One Housing Group Limited — case 202421385

Decision Case ID 202421385 Decision type Investigation Landlord One Housing Group Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Shorthold Tenancy Date 28 January 2026 Background The resident has informed us that he is deaf, does not speak, and has limited real-time communication ability. His complaint was about the communication protocols put in place by the landlord and how he felt the landlord was not implementing them correctly. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s concerns about its implementation of his reasonable adjustments.

The complaint. Our decision (determination) We found there was: Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its implementation of his reasonable adjustments. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The residents concerns about its implementation of his reasonable adjustments The landlord reasonably considered its duties in regard to the implementation of the reasonable adjustments.

It also fairly acknowledged where there were failures which caused the resident distress and inconvenience. However, its commitment to regular testing of the emergency response protocol remains outstanding. The complaint The landlord’s stage 2 response was slightly delayed. However, the responses were thorough and there were no failures identified which would amount to maladministration. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right.

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows: £100 the landlord offered in its complaint responses. £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to implement the quarterly testing following its stage 2 response.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. No later than 25 February 2026 2 Carrying out the quarterly checks The landlord must confirm what arrangements it has in place to ensure the quarterly checks of the emergency support protocol are carried out as agreed. If there is any reason it is unable to carry out the checks, it must provide the reasons why, and explain how it will ensure the protocol is operating effectively.

No later than 25 February 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 4 July 2024 The resident raised a complaint about 2 reasonable adjustments (emergency support protocol and general communications protocol) put in place by the landlord. He said the landlord had disputed that the general communications protocol existed. He said the landlord had agreed to carry out quarterly checks on the protocols and it had not done so in 2024. He said he had to continuously fight to get the reasonable adjustments which caused him extreme anxiety, frustration, sleepless nights, and stress.

The resident described an incident in June 2024 when his kitchen flooded in which he did not feel the protocols were correctly adhered to. He asked the landlord to ensure the protocols were working correctly and for an explanation for it not implementing them as agreed. 26 July 2024 The landlord provided its stage 1 response, it provided a timeline of events which occurred in relation to the resident’s complaint. It outlined its actions at the time and how it responded in line with its obligations.

It said: It acknowledged that the error messages sent to the resident led him to believe his emails had not been picked up. It recognised the distress caused to the resident, apologised, and offered £50 compensation. The landlord also acknowledged it did not complete a quarterly test in April and July 2024 of the emergency protocol. It apologised for any distress or inconvenient caused. It acknowledged that its previous communication regarding the general communication protocol may have been misleading and partially upheld the complaint in respect of that.

It apologised and offered £50 compensation. It outlined areas it had identified for improvement. It also offered a meeting with the resident to review his access requirements and its service offer. 28 July 2024 The resident escalated his complaint. He requested the landlord implement a 2 way email communication channel with him in which his emails are prioritised and dealt with quickly as agreed in October 2022. The resident did not feel the stage 1 response provided reflected the complaints he initially set out.

3 September 2024 The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It addressed each of the points raised by the resident and confirmed its findings in the stage 1 response still applied. It provided the reasons why it had not carried out the quarterly checks. It said it had now reinstated the checks and the next one would take place in September 2024. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He said the emergency protocol checks had not been reinstated and he wanted the landlord to implement the reasonable adjustments without errors.

What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The resident’s concerns about its implementation of his reasonable adjustments. Finding Service failure The landlord had the following reasonable adjustments in place with the resident prior to this complaint: Emergency support protocol – this was to provide the resident with an email address giving him 24/7 access to report housing related emergences.

The reports would be actioned in line with his needs and its emergency response service to customers. It said it would complete regular testing to check that the emergency protocol was working effectively. General communications protocol – the landlord confirmed the email address the resident should use for non-emergencies. It said it would ensure his emails were automatically moved into an urgent folder so they could be prioritised and dealt with quickly. In his formal complaint, the resident raised that the adjustments in place contained errors.

He said the landlord had not carried out the quarterly checks on the protocols and wanted reassurance that the landlord was applying the adjustments without error. The resident referred to an incident on 9 June 2024 when his kitchen flooded, he reported it via the emergency email and received 2 email delivery error notices. He said that caused him to panic and feel isolated. He acknowledged he did eventually receive a response but felt if the landlord had previously carried out the checks, it could have prevented the errors.

Emergency support protocol In its complaint responses the landlord confirmed the emergency email was received by its out of hours contractor and responded to within an hour. It said a repair was then raised and attended to the following day, in line with its repair timelines. It said the resident contacted it again on 13 June 2024 to say the leak had returned, he was responded to in less than an hour and a same day appointment was arranged. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s repair requests were in line with the landlord’s repairs policy for emergency repairs, which was appropriate.

The landlord said the resident reported the issue again on 14 June 2024 as the leak had returned. It said he emailed the head of customer service directly. It said the resident pointed out the issue was with the washing machine itself and the machine had been provided by his supported housing team. The head of customer service escalated the request to that team to replace the washing machine. As the replacement was not the landlord’s responsibility, we cannot determine that the response was not in line with expectations.

