Origin Housing Limited (202416610)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416610

Origin Housing Limited

27 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of water ingress into her property.
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 28 October 2019. The property is a 2-bedroom, first floor flat.
On 20 June 2023, the resident reported water coming into her flat, which she said was either coming from the balcony of the flat above or from the roof. On 19 October 2023, she raised a formal complaint about the landlords response. In her complaint the resident said:
1. ‘At least’ 5 different contractors had attended the leak since she reported it in June 2023. The contractors had ‘sealed what could be sealed’ and that water was ‘still pouring through.’
2. A surveyor visited her property on 9 October 2023, which she described as ‘pointless and didn’t bring any solution’.
3. This had ‘become a burden’ and a ‘huge health and safety issue for (her and her) son.’ The resident said her son had ‘slipped on the wet floor, banged his head really badly and had bruises on his back.’
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 November 2023 in which it acknowledged its lack of action in response to the leak when it was first reported in June 2023. The landlord noted that, whilst repeated efforts were made to determine the cause of the water ingress, and that access to the flat above had proved difficult, more action should have been taken to address the root cause of the water leaking into the resident’s property.
The landlord apologised for this failure for which it offered the resident £100 compensation. It also said it would recommend that its contractor used this complaint to consider their processes and make sure they were fit for purpose. Further, its Resident Liaison Officer, who had recently been in contact with the resident, would remain her point of contact, would ensure she was kept updated and would ensure that the works were progressed ‘promptly.’
The resident escalated her complaint on 10 May 2024. The resident said this was because, since November 2023, no works had been carried out to stop the water ingress into her flat. The resident also said there had been a scaffold outside her balcony since January 2024, with no work being done. The scaffolding also had no alarm, which she said meant anyone could climb it and gain easy access to her property.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 September 2024, in which it apologised for both the delay in carrying out the required works, which it said was ‘unacceptable’, and the delay in its issuing its response. The landlord accepted it had not been pro-active in communicating with the resident or in checking with her about works that had been undertaken, which had placed the onus on her to notify it of repeated issues. It also apologised for the scaffolding being up longer than necessary and the lack of alarm making the resident feel unsafe. The landlord said this had been discussed with its surveyor and should not happen again. The landlord also acknowledged that:
1. Following its stage 1 response on 7 November 2023, a new job was raised to take apart the decking on the balcony of the flat above and for a PVC trim to be installed across the wall to prevent water entering the resident’s home. However, this work was not completed until 8 May 2024 and was not sufficient to prevent further leaks, for which it apologised.
2. Further jobs were raised to look into the issue in December 2023, January, April, May and June 2024. However, attempts to trace and rectify the leaks had been unsuccessful.
3. A leak dye test should have been suggested sooner, this not being suggested until a visit by its senior surveyor on 22 July 2024. The landlord said it would make sure further training was given to its surveyors on the range of ways leaks can be detected.
To put things right, the landlord:
1. Said a site visit had been scheduled for 3 September 2024 for its roofing lead surveyor to look at both the resident’s flat and the flat above. The landlord said any works identified would be completed before 30 September 2024 and remedial works to the resident’s property booked at her convenience. A leak test would also be conducted on completion of works to ensure this had fully resolved the issues.
2. Said it was implementing a ‘more robust’ tracking system to ensure complex repairs, such as the resident’s, were monitored and overseen to ensure the right conclusions and recommendations were completed.
3. Offered the resident at total of £1,650 compensation, made up of:
  1. £1,500 for the length of time she had been waiting for the leaks to be resolved, its poor communication with her, the partial loss of the use of her living room and the impact this had had on her and her family.
  2. £150 for the delay in providing its Stage 2 complaint. The landlord said that it was sorry the resident had to chase for its response and that she had had to wait much longer than she should have.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s reports of water ingress into their property.

