Your Housing Group Limited (202348464)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202348464 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Your Housing Group Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Shorthold Tenancy |
|
Date |
20 April 2026 |
Background
- The resident used to have a tenancy with the landlord. It began in 2022 and ended in 2025. She lived in a flat on the top floor of a low-rise block. The flat has a ‘mini balcony’. The complaint broadly relates to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the block’s roof.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s:
- Response to the resident’s reports and concerns about roof repair issues.
- Response to her reports and concerns about pests.
- Complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found that there was:
- Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and concerns about roof repair issues.
- Service failure in the landlord’s response to her reports and concerns about pests.
- Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Reports and concerns about roof repair issues
- The landlord identified its key delays and failures. It awarded the resident a significant amount of compensation to put things right. Its approach was reasonable.
Reports and concerns about pests
- The landlord identified some of its delays and failures. It also took steps to put things right for the resident. However, it overlooked some initial handling issues which adversely impacted her. It later overlooked her concerns about an inactive wasps’ nest.
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s approach was unreasonable at times. It also departed from its policy and the Code. It did not identify or address the related adverse impact to the resident.
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 |
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 19 May 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows:
This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
No later than 19 May 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
If it has not done so already, we recommend that the landlord pays the resident the £750 which it previously awarded her during its complaints process. Our findings of reasonable redress and service failure depend on the payment being made. Similarly, we recommend that the landlord pays the resident the £250 that it awarded her in April 2023. This figure relates to a historical complaint that we have not investigated. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
Between 9 December 2023 and 13 November 2024 |
The resident emailed one of the landlord’s officers to complain. She said that the landlord had shown a lack of urgency in relation to an ongoing roof repair issue. We have only seen part of the resident’s email. Later, the resident contacted us for help. In summary, she told us that:
|
|
Between 6 and 24 December 2024 |
We asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint. It subsequently issued a stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged several delays. It apologised and awarded the resident a total of £450 in compensation. It said it would complete works to address her concerns. |
|
Between 3 and 27 February 2025 |
The resident called the landlord to escalate her complaint. She was unhappy with its progress in relation to the works. She sent it further emails subsequently. Later, she told the landlord that it had completed some key external repairs. She also said that an internal repair was needed along with some pest proofing works. |
|
26 March 2025 |
The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It identified some further delays and failures. It awarded the resident a total of £300 in compensation to address these. It said it would monitor the internal repair until it was complete. It disputed that any additional pest works were required. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
In June 2025, the resident told us she was unhappy with the scope of the landlord’s works and the quality of these. She felt that it should revisit its compensation calculation. In April 2026, she asked us to consider whether or not the landlord’s calculation was fair. |
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 |
Reports and concerns about roof repair issues |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- In April 2023 the landlord awarded the resident £250 in compensation. This was to resolve a previous complaint. The resident says the landlord’s award addressed some roof and pest related failures from 2022 onwards. She also says that the landlord did not pay her the compensation. We understand that she wants it to revisit its calculation.
- We have seen limited information about the resident’s previous complaint. The landlord has told us that she did not progress it to the second stage of its complaints process. Typically, we cannot investigate complaints that have not completed a landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As a result, we focused on subsequent events in this report. We have made a recommendation in relation to the landlord’s previous compensation award.
- On 12 July 2023, the landlord raised a repair order to inspect the block’s roof. Its notes said that the resident had reported hearing noises from the area. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will respond to routine repair issues within 28 days. It also says the landlord will monitor repairs which exceed this timescale. This is a reasonable approach.
- Records show the landlord inspected the roof within an appropriate timeframe (19 days). It found that the noise related to ripped felt. In December 2024, the landlord accepted that it had failed to arrange a repair. It rightly apologised to the resident. From its records, it is unclear when the landlord repaired the felt. This points to a record keeping issue.
- The evidence points to a lack of repairs monitoring by the landlord. It also points to an unreasonable delay of up to 19 months. This is based on the period between 12 July 2023 and 27 February 2025. It is reasonable to conclude that, during the interim period, the resident heard intermittent noise from the roof. It is likely this was distressing for her.
- The resident also reported a leak during the interim period. Her report prompted the landlord to raise a repair order on 28 March 2024. This was to overhaul the block’s guttering. During its complaints process, the landlord accepted that it did not complete the works until 7 February 2025. There was an unreasonable delay of around 9 months.
- This is further evidence of a lack of monitoring by the landlord. Its repair records suggest the leak was intermittent. Nevertheless, it was likely distressing and/or inconvenient for the resident. For example, we have seen a photo of water damage to the paintwork on her windowsill. Some of this damage may have been avoidable with a timely repair.
- The wording of its complaint responses indicates that the landlord awarded the resident a total of £550 in roof related compensation. This figure was significant and consistent with the ‘exceptional circumstances’ category in its compensation guidance. From the information seen, we are satisfied that this category is relevant to the resident’s case.
- The landlord’s award is also consistent with our compensation guidance. There is no evidence to show that, during the period in question, the landlord overlooked delays or failures which adversely impacted the resident. We note that it carried out internal repairs within 21 days of its final response letter. This timescale was in line with its repair policy.
- In summary, the landlord identified its key delays and failures. It awarded the resident a significant amount of compensation to put things right. Its approach was reasonable. There is no evidence to show its calculation was flawed.The calculation does show that the landlord was suitably mindful of the resident’s related distress and inconvenience.
|
Complaint |
Reports and concerns about pests |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- In October 2023 the resident reported issues with wasps and pigeons. She has supplied a brief timeline of events. It suggests she contacted the landlord around 8 times between 5 October and 17 November 2023. From the landlord’s own records, we were unable to fully confirm what happened. This is further evidence of record keeping problems.
