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

One Housing Group Limited (202304182)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304182

One Housing Group Limited

28 June 2024


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. This complaint is about:
    1. The level of compensation offered to the resident by the landlord following its handling of leak repairs.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

  1. At the time of the complaint the resident was a tenant of the landlord. He started his tenancy in May 2022. He subsequently moved from the property on 18 June 2023. In parts of his complaint the resident was supported by an advocate. For simplicity they are collectively referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
  2. The resident reported a leak into his bedroom from the ceiling on 25 August 2022. The landlord attended promptly the same day and made the leak safe. Loose roof tiles were replaced on 2 September, and follow on work was scheduled to repair the leak effects. The repair records note a second leak report in November, again into the bedroom from the ceiling. It is not apparent from the records what action was taken.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 14 December 2022. He raised multiple issues, including the landlord’s delayed resolution of the first ceiling leak, and its lack of response to the second one. He said that during rain the leak dripped, had caused damage to some of his belongings, and he was having to sleep in his living room. He also said there was ongoing communal ASB at the property, including theft and drug use, which was causing him distress. He said that multiple tenants had reported the issue to the landlord but it had not addressed the problem. He asked the landlord to resolve the outstanding repairs and for £1000 compensation for his damaged items and the inconvenience caused to him.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 January 2023. It explained that ASB complaints were not suitable for the complaint process and should be reported to its community safety team, which it said had an active investigation already open.
  5. The landlord responded to the complaint on 17 January 2023. It explained what actions it had taken in regard to the first leak, but did not address the second leak, or the ASB.
  6. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 18 January 2023. He complained that the landlord had not addressed the second leak. Amongst the information he gave he explained again that he was sleeping in the living room because of the damage to the bedroom.
  7. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 15 February 2023. It acknowledged the resident had reported the second leak, and also that it had not responded to it as it should have. It apologised, explained that it was investigating why its repairs service failed, and committed to investigating and resolving the leak. It also acknowledged it had not yet resolved the damage from the first leak, and said it would arrange an inspection and remedial work in the next two weeks. It explained that it could not compensate the resident for damaged items as he had asked, because such compensation was an insurance issue which a tenant should resolve through their own insurance. Nonetheless, it offered the resident £250 compensation for its poor handling of the repairs and the inconvenience caused to him.
  8. The landlord’s internal emails show the work to replaster and redecorate following the leaks (including a further one in March 2023) were completed by June.
  9. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman because he was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord and because of the ongoing ASB he said he was experiencing.

Assessment and findings

The level of compensation offered to the resident by the landlord following its handling of leak repairs

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord does not insure the contents of the property or the resident’s personal belongings. It explains that the resident needs to take out their own insurance to cover their belongings against risks such as theft, fire and flood, and that the landlord will not take responsibility for damage to the belongings under any circumstances. The agreement also makes clear that the resident is responsible for internal decorating.
  2. The landlord has a repair policy which sets out timescales of one day to respond to emergency or urgent repairs, and 28 days for other repairs.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states it can offer discretionary compensation of up to £250 where its service failure has caused inconvenience or distress to a medium level, and up to £500 where a high level of inconvenience or distress has been caused. It also makes clear that the policy “is not a replacement for home contents insurance and residents must insure their personal belongings against accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage.”
  4. The resident’s first leak report was attended to promptly by the landlord and rectified within a week. Nothing suggests the leak was an emergency, so the time taken to resolve it was in line with the landlord’s repair timescales.
  5. The second leak, reported by the resident in late November 2022 was logged by the landlord, but it acknowledged in its final complaint response in February 2023 that it had taken no further action in response to it. That was clearly a significant service failure, and one which the resident had had to chase and then make a complaint to get attended to.
  6. The evidence and information provided shows there was damage to the ceiling following the first leak, requiring further work. In its final complaint response the landlord acknowledged this remedial work had not been completed. By that time nearly 5 ½ months had passed since the cause of the first leak had been resolved in September 2022. This was clearly another failing in the landlord’s repairs service.
  7. The landlord’s internal emails show that final remedial work was completed around 16 June 2023. There had been a total of three leaks by that time (August 2022, November 2022, and March 2023), which are likely to have complicated and delayed progress. Nonetheless, overall, the time taken to fully resolve the leak and its consequences was significantly delayed.
  8. In those circumstances it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings in its final complaint response. It identified what it had got wrong with both leaks, and explained in detail how it intended to rectify the repair issues. It apologised, and explained how it would further investigate its service failure, in order to identify what went wrong and what it could do to avoid repeating the same mistakes. These were all proportionate and relevant steps to take in light of the complaint and the resident’s experiences, in line with the landlord’s complaints policy goal that “all complaints are viewed as an opportunity for us to learn our customers’ needs and expectations, and to continually improve the services we deliver.”
  9. The resident complained that because of the leaks some of his personal belongings had been damaged. He asked the landlord to compensate him for that. The landlord explained that such a claim was more appropriately made to his insurers and was outside the purpose of its compensation policy. The landlord’s explanation accurately reflected both the tenancy agreement, the landlord’s policy, and basic practice for most landlords. Given there was no clear evidence that failings by the landlord had led to the leaks, its response to this specific aspect of the complaint was reasonable.
  10. Insurance issues notwithstanding, landlords are expected to consider compensation when their actions (or lack of action) have clearly led to distress or inconvenience, or other effects and impacts. The landlord did this as part of the remedies provided in its final complaint response. It acknowledged that the significant delay and need for the resident to have to chase the repairs caused him avoidable distress and frustration, and it offered him £250 compensation because of it. That amount was on the line between medium and high levels of inconvenience, and was reasonable in the circumstances the resident had experienced.
  11. However, the resident told the landlord in both his complaints that he was not able to use his bedroom because of the ceiling damage, and was sleeping in his living room. The landlord did not respond to that issue. Many landlords acknowledge in their repair or compensation policies that sometimes a tenant is unable to use one or more rooms in their home because of repair or damage issues. Their policies allow them to consider providing proportionate remedies, such as a percentage rebate on the tenant’s rent when the length of time without use of the room goes beyond a certain point (such policies often recommend a 20% rent reduction when a bedroom is unusable). Such an approach is also recommended in the Ombudsman’s compensation policy guidance for landlords. The landlord’s policies do not set out its approach to such situations.
  12. The decision on whether a room is unusable is ultimately the landlord’s to make. Nonetheless, the reasonable response when a landlord receives such a report is to consider it and make a decision accordingly, inspecting and seeking advice from its operatives where necessary. There is no evidence of the landlord doing that in this case, despite the resident reporting it in both his complaints. It is not for the Ombudsman to make that decision in this investigation, but it should have been addressed by the landlord as part of its complaint responses. Not doing so meant this aspect of the resident’s complaint went unresolved and unremedied.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of antisocial behaviour

