Your Housing Group Limited (202231183)

Decision
Case ID	202231183
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Your Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	30 April 2026

Background

The resident is a shared owner who raised concerns about responsibility for repairs at the property and the level and calculation of her rent. She also complained about delays in the landlord’s complaints process.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Request for clarity on responsibility for repairs and rent calculation.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found the landlord responsible for:
1. No maladministration in its response to the resident’s request for clarity on responsibility for repairs and rent calculation.
2. No maladministration in its response to the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Request for clarity on responsibility for repairs and rent calculation

The landlord gave the resident clear and accurate information about the lease terms and rent review mechanism, which reasonably addressed the resident’s request for clarity.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to the complaint within its published timescales and in line with its complaints policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 March 2023	The resident submitted a formal complaint, querying responsibility for repairs and replacement under her shared ownership lease and how the landlord calculated her rent.
6 April 2023	The landlord logged the complaint at stage 1.
17 April 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response, explaining that the leaseholder was responsible for repairs, maintenance and replacement, and that it reviewed rent annually in line with the lease.
21 April 2023	The resident requested further clarification following the landlord’s stage 1 response.
12 May 2023	The landlord provided further clarification of its stage 1 response. It apologised for not quoting the relevant lease clause. It further explained the rent calculation and need for the resident to request written consent for any alterations made.
16 February 2024	We asked the landlord to consider the complaint at stage 2.
19 February 2024	The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2. It explained that it would issue a response by 18 March 2024.
15 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, providing a full explanation of lease responsibilities, rent calculation and addressing the complaint handling concerns.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses.

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	Request for clarity on responsibility for repairs and rent calculation.
Finding	No maladministration

The lease says that the resident must keep the property repaired and maintained throughout the term of the lease. It does not place any obligation on the landlord to repair or replace internal or external components of the property. The landlord’s repair policy reflects this position by confirming that leaseholders are responsible for maintaining their homes in line with their lease.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained that responsibility for repairs and replacement sat with the resident under the lease. While the initial explanation included commentary that did not directly quote the lease, the landlord later apologised and clarified its position. It then clearly explained that its response was based on the lease terms that the resident had agreed to when she purchased her share of the property.
The resident also queried the level of rent and how it had been reviewed. We do not investigate complaints about the level of rent. This matter would fall under the remit of the First Tier Tribunal.
The lease sets out that rent is reviewed annually in line with the Retail Price Index. The landlord explained how it applied this mechanism and clarified the difference between shared ownership rent and social rent. There is no evidence that the rent was calculated incorrectly or outside the terms of the lease.
While the resident remained unhappy with the outcome, the landlord ultimately provided a clear and accurate explanation of repair responsibilities and rent calculation, in line with the lease. We therefore find reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for clarity on responsibility for repairs and rent calculation.

Complaint	Response to the resident’s complaint.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will record a complaint at stage 1 where a formal written response is required and will respond within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. It also says that residents may request escalation to stage 2 within six months of the stage 1 response.
The resident raised her concerns with the landlord on 20 March 2023. The landlord logged the matter as a stage 1 complaint on 6 April 2023. It issued its stage 1 response on 17 April 2023, which was within the timescales set out in its policy.
After receiving the stage 1 response, the resident contacted the landlord seeking further clarification. While the evidence does not record the exact date of this contact, the landlord reopened the complaint at stage 1 and provided a further written explanation on 12 May 2023. included an apology for earlier lack of clarity and additional information about the lease and rent calculation. This was a reasonable step to try to resolve the matter without escalation.
The landlord’s policy gives residents six months from the stage 1 response to request escalation to stage 2. There is no evidence that the resident requested escalation within six months of 17 April 2023. The landlord therefore did not act unreasonably by not progressing the complaint further at that time.
The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 19 February 2024 after we contacted the landlord. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 15 March 2024; within the timeframe it had set. Overall, the landlord followed its complaints policy and responded appropriately.

Learning

Communication

The landlord demonstrated good practice by giving the resident a clear and accurate explanation of repair responsibilities and rent calculation based on the lease. The landlord also offered further clarification and an apology when its earlier correspondence lacked precision. This approach supported the resident’s understanding and helped resolve the matter without escalation.
The landlord may wish to ensure its initial responses about leaseholder responsibilities directly reference the specific lease clauses it relies on, rather than general commentary. Clear early signposting to relevant provisions may help the landlord avoid misunderstanding and reduce the need for repeated requests for clarification.

Record Keeping

The landlord maintained proportionate and reasonable records throughout the complaint. It kept clear records of complaint stages, issued responses, and key explanations, which supported effective consideration of the complaint and demonstrated compliance with its complaints policy.
Although this issue did not affect the outcome in this case, the landlord may wish to ensure it consistently records the dates of all follow‑up contacts and clarifications, to support clarity and transparency in complaint handling.