Origin Housing Limited (202339724)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339724

Origin Housing Limited

30 May 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Blocked drains.
2. A leak and mould under the sink.
3. Front door defects.
4. Damaged fence panels.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been the landlord’s assured tenant since 9 December 2019. She has hip dysplasia which can limit her mobility.
On 21 September 2023 the resident reported that a gap in the front door was letting rainwater in and that drains outside the front of the property were blocked. On 18 December 2023 she reported broken fence panels.
The resident made a complaint on 10 January 2024. She said:
1. The landlord’s contractor had attended and said the front door needed to be replaced but she had not heard anything further, despite chasing.
2. The landlord had not resolved the blocked drains.
3. She had reported a leak and mould under the kitchen sink which was also unresolved.
4. The landlord’s contractor had attended on 8 January 2023 and said it would return to replace 4 fence panels. However, the landlord had called her 2 days later and said the repair was her responsibility.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 26 January 2024. It said:
1. The contractor had attended on 10 November 2023 and fitted a draught excluder to the door. They had not felt it needed to be replaced but the landlord would agree to do so.
2. Dividing fences are the resident’s responsibility and the contractor had only inspected the fence to ensure it was safe. They apologised for the miscommunication. The resident had since reported more extensive damage so the contractor would inspect it again to ensure safety.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 1 February 2024. She said:
1. It was untrue that the contractor had not felt the door needed replacing.
2. The contractor had not said it was only inspecting the fence for safety, they had clearly told her it was booked in for repairs.
3. The landlord had told her the policy on fence repairs had changed 18 months ago but had not communicated this to residents.
The resident chased a response at least 3 times between February and October 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 20 November 2024, which said:
1. The contractor had made notes on 23 September 2024 to say the door was safe and secure.
2. The landlord was waiting for the contractor’s quote so it could approve the replacement.
3. The landlord had replaced the fence on 5 April 2024 for health and safety reasons.
4. The repairs team would be in contact to arrange to inspect the leak and mould under the kitchen sink.
5. It apologised for the delays with the complaint response, replacing the door, and the miscommunication over the fence.
6. It offered the resident £150 compensation for the late response and £250 for distress and inconvenience.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She remains dissatisfied because the door replacement remains outstanding and while the landlord repaired the leak, she says it did not treat damp and mould under the sink. As a resolution the resident would like the landlord to complete the works, find the root cause of the leak, and pay additional compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The Ombudsman is not free to investigate every complaint referred to him. What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is set out in the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident asked us to consider the landlord’s handling of her reports of blocked drains and a leak and mould under the kitchen sink. After considering the evidence, we have determined that we are unable to investigate these issues. This is because the resident did not ask the landlord to reconsider them in her stage 2 escalation request. As such, the landlord has not provided a final response to these issues under its complaints procedure.
Our decision not to investigate these issues is in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme. This states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. We have, however, recommended that the landlord follow up on these issues with the resident and the local water authority, who may be responsible for resolving the blocked drains.

Scope of investigation

In our contact with the resident, she raised several other issues with the landlord. This includes a delayed response to a Subject Access Request and a potential carbon monoxide leak. We have not investigated these issues as we have not seen evidence that the resident raised them with the landlord as a formal complaint. Landlords must be given the opportunity to respond to issues under their complaints procedure before the Ombudsman investigates them. Our decision not to consider these issues is also in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme.

Front door renewal

The landlord’s repairs policy groups repairs into two categories, emergency and routine. Emergency repairs are those which present an immediate danger to safety, major damage to the property, flooding, or when the property is not secure. Routine repairs are those which do not cause immediate inconvenience or pose any danger to occupants or the public.
The policy says the landlord expects its contractors to complete routine repairs within 10 working days. Exceptions to this must not amount to more than 20 working days and must be approved by the landlord and the resident.
We would consider the gap in the door to be a routine repair. While water ingress may cause damage over time, it does not present an immediate risk of flooding or to resident safety. This means the landlord should have completed the repair by 5 October 2023.
The stage 1 response said the landlord had fit the draught excluder on 10 November 2023, meaning there was a delay of 5 weeks. There is no evidence that the landlord requested an extension or that the resident agreed to one. This was a failure to act in accordance with the repairs policy.
The landlord did not acknowledge the delay fitting the draught excluder in the stage 1 response, issued on 26 January 2024. It would have been appropriate to apologise for this. The response said that the operative who attended on 10 November 2023 had not felt the door needed replacing which the resident disputed. The evidence we have seen supports the resident’s version of events. A note on 27 September 2023 says “measure up for new front door”.
This would indicate that the resident was given conflicting information. Landlords must ensure that they and their contractors leave comprehensive notes on repairs. This should include details of all appointments and their outcomes. They must also ensure complaint handlers thoroughly review the evidence so that complaint responses are accurate.
The landlord said that it would ask its property maintenance team to approve a replacement, nonetheless. It would have been good practice to give an expected timeframe for the replacement. As it did not, the resident could have reasonably expected it to be completed within 10 working days as a routine repair.
The contractor inspected the door again on 12 February 2024. The operative noted that, in their opinion, it needed minor repairs and the landlord should consider a replacement the following year. They raised an order to renew the draught excluder. However, the landlord had already agreed to replace the door in its stage 1 response. If it had decided not to replace it after all it should have communicated this to the resident with an explanation.
Repair logs indicate the landlord renewed the draught excluder on 8 March 2024. On 23 September 2024 the resident sent the landlord a video showing rainwater coming in under the door. The resident said the whole ground floor had been under 3cm of water and that her mobility issues caused concern that she might slip. It was also damaging her furniture and she struggled to clean up each time it rained.
Internal emails on 24 September 2024 show that the landlord agreed that water ingress depicted in the video was unacceptable and a health and safety concern. It noted that the door needed replacing as soon as possible as there were no further adjustments it could make to fix the problem.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 20 November 2024. It said the contractor had made notes on 23 September 2024, the day before the internal emails referenced in the previous paragraph. The Ombudsman has not seen these notes. Regardless of the whether the contractor’s assessment was accurate, the landlord had promised to replace the door in its stage 1 response. The stage 2 response failed to acknowledge this, which was inappropriate.
However, the landlord did apologise for the delay and upheld the complaint. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord puts things right and resolves the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so, the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the dispute resolution principles of ‘be fair’, put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
The stage 2 response offered the resident £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience in relation to delays resolving repairs. While it did not specify how much was related to the door, the context of the response suggests the total amount related to the door and the fence repairs. Therefore, we consider the landlord to have offered £125 compensation for delays replacing the door.
This amount falls short of what the Ombudsman would expect when there is a delay of this length that adversely affected the resident, therefore we have made a finding of maladministration. The landlord informed us the door is currently on order with an 8-12 week lead in time, meaning it will arrive between 2 and 30 June 2025. By the time it is replaced it is likely to be around 21 months since the repair was raised and 19 months since the landlord promised a replacement in the stage 1 response. Although the landlord fitted draught excluders in the interim these measures were clearly not effective.
As well as the impact of water ingress, the resident has experienced distress, inconvenience, and spent time and trouble progressing her complaint. We would consider £600 to be an appropriate amount of compensation, including the £125 already offered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends compensation of to this amount for maladministration with a non-permanent but significant adverse impact.