- The resident’s timeline shows that the landlord did not respond to her initial reports effectively and/or failed to set her expectations about its response. This was unreasonable.It is reasonable to conclude that the resident’s high level of contact was avoidable and inconvenient for her.
- The landlord’s pest contractor visited the property on 27 November 2023. This was up to 53 days after the resident’s initial report. The evidence points to an unreasonable delay. The contractor’s inspection records show the resident had reported wasps above her balcony and pigeon droppings on it. In summary, the contractor’s key points were:
- The landlord could install ‘spiking’ to deter pigeons.
- To do this, it would need to erect scaffolding.
- Spiking could move the pigeons to another area of the block’s roof.
- Due to the time of the year, the wasps’ nest was inactive.
- In her complaint, the resident said that the landlord had not installed spiking or addressed the wasps’ nest. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the nest was inactive. It did accept that it had not acted on the pest contractor’s comments about spiking. It rightly apologised to the resident. It said it would install netting on 3 February 2025 to deter the pigeons. It did not explain why its approach to the spiking had changed. This was unreasonable.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 response about 13 months after the contractor’s visit. The wording in its response indicates that it awarded the resident £100 in pest related compensation. Its notes show this was to cover the cost of spiking which the resident had bought herself. It was reasonable for the landlord to address her associated costs.
- However, the response did not mention any issues with the landlord’s initial handling in 2023. Ultimately, it is not clear that the landlord identified the full extent of its delays and failures. If it had, it could have awarded the resident some compensation for distress and inconvenience. This would have been a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
- Between 3 and 14 February 2025, there were further issues with the landlord’s handling. There is evidence that it ultimately installed spiking on 13 February 2025. From the information seen, it is not clear that it installed this in the right place (above the balcony). Its correspondence with the resident suggests the landlord had difficulty interpreting its own repair records. Its lack of clarity during this period prompted further queries from the resident. It is reasonable to conclude this involved avoidable inconvenience for her.
- In its final response, the landlord told the resident it would not carry out further proofing works. This was on the basis that the pigeons would move to another area of the roof. The landlord said it was not prepared to install spiking on the whole block. As a social housing provider, it was entitled to decide how to use its limited resources effectively.
- In its response, the landlord rightly acknowledged some delays and failures from 3 February 2023 onwards. It awarded the resident £100 in compensation to address these. This was a positive approach in line with its compensation guidance. However, it overlooked the resident’s historical distress and inconvenience again. This was unreasonable.
- Similarly, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the wasps’ nest. We note she reiterated these in her escalation emails. The landlord could have explained that its contractor did not make any related recommendations. Similarly, that wasps do not return to an old nest. The landlord’s lack of thoroughness and/or clarity may have been distressing for the resident.
- In summary, the landlord identified some of its delays and failures. It also took steps to put things right for the resident. However, it overlooked some initial handling issues which adversely impacted her. It later overlooked her concerns about an inactive wasps’ nest. Given these omissions, we find that it did not do enough to address matters for her.
- To put things right, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen and our compensation guidance.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The Code became statutory in April 2024. The landlord has supplied a complaints policy that refers to the statutory version of the Code.
- We have seen evidence that the resident complained to the landlord several times from 9 December 2023 onwards. Her records include emails and an image of its complaint form. She says the landlord did not respond to her complaints. We have not seen any evidence to the contrary. Based on her records, the landlord should have at least offered to log a formal complaint for her. There is no indication it did this. Its approach was unreasonable.
- The resident eventually contacted us. Our involvement prompted the landlord to engage its complaints process on 6 December 2024. Our intervention should not have been necessary. The landlord made a significant contribution to a delay which lasted for about 12 months. Ultimately, its initial approach caused avoidable distress and inconvenience for the resident. The duration of the delay points to a significant adverse impact.
- On 3 February 2025 the resident called the landlord to escalate her complaint. Contrary to the Code, the landlord did not promptly acknowledge her escalated complaint (it had 5 working days to do this). On 11 February 2025, the resident asked the landlord why it had not updated her. She was adversely impacted because it departed from the Code.
- It took the landlord 37 working days to issue a stage 2 response. In line with the Code, it had a maximum of 25 working days to do this. There was an unreasonable delay of about 2 weeks. For a significant portion of the delay period, the landlord did not update the resident about her complaint. Its approach was not consistent with the Code.
- The landlord did not acknowledge the above identified issues during its complaints process. As a result, it did not attempt to put things right for the resident. This was unreasonable. We also note that its responses did not include a clear decision on the complaint (upheld, not upheld). The Code says a compliant response must include this information. It may have helped the resident to understand the landlord’s decisions.
- The evidence suggests the landlord did not consider its own complaint handling. It should routinely do this during every complaint investigation. This includes considering a resident’s complaint journey from beginning to end. This approach will allow the landlord to address any procedural delays or failures. If it had done this, the landlord may have avoided an adverse finding from our Service.
- In summary, the landlord’s approach was unreasonable at times. It also departed from its policy and the Code. The resident was adversely impacted. The landlord did not acknowledge this or attempt to put things right. We have ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation in line with the evidence and our guidance.
Learning
General learning
- The landlord did not adhere to key aspects of the Code. It also failed to recognise this. For example, the landlord overlooked a number of complaints from the resident. It could provide related feedback to its complaint handlers.
Knowledge and information management (record keeping)
- Our investigation highlighted gaps in the landlord’s repair records. It could remind its staff about the importance of good record keeping.
Communication
- Some of the landlord’s communications lacked clarity. Considering matters from the resident’s perspective may help the landlord to explain its position clearly. It could provide related feedback to its staff.