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

Origin Housing Limited (202321037)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321037

Origin Housing Limited

30 January 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 repairs to the windows, front door, and damp and mould in the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began in 2010. The property is a 1-bedroom flat situated on the ground floor. The landlord stated it has a number of health vulnerabilities noted for the resident.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 August 2023 to make a complaint about the front door and windows of the property. She stated she had initially reported the matter in October 2022, and 2 survey inspections had confirmed she would get a new front door and windows. However, this had not yet occurred, despite the windows and door having been measured up a number of times.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 September 2023. It said that the resident previously complained about the issue in late 2022 and it informed her in its response of 20 December 2022 that a further survey was due to take place on 21 December 2022. Following that inspection, the surveyor asked the landlord’s contractor for a quote to replace the windows and front door, as well as raising other jobs (including mould washes and fitting an extractor fan to the bathroom). It added the quote was so that the landlord could assess the options available to it. The landlord explained its contractor did not follow up and arrange for the quote due to an oversight. A new job for this matter was not raised until 24 March 2023. Its contractor subsequently confirmed that it could repair the windows and front door as opposed to replacing them. The landlord apologised if the resident was given the impression that it would be replacing them, and it offered £100 compensation for the poor service she received.
  4. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She explained in her correspondence of 19 September 2023 that, having seen a copy of the surveyor’s report from December 2022, there was no mention within it that the windows and door could be repaired. She noted that 3 companies attended the property to measure up, and she was led to believe she would be receiving new windows and a new door. The resident added she was informed that the front door was illegal as it was not a fire door. She requested the complaint was escalated on 10 October 2023.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 November 2023. It said:
    1. It had not received the final quotes needed from a number of different parties under its procurement process until June 2023. It accepted the resident was not kept informed of this at the time.
    2. While the surveyor in December 2022 asked for quotes for replacement windows and front door, it was unclear why this was done, as the pictures taken at the time did not shown signs of any rotting.
    3. Its contractor recently repaired the windows and front door, and they were now working as they should be. It added the contractor would be returning to replace a blown double-glazing panel as well as painting the windows on the outside. This was scheduled to be completed by 15 December 2023.
    4. It understood the resident wanted the window frames, which had mould growth on them, to be replaced with new PVCU windows. It stated the mould growth could be managed by cleaning. It added that the mould should no longer arise due to defects in the windows and door which were now repaired.
    5. It agreed to visit the property together with the resident’s mental health support worker to review the completed works, inspect the property, and agree any further action required. This was scheduled for 29 November 2023.
    6. There were delays in escalating the complaint to stage 2. To address this, it had put in steps to monitor cases on a weekly basis to ensure progress was being made. It had also undertaken on-site training with the surveyor in diagnosing rot in windows.
    7. In recognition of delays and poor communication it offered compensation of £250, which replaced its offer at stage 1.
  6. The landlord attended the property on 29 November 2023. Following this it emailed the resident with its observations, setting out the work that was required. It noted that the resident refused to have the work done and it asked her to reconsider having it done.
  7. The resident referred the matter to this Service. She explained in her email of 7 April 2024 that she was informed by the landlord that the work it was due to carry out would be completed by 15 December 2023. However, nothing was carried out. She added that a further survey inspection was undertaken in February 2024, but she had not been provided a copy of the surveyor’s report despite asking for it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told this Service that she initially raised concerns about the windows and the door to the landlord prior to August 2023. The landlord confirmed that it addressed an earlier complaint about the matter in its response of 20 December 2022, which was raised by the resident on 27 October 2022. It said in its response to this complaint that it would be arranging an inspection of the property on 21 December 2022. The landlord has provided a copy of this inspection report to this Service. Since the landlord’s records show that the issue concerning the windows and front door was mentioned by the resident in October 2022, this investigation has considered events from that point on.