  1. In his complaint to the landlord the resident explained that ASB was common in and around the communal areas of his home. He explained the type of ASB, and the distress it was causing him. He complained that multiple tenants had reported the ASB, but the landlord “hasn’t addressed the problem.” He went on to explain that he had lost confidence in the landlord following its “lack of response when it comes to repairs or anti-social behaviour.”
  2. In response the landlord explained that ASB complaints were outside the complaints process, and because of that it would not consider it further. However, it also gave a broad explanation of the actions it was taking in light of the reports it had received, gave the resident its ASB case reference number, and asked him to add his reports to those already received by its community safety team.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code makes clear that reporting an issue to a landlord is different to making a complaint to the landlord about its handling of that issue. In this case it appears the resident had not personally reported ASB to the landlord, but was aware that other tenants had. It was clear from his complaint that he believed the landlord was not doing enough about it, and so his concerns could justifiably have been taken as a complaint. At the same time, if he had not previously made such reports to the landlord it was not unreasonable for the landlord to treat his concerns as a report rather than a complaint. The landlord chose the latter approach. It also gave a brief summary of the actions it was taking, confirmed it had an active ASB case open, and gave the resident the details to make his own reports, all of which was relevant and useful information. It is not clear what happened subsequently, but as the issue was not raised again the extent to which this investigation can consider it further is limited to the landlord’s initial response. In these specific circumstances, its response was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s decision about the level of compensation offered to the resident following its handling of leak repairs.
  2. In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of antisocial behaviour.

Reasons

  1. The landlord handled most of the resident’s leak reports poorly, but with one exception it responded reasonably and appropriately to his complaint about the issue, and provided reasonable remedies. However, it failed to address and respond to his report that his bedroom was unusable, meaning that its complaint responses and remedies were incomplete.
  2. The landlord’s decision that the resident’s ASB complaint was a report rather than a complaint was reasonable in the circumstances. The information it also provided about its ongoing ASB actions was informative and relevant.

Orders

  1. It is not within this investigation’s remit to decide if the resident’s concerns about using his bedroom were justified or not. The landlord should have addressed the point, explained whether it agreed with him or not, and if it did agree, should have offered appropriate compensation. In light of its failure to do that it is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £300. This amount reflects the time taken to complete the repairs to the bedroom, and the two possible decision outcomes if the usability of the bedroom had been appropriately considered.
  2. This compensation is in addition to the £250 previously offered by the landlord, meaning it should pay him a total of £550.
  3. Payment must be made within four weeks of this report, and evidence of compliance provided to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. As explained in this report, the complaints process is appropriate for a complaint about a landlord’s handling of ASB issues (as opposed to a report to the landlord about ASB). The landlord’s explanation to the resident suggests potential confusion on this point, and it should consider whether its procedures and guidance make the distinction clear.