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

Origin Housing Limited (202413912)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413912

Origin Housing Limited

25 March 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:
    1. Reports of being at risk from her ex-partner.
    2. Reports about outstanding repairs to her property.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 2-bed house with her 2 young children.
  2. The resident has mental health issues and autism. The landlord was notified on 6 October 2022, via an email from children’s services, that the resident was vulnerable. She was a survivor of domestic abuse (DA), and the police had issued a notice that she was at high risk of harm from her ex-partner, who was in prison. It said that this situation had further impacted her mental health and her ability to leave the house. 
  3. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 10 June 2024. She said she had been reporting ongoing repair problems since 2017. These included an ill-fitting back door, window, and an insecure front door following work to the frame by its contractor. She said the same contractor had left a leak which damaged her flooring and would not replace it. Despite visits from surveyors, she said nothing had been done. She said she was extremely concerned about her safety with the lack of security, with the serious threat of DA. She said the problems with the doors and window also meant the property was cold and let in water.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 June 2024. It said a surveyor had attended on 18 January 2024. He had raised orders for the front door frame/trim to be repaired to resolve the exposure of the door lock and to ease and adjust the back door. It apologised this work had not progressed and advised a contractor would attend the next day. It could find no repair record for the works the resident had said were carried out to the window but would ask its contractor to include it in the arranged appointment. It believed her flooring was fit for purpose following the leak and did not need replacing. It acknowledged she had waited too long for the work to be completed and offered her £200 compensation. It had also raised the issues with the contractor.
  5. On receipt of an email from the resident on 2 July 2024, the landlord carried out a compensation review. It increased its offer of compensation from £200 to £400.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 July 2024. She was unhappy the landlord had only considered issues back to January 2024, as she had been contacting it continuously about the repairs for much longer. She said she was not aware until recently that she needed to formalise her complaint. She said she struggled with processes and needed help because of her autism. She felt the £200 offered was not reflective of the severity of the safety issue and the time she had lived with it.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 November 2024. It acknowledged a lack of planning and co-ordination in replacing the external doors and that this impacted the resident feeling safe in her own home. In recognition of further poor customer service, it offered another £200 on its previous offer of £400, bringing the offer to £600. It offered her an additional £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the safety aspect of the delay in replacing the doors. This was a total offer of £1000 compensation. It advised that due to her safety concerns, it had also made a referral to its safeguarding hub.
  8. The resident was still not satisfied with the level of compensation the landlord had offered and escalated her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident has stated that some of the repair issues she has raised in her complaint date back as far as 2016. Under the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. She raised her complaint on 10 June 2024. In accordance with the Scheme, we will only usually consider matters up to 12 months prior to this. As such we will not be considering historical repair issues back to 2016 in this investigation. Any mention of historical issues in the report will be for context purposes only.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of being at risk from her ex-partner

