Origin Housing Limited (202402900)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402900

Origin Housing Limited

7 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 a sewage leak in the resident’s property and associated concerns about a temporary move.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat and is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities, including mental and physical health conditions for the resident.
The landlord contacted the resident on 14 March 2024 to inform her that a neighbouring tenant had reported a leak from the resident’s flat. The resident returned to her flat from work. An operative attended later that day and confirmed a sewage leak from 12 flats into the resident’s property. The resident mentioned that she was going to stay with her mother.
On 19 March 2024 the resident complained to her landlord. She said that:
1. the landlord did not offer her temporary accommodation, so she went to stay with her mother and the landlord had only suggested a temporary move on 15 March 2024
2. on the morning of 15 March 2024, she called the landlord, who said a cleaning team would attend that day. However, when she called again at 14:00, no one had arrived
3. as a vulnerable disabled person, she said this situation had overwhelmed her
The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 16 May 2024 and said that:
1. it fully understood the inconvenience and discomfort that the resident experienced at the time of the incident
2. it apologised for not offering a temporary move on the day of the incident
3. its contractor had tried to call the resident but was unable to speak with her. The landlord asked if any work was outstanding and if it was it would arrange for its contractor to attend
4. it offered £200 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused
We have not seen a copy of the resident’s escalation request. However, the landlord confirmed the request was made on 16 May 2024 because the resident was unhappy with the compensation offered due to the impact the incident had on her mental and physical well-being. She asked for compensation for the loss of personal belongings and to be considered for a move from the property.
On 6 December 2024 the landlord sent a stage 2 response and said that:
1. it was sorry for the delay in providing a response and for the distress and inconvenience this caused
2. its contractor attended and requested a biohazard clean which had not occurred
3. the cleaning appointments were not attended and it was sorry that the property had been left for so long
4. its contractor would contact the resident to confirm a suitable time to review the extent of the damage and the work needed
5. it understood the resident was living with her mum out of the area and appreciated the travel but assured the resident it would not be a wasted journey
6. a Housing Officer would contact the resident about moving options
7. It apologised for the lack of communication and service received, and it increased the compensation offer to £900 for inconvenience and ‘unnecessary stress,’ of which £100 was for the complaint handling failures
In April 2025, the resident confirmed to us that she is still living with her mother, out of the area. She said all her furniture had been lost, and the incident, as well as the landlord’s handling of the matter, had caused her mental health to deteriorate. She said she did not want to return to the flat.

Assessment and findings

To improve readability, we have divided the leak and the temporary move into subheadings within our assessment, concluding with a summary paragraph.

