One Housing Group Limited (202302264)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302264

One Housing Group Limited

11 March 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of a roof leak.
2. The associated complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 4-bedroom ground floor maisonette. The landlord told us the household included a “disabled resident.” It did not provide any further information about any medical conditions present in the household. The resident told us she has poor mobility and multiple medical conditions. Her son also has learning difficulties.
The resident complained to her landlord through a support service for carers on 12 December 2022. She was unhappy with an ongoing leak from the roof which she said caused damp and “serious” mould throughout the property. The resident added that the landlord had not repaired the issues within its published timescales. She said together with her children, they had slept in the living room as the leaks meant they could not use the bedrooms. She said it was very cold as the heating did not work and noted a “hazardous disrepair” of water leaking through an electrical socket. She added the living conditions impacted their health. The resident asked the landlord to complete the required repairs and acknowledge how it managed the issues.
On 11 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It upheld the complaint. It:
1. Listed various roof repairs and investigations completed since August 2022.
2. Said its contractors tried to arrange a roof inspection in December 2022 but the resident was unable to confirm a date as her family were ill.
3. Explained its contractors would call her the following day to arrange the inspection.
4. Said it would communicate with its contractors to ensure it resolved the leak and stopped it reoccurring.
5. Apologised for the distress, impact and inconvenience caused by the reoccurring leaks in the property.
6. Would learn from the complaint by ensuring better management of works. It acknowledged ongoing repair issues for years was unacceptable. It would address this within internal meetings.
7. Offered the resident £300 compensation. This consisted of £50 for the right to repair and £250 for the impact caused to her.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord through the support service on 1 February 2023. She said it had underestimated the “emotional distress and inconvenience” caused by the ongoing repairs, including damage caused to her belongings. She said they lived in “unacceptably poor living conditions” and the family slept on the floor in one room due to the unusable bedrooms. She felt the compensation offered did not reflect the impact caused to the household. This included impact to their health, education and employment, low morale, and anxiety about repeat flooding. She asked for increased compensation in line with a partial rent refund for the period of the unresolved leak.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 7 March 2023. It upheld her complaint. It:
1. Acknowledged the rainwater ingress from the roof continued despite its repair attempts. This occurred from both the rear roof terrace and front balcony.
2. Apologised for the distress and damage caused by the roof leaks to her home. It also apologised for not resolving the cause of the leaks.
3. Explained the meter readings taken by its roofing contractor on 9 February 2023 showed the property was dry. It noted that the dry weather conditions could have impacted this. During this appointment, it found an issue with water tracking from a neighbouring roof. It would complete a dye test to investigate this.
4. Would complete a joint inspection with the roofing contractor on 13 March 2023 and complete any works identified.
5. Gave her a key point of contact to oversee the repairs. It would also post-inspect the works to ensure she is satisfied with the works.
6. Acknowledged it should be more proactive with its investigations and provide updates to her. It apologised for this, and it would address this internally to learn lessons.
7. Increased its compensation offer to £500. This consisted of:
  1. £300 offered at stage 1.
  2. A further £200 for the impact caused by its poor service and delays in completing repairs.
The resident referred her complaint to us as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response. She said the landlord had not yet completed the repairs and the issues with the roof leaks, damp and mould remained ongoing. The complaint became one we could consider on 10 December 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the leaks impacted the health of the household. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance. We will, however, consider whether the landlord acted appropriately and whether this caused any distress or inconvenience.
The resident has advised that she has experienced issues with roof leaks, damp, and mould for “years.” It is also noted that she continued to experience issues after the complaints process ended. For fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and try to put things right. The resident may raise a new complaint to the landlord for any matters which have occurred since the final complaint response if needed.

The landlord’s response to reports of a roof leak.

