Origin Housing Limited (202416022)

Decision
Case ID	202416022
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Origin Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

1. The resident has various physical and mental health conditions which the landlord was aware of. She had support from a community nurse (CN). The resident said she had been reporting damage to the hallway floor due to a front door leak for many years. She said she had been reporting multiple wet room repairs since it was installed and asked it to remove a heated towel rail. The resident said the landlord had agreed to repair an internal fire door and she asked it to replace an electric mirror unit.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. multiple repairs in the property.
   2. the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. multiple repairs in the property.
   2. the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Multiple repairs in the property

4. The landlord did not evidence that it inspected the repairs raised in the resident’s complaints. It offered to carry out some works but said it had difficulty agreeing with the resident on how they would be done. It has provided little evidence of efforts to complete the agreed works and did not confirm its position on the other repairs.
5. The landlord did not consider whether the property was fit for human habitation or respond to the reported risks and health impact while the repairs were incomplete, despite the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Complaint

6. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint at stage 1. Its complaint responses were delayed at both stages, and it did not clearly set out its position on each of the repairs in its complaint responses.

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 provided by a senior member of staff. 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 07 January 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: inspects the: –          wet room issues reported including pipework, uneven flooring, pooling water, broken doors and seat. –          mirror unit and heated towel rail. –          internal fire door. –          front door leak and hallway flooring. produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. a full scope of works to achieve lasting and effective repairs (if the landlord is responsible). the likely timescales to commence and complete the work. whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 07 January 2026
4	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the 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. whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 07 January 2026
5	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,850 made up as follows: £1650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of multiple repairs. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. 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 payments it has already paid as offered in its complaint responses.	No later than 07 January 2026
6	Specific action The landlord must set out its position on any flooring repairs it excluded from its complaints process to the resident in writing. It must provide us with a copy of this.	No later than 07 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 February 2023	The landlord agreed to complete some works at the property.
October 2023	The landlord’s contractors raised safety concerns about working at the property due to the number of pets. It asked the local council’s environmental health department (EH team) to inspect.
10 March 2024	The resident raised a complaint. She asked the landlord to replace the bathroom mirror unit with one not connected to the electric and asked if this was part of the planned repairs schedule. The resident also asked it to replace a radiator (heated towel rail). She said it caused health and safety risks, was rusty, did not function, and its proximity to the toilet was a potential burn risk.
20 March 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint about her request for the landlord to remove the mirror unit.
21 March 2024	The resident complained. She said the landlord agreed to repair/replace the wet room in 2020 but had failed to do so. She mentioned uneven flooring which had caused falls, broken doors and seat, pipework issues and an incorrectly located towel rail. She asked if it was refusing to complete these repairs.
25 March 2024	The resident complained about a fire door between the kitchen and hall that did not close. She said the landlord had agreed to repair it in 2023.   The landlord told the resident it would: inspect the mirror unit and towel rail while the resident was temporarily rehoused, and it was completing other repairs. not respond to a separate complaint about floor repairs as its disrepair team was investigating this. do an up-to-date wet room inspection to confirm required works.   The resident told the landlord outstanding repairs to the entrance hall floor and “failed” wet room were impacting her health.
3 April 2024	The local council’s EH team inspected the property.
8 April 2024	The resident raised a complaint by phone about the bathroom mirror unit, towel rail, wet room repairs and complaint handling.
9 April 2024	The resident told the landlord there were ongoing issues with damage to the hallway, bathroom and landing floors.
22 April 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response and said: it had no evidence the resident had previously reported the repairs before 10 March 2024. after a EH team’s visit, it had agreed the works they recommended. it would inspect the property when she was temporarily rehoused the following month, to avoid unnecessary disruption. it would meet the resident’s advocate and CN to agree on how the works would be completed, taking into account her needs. it advised her to contact the EH team for updates.
23 April 2024	The resident escalated her complaint, stating she had reported issues for years, some handled by the disrepair team. She raised concerns about a leak from the front door damaging the hallway floor, a poorly installed wet room needing replacement, and a rusting mirror unit with connected electrics she believed was unsafe. She also reported that the internal fire door would not close. The resident was unhappy that repairs were delayed until she was temporarily rehoused, citing health and safety concerns and feeling her vulnerabilities were not considered. She said the EH team had not updated her and she did not know which works would be completed.
22 July 2024	The EH team issued a Hazard Awareness Notice on the landlord saying: the water not draining from the shower was a category 1 hazard. It should investigate and remedy this. the heated towel rail near the toilet was a category 2 hazard. It should relocate it or provide alternative bathroom heating. the gap in the front door causing a leak was a category 2 hazard. It should repair the door gap and instal suitable hall flooring.
14 August 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response and said: it attended on 13 June 2024 and had sent her a works schedule. it would complete works in August and September to the hallway, landing and wet room flooring. It said it would also complete wet room repairs, ensure water drainage, relocate the radiator in the wet room, and complete remedial works in the kitchen and bathroom. the resident would need to move out for some works to be completed, and it was waiting for her confirmation about this. after it agreed to works on 24 February 2023 it tried to agree works with her solicitor. It said it could have offered more support and tried to discuss works with her. It set out learning from this. it understood her CN was keeping her updated following multi–agency meetings. It offered further support if required. it offered £750 compensation for the impact of delayed works. it offered £100 for its delayed complaint response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy that the landlord had not completed any of the repairs. She said this had a significant impact on her wellbeing.   The landlord carried out further inspections and proposed works in 2024 and 2025 but has not completed the works, citing difficulties due to the resident agreeing to the terms of arrangements for the repairs and accommodation. The resident said there is damp and mould in the property due to the water pooling in the wet room and leaking downstairs into the kitchen every time she showers.

