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

One Vision Housing Limited (202317916)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317916

One Vision Housing Limited

21 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:
    1. Report of a leak.
    2. Request to repair or replace damaged flooring, a wash basin and a toilet at her property.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom bungalow and holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The resident has physical vulnerabilities, including chronic conditions, that the landlord is aware of.
  2. In August 2022 the resident reported a leak at her home. The resident told the landlord that the leak had caused damage to her flooring and that some bathroom fixtures had been damaged.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 November 2022 due to the delays in fixing the leak, the refusal to repair the damage fixtures, and replace her flooring. The landlord responded on 9 December 2022 and did not uphold the complaint. It said:
    1. The damage to the toilet and wash basin were not raised during the surveyor’s visit and therefore, was not included in any repair work.
    2. It had attended the resident’s property within 24 hours to deal with the leak. A temporary fix was made until a contractor was able to attend on 26 August 2022 to fully complete the repair and this was reasonable.
    3. A temporary toilet was provided along with bottled water to ensure that facilities were available while the water was not working.
    4. A claim on the resident’s home insurance should have been made to replace the damaged flooring. However, as a goodwill gesture it had agreed to renew the flooring due to the inconvenience suffered. All repairs would be arranged, and the resident would be contacted about this.
  4. On 7 June 2023 the resident escalated her complaint and asked for compensation for the service failure, delays, poor communication and lack of care and support over 6 months. The landlord responded on 26 June 2023 and advised that the complaint was not upheld. This was because the complaint was resolved at stage 1 and there were no outstanding repairs. It had also replaced the resident’s flooring as a goodwill gesture and this work was done as quickly as possible.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to this service in August 2023 as she disagreed with the landlord’s response. The resident has said she would like compensation for the service failings and the distress and inconvenience this caused.

Assessment and findings

Report of a leak

  1. The initial action taken by the landlord when the leak was reported on 23 August 2022 was reasonable. It’s repairs policy says that its out-of-hours service will respond in emergency cases and will complete works or make safe within 24 hours. While the landlord’s own operatives could not fix the leak when it attended, arrangements were made for the utility company to attend and make safe the leak. These actions were in line with its policy on emergency appointments.
  2. The landlord’s repairs records indicate that the resident reported the leak on 23 August 2022 at 5.46pm. The landlord attended the same day at about 8pm. The landlord’s operative noted that ‘leak is coming from a 22mm pipe just before the stop tap inside the property’. The operative was unable to turn off the water and arranged for the water supplier to attend to switch off the water from the street. The operative also noted that they were unable to fix the issue: ‘additional works needed high priority as there is no water in property. Tenant has plenty of water to carry her on throughout the night’. The landlord attended the resident’s property until about 1pm on 24 August 2022, and at this appointment advised that it would need to refer the repair to a specialist contractor to complete. The resident was provided with water bottles. The landlord’s contact records show that the resident called the landlord at 1.48pm on 24 August 2022. The written record of the telephone call indicates that the landlord assured her the specialist contractor would call her to arrange a follow up appointment. It also confirmed that a portaloo would be dropped off. This appears to have been delivered late afternoon on 24 August 2022.
