One Housing Group Limited (202229903)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229903

One Housing Group Limited

28 October 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks from the flat above.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement which started in March 2004. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the landlord’s records. However, there is evidence that the landlord is aware his son has mental health issues.
The landlord leases the building from the local authority, which is responsible for the structure of the property including the roof, gutters and rainwater pipes. The landlord is responsible for keeping the building and the fixtures and fittings in repair.
The resident reported leaks from the flat above in September 2020 and May 2021. The landlord’s contractor attended to these reports and unblocked and resealed the gutters on each occasion. The landlord also arranged for the resident to be temporarily rehoused following a leak and for his property to be redecorated. The resident told the landlord on 21 September 2021 that the rainwater from the gutters at the front of the property was channelled through a pipe underneath the floor of the top floor flat (flat D) and exited through a drainpipe at the rear of the building. He said he had shared this information previously with the landlord, but his comments were not taken on board.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 August 2022 and reported a further leak from the flat above. He said his property had previously been flooded and had caused extensive damage to his home. He suggested the landlord carried out an inspection of the flats above to identify the source of the leak, including the rainwater pipe that was underneath his neighbour’s floor.
The resident’s son made a complaint on his behalf on 15 September 2022. He said the property had been subject to water ingress on 3 occasions since 2020. He noted no safety checks had been completed by the landlord and it had failed to offer compensation for the damage caused to the resident’s possessions.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 25 October 2022 and said:
1. Its contractor attended on 8 September 2020 and cleared the gutter. The gutter was also sealed to ensure it was watertight and the electrics were checked.
2. A further leak was reported on 18 May 2021 which was attended to on 24 May 2021. The gutter was cleared and a letter was sent to the resident in the flat above reminding them not to dispose of items in the roof guttering.
3. The resident’s property was inspected on 27 July 2021 following the lifting of covid restrictions and it was recommended the lounge was fully decorated.
4. It had arranged for its contractor to carry out an inspection of the building and would provide an update once the survey report was received.
5. It upheld the resident’s complaint and it would address his request for compensation once it had received the survey report.
The resident reported a further leak on 3 November 2022 and asked for their complaint to be escalated. He told the landlord on 20 November 2022 that his property had been flooded again.
A building inspection was carried out on 7 November 2022 and it was recommended a CCTV survey was carried out to locate and assess the condition of the internal rainwater pipe. It also recommended the gutters at the front of the building were inspected and an overflow pipe installed on the front wall.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 15 December 2022 and said:
1. It had initially believed the source of the leak was from the box guttering at the front of the building. This was found to be clear during an inspection on 21 November 2022.
2. The rainwater pipe and hopper head at the rear of the building were found to be blocked during the inspection on 21 November 2022 but this was not connected to the leaks experienced by the resident.
3. The surveyor’s inspection report received on 13 December 2022 noted that the probable cause of the leak was from an internal rainwater pipe which ran underneath the floor in the top floor flat (flat D).
4. It had arranged for a CCTV survey to be carried out and for the pipe to be inspected in flat D. An appointment was booked for 19 December 2022 but had to be rearranged at the request of the resident’s neighbour. A further appointment was arranged for 3 January 2023.
5. It should have taken a more proactive approach to investigating the resident’s reports of leaks and communicated more effectively with him.
6. It upheld the resident’s complaint and would offer him £500 compensation for the time taken to resolve the issue (£100) and the impact the situation it had on him and his family (£400).

Post complaint events.

The landlord’s contractor undertook an inspection of the internal rainwater pipe in flat D on 6 January 2023 and no defects or leaks were found. It updated the resident on 13 January 2023 and said it would confirm the next steps by the end of the day.
The landlord told the resident on 15 January 2023 that it had arranged a CCTV survey to be completed in flat D on 16 January 2023 and needed to ‘‘open up’’ various areas of his home and flat C. It also said it would install an overflow pipe at the front of the property and provide the resident with an update once it had more information.
The landlord confirmed on 25 January 2023 that no issues were identified with the rainwater pipe following the CCTV survey. It did, however, note that the leaks only occurred when the gutter trough was full and rainwater was going under the lead flashing. It also said the gutter grid had been removed and this may have solved the problem, but it was arranging for scaffolding to be erected to carry out the other recommendations in the surveyor’s report.
In response to a separate complaint raised by the resident’s son, the landlord confirmed no further leaks had occurred since November 2022 and it still needed to complete a number of repairs in his home. This included reinstating the living room light, plastering a crack in the ceiling and decorating the damaged walls. The work was not completed on 20 February 2023 due to no access.
The landlord told the resident on 17 March 2023 that the plan to erect scaffolding would not go ahead as it was waiting instructions from the freeholder, who was responsible for the work on the roof.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

In considering the landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of ongoing leaks, it is noted that he has referred to a possible impact upon his son’s mental health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a person’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if he wishes to take his concerns further.
This Service has investigated the landlord’s actions leading up to and following the submission of the complaint by the resident on 15 September 2022. We have not investigated the complaint made by the resident’s son about the landlord contacting his psychiatrist. This is because the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings where there is no tenant / landlord relationship. In this case, the resident’s son is not a tenant of the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks from the flat above.