  1. The purpose of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (DAA 2021) was to address domestic abuse at every stage. From prevention to rehabilitation, raising awareness of the issue and laying in statute the connections and provision of all cross-sector agencies and departments to tackle it.
  2. The Act recognised that social housing providers have a pivotal role to play in cases of domestic abuse, being ideally placed to identify those at risk and able to provide an effective and supportive response. The Act provided a steer for social housing providers they should adopt working practices which recognise, identify, and address domestic abuse in all its forms. It encouraged landlords to update their policies and procedure in accordance with the DAA.
  3. The landlord has a domestic abuse policy promoting a zero-tolerance approach to all forms of domestic violence. It commits to increase the safety of domestic violence survivors in the short and longer term. It has a supporting ‘DA how to get help’ information leaflet. The policy document sent to us, however, shows it was last updated in August 2018 and not in 2021 to align with introducing the DAA. 
  4. In October 2022 the landlord was notified that the police had determined there was a credible threat to the resident’s safety. Her ex-partner had made threats from prison to kill her should she continue with her pregnancy, which she had done.
  5.  The landlord’s DA advice commits to carrying out a risk assessment for all domestic abuse cases. It states it will go through all the options available, which include increasing security in the home and, if necessary, offering advice, information and support to help with alternative accommodation. It also commits to agreeing on an action plan.
  6. When the landlord was put on notice of the resident’s risk of harm, it agreed to a managed transfer, which was appropriate. It was not evident, however, that it had completed a risk assessment, gone through all options with her or created an action plan, as its policy information requires.
  7. In line with the landlord’s DA policy, it should have assessed the security of her property and considered any extra safety measures it could provide. Its repairs policy states that it considers vulnerable residents in its general needs properties, and it has the discretion when there are circumstances, conditions or risks that would require a quicker response to do so. It would have been appropriate for its records to flag the resident as vulnerable and at risk. Any repair that related to the security of the property (windows, doors and locks) should have been responded to urgently. There is no evidence that the landlord did respond urgently. If it had done so, it could have avoided her complaint about the delayed repairs and the effect the fear and worry had on her.
  8. The landlord agreed to a management transfer, but it has been over 2 years, and the resident has yet to receive an offer. In September 2024, she advised it that the situation has become more urgent as her ex-partner was due to be released from prison. We recognise that housing is in short supply. The landlord has stated it has a particular shortage of 3-bed properties in the 4 boroughs of choice on the resident’s application. She is still eighth in the queue for rehousing.
  9. While we acknowledge the landlord’s challenges with housing supply, there are other options it could have considered and advised her on. It could have referred her to the local authority for housing advice/help and given her details on the mutual exchange scheme. It also could take high-risk cases to a multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC). These are attended by representatives from police, health, child protection, housing, independent domestic violence advisors (Idvas), probation and other specialists from the statutory or voluntary sectors. The wider partnership approach can often further help secure a survivor’s safety or increase the opportunities for moving the resident. There was no evidence that it had considered these options. 
  10.  Only recently, following the stage 2 complaint investigation, has the landlord made a safeguarding referral to its support hub. It would have been appropriate for it to arrange support such as this much sooner, ideally when it was first aware of the risk. However, there had been opportunities since, where the resident has raised her safety concerns, but it missed those opportunities.
  11. Having recently been put on notice (23 September 2024) that the risk to the resident is increasing, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to implement the actions in its DA policy. It should have reassessed the risk and looked at any additional security that it could provide. It was not apparent it had done so; it did not even action the outstanding security repairs with any urgency. Its focus appeared only to be on securing the exact date for the partner’s release and her raising her concerns to the police.
  12.  Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of risk of harm from DA has been poor. It failed to risk assess, provide any safeguarding support, secure the property or implement the vulnerable resident’s aspect of its repairs policy. While we are aware that it has now made a safeguarding referral and replacing the insecure door, faulty door, and windows, it should have taken this action much sooner. As a result, we have determined there was maladministration in its handling of this issue. We have ordered the landlord to pay £600 compensation. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedy’s guidance for situations such as this where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs to her property

