Origin Housing Limited (202445269)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202445269

Origin Housing Limited

18 September 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:
1. A leak into the property.
2. The damage caused to the property from the leaks.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder and has held the lease since 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom flat within a wider block.
The resident has advised that they and their neighbour had been reporting damage in their properties from an external leak since July 2023. In September 2024 a surveyor attended the building to inspect the communal roof. Following this, a roofing company supplied the landlord with a quote for the required works.
On 3 January 2025 the resident complained to the landlord. They said:
1. They had been experiencing a longstanding leak which they first noticed in July 2023. The leak had caused major damage to their and their neighbour’s properties.
2. The damage from the leak had caused damp and mould growth in the property, and the water ingress had caused the floorboards to rot.
3. A surveyor had attended the property on 26 September 2024. The surveyor thought the leaks originated from the communal roof and recommended repairs which the landlord had not actioned.
4. They felt the landlord’s slow response time had worsened the damage in their property. They felt frustrated that they frequently had to chase the landlord, but works were not conducted.
On 23 January 2025 the landlord provided its stage 1 response, which said:
1. Its property maintenance team had received a quote from a contractor in November 2024 to complete repairs to the communal roof. This was passed onto its home ownership team to progress, as the matter would require a formal consultation with leaseholders.
2. It could find no evidence to suggest its home ownership team had progressed the consultation. It apologised to the resident that it took a complaint for it to realise the matter had not been progressed.
3. It was figuring out the best way to get the consultation underway.
The resident escalated their complaint on 26 January 2025 as they were unhappy that the landlord had not provided a clear timeframe for the works to occur. The resident also felt the landlord had not been transparent about who would be responsible for the works.
On 10 March 2025 the landlord provided its stage 2 response, which said:
1. It agreed there was a lack of transparency in its stage 1 response and it said this had been fed back to the member of staff who handled the stage 1 response.
2. The resident had previously made complaints about leaks which had resulted in works being conducted, but the works did not fully address the issues. The landlord apologised that it did not follow up on previous repairs to check if the issues had resolved. It said it would pass this feedback onto its surveyance team.
3. A damp and mould inspection had occurred on 7 March 2025, and it committed to sharing the results of this survey within 1 week.
4. The works to the roof required ‘Section 20 notices’ to be sent to residents as the cost of the works would be in excess of £250 per property.
5. It said staff shortages in its home ownership team had caused delays in this process.
6. It had sent out the Section 20 notices on 10 March 2025 and the consultation process would last for 35 days.
7. It had put contractors on standby so the works could start as quickly as possible.
8. It provided the resident with a point of contact for the repairs going forward.
9. It offered the resident compensation of £400 for its delay in progressing the Section 20 process, and £100 for the efforts the resident had made to complain about the matter.
On 24 June 2025 the resident told us that they were dissatisfied as the roofing works had not started. The resident said this was causing damp and mould in the property to worsen, and they were concerned about the impact this could have on their child.
After its internal complaints procedure concluded, the landlord made an offer to the resident about the damage caused to the property. It asked the resident to obtain costs from contractors to treat the mould, redecorate the damaged areas, and replace the flooring. The landlord said it would then arrange for a surveyor to assess the damage and consider making a financial offer to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman expects for a complaint to be referred to this service within a reasonable period following the completion of a landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The resident has advised that they had been reporting leaks into the property for several years prior to their formal complaint. While this has been noted for context, the landlord’s actions in this regard were subject to separate complaints which were not brought to the Ombudsman. Therefore, the Ombudsman will assess the landlord’s actions in the period immediately prior to the 3 January 2025 complaint, and actions taken as a result of this complaint.
Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues they reported, and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted their child’s health.
We are unable to determine that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had an impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriately made by a court who will have the benefit of independent medical experts. Should the resident wish to pursue a personal injury claim, they have the option to seek legal advice.
The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.

