Origin Housing Limited (202419576)

Decision
Case ID	202419576
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Origin Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	18 December 2025

Background

The resident asked the landlord to confirm whether an EWS1 was required following the refusal of his mortgage application. He said he had received contradictory advice and requested the landlord set out its position.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the fire risk and remediation works to the balcony.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the fire risk and remediation works to the balcony.
2. Service failure in its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord:
1. Took an unreasonably long time to start the remediation works to the balcony. This caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
2. Delayed in providing its Stage 2 complaint response, causing uncertainty to the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 16 January 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £600. (This includes the £60 awarded in its complaint process. The additional compensation is made up as follows: · £440 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the fire risk and remediation works to the balcony. · £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any compensation payments it has already paid. The landlord may not deduct the £420 it paid to refund the resident’s surveyor costs.	No later than 16 January 2026
3	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the balcony remediation works are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: · Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 16 January 2026
4	Communication The landlord to appoint a point of contact to provide written updates to the resident. The landlord is to write to the resident, providing their contact details and the frequency of contact he will receive until the works are completed. A copy of the letter to be provided to us	No later than 16 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 November 2023	The resident made a complaint to the landlord and said: When he tried to remortgage, the surveyor assessed an EWS1 form was required. Essential fire protection was missing from the balconies. He was told by the landlord it did not need to supply an EWS1 form to support a sale of the property. This was incorrect as the balcony had timber decking and there was a wooden partition between the neighbouring property. Any potential buyer would need an EWS1 form before any successful potential sale. The building safety team gave him incorrect advice and dismissed his enquiry. His preferred outcome was for the landlord to address the fire risks and to replace the timber frames to the balconies in line with the Building Safety Act 2022.
18 December 2023	The landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response. In summary it: Confirmed it had not completed an EWS1. Said it was responsible for the replacement of the combustible material on the balcony. Apologised for its error as it had believed an EWS1 form was not required when it was. Advised it had instructed its contractor to undertake an EWS1 form. It would inform him once the inspection was arranged. Said once the combustible materials were removed an EWS1 would not be required and would allow the resident to sell the property. The complaint was upheld as it had given misinformation regarding the need for an EWS1 form. For this it awarded £60 for the inconvenience experienced.
23 March 2024	The resident escalated the complaint advising he had been “bounced around between departments” and had not been kept updated. Also, the safety issues remained unaddressed.
15 May 2024	The landlord provided its Stage 2 complaint response and said: It had faced significant challenges to meet the demands of the Building Safety Act 2022. Had to prioritise its resources and funding to ensure it mitigated the highest risks. It intended to engage a specialist consultant to carry out a survey of the balconies and other areas at the property. Once it was available, it would give an update on the anticipated start date for any work. Programming of the work would be risk assessed. This may result in any work being delivered in future years. It accepted the resident had experienced unacceptable delays and gaps in its communication. For this it apologised and agreed to provide bi-monthly progress updates.
Between June 2024 to December 2025	After the complaint process ended the following happened. The landlord: Engaged a specialist consultant to carry out a detailed survey of the balconies. Decided leaseholders would not be charged for the remediation works. Updated residents in December 2025 and advised it had appointed a contractor and works would start in January 2026.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said his preferred outcome was for the landlord to complete the remediation works and to clarify if the balcony survey replaced the need for an EWS1. Also for the landlord to provide monthly updates regarding its progress on fire safety works.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Concerns about the remediation works to the balcony
Finding	Maladministration

