One Housing Group Limited — case 202502462

Decision Case ID 202502462 Decision type Investigation Landlord One Housing Group Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 31 October 2025 Background The resident has 4 children who are all under 11 years old. The resident told the landlord one of her children has a health condition and another has a disability. She complained to the landlord because she does not believe the property should have been let to her in the condition it was in and that it was unsafe.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about: The condition of the property when let. The landlord’s handling of repairs and pest control. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling. Our decision (determination) There was maladministration regarding: The condition of the property when let. The landlord’s handling of repairs and pest control. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons The landlord did not demonstrate the property met its lettable standard when let and there were repairs and pest control needed immediately after the resident moved in. It also did not provide electrical safety and testing certificates including for the built-in cooker. The landlord did not complete repairs within its policy timeframes or at all or attend to pest control. It failed to raise repairs for the cooker. There is no evidence it raised or attended appointments it said it had booked within its complaint responses.

The landlord delayed in providing both of its complaint responses. While it offered compensation, it failed to apologise for the delays. It also failed to ask for extensions of time. It did not evidence when the complaints were made and when, or if, it acknowledged these. 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 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a manager or senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.

It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 01 December 2025 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,350 made up as follows: £400 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in the condition of the property when let. £800 for the significant distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling repairs and pest control. £150 for the additional time and trouble caused by complaint handling failings.

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 01 December 2025 3 Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed.

If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the entire property and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: What repairs are needed, if any, which the landlord is responsible for. A full scope of works to achieve lasting and effective repairs to the issues (if the landlord is responsible).

No later than 01 December 2025 4 Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the works identified within its surveyor’s report ordered above are completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence.

No later than 29 December 2025 5 Policy review The landlord must review its voids policy, and lettable standards document, and provide a report to us. This must include: Consideration of including detailed instructions on how it assesses void properties, decides what works are required, and inspects post the works. What inspection reports or other documents it will produce to evidence the works it carries out and that the property met its lettable standard. No later than 29 December 2025 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations It is recommended that the landlord assist the resident in applying for a move to a different property. It may do this by assisting with her application to the council and/or through any internal moves procedure it may have, or by assisting her to find a mutual exchange. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 11 to 25 November 2024 The resident’s tenancy started, and she reported various repairs and pest control issues to the landlord.

It inspected and agreed to raise some repairs, but was unable to contact her to book them in. 28 November 2024 The resident made a stage 1 complaint about the condition of the property. She also said she had not had a proper viewing before accepting it. (This is the date the landlord said she made the complaint.) 8 January 2025 The landlord provided its stage 1 response in which it: Acknowledged its delayed response and offered £50 compensation. Said it would not remove the cooker as she had requested.

Explained it had not been able to access the property, it missed an appointment, and then the resident denied access to unblock her sink. It offered £10 compensation for the missed appointment. Said it had attended a leak in the bathroom but had not booked a follow-on yet. Confirmed it had booked some repairs for the kitchen and an appointment for 15 January 2025. It had also booked for its pest contractor to attend that day. Said it had booked an appointment for 8 January 2025 to box in pipework and wires in the bathroom.

Explained it would not change the property back to a non-adapted one. 16 January 2025 The resident asked to escalate her complaint. (The landlord has not provided evidence of this. This is the date given in its stage 2 response.) 23 March 2025 The landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it: Acknowledged its delayed response and offered £100 compensation. Said she wanted a kitchen replacement to resolve her complaint. Set out the repairs it had previously said it would and would not do, and that it had made an appointment for 1 April 2025 for these.

Said the property was not on the list for a kitchen replacement that financial year. Offered £100 compensation for delays to repairs, together with the £100 for the delayed stage 2 and £60 for the delayed stage 1 responses. The total compensation offered was £260. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident brought her complaint to us on 17 April 2025. She said there were still repairs needed to the property. She could not use the cooker as it did not work properly and had no space to put her own one.

There were outstanding repairs to the kitchen cupboards and worktops, the kitchen sink did not drain properly. There was also an issue with the bathroom floor, where it used to be a wet room, and water was pooling on the floor. She said she had spent hours on the telephone with the landlord trying to get it to do the repairs. At the date of this report the resident told us the landlord had arranged pest control, and done some repairs, but many are still outstanding. She said she is now applying to move due to unrelated reasons.

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 condition of the property when let. Finding Maladministration Under its voids policy the landlord will ensure a property meets its lettable standard before letting, and that safety checks have been completed.

To meet the standard the property will be, among other things, in a reasonable standard of repair and not infested with pests. Sinks will be clean and free from grime, kitchen units repaired or replaced if damaged, and doors and draws will be in good working order. Appliances provided will be checked and Portable Appliance Tested (PAT). The repair records state the landlord completed void works prior to letting. However, they do not say what repairs it did. It has not provided a copy of the schedule of works, or any pre or post inspection reports or evidence it signed off the works.

This is a failing, as the landlord is unable to prove that the property met its lettable standard and is also a record keeping failing. When the landlord inspected on 20 November 2024, 9 days after the resident’s tenancy started, it agreed that it needed to do some repairs, which confirmed the property had not met its standard. The landlord has also not provided a copy of the electrical wiring certificate, or evidence of a PAT test for the built-in cooker, as per its policy which is a further failing.