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	Multiple repairs
Finding	Maladministration

7. The resident reported that multiple repairs were ongoing for years. It is unclear from the evidence when the resident first reported some of the repairs and this is disputed by the parties. The evidence suggests the landlord was aware of some of the repairs the resident referred to in her complaint by February 2023 and has assessed its actions from this period. We have also investigated from February 2023.
8. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, it was the landlord’s responsibility to repair installations it provided for the supply of electricity including electric wiring and to keep heating installations in good working order. It was also responsible for repairing floors, installations it provided for water and sanitation, and internal doors. It was the landlord’s responsibility to keep floors and external doors in good repair.
9. The evidence suggests some wet room repairs, the front door leak and hallway floor repairs may have been part of the works the landlord agreed to complete in 2023 although it has not provided evidence of the agreed works.

Mirror unit and heated towel rail

10. When the landlord received reports about the mirror unit on 10 March 2024, it would have been reasonable for it to assess and confirm whether this was its responsibility and complete repairs in line with its repairs policy if so. It internally discussed that it would arrange a surveyor to inspect but did not inform the resident of this until 25 March 2024, and she had to chase it for a response.
11. The resident said she had asked the landlord to remove the towel rail in 2022, although we have not seen evidence of this. When the resident reported the heated towel rail repair on 10 March 2024, it would have been reasonable for it to inspect and repair it in line with its repairs policy, which said it would complete non urgent repairs within 20 working days and emergency repairs within 2 hours. It would also have been reasonable for it to assess whether there were any health and safety implications, as the resident suggested. However, it did not do so.
12. Given that the resident had raised health and safety concerns about the towel rail which the landlord had not assessed, its stage 1 position to delay inspecting it until it temporarily rehoused her was unreasonable.
13. On 20 April 2024 the resident repeated her safety concerns about the towel rail. In its stage 1 response, the landlord unreasonably failed to address these health and safety concerns or confirm whether it would repair or replace the mirror unit and heated towel rail. After the EH team identified the towel rail as a category 2 hazard, it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm in its stage 2 response that it would relocate it.

