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

Origin Housing Limited (202402576)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402576

Origin Housing Limited

10 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:
    1. Outstanding repairs.
    2. Reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat located on the second floor. The landlord is a housing association.

Summary of events

  1. The resident raised her complaint on 6 March 2024. She said the landlord’s surveyor listed work required to the property in December 2023 which remained outstanding. She said the property had damp which was getting worse in a bedroom and bathroom. She asked it to fix the problems and compensate her for loss of earnings caused by it not attending appointments.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 March 2024. It said:
    1. It was disappointed that works had not started at the property and apologised for the delay.
    2. The rear garden door would be replaced with a UPVC door and it would contact the resident to confirm preferred colour/style of a new front door.
    3. Its surveyor outlined work for the property which included clearing guttering, pathway work, mould wash to rooms affected by mould, stain block application and adjustment work to the front and back doors. It would contact the resident to arrange the outstanding works.
    4. It identified a service failure due to delays. It said the missed appointments would have contributed to delays but it was unable to compensate for loss of earnings. It offered £40 compensation for 2 missed appointment and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
  3. On 25 April 2024 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 May 2024. It said:
    1. Its surveyor visited the property on 4 December 2023 and instructed its contractor to carry out work. It repeated the list of works mentioned in its stage 1 response and accepted there was a delay in raising the works and acknowledged its lack of communication.
    2. Work to the pathway was not raised until 26 January 2024 and other jobs were not raised until 25 March 2024, after the resident’s complaint. It explained the introduction of a new process to ensure follow up and repairs were tracked to avoid the same issues in the future. It apologised for the delay in completing works.
    3. Work to the guttering, pathways, and doors had been completed on or before 27 April 2024. The doors were eased and adjusted as an interim fix pending replacement. It would contact the resident when the doors were ready for installation, this could take 6 to 8 weeks and it would track this to ensure there were no delays.
    4. Its surveyor looked at the damp and mould in the bathroom and bedroom. The cause of the issue was the guttering and it was sorry for its delay in fixing this between December 2023 and April 2024. It asked the resident to contact it if the issue had not been resolved.
    5. It acknowledged the delay in completing repairs and the impact this would have had on the resident. It offered the resident an additional £300 compensation, increasing its total compensation offer to £340.
  4. The resident remained unhappy that the landlord had not completed work and raised a further complaint on 9 October 2024 about the same issues. She said:
    1. Damp and mould was getting worse and the landlord had not completed works.
    2. Guttering issue had not been resolved. There was a leak at the front of the property that could be dangerous.
    3. Back and front door replacements remained outstanding, although it attended to measure the doors.
    4. The landlord did not communicate appointments with her in advance and she was left without notice that it would attend. She told it she wanted more compensation due to the suffering caused.
  5. The landlord issued a further stage 1 response on 24 October 2024. It apologised that the work completed in April 2024 did not resolve the damp and mould issues and said it would arrange a further damp and mould survey. It said the door replacement delays were caused by a lack of handover and poor record keeping on its part, but it would ensure the door replacements were completed. It offered the resident a further £200 for its lack of action since the stage 2 response from May 2024.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 November 2024. It said:
    1. For damp and mould, its surveyor initially concluded it was caused by the guttering. When the guttering works were completed it believed the damp and mould would stop. Its further survey from October 2024 found moderate mould in the property and recommended works which included a roof inspection, amongst other things. It completed mould wash on 15 November 2024 and booked a roof inspection for 28 November 2024. It apologised that its service fell short and for the time taken to address the damp and mould. It accepted that it should not have taken another complaint from the resident for it to investigate the damp and mould issue further.
    2. Guttering. It completed guttering repair work in April 2024 and as it did not resolve the issue it would raise further works for 28 November 2024.
    3. Doors. Its contractor would contact the resident to arrange a date for the door replacements.
    4. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It offered a further apology for the length of time taken to resolve issues and increased its compensation offer to £1,000. This was made up of £500 for its handling of damp and mould and £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and effort in raising the concerns.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord issued its initial stage 2 response on 30 May 2024 addressing the resident’s complaint about outstanding repairs and damp and mould. The issues remained unresolved and the resident raised another complaint about the same issues on 9 October 2024. The landlord issued a further stage 2 response on 27 November 2024. As the issues addressed in both stage 2 responses are similar in nature, they will both be considered for the purposes of this investigation.
  2. As part of her complaint, the resident asked the landlord to compensate her loss of earnings due to it not attending pre-booked appointments. In response the landlord said it could not compensate for loss of earnings, this was inline with its compensation policy. While this may have been disappointing for the resident, especially when the landlord may not have attended pre-booked appointments, it is important to explain that this Service’s remedies guidance does not provide for loss of earnings either. As such, a payment for loss of earnings has not been considered within this report.