The resident has 4 young children and there are disabilities in the household. The resident, and others on her behalf, had told the landlord about her children’s vulnerabilities before it offered her the property. However, it failed to record these. There is no evidence it took these into account when planning what works it did prior to letting, or the suitability of the property when offering it to her. In particular, the resident told it the switch for the cooker was too low and her children could reach it which was a safety hazard.

Equally, there was exposed pipework, wiring, and wire wool which it had failed to box in or make safe prior to letting. Under the Equality Act 2010 landlords must have due regard to, or proper consideration of, their obligations to make reasonable adjustments for people with protected characteristic such as disability. There is no evidence the landlord considered the disabilities within the household when preparing or letting the property, which was a failing. Overall, there was maladministration which caused distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident in trying to get the issues resolved.

To reflect the impact, an order has been made that the landlord pay £400 compensation to her. Complaint The landlord’s handling of repairs and pest control. Finding Maladministration Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure of the property, and installations for services including water and sanitation. This includes the kitchen cupboards, plumbing and drainage, and electrical safety. Its repairs policy says it will make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours and complete urgent repairs within 5 days.

It will complete routine repairs within 28 days. Under its neighbourhood policy, the landlord will arrange pest control where an infestation is affecting the communal areas or multiple properties. There is evidence of ongoing issues within the block, and the landlord completed ‘proofing’ repairs to the property months before the resident moved in. When the resident first raised repairs, on the first day of her tenancy, the landlord correctly inspected the property. It raised repairs and its contractor tried to book an appointment which was positive.

It then gave appointment dates as part of its stage 1 response which was solution focused. However, there is no evidence it attended or completed the repairs, which is a failing. The repair records state it did attend for boxing in works, but sent the wrong contractor, which was a further failing. It also failed to give an appointment for follow-on plumbing repairs which it considered as part of its response. Positively it said it had booked an appointment for its pest control company to attend.

However, there is no evidence the company did attend, which is an additional failing. The landlord also failed to respond to, or arrange for, repairs to the built-in cooker, which the resident was unable to use. The cooker was present when let, and the landlord refused to remove it or to make space for the resident’s own cooker. Therefore, it should have repaired it. The resident told us she only had an air frier and a microwave to cook. Within its stage 2 response the landlord accepted there were still outstanding repairs.

It said it had booked an appointment for 1 April 2025 but there is no evidence of this or of it completing the repairs. The landlord had not completed the repairs within any of its policy timeframes which was a failing. Positively the landlord did offer £100 for its delay, and £10 for a missed appointment. However, this did not represent the extent of the failure or the impact it had on the resident. There was no sense of urgency within the landlord to resolve the repairs. The evidence shows initial silo working with the repairs department referring back to the voids department.

It is also not clear why the landlord did not carry out a full surveyor’s inspection of the property considering the number and variety of repairs the resident had reported. This would have been solution focused. Instead, it took little action which led to the resident having to constantly chase it to try to resolve the repairs. There was maladministration, which has caused significant distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect the impact an order has been made that it pay £800 compensation to her, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

This amount is inclusive of the £110 it offered within the complaints process. Complaint The landlord’s complaint handling. Finding Service failure The landlord said the resident made her stage 1 complaint on 28 November 2024. While it has provided the text of the complaint, it has failed to provide proof of when she made it. It has provided the text of its acknowledgement of the complaint. However, it has failed to provide proof it sent it to the resident or when. Therefore, it is not possible to say whether it acknowledged the complaint within its complaints policy timeframe.

Within its stage 1 response the landlord accepted it was delayed and offered £50 compensation for this. If the resident made her complaint on 28 November 2024, then it had delayed by 26 working days. Its complaints policy timeframe for a stage 1 response is 10 working days, which is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). While it is positive it acknowledged the delay, and offered compensation, it failed to apologise for it or give an explanation.

It had also failed to ask for an extension of time which it could have under its policy and the Code. The landlord said the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 16 January 2025. It has failed to provide evidence of this. It has provided the text of its acknowledgement of escalation but has failed to provide proof it sent it to the resident or when. When it provided its stage 2 response it accepted it was delayed and offered £100 compensation but again failed to apologise.

It provided it after 47 working days, which was not in line with the 20 working days allowed for in its policy and the Code. It could have also asked for an extension but failed to. The response was also poorly written and unclear in part. While the landlord had tried to put things right for its delays it failed to do so. There was service failure, which caused additional inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. An order has been made that the landlord pay the £150 it offered within its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.

Learning The landlord included within its stage 2 response a section on learning from the complaint which was positive. However, there is no evidence the landlord’s handling of the repairs improved following the complaint. Knowledge and information management (record keeping) The landlord’s repairs records were incomplete and did not include all information needed, such as clear outcomes for repairs. It also did not provide any documents regarding its void works, inspections or sign-off.

The landlord has not provided copies of call logs or emails sent to or from the resident. Additionally, it failed to provide documents in their original format for the complaint, escalation and acknowledgments which have hampered this investigation. In future, the landlord should provide copies of original documents. Additionally, the landlord should improve its recording of resident and household vulnerabilities on its databases.