From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

One Housing Group Limited (202425837)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425837

One Housing Group Limited

25 July 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 reports of a leak from the bathroom ceiling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord since 28 February 2017. The landlord is a housing association and the property’s freeholder. The property is a 4 bedroom penthouse apartment. The resident said that the property was built in 2016 and was under warranty. The landlord said it has no recorded vulnerability for the resident on its systems. In February 2025 the resident provided a letter from her GP, which said that she suffered from severe anxieties because of the situation.
  2. On 15 October 2023 the resident reported a leak from her bathroom ceiling. She acknowledged that the landlord previously resolved the problem as a latent defect, but the leak from the ventilation pipe had reappeared. She described water dripping from the bathroom vent. The landlord inspected the issue on 10 November 2023, and concluded the leak was coming from the roof.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 21 November 2023. Her complaint was about its handling of her report of a leak from the ventilation pipe on her bathroom ceiling. She expressed concerns about the potential impact on her family’s health and damage to her property.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 23 November 2023, and said:
    1. The resident reported a leak from her bathroom ceiling but the root cause for the leak was unclear. It said the leak could be coming from the roof or the ventilation pipe.
    2. If an internal pipe was the cause of the leak, it would address the issue. However, if the cause for the leak was a roof issue, the roof manufacturer would be responsible to resolve the matter because the property was under warranty. It explained this would be a latent defect.
    3. It inspected the problem on 10 November 2023, and concluded the leak was coming from the roof. It also agreed to return on 11 December 2023, to expose the boxing of the pipe and investigate further. It said that it would complete any required remedial repairs to the internal pipe.
    4. It contacted the roof manufacturer and asked that it inspected the roof and completes any remedial repairs identified, if any. It explained that this could take a few weeks to complete, and it would continue liaising with the roof manufacturer.
    5. It upheld the resident’s complaint because the leak remained unresolved for 2 months. It recognised the need to improve its communications and its management of the works when dealing with leaks. It offered to pay £150 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its handling of the leak on her.
  5. In December 2023 the landlord replaced a section of the ventilation pipe to try and resolve the leak. However, the resident reported in January 2024, that the leak remained. The roof manufacturer inspected the roof on 16 January 2024 but found no issue with the roof. Between February 2024 and April 2024, the landlord investigated further. In April 2024 it appointed a contractor to do a leak detection test. The contractor recommended for the landlord to inspect the roof.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 6 March 2024, because the landlord had not resolved the leak from her bathroom ceiling.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 24 April 2024, and said:
    1. Following its inspection in November 2023, its contractor replaced a section of pipe with a new one. Unfortunately, on 12 January 2024, the resident reported that the leak had returned.
    2. On 16 January 2024 the roof manufacturer, who the warranty was with, inspected the roof for leaks. On 12 February 2024 he reported to the landlord and the resident that there was no issue with the roof.
    3. It then asked its contractor to inspect the pipe on 27 February 2024. Unfortunately, its contractor sent one of its subcontractors without informing the resident and the appointment did not go ahead. It apologised to the resident for the miscommunication.
    4. It took on board the resident’s feedback about its contractor and on 15 March 2024, it instructed a new contractor to carry out a leak detection test at the property. He completed the test on 8 April 2024.
    5. On 12 April 2024 the contractor advised the landlord to carry out further investigation to ascertain the underlying cause of the problem. The contractor also advised the landlord to appoint an approved roofing contractor to inspect the roof. It provided a copy of the report to the resident and acknowledged that the leak detection contractor and the roof manufacturer provided contradictory information.
    6. It asked the roof manufacturer to return and inspect the roof. It reiterated that the roof was under warranty and only the roof manufacturer could repair it.
    7. To speed up the repairs, it also asked its own contractor to inspect the roof and the internal pipes. It said that if the issue was with the roof, it would instruct the roof manufacturer to carry out the repairs. It elaborated that it would also instruct its own contractor to carry out any remedial repairs to the internal pipes, if needed.
    8. It upheld the resident’s complaint because the leak remained unresolved after 6months and apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
    9. It explained that it can be complex to resolve leaks and take a long time to fully resolve. It proposed to review its compensation offer to the resident once it had resolved the leak.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint process