  1. The landlord has repairing obligations for its rented properties, which is set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This includes the repair and maintenance of the structure and exterior of the property and the plumbing. It also requires that it completes repairs in a reasonable time. While there is no statutory definition of a “reasonable” time for repairs, it has set out in its repairs policy, a target timescale of 10 working days for non-emergency repairs.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord that her flooring was damaged following a leak in the kitchen left by the contractor. She said it replaced her hallway flooring but refused to replace the kitchen flooring. In its complaint investigation it asked the resident to send in photographs of the damaged flooring. On receipt of the photographs, it told the resident that the flooring was fit for purpose and it was not willing to replace it.
  3. It is the landlord’s decision when to replace fixtures and fittings in its properties. It has the right to refuse to replace fittings if it has inspected their condition and is of the view that it is fit for purpose.
  4. The landlord’s repair records showed it raised a repair on 5 December 2023 to replace the damaged trim to the front door and ease and adjust the back door. It noted this work as completed on 10/01/2024.
  5. The landlord raised an inspection of the resident’s property on the 11 January 2024. It has not provided us with the subsequent report, but its complaint responses refer to repairs identified in its report dated 18 January 2024. These included replacing a damaged trim on the front door, which was exposing the lock, easing, and adjusting the back door. This was a repeat of the works order of 5 December 2023, which suggests it was not completed as its records showed. Furthermore, it did not raise the repairs from the inspection until 5 February 2024, a further delay of 2 weeks, which was not reasonable. Its policy response time stated it should have completed the job within this time.
  6. The resident raised her formal complaint on the 10 June 2024, because over 4 months later, the landlord had still not completed the work. She said the contractor had told her the front door needed replacing, and that it had been ordered. She checked with the supplier on 9 June 2024 to find they had not ordered one.
  7.  An internal email from the complaint investigation noted the landlord had chased the contractor about the work in March 2024 (exact date unknown). It stated that at the inspection; the resident had told the surveyor the contractor said that the door needed to be replaced. This was further evidence that the landlord had not completed the works it had raised on 5 December 2023, as its records showed. Its email expressed its dissatisfaction with the contractor’s analysis that it needed to replace the door when it had ordered it to fix the frame.
  8. The stage 1 response acknowledged unacceptable delays and set dates for contractors to attend to the work. However, the debate about repair and replacement continued between the landlord and its contractor, further delaying completion of the repairs.
  9. It should not have taken a stage 2 complaint investigation to bring the matter to a conclusion. An email from the contractor to the landlord dated 4 September 2024 explained that the frame was beyond repair as a section had been cut away, and as the frame was UPVC, it could not be repaired. This type of door and frame come as a set, so it would have to replace both. 
  10. It was concerning that the landlord’s surveyor did not know it could not repair a UPVC frame, or that composite and UPVC doors are commonly made as a set with the frame. Furthermore, there is evidence that it was one of its own contractors that had cut out the frame, to resolve the door not closing properly. For context, the contractor did this in April 2017, so the security of the door had been compromised since then. It is not reasonable for any resident to live with a lack of security in their home, but for one who later became a high-risk DA case, the detriment was even higher.
  11. The further inspection of the resident’s repairs on 13 September 2024 (part of the stage 2 investigation) confirmed that the landlord needed to replace both the front and back door and frames. The surveyor said the front door was in a particular state “of disrepair” and as the resident was living under the threat of DA, from a health and safety perspective, the work was even more essential. This was an appropriate response from the landlord, which recognised her vulnerability and the severity of the situation. However, this response should have happened 9 months earlier when she reported it in December 2023.
  12. During the stage 2 complaint investigation the resident told the landlord that its contractor had attended 4 months earlier to repair the window. She said it had taken the window out and refitted it. Since then, the problem with drafts had got worse. However, it had no record of this repair in its repair history. This, in addition to the incorrect job completion notes on its system, indicates a record keeping problem.
  13. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service. This is not only so that evidence can be provided to the Ombudsman when requested, but because this assists the landlord in its understanding of the condition of a property. It also enables outstanding works to be monitored and enable provision of accurate information to residents. Records also serve as evidence in any external processes which the resident and landlord may engage in.
  14. Both of the landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged that the delays in carrying out the resident’s repairs were unacceptable, for which it apologised. Its original offer of £200 compensation was low and not proportionate to the level of service failure and the detriment experienced by the resident. It reviewed its offer after the stage 1 response and increased it to £400. In its stage 2 review it recognised further failings and delays. It increased its offer by a further £200 to £600. Besides this, it also acknowledged the security risk this had posed and the negative impact this had had on her. It offered her an additional £400 for the distress and inconvenience, bringing the total offer of compensation to £1000. This was a reasonable offer, within the range the Ombudsman would recommend for a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
  15. The landlord had admitted there had been unacceptable delays in carrying out the repairs. It was on notice of a further increased risk to the resident from the imminent release of her ex-partner. Despite this, it took its contractors a further 4 weeks to measure up for the new doors and window, which it installed on 31 January 2025. This did not demonstrate the sense of urgency we would have expected under these circumstances, which was a further service failing.
  16. Overall, the landlord appropriately acknowledged its service failings and developed an action plan to put things right. These amounted to approving the repairs and making a financial offer of redress. However, it continued to act with a lack of urgency, causing further detriment to the resident. It could not show that it had taken lessons from the complaint or improved its service delivery. This has led to a finding of service failure. 

