Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

One Housing Group Limited (202318008)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318008

One Housing Group Limited

19 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s report of a leak from the flat above into her bathroom and the resulting damp and mould.
    2. The associated complaints.

Background

  1. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the second floor and the resident had an assured tenancy of the property with a housing association landlord from 22 October 2018. The resident was rehoused by the landlord to an alternative property on 26 April 2025.
  2. The resident has extra support needs. The resident advised the landlord she had been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD) and at times she experienced emotional dysregulation, impulsiveness and disturbed perception. She also advised that she suffered from underlying Asthma and Bronchitis. The evidence shows that the resident’s sister was often the point of contact with the landlord regarding repairs. For ease of reading, both the resident and her sister will be referred to in the remainder of this report as ‘the resident’.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 July 2023 to report a leak from the flat above her property into her bathroom. She said that mould was growing on the ceiling. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 1 August 2023 and wrote to her on 2 August 2023 to say it had spoken with the neighbour in the flat above the resident’s property and was following its procedure to resolve the leak.
  4. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 4 August 2023 and said nothing had been done regarding the leak and the mould on her bathroom ceiling. The landlord raised an order on 4 August 2023 to trace and remedy the leak from the flat above and attended on the same day. The operative noted that the leak was caused by defective sealant around the bath and therefore the matter needed to be passed to the daytime team to reseal around the bath.
  5. The landlord raised an order on 7 August 2023 to reseal around the bath and the work was completed on 21 August 2023. In the meantime, the landlord had sent its stage 1 reply on 18 August 2023 in which it advised the resident that it had initially experienced difficulties accessing the flat above. The landlord said it had now arranged the work to resolve the leak and would keep the resident informed of progress. It added that after the works were completed, it would assess the damage to the resident’s bathroom ceiling and arrange repairs. The landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for the delay in tracing and remedying the leak.
  6. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 19 August 2023 and said she had not received a date for the follow up repairs to her property. She said she was concerned about the mould on the bathroom ceiling because she was breathing in the mould spores which was affecting her breathing. She then wrote to the landlord on various occasions during August and September 2023 to check whether the leak in the upstairs flat had been repaired and to find out when the landlord would clean the mould and make good the reported damage to the bathroom ceiling. She asked the landlord to provide a dehumidifier to help dry out the ceiling and she requested compensation.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 18 September 2023 in which it stated the following:
    1. It had resealed around the bath in the upstairs flat on 21 August 2023 and the operative had tested to ensure the leak was resolved and therefore any water/moisture in the ceiling was residual.
    2. It apologised that it had not arranged the follow-up mould wash at the resident’s property and therefore it had now raised an order to carry this out. An appointment had been booked for 20 September 2023 but the landlord said the resident could change this if it was inconvenient.
    3. The landlord said it had made arrangements to deliver a dehumidifier to help dry out the bathroom.
    4. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and offered her £100 compensation.
  8. The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 September 2023 and said an operative had attended that day at 8.30am to deliver the dehumidifier, however, she did not open the door as she had a work meeting at 11am and had asked for the dehumidifier to be delivered at the same time as the mould wash was due to be carried out on 22 September 2023. An operative attended on 22 September 2023 and carried out the mould wash.
  9. The resident subsequently wrote to the landlord on various occasions and said:
    1. She wanted the landlord to repair and repaint the bathroom ceiling.
    2. She had obtained a dehumidifier from her workplace, had used it for 6 days to dry out the ceiling and wanted the landlord to reimburse her for the additional electricity she had used running the dehumidifier.
    3. She also wanted the landlord to compensate her for the stress she had experienced, including having to transport the dehumidifier to and from her workplace using public transport.
  10. The resident contacted us on 9 June 2024 and said the bathroom ceiling had not yet been repaired and she had not received compensation for the additional electricity used or for stress. She wrote to the landlord on 3 July 2024 and confirmed that she had arranged the redecoration of the bathroom privately. She attached a video showing the condition of the bathroom prior to the works and said she would be sending the landlord a copy of the invoice for the work she had arranged privately.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advised the landlord on 19 September 2023 she was concerned that she had been breathing in mould spores since 27 July 2023 and said she had needed to use her Asthma pump every day since the leak had occurred. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
  2. Some of the evidence we have received relates to events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 18 September 2023. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, we consider it is fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak from the flat above into her bathroom and the resulting damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that it will categorise repairs and complete them within the following timescales:
    1. Emergency repair (priority 1) – respond within 4 hours and “attend to make safe” within 12 hours.
    2. Urgent repair (priority 2) – complete within 5 calendar days (this includes visible mould on internal plastered surfaces, such as ceilings or walls).
    3. Routine repair (priority 3) – complete within 28 calendar days.
    4. Routine repair (priority 5) – complete within 56 calendar days (this category is used only in extreme circumstances, such as during the Covid pandemic).
  2. The policy states that some repairs may require an inspection, in which case the inspection will be done within 7 calendar days.
  3. The landlord’s Damp and Mould Policy states:
    1. It will make reasonable attempts to access properties to inspect and carry out works and all logged repairs will have evidence of at least 3 attempts to contact the resident.
    2. Where decoration is needed after damp and mould works, it will provide decorations vouchers to assist with the provision of paint and equipment. It adds that further consideration will be given to residents and their specific circumstances.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 July 2023 at 6.12pm to report a leak from the flat above her property. She said the leak had caused staining to her bathroom ceiling and was causing mould to appear. The landlord phoned the resident on 28 July 2023 to find out further details about the leak. As the resident had sent her email after working hours on 27 July 2023, it was reasonable that the landlord contacted her on the next working day to find out further details about the leak. This would have enabled the landlord to assess the urgency of the repair.
  5. The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 August 2023 and advised her that the officer she had written to was on leave and would deal with the matter on his return. The resident then phoned the landlord on 2 August 2023 to request an update regarding the reported leak and mould. The landlord’s records show that it had phoned the neighbour above twice on 2 August 2023 and had been unable to speak to them. It had then sent an email to the neighbour asking them to contact the landlord to provide access to resolve the leak.
  6. As the landlord had decided that the leak was not an emergency which justified it to force entry into the flat above, it was reasonable that the landlord had tried contacting the neighbour to request access. However, it was a shortcoming that the landlord had not provided an update to the resident, which meant she had to chase the landlord for an update on 2 August 2023.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 August 2023 and advised her it was attempting to contact the neighbour. It asked whether she had tried contacting the neighbour herself. In our view, this was a reasonable question for the landlord to ask as it had been unsuccessful in contacting the neighbour. The question was phrased in a way which did not put pressure on the resident to contact the neighbour if she was uncomfortable doing so.
