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

Origin Housing Limited (202423067)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423067

Origin Housing Limited

25 June 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 report of excessive cold in the property due to a draught from the front door.
  2. We have also looked at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her baby who has sickle cell disease. The landlord is aware of this. The resident’s property opens out to a semi-enclosed stairwell.
  2. On 16 February 2023, the resident first reported to the landlord that the hallway inside her property was extremely cold due to gaps around the front door. She said this impacted the temperature of the nearby bedrooms despite her use of the heating.
  3. The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s initial complaint regarding the draught to the front door to the Ombudsman, but we understand the landlord formally logged the complaint at stage 1 of its process on 14 March 2023.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 March 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint and said:
    1.  It had visited the property and found the front door to be “performing as it should.” It told the resident that the front door was a fire door, and it could not make changes to it due to this.
    2. It could fit a draught excluder but after the resident requested it fit one “all around the door,” it told her it would need to either order one that adhered to fire safety regulations or look at alternative options.
  5. On 15 May 2023, the resident requested the landlord compensate her for rent payments she made to it due to the property being excessively cold from the draught from the front door.
  6. On 12 June 2023, the landlord attended the property to install a draught excluder and weather strips to the front door.
  7. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation on 13 July 2023 in recognition of the upset, stress and inconvenience caused to her whilst she waited for it to carry out works to the front door. The resident said she was unhappy with the offer as it did not adequately reflect the impact on her child’s health and the distress caused by cold temperatures in the flat.
  8. On 11 August 2023, the landlord said it had not found evidence to support it decanting (temporarily moving) her but would increase the offer of compensation to £200 due to its poor communication with her.
  9. The resident reported the draught from the front door to the landlord again on 13 November 2023. The landlord told the resident it would look to install a thermal curtain above the front door.
  10. On 30 November 2023, the resident chased the landlord as she had not received a response from it. She told it the property was not getting above 17°C despite the heating being on and that her and her baby were freezing. She asked the landlord to deal with the matter urgently.
  11. The resident contacted her local Member of Parliament (MP) on 6 December 2023 and raised her concerns regarding the draught with them directly. She told the MP that her son had suffered several sickle cell crises, and the landlord had showed no “sympathy, empathy, or compassion to her or her child.” The MP contacted the landlord on 11 December 2023 and asked it to comment on the concerns raised by the resident.
  12. The landlord arranged for its contractor to visit the property on 14 December 2023 to install a thermal curtain by the front door. There was some confusion as the contractor left without completing any work. The landlord later clarified that its contractor had attended to carry out a visual inspection only.
  13. The landlord provided another stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 28 December 2023 in response to the MP enquiry it had received. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint and said it had made appropriate adjustments to the door including fitting a thermal curtain. It said it would also install a radiator in the hallway to help the resident heat the property.
  14. The resident told the landlord she remained unhappy with its response to her complaint on 31 December 2023.
  15. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its process on 8 March 2023.
  16. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 9 April 2024. It said:
    1. The front door was not appropriate for its location which was effectively an external environment. It would install a higher-grade front door, and it would fit better draught excluders in the meantime.
    2. It was sorry for the confusion regarding the thermal curtain not being installed.
    3. It would still be willing to install a radiator in the hallway and gave reassurances that it would not result in an increase in energy bills for the resident.
    4. It would arrange for temporary heaters to be dropped off at the property and compensate the resident for increased energy bills as a result of their use.
    5. It would contact the resident to discuss compensation once the door was installed.

Events after the landlord’s final response

  1. The landlord delivered 4 temporary heaters to the resident on 12 April 2024.
  2. The landlord’s contractor contacted the resident in June and July 2024 to arrange an appointment to install the radiator, but the resident did not respond.
  3. Between November and December 2024, the resident chased the door installation, and the landlord said it was waiting for materials to fit the door.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 January 2025. The landlord told the resident that its contractor had gone into liquidation and would be sourcing a new contractor on 7 April 2025.
  5. The new contractor attended the resident’s property on 15 April 2025 to measure for the front door. The front door was replaced on 7 June 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns about the impact of cold temperatures on her child’s health due to him having sickle cell disease. Whilst it is accepted that cold temperatures can have an impact on the health of someone with sickle cell disease, the Ombudsman cannot determine specific effects of the landlord’s action or inaction on the health of the resident and her family. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed through liability insurance or as a civil action through the courts. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim, she can seek independent legal advice. The Ombudsman can, however, consider the likely distress and inconvenience any failings by the landlord may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s health concerns.
  2. The resident has told us she is unhappy that the landlord increased her rent during the time when the issue of the draught was still outstanding. She has asked that the landlord reimburse her the difference in rent and write off her rent arrears due to the impact of the draught on her ability to use the 2 bedrooms. It is outside our remit to make decisions on whether the level of rent or an increase in rent is too high or is reasonable. Therefore, we will not assess the rent increase. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, she can contact the First-Tier Tribunal. However, we have considered the impact of the draught on the resident and her ability to use the property.