  3. The resident did not hear from the contractor and called the landlord to chase this a number of times on 24 and 25 August 2022. The landlord has provided a contact record from the plumber which indicates that they called the resident on 25 August 2025 at 1.49pm to confirm an appointment for the following day. Additional water bottles were dropped off on 25 August 2022. The contractor attended on the afternoon of 26 August 2022. The repair was completed and the water was reconnected.
  4. Although the toilet could be manually flushed, the mains water supply was off and the resident only had bottled water to try and flush the toilet. Given the resident’s reliance on the landlord delivering bottled water to her, it is acknowledged that she would be reluctant to use her limited water supply for this. In addition, there is no record to suggest that the landlord explained to the resident how to manually flush the toilet or how to use the portaloo, once it was available.
  5. While the landlord responded promptly and appropriately to the initial report of a leak, its overall handling of the leak was unreasonable. The landlord should have ordered bottled water and a portaloo following the first appointment on 23 August 2022 when the water had to be switched off. The temporary toilet and bottled water could therefore have been available by the morning of 24 August 2022. It is accepted that if the leak had been quickly fixed on 24 August 2024, the portaloo would not have been needed; however, this is preferable to a vulnerable resident being left with a toilet without a water supply for almost 24 hours. The delay in providing the resident with bottled water was also unnecessary. Given the landlord was aware that the resident had vulnerabilities, it should have acted quicker to supply essential items such as water and a temporary toilet or considered other alternative solutions. This caused the resident some significant and unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
  6. Following the operative’s attendance at the property on 24 August 2022, the resident suffered a further leak and called out the utility company to temporarily stop this. The utility company advised the resident that this further leak was due to the stop tap being left partly open by the landlord’s operatives earlier in the day. The resident has provided documentary evidence from the utility company to confirm this. The resident informed the landlord of the further leak during a telephone call noted on its system at 3.30pm on 24 August 2023. There is no record of the landlord taking any action following this report. This increased the resident’s distress and inconvenience, and caused some unnecessary time and trouble to resolve.
  7. The resident’s distress and inconvenience was compounded by the landlord failing to take ownership of the follow up appointment and leaving this to the plumber to arrange. The resident received no update on the appointment for 24 hours and this resulted in her calling the landlord a number of times to chase this up. She also requested towels from the landlord, which it agreed to provide, but failed to deliver.
  8. Overall, the landlord did arrange for the repair to be completed within 3 days. This was within its timescales to make safe an emergency repair within 24 hours and complete the follow-on work within 5 working days. However, the landlord did not treat the resident in an appropriate manner. It failed to keep the resident updated on the progress of the repair or manage her expectations, it also delayed providing a working temporary toilet and bottled water, no towels were provided and the resident had to chase the landlord consistently for updates at an already distressing time. Taking these factors into account, there was maladministration in the way the landlord managed the report of the leak.
  9. When looking at this Service’s guidance on remedies if there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident a payment of between £100 to £600 is appropriate. In this case, the landlord did fix the leak within a reasonable time and therefore, there was no permanent impact on the resident. However, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £400 to the resident which recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions.