  8. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 August 2023 and advised her it was still investigating the leak. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide a further update to the resident. The resident replied on the same day and said she was concerned she was breathing in mould because she had Asthma and Bronchitis. She then made a stage 1 complaint on 4 August 2023 in which she mentioned her concerns about the mould spores and said the landlord had not dealt with the leak.
  9. The landlord raised an emergency order on 4 August 2023 to trace and remedy the leak from the flat above and attended on the same day. The landlord had therefore attended in a timely manner after raising the order. The operative reported that the leak was caused by defective sealant around the bath and therefore the landlord raised an order on 7 August 2023 to reseal around the bath. It was reasonable that having attended the neighbour’s property on 4 August 2023, which was a Friday, the landlord had raised a follow-on order on 7 August, which was the next working day.
  10. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 18 August 2023 and explained that it had arranged to carry out remedial works in the upstairs flat and said it would then assess the damage to the resident’s ceiling and arrange repairs. The landlord said it would keep the resident informed of progress. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it would assess/repair her ceiling once the source of the leak had been addressed. It was also reasonable for the landlord to agree to keep the resident updated of progress.
  11. The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 August 2023 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She advised the landlord that she was concerned she was breathing in mould spores. She said she had cleaned the ceiling twice and had started wheezing because of the mould.
  12. The landlord attended the upstairs flat on 21 August 2023 and resealed around the bath. The order to reseal around the bath had been raised on a 28-day (routine) priority on 7 August 2023 and therefore the landlord had attended within the timescale stipulated in its policy for routine jobs.
  13. The resident wrote to the landlord on 29, 30 and 31 August 2023 to ask whether the leak had been repaired and to say that the bathroom smelled of damp. She advised the landlord that she had started to use an Asthma pump, which she attributed to the reported damp and mould issues. She requested the landlord to supply a dehumidifier to help dry out the ceiling. The resident sent further emails during the first half of September 2023 requesting updates regarding the reported leak and mould/damage to her bathroom ceiling.
  14. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 18 September 2023 and confirmed that the leak had been resolved on 21 August 2023 when its operative resealed around the bath. It explained that any water present was residual water left in the structure from the leak. The landlord confirmed it had raised an order to carry out a mould wash to the resident’s ceiling and had scheduled this to be done on 20 September 2023. It said it had also arranged for a dehumidifier to be delivered to the resident’s property.
  15. The time taken for the landlord to arrange the mould wash was inappropriate because the resident had first reported the presence of mould on 27 July 2023. She had then reported on 3 August 2023 the impact it was having on her due to her medical conditions. The landlord took 8 weeks to carry out the mould wash from 27 July to 22 September 2023 (the evidence shows the date of the mould wash was changed from 20 to 22 September 2023). The time taken to carry out the mould wash was not in line with the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy, which states that jobs to address visible mould on internal plaster will be categorised as urgent (5-day) repairs.
  16. Although the leak was not resolved until 21 August 2023 (partly due to access issues relating to the upstairs flat), this should not have prevented the landlord from carrying out mould treatment to the ceiling much earlier as an interim measure.
  17. In terms of communications, it was also unreasonable that the landlord had not kept the resident updated of progress after sending its stage 1 reply on 18 August 2023. This led to the resident having to spend more time and effort chasing the landlord for updates during August and September 2023.
  18. The landlord had advised the resident in its stage 1 reply that once the repairs had been completed in the upstairs flat, it would assess the damage to the resident’s bathroom ceiling and arrange repairs. However, the landlord did not mention in its stage 2 reply that it would arrange for the ceiling to be inspected to assess any damage. This was unreasonable as it had agreed to assess the ceiling in its stage 1 reply.
  19. The resident had requested a dehumidifier on 3 September 2023 to help dry out the bathroom ceiling. Although there is no requirement in the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy or its Damp and Mould Policy to provide a dehumidifier, our view is that this would have been helpful in the circumstances – particularly as the resident had advised the landlord of her medical conditions and the impact of the mould. It was therefore a shortcoming that the landlord had not offered a dehumidifier at an earlier stage.
  20. Overall, our assessment has found the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the reported leak and the resulting damp and mould:
    1. It took the landlord 8 weeks to carry out the mould wash from when the resident first reported the presence of mould on her ceiling, despite the resident having informed the landlord of the impact the mould was having on her due to her medical conditions.
    2. The landlord did not adequately keep the resident updated of progress despite stating in its stage 1 reply dated 18 August 2023 that it would do so.
    3. The landlord did not use its stage 2 reply to advise the resident that it would inspect her bathroom ceiling for possible damage, even though it had agreed to do this in its stage 1 reply.
  21. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will 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 our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  22. We have found that the landlord acted fairly by apologising in its stage 2 reply for not arranging the mould wash in relation to the resident’s ceiling. The landlord then sought to put things right by confirming it had now raised a 5-day order to carry out the mould wash and made arrangements to provide a dehumidifier. It also offered financial redress of £100 to recognise the impact on the resident.
  23. We have considered the landlord’s offer of compensation and concluded that although the landlord’s offer went some way towards putting things right, it was not proportionate to the failings we have identified. In particular, it did not adequately address the detriment caused to the resident by the delay in carrying out the mould treatment. The resident had advised the landlord about the impact the mould was having on her health and therefore this should have prompted the landlord to act with greater urgency. We have also taken into account that at the time of its stage 2 reply, the landlord had not made arrangements to inspect the resident’s ceiling for possible damage caused by the leak.
  24. We have therefore found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the leak and the resulting damp and mould because the landlord made an offer of compensation but it was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £100 to the resident. The sum we have ordered is within the range of sums suggested in our Remedies Guidance for service failures.
  25. We are aware that the resident arranged for the bathroom to be redecorated during 2024. As this occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 reply, we have not assessed whether it would be reasonable for the landlord to compensate the resident for the redecoration costs. However, as the landlord had not made arrangements to inspect the bathroom ceiling as part of its stage 2 reply, we have ordered the landlord to consider reimbursing the resident for the redecoration costs or to provide the resident with details of its liability insurer so she can submit an insurance claim should she wish to do so.
  26. The evidence indicates that the resident also incurred extra electricity costs to run a dehumidifier. Again, as this occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 reply, we have not assessed whether it would be reasonable for the landlord to reimburse her for these costs. However, we have recommended that the landlord should consider reimbursing her or provide her with details of its liability insurer so she can submit an insurance claim should she wish to do so.