It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine what works were ordered and when the repairs were completed.
The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 17 August 2022 that there had been a leak from the flat above. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and was responsible for identifying and remedying the leak in accordance with its repairing obligation as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
It was appropriate for the landlord to raise an emergency repair on the same day. This was in accordance with its repairs policy, which says it will attend to uncontrollable leaks within 12 hours. It also arranged for the electrics to be checked, although it is unclear what work was carried out or whether the cause of the leak was identified at this point. This demonstrates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about his damaged possessions. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clarified at this point whether the resident should make a claim under his home contents insurance policy or its building insurance policy. This was a failure.
While the landlord asked its contractor to visit the resident’s home on 18 August 2022, it is unclear if it attended and if so, what the outcome of the visit was. Again, this demonstrates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord and meant the resident was unclear on the next steps. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will communicate effectively with residents at all times. This was a further failure.
While the landlord said it spoke to the resident’s son’s mother on 25 and 26 August 2022, no details of the conversation were shared with this Service. It also said it arranged to visit the resident on 30 August 2022, but again failed to provide this Service with any further information. This was a failure.
The landlord did not arrange for a survey of the building until 5 October 2022 and only after the resident raised a complaint. This was not appropriate, caused delays and meant there was a risk of further water ingress given the source of the leak had not been identified.
The resident reported a further leak on 3 November 2022 and noted that he had received no feedback regarding the work that was scheduled to take place on 27 September 2022. He also shared video footage with the landlord which showed significant water ingress through the light fitting. In addition, the resident noted his son had previously attempted to take his own life when they were temporarily rehoused previously and the floods were affecting his mental health.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s email or his request for a copy of the action plan to remedy the problem. Neither is there any evidence it gave due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and whether it needed to make any reasonable adjustments given the son’s protected characteristics. This was a failure.
While an emergency repair was raised on the same day in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, it is unclear whether it attended the appointment or the cause of the leak was identified. Neither is it clear whether any remedial works were caried out. This was a further failure.
An inspection of the property was completed on 7 November 2022, although access was only gained to 1 of the 4 flats in the building. This meant the surveyor was unable to establish the cause or location of the leak. This led to further delays. The surveyor recommended urgent action was taken to locate and assess the condition of the internal rainwater pipe via a CCTV camera and by ‘‘opening up various areas’’ in the resident’s property and flat C. The surveyor also recommended the gutters at the front of the building were checked and an overflow pipe installed.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s report of a further leak on 20 November 2022. This was not appropriate and meant it did not meet its repairing obligations as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement. Neither did it assess whether the property was habitable following the flood or whether the resident needed to be temporarily rehoused. The landlord’s failure to respond caused the resident inconvenience and distress as he did not know when the leak would be repaired. This was a failure.
The landlord said it inspected the roof on 21 November 2022 but did not provide this Service with a copy of the inspection report or any other details about the visit. This was a further failure.
While the landlord told the resident on 25 November 2022 that it had arranged for a CCTV survey to be completed in flat D, it again failed to assess the condition of the resident’s property, carry out any safety checks or assess whether the resident needed decanting temporarily. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord did not ensure the resident was safe in his home. This was a further failure. There is also no evidence it completed an inspection in flat C as recommended in the surveyor’s inspection report.
It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm on 28 November 2022 that it had booked an appointment to visit flat D on 19 December 2022. This ensured it kept the resident updated.
It was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident on 1 December 2022 that it was still waiting for a copy of the building inspection report and CCTV survey. This ensured he was kept updated and it managed his expectations. It did not, however, address his concerns about the electrics which he said had not been checked following the 2 leaks in November 2022. This meant the landlord did not meet its obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement and failed to ensure the property was safe. This was a failure.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to visit the resident’s home on 6 December 2022, no details about the visit were shared with this Service. This demonstrates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord. There is also no evidence it chased up the contractor who completed the property inspection in November 2022. It is unclear why the landlord did not receive the inspection report until 13 December 2022; some 5 weeks after the visit took place.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay in resolving the leak on 15 December 2022 and to set out the steps it was taking to resolve the matter. This included noting it had arranged for a CCTV survey to be carried out and for the floors in flat D to be lifted. It also said the appointment booked for 19 December 2022 to complete some of the work had been rearranged at the request of the resident’s neighbour. A new appointment was booked for 3 January 2023.
Whilst the landlord acknowledged the work would be disruptive for his neighbour in the lead up to Christmas, there is no evidence it took account of the inconvenience and distress the additional delay would cause the resident. The lack of sensitivity to the resident’s circumstances was not appropriate, particularly given it was aware of his son’s mental health issues and the impact the situation was having on his wellbeing.