Handling of the sewage leak

On 14 March 2024, the landlord was informed of a sewage leak into the resident’s property and visited that same day following its repairs policy for emergencies. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that emergency repairs are attended to within 2 hours to make it safe. The landlord did not attend within 2 hours but did contain the leak the same day.
The evidence shows that contrary to the landlord’s assurance, an environmental cleanup was not conducted on 15 March 2024. In its stage 1 response, which came 2 months after the incident, the landlord was unaware of the necessary actions needed for the property. The landlord said that it had instructed its contractor to contact the resident to decide if any other repairs or cleaning were needed and was not informed that the biohazard cleanup had still not been completed. This shows that the landlord did not have proper oversight of the situation to ensure that repairs were completed promptly.
A sewage leak would qualify as an emergency repair because it can:
1. pose serious health risks (due to biohazards and contamination)
2. cause structural damage to a property
3. worsen significantly if not addressed promptly
Despite this, the evidence does not show that the landlord made reasonable and proportionate efforts to access the property. According to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a landlord has the legal right to enter a property without the resident’s consent in case of an emergency. The landlord stated that its contractor faced difficulties in contacting the resident to arrange access because the resident hesitated to travel from her mother’s home due to her poor health and a lack of trust in the reliability of earlier appointments.
The resident either refused or was unable to allow access for cleaning. Given the serious health risks associated with the lack of cleaning, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to exercise its legal right to enter the property. Taking this action would have ensured that the property did not remain in an unacceptable condition for longer than necessary. However, evidence shows that the landlord took no action, and the property remains unclean at the time of our investigation.
The landlord’s inaction is unacceptable and has meant the property remained in an unsanitary condition for an extended period. According to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), landlords must ensure their properties remain free from serious hazards. A sewage leak in the resident’s flat qualifies as a serious Category 1 hazard under the HHSRS related to domestic hygiene. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to maintain installations for sanitation. The landlord has not taken the necessary steps to make the property habitable for the resident’s return and has failed to monitor potential hazards adequately within the property. this oversight indicates that the landlord did not adequately acknowledge its obligations.
The landlord’s repairs policy establishes a systematic approach for tracking repairs and monitoring progress, ensuring that maintenance issues are addressed promptly and effectively. It emphasises the necessity for clear communication between contractors and residents, mandating that contractors provide updates on repair statuses and any delays.
However, evidence shows that the landlord failed to oversee the situation adequately. In an email sent to the resident on 14 November 2024, the landlord demonstrated a lack of awareness regarding any outstanding work and claimed that the repairs had been completed in March 2024. Although the leak affecting the property may have been repaired in March 2024, the evidence does not confirm that the clean or necessary repairs were completed on the resident’s property. This situation eroded the resident’s trust in the landlord, especially considering the concerns about ‘false statements’ the resident said the landlord made in relation to what had been completed. Furthermore, the landlord’s failure to adhere to its repair policy caused unreasonable delays in resolving the issue.
The resident informed the landlord that she did not want to return to her property, so the landlord said it would issue her a ‘Notice to Quit’ (NTQ) to formally end her tenancy. This notice is a legal document that details the steps and timeline necessary for the resident to vacate the property, clearly outlining her rights, responsibilities, and any required notice period according to local tenancy laws.
When the landlord sent the email outlining the intention, the resident felt confused by its contents and implications, admitting she did not fully understand it. Recognising her vulnerabilities and the distress she was experiencing, the landlord had an opportunity to offer additional help. Although the evidence does not confirm that the landlord issued an NTQ, by providing a clear explanation of the notice and suggesting further resources or support, the landlord could have empowered the resident to make an informed decision about her next steps in this challenging situation. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to guide the resident towards making a well-informed choice or directing her to support agencies.
In her complaint, the resident stated that the sewage leak damaged her items, and she requested compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy requires evaluating personal property claims individually, ensuring residents receive information about the results of their claims. However, the evidence shows that the landlord failed to provide the resident details on submitting an insurance claim, which contradicts its policy.
The policy states that compensation may be provided for damage or loss of personal belongings resulting from the landlord’s actions or inactions. This compensation is separate from any insurance claims the resident may submit. In the stage 2 response, the landlord clarified the complaint and confirmed that the resident had requested compensation for damage to her belongings.
The landlord responded in its stage 2 complaint response by considering the resident’s request for compensation for the damage to her personal belongings. However, the landlord offered £800 to ‘recognise the inconvenience and stress caused’ and did not specify any amount allocated for the damaged belongings. It would have been helpful for the landlord to identify which items were being compensated. Without this information, we have no evidence of the landlord investigating the resident’s request for compensation regarding her personal belongings.

A temporary move

On 14 March 2024, an operative recommended that the resident should not stay in the property following the sewage leak. The landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed this information, confirming that the drainage team deemed it unsafe for the resident to remain in the flat until cleanup was completed. Consequently, the resident stayed with her mother, as the landlord offered no alternative accommodation. Although the landlord’s evidence indicated attempts to explore temporary housing options, the landlord did not extend an actual offer to the resident.
The resident felt distressed after the incident because the landlord did not offer a temporary move. The landlord’s decant policy states it should provide emergency accommodation support in unforeseen circumstances.
The landlord did not discuss potential temporary move options with the resident, which could have alleviated her concerns. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether the resident’s suggestion to stay with her mother affected the landlord’s lack of communication about alternative housing. During a difficult time, the landlord failed to adhere to its own policy and remained unresponsive to the resident’s needs.
The landlord’s policy mandates regular assessments of residents’ living situations when they opt to stay with friends or family, particularly during prolonged repair delays. Despite this policy, the landlord failed to reassess the resident’s living arrangement throughout the entire complaint process. Furthermore, there was a lack of clear communication regarding the management of the situation, which indicates that the landlord did not fulfil its obligations to the resident or adhere to its own policy, particularly in light of her vulnerabilities. This lack of attentiveness and transparency led to a significant loss of trust in the landlord’s capacity to resolve the issue effectively.
Our Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights emphasises the importance of recognising and responding to residents’ vulnerabilities promptly. Had the landlord adhered to its decant policy and demonstrated a more empathetic approach, it would have been better positioned to access the property and do the necessary cleaning and associated work.