Outstanding repairs

  1. The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for, amongst other things, the structure of the property including the roof, doors, gutters and pathways. The responsive repairs policy says a routine repair is non–urgent work that does not cause immediate inconvenience or any danger. It explains that such work must be completed in no more than 10 working days and should not exceed more than 20 working days.
  2. It is not disputed that the landlord conducted an inspection of the property on 4 December 2023. At that time it listed work required to the guttering, the pathways, and the front and back doors to the property. Despite requests for its inspection report/survey the landlord has not provided this information. However, within its complaint responses it has detailed the work listed in December 2023, the list of work has not been disputed. As such, each area of work has been considered in turn below for the purpose of this complaint.

Guttering

  1. The landlord was aware of the issues with guttering following its inspection in December 2023 where it noted guttering needed to be cleared and checked. However, it did not raise this work until March 2024. This timeframe of almost 4 months to raise works was not appropriate and exceeded its non-urgent repairs timeframe.
  2. The landlord completed some work to the guttering in April 2024. Following this, the resident told it, in June/July 2024, that it did not consider the guttering at the back of the property where she said there was a leak. There is no evidence to show the landlord took action in response to this. It is unclear why the landlord only considered the guttering at the front of the property and it did not communicate its approach with the resident at that time. This was not appropriate.
  3. Despite what the resident told in in June/July 2024, it took the landlord until October 2024 to inspect the gutters and find they were full of debris and cracked in places. This timeframe was not appropriate. While it did attend to complete some work in November 2024, the resident has said the issues are ongoing with the gutters.

Doors

  1. It is unclear when the resident first reported issues with the front and back doors of the property. However the landlord would have known, by no later than 4 December 2023, that both doors required work (to be eased and adjusted). It took the landlord until April 2024 to ease and adjust the doors. This timeframe was not appropriate.
  2. Within the landlord’s initial stage 1 response it agreed to replace the back door and said it would provide a new front door in the resident’s preferred style and colour. While the measurements for the new doors were taken in March 2024, the landlord did not communicate the timeframe for this work until its stage 2 response, in May 2024, where it said it would take 6 to 8 weeks for the front door to be manufactured. However, it did not monitor this work despite saying it would and took until November 2024 to complete this work. This timeframe was not appropriate.

Pathway

  1. It is unclear when the resident initially reported issues with an uneven pathway at the property. However, the landlord’s inspection from December 2023 noted the pathway was to be taken up and levelled as it was a trip hazard. The repair log notes that the pathway was uneven due to tree roots and it seems the landlord recorded the work as complete in April 2024. This timeframe of 4 months was not appropriate and exceeded its non-urgent repair timeframe.
  2. It is not disputed that the work completed to the pathway in April 2024 was to part of the pathway. This meant the resident had to contact the landlord again and explain how she understood it would complete work to the whole pathway. It took the landlord until October 2024 to complete work to the remainder of the pathway, it is unclear why it did not do this sooner. This was not appropriate.
  3. It has not been disputed that the landlord did not attend some pre-agreed appointments for repairs, as per its initial stage 1 response. The resident has also said that at times the landlord would attend without a pre-arranged appointment. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response from November 2024, it explained that it had reminded its contractor of the importance of agreeing appointments in advance with residents. The landlord’s response here was appropriate, however, it is accepted that its handling of appointments for repairs may have caused some frustration to the resident.
  4. Overall, the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property was not appropriate. This is because it:
    1. Failed to monitor works following its inspection from December 2023.
    2. Did not act in line with its repairs policy and missed its non-urgent repairs timeframe.
    3. Missed opportunities to communicate about its planned approach to work.
    4. Said it introduced a new process to ensure repairs were tracked in May 2024, but did not track repairs or progress them in a timely manner.
  5. The landlord’s failings meant the resident had to repeatedly contact it raising complaints about its lack of action and poor communication. This would have added to the resident’s frustration with its service and impacted the landlord/resident relationship. It is noted that the landlord has since completed works to the doors and pathway which would have limited some of the impact of its delays.
  6. Within the landlord’s initial stage 2 response from May 2024 it upheld the resident’s complaint, appropriately apologised and offered £340 for the impact its delays would have had on her. Within its further stage 2 response from November 2024 it said it would raise further work for the guttering, while it did attend to clean the gutters the resident has said issue remains ongoing. It offered a further apology and £1,000 compensation, £500 of this was for the distress, inconvenience, time effort in having to raise the issues.
  7. When considering an appropriate remedy in these circumstances, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered alongside what the landlord has already offered. The amount of £840 falls within the severe maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and has been decided as appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of repairs at the property and the compensation amount satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint. Had the landlord not increased its compensation offer and not completed work, the Ombudsman would have found some level of maladministration.

Reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will remove severe mould stains from walls and ceilings. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) landlords have obligations to consider the condition of properties. A landlord should be aware of its obligations under HHSRS and carry out monitoring of a property where a potential hazard is identified (including damp and mould). The landlord has wider obligations to deal with mould if it is caused by a problem with the property and/or making the property not fit to live in.
  2. The landlord’s inspection from December 2023 recommended mould wash and stain block for rooms affected by damp and mould. The landlord took until 15 November 2024, to complete this work. This timeframe was not appropriate.
  3. Within the landlord’s initial stage 2 response, May 2024, it said the cause of damp and mould was the guttering which it said it cleared in April 2024. However, its damp and mould inspection from October 2024 found evidence of roof leaks in addition to the guttering work. The landlord took too long to identify this and despite its stage 2 response from 27 November 2024 saying it would inspect the roof, it has not provided evidence to show it has done this or resolved the issue with damp and mould at the property. This was not appropriate.
  4. The landlord’s actions fell short of the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould from October 2021. This is because it did not adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould, identify complex cases at an early stage and did not ensure that it clearly and regularly communicated with the resident regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould at the property was not appropriate. It failed to act in line with its repairs policy or its wider obligations and repeatedly missed opportunities to keep the resident updated on its approach. This meant the resident felt she had to raise complaints for it to take meaningful action. It took the landlord over 10 months to conduct a damp and mould inspection and 11 months to complete a mould wash at the property impacted by mould. While it is difficult to determine the full extent of the condition of the property, when considering its inspection findings of “moderate” mould in 3 bedrooms and the bathroom, it is reasonable to conclude that the property condition would have had some impact on the resident’s enjoyment of her home, especially as the issue remains unresolved after the resident had exhausted its internal complaints process twice.
  6. While it is acknowledged that the landlord did eventually complete a mould wash and that this would have made some improvement to the resident’s living conditions and that it did make some attempt to put things right. Had the landlord not taken the steps mentioned the failings here would have been more serious. The landlord’s failings here amount to maladministration.
  7. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered along with the landlord’s failings and the impact this may have had on the resident. The landlord’s stage 2 response from November 2024 offered £500 for its handling of damp and mould at the property. While this amount falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance, it is not considered proportionate in these circumstances. This is due to the landlord’s overall failings in its handling of damp and mould, the time and trouble caused to the resident in having to raise complaints for it to complete work (undermining the landlord/resident relationship further) and that the issue remains unresolved. It is accepted that this would have added to the resident’s upset and frustration with the landlord’s service. Given the accumulation of these failings the compensation amount has been increased to £700, this falls between the maladministration and severe maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance. Had the landlord not taken the actions mentioned previously within this report, the failings here would have amounted to severe maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange for a manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be in writing.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £700 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of reports of damp and mould. This amount includes the £500 it previously offered.
    3. Confirm in writing to the resident and this Service:
      1. The further work required to the property. It should provide a schedule of work and a timeframe for completion.
      2. The measures it will put in place to monitor whether the proposed works remedy the damp and mould issues at the property.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays £840 it previously offered the resident for its handling of outstanding repairs, if this has not been paid already.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contact the resident to discuss any ongoing issues at the property. It should explain its planned approach to works, if any, that do not fall part of the order at paragraph 34c, mentioned above.