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

One Housing Group Limited (202332542)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332542

One Housing Group Limited

25 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 which we have 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:
    1. Offer of compensation for its handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues throughout the property.
    2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom flat, owned by the landlord. He moved into the property via a mutual exchange in late February 2023.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord around March 2023 to report issues with the condition of the bathroom, kitchen, doors, balconies, and general fixtures such as the skirting boards.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 24 May 2023 as he said it had not responded to his report. He said the issues had limited his use of the bathroom and kitchen, and he asked it to arrange the works and award compensation.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 June 2023. It said it had inspected the resident’s property on 13 June 2023 and identified repairs needed in the kitchen, bathroom, flooring and toilet. It provided a single point of contact to oversee the works and offered £100 in compensation for the delay.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 4 July 2023 as he said the works were still outstanding. He also said he did not feel its compensation offer was fair and requested a partial rent refund.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 August 2023. It said it was in the process of booking the works. It apologised for the further delay and increased its compensation offer by £150, therefore offering £250 in total.
  7. The resident referred his complaint to us as he was not satisfied with the time taken to address the works, and he did not consider the compensation offer to be adequate. He also said he was not satisfied with its complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told us about a range of issues that have arisen since his complaint, and we understand that he has reported these to the landlord. This investigation will not consider these as they did not form part of this complaint. The landlord must have the opportunity to respond to new issues under its internal complaints procedure. It is open to the resident to raise a new complaint and he can ask us to consider a new investigation if he is not satisfied with its final response.