The landlord’s handling of leaks into the property

The resident’s lease says it is the landlord’s responsibility to maintain and repair the structure of the communal building, this includes the exterior walls and the communal roof.
Where a resident reports issues with leaks, it is reasonable for a landlord to complete a thorough inspection within a reasonable timeframe. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord arranged for its surveyor to assess the roof.
Additionally, where a landlord identifies repair issues, it should arrange for any works that are its responsibility within a timely manner. The resident has told us that, following the inspection on 26 September 2024, the landlord’s surveyor specifically mentioned solar panels on the communal roof and associated pipework and wiring as a possible source of the leaks. The landlord said in November 2024 that it received a quote from a roofing contractor to conduct works to address the leaks. It said this quote was passed onto its home ownership team to progress a consultation under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Section 20 process is required under law if works cost over £250 per household, and leaseholders will fund the works.
While it was understandable that there was some level of delay while a quote was prepared and the Section 20 process occurred, it is not evident that the landlord adequately managed these repairs and ensured that the Section 20 process was progressed. This led to an unreasonable delay during which the issues the resident was experiencing continued. The resident also had to expend time and trouble chasing the repairs and raising a formal complaint.
In its complaint responses, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it could not find any evidence that its home ownership team had progressed the Section 20 process. It also apologised for this failing. This was appropriate considering its lack of action had prolonged the leaks, as well as the residents associated distress. It also appropriately committed to progressing the Section 20 process to avoid further delay.
On 6 March 2025 the landlord conducted a joint inspection with a roofing contractor. Following the inspection, the contractor provided a quote for the required works. While it was appropriate that the landlord continued to progress its investigation into the leaks, the inspection occurred 43 days after the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident. There is no evidence to justify why it took so long to arrange the inspection. Given its previous acknowledgement of unreasonable delays, this also demonstrated that it had not learned from its past failings.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had put roofing contractors on standby, so it could start the works as soon as possible after the Section 20 process had concluded. On 10 March 2025 the landlord sent out Section 20 consultation letters. The consultation phase concluded on 14 April 2025; however, roof repairs did not begin until 4 August 2025. This was 4 months later without any reasonable explanation. While this delay could have been linked to external factors such as contractor availability or delays in sourcing materials, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord kept the resident updated on its progress and its planned actions. This would have added to the distress experienced by the resident.
As noted above, in its formal responses, the landlord acknowledged delays and offered an apology. It also offered the resident £400 in compensation for its delays in progressing the Section 20 process, and £100 for the time and trouble the resident experienced. This offer adequately addressed the landlord’s delay in progressing the section 20 process. However, it did not reflect the further delays to its promised repairs and the overall lack of communication after the landlord sent its stage 2 response.
As such, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £600 to reflect the overall distress and inconvenience and time and effort caused to the resident. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £500. An order has also been made for the landlord to conduct a post work inspection to assess if the repairs have fully rectified the leaks. This inspection is to include an assessment of the solar panelled area which has previously been highlighted as a possible source of leaks. The landlord is to keep the resident informed of the outcome of its inspection.

