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

Yorkshire Housing Limited (202422107)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422107

Yorkshire Housing Limited

30 May 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. Reports of a leak from the ensuite shower.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease for a house, which began in April 2022. The house has a main bathroom and an ensuite.
  2. On 22 April 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that the ensuite shower was leaking.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 17 August 2023. They said the leak from the shower was on-going and had damaged the skirting boards and wardrobe.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 September 2023. It upheld the complaint and said:
    1. It gave the resident incorrect information when it said the ensuite shower was outside the defect period.
    2. The developer would contact the resident next week to arrange to fix the leak and replace the skirting boards.
    3. It had arranged for the lino in the bathroom to be replaced.
    4. It would offer £500 compensation for the delays and damage to the wardrobe.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 15 February 2024 as the works carried out by the developer had not resolved the leak.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 June 2024. It said:
    1. The developer replaced the shower. All works had been completed and it apologised for the delay in resolving the leak.
    2. It agreed to check the work carried out by the developer, and if its own plumber did not pass the work as satisfactory it would consider further compensation.
    3. It acknowledged its poor communication and was looking at implementing a new system to make it better.
    4. In addition to the £500 compensation offered at stage 1, it offered a further £1310.62 for the loss of the use of the ensuite shower, damage caused by its contractor, and for the cost of replacing the floor covering.

Events after the expiry of the landlord’s complaints procedure

  1. On 24 June 2024 the resident reported that the ensuite shower was still leaking.
  2. The landlord and developer found the cause of the leak and resolved it on 15 May 2025.
  3. The resident initially asked us for assistance to resolve the leak. They would now like us to investigate the landlord’s handling of the leak and her associated complaint. She has not accepted the compensation offered by the landlord as she feels this should be reconsidered due to the length of time it took for the leak to be resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This investigation has focussed on the complaint issues the resident raised in her complaint to the landlord on 17 August 2023. This investigation will investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of these issues from April 2022 to the end of its formal complaint’s procedure in June 2024.
  2. Although the leak from the ensuite shower was not resolved until May 2025, by the time of the stage 2 complaint response the developer had completed the recommended works. The landlord has not had an opportunity to investigate the on-going issues that arose after the stage 2 complaint response. Therefore, it would be unfair to include them in our investigation. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get these matters resolved.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the ensuite shower

