in its complaint responses. Its offer of compensation was lower than our remedies guidance for cases where there had been a severe long-term impact on the resident and was significantly below what we consider to be appropriate to remedy the distress and inconvenience cause by what was a significant failure by the landlord.
The combination of failings detailed above, together with the delays to affect a resolution, lead to a determination of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak to the resident’s property. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £1,000 compensation to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that have a severe long-term impact on the resident and the landlord has failed to put things right and learn from outcomes.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints:
1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint within 5 working days.
2. It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded.
3. It will issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint.
As noted above, the dates of the landlord’s formal complaint responses are incorrect. In the absence of any further information, these dates will be used when addressing the landlord’s complaint handling.
The resident complained to the landlord on 23 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged his complaint the same day, in line with its policy.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 August 2024, 19 working days after the complaint was recorded. It acknowledged it had failed to meet the timescales set out in its policy, apologised to the resident, and offered him £50 compensation. This was reasonable.
The resident escalated his complaint on 25 August 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 28 October 2024, 46 working days after the resident escalated his complaint. This was outside of its policy time scales. The landlord acknowledged this in its complaint response and offered the resident an additional £100 compensation, bringing the total to £150.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £150 may remedy a failure that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. When considering the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling, its apology and offer of compensation satisfactorily resolved the issue. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology from a chief executive for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £1,000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in handling the leak.
3. Appoint a suitably qualified surveyor to carry out an inspection of the property to identify the cause of the leak, or confirm the leak has been stopped, and the repairs that need to be completed, including making good the damage caused by the leak. The landlord must ensure that the surveyor provides a full report to it, including photographs and a scope of any works identified, within 10 working days of the date of the inspection. The landlord must provide the resident and us with a copy of the report within 5 working days of receipt.
4. Following receipt of the inspection report (survey), the landlord must ensure any works required are commenced within 28 days of the date it receives the report. The landlord must, within 9 weeks of the date of this determination, provide evidence that it has commenced the works or provide reasons and evidence as to why it has not / cannot start the work within these timescales, together with amended start times.
5. Conduct a review to identify why vulnerabilities and high-risk factors were not recognised to prompt a timely response. The landlord should set out the steps it will take to ensure vulnerabilities are recognised and responded to appropriately.
6. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with the orders in the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation for its failures in complaint handling if it has not already done so.