Yorkshire Housing Limited (202343756)

Decision
Case ID	202343756
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Yorkshire Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	6 January 2026

Background

1. The resident purchased a share of a new build, shared ownership home in 2023. Soon after moving into the property she reported a roof leak, and later that year she reported a problem with the soil pipe. The landlord managed these reports as defect repairs. Both repairs were delayed and the resident complained to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. a leak to the chimney, and subsequent remedial works.
   2. an obstruction on her driveway.
   3. a soil pipe repair.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a leak to the chimney, and subsequent remedial works.
5. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about an obstruction on her driveway.
6. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a soil pipe repair.
7. We have found reasonable redress in the handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

Concerns about a leak to the chimney, and subsequent remedial works

8. The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised, and provided an offer of compensation proportionate to the prolonged delays and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

Concerns about an obstruction on her driveway

9. The landlord acted promptly and proportionately by chasing the contractor and escalating the issue, showing it made some efforts to resolve the problem. It could have done more to enforce the terms of its defects procedure with the contractor to reduce inconvenience for the resident. However, the landlord ultimately resolved the complaint and provided compensation.

Concerns about a soil pipe repair

10. The landlord initially acted correctly by raising a defect repair promptly within its procedure, but it failed to ensure timely completion, resulting in an 8-month delay. It went on to apologise for the delay and awarded compensation, which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

11. The landlord handled the complaint journey well overall, with only a minor delay in issuing its stage 2 response. It acknowledged this delay and resolved the issue by apologising, which put things right in the circumstances.

 

Putting things right

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident £950 which it previously offered across its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, made up of: –       £500 for the chimney repair delays and cancelled appointments. –       £100 for the stress and inconvenience of being unable to use the driveway for 2 weeks over Christmas. –       £250 for the failure to fit the soil pipe replacement part which was still outstanding. –       £100 for the stress and inconvenience of having to use tarpaulin to contain the water leak in the loft space. Our finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation above being paid in full to the resident, if it has not been paid already. Any payments already made can be deducted from this total.
We recommend that the landlord review our Spotlight Report “Repairing Trust” and consider reviewing its approach to contractor management.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 January 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that: a cherry picker parked on her driveway by the contractor had not been removed which had impacted the use of her driveway over Christmas. the blocked driveway and a roof leak had caused her a lot of stress.
8 January 2024	After speaking to the resident, the landlord acknowledged her complaint. It understood the complaint to be about: a leak, reported in March 2023, that had still not been fixed and remained outstanding despite 2 contractor visits in December 2023. an operative leaving a cherry picker on the driveway between 18 December 2023 and 3 January 2024 which impacted use of the driveway. the outstanding repair to replace a valve in the downstairs toilet that was creating a smell in the room. The landlord acknowledged that as a resolution to her complaint the resident wanted the repairs to be completed, the ceiling to be replaced and compensation for the lack of parking and damage caused to the property. It said it would provide an outcome by 19 January 2024.
19 January 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The response: defined and upheld the resident’s complaint, it agreed the service provided was not what the resident had been promised. summarised the activity to date. said it would ensure the damage to the ceiling was repaired and would book the repair to the soil pipe with the contractor. offered £250 compensation, made up as follows: –       £100 for chimney repair delays and missed appointments. –       £100 for the stress and inconvenience of being unable to use the driveway for 2 weeks over Christmas. –       £50 for the delay in replacing the soil pipe part.
25 January 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the request the same day.
28 February 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The response: offered an apology that the complaint had not been resolved in a timely manner. said it had been unable to secure a date for the roof repair and was considering instructing an alternative contractor to quote for the work. made a revised offer of £950 compensation, made up of: –       an additional £400 for the chimney repair delays and cancelled appointments (on top of the £100 already offered at stage 1). –       £100 for the stress and inconvenience of being unable to use the driveway for 2 weeks over Christmas, already offered at stage 1. –       an additional £200 for the failure to fit the soil pipe replacement part which was still outstanding (on top of the £50 already offered at stage 1). –       £100 for the stress and inconvenience of having to use tarpaulin to contain the water leak in the loft space. said it would instruct an alternative contractor if the primary contractor failed to progress the remedial ceiling works and soil pipe replacement part quickly.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 26 June 2024 the resident said that her complaint remained unresolved and she asked our Service to investigate.

 

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 response to the resident’s concerns about a leak to the chimney, and subsequent remedial works
Finding	Reasonable redress