The landlord’s records show 10 jobs related to leaks and floods within the property between May 2020 and January 2021.The landlord’s repair records are unclear as to when the resident next reported issues with the roof leak, damp, and mould. Its complaint responses referred to repairs in August 2022, however, it is unclear what prompted this. On 7 November 2022, the resident reported damp and mould in the bedrooms. She also reported that the property was cold due to water coming in through the roof. The landlord noted that it inspected the property and found its “recent” repair had not worked. It stated that it needed to raise further works to resolve the roof leaks.
It is unclear when the landlord completed its inspection following the report on 7 November 2022. Its repairs policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs, such as water leaks, within 12 hours to make it safe. It is also unclear when (or if) it raised the follow-on works to the roof. Its policy states that it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. It does not specify a time limit for planned or cyclical maintenance for roof repairs. Due to the lack of records, it is unclear whether it considered the follow-on works as routine or major works. Nevertheless, its lack of detail means we cannot assess whether it acted in line with the appropriate timescale set out in its repairs policy.
Similarly, on 9 November 2022, the resident told the landlord the house was “leaking again.” Its records state that the resident did not provide access to the property following this report. However, it is unclear when this was or what it attended for. It noted that it had passed the “job” to its contractor, but it does not detail whether this was for an inspection or repairs. There is no evidence available to show that it later raised a new job or escalated this to its contractor. This information should reasonably have been recorded and that it was not is a further record keeping failure.
Overall, the landlord’s repair records either lacked detail or are missing. Its records show the date that it raised repairs, but it does not show the dates of any appointments or when it completed the works. Due to this, it is difficult to assess the time taken to complete the repairs. The landlord told us that it struggled to complete works because the resident did not provide access to the property. However, this is not reflected in the evidence that has been provided to us, and it is therefore unclear how the landlord reached this conclusion. As a result, we cannot assess whether the landlord acted appropriately in response to the reports of ongoing roof leaks, damp, and mould.
The landlord also references repairs within its complaint responses which it has not detailed in its repair records. Similarly, it also referred to attempts made to book various appointments and inspections. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Without such evidence, we cannot conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. We therefore cannot conclude that it did the following, as advised in its complaint responses:
1. Dye testing to ensure the roof was watertight and to install new liquid coating to the roof on 21 September 2022.
2. An inspection on 21 November 2022.
3. Attempts to arrange a further inspection in December 2022 and 12 January 2023.
4. Damp meter readings on 9 February 2023.
5. An inspection booked for 27 February 2023 which it later cancelled due to the resident’s availability.
The landlord’s poor record keeping means we cannot assess whether it acted appropriately in line with its damp and mould policy. Its policy states it will ensure it protects properties from damp and mould, and it will undertake effective investigations to resolve such issues. It will then complete any works in line with its timescales set out in its repairs policy. We have not seen evidence to show that it did so, which is a failing.
Additionally, due to the landlord’s repair records, we cannot assess whether it considered interim measures following the resident’s report of “severe” mould. We expect landlords to complete a mould wash as a timely action to ease the visible signs of mould and minimise the resident’s discomfort. However, there is no evidence that it did this during the reports or at the time of the complaints. This was a failing.
The resident said the family slept in the living room because they could not use the bedrooms due to the leaks, damp, and mould present. It is unclear how many children lived in the property at the time of the complaint. We note that 5 children were present at the time of the tenancy starting in 2012. It is a significant failing that the landlord has not evidenced that it investigated these concerns or offered support to the resident.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord regularly communicated with the resident regarding the issues and how it would resolve them. The landlord has not provided any communication logs or records of contact attempts made to the resident during this time. We therefore cannot conclude that it did so. Its damp and mould policy states it will update residents throughout such reports. By not being able to provide evidence that it did so, this is a record keeping failure. This would have understandably caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience.
It is concerning that the resident advised the landlord that her and her children’s health was suffering throughout the complaints process. Neither the resident or landlord could definitively conclude that the health issues were due to the roof leaks, damp, and mould. However, after the resident notified it of the situation, this should have prompted the landlord to make further enquiries with her.
If the landlord had done this, it could have assessed whether the issues posed a health and safety risk to the household. It should have also ensured that its internal systems were up to date with any vulnerabilities or underlying conditions within the household. This is especially relevant as the landlord has told us it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded. However, it also said that “disabled residents…live in the property.” Therefore, its failure to evidence that it made further enquiries about their health was not appropriate.
Part of the resident’s complaint included concerns with a hazard of water coming through electric sockets. This was a significant health and safety concern; especially given it knew children lived in the home. As such, the landlord should have investigated this within 12 hours, in line with its repairs policy. If it found a hazard, it should have made this safe within this period. However, there is no evidence to show it did so. This was a failing.
Similarly, the resident told the landlord that the property was cold and that the heating did not work properly. It is unclear whether this was due to a fault with the boiler or radiators, or if this was due to the ongoing roof leaks. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to show the landlord investigated why the property was cold. This would have understandably caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays in resolving the roof leaks within its final complaint response. This was appropriate. To put things right, it said it would complete a dye test to assess whether water tracked from a neighbouring roof. It would also complete a joint inspection of the property with its contractor on 13 March 2023. It is a failing that there is no evidence to show it raised or completed these works. As such, we cannot conclude that it learnt from its mistakes or fulfilled its commitments to resolve the ongoing roof leaks, damp, and mould.
In summary, there is no evidence to show the landlord communicated with the resident, or that it did what it said it would within its complaint responses. This would have understandably caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord’s records refer to roof works which started on 20 March 2023, after the complaints process ended. It completed this on 5 June 2023. It is unclear when it raised these repairs and whether it related to the works outlined in its final complaint response.
Nevertheless, it is evident that the roof leaks continued after the landlord’s final complaint response. While we acknowledge finding the cause of water ingress can be difficult, the excessive delay in resolving this was not appropriate. The landlord has confirmed that the damp and mould remains an issue at the time of this investigation. It is unclear if the roof leaks remain ongoing or not. This is a significant concern which would understandably cause further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord offered £500 compensation to the resident. This included £50 for the right to repair and £450 for the delays in completing the repairs and the impact caused to her. Considering the above, this amount was not proportionate to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is due to the failings identified and the poor record keeping which meant we cannot assess whether the landlord responded appropriately to the repairs.
In the circumstances, the landlord should pay a further £1,157.97 compensation in recognition of the impact on the resident’s enjoyment of the property. We have calculated this at 20% of the resident’s weekly rent of £199.65. We have considered this based on a period of 29 weeks, from 16 August 2022 to 7 March 2023. These dates reflect the earliest repair referred to in the landlord’s complaint responses up to the final complaint response. This is an appropriate remedy considering that the landlord could have reasonably avoided the loss of enjoyment if it responded appropriately to the reports.
Given the damp and mould issues remained ongoing after the landlord’s final response, it should consider paying further compensation to put things right. If the resident remained unhappy with the decision it makes, she can make a new complaint to the landlord about this.
The landlord should also pay a further £750 compensation to the resident. This is to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of a roof leak. This includes consideration of the lack of evidence which meant we cannot conclude that it:
1. Communicated with the resident.
2. Considered the household vulnerabilities and how the issues impacted them.
3. Considered support available given the reports of the household sleeping in one room due to the ongoing leaks, damp, and mould.
4. Investigated or responded to the leaks, damp, and mould in line with its damp and mould policy.
5. Completed repairs in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
6. Assessed the hazards reported such as water leaking through the electric sockets.