  1. In July 2024 the landlord appointed a new contractor to inspect the roof. Following the inspection on 22 July 2024, the contractor recommended remedial repairs to the roof. The resident said that some repairs were completed between August 2024 and September 2024.
  2. Between March 2025 and May 2025, the landlord carried out further investigations into the underlying cause of the leak because the resident reported it had returned. In March 2025 the landlord’s contractor inspected the roof and noted that the repairs previously completed to the roof had failed. In May 2025 the landlord raised repairs to the internal pipe and noted that the repairs to the roof were also on going.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with this service in October 2024, about the landlord’s handling of the leak on her bathroom ceiling. In July 2025 she said to us that, although the landlord had tried to resolve the matter, the leak remained unresolved. She was unsure whether the root cause for the leak was a new issue or not. She also said that she was experiencing damp and mould in her property, but it was unclear whether this was linked to the leak. The evidence shows that she experienced mould in her bedroom because of a repair, which is not related to this investigation. She expressed concerns about the potential impact of damp and mould on her 12 year old son. She said her son was under investigation to establish if mould was the cause of some of his health symptoms.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident reported that the landlord’s handling of the leak significantly impacted on her mental health. She also raised concerns about the potential impact of mould on her son’s health. We can consider the impact that the issues raised have had on the family, and whether the landlord acted reasonably. However, we cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions may have contributed to or exacerbated any physical and/or mental health issues. These are legal aspects better suited to a personal injury claim or court.

The landlord’s handling of a leak from the bathroom ceiling.