The landlord’s handling of damage caused to the property from leaks

As noted above, the resident’s lease says it is the landlord’s responsibility to maintain and repair the structure of the communal building, this includes the exterior walls and the communal roof.
The landlord’s repairs policy says the terms of the resident’s lease will take precedence over its repairs policy. The policy says leaseholders are responsible for all repairs to the inside of their property, and this includes internal damage caused by external leaks. The policy notes that unless there are exceptional circumstances, it will not conduct repairs that are a leaseholder’s responsibility.
The lease reflects the landlord’s policy and outlines that it is the resident’s responsibility to maintain the interior of the property, and this includes decorative works and the flooring.
In their complaint, the resident said the external leak had caused significant damage to the property. They said water ingress had led to damp and mould growth, and the damp conditions had caused their floorboards to bow and rot.
The lease says the resident is responsible for the maintenance and decoration of the interior of the property. However, the resident’s ability to maintain their property was hampered by the landlord’s lack of action to maintain the communal roof, which it was responsible for under the lease. The landlord has also acknowledged it was responsible for the delays.
In such circumstance, where the landlord was aware of internal damage caused by its delay, it would be reasonable for it to assess the damage to inform a position on whether it was responsible. However, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord inspected the damage, addressed the damage, or attempted to limit the damage. Given also that there were reports of damp and mould as a result of the ongoing leaks, there is no evidence it assessed the mould, or considered mitigating steps such as for the mould to be cleaned, or for the use of dehumidifiers to reduce the damp conditions. Such actions would have been reasonable, as it would have shown the landlord was attempting to limit the damage, and reduce the resident’s distress.
Additionally, it is clear that the resident raised these concerns in their formal complaint, and their escalation request. Despite this, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the damp and mould, or the overall damage, in its complaint responses. Given its acknowledged delays, it would have been helpful to have provided a position as to whether its lack of timely action to prevent water ingress, which was causing the damage, met the threshold of exceptional circumstances under its repairs policy. Its failure to comment left the resident unclear on its position and about how the issues would be addressed. Furthermore, the resident raised concerns about the impact of the issues on their child, and the landlord once again failed to provide a position, which would have added to their distress.
On 6 April 2025, given that the landlord had repeatedly failed to address the issue in its complaint responses, the resident asked the landlord if it would be funding repairs to rectify the damage. The landlord said it would respond to the resident’s enquiry the following week. However, evidence shows the resident had to chase the landlord for a response 4 times before it provided a full response on 14 August 2025. This was unreasonable.
On 14 August 2025 the landlord asked the resident to obtain quotes from 3 contractors to clean and treat the mould, to re-decorate, and replace the flooring with a like-for-like replacement. The landlord said it would then assess the quotations and the damage, and it would consider a financial offer. While it is positive that the landlord began to address the resident’s concerns, it should have done so at an earlier stage. At the time of this report, the resident is in the process of obtaining quotes for the landlord to consider.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise the impact caused to the resident and take steps to put things right, its offer was vague, and it did not commit to covering the full costs or to completing any of the works itself. It only committed to considering compensation. The lack of a solid commitment would have caused the resident distress.
The resident has told us the landlord said they should have made a claim on the buildings insurance for the damage caused. While the Ombudsman has no independent evidence in this regard, the content of the lease says it is the landlord’s responsibility to manage and make claims under the buildings insurance. It was therefore a missed opportunity that the landlord did not formalise this position in its complaint responses.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred after considering:
1. The landlord’s lack of timely action to address the leaks increased the damage to the resident’s property.
2. The landlord did not take steps to mitigate the damage after the resident’s complaint.
3. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about damage in either of its complaint responses.
4. The landlord has not given a concrete offer of redress to the resident.
Considering the finding of maladministration, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to:
1. Conduct a mould wash in the property. The landlord is also to commit to a follow up inspection within 6 weeks of the mould wash, to assess if the mould has been fully addressed.
2. Supply to the resident and Ombudsman a schedule of works to make good the internal decorative works which have been damaged by water ingress.
3. Within 4 weeks of receiving 3 reasonable quotations for replacing the flooring, (or within 4 weeks of the determination if the resident has already supplied 3 quotes), the landlord is to fund the reflooring works.
4. The landlord is to pay compensation of £300 for its failure to address the resident’s concerns about damage within a reasonable period of time.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the leaks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of damage caused by leaks. oringin

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £900 to the resident. The previous offer of £500 compensation can be deducted from this amount if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £600 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of the leaks.
2. £300 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of damage caused by the leaks.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Conduct a post-work inspection to the roof. This is to include an inspection of the solar panelled area, as this has previously been highlighted as a possible source of leaks.
2. Conduct a mould wash in the property. The landlord is to conduct a follow up inspection within 6 weeks of completing the mould wash.
Within 4 weeks of receiving 3 flooring quotations from the resident, (or within 4 weeks of the determination date if the resident has already supplied 3 quotes), the landlord is to fund the reflooring works based on the most suitable quote supplied.
Within 6 weeks of this determination, the landlord is to produce and supply to the resident and Ombudsman a schedule of works to make good the internal decorative works which have been damaged by water ingress.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders within 6 weeks of the determination date.