Origin Housing Limited (202332299)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332299

Origin Housing Limited

29 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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
We have also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant. The property is a flat in a purpose built block. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident first reported damp and mould in early July 2022. The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 8 July 2022. The inspection found that the damp was likely coming from a leaking stack pipe.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 29 December 2022. They explained that:
1. There was black mould on the bathroom ceiling and walls.
2. This was having an impact on their respiratory health.
3. They wanted repairs completed to remedy the issues within 4-6 weeks.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 31 January 2023. It said that a mould wash had been completed on 17 January 2023 and identified that it did not fix the issue when it was first reported in 2022. It offered compensation of £100 to reflect the inconvenience caused and the delays in completing the repairs.
The resident asked to escalate their complaint to stage 2 on 31 August 2023 because the repairs had still not been completed.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 15 November 2023. It again identified that the issue had not been resolved for the resident and that the stack pipe had still not been repaired. It offered compensation of £230 and explained that its area surveyor would now be overseeing the repairs to the property and would remain in contact with the resident about this.

Events after the complaints process

The resident referred their complaint to the Ombudsman on 12 December 2023. They remained unhappy with the length of time taken to complete the repairs by the landlord and its failure to pay the compensation offered.
In September 2025, the resident confirmed that while some work was taking place in the block as a whole, the specific issues they complained about had still not been resolved.

Assessment and findings

The scope of our investigation

The resident has told us that they feel the issues they have experienced have had an impact on their health. We recognise that the situation has been distressing for them. However, complaints about the health impact are better suited for the courts or a personal injury insurance claim. We are unable to determine whether the landlord is responsible for any health impact.

Reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy from the time does not give any timescales that apply specifically to damp and mould. Its responsive repairs policy sets out that there is an expectation that work is completed within 10 working days. It also says that exceptions to this must not amount to more than 20 working days.
When the damp and mould was first reported by the resident, an initial visit was carried out within the 10 working days allowed under the responsive repairs policy and a fault was identified with a stack pipe. To complete the repair to this pipe the contractor needed to gain access to another property in the block. The landlord later said that it “could have done more to further investigate the issue and re-tried to gain access on more than just the one occasion”.
It is not clear why this was not attempted or what the access issues with the other property were. The landlord accepted it should have made more effort to gain access and fix the issue. It appropriately offered a payment of £150 to reflect the delays to the work being completed.
The resident explained that there were 4 missed appointments by the landlord’s contractor during the time of this complaint. The landlord has not disputed this and offered a payment of £80 from its contractor in the stage 2 response. For this failure alone, we consider this a reasonable offer.
The landlord’s records show that the resident told it work to inspect the boxing in the bathroom which concealed the soil stack and a replacement of the bathroom fan was completed on 26 June 2023. There is no evidence in the repair records showing when this was completed.
In contrast, a surveyor from the landlord visited the property on 11 September 2023. The surveyor’s report said “please arrange the following repairs to be carried out which were raised in February.” It said the work needed was:
1. Inspection of the boxing in the bathroom.
2. Replace the bathroom fan.
3. Mould wash to the living room window area.
4. Mould wash to the bedroom window area.
5. Clean and check kitchen fan.
That the landlord’s surveyor requested the same work suggests that the repairs were not completed between the resident’s complaint being raised and the date of the inspection. This is a failing.
The landlord’s repair records that have been provided to us do not show that this work was carried out after it was requested again by the surveyor. This is a further failure by the landlord.
The repair log only shows that the works were cancelled by the contractor on 10 November 2023, when the resident advised that they could not have the work done due to ongoing health issues. The resident was advised to tell the landlord when they were ready for the work to be completed.
If the resident did not subsequently tell the landlord that they were ready to have the work completed, then the landlord cannot be held solely responsible for not completing the work. However, the landlord does have a responsibility to complete maintenance work that is needed in the property and could reasonably have made efforts to follow up the work with the resident and contractor to ensure that this was completed quickly once the resident had recovered. This is also a failure.
The resident also complained that the landlord failed to pay the compensation offered as part of its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. The landlord explained that the compensation had not been paid because it had not received a signed compensation form back from the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to follow the process set out in its compensation guidance in this regard, although it would have been good practice for it to progress the payment in response to the resident’s concerns. It could also have explored any barriers to them accepting the compensation and their preferred method of payment, in line with its guidance.
Taking account of all the failings identified above, not all of which were appropriately redressed, we find there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The delays to the repairs and the lack of communication from the landlord had a significant impact on the resident. The resident made it clear from their first complaint that they were concerned about the impact the damp and mould would have on their health if it was allowed to continue. These concerns were made worse by the poor communication from the landlord. The resident also lost faith in the landlord and its contractor, which damaged the landlord-tenant relationship.
The landlord’s compensation guidance does not set out specific bandings or ranges of compensation for the types of delay experienced as part of these repairs, and explains that payments for distress and inconvenience should be made on a fair and reasonable basis. As a result, our remedies guidance will form the basis for calculating compensation payments.
Considering the delays in completing the repairs, the poor communication, and the distress and inconvenience caused, a payment of £500 should be made to the resident. This sits within the range for maladministration in our remedies guidance. This is appropriate as the resident suffered a significant impact in the short term but no long term effect. Our award includes the amounts already offered by the landlord.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. It will acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and provide a response within 20 working days.
The resident raised their complaint on 29 December 2022 and the landlord provided a response on 31 January 2023. This was after 22 working days and so was outside the 10-working-day timescale given in its complaints policy. This is a failing.
The resident asked to escalate their complaint to stage 2 on 31 August 2023 and this was not acknowledged until 10 October 2023. This was 28 days after the escalation request and was significantly outside the landlord’s 5-working-day policy timescale. This too was unreasonable.
The landlord explained to the resident on 2 November 2023 that it would need an extension to complete its investigation, and that the response would be provided by 21 November 2023. This was in line with its complaints policy, and the response was provided within this time.
The 20 working days that the landlord applied to provide its stage 2 response began once the escalated complaint was acknowledged. As a result, the delays in acknowledging the complaint also meant a delay in providing the resident with a response and a resolution to her concerns.
These delays in acknowledging the resident’s complaint is likely to have caused additional distress and inconvenience, especially when the resident had already advised the landlord of the concerns they had over the impact on their health. It also added to the breakdown of the landlord-tenant relationship and meant the resident was made to wait for repairs to be completed.
As a result of the above delays, and the fact that these were not acknowledged or redressed by the landlord in its responses, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord’s compensation guidance sets out potential awards for failing to provide a timely response to a complaint. It explains that for a delay where there is “low effort and low impact” a payment up to £50 can be made. There were delays at both stages of the complaints process that meet this criteria. So, for the delays at both stages a compensation payment of £100 should be made to the resident. This is in line with an award for maladministration in our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of this report:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay £600 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and is made up as follows:
  1. £500 for its delays in completing the damp and mould repairs and the communication around these. This includes the amount offered in the stage 1 and stage 2 responses, which can be deducted if already paid.
  2. £100 for its failures in complaint handling.
3. Complete the repairs identified in the surveyor’s inspection on 11 September 2023 if these have not already been completed. These are listed in paragraph 17 above.