Once a landlord is informed of some damage or deterioration in a property, for which it is responsible, it is ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable enquiry to determine the cause and complete a repair. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
A delay in repairs is not always considered a failure, particularly if the issue is complex. However, the landlord would be expected to proactively manage the repair, and complete it as soon as practically possible. It would also be expected to update the resident and manage their expectations.
The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into her property. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, by the time of the landlord’s final response on 2 September 2024 almost 15 months had passed since the resident first reported water entering her property on 20 June 2023. This was an excessive amount of time for the resident to have to wait and the leaks had still not been resolved. During this 15-month period:
1. There were multiple, unsuccessful visits by its surveyors to attempt to trace and rectify the leaks.
2. The landlord raised multiple jobs but the works were not authorised in a timely way or, as in the case of the repair to the balcony door in May 2024, were not sufficient to prevent further leaks.
3. There was an unreasonable delay in its surveyors proposing a thermographic (leak detection) survey to determine the source of the leak. This was not proposed until the property was inspected by its senior surveyor in July 2024, over a year after the leak was initially reported.
4. Despite stating in its stage 1 response that a Resident Liaison Officer would remain the resident’s point of contact and would ensure she was updated; this did not happen. Instead, an unreasonable burden was placed on the resident to chase the landlord for updates, to notify it of repeated issues and to provide updates on works that had been carried out.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged these failures, for which it apologised and offered the resident a total of £1,500 compensation.
When considering whether the level of compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable, we not only consider the extent of the failures identified but also the impact those failures had on the resident. In this case it is evident that the impact on the resident was considerable. This is evidenced by:
1. The landlord’s surveyor asking on 16 October 2023 that an operative attend ‘as a matter of urgency’ as the resident’s flat was affected every time it rained.
2. The resident’s formal complaint to the landlord on 19 October 2023, in which she explained that the towel she had left on the living room floor, in case it rained, was not sufficient and her son had slipped on the wet floor and banged his head. The resident said that the landlord had sealed the balcony door but the water was still ‘pouring through.’
3. Following a visit on 7 February 2024, the landlord noted that the resident ‘permanently used towels to soak up the water’.
4. An email from the resident to the landlord on 3 May 2024, in which she said she had spent the bank holiday weekend at home dealing with a ‘completely uncontainable leak’. The resident asked why she had to chase this with the landlord as ‘surely this should have been fixed by now.’
5. An internal landlord email of 7 May 2024 which confirmed that rainwater was still affecting the resident’s living room and ceiling.
6. The resident’s email to the landlord on 22 May 2024, in which she said her flat had flooded the previous day and the landlord was ‘ignoring’ her emails whilst the property got ‘damaged more and more’.
7. A repair record from 26 June 2024, which noted that the skirting boards had come away with the wall plaster.
Given the extent of the failures and the impact on the resident, we are satisfied that the compensation offered by the landlord was fair and reasonable at the time the stage 2 was issued. This is because £1,500 is in line with amounts set out in our remedies guidance for circumstances where there have been significant failures by the landlord, over a significant period of time, which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.
However, where the landlord has made commitments as part of its complaint responses, we will consider subsequent events in order to establish whether the landlord has put things right in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
In this case, despite its commitment that its roofing lead surveyor would visit the resident’s property on 3 September 2024, we have seen no evidence of this being done until 2 October 2024, over 1 month later. At this point, the landlord was advised it was ‘not a roofing issue but an ongoing problem with the balconies’.
It was then not until 28 October 2024 that a job was raised for the replacement of the resident’s balcony door. The repairs records state that this job was completed but does not say when this took place. However, we have seen an email from the resident to the landlord dated December 2024 which states that at that time, and 3 months after the deadline given by the landlord in its final response, she was still waiting for her new balcony door to be installed.
In a telephone conversation with the resident on 14 May 2025, she confirmed to us that her balcony door was not replaced until February 2025. This would be consistent with an internal landlord email seen by us which refers to a post inspection of the door being carried out on 19 March 2025. This would mean there had been a 5-month delay in the landlord following through on the commitments it made in its final response of 2 September 2024. We have also seen no evidence of a further leak test being conducted.
In light of the landlord’s failure to do what it had committed to do in its final response, within a reasonable period of time, and the understandable distress and inconvenience this would have caused the resident, a finding of maladministration has been made. To put this right, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £500 compensation, bringing the total payable for this element of her complaint to £2,000.
In addition to being fair and putting things right, the landlord would also be expected to evidence that it has learnt from the outcome of the complaint. In this case, the landlord said it would:
1. Recommend its contractor used this complaint to consider their processes and make sure they were fit for purpose.
2. Make sure further training was given to its surveyors on the range of ways leaks can be detected.
3. Implement a ‘more robust’ tracking system to ensure complex repairs, such as the resident’s, were monitored and overseen.
That the landlord recognised the need to learn from the complaint is welcome. However, to reassure both the resident and the Ombudsman that it has followed through with these learning commitments, a further order has been made for the landlord to confirm to us when these commitments were actioned and what the outcome was.
Having spoken to the resident on 14 May 2025 it is apparent that the leaks into her property have still not been resolved and continue to occur every time it rains. The remedial works have also not been completed, as these cannot be done until the leaks have been resolved.
Given the length of time this repair has been outstanding, we would have considered making an order for the landlord to arrange for an independent inspection to be undertaken. This would be to establish the cause of the water ingress and to recommend appropriate action for the landlord to take to resolve it. However, as we are aware that an independent inspection has already taken place, as part of a disrepair claim raised with the landlord on 15 March 2025, we will not be making such an order in this case.

Handling of the associated complaint

The resident raised her formal complaint with the landlord on 19 October 2023. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, it would be expected to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days, which it did on 24 October 2023. It would then be expected to provide its stage 1 response within a further 10 working days, which it again did. This being issued on 7 November 2023.
The resident escalated her complaint on 10 May 2024, which the landlord again acknowledged within 5 working days. This being sent on 16 May 2024. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord would then be expected to provide its stage 2 response within a further 20 working days, and no later than 13 June 2024. However, it did not do so.
The landlord’s complaints policy does allow for circumstances where it is not able to provide a full response within 20 working days. However, in these circumstances the policy says it will contact the resident to explain the reasons why, and when they could expect to receive the response, which it did not do.
Instead, the onus was again on the resident to chase the landlord, this time for its complaint response, which she did on 20 June 2024. The landlord responded the same day, apologising for the delay and saying that it would issue its stage 2 response by 11 July 2024. However, it did not do so until 2 September 2024, some 2 months later.
This was an excessive amount of time for the resident to have to wait for the landlord’s final response and would have understandably caused unnecessary frustration and inconvenience for the resident.
As such it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the delay, and that the resident had had to chase it for its response. To put this right the landlord offered a proportionate amount of compensation. The £150 offered being in line with amounts suggested in our remedies guidance where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, but which had no permanent impact.
Overall, we are satisfied that the acknowledgement, apology, and compensation offered by the landlord represents reasonable redress for its failures in respect of this element of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of water ingress into her property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the unnecessary distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to do what it had committed to do in its final response.
2. Pay the resident a total of £2,000 compensation in respect of its failures in relation to her reports of water ingress into her property. This amount is inclusive of the £1,500 offered in its final response, if this has not already been paid. If it has been paid the landlord need only pay the resident the additional £500 ordered by us.
3. Confirm to us when the learning commitments made in its complaint responses were actioned and what the outcome was.
4. Confirm compliance with the above orders.
It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by us should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears.

Recommendation

If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord now pay the resident the £150 it offered in its final response in respect of its complaint handling failures. The finding of reasonable redress being dependent on this being paid to the resident.