The associated complaints

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process and its Complaints Policy states it will:
    1. Acknowledge complaints within 3-working days.
    2. Respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of logging.
    3. Respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of receipt.
    4. At both stages, if the landlord cannot respond by the deadline, it may extend the timescale by an additional 10 working days. If such an extension is needed, the landlord will provide the resident with a clear explanation and a timescale of when the response will be received.
  2. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 4 August 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 August 2023. The landlord therefore acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale, which was in line with its Complaints Policy.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 18 August 2023, which was 10 working days after the landlord had logged the complaint. The landlord had therefore responded within an appropriate timescale, which was in line with its Complaints Policy.
  4. The resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint on 19 August 2023 and the landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgement on 21 August 2023. The landlord therefore acknowledged the stage 2 complaint within an appropriate timescale, which was in line with its Complaints Policy.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 18 September 2023, which was 20 working days after it received the resident’s request to escalate the complaint. The landlord therefore responded within an appropriate timescale, which was in line with its policy.
  6. Overall, we have found that the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints within the timescales stipulated in its Complaints Policy and therefore found there was no maladministration in its complaints handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a leak from the flat above into her bathroom and the resulting damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £200 compensation (the landlord may deduct the £100 it offered at stage 2 if this has already been paid).
    3. Either reimburse the resident for the costs she incurred in redecorating the bathroom or provide the resident with details of its liability insurer so she can submit an insurance claim should she wish to do so.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should consider reimbursing the resident for the extra electricity costs of running the dehumidifier or provide the resident with details of its liability insurer so she can submit an insurance claim should she wish to do so.