The landlord’s obligations

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
  2. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy.
  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. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards, and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. It is expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
  4. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out that the landlord will maintain the structure of the property including the roof, outside walls, doors, windows and windowsills. The policy states that a repair will be treated as an emergency repair if there is an immediate danger to a person’s safety or major damage to the property. It adds that a repair can be considered an emergency even if major damage has not yet occurred, but it has the potential to do so. For emergency repairs, the landlord will attend within 2 hours to make safe and repair if possible. If further work is needed it will contact the resident the following day and arrange a suitable appointment. In the case of routine (non-emergency) repairs, work will ordinarily be completed within 10 working days. Exceptions to these timescales require the approval of the landlord and the resident and should not amount to more than 20 working days.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that the landlord will consider paying compensation in the event that a mistake occurs, and a resident is not able to use a service or something in their property is damaged by either the landlord or its operatives. The policy says, in relation to emergency or routine repairs, that if the landlord fails to complete a repair within its target time, it will set a new target date. If it fails to meet the new date without good reason, it will consider paying compensation.
  6. The landlord’s damp and mould policy – which was initially introduced in late 2023 – sets out that the landlord takes all reports of damp and mould seriously and it encourages residents to report any concerns to it. It adds that it takes a proactive approach to promptly diagnose, remedy and manage issues arising from damp and mould, and its approach “recognises the impact that damp and mould can have on our residents’ physical and/or mental health and well-being, and we tailor our approach to household circumstances”.
  7. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that each report is risk assessed based on the initial report by the resident and its surveyor’s inspection. It says it categorises damp using a red/amber/green (RAG) rating system. It also assesses whether the property meets the standard required by the Homes (Fit for Human Habitation) Act 2018, and whether there is a category 1 or 2 hazard present under the HHSRS. 
  8. The damp and mould policy adds that where damp and mould is caused by condensation, and there are no issues in the property itself causing the condensation, the landlord will work with the resident to take appropriate measures to resolve the issues. This may involve providing self-help advice about controlling moisture levels or increasing ventilation. It will monitor all work it carries out to tackle the issue for a year afterwards.

