Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202430438)

Decision
Case ID	202430438
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Thirteen Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	30 April 2026

Background

1. The leaseholder complained about repairs that were needed to a window and door in his flat, and to the building’s exterior pillars. The landlord initially said that all three matters were the leaseholder’s responsibility, though it later engaged in a Section 20 process about the exterior pillars.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to a window and door in his flat.
   2. Repairs to the building’s exterior pillars.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. The complaint about the repairs to a window and door is outside our jurisdiction.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the building’s exterior pillars.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a window and door in his flat

4. This aspect of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, the evidence showed a disagreement between the leaseholder and the landlord’s legal advisers about the repair responsibilities set out in the lease agreement. We cannot issue a binding decision about a dispute concerning the meaning or enforceability of a contract or an interpretation of the lease. This is better dealt with by the courts, and for that reason we have not investigated the landlord’s handling of repairs to a window and door in the flat.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the building’s exterior pillars

5. The landlord’s initial complaint response gave information about the leaseholder’s repair responsibilities that contradicted its own policy and internal advice. It later accepted responsibility for the pillars but did not acknowledge that this was a change in approach.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

6. The landlord’s complaint response at stage was delayed and it did not initially register the leaseholder’s escalated complaint. Its response at stage 2 was outside the timescales in its policy, but within those required by the Code.

 

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
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the leaseholder £200 made up as follows: £150 to recognise the inconvenience caused by providing contradictory information, and later not acknowledging that it had done so. £50 for complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the leaseholder by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 28 May 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 September 2024	The leaseholder complained to the landlord about what he said was its poor maintenance of the property. He said the exterior pillars had fallen into disrepair, and that he had complained about the same issue “in 2022/2023”. He said the leaseholder advice service had told him that the landlord was responsible for repairing the pillars.
Between 18 and 21 October 2024	The landlord’s internal communications show it was aware it should complete external repairs, and that the exterior pillars were “definitely [its] responsibility”.
24 October 2024	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. It apologised that the leaseholder was unhappy, outlined his complaint history and said it could not see where a complaint about the pillars had been raised before. The landlord said the pillar repairs were the leaseholder’s responsibility.
30 October 2024	The leaseholder escalated the complaint to stage 2 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. The landlord replied two days later, directing the leaseholder to information on its website which it said explained that it was not responsible for the repairs.
7 November 2024	The leaseholder chased the landlord to confirm his stage 2 complaint. The landlord said it would register the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman – 8 November 2024	The leaseholder contacted us, saying the pillars were in disrepair and breaking up, the landlord had said the repair was his responsibility, and he had received advice to indicate the landlord was responsible.
Between 8 and 18 November 2024	The landlord visited the property and outlined various repairs to be completed, including the pillars and associated canopy roof. The landlord decided that the pillars were decorative and not structural or load bearing.
20 November 2024	The landlord gave its stage 2 response. It outlined the repairs identified during the visit to the property and explained that it was in the process of obtaining quotes for repairs to the pillars and would follow up with a Section 20 (S20) consultation.
13 April 2025	The landlord wrote to the leaseholder with two quotes for repairs to the pillars and canopy roof.
26 June 2025	The landlord wrote to the leaseholder saying it intended to carry out repair work to the pillars and canopy roof, explained the S20 process, and invited his comments.
Contact with the Ombudsman	Following the landlord’s final complaint response the leaseholder told us that, because the landlord had not kept the building in good repair, his tenant had moved out. He told us he wanted significant compensation for loss of rent as the issue had led to arrears with his mortgage.

 

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 handing of repairs to exterior pillars.
Finding	Service failure

7. The leaseholder’s complaint was about exterior pillars. The lease says the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building in which his flat is situated. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will carry out an S20 consultation, a legal responsibility, with any leaseholder where maintenance works are required to be completed through the lease agreements.
8. Before the landlord responded at stage 1, it had received internal advice that it was “definitely” responsible for the pillars. Its complaint response was detailed and addressed the substance of the complaint, including the leaseholder’s assertion that he had raised the matter of the pillars before. The landlord referred to its own policy, stating that it was responsible for keeping the structure, exterior and common parts of the building in good repair.
9. However, it then went on to say that repairs to the exterior pillars were the leaseholder’s responsibility, and that it did not intend to carry out the repair. The landlord did not provide any explanation for this contradiction, and its explanation was not supported by either its policy or the internal advice it had received.
10. The landlord’s stage 2 response was again detailed and took into account an inspection of the property that had identified necessary repair work, including to the exterior pillars. Although the landlord said it was satisfied that the information provided at stage 1 had been correct and that it had not changed its decision, it now accepted responsibility for the exterior pillars and outlined the S20 process that would take place regarding their repair. It did not acknowledge or explain why its first complaint response had got this wrong.
11. Following the stage 2 response, the landlord did what it said it would, and continued to follow the S20 process by obtaining quotes for the repair work and engaging in a consultation process with the leaseholder.
12. The leaseholder told us that he had lost his tenant and wanted significant compensation for loss of rent and his mortgage arrears. However, there is nothing to indicate that this was caused directly by the lack of repair to the building’s exterior pillars.
13. Overall, the landlord’s actions in accepting responsibility for the repairs and starting the S20 process were reasonable and in line with its policy and lease obligations, and the repairs its inspection had identified were needed. However, its first complaint response was contradictory and incorrect, and it did not recognise or remedy this in its final response. Given that this mistake was at one of the main reasons why the resident escalated his complaint, the landlord’s omission was a failing. We have made a compensation order in line with our guidance for the inconvenience caused by the service failures noted above.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

14. The landlord’s definition of a complaint is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), but its response timescales are shorter (5 working days for stage 1, and 10 working days for stage 2).
15. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint after 21 working days, outside the 5 working days required by its policy, and the 10 working days required by the Code.
16. When the leaseholder tried to escalate the complaint, the landlord did not register the stage 2 complaint and instead directed him to information on its website. It registered the complaint only after the leaseholder chased the matter a week later. The landlord responded at stage 2 after 15 working days, outside the 10 working days required by its policy but within the 20 working days required by the Code.
17. The delays in the landlord’s responses to the complaint were short, and there is no indication of any impact from them. However, by not escalating the resident’s complaint at the time he asked it to, the landlord required him to chase the matter, and was an error which the landlord should have acknowledged and apologised for. It did not do so, and that was a failing. We have made a compensation order in line with our guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord’s records were of an appropriate standard, which enabled us to robustly consider its actions and decisions regarding the substantive issue and the associated complaint.

Communication

19. The landlord maintained regular communication with the leaseholder throughout the process, and its complaint responses were detailed. Nonetheless, given the error identified above, it should ensure that its communications are accurate and non-contradictory to avoid confusion.