Wet room repairs

14. The resident said the landlord completed a report about issues with the wet room after it installed it, but we have not seen a copy of this. When the resident asked the landlord to complete wet room repairs to the floor, doors and seat, and pipes, it would have been reasonable for it to inspect and confirm which repairs it was responsible for.
15. The landlord confirmed it would complete an up-to-date inspection of the wet room to confirm the required works. However, it has not provided evidence that it inspected or completed any identified repairs in line with its repairs policy. It did not respond to the resident’s reports that the wet room repairs were impacting her health, including her report that the flooring caused falls, which was unreasonable.
16. On 17 April 2024 the resident reported that the shower tray in the wet room was too high, and the floor was still uneven. The landlord did not complete repairs in line with the repairs policy or confirm its position on these repairs to the resident.
17. On 5 August 2024 the resident said the flooding from the shower in the bathroom continued. She said that with the uneven flooring, was a trip hazard and that she was at increased risk due to arthritis. That the landlord did not respond to her concerns about this was unreasonable.
18. When the landlord was notified that the water was not draining from the shower was a category 1 hazard, it was reasonable for it to agree to wet room works including to the flooring and ensuring water drainage. However, it did not specifically confirm whether it would complete works to the broken doors, seat, and pipes.

Fire door

19. The resident said the landlord inspected and agreed to repair the internal fire door on 7 February 2023. We have not seen evidence of this. On 25 March 2024 when the resident reported the fire door issue, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect and complete any repairs in line with its repairs policy. It internally discussed raising works to inspect the door but there is no evidence it raised or completed these works, which is unreasonable.
20. Given that the landlord had not responded to the resident’s reports about the fire door, it was unreasonable for it not to confirm its position on this in its stage 1 response. Despite the resident raising this again when escalating her complaint, it did not specifically confirm its position on the fire door in its stage 2 response.

Front door leak and damaged hallway floor

21. After the resident reported on 25 March 2024 that outstanding repairs to the entrance hall floor were affecting her health, the landlord should have confirmed if it had already agreed to complete the works. If not, it would have been reasonable for it to have inspected and carried out repairs in line with its policy. It should also have responded to the resident’s concerns about the impact to her health and assessed any risk.
22. The landlord did not respond in line with its repairs policy in March 2024, or when the resident reported a leak from the front door damaging the hallway floor again on 23 April 2024.
23. When the EH team notified the landlord that the gap in the front door was a category 2 hazard, it was reasonable for it to confirm it would repair the hallway flooring in its stage 2 response. However, it did not specifically confirm that it would complete repairs to the gap in the front door or confirm its position on this which was unreasonable.

The landlord’s attempts to complete repairs

24. The landlord has not provided evidence of which works it agreed in February 2023, or its attempts to complete works between February and October 2023, which has impacted our ability to assess its actions. It acknowledged that it could have offered more support and discussed the works with the resident in this period.
25. In October 2023, when the landlord asked the EH team to inspect the property to confirm it was safe for its contractors, it did not assess whether any temporary repairs or solutions were required while it was awaiting the outcome. Given that it had not assessed the priority of the outstanding repairs, this was unreasonable. In January 2024 the EH team confirmed the resident’s pets were not a health risk and that the resident needed substantial support from the landlord. Following this, the landlord has not provided evidence that it took any action until it visited the resident on 11 March 2024, which was unreasonable delay in progressing the outstanding repairs.
26. In March 2024, the EH team reported a “sticking point” about the resident leaving the property for repairs. The landlord said it was trying to agree temporary accommodation and arrangements for the resident’s pets, but it provided no evidence of this, limiting our ability to assess its actions.
27. The landlord inspected the property on 3 April 2024 but had not shown the outcome or confirmed it updated the resident, which was a failure in its communication and record keeping. It attended 3 multi-agency meetings between 17 April and 26 June 2024, some with the resident’s support network, and agreed to complete works identified by EH. However, it has not provided a copy of the agreed works or schedule.
28. In its stage 1 response, the landlord should have set out EH’s findings and the agreed works. When the complaint was escalated, it should have assessed any risks and addressed the resident’s concerns about delays linked to temporary rehousing. Given the resident said EH had not updated her, the landlord should have provided a clear update and confirmed a schedule.
29. The resident said the landlord completed other inspections in May and June 2024. The landlord said it inspected on 13 June 2024. It has not provided evidence of these visits. The evidence suggests the landlord did not provide the resident with details of these visits, or the planned works, despite her requests. This was unreasonable and may have contributed to the delays in completing the works. It said it proposed a schedule of works to her on 30 June 2024 but has not evidenced this.
30. In June 2024 the landlord told the resident it was trying to make arrangements with her to complete the repairs, but it has not provided evidence of this. In July 2024, the EH team said there had been a breakdown in the relationship between the resident and landlord. The landlord said the resident had refused to agree the specific arrangements for it to complete, including temporary rehousing and arrangements for her pets. The resident said she wanted it to complete the repairs.
31. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool introduced by the Housing Act 2004. HHSRS identifies multiple potential health hazards including drainage, hot surfaces, and falls. Section 9.A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA) requires landlords to ensure defects (which may include hazards under the HHSRS) do not cause them to be unfit for human habitation.
32. Given the resident’s multiple reports about health and safety concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider the impact on habitability and take steps to mitigate any risks until it completed the repairs. Although the landlord agreed to complete works, it did not respond to the resident’s concerns about health and safety or health impact or take timely action to assess and mitigate risks.

