One Housing Group Limited — case 202424907

Decision Case ID 202424907 Decision type Investigation Landlord One Housing Group Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 17 February 2026 Background The resident lives in a flat in a block. The tenancy started in 1992. The resident complained about repairs to his security alarm. What the complaint is about The complaint is about: The landlord’s handling of repairs to a security alarm. Complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s: Handling of repairs to a security alarm.

Complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord explained why it was not responsible for the repair of the alarm. However, its communication about this and record keeping was poor. The compensation was not enough to remedy its failures. The landlord’s responses at both stages were late. It did not address all points of the complaint. It also failed ensure a different person considered the complaint at stage 2. 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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.

It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 17 March 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £410 made up as follows: £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to a security alarm. £10 as previously offered for a missed appointment. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint. 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 made. No later than 17 March 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord should review its staff training needs in regard to communicating with residents throughout the repairs process. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 22 April 2024 The resident complained to the landlord. He said he reported a fault with his security alarm on 2 February 2024.

The resident said the landlord sent the wrong contractor. He advised it then removed the alarm and did not replace it. 29 May 2024 The resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said he had not received a response and he was without a security alarm. 25 July 2024 The landlord responded at stage 1. It said: There was no access for an appointment on 2 February 2024. It failed to clarify the following appointment was for a security alarm not a fire/smoke alarm. It subsequently disabled and removed the alarm.

It would make good the area. It had reviewed the tenancy agreement. It was not responsible for the maintenance of a security alarm. It upheld the complaint due to incorrectly raising the repairs. It offered compensation of £100 for the impact caused and £50 for its late complaint response. 26 July 2024 The resident escalated his complaint. He said he had already escalated it in May 2024. The resident advised the landlord was incorrect about its repair responsibility. He said it had previously replaced his alarm.

6 September 2024 The landlord responded at stage 2. It confirmed its decision at stage 1. It offered a further £10 compensation for a missed appointment. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident was unhappy with the response. He said the alarm was at the property when he moved in. He told us he missed work due to failed appointments and wanted further compensation. After the complaints process The resident told us he moved out of the property in 2025 due to concerns about the property and security.

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 Handling of repairs to a security alarm Finding Maladministration What we did not investigate The resident raised concerns about discrimination.

We cannot decide whether discrimination has taken place. This is a legal term which is better suited to a court to decide on. We can look at whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about this. The resident told us the situation had a detrimental impact on his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are usually best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last.

We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 30 July 2024 about failed repair appointments on 30 July 2024 and 5 August 2024. The landlord responded on 15 August 2024 and awarded £100 compensation. There is no evidence the resident escalated this complaint to stage 2. This investigation is focused on the issues raised in the complaint on 22 April 2024, which the landlord responded to at stage 2 on 6 September 2024.

The resident raised concerns about matters that occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We do not investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right through its complaints process first. He told us he moved out of his property in 2025 due to concerns about the property and security. There is no evidence the resident raised this complaint. Therefore, we have not investigated this issue. What we did investigate The landlord acknowledged it raised the original repair incorrectly.

It logged the 2 February 2024 report as a fire alarm issue. This delayed the correct contractor attending. In its complaint response, the landlord said it raised the repair as an emergency and attempted to attend but could not access the property. We have not seen records of this appointment or a ‘no access’ visit. The landlord’s repair policy requires a 4‑hour response to emergency repairs. It treats fire safety as an emergency, but not security alarms. In its complaint response, the landlord said it attended on 16 February 2024.

We have not seen any records of this visit. This date fell within its 28‑day timeframe for non‑urgent repairs. The appointment failed because the repair was still wrongly categorised as a fire or smoke alarm issue. It is unclear exactly when the landlord attended and removed the alarm. Its record keeping about repair appointments is poor. In his 22 April 2024 complaint, the resident said an operative removed the alarm that day. Overall, it took almost 3 months to complete works.

This was an unreasonable delay. It is also unclear whether the landlord told the resident before this point that it was not responsible for repairing or replacing the security alarm. This likely left him uncertain as to the next steps the landlord would take. The resident then asked the landlord to replace the alarm. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it does not provide security alarms as standard. It advised it was not responsible for maintaining or repairing them unless it has agreed to install one in special circumstances.

It said such an agreement would appear in the tenancy agreement. This aligns with information in the tenancy agreement. This stated that any special property conditions would be listed in an appendix. The landlord told the resident it had reviewed his tenancy and found no such agreement. We have seen a copy of the tenancy agreement and no appendix or special conditions are included. The tenancy agreement does not list the responsibility for a security alarm. The landlord’s repairs policy and website also do not refer to security alarms.

We acknowledge the resident disagrees with the landlord’s decision not to replace the alarm. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord agreed to install or maintain a security alarm at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has removed the alarm and made good the area for a repair it confirmed it was not responsible for. However, there was a communication failing here. There is no evidence the landlord provided this information to the resident on 16 February 2024 when it established the repair was for a security alarm.