Windows, front door, and damp and mould repairs

Windows and front door

  1. The surveyor’s email to the landlord on 23 December 2022 following the inspection on 21 December 2022 noted the resident’s windows were an older style of double glazing. Their report set out that 14 out of the 24 panes in the living room windows contained condensation, and the frames were noted to be old and damaged with gaps in the wood as well as flaking paint. Mould was observed on the windows. The surveyor also noted that the locking mechanism on one of the windows was broken and that the external frames of the windows contained similar damage to that noted internally. With regard to the resident’s front door, the inspection report noted “the general condition of the front door is old and damaged, paint peeling off and covered in marks”. The bolts for the hinges of the door were noted to be coming out of place. In addition, the door was observed not to be sealing properly, which allowed water ingress to the wooden flooring in the hallway and caused it to be “raised and swollen in areas”.
  2. Under the section labelled ‘works’, the surveyor requested that a quotation was obtained for replacement the windows and the front door. Other jobs were also requested, including fitting a fan in the bathroom and mould washes to the living room and the hallway, near to the door. The landlord has explained in its communication to the resident that the request for new quotes were simply for the purpose of considering its options, and that the process – including measurements being taken of the windows and door – did not necessarily mean that they would be replaced by it. However, as the landlord’s surveyor was the party to request the quotation following an inspection, this would have given the resident a reasonable expectation that the door and windows were likely to be replaced. There was no evidence that the surveyor or landlord informed the resident at the time that requesting a quote was merely procedural. Neither was there any reference in the communication from the surveyor to the landlord to clarify the matter. This was not appropriate, and the issue would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience.
  3. The landlord accepted there was a delay in the quotes being received for the windows and door, as the contractor did not take on board the surveyor’s instruction in December 2022 due to “an oversight”. It added that it was only in March 2023, following further contact by the resident, that the process of obtaining the quotes began. The process of obtaining a quotation, given the costs involved did require multiple parties to provide them to the landlord and this would have taken time. However, while the landlord referred to an oversight on the part of its contractor, the contractor was acting on behalf of the landlord. The landlord provided no evidence that it chased the contractor between December 2022 and March 2023 over the matter. This was not appropriate as it should have ensured follow up work/actions were adhered to, especially as the resident had raised the issue of the door/windows previously and so the matter had already been ongoing for several months.
  4. The landlord has provided this Service with a further inspection report carried out in June 2023 by its surveyor. The landlord did not confirm exactly when this inspection took place. Following the inspection, the surveyor completed an inspection report dated 4 July 2023. The report provided similar observations to the earlier inspection in terms of the living room windows, the front door, and the associated damage caused by water ingress through the door. The damp readings on both reports were identical and the pictures used in the inspection report were the same as those from the earlier inspection in December 2022. Under ‘follow–on recommendations’, the report stated, “price for new windows and door”. This indicates that at this time the surveyor was still proposing a replacement rather than a repair. This aligns with the resident’s observations, when she made her complaint in August 2023, that she was informed following 2 surveys that a replacement was being considered by the landlord (as opposed to a repair to the existing windows and front door).
  5. The landlord’s internal correspondence from 15 August 2023 shows that it was in contact with its appointed contractor over the surveyor’s recommendations. While its contractor provided an updated quote on the cost of replacements, the landlord questioned this cost compared to an earlier quote provided by the same contractor. The landlord asked the contractor to “re-think this”. It also asked it to make the landlord aware if there were issues in meeting the “tendered prices”. This communication shows that, as of 15 August 2023, the landlord was still considering the replacement as opposed to the repair of the windows and door. As over 6 weeks had elapsed since the most recent inspection, the landlord should have updated the resident, providing an explanation for the delay as well as providing her with an anticipated timescale for making a decision on the course of action it was taking. This was a missed opportunity by it.
  6. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it reviewed the case following the complaint being raised, and following this it asked its contractor “to carry out full repairs to the windows and door”. It added this was based on the contractor saying it could repair them (as opposed to replacing them). The landlord has not provided this Service with the communication by its contractor in respect of this issue. However, its stage 2 response confirmed that the repairs to the windows and door were completed by the contractor, albeit it needed to return to complete part of the decoration as well as replacing a blown glazing unit.
  7. The landlord was ultimately responsible for determining whether or not the windows and door could be repaired rather than replaced. Although the resident is correct in that neither inspection report from December 2022 and July 2023 specifically said that the windows and door could be replaced, the reports did not say that they were beyond repair. The landlord’s contractor informed it that repairs were possible, and the repairs were carried out between it issuing the stage 1 and stage 2 responses. However, it is accepted that the landlord failed to keep the resident updated on the matter. It also allowed contractors to visit the property to measure up the windows and door. This gave the resident an expectation that the windows and door were to be replaced.
  8. The landlord confirmed to this Service, in response to the resident’s comments about her front door being “illegal”, that the property contained its own entrance and there was no passing risk from other properties. As a result, the front door did not need to be a fire door. The legal requirement for a fire door to be fitted to a flat related to when flats opened onto communal areas shared with other residents. In this case, that was not the case. Therefore, the resident’s front door was not illegal or non–compliant. While the landlord’s position on the matter was reasonable it should have taken the resident’s concerns about fire safety/legal responsibilities seriously and provided her a response on the matter. However, it failed to provide a response to her. This was not appropriate.
  9. In summary, the landlord’s level of communication following the survey inspection in December 2022 was inadequate. This gave rise to the resident’s expectation that the windows and front door were to be replaced by it. The landlord also failed to directly respond to the resident over her concerns about whether her front door was a fire door.