Summary

We have found severe maladministration in how the landlord has handled the situation for the following reasons:
1. the impact on the resident has been prolonged and worsened by her mental and physical health vulnerabilities
1. the landlord’s failure to take meaningful action for over a year, leaving the situation unresolved and negatively impacting the resident’s well-being
2. there has been a prolonged disregard to act in line with its policies, undermining the landlord’s responsibilities
1. despite having the authority to gain legal access to the property, the landlord did not act decisively and did not demonstrate any escalation of the issue to a higher priority level
2. the landlord did not implement its decant policy, further complicating the resident’s situation
3. the landlord missed multiple opportunities to resolve the issue, which significantly affected the resident’s ability and willingness to return home
We have considered the compensation offered at stage 2 for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident, which amounts to approximately £90 (rounded) per month for the 9-month period from the incident report in March 2024 until the landlord’s response at stage 2 in December 2024.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £1800 for the 13 months the matter has been outstanding and for the distress and inconvenience this has caused. This aligns with our remedies guidance and replaces the landlord’s offer of £800. Further orders have been made around ensuring learning for the landlord and to put things right.

Complaint handling

The resident complained to the landlord on 19 March 2024. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 16 May 2024, 40 working days later. This did not follow the 10-working-day period stated in its complaints policy, nor was there evidence that the landlord requested and secured an extension with the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 response outlined the events leading to the resident’s complaint rather than assessing the actions it had taken up to that point. The landlord apologised for the way the resident had been treated. Additionally, the landlord offered £200 in compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused. While this offer was reasonable, the landlord did not:
1. acknowledge or apologise for the delay in providing the stage 1 response, or did it explain the reasons for the delay
2. address all aspects of the complaint or offer clear reasons for its decisions, such as why a temporary move was not offered. This lack of response was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman Code (the Code)
3. specify the actions it would take, the timeline for those actions, or who was responsible
On 16 May 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord responded on 6 December 2024, 140 working days later. This response time deviated significantly from the 20 working days specified in the complaints policy and breached the Code. The significant delay was unacceptable.
The landlord’s complaints process was delayed significantly beyond the times set out in its policy and the Code without justifying any extensions. These delays added distress to the resident and fell below expected standards. The landlord did not explain or acknowledge the impact of these delays, which hindered the resident’s ability to escalate her complaint effectively and prolonged the overall process. Given the serious nature of the sewage leak, the delays further increased her distress and undermined her confidence in the landlord’s ability to resolve the issue and rectify the situation.
Therefore, we have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. a sewage leak in the resident’s property and associated concerns about a temporary move
2. the complaint

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. apologised in writing to the resident. The apology must come from the Chief Executive or a senior member of staff
2. paid the resident £2000, made up of:
  1. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused because of the sewage leak as offered at stage 2 (if this has already been paid it should be deducted from the total amount)
  2. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience, as well as the time and delay caused by the landlord’s complaint handling
  4. the money should be paid directly to the resident
3. contacted the resident to request an update on her housing situation and provided her with advice or signposted to support services about her current tenancy
4. completed an environmental clean and performed remedial works, using emergency access if needed
5. provided the resident with advice on completing a claim to the landlord’s insurers for her damaged items
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. reviewed the handling of this case and identified all that went wrong and what lessons it has learned to improve future responses to emergency repairs and vulnerable residents.