The landlord evidenced it liaised with the appropriate team to progress the repairs and the new washing machine was delivered on 27 June 2025. The landlord outlined how the emergency response email address worked. It explained a team of people monitored the account. It said the 2 undeliverable notifications were due to 2 staff members no longer working at the organisation. The landlord said there could be a short delay with removing them from the list, which could result in the undeliverable notifications.

The landlord reassured the resident that in those instances, the wider team of people would still process his emails. While it highlighted the resident was responded to in line with its service offer, it acknowledged the anxiety and frustration caused to the resident by the notifications received. It offered £50 compensation in recognition of that. This was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which would not have affected the overall outcome for the resident.

The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that it did not carry out a quarterly review of the emergency protocol as agreed. The last one it completed was in January 2024 and it should have completed another in April 2024 but it did not do so. It apologised for that failing. It explained that this was a result of a change in its IT system and losing the recurring reminder to complete the tests. The landlord said if it had completed a test in April 2024, it did not feel it would have changed the outcome of the undeliverable notifications received by the resident in June 2024.

It said this was due to the time it takes to remove accounts from the system. It said the protocol worked as expected in June. It said it had reinstated the checks and the next one would take place in September 2024. The landlord has not evidenced that it reinstated the checks as agreed in its stage 2 response. The landlord has since acknowledged this failing to us and said it had flagged it to the head of service. General communications protocol The resident felt the landlord was not following its general communications protocol and asked for an explanation why.

The landlord outlined some of the occasions when the resident had contacted the routine enquiry email address, what the ‘general communications protocol’ was, and the timeframes in which it would respond to the resident, in line with its customer service offer. While the resident disputed the timescales and felt it should be at the earliest possible opportunity, it was appropriate to set out timescales to help manage the resident’s expectations going forward. It was also reasonable for the landlord to refer to its webchat services in which the resident could communicate to it in “real time.

” The landlord considered what it had agreed with the resident in October 2022 when it implemented the protocol. It said it could have been clearer in explaining the reasons why it would move the resident’s emails into another folder and respond to them quickly. It said it should have added that it would still be in line with its service offer to customers and was more so it would not miss the resident’s emails during busy periods. The landlord apologised for any confusion caused to the resident and offered £50 compensation, which was proportionate to the loss of confidence caused.

The resident maintained that the landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) as he believed it had not adhered to and or applied the reasonable adjustments. It is outside of our expertise to determine whether the landlord breached the Act. This would be a matter for the courts to decide. Our role is to consider the landlord’s response to the complaint and whether it showed consideration to its duties under the act. The landlord is not obligated to accommodate all requests.

However, we find the landlord appropriately demonstrated how it had considered its duty to make reasonable adjustments for the resident. Its complaint responses outlined what steps it had taken to agree, apply, and review the adjustments in place for the resident, in line with its reasonable adjustments policy. It recognised where its approach had previously lacked clarity and reassurance and it aimed to put things right by apologising and offering compensation. In conclusion, we have not seen evidence to suggest the reasonable adjustments were insufficient or not adhered to in this case.

The landlord offered an appropriate amount of compensation to put right the impact caused to the resident as a result of its failures. However, it was not appropriate that the landlord did not then carry out the regularly testing of the emergency response protocol as agreed. This likely caused the resident continued distress and inconvenience and as he stated, it was not reassuring. As such, we have found service failure. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 3 working days and provided its stage 1 response 13 working days later.

The time taken to provide its response was outside of the 10 working day timeframe set out in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, the landlord aimed to manage the resident’s expectations by contacting him on 22 July 2024 to explain why it could not respond in 10 working days. It said it would respond by 26 July 2024, which it then did. This was reasonable as the Code allows for an extension of up to 10 working days, as long as the resident is informed. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation within 3 working days which was appropriate.

It provided its stage 2 response 23 working days later which was again slightly outside of the 20 working day timeframe set out in our Code. As the delay was not significant, we have not considered this a failing which would amount to maladministration. However, the landlord should reflect on the reasons for the delay and need to communicate them to the resident at the time. Overall, the landlord’s complaint responses were thorough and aimed to address the issues raised by the resident.

The resident remained dissatisfied as did not feel the landlord sufficiently addressed his reasonable adjustment request or its implementation as per the Equality Act 2010. However, the above assessment shows how we consider the landlord has demonstrated giving due regard to resident’s individual circumstances and its legal duties. As such, we have not found any maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord recognised where its change in systems led to it not carrying out the required checks it agreed it would.

Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management provides useful recommendations for landlords around managing such changes and what proactive steps the landlord could consider in future. Communication In its complaint responses, the landlord said it had offered on several occasions to meet with the resident in a format that met his needs, so they could work together to discuss its service offer and his requirements. The offer showed a willingness and commitment to continuously consider the communication needs of the resident.