  1. We find reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the shower. The reasons for our findings are below.
  2. The landlord’s development defects contractor management procedure (DDCMP) states an enquiry to its aftercare team will be responded to within 2 working days. It will confirm to the resident what has been logged, who the contractor is and the timescale. The contractor will arrange an appointment with the resident and update the landlord. The landlord will undertake a post-work check with the resident.
  3. The resident reported that the ensuite shower was leaking on 22 April 2022. The landlord’s records state the developer confirmed they had completed the necessary repairs. It is unclear what repairs were completed or when this was done. There was no evidence the landlord completed a post-work check as stated it would in its DDCMP.
  4. The resident reported a further leak from the ensuite shower in April and July 2023. The landlord told the resident as the defect period had expired it was their responsibility to resolve it. On 22 August 2023, 4 months later, the landlord forwarded the resident’s reports onto the developer. The developer initially said the leak was not a defect due to the length of time that had passed. The evidence shows the landlord communicated back and forth with the developer stating it believed the leak was a defect. On 20 September 2023 the contractor agreed it would investigate the leak. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord apologised for providing the wrong information and offered £250 for the delays and inconvenience this had caused. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy.
  5. The developers plumber attended on 4 October 2023 as the landlord promised in its stage 1 complaint response. On 10 October 2023 the resident reported the works to the shower had not resolved the leak. The resident raised concerns that the developer was carrying out works it had done several times before and was not investigating the root cause of the leak. The developer agreed to carry out more invasive investigations on 16 October 2023. The shower was replaced in November 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the developer’s investigations and plan of works.
  6. When the resident reported further leaks from the ensuite shower in February 2024, the landlord acted reasonably by arranging a visit. It discussed the issues with the resident and investigated the leak itself. The evidence shows that although the landlord did not find any leaks it reported its findings to the developer and continued to communicate and assist it to find a resolution to the leak. It acted proactively in trying to resolve the leak for the resident and mitigate the issues it was having with the developer and the developer’s contractors. This was customer focused.
  7. In March 2023 the developer told the resident it would replace the shower tray and door. The evidence shows the landlord agreed to pay half of the costs to ensure the works were carried out as soon as possible. The developer visited the resident on 15 April 2024 to agree a plan of works. The landlord’s records do not state when the works were completed but communication from the resident states it was at beginning of June 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide the opportunity for the developer and its contractor to put things right.
  8. The landlord agreed in its stage 2 response that it would send its own plumber to check the developers work. The landlord’s records does not state when this was carried out, but the evidence suggests it was the beginning of July 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of its plumber. However, when the plumber recommended to replace the silicone it should have been clear from its records that the developer had done this several times over the last 15 months and it had not resolved the leak. The resident had raised concerns about this in October 2023. There was no evidence the landlord questioned the works with its plumber or discussed it with the developer. The landlord failed to take a pro-active approach to the leak, which contributed to the delays in it establishing the root cause of the leak.
  9. Between April 2023 and June 2024 the resident chased the landlord on multiple occasions for an update. The evidence showed the landlord did not always respond to the resident and often replied outside its target timescale of 2 working days. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated on the works the developer had agreed to carry out and the timescales for when these works should be completed. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to effectively communicate with the resident and manage her expectations.
  10. Landlords are required to create and maintain adequate records to be able to demonstrate that they have complied with their policies and procedures. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. There was a failure in this case to record information about all of its and the developer’s repair appointments, and its communication with the resident, developer and contractors. This lack of records is likely to have affected the landlord’s ability to manage the investigations into the cause of the leak, and the works needed to resolve it. 
  11. In summary the landlord’s decision to uphold both stage 1 and 2 complaints was appropriate given its handling of the leak. It acknowledged and apologised for its lack of communication and the delays in resolving the leak. It acted reasonably by relying on the developer investigations into the leak. The developer had completed the works it thought would resolve the leak within the complaints procedure. The landlord showed it wanted to put things right as it agreed to send its own plumber to check the works carried out by the developer. Although it is clear the leak caused the resident distress and inconvenience over a long period of time, the resident had access to alternative washing facilities in the home.
  12. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered the resident in total £1810.62 compensation. This included 10% of the rent for the loss of use of the ensuite shower, distress and inconvenience for the delays, and the damage caused to the resident’s wardrobe, flooring and shower head. We find this was reasonable redress for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused. The compensation offered was higher than the amounts listed in the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedy guidance.
  13. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that if its plumber did not pass the contractors work as satisfactory it would review its offer of compensation. As its plumber recommended further works and the leak was not resolved for another 11 months after the complaints procedure, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider whether further compensation would be appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. We find service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint. The reasons for our findings are below.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  3. The resident made a complaint to her landlord on 17 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged their request the same day. It acknowledged the complaint in writing on 4 September 2023. This was outside the landlord’s target timescale of 5 working days.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 September 2023. This was outside its target timescale of 10 working days. The landlord contacted the resident on 15 September 2023 to say that there would be a delay. However, it failed to say when the resident should expect a response.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 22 February 2024, this was outside its target timescale of 5 working days.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint on 21 June 2024, 82 working days later. This was outside its 20-working day target timescale.
  7. The landlord’s complaint responses were well written and covered all the issued raised by the resident. The landlord showed it understood what had gone wrong, what it was going to do to put things right and what it had learnt from the complaint.
  8. In summary there was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the complaint and escalation and issuing its stage 1 and 2 responses. There was evidence of poor communication with the resident and it failed to manage her expectations. Although the landlord’s complaint responses were well written and covered all the issues raised by the resident, it failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failures. Therefore it failed to put things right.

Determination

  1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak from the ensuite shower (paragraph 53.b of the Scheme).
  2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint (paragraph 52 of the Scheme).

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the landlord’s handing of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so the landlord should pay the resident the £1810.62 compensation offered in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.
  2. If it has not already done so the landlord should reconsider whether further compensation is owed to the resident due to the developers works being unsatisfactory. It stated it would consider this in its stage 2 complaint response.
  3. The landlord should review its record keeping practices and staff training to ensure that all staff are accurately recording and managing resident’s reports of defects and complaints. If it has not done so already, consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.