12. The property developer is wholly owned by the landlord. The primary point of contact throughout the complaints process acted in a dual capacity, representing both the developer and the landlord in his role as Aftercare Lead. Given the developer’s ownership structure and the interdependence of their actions, both are collectively referred to as ‘the landlord’ throughout this report.
13. The landlord employed the services of a housing maintenance provider, which is referred to in this report as “the contractor”.
14. The resident reported a roof leak on 21 March 2023 and the landlord raised a defect repair the same day, in line with its defects procedure which categorises roof leaks as an emergency repair to be attended within 24 hours. This was confirmed as completed on 7 June 2023.
15. In July 2023, the resident reported a further leak. In line with its procedure, the landlord raised a defect repair the following day and went on to inspect the chimney later that month, suspecting this was the source of the water ingress. There was a period of inaction from the landlord’s contractor between July and November 2023, however the landlord regularly chased them for updates and kept the resident informed throughout.
16. Following a missed appointment in November 2023, the contractor had still not attended by December 2023. The landlord escalated the matter to the contractor’s Operations Director in an effort to resolve the issue. On 15 January 2024, the contractor attended to repair the chimney but were unsuccessful in resolving the leak. The landlord then arranged for its own surveyor to inspect the chimney and sought a quotation from an alternative contractor. These actions were proactive and demonstrated consideration for the resident, as well as a clear intention to expedite a resolution.
17. The resident asked the landlord to inspect her property to address remedial works needed following the leak. The landlord inspected the property on 26 January 2024 and made recommendations for a full chimney inspection and remedial works to the ceiling. A specialist inspection was completed, arranged by the landlord, and an alternative contractor confirmed that the chimney flashings had been incorrectly fitted.
18. The defects procedure says that if the contractor can’t attend within the agreed time, the landlord can make other arrangements to get the work done. The landlord did progress this option, but it was a year after the leak was first reported before the landlord obtained a quote from another contractor. This was a failure, delaying resolution for the resident. The landlord should have acted sooner to enforce its contract terms with the contractor.
19. From the time the resident first reported the leak, throughout the complaints process and beyond, the landlord communicated with the resident exceptionally well. It replied to the resident regularly, proactively updated her on the progress even when there was not much to report, and showed empathy in its communications.
20. Overall, the landlord responded proportionately to the roof leak. It kept in regular contact with the resident, communicated empathetically, and made reasonable efforts to engage its contractor. However, it was slow to look for alternative solutions, which caused prolonged distress and inconvenience for the resident.
21. The chimney leak was repaired successfully in February 2025 and the associated remedial works were completed in March 2025. The landlord’s compensation policy follows the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It considers discretionary compensation when there has been an unreasonable delay in resolving a problem, considering the severity and duration of the issue. In this case, the landlord admitted its failings and offered £600 compensation for its handling of the leak which is in line with our guidance and fairly reflects the level of distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. In our view this satisfactorily resolved the complaint

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about an obstruction on her driveway
Finding	Reasonable redress

22. On 18 December the contractor attended to repair the roof leak but arrived with the wrong cherry picker. They parked the equipment in the resident’s driveway and proceeded to leave it in situ for the next 16 days, over the Christmas period.
23. When contractors act on behalf of landlords, they represent the landlord and are expected to fulfil their contractual obligations. In this case, the contractor failed to meet those obligations. The landlord’s response was proportionate and evidence indicates that it made reasonable efforts to resolve the issue, including following up with the contractor and escalating the matter to the contractor’s Operations Director. Despite these actions, the contractor did not comply with its responsibilities as the landlord’s representative.
24. The landlord showed empathy and kept the resident informed until the issue was resolved. Whilst the landlord responded appropriately, it could have enforced the contractual terms more robustly to prevent the equipment from remaining on site for 16 days. Stronger intervention would have reduced the inconvenience for the resident.
25. The landlord apologised for the resident’s stress and inconvenience and offered £100 compensation for being unable to use her driveway for 2 weeks. This fairly reflects the level of inconvenience experienced by the resident and in our view satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a soil pipe repair
Finding	Reasonable redress

26. The resident reported a problem with the soil pipe on 18 July 2023, and the landlord responded quickly and within its defects procedure timeframe by raising a defect repair the following day. The resident told the landlord in October 2023 that the contractor had not been in touch to repair the soil pipe. The contractor had attended on 18 November 2023 but the resident reported they were unable to complete the repair.
27. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord promised to instruct a different contractor to replace the necessary part on the soil pipe if the contractor failed to progress this in a timely manner.
28. The resident told this Service the soil pipe repair was completed on 2 April 2024. A new part should not have taken over 8 months to replace. This was contrary to the landlord’s defects procedure and represents a service failure. However, the landlord offered £250 compensation for the delays, which is in line with our remedies guidance and in our view satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

29. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within the timeframes of its customer feedback policy, which was aligned with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (The Code).
30. It acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within the policy timeframe but its stage 2 complaint response was 4 working days outside of this. This was a minor failure for which the landlord apologised.
31. The landlord’s complaint responses were detailed, empathetic, and aligned with the requirements of The Code.
32. As there is no evidence showing the resident had to chase a response or that the short delay caused any additional distress or inconvenience, we consider that the apology resolved this aspect satisfactorily.

Learning

If a contractor doesn’t deliver, the landlord should act quickly by escalating the issue and making other arrangements. It should also review how it manages contractors and put plans in place to avoid long delays for residents. Our Spotlight Report, Repairing Trust, gives helpful insight on managing contractor relationships and includes examples of good practice. We have made a recommendation that the landlord takes time to review this report.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord kept good records of the resident’s reports, its responses, and evidence about the main issues and complaints. However, including details of the resident’s phone calls would have strengthened the investigation. For future cases, the landlord should think about sharing the resident’s Customer Relationship Management (CRM) timeline when information is requested.

Communication

34. The landlord managed communication very well by giving regular, proactive updates and showing empathy throughout the process. For future cases, maintaining this level of clear, timely, and compassionate communication should remain a priority.