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

One Housing Group Limited (202312233)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312233

One Housing Group Limited

24 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak and subsequent damage to her boiler.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord, living in a flat.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 20 October 2021. She said there was a leak from the communal pipe. She said the contractor attended after months of chasing the issue. She had no hot water for a month, the kitchen flooded, there was loss of electrics, and she had to replace her boiler. She wanted the landlord to fix the pipe, reimburse the boiler cost, and reduce the timeframe to resolve the repairs.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 November 2021. It said the roofing contractor attended on 23 October 2021 to clear and unblock the gutters and outlet. The contractor would return as the resident reported the water ingress was ongoing. It said the resident was responsible for repairing the internal damages, including the boiler, as she is a leaseholder. It encourages residents to have contents insurance. She could contact the building insurance, which had a £100 excess. It recognised it could improve its communication. It offered the resident £50 for the right to repair and £50 for the inconvenience caused.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 9 January 2022. She said the compensation did not reflect the impact or the level of the landlord’s failing. She requested £2,394 compensation to cover the replacement boiler and for the landlord to refund the service charges.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 18 February 2022 and upheld its initial response. It said the resident was responsible for internal damage caused by water ingress and the repairs policy states leaseholders are responsible for insuring household possessions. It offered a further £100 compensation to cover the costs of the insurance excess so she would not be financially inconvenienced by making a claim. It would review how it handled the matter.
  6. The landlord issued a follow-on response on 13 March 2023. It said a surveyor attended on 10 February 2023 and reported an issue with the box guttering overflow. It had obtained approval from the neighbouring development to erect scaffolding and was waiting for a date for the works to commence.
  7. On 29 April 2024 the landlord sent a further letter to the resident and offered an additional £1,000 for the impact and inconvenience caused.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she said the water ingress was ongoing and she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. She said the landlord had closed the case and told her to raise a new repair. She thought the compensation offered was inadequate for the extent of neglect and length of time the issue was ongoing. She wanted the landlord to apologise and pay compensation for the cost of the boiler.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s website states that it is responsible for maintaining communal areas outside of the property and leaseholders are responsible for any repairs inside the property, including fixtures and fittings. As such, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the guttering and the resident is responsible for repairs to any internal damage, including the boiler. Its repairs policy states that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 calendar days and routine repairs in 28 calendar days. The policy does not provide criteria for the different complaint categories.
  2. The landlord has provided limited records in this case, despite further requests by the Service. The investigation has proceeded with the available information and has highlighted any gaps in the evidence. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  3. The Service’s knowledge and information management (KIM) spotlight report notes that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”. In this case, there were several instances in which there was insufficient evidence to assess whether the landlord appropriately fulfilled its repair obligations. The landlord may also have missed the opportunity to identify whether follow-on works were required, which may have caused further delays in resolving the repair in full.
  4. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it raised a work order on 10 October 2021 to address the water ingress. Due to the limited repair and communication records, we are unable to confirm whether this was the date the landlord received the resident’s initial report and became on notice to complete the repair. However, in her complaint on 20 October 2021, the resident said that the issue meant she had no hot water for over a month. As such, it is possible that she reported the issue prior to 10 October 2021.
  5. The landlord said a roofing contractor unblocked the gutters and outlet on 23 October 2021. We cannot accurately assess the time taken to complete the repair due to the record keeping issues. Nonetheless, as the resident said the leak flooded the kitchen and caused loss of electrics and hot water, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to handle the repair as an emergency. It therefore exceeded its response timeframes.
  6. In its stage 1 response on 4 November 2021, the landlord recognised the water ingress was ongoing and said the contractor would return. There is no evidence that it arranged a follow-on appointment. This was unreasonable as in line with the Service’s complaint handling code, “any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion”. The resident continued to chase the repairs and in her complaint escalation on 9 January 2022 she said that she felt the landlord had ignored her. The landlord’s failure therefore had a detrimental impact on the landlord – tenant relationship.
  7. A surveyor attended on 10 February 2023 and found an issue with the guttering overflow. There is no record of any appointments between 23 October 2021 and 10 February 2023, so the landlord failed to show it took any action to resolve the repairs for over 15 months. This was entirely unreasonable, especially as it identified the need for further repairs in its stage 1 response in November 2021. There is no evidence that the resident chased the repairs after the stage 2 response, but this may be due to the landlord’s limited records.