Landlord’s policies and legislation

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy defines routine repairs as non-urgent work where the repair does not cause immediate inconvenience or pose any danger to the occupants or the public. The policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. It also says that at its discretion, the landlord will tailor the repairs service to vulnerable residents when appropriate.
  2. The landlord has a two-stage complaint procedure. At stage 1, it will contact the resident to confirm the complaint definition and provide a full written response within 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord will contact the resident to confirm the complaint definition, and it will respond within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Sub-optimal indoor temperatures are identified as a potential hazard with a small risk of adverse health effects beginning once the temperature falls below 19 °C and serious health risks occurring when temperatures fall below 16°C. The HHSRS also advises that very young children fall within the category of those most vulnerable to sub–optimal temperatures. Landlords are required to consider whether reports of cold temperatures in a property amounts to a hazard and requires remedying. Landlords are expected to carry out additional monitoring of the property where potential hazards are identified.

The landlord’s handling of the draught

  1. It took the landlord 4 months to fit a draught excluder to the front door following the resident’s first report of draughts. This fell significantly outside of its published timescales for routine repairs and was a failure by the landlord.
  2. It was reasonable for the landlord to continue exploring what remedial repairs it might complete to resolve the issue following the resident re-raising her concerns in November 2023. At the time, however, the landlord did not keep to its commitment to contact the resident in 5 working days to arrange an appointment for the thermal curtain. Although this was a minor delay, it caused inconvenience to the resident as she needed to chase the landlord for an update.
  3. The landlord was not able to fit the thermal curtain despite saying it had done so in its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. This was because there was not enough space around the door to fit the curtain. The landlord caused further confusion as it told her its contractor would fit the thermal curtain but when it attended, it only carried out a visual inspection. The landlord identified its failures in communication and complaint handling to the resident and apologised to her in its stage 2 response. This was an appropriate way for the landlord to put things right for the inconvenience caused to the resident by the confusion regarding the thermal curtain.
  4. The landlord’s offer of installing a radiator in the hallway was reasonable and demonstrated its attempts to minimise the impact of the draught to the property. However, it should have agreed to replace the door at the same time as the door would still have caused a draught which would have potentially made the radiator less effective.
  5. At stage 2 of its complaints process, the landlord acknowledged that it needed to remove the draught and improve the thermal efficiency of the front door for the resident’s heating to function. On this basis, it was appropriate for the landlord to re-offer the option of installing the radiator after it had committed to replacing the front door. It explained that along with the temporary heaters, this would help reduce the impact of the draught until it could replace the front door. It was reasonable for it to also give reassurance to the resident that installing an additional radiator would not increase her energy bills.
  6. In April 2024, the landlord agreed to replace the front door and said it “did not seem appropriate for its location”. It is unclear why the landlord did not make this decision earlier and it has not provided an explanation to this. In December 2023, it knew the draught excluders and the thermal curtain had failed to effectively address the issue, however it did not consider the option of replacing the door until 4 months later as part of the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This was a failure by the landlord to consider all options available to it and a missed opportunity to resolve the matter sooner.
  7. Similarly, it is unclear why the landlord did not offer the resident temporary heaters at an earlier date. Given the resident had told the landlord the property was not heating above 17 °C, it would have been appropriate for it to have considered this option as a means of providing immediate short-term relief to remedy the impact of cold temperatures whilst it sought a more permanent solution to the underlying issue. Considering this option more than a year after the resident first reported the issue was a failure by the landlord. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer to reimburse the resident for the cost of the heaters and if it has not done so already, the landlord should contact the resident and provide a reimbursement for their use up until June 2025 when the door was replaced.
  8. The landlord told the resident it had tried to replace the door in the summer of 2024, but the resident had not returned its calls or emails. When the resident asked the landlord to provide evidence of this, the landlord repeatedly failed to respond. The landlord has not provided evidence to the Ombudsman that it contacted the resident at this time to replace the door either and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that it did not do so. This conclusion is further supported by the fact the landlord first instructed its contractor to measure for the replacement of the door in October 2024. This discrepancy may suggest an error in the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord’s overall handling of this matter was a failure and caused the resident distress as she felt it was blaming her for the delay in replacing the front door. This was made worse by it then not responding to the resident’s emails.
  9. The landlord told the resident that the original door supplier had gone into liquidation on 7 April 2025. Whilst this was beyond the landlord’s control and not a failure on its part, it is unclear when the landlord was first made aware of this as it has provided no further evidence or explanation regarding this matter to the Ombudsman.