Request to repair or replace damaged flooring, a wash basin and a toilet

  1. Following the leak, a surveyor attended the resident’s property on 1 September 2022 to inspect the damage. During this visit the landlord advised the resident that she should claim on her contents insurance for her damaged flooring. This suggestion does align with the landlord’s repairs policy which says that the landlord would not be responsible for insuring the contents of the property including decorations and furniture.
  2. In this instance the landlord considered the damage to be accidental as nobody was at fault for the leak that occurred in the first instance. In such a scenario, the landlord would be obliged to respond to the report of a leak and carry out work within a reasonable time. The Ombudsman has established that the landlord did respond to and fix the leak within a reasonable period and in line with its repairs policy. Therefore, the suggestion for the resident to claim on a contents insurance policy was a reasonable one.
  3. However, the resident strongly disputed the landlord’s view that the damage caused at her property was accidental. She considered the landlord failed to act quickly and effectively, and that its operatives had made mistakes such as leaving the stop tap on when attending the property. In addition, the resident made clear to the landlord that she did not have contents insurance. In this circumstance, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with its own liability insurance. This is because an insurance claim will establish negligence and/or liability to pay. It was unreasonable in the circumstances for the landlord not to provide this information to the resident given the dispute in liability for the damage. This did cause some unnecessary frustration and distress to the resident.
  4. Having reviewed the landlord’s repairs policy and compensation policy it does not give guidance on when it is appropriate to provide its liability insurance to a resident. This is something that the landlord should consider including as part of its repair or compensation policy in the future to give guidance to its staff as to when this would be an appropriate action.
  5. The landlord’s contact records show that the landlord’s scheduler called the resident on 24 October 2022 to discuss replacing the flooring. The written record of the call states that the resident wanted to choose her own flooring. She also highlighted that the toilet had a hairline crack. The landlord booked the works to be completed between 31 October 2022 and 2 November 2022. It does not appear that the landlord acted on the resident’s request to choose the flooring or the repair to the toilet she reported.
  6. The contact notes show that the resident spoke to the surveyor on 25 October 2022. An agreement over the flooring could not be reached and the resident cancelled the appointment. However, the landlord’s operatives still attended on 31 October 2022. This failure to action the resident’s request further increased the resident’s frustration with the landlord’s service. The resident called the landlord on 31 October 2022 to set up a new appointment. The landlord emailed the resident on 3 November 2022 to confirm it would take a sample of her existing flooring and match it. The landlord asked for suitable dates for the work to be completed over 3 days. The resident replied on 3, 4 and 7 November 2022 asking for further details of the works. The resident also highlighted that both the toilet and wash basin had cracks.
  7. On 11 November 2022 the landlord confirmed to the resident the full work it was due to conduct. This included the replacement of the damaged flooring at the resident’s property, but not toilet and wash basin. It advised the resident that the wash basin and toilet would not be replaced as this had not been raised as part of the surveyor’s inspection. Following this, the resident raised a formal complaint dated 17 November 2022 which was responded to on 9 December 2022. In the landlord’s complaint response, it agreed to carry out all repairs at the property including the wash basin and toilet.
  8. The landlord’s actions here were unreasonable. Even if the resident did not raise the toilet and wash basin at the initial surveyor appointment, it should have acted quicker to inspect and establish if a repair was required once this was reported. The landlord’s repairs policy says that routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days of the date of notification and the failure to follow this procedure caused unnecessary delay. While the toilet and wash basin were working, the resident was caused significant distress and inconvenience. She was unsure if the toilet and wash basin would last and was worried that the cracks would lead to further leaks or damage.
  9. The landlord emailed you about completing the works on 22 December 2022. It confirmed that repairs were booked for 23, 24 and 25 January 2023. The resident was assured that the landlord’s workmen would source the flooring. The resident confirmed her preferred supplier in an email to the landlord on 22 December 2022. The landlord confirmed it would order the flooring on 2 January 2023. It attended on 9 January 2023 to complete measurements.
  10. The flooring appointment was attended on 23, 24 and 25 January 2023 as arranged. There were issues with the original replacement flooring. The landlord’s operatives without the flooring as agreed. In addition, the resident’s email to the landlord on 27 January 2023 states that she ‘had to choose flooring for a second time because my original choice was not of a good standard and was causing problems when being fitted’. The landlord completed all work by 13 February 2023.
  11. Overall, it is clear that the landlord caused delays in completing the repairs. The initial almost 2-month delay between the surveyor’s inspection and the initial contact about booking repair appointments has not been explained. In addition, a further delay occurred between 11 November 2022 and 21 December 2022 when the landlord refused to complete repairs only to change its mind when you raised a complaint. The landlord does not appear to be responsible for further delays in January 2023, as the problem with the original flooring was a manufacturer issue. The landlord’s response was appropriate and rearranged further appointments within a reasonable timescale. However, between September 2022 and mid-February 2023, it is clear that the landlord’s actions led to unnecessary delays of about 3 months. This was unreasonable. The landlord’s policy for routine repairs is 20 working days and these repairs were completed well outside this timescale. This delay caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
  12. The resident has confirmed that she was required to pick up and deliver flooring to the suppliers on 3 occasions. She has explained that she felt she had to do this to avoid any further delays. This underlines the impact on a vulnerable resident of the landlord’s poor handling of these repairs.
  13. Taking all the circumstances into account, this amounts to maladministration. When deciding on a remedy for the failures identified it is fair to recognise that the landlord agreed to replace the flooring without notifying its insurer. This would likely have saved the resident some inconvenience and the potential distress of having an insurance claim refused. However, once agreeing to the repairs there were some significant delays that were compounded by a failure to effectively communicate. When using this Service’s guidance on remedies a payment of between £100 to £600 is appropriate in cases such as this. Therefore, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Report of a leak.
    2. Request to repair or replace damaged items at her property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write an apology to the resident for the identified failings.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £900 broken down as:
      1. £400 for the failings related to the report of a leak.
      2. £500 for the failings related to the damaged items.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its compensation and/or repairs policy to give guidance to its staff as to when to refer a resident to its own liability insurance.