It also failed to fully explain its reasons for the decision to remove the alarm until its stage 1 response on 25 July 2024. This likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord told us the alarm was not a standard item it maintains or offers. It said the alarm was already in the property at letting and was “gifted” because it was working. We have not seen documentary evidence from the start of the tenancy confirming this. The landlord’s complaint responses did not clearly explain this to the resident.

It advised of its process for items installed by previous residents. However, it did not confirm whether the alarm was present when the resident moved in. The resident said he was the first occupant after the property was built and that the alarm was in place at the start of his tenancy. As such, the landlord’s explanation appears inaccurate and likely caused frustration. In his complaint escalation, the resident said the landlord repaired his alarm before. The landlord did not address this in its responses.

Its repair records from 2015 onwards show no repairs to the security alarm. We have not seen earlier records. Therefore, we have no evidence that the landlord previously accepted responsibility for the alarm. In his escalation, the resident asked the landlord to reimburse his loss of earnings for 3 occasions when incorrect operatives attended. The landlord accepted it had raised the repairs incorrectly and identified poor internal communication. It acknowledged a failed appointment on 16 February 2024 but did not confirm any others (albeit it did award separate compensation in August 2024 which it linked to appointments in July and August 2024).

We have not seen any repair appointment records to demonstrate appointments made in advance or evidence of the lack of access. Nevertheless, the landlord’s complaints policy states it does not compensate for loss of earnings. It offered £10 at stage 2 for a missed appointment, in line with its £10 missed appointment policy. Although it did not say which appointment this related to. In general, the Ombudsman would not propose compensation for loss of earnings for appointments but we will order compensation to reflect inconvenience caused to a resident.

Overall, we cannot conclude that the landlord was responsible for repairing or replacing the security alarm. Its response was in line with the tenancy agreement. However, it did not communicate this clearly or promptly. There was also no evidence it had confirmed the resident was responsible for its repair at the start of the tenancy or that it considered his point that alarms were in place at all flats in the block since they were built. The landlord acknowledged that incorrect logging caused delays.

However, its poor record keeping affected how quickly it could confirm its repair responsibilities. This created uncertainty for the resident and likely caused distress and inconvenience. The landlord tried to put things right by offering compensation. It offered £100 compensation for the overall impact of its failings between February and September 2024. It also made good the wall area in August 2024. However, given its poor communication and record keeping and the impact over several months, the compensation offered did not fully remedy the complaint.

We have ordered an additional £150. This is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where the landlord’s redress is not proportionate to the failings identified and these have caused an adverse impact to the resident. Complaint Complaint handling Finding Maladministration The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024 sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. It must respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.

The landlord’s complaints policy complies with the Code. The resident complained on 22 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 25 April 2024, in line with its policy and the Code. The resident contacted the landlord 3 times in May 2024 for an update. On 29 May 2024, he asked to escalate the complaint because the landlord had not responded. The landlord told him the same day that it had escalated the complaint. Its policy allows escalation when it fails to respond within the required timeframe.

However, although it said it had escalated the case, it did not do so. This created confusion about the complaint stage. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 July 2024. This was 63 working days after acknowledging the complaint and meant there was an unreasonable delay. The resident escalated the complaint again on 26 July 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge this request. It then issued its stage 2 response on 6 September 2024, 30 working days later. At both stages, the landlord missed the timescales in its policy and the Code.

There is no evidence it contacted the resident to agree an extension or provide an update. The same staff member handled the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses. This did not follow the Code or the landlord’s policy. The Code requires a different person to consider the complaint at stage 2. In his complaint, the resident said his neighbours had security alarms but his was removed. He raised concerns about discrimination. In his 26 July 2024 escalation, he added that all properties in the block were fitted with alarms.

The landlord did not address this and failed to meet the Code’s requirement to respond to all issues raised. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered the resident £50 for its late reply. It did not acknowledge its delay at stage 2 or explain the reasons for the delays and the confusion around the resident’s initial escalation in May 2024. The compensation offered did not address the failures identified or the time and trouble caused to the resident. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered total compensation of £150.

Learning Complaint handling The landlord’s complaint responses were delayed at both stages. It should ensure staff are familiar with the requirements of the Code, particularly the importance of responding within the prescribed timescales and communicating about extensions. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord did not provide full records of its repair appointments. It also failed to confirm during the complaints process whether the security alarm was installed at the property when the tenancy started.

Landlords should maintain accurate records of repairs and tenancies. Clear, correct, and accessible records provide an audit trail. It also enhances its ability to respond to problems when they happen. Communication The landlord acknowledged an internal lack of communication about the repair. It also failed to communicate with the resident appropriately when initially raising the repair. As a result, it categorised the repair incorrectly. It also failed to communicate effectively about its repair responsibilities.