Summary

33. The landlord has provided limited evidence of any contact with the resident or her solicitors, its inspections or proposed works. At stage 2 it acknowledged some failures and offered some redress. However, it did not address all its failures and the compensation offered was not proportionate to the length of delays and the impact on the resident. The resident said the incomplete repairs caused her distress which she said was increased due to her mental and physical health conditions. She said she couldn’t leave the property often and was worried about the impact of the property’s condition on her health.
34. The landlord made some attempts to progress repairs and put things right. However, it did not acknowledge its failure to consider whether the property was fit for human habitation or the significant impact on the resident. There were periods when it showed little attempt to progress repairs, and the works are still outstanding.
35. We have therefore made orders for it to put things right in line with our remedies guidance for a failure where the landlord made some attempt to put things right but failed to fully address the detriment to the resident, and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

36. We have assessed the landlord’s complaint handling against the 2022 and 2024 Complaint Handling Codes (the Codes). The landlord’s complaints policy timescales for responding to complaints complied with the Codes. Its previous complaints policy did not require acknowledgement of a complaint in line with the Codes. Its current policy does.
37. On 25 March 2024 the landlord said it would not cover flooring in its complaint as its disrepair team was dealing with this. It is unclear which flooring it was referring to. Given that a disrepair claim had not been issued, this was not in line with its complaints policy. It confirmed it had excluded ‘floor repairs’ from the complaint on 9 April 2024 after the resident mentioned hallway, bathroom and landing flooring repairs. It was again unclear which repairs it had excluded from its complaint process, which was a communication failure.
38. It was reasonable for the landlord to treat the resident’s request to replace the mirror unit on 10 March 2024 as a service request. However, it did not make this clear to her, which was unreasonable. The resident raised complaints on 20, 21 and 25 March and 8 April 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge these complaints in line with the Codes.
39. It was reasonable for the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaints about multiple issues within 1 complaint response. However, it would have been helpful for it to assess and confirm its position on each repair issue separately, especially as the resident had asked it to do so.
40. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response between 10 and 22 working days after the resident raised her complaint, which did not meet its policy. The resident had to chase a response. It acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on the day of escalation, in line with the 2024 Code. It issued the stage 2 response 79 working days later, which was an unreasonable delay and not in line with its complaints policy. It gave no explanation for the delay and did not agree any extensions with the resident.
41. The landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures at stage 1. It acknowledged its stage 2 delay in its stage 2 response, offered some redress and set out some learning. However, it did not acknowledge all its failures and the redress offered was not proportionate to its failures. We have therefore made orders for the landlord to put things right in line with our remedies guidance for a failure where the landlord made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

42. The landlord failed to provide details of inspections, agreed works, and its attempts to complete the repairs. It referred to evidence in its complaint responses that it did not provide us with. This has impacted our ability to investigate this complaint.

Communication

43. That the landlord did not make any exclusions from its complaints process clear, and did not clarify its position on each repair in its complaint responses was likely confusing for the resident.