Fence repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy has stated that residents are responsible for dividing fence repairs since at least August 2022. It says that it will communicate the repairs policy to residents via its website. We consider this to be reasonable, however we have recommended the landlord consider sending a wider communication to residents about significant policy updates.
The landlord should have asked the resident whether it was a dividing or boundary fence when she initially reported the broken fence panels on 18 December 2023. This would have allowed the landlord to manage her expectations from the outset and may have prevented the formal complaint.
The contractor attended on 8 January 2023, 23 working days after the report. This was not within the appropriate timeframe for a routine repair. There was also a failure to keep accurate records as there was no record of the appointment in the repair log.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 26 January 2024 which said the contractor had only inspected the fence to ensure it was safe. The resident disputed this and the lack of robust records means we cannot determine whose account was accurate.
The landlord apologised for the miscommunication and said it would return to inspect further damage, which was positive. The contractor inspected on 12 February 2024 and found 3 panels needed urgent replacement for health and safety reasons relating to a neighbour’s dog. Despite this, it did not complete the work until 5 April 2024, almost 3 months later.
The resident had reported further fence damage sometime between the stage 1 complaint on 10 January 2024 and the landlord’s response on 26 January 2024. This means it took the landlord between 10 and 12 weeks to complete the work. This was an inappropriate delay, particularly as it was a health and safety issue.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 20 November 2024, which apologised for the delay repairing the fence and the way the policy on fence repairs had been communicated to her. It also offered £125 compensation for the associated distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends compensation in this region for maladministration with a non-permanent adverse impact. Therefore, we consider the landlord’s offer to be reasonable. Had it not offered this compensation we would have made a finding of maladministration.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that landlords must:
1. Acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, setting out their understanding of the complaint and the outcome the resident is seeking.
2. Respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
3. Set out their understanding of the outstanding issues and the outcomes the resident is seeking on receipt of a stage 2 escalation request.
4. Respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of escalation.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint at either stage. It also responded 2 working days late at stage 1 and 8.5 months late at stage 2. This was an inappropriate delay and meant the resident was unable to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman at an earlier stage.
The Code says that if the landlord requires an extension to the response time it must explain why to the resident and give a clear timeframe for responding. Any extensions should not exceed an extra 10 days without good reason. There is no evidence that the landlord notified the resident of any delays or sought to agree a new deadline, despite the resident chasing at least 3 times.
The landlord apologised for the delay in its stage 2 response and offered the resident £150 compensation. This is in line with the amount of compensation the Ombudsman recommends for complaint handling failures. Therefore, we consider the landlord’s offer of redress to be adequate. Had it not made an adequate offer we would have made a finding of maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme:
1. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of blocked drains is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
2. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak and mould under the sink is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of front door defects.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has offered the resident redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damaged fence panels satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has offered the resident redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks:
  1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the identified failures. The apology should come from a senior member of staff and be in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
  2. Pay the resident £600 compensation in relation to the delay replacing the front door. This includes the £125 offered in the stage 2 response. If the landlord has already paid this, it must provide evidence of the payment and pay the resident the remaining £475.
2. Within 6 weeks:
  1. Replace the front door.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:
1. Pay the resident the £125 compensation related to the fence repairs and the £150 related to complaint handling, if it has not already done so.
2. Consider sending wider communications out to residents when there is a significant policy change, such as a change in repair responsibilities.
3. Contact the local water authority to report the drainage issues and keep the resident informed of their response.
4. Inspect the resident’s sink to determine the source of the leak and treat any damp and mould issues.