It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm on 3 January 2023 that it had not been able to gain access to flat D. It confirmed on 25 January 2023 that a CCTV survey was completed on 16 January 2023 and no issues were identified with the internal rainwater pipe. It also noted that the gutter grid had been removed and it had arranged for scaffolding to be erected to complete the other recommendations in the surveyor’s report.
In summary, there were delays in identifying the cause of the leak and carrying out the remedial works. The landlord also failed to complete electrical safety checks following the leaks, assess whether the property was habitable and there were delays in arranging for a surveyor to carry out an inspection of the building. The landlord’s offer of £500 compensation was not fair in the circumstances and cannot be considered reasonable redress.
It is evident the situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. He told the landlord on a number of occasions he was concerned about his son’s mental health and the impact the situation was having on his own wellbeing. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks from the flat above, for which it is ordered to pay an additional £400 compensation on top of that which it has already offered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where there has been a permanent impact on the resident.
This Service encourages landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reviews following publication. In May 2023, we published our spotlight review on knowledge and information management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with the recommendations in the KIM report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations in the spotlight review unless it can provide evidence it has already completed a self-assessment.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The housing records confirm the resident’s son made a complaint on his behalf on 15 September 2022. This was not acknowledged by the landlord until 30 September 2022 and was outside the 3 working day target set out in its complaints procedure. This was a failure.
It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm on 5 October 2022 that it would not reopen the resident’s previous complaint about leaks given he had exhausted its complaints procedure in December 2021. This was in accordance with its complaints policy which says it will not consider issues that have previously been addressed through its complaints process.
While the landlord confirmed the nature of the resident’s complaint, there is no evidence it sought to understand the outcomes he was seeking or made contact with him. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will do this. This was a further failure.
While the landlord told the resident that it needed more time to investigate his complaint, it did not do this until after the deadline date. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. This was a failure. The landlord said it would respond by 25 October 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 25 October 2022. Whilst the complaint was upheld and the landlord confirmed it had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the building, it did not address the resident’s concerns about the electrics or request for the gutters to be cleared on a quarterly basis. This was a further failure. The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (‘the Code) says landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The landlord said it could not award compensation until it had received the surveyor’s inspection report. This was not appropriate given it acknowledged the impact the leaks had on the resident and it did not need to wait for the surveyor’s findings. The landlord’s failure to offer compensation at this point was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 3 November 2022. He noted that there had been a further leak and asked the landlord to confirm when the repairs would be completed. While the complaint was acknowledged in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy, it did not seek to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes he was seeking. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will do this within 3 working days. This was a further failure.
It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm it would issue its final complaint response within 20 working days in accordance with its complaints policy.
While the landlord told the resident on 1 December 2022 that it would need more time to respond to the complaint, it did not do this until the deadline date. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain the reason for the delay and to agree a new deadline for 10 working days later. This was in accordance with its complaints policy. This says it will provide an explanation including a clear timescale of when the response will be received if it cannot meet the deadline.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 15 December 2022 on the agreed date. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay in resolving the leak and to identify learning from the complaint. This included noting that it could have been more proactive and communicated more effectively with the resident. This was appropriate and in accordance with this Service’s dispute resolution principles which encourage landlords to not only resolve the immediate complaint but to learn from outcomes in order to improve wider service delivery.
In summary, the landlord recognised and addressed some of the issues raised and showed learning from this. It, however, failed to follow its complaints policy and there were delays in issuing its complaint responses. It also failed to address all of the issues raised by the resident and did not offer specific redress for the complaint failures identified. The identified failures in the landlord’s complaint handling caused inconvenience and distress to the resident. Therefore we find there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, for which it is ordered to pay £100 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing leaks from the flat above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1,000 compensation. £500 previously offered by the landlord may be taken off this amount if already paid. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his reports of ongoing leaks from the flat above.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his complaint.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm if there is any outstanding work required in his home or on the roof. If further work is required, the landlord must agree these in writing and provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the action plan, including timescales for completing the repairs.