Origin Housing Limited (202320468)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320468

Origin Housing Limited

16 April 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports about the quality of cleaning in the building.
2. Repairs to the communal front door.
3. Reports that the bin shed code was shared by contractors.
4. A request for CCTV footage.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident has occupied the property, a 2–bedroom second floor flat, since November 2021, on an assured shorthold tenancy. The landlord is a housing association.
In December 2022 the resident requested a copy of CCTV footage as her vehicle had been damaged. On 13 March 2023 she complained that the building was not cleaned regularly and, when it was, it was with dirty water. She also said the communal front door was not working and the refuse collectors had written the code to the door on the bin shed so others were using it. She said she had still not been provided with a copy of the CCTV footage she requested.
The landlord apologised on 23 March 2023 that it had not provided information about the CCTV footage. It explained it had requested and chased the information and said it was still trying to get it.
On 28 March 2023 the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint but said it needed a further 10 days as it was trying to get information about the communal front door. It issued its stage 1 response on 13 April 2023 as follows:
1. The managing agent was responsible for the cleaning and it had contacted it to ensure a full clean was being done each week. They attend every Wednesday and their vans had trackers to ensure attendance. It had asked the area manager to check the clean that was done at the end of March 2023, and had reiterated its full cleaning requirements. It asked that a tick sheet be set up to show when/who attended going forwards.
2. The door system was going to be replaced but the electrical contractors needed access to a cupboard by the communal door. They contacted the managing agent who advised they did not have a key to the cupboard. The contractors would therefore need to force access and have the locks changed and would need the neighbourhood manager to be present. The works should be done the following week and it was sorry for the delays.
3. It was sorry there was an issue with the bin store. The electrical contractors had not been notified that a manual keypad was required, so it upheld that part of the complaint. A repair had been logged and the code would be changed in the next 2 weeks. It would feed this error back to the team to ensure it did not happen again.
4. It upheld the complaint about the CCTV. It confirmed CCTV footage was only kept for 28 days. It would feedback to the team to ensure that any future CCTV footage requests were sent to the correct team straight away, to ensure the footage was retrieved in time. It was sorry she had experienced delay and understood her frustration.
5. It offered the resident £100 to acknowledge the service failures.
The resident told the landlord on 21 April 2023 that she did not accept the offer of compensation. The landlord asked the resident whether she wanted more compensation or for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. Having not received a response, it chased the resident on 4 and 10 May 2023. She replied on 10 May 2023, explaining she wanted at least £1,000 compensation for stress, paying service charges and damage to her car. The landlord responded the same day and confirmed a manager would be reviewing her complaint.
The landlord confirmed it had reviewed the complaint on 12 May 2023 and offered £200 compensation. It said it could not offer £1,000 as it did not accept it was responsible for damages or refunding service charges.
On 27 and 30 October 2023 the landlord asked the resident if she accepted its offer of £200. A form was completed by the resident on 26 April 2024 confirming acceptance.
The resident reported further issues with the cleaning of the building on 30 April 2024 and the landlord advised her to report any issues to her neighbourhood manager.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of reports over the quality of cleaning in the building

In response to the resident’s report, the landlord contacted the managing agent that was responsible, to raise the issue and check how often the cleaning was being done. In its stage 1 response it clearly explained the cleaning schedule and the steps taken to monitor and improve this. It is clear by the action taken by the landlord that it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
The landlord took steps to have the property inspected to check the quality of the cleaning, and to put measures in place to prevent further issues. It has supplied copies of timesheets to show the cleaner has been recording every time the building has been cleaned since March 2023 when the issue was raised. Therefore, the managing agent has followed through with the landlord’s request for the cleaning schedule to be monitored.
It is noted that, over a year later on 30 April 2024, the resident raised the issue again. She was signposted to the neighbourhood manager so her concerns could be looked in to. This was appropriate as the resident was not specific in her comment, so the landlord required additional information to be able to investigate her concern. However, the landlord has said it has received no more information or reports. During that time, the building has continued to be cleaned. Without more detail about the alleged deficiency in the cleaning, there was little more the landlord could do.
Despite this the landlord has said it would arrange for an estate manager to contact the resident to explore the issue further. It is not known whether this has been done, or whether the resident has since provided more information about her concern. In any event, the landlord clearly acted promptly in March 2023 and took proportionate and reasonable action to address this issue. It also offered to investigate further concerns in 2024 if it had more information. There has, therefore, been no maladministration.
It is noted the resident told the landlord that she wanted compensation of £1,000 and indicated this included a refund of service charges she had paid. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs policy says the service charge paid by the resident covers cleaning and caretaking of communal areas. While the resident raised concerns over the level of cleaning, no failure in service was identified. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord rejected her claim in its 23 May 2023 response.

Landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal front door

A number of issues with the front door have been reported since March 2022. However, it has been difficult to establish what action, if any, was taken by the landlord as its records contain very little information. It has provided copies of internal staff emails from March and April 2023 which refer to the installation of a new intercom system. There is also evidence of one being purchased in February 2023. It also said that access was needed for the door entry cupboard and it claims that was obtained on 4 April 2023.
However, the landlord has since said the intercom system replacement was for another building (not the resident’s). It has submitted new records which show on 8 February 2023 it attended a 24-hour emergency appointment as fobs were not working. It managed to replace parts and get the door working at that time. A further issue was then reported on 16 June 2023 and someone attended the same day. A defective part was replaced and the door started working correctly.
While the recent information provided by the landlord indicates it has carried out repairs and resolved the issue, other evidence shows the door was reported as far back as March 2022. Bearing in mind it has accepted it has made an error in the information provided, and confused the buildings, it is clear the documentation is unreliable. If it confused the buildings, it is possible the reports from March 2022 are also not accurate.
What we do know is that the resident complained in March 2023 that the communal door had not been working for weeks, which shows that any repair carried out in February 2023 did not last very long. There is no evidence the landlord took any action to repair the door between March and June 2023. In fact, during that period, it gave the resident incorrect information about a new intercom system being fitted. A further repair was ultimately logged on 16 June 2023 and someone attended the same day to address it. However, this was 3 months after the resident complained about the issue.
This delay, and providing the resident with incorrect information about what work was planned, amounts to maladministration. The landlord accepted there had been delays addressing the problem due to access issues and it apologised for that. However, the apology was as a result of the landlord thinking it had delayed replacing the intercom system. It did carry out reported repairs and there is no evidence of the resident suffering any detriment as a result of the door not working properly. However, she was told incorrect information and her expectations were entirely mismanaged. This was caused by the landlord’s poor record keeping, which is addressed further below.
The resident was inconvenienced by having to report the issue, she had to complain as no action had been taken, and she was given incorrect information. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay her £150 compensation. This acknowledges moderate poor service that was short lived, and is line with our remedies guidance.

Landlord’s handling of reports that the bin shed code was shared by contractors

Having been notified about the bin shed code being shared, the landlord logged a repair and told the resident the code would be changed within 2 weeks. It explained it had learned from the complaint and had fed back to the team involved to ensure it did not happen again.
The landlord has since explained that the code was not changed. Instead, it was deleted from the bin store so no-one could read it. It has provided photographic evidence to support that. It has also said it has received no further reports of unauthorised access, so it resolved the issue.
The landlord accepted its service fell short and it did act promptly to address this point. It was also appropriate that it apologised to the resident that this issue had occurred. However, although it said it learnt from complaints, it is clear from its response to us that it was not sure whether the code was changed. This is a further example of the landlord’s record keeping being poor.
There was an issue with the bin shed code being shared with contractors, but the landlord acknowledged failings and attempted to put things right by apologising and ensuring the code was no longer available for others to use. There was no detriment to the resident, so the apology was reasonable and proportionate to resolve this part of the complaint.