  10. The landlord replaced the front door in June 2025. This was 14 months after it told the resident it would replace it and 28 months after she first reported the issue of the draught to the landlord. Whilst the replacement of the front door would take longer than a routine repair given the landlord’s contractor needed to measure up and order materials, the overall length of time taken for the door to be replaced was significantly beyond what we might consider reasonable in the circumstances of this case. Furthermore, the landlord first instructed its contractor to measure for a new front door 6 months after it agreed to replace it. It has provided no explanation for this delay and is a further failure by the landlord which would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  11. The landlord did not show due regard to the potential hazard of cold temperatures in the property as set out in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System and it did not follow its own repairs policy in respect to tailoring its repair service to vulnerable residents. Most concerning is the fact the resident’s baby has sickle cell disease, a condition that means he is at higher risk of being impacted by cold temperatures than the general population. The landlord did not appropriately acknowledge this vulnerability or consider how it might tailor its repair service to minimise the impact of the draught on him. The overall delay in resolving the issue shows a considerable lack of urgency on the landlord’s part that resulted in significant concern to the resident in regard to her son’s health.
  12. Considering the failings identified above, we have determined there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the draught. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of severe maladministration an order of compensation between £600 and £1000 may be appropriate where there has been significant distress and/or inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order of £1000 compensation is appropriate for the landlord to put things right for the resident. We have also ordered that a senior member of staff within the landlord’s organisation apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  13. The resident told the landlord that the excessive cold temperatures impacted her ability to live comfortably in the property, and she has told the Ombudsman that her and her son have slept on the sofa in the living room whilst the draught continued to make the bedrooms too cold to sleep in. Whilst the landlord said it had no evidence to support the decision to decant the resident, it has not provided an explanation of this to the Ombudsman or the resident. Furthermore, it did not give due regard to its obligations under HHSRS guidance, and it did not establish the potential hazard of the cold temperatures in the property despite the resident reporting temperatures to be at the levels associated with risk to health. On this basis, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate that the landlord provides compensation based on a percentage of rent to the resident as she only had partial use of the bedrooms during this time.
  14. The greatest impact to the resident and her child would have occurred during colder months of the year, which the landlord’s compensation policy identifies as between October and March. On this basis, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable that the landlord pays the resident compensation based on rent from 1 October 2023 to 31 March 2024. This was when it was most difficult for the resident to use the property during the coldest months of the year before the landlord agreed to replace the door and provided temporary heaters. This also takes into consideration the landlord needed a reasonable amount of time to assess the door and investigate the resident’s concerns before it took steps to resolve the issue after her first report of the draught in February 2023.
  15. In line with our remedies guidance and taking into consideration the resident had partial use of the bedrooms for storage, albeit not for sleeping in, we find it reasonable to order the landlord to provide compensation equal to a rent rebate of 20% of the total rent between 1 October 2023 and 31 March 2024 (26 weeks), for the impact the draught caused to the resident’s use of both bedrooms. The calculation is based on the resident’s weekly net rent as it was set at the time, which was £178.23. 20% of £178.23 is £35.65. £35.65 x 26 weeks = £926.90. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £926.90 compensation for the partial loss of the bedrooms due to its handling of the draught.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord responded to the complaint appropriately at stage 1 of its process, in line with its published timescales.
  2. The resident continued to complain but the landlord did not escalate her complaint to stage 2 at the time, and this was not in keeping with its own complaint policy. This was a complaint handling failure by the landlord which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  3. The resident also told the landlord she remained unhappy with the stage 1 response it issued to her in December 2023. It did not escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process at the time, and this was another failure by the landlord. This delayed the resident from accessing the landlord’s final complaint stage and caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  4. Considering the failings identified above, we have determined there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where there has been a failure by the landlord which has adversely affected them. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order of £200 compensation is appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s overall failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of excessive cold in the property due to a draught from the front door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology from a senior member of staff, at director level or above for the failings outlined in this report. The apology should be in person or by telephone depending on the resident’s preference.
    2. Pay the resident the following compensation:
      1. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of excessive cold temperatures in the property.
      2. £926.90 for the resident’s limited use of both bedrooms between 1 October 2023 and 31 March 2024 due to the draught.
      3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. If the landlord has already paid the resident compensation following the instillation of the front door, this may be deducted from the overall total. However, additional compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account, unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
  3. The landlord should provide this service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the orders above within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord reimburse the resident the cost of using the electric heaters up until the new door was fitted in June 2025, if it has not already done so.