  1. The landlord said it is the freeholder of the property. As such it is responsible for the maintenance and repairs of the building structure, including communal and external parts such as the roof, internal and external sewers which are not part of the resident’s flat. The lease also confirms that the landlord is responsible for insuring and keeping insured, the building under a comprehensive policy. In this case, the roof was still under warranty at the time of the complaint and the roof manufacturer was responsible for repairing the roof.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it will complete repairs to leasehold properties in keeping with the term of the lease and its statutory obligations. It explains that once it receives a report from a resident, it will inspect the problem within 7 days to understand the nature of the repair, if needed. It will carry out routine repairs within 28 days and aim to complete the repairs at first visit where it can. It says that it will communicate effectively with residents throughout the process.
  3. In October 2023 the resident reported that a leak from the bathroom ventilation vent had reappeared. She explained that the issue had previously occurred and was resolved as a latent defect. She also explained that after heavy rain, water would drip through the ventilation vent into her bathroom. This would have been inconvenient and frustrating for the resident, especially as it happened before.
  4. The presence of a leak does not automatically amount to a service failure by the landlord. Our role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  5. In this case, the landlord inspected the issue 26days after the resident reported the problem. While it was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the leak to understand the nature of the problem, it did not explain its reason for the delay in doing this. It should have inspected the repair within 7 days in keeping with its repairs policy. Its delay in acting on the resident’s report was unreasonable and caused her inconvenience because she had to raise the issue again.
  6. We understand that following its inspection, the landlord did not identify the cause of the leak, nor did it report finding mould in the bathroom. It concluded that the leak was coming from the roof. Nevertheless, it agreed to investigate further and returned 31 days later, when it then replaced a section of the ventilation pipe. It explained that investigating leaks was often a process of elimination and it was hoping that replacing a section of the pipe would resolve the problem. It was reasonable for the landlord to undertake a thorough investigation to establish the root cause of the leak and explore potential solutions. It showed that it understood this was a re-occurring issue for the resident and it was committed to do what it could to resolve the problem.
  7. In its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that the roof was still under warranty and a latent defect could be the root cause for the leak. It also said that because of this, only the roof manufacturer could repair the roof. It confirmed that it had contacted the roof manufacturer and asked it to inspect the problem. The landlord also showed that it managed the resident’s expectations and explained that establishing whether this was a latent defect could take time. While we understand this was inconvenient for the resident, the landlord’s actions were reasonable and in keeping with the approach to dealing with potential latent defects.
  8. The roof manufacturer inspected the roof on 16 January 2023 and informed the landlord 27 days later that the roof was not the source of the leak. We understand that on 12 January 2024, the resident reported that the repairs done by the landlord in December 2023, had not resolved the problem. We recognise that waiting for a resolution to the problem and establishing who was responsible for the repairs was frustrating for the resident. However, the delay in inspecting the roof and getting the report back from the roof manufacturer was out of the landlord’s control.
  9. The evidence shows after receiving the outcome of the roof inspection, the landlord asked its contractor to inspect the leak again. On 27 February 2024, the inspection did not go ahead because of a misunderstanding between its contractor and the resident about who would attend the appointment. While this caused inconvenience to the resident, the issue was out of the landlord’s control. In its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord apologised to the resident for the confusion about the appointment. It also addressed the issue with its contractor. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord.
  10. The resident informed the landlord that she was unhappy with its appointed contractor. The landlord took her feedback into consideration and appointed a new contractor. This was reasonable by the landlord, it showed it was keen to resolve the matter to the resident’s satisfaction.
  11. The landlord’s newly appointed contractor carried out a leak detection test on 8 April 2024. He shared its finding with the landlord 4 days later. The contractor did not find the root cause of the leak, nor did he report the presence of mould in the bathroom. However, he recommended for the landlord to inspect the roof. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that the reports from its contractor and the roof manufacturer contradicted each other. It said that it had raised a complaint with the roof manufacturer and asked it to complete a new roof inspection. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord.
  12. In its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that to speed up the process, it would appoint its own contractor to thoroughly inspect the roof. It said that it would then instruct its contractor to carry out any remedial repairs to the internal pipe if needed. It also said that if it found issues with the roof, it would then instruct the roof manufacturer to complete those repairs. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord.
  13. A key aspect of complaint resolution is for landlords to keep the promises they make during the complaint process. Overall, we cannot assess the landlord’s actions beyond the complaint process because it has not had the opportunity to do it itself through its internal complaints procedure. However, it is reasonable for us to assess whether the landlord completed the actions it promised within its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint.
  14. In this case, in its stage 2 complaint response dated 24 April 2024, the landlord said that it would instruct its own contractor to inspect the roof and trace the leak. However, the evidence shows that it did this 84 days after issuing its stage 2 response. While we understand that in August 2024, some repairs were completed, it did not explain the delay in raising the inspection. This was unreasonable by the landlord and not in keeping with its responsive repairs policy.
  15. We understand that the leak reappeared in March 2025, and that the landlord took actions to investigate the matter and complete the repairs. We also recognise that the resident said the leak was on going. However, those events were beyond the landlord’s internal complaint process and would normally require the resident to log a new complaint about them for the landlord to consider. However, in this case we feel that this would unreasonably add to the time and trouble the resident has taken in pursuing the matter. Therefore, we order the landlord to provide a work schedule for the remedial repairs to the resident, this must include the details of the repairs and their expected completion dates.
  16. In addition, although we requested a copy of the warranty and insurance policy to assist with our investigation, neither the landlord nor the resident provided a copy. While we understand the landlord has raised the matter with the roof manufacturer because the roof is under warranty, it is unclear whether it made a claim under the warranty. It would be reasonable for the landlord to either make a claim or explain to the resident its reasons for not doing this. It should also discuss with the resident whether she could raise a claim herself. Therefore, we make an order below for the landlord to clarify its position in respect of raising a claim with the warranty insurance provider and discuss the process for raising a claim with the resident, if applicable.
  17. In July 2025 the resident has informed us that there was a smell of mould in her bathroom. She said she was concerned about the potential impact on her son’s health. We recognise that she made reports of damp and mould in other parts of her property, which were not part of our investigation. We cannot say whether the smell of mould in her bathroom is linked to those.
  18. We recognise that the landlord’s appointed contractor inspected the bathroom several times and did not report an issue with mould in the bathroom. Nevertheless, in this case, it is our opinion that it would be reasonable for the landlord to inspect the problem. Therefore, we recommend that the landlord carry out a damp and mould survey, if it has not already done so.
  19. After considering the evidence of the case, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a leak on her bathroom ceiling. We recognise that the landlord took steps to investigate and resolve the problem. We also recognise that because the building is under warranty, the landlord could not repair the roof itself without invalidating the policy. Nevertheless, there were delays in raising repairs and the inspection to the roof. Additionally, and from its own admission during the complaint process, the landlord did not effectively communicate with the parties involved.
  20. We understand the landlord offered to pay £150 compensation to the resident in its stage 1 response. However, it is our opinion that this does not reflect the additional failings identified in this report. Therefore, in keeping with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay £100 in further compensation to the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to her. This also reflects that the landlord took steps to resolve the issue and that some of the actions needed to resolve the leak were outside of his control.
  21. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that once it completes the repairs it would review its compensation offer to the resident. This was reasonable from the landlord, and we order that it reiterates its commitment to do this once the leak is resolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports the leak from the bathroom ceiling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written and detailed apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report and reiterate its offer of reviewing its compensation offer once it has resolved the leak. Its reviewed compensation should reflect the impact of its failings, if any, from August 2024 to the date it resolves the issue.
    2. Pay £250 compensation directly to the resident (this is inclusive of £150 compensation the landlord offered at stage 1, which it can deduct it from this amount if it has already paid this to the resident)
    3. To provide a work schedule to the resident in respect of the repairs to the leak. This must include the details of the repairs and their dates for completion.
    4. To clarify its position and the process in respect of making a claim under the warranty insurance.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend for the landlord to carry out a damp and mould survey in the property (if it has not already done this) and share its findings with the resident. Its report must describe the repairs needed, if any, and clarify who is responsible for any remedial repairs identified.