Complaint handling

  1.  From December 2020, all member landlords were required to complete an annual self-assessment against the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code became statutory in April 2024, so landlords are now obliged by law to follow its requirements. The purpose of the Code is to enable landlords to resolve residents’ complaints quickly, and to use the learning from those complaints to drive service improvements.
  2. The Code states that landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The landlord failed in its stage 1 response to acknowledge the resident’s concerns raised about her safety and fear of DA.
  3. The Code requires landlords to have a 2-stage complaint process. If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. The landlord’s complaints policy says that following a stage 1 response, if a resident is dissatisfied only with the level of compensation offered, it will carry out a ‘compensation review’ rather than a full stage 2 review.
  4.  On 21 June 2024, the resident requested an extension of time to escalate her complaint, as she needed help to respond. She had arranged an appointment with the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) for 2 July 2024. The landlord agreed to the extension, which was appropriate.
  5. On receipt of the resident’s email of the 2 July 2024, the landlord carried out a compensation review. She had said its offer of £200 was insufficient for her and her children to have been unsafe in their home for 8 years. It was reasonable for it to have assumed that this correspondence was her escalation request, as it aligned with her appointment with the CAB. Its compensation review was appropriate, as the resident’s main concern was the amount it had offered her, and this action was in line with its policy. 
  6. The Code requires that landlords accept complaints referred to them within 12 months of the issue occurring or the resident becoming aware of the issue. As such it would only be required to consider matters within that time. When the landlord increased its offer to £400, the resident was unhappy that it had only considered the period back to January 2024. It explained this was because this date had been the only contact on the issue in the previous 12 months. This was technically incorrect, as the resident made contact in December 2023 and not January 2024. However, records showed that contact on the matter prior to this was in 2021, so this timeline was appropriate.
  7. We note that the resident disputes this. She says she has called the landlord continuously on these issues and believes it has not recorded them. We cannot make comment on her claim, however, as we cannot verify this.
  8. When the landlord received a further email on 25 July 2024, it was apparent this was the resident’s request for escalation, following her consultation with the CAB. It accepted her request, but in doing so, having completed a compensation review, it created 3 stages of its complaints process. The Code states that a process with more than 2 stages is not acceptable under any circumstances. This is because it makes the complaint process unduly long and delays access to the Ombudsman.
  9.  The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In the exceptional circumstance where it cannot, it will contact the customer to explain why. It can then extend the time to respond by a further 20 working days. These timescales align with the Code.
  10. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 25 July 2024. The landlord issued its response on the 11 November 2024. This was a response time of 78 working days. It was not evident during the process that it contacted the resident to discuss a delay or an extended response time to her complaint. The response significantly exceeded its policy response time of 20 days and was not Code compliant. Furthermore, the landlord did not recognise the delayed response as a failing in its complaint handling. As a result, it did not apologise or consider any redress, which was a service failure.
  11. Overall, the landlord has not been able to demonstrate that it has fully adhered to its complaint handling policy or the Code. As a result, we have made a finding of service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint. We have ordered that the landlord pay the resident £150 for the time and trouble she likely incurred as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failings. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where there were failings by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of being at risk from her ex-partner.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1.  Reports about outstanding repairs to her property.
    2. Associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord provides evidence to this Service of compliance with the following orders:
    1. Provides a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Carry out the relevant actions in its DA policy including completing a risk assessment and an associated action plan.
    3. Contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the property to assess whether it can provide additional security measures at the property.
    4. Write to the resident setting out the housing options available to her.
    5. Pays the resident the sum of £850 compensation, as well as the £1000 previously offered if it has not already done so. The sum is broken down as follows:
      1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of the risk of DA.
      2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its handling of her complaint.
      3. £100 for the further failings identified in its handling of her repairs.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers reviewing its DA policy to take account of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 if it has not already done so.