The request for CCTV footage

The resident requested a copy of CCTV footage on 13 December 2022 because her car had been damaged. We asked the landlord for details about what happened after that, but it has struggled to provide the information needed to investigate this part of the complaint. While it did ultimately send a chronology of events, the fact this information was not readily available is again an indication that its record keeping has been poor.
The chronology says the landlord responded to the resident the day after the request was made. It also says the landlord sent an email to its development team as it managed the CCTV contract at the time. It says the resident replied the same day and, on 18 December 2022, it chased the development team. The resident then chased for an update on 19 December 2022 but the landlord failed to respond. This led to her chasing again on 7 January 2023 and a response was sent on 10 January 2023.
Between January and March 2023 the resident continued to chase the landlord and it says it continued to follow up on trying to obtain the footage. It says that someone who took over the management of the building had been given no direction on how the CCTV system worked and they received no response from the teams they were following up with. It has also explained that it is usually the police that would request CCTV footage but it did not do so in this case.
There has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter. It had no joined up approach between the relevant departments, and staff that were not adequately trained to deal with the request. This led to the resident being inconvenienced as a result of chasing for the CCTV evidence. Her expectations were mismanaged, having being given the impression the request was being dealt with, when after 28 days the footage was no longer available.
The landlord ultimately failed to provide the CCTV footage. It apologised for that on 23 March 2023 and explained it had requested and chased the information and said it was still trying to get it. However, by the time it responded to the complaint on 13 April 2023 it confirmed the CCTV footage was only kept for 28 days. It was therefore not available.
The landlord’s complaint response indicates it had learned from its failures, as it said it would feedback to the team to ensure that any future CCTV footage requests were sent to the correct team straight away. It also apologised to the resident which was appropriate considering the delay and its overall failure to supply the footage.
It is positive to see the landlord also offered the resident £100 compensation. That was later increased to £200, but the compensation was not just for its failure in relation to this issue, it covered other issues. In terms of the CCTV complaint, had the staff been correctly informed of the process and it been dealt with promptly, it is possible the CCTV evidence could have been provided. Therefore, the resident lost out on potentially getting that evidence.
That does not mean the landlord should compensate her for the damage done to the vehicle though, as it cannot be held responsible for the damage itself. Even if the CCTV footage had been provided, we cannot be certain what it would have shown, or whether it would have assisted in the resident’s insurance claim, or in taking action against the person responsible. However, she was inconvenienced and misled for about 4 months and for that she should be compensated £200. This is line with our remedies guidance as the landlord has taken steps to put things right, but it did not go far enough in its offer of compensation to acknowledge the effect of its failings.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy says a stage 1 response should be issued within 10 working days. The landlord did not adhere to that, but it did tell the resident it needed an additional 10 days to respond as it was still investigating matters. While it is good that the landlord took steps to manage the resident’s expectations, it then missed the revised deadline, albeit by only 2 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says customers can appeal a compensation offer if they are unhappy. If the only element the customer remains dissatisfied with is compensation, it will carry out a review of the amount offered, rather than escalating the complaint to stage 2. A compensation review would be undertaken by a senior manager.
When the resident said she remained unhappy, in accordance with its compensation policy, the landlord asked her whether it was the compensation she was unhappy with, or whether she wanted the complaint escalated to stage 2. The resident made it clear it was the level of compensation she was unhappy with. The landlord then ensured her case was reviewed by a manager as per its policy, and it issued its response 2 working days later, increasing its offer. It therefore met its obligations and made sure the resident was told she had reached the end of its complaints process.
Overall, there was a 2 day delay in the landlord replying at stage 1 and it would have been appropriate for it to have apologised for this, within its response. That is something the landlord could learn from. However, this delay was minor and there is no evidence of the resident having to chase the landlord, so there was no detriment. The landlord carried out a thorough investigation in to the complaint and recognised its failings at each stage. The brief delay at stage 1 did not negatively affect the overall complaints process, so a finding of no maladministration is made.

The landlord’s record keeping

The records provided to us by the landlord point to failures in effective record keeping practices. As part of this investigation, the landlord was requested to provide relevant information that would reasonably be recorded and retained by it. The documentation provided was limited. Having spoken with the landlord during the investigation it is evident it accepts there has been an issue in that respect.
The landlord should have a clear record of each repair reported, with details setting out when someone attended and what work was done at each visit. Its records should then show when the repair was completed and what action was taken in order to facilitate that.
The importance of keeping good records is set out in our Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) May 2023 report. This is something the landlord should review in order to identify areas for improvement in relation to its own processes, to prevent such issues in the future.
The landlord’s poor record keeping has been detrimental to this investigation, as it has provided insufficient and inaccurate information. It is also reasonable to conclude the landlord’s record keeping hindered the timeliness and effectiveness of its response to issues reported by the resident. For example, it told her the bin code would be changed and the communal door was having a new intercom system fitted, when that was not correct.
We therefore find there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. There is a significant lesson to be learned by the landlord in terms of it reviewing its processes and ensuring its staff keep accurate records of all issues reported and work done, and that this information is readily available. Therefore, an order is made to that effect.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s:
  1. Handling of repairs to the communal front door.
  2. Handling of the request for CCTV footage.
  3. Record keeping.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
  1. The resident’s formal complaint.
  2. Reports over the quality of cleaning in the building.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme there has been reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that the bin shed code was shared by contractors.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Apologised to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
2. Paid the resident £350 compensation (inclusive of the £200 offered during the complaints process) made up of:
  1. £150 for the inconvenience in having to report issues with the communal door.
  2. £200 for the delay and inconvenience caused having requested CCTV footage.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to complete a review of this case, to be shared with us, its Board, and its Residents’ Panel. It should:
1. Identify learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan.
2. Outline as a minimum what improvements it intends to make to its policy and procedures in recording and monitoring repairs.
3. Refer to our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023.