Reports of repair issues

  1. When a landlord has acknowledged its failings, we will consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our 3 dispute resolution principles: to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. It is unclear when the resident first contacted the landlord, however it called and emailed him on 29 March 2023 under the “service provision recovery stage” of its complaints process. This indicates that he had asked to raise a complaint. According to its email, he stated that he had made a report about repair issues but it had not replied. It said it could not find a record of this, suggested he make a new report via its call centre, and closed the complaint. There are no notes to state what he was specifically reporting, however context implies that he explained the nature of his report during the call. It should have assisted him with contacting the repairs team, given that it was now on notice of the reported issues. This indicates poor record keeping by the landlord which would have resulted in some of the failings in its handling of the repairs.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 April 2023, stating that he had attached his earlier report. We have not seen the attachment, however his further correspondence states that his reports included the following:
    1. Poor condition and damage in the bathroom, including to the bath, toilet, and pipes.
    2. Kitchen wall units were either heavily damaged or missing.
    3. The windows, balcony doors, and internal doors were not functioning properly.
    4. Rot, rust, and insect infestations affecting both balconies.
  4. The landlord replied to the resident on 19 April 2023 to state that it had raised a job with its surveyors. It apologised for the delay in its response, which it said was due to a backlog. He contacted it a further 4 times between 26 April and 16 May 2023 to request an update, and it responded each time to apologise for the continued delay, and to say it would be in touch.
  5. The resident raised a new complaint on 24 May 2023 as he said the landlord had still not responded. He said he and his family could not use the bathroom and kitchen in their current condition. Over the course of his emails in April and May 2023, he described that the property was “unsafe, unhygienic, and unliveable”. He asked it to arrange the works urgently and requested compensation by way of a partial rent refund.
  6. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency and urgent repairs include issues causing an immediate health and safety risk. Other issues are “routine” repairs which it will respond to within 4 weeks. It inspected the property on 13 June 2023 and found that it needed to overhaul the kitchen units and toilet, chemically clean the units and toilet floor, and renew broken tiles and mastic sealant around the bath. It is reasonable to infer that it considered these to be routine repairs, however it failed to adhere to its policy as it did not inspect the property until at least 10 weeks after he made his report.
  7. The landlord confirmed the findings of its inspection in its stage 1 response of 20 June 2023. It said it would arrange the works and offered £100 in compensation for the delays. It did not mention the other issues the resident had raised, such as the balconies, which was a failing. It also did not address his concerns that the property was unfit for habitation. There is no evidence to suggest that this was the case, and he did not give any further detail to explain why he considered that the property was unusable or unsafe. However, he was clearly concerned. It should have reassured him and checked the opinion of its surveyors.
  8. As part of its stage 1 response, the landlord nominated a specific point of contact (POC) to oversee the repairs. This was positive and the resident commended his POC when he asked it to escalate his complaint on 4 July 2023. However, in doing so, he added that the works remained outstanding. He repeated that there were problems with the internal doors and balconies which it had not addressed at stage 1. He asked it to repair the balcony decking, install pigeon proofing, deep clean the area, and renew the doors. He also reported an issue with rodents in the kitchen and asked it to conduct a chemical clean. Finally, he asked it to reconsider its compensation offer and requested either a full month’s rent refund, or a partial refund of 20% of his rent payments since his original report.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 1 August 2023 stated that its contractor had attended again on 29 June 2023 to quote for the works, which included the balcony, as well as additional issues which it said he had reported since his complaint. These included repairs to the heating thermostat, further deep cleaning, and a replacement toilet seat. However, it said its contractor had emailed their quote to its general email inbox which was subject to a backlog. It said it was now reviewing the costs and would schedule the works once approved. It should have been alert to the incoming quote, given that it had arranged this and it had appointed a POC. Its failure to oversee this caused further delays for the resident and prevented it from meeting its commitments at stage 1.
  10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord declined the resident’s request to renew the internal doors and replace the balcony decking. It said he had removed the doors himself without permission, which were otherwise in good working order, and instructed him to re-hang these. It also said it had not found a need to replace the balcony decking during its inspections, but it would lift this, clear anything underneath, then replace and clean it afterwards. It added that its area manager would now monitor the works until completion. Although the resident said the doors did not fit or function well, it was not possible for the landlord to assess this during its inspections as he had already removed them. It was reasonable for it to trust the professional judgement of its contractor and surveyors.
  11. The landlord increased its compensation offer at stage 2 to a total of £250, including the £100 it offered at stage 1. This consisted of £50 under the right to repair, £50 for its delays, and £150 for the impact on the resident. Its offer under the right to repair reflects the maximum amount it will offer as per its compensation policy, which aligns with industry practice. Its overall offer was in line with its compensation policy, which suggests between £50 to £250 where a service failure has caused inconvenience and distress. This also aligns with our remedies guidance.
  12. The landlord has confirmed that it completed the works relating to this complaint on 15 September 2023, and the resident has also confirmed this. Despite its shortcomings, its overall response was appropriate as it apologised, completed the works, and its offer of compensation was fair. We therefore consider that its offer of redress was reasonable.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident has explained to us that he is unhappy with the landlord’s complaint process. Its complaints policy, which applied at the time, states that it will aim for early resolution under its service provision recovery (SPR) stage. It will attempt this if it can resolve a service request “there and then” without the need to enter the complaints system. However, if it cannot achieve this, it will proceed to stage 1.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) encourages early resolution and explains the difference between a complaint and a service request. However, the Code also states that a landlord’s efforts at this point should not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay.
  3. The resident raised his complaint on 24 May 2023, and the landlord called him on 7 June 2023, 9 working days later, to attempt early resolution. It was unable to resolve the matter, so progressed his complaint to stage 1 at that point. It then considered his complaint date to be the day of the call, rather than the date of his email in May 2023. This was not appropriate as this delayed its stage 1 response, thus obstructing the complaints process.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 June 2023, which was 18 working days since the resident’s complaint of 24 May 2023. This was only 3 days over the maximum timescale for a response at stage 1, as per the Code. It should have both acknowledged this and apologised. We have not made a failure finding as this did not cause any undue delays or further service failures by the landlord. However, we have recommended that it address new complaints promptly in future, to prevent unnecessary delays with its complaints process.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the resident’s escalation request, which was in line with the timescales in both its policy and the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves its handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues throughout the property satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord has updated its policy since this complaint, to remove reference to a “service provision recovery” stage. However, it does still state that it will attempt early resolution if it can resolve an issue quickly “there and then”. It should therefore ensure that it responds to complaints immediately, so that it can acknowledge these at stage 1 within 5 working days, and respond within 10 working days of its acknowledgement, as per its policy and the Code. It should also note the importance of apologising for delays in providing a response.