Damp and mould

  1. Following the resident raising her earlier complaint in October 2022 about the condition of the windows and front door, the landlord arranged an inspection in an attempt to resolve the matter. This was an appropriate step for it to take. The inspection was booked for 21 December 2022, having been rescheduled by the resident.
  2. The landlord’s surveyor took damp readings during the inspection in December 2022. This was an appropriate action in determining the degree of damp and mould in the property. The surveyor noted areas of damp and mould in the living room as well as in the hallway, in the door frame, and above the door. The bathroom was noted as having a working fan, although it was not an automatic humidistat fan. In terms of the living room windows, the inspection noted the trickle vents were blocked but air could still pass through them. It also noted that the passive vent above the front door was open although there was condensation around it. The surveyor recommended that a fan with built in humidity sensors was installed in the resident’s bathroom. The landlord also arranged for mould washes to be raised for both the living room and the hallway. Its repair records show the mould wash was completed in March 2023. This was outside of the timescales for a non-emergency repair, which was unsatisfactory.
  3. While the landlord appropriately raised a number of works following the inspection, its repair logs show that there were some delays in some of the jobs being carried out. The landlord explained this was due to an oversight on the part of its contractor. This was a failing by the landlord, as the contractor was acting on behalf of it. The importance of effective contract management is highlighted.
  4. The landlord’s records show a further inspection was carried out by it in June 2023. This followed the resident having contacted the landlord again about the matter. This report, unlike the earlier inspection report at the end of 2022, contained a risk assessment of the damp and mould. This was useful and in keeping with the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould. While this second inspection report contained damp readings and photos of the resident’s property, these were the same as the photos and readings from the earlier report in December 2022. The landlord’s surveyor failed to take (or record) updated damp readings which could have assisted it in establishing and treating the ongoing damp and mould. This was a missed opportunity by it and raises concerns in relation to the landlord’s record keeping and/or the accuracy of its conclusions at the time.
  5. Following the landlord carrying out the mould wash, the resident explained that the landlord directed her to watch videos on how to clean mould. She added that the mould returned, especially to the window frame, and that a further mould wash was planned by the landlord. The landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence that it continued to monitor the work (mould wash and repairs to the windows/front door) for a year after the work was undertaken by it. It therefore departed from its damp and mould policy. While it proposed multiple mould washes being undertaken, this did not address the underlying cause of the damp and mould. There is also no evidence that it arranged for a specialist damp survey to be undertaken. These were failings by it.
  6. This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould outlines that landlords should take a proactive, zero tolerance approach to the issue, ensuring that their responses are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The evidence provided by the landlord does not show this was the case. In addition to it taking a number of months to tackle the damp and mould, there was also a lack of updates provided by the landlord to the resident. The delay was despite the landlord having noted there was damp in the property when it attended in December 2022. This was unreasonable in the circumstances. Although the landlord did carry out some damp and mould work, it did not adequately monitor the impact on the resident. This is concerning as it was aware of her health concerns and vulnerabilities.

Summary

  1. Overall, while the landlord made an offer of £250 at stage 2, this was not proportionate to its failings. While the landlord was entitled to decide whether or not the windows and front door could be repaired, based on the information available to it, its level of communication following the initial inspection in December 2022 was inadequate. Its actions up to August 2023 gave rise to the resident’s expectation that the windows and front door would be replaced. There were also delays in it carrying out works recommended following the inspection, and it did not make arrangements for a specialist damp survey to be undertaken.
  2. Given these failings, a finding of maladministration has been made. The Ombudsman has made a total compensation award of £550 for the landlord’s failures. This amount is in keeping with this Service’s remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact. The landlord’s compensation policy does not provide any details of the range of awards which it will pay depending on the degree of impact on the resident, and a recommendation has been made in relation to this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows, front door, and damp and mould in the resident’s property.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £550. If it has already made a payment to the resident in line with its stage 2 response, it should deduct that amount from the above figure of £550.
    3. Arrange to undertake a specialist damp survey of the resident’s property. Following the survey being completed, it should then follow up on any recommendations highlighted in the specialist’s survey report, and supply a timebound schedule of works to the resident and to this Service.
    4. Provide the resident with a copy of all survey inspection reports it holds on file for her property carried out since December 2022.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to determine if she has any further concerns following the end of its internal complaints process in November 2023. If she raises any concerns, it should respond to these in accordance with its policies and procedures.
  2. The landlord should consider introducing a tariff to its compensation policy, outlining the levels of compensation it will pay in different circumstances (for example, according to the length of a delay or level of impact).