The associated complaint handling.

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations for landlords. At the time of this complaint, landlords had to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the complaint. Landlords also had to respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint aligned with the Code.
The resident made her complaint on 12 December 2022. The landlord took 19 working days to provide its stage 1 response on 11 January 2023. This was 9 days over the timescale set out in its policy and the Code. The landlord told us that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint and updated her of its delayed response. However, there is no evidence provided to show that it did so. This was a failing.
The resident escalated her complaint on 1 February 2023. Within the landlord’s later stage 2 response, it said she escalated the complaint on 7 February 2023. It is a shortcoming that it did not check its records to provide the correct information within its response.
It took the landlord 24 working days to respond to the stage 2 complaint on 7 March 2023. This was 4 days beyond its target timescales and so its response was marginally delayed. However, its overall complaint handling at both stages would have understandably caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
It was good practice for the landlord to identify learning from the resident’s complaints. Within both responses, it noted how it would improve its practices and processes to prevent repeating such failures. For example, it explained it would be proactive with repairs and would communicate with residents. However, the landlord’s poor record keeping meant we cannot assess whether it learned from its mistakes and put things right for the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will not pay compensation where home contents insurance should cover the damage. It states residents must insure their own belongings against accidental damages such as water damage. Its policy also states that it will not pay compensation for personal injury. Residents should report this through a personal injury claim.
Within the resident’s complaint, she explained the ongoing issues at the property damaged her belongings and impacted her health. The landlord apologised for the impact caused to her. However, it did not provide her with advice about claiming on her home contents insurance for her damaged belongings. It also did not provide advice about making a personal injury claim to its insurers.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was therefore not appropriate. It did not provide the correct advice in line with its policy. By not doing so, the resident would have understandably felt it ignored and minimised her concerns. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to her. It could have also explained that she could make a claim to its insurers for her damaged belongings. This is a further failing.
Considering the above, the landlord did not appropriately respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge any failings in its complaint handling. It therefore missed an opportunity to reflect on what went wrong and to put things right for her. As such, the landlord should pay £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a roof leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s associated complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. It should include specific examples for each complaint definition. The apology should be from a senior member of the landlord’s staff.
2. Pay the £500 compensation it offered to the resident in its final complaint response if it has not already done so.
3. Pay a further £2,007.97 compensation to the resident. This consists of:
  1. £1,157.97 for the loss of enjoyment caused by its response to reports of a roof leak.
  2. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of a roof leak.
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
4. Confirm its position regarding paying the resident further compensation for the ongoing issues after its final complaint response. It should provide this information in writing to the resident and include the reasons for its decision.
5. Contact the resident to ensure that its internal systems are up to date with relevant information about any vulnerabilities or underlying conditions within the household.
6. Provide details of how to make a liability claim to its insurers for the resident’s damaged belongings and impacted health. It should provide this in writing and offer reasonable support if requested.
7. Complete a damp and mould survey of the property. A member of its senior management or a surveyor should complete this to find a full diagnosis of potential causes. It should then write to the resident to:
  1. Confirm its findings.
  2. Provide an action plan for any required repairs, detailing appointment dates and the works required.
  3. Provide a specific point of contact who will take responsibility for offering weekly updates until it completes the required repairs.
  4. Confirm its intentions for a post-inspection of the works completed.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the period set out above.