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

One Housing Group Limited (202345485)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345485

One Housing Group Limited

10 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. Disrepair at the property.
    2. New service requests including:
      1. A report of a leak.
      2. A request for adaptations.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom maisonette. She has lived there since July 2012.
  2. In 2021 the resident filed a disrepair claim at court. The court issued a ‘Tomlin order’ on 29 September 2021. The order contained a list of repairs the landlord needed to carry out at the resident’s property. Around this time, the resident also applied for adaptations to be made to her property.
  3. The resident reported a new leak at the property in September 2023. On 21 December 2023 she complained to the landlord the leak had not been repaired. The resident also said she was still waiting for adaptions to be made.
  4. On 9 April 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said the adaptations had been approved and its contractor would arrange an appointment. The landlord said issues with access had led to delays with progressing her requests. It offered the resident a total of £410 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 April 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 June 2024. It said the repairs were still outstanding as it was waiting for the resident to agree access to the property.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) governs this. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The landlord’s handling of disrepair at the property

  1. The resident reported a number of repairs to the landlord between 2018 and 2020. In 2021 she instructed her legal representative to pursue a disrepair claim at court. The court issued a Tomlin order dated 29 September 2021, which ordered the landlord to carry out the repairs within 56 days. The order confirmed proceedings had been “stayed” and the resident was free to return to the court if the terms of the order were not met. There is no evidence to suggest the case has been formally ended.
  2. Paragraph 41.c. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given.
  3. The complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of disrepair at the property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction for the purposes of this investigation. This is because the matter is stayed, it remains subject to court proceedings. The resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to progress the matter.

Scope of investigation

  1. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.  
  2. In her correspondence with us and the landlord, the resident has referred to other repairs (not part of the disrepair case) that were reported between 2018 and 2022. For the reasons outlined above, these matters are out of scope. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between 21 December 2022 to 10 June 2024. This being the timeframe of 12 months prior to the original stage 1 complaint being made, through to when the landlord issued the stage 2 response. We consider this a fair timescale for both parties due to the passage of time and availability of evidence.

New service requests

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the responsibilities of the landlord and tenant. It states the resident must allow the landlord access to the property for repairs and / or inspections to be carried out.

Reports of a leak

  1. The resident reported a leak coming from the flat above in September 2023. The landlord’s contractor attended the property to inspect the flat above on 18 September 2023. The landlord’s notes recorded its contractor tried to inspect the resident’s property, but she refused access.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for keeping in repair installations for the supply of water. The policy also states it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours, urgent repairs within 5 days and routine repairs within 28 days.
  3. The landlord has provided limited information about the leak. It is unable to confirm the nature of the leak and the date it was reported. Without this information, it is unclear whether the landlord responded in line with its policy.
  4. The landlord’s records show it contacted the resident by phone on 11 and 12 December 2023. The resident did not answer. The landlord sent the resident an email on 12 December 2023 and asked her to contact it. The resident complained to the landlord on 21 December 2023. She informed it she was unhappy with the number of outstanding repairs.
  5. The landlord’s records show it contacted the resident by phone on 29 February, 5 and 7 March 2024 to make an appointment for its surveyor to attend. It was unable to speak to the resident on each occasion. On 7 March 2024 the landlord emailed the resident. It offered her a choice of dates for the contractor to visit. The resident did not reply.
  6. On 9 April 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said the resident had refused access to the property and it had been unable to complete the inspection. The landlord advised it would arrange for a surveyor to attend the property to inspect the affected area. The landlord offered the resident £410 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused for all of her outstanding repairs.
  7. The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 12 April 2024. The landlord’s notes recorded that stain block and redecoration of the ceilings was required.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 10 June 2024 agreed the work was still outstanding. It said it would complete the work when the resident agreed access dates to the property.
  9. The resident has informed us the repair to the ceiling has not been completed.

Request for adaptations

  1. The landlord’s aids and adaptions policy defines minor adaptions as non-complex adjustments costing less than £1,000, such as handrails and lever taps. The policy states that minor adaptions will usually be completed within 28 days of being approved.
  2. The landlord has been unable to provide us with evidence of the resident’s request for adaptions. It is not disputed that Adult Social Services assessed the resident’s needs and the formally requested the following modifications:
    1. Handrails along the stairs.
    2. An outward opening toilet door.
    3. A new toilet.
    4. Lever taps.
  3. The dates of the assessment and the request are unclear. However, the evidence suggests it was made sometime during the COVID-19 pandemic as reference is made to appointments being cancelled due to pandemic restrictions.
  4. In her complaint dated 21 December 2023, the resident specifically complained that her request for adaptions had not been actioned. The resident said:
    1. The adaptions had been approved over a year previously.
    2. She had been diagnosed with epilepsy and the adaptations were necessary to ensure her safety within the property.
  5. When the resident complained, the landlord was put on notice that the adaptions remained outstanding. The resident could have reasonably expected the approved adaptions to have been completed by the end of January 2024. The evidence shows the landlord shows the landlord failed to complete the repairs in line with its policy. Given the delays to this point, alongside the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to prioritise an appointment for the adaptations to be installed.
  6. The landlord’s records show it phoned the resident on 29 February, 5 and 7 March 2024 to make an appointment for the contractor to attend the property and scope the works required. It was unable to speak to her on each occasion. On 7 March 2024 the landlord emailed the resident, offering her a choice of dates for the contractor to visit. The resident did not reply.
  7. On 9 April 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the initial delays to complete the adaptions and said:
    1. Pandemic restrictions had partly caused the delays as appointments were suspended.
    2. Due to the lapsed time, the resident’s original request had expired. The landlord agreed to process her original request to prevent any further delays.
    3. It had approved the adaptations, and its contractor would contact the resident to confirm appointment details.
  8. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 12 April 2024 to assess the works required. The resident escalated her complaint 10 days later as the adaptations had not been started.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 10 June 2024 agreed the work was still outstanding. It said it would install the adaptions when the resident agreed dates to access the property. The resident has told us the adaptions to the property have not been completed.
  10. Following the stage 2 response, the evidence shows the landlord had further problems accessing the resident’s property. An appointment was made with the resident for 27 May 2025, to complete the repair and adaptations. However, the appointment did not go ahead as the landlord stated the resident’s behaviour caused the contractor concern.

Summary

  1. Both of the resident’s service requests were subject to lengthy delays. The evidence suggests the landlord had difficulty at times in arranging access to the property with the resident. More recently, the landlord stated the resident’s behaviour caused the landlord to cancel an appointment as its contractor did not feel comfortable attending the property. In assessing the delays in the case, the landlord cannot be accountable for delays which can solely be attributed by the resident’s lack of communication or behaviour, which the landlord’s staff felt concerned about enough to cancel the appointment. However, the evidence suggests the resident was not solely responsible for the full extent of the delays.
  2. The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged its part in the delays and apologised. It committed to working with the resident to get the repairs and adaptions completed and highlighted the difficulty it had in arranging access to the property.
  3. In relation to the failures identified, our role is to 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, as well as our guidance on remedies. 
  4. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £410 may remedy maladministration where there was a failure that had significant impact on the resident. When considering the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions, we have factored its delays in responding to the resident’s requests alongside the difficulties it faced in arranging appointments and the apology it made, together with its offer of compensation. The evidence shows the landlord made an offer of compensation which fairly reflected its failings, and the resulting distress and inconvenience caused. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of new service requests, in that its apology and offer were fair and has resolved the complaint satisfactorily. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraphs 41.c. of the Scheme, the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of disrepair at the property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlords handling of new service requests.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the sum of £410 compensation awarded as part of its complaints process for delays to repairs if it has not already done so.