Under the terms of the lease, and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the structure and exterior of the building.
It is appreciated the resident is in an extremely difficult situation through no fault of his own. Until he is provided with certification regarding the cladding material or the material is removed, the resident remains unable to sell the property as lenders will not lend on it.
The landlord’s records show a survey recommended in September 2022, the removal of the combustible timber to the balcony. There is no evidence it took any action regarding the report received. This is not reasonable as landlords are expected to have clear and realistic action plans with timescales kept under review and updated.
The landlord’s internal records said the delay in taking appropriate action was because of operational changes in the financial years 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 in its asset management team. Further details are not provided to account for the balcony works being overlooked. This provided limited insight into the reasons the landlord had failed to act and hindered our assessment of its ability to meet its obligations. This was not reasonable as the resident experienced excessive delays and a lack of resolution.
The landlord acknowledged in December 2023 that it had delayed in starting the remediation work to the balcony. It agreed to prioritise and carry out the remediation work in the following financial year 2024/2025. This was reasonable as we expect landlords to set out how it would achieve compliance to resolve defects.
It was reasonable for the landlord in its Stage 1 complaint response to acknowledge and apologise for its error when it told the resident an EWS1 was not required. It said, following review of the guidance it realised its mistake as an EWS1 was required. It said it had arranged for one to be carried out in January 2024 and explained that once it had completed the works to the balcony, an EWS1 would not be needed. Also, it was not required to provide a fire risk appraisal of external walls to him. This was necessary for the resident to be certain about its obligations.
Clear, open and transparent communication is essential so the resident understands their responsibilities and the role of the landlord. Miscommunication can lead to issues later, giving rise to complaints and making them harder to resolve. For those reasons it was important for the landlord in its Stage 2 complaint response to agree a person of contact to keep the resident updated.
We expect landlords to honour commitments given in its complaint responses as this improves the landlord and tenant relationship and provides trust in its complaint handling. The resident told us he did not receive regular communication from the landlord. This is not reasonable as we expect landlords to be proactive in its communication with regular updates given even when there is little to report.
The resident stated his concerns about the lack of clear information about the work start dates and requested the landlord provide a “comfort note.” In the landlord’s Stage 2 complaint response it informed the resident it was using a risk prioritisation system. As a result of this, works were likely to be delayed. This was not reasonable as it did not give the resident a realistic timeframe when the works would be completed. The landlord also did not respond to the resident’s request for a “comfort note.” While the comfort note is not legally enforceable it would have given the resident additional assurance it had taken responsibility for remedying the works required to the balcony. This caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident as he was unaware of when the works would start and it failed to show it had responded to the resident’s request.
The landlord contracted a specialist contractor in January 2024 to carry out an EWS1, who said an intrusive survey was required which would cost around 16K. On receiving that information, the landlord decided to instead remove the combustible material. The landlord is expected to use its resources efficiently in the delivery of its services, its decision making was reasonable as it also resolved the resident’s concerns.
The landlord told us the reason for the delayed start to the balcony works was it had to obtain and onboard a new contractor and the Section 20 consultation. The remediation works are planned to start in January 2026. As these issues did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord we considered, they cannot be investigated at this time. If the resident is dissatisfied with the delay, the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to his concerns. The resident can make a new complaint to the landlord. Once the issues have completed the landlord’s complaint process, he may bring the issues to us for consideration.
The landlord in its complaints review acknowledged it had made an error when it said an EWS1 was not required. For this it made a compensation award of £60. This was not sufficient as the compensation award did not recognise the delay the resident experienced in its recognition of the need for an EWS1 and then for the removal of the combustible material. Our Remedies Guidance states that payments between £100 to £600 are payable when a resident has been adversely affected by a landlord’s actions. For those reasons additional compensation of £440 has been awarded.
The resident has told us the landlord has refunded the £420 costs incurred for his valuation survey fees. There is no reason to doubt the resident’s account. The landlord had not told us it made such a payment to the resident.
Overall, the landlord unreasonably delayed in completing the remediation works to the balcony which adversely impacted the resident. For those reasons a finding of maladministration has been made and additional compensation of £440 awarded.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The resident complained to the landlord on 28 November 2023 about the remediation works required to the balcony. The landlord took 14 working days to respond on 18 December 2023. This was reasonable as it was just outside its Stage 1 complaint handling timescale of 10 working days.
The resident requested for the complaint to be kept open until all the issues was addressed. The landlord explained the complaint would be closed and an action plan raised for any promises to be monitored to completion. The landlord shared the action plan with the resident. This was reasonable as we expect complaints to be resolved at the earliest opportunity with residents given the landlord position on the complaint. Any commitments made in complaint responses monitored and residents kept updated.
The resident escalated the complaint on 23 March 2024 and the landlord issued its Stage 2 complaint response on 15 May 2024. The landlord took 35 working days. This was not reasonable as its complaint procedure states it will respond to complaints within 20 working days. Landlords should request an extension with the resident if it is unable to meet its published complaint handling time frame. There is no evidence it did so. This added to the frustration and uncertainty the delay caused to the resident.
The landlord in its complaints review did not recognise it did not meet its Stage 2 complaint handling time frame. It also did not consider whether it should offer a remedy for this. Our Remedies Guidance states that payment between £50 to £100 are payable for service failures for a short duration. For that reason, compensation of £100 has been awarded for the landlord’s complaint handling failures and a finding of service failure made.

Learning

The landlord should consider:
1. appointing a lead person responsible for the handling of multi-disciplinary complaints. This will ensure a holistic complaint response is sent to residents within its published timeframes.
2. Putting in place a communication plan for such works so residents have a named point of contact and receive regular updates about the work taking place.