  8. The landlord sent a follow-on complaint response on 13 March 2023. It said it had obtained approval from the developer of the neighbouring building to erect the scaffolding. It was waiting for confirmation from the contractor for the start date of the works. The landlord told the resident on 17 May 2023 that it was continuing to liaise with the developer to obtain permission to erect the scaffolding. It said there were issues as the path was very narrow and it apologised for the delay. There is a clear contradiction in the updates provided by the landlord. The information provided on 13 March 2023 led the resident to believe it was progressing with the works. There is no evidence that it provided any other updates in the 2-month interim period. The landlord therefore failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations.
  9. The landlord said it would erect the scaffolding on 5 June 2023, and it could then complete the works. The delay may have been outside of its control as it required authorisation from an external party to proceed with the works. We would expect to see that the landlord regularly pursued the matter with the developer and updated the resident. However, there is no evidence to suggest it did.
  10. The resident continued to pursue the issue both with the Service in July 2023 and the landlord in January 2024. In the absence of repair records from the landlord to suggest otherwise, it is accepted that the landlord failed to resolve the issue with the guttering in full following the scaffolding installation in June 2023. The landlord’s repair records state it sealed the flat roof around the flue pipes on 10 January 2024. This meant there was a further 7-month delay in completing works following the scaffolding installation, which was unreasonable.
  11. The landlord completed further works including:
    1. Repairs on 4 March 2024 to stop the leak. The records provided do not provide details of the works.
    2. Works on 5 June 2024 to make good the cracks to the exterior wall caused by the leak.
    3. Clearing the blockages in the overflowing rainwater pipe and hopper on 4 September 2024.
  12. The resident told the Service on 11 November 2024 that the works in September 2024 had resolved the issue. However, she told the landlord on 25 November 2024 that the issue had recurred. She also told the Service on 3 March 2025 that the issue is still ongoing. Due to the limited records, we cannot say for certain whether this was a continuance of the leak resolved in September 2024 or a new issue. Nonetheless, the issue has not been resolved in full.
  13. The landlord did not comment on the outstanding repairs when we requested updated repair records, and the resident said the landlord has refused to further assist her. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to arrange an independent inspection of the roof and guttering to ascertain the cause of the water ingress and complete any recommended works to provide a full and lasting repair. 
  14. The repair issues have been ongoing for over 3 years, which is an entirely unreasonable delay. The resident reported due to the water ingress her kitchen flooded, she lost use of electric and hot water for extended periods of time, and she had to replace the boiler due to water damage. She said she occasionally had to live with friends and family due to the safety issues in the property. The resident also would have invested time and been inconvenienced by her pursuit of repairs. She told the service that the landlord’s customer care was poor. It is important to note that as the leak is linked to rainfall, it was likely intermittent.
  15. In the complaints process, the landlord offered £200 compensation for its failings in handling the repairs. It offered a further £1000 on 29 April 2024 for the impact and inconvenience experienced for the duration of the issue. Typically, landlords should offer compensation during the complaint process, rather than at a later date. In this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to reflect on its handling of the repairs given they continued after the final response. However, the offer was made over 2 years after the stage 2 response on 18 February 2022. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident at an earlier date that it would review the compensation once it had resolved the repairs in full, so it could properly assess the level of detriment. This would have demonstrated to the resident that it was proactively addressing her concerns and better managed her expectations about the actions it would take.
  16. The Service’s remedies guidance states that awards of £1000 and above are appropriate in cases where the landlord has repeatedly failed to provide the same service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident; demonstrating a failure to provide a service, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s offer was therefore proportionate to the identified failings. Nonetheless, to remedy the complaint in full it must complete any necessary repairs to the roof. 
  17. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident also wanted reimbursement for the replacement boiler. The landlord said it encourages residents to have home contents insurance to cover personal belongings. This is in line with its compensation policy. Alternatively, it said she could contact the building insurer, which had a £100 excess. The landlord exceeded its obligations as it offered to pay compensation to cover the excess. It was also reasonable for the landlord to suggest that the resident could pursue a claim through its liability insurance policy if she considered that the landlord was responsible for causing damage to the boiler. The landlord is entitled to have insurance in place to assist it with the cost of claims and it would not be expected to provide compensation for this outside the insurance process. As such, the landlord appropriately handled this element of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak and damage to her boiler.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 8 weeks, the landlord must arrange an independent inspection of the roof and guttering to ascertain the cause of the water ingress. It should provide a copy of the report to the Service and the resident. It must then provide repair records to confirm it has completed any recommended repairs. 
  2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must send a written apology to the resident for its handling of the repairs.
  3. If it has not done so already, the landlord must pay the resident £1200 compensation. It should provide evidence of the payment to the Service within 4 weeks.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence that it has complied with the orders within the designated timeframes.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training and a review of its record keeping processes to ensure similar issues are avoided in the future. It should also review the Service’s knowledge and information management spotlight report.