Origin Housing Limited (202325588)

Decision
Case ID	202325588
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Origin Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	23 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat on the second floor of a block. The block has a communal area which includes a lift and a cycle store. The resident has complained about the security of the cycle store, the lift being frequently out of service, and a leak into her flat.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
1. the security of the communal cycle store.
2. lift repairs.
3. a leak.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the security of the communal cycle store.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s reports about lift repairs.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a leak.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

In summary, the Ombudsman found that:
1. The landlord did not complete repairs to secure the communal cycle store in line with its repairs policy.
2. While the landlord acknowledged it had delayed in responding to the resident’s correspondence about lift repairs, there is no evidence it responded as promised.
3. It resolved the communal leak it investigated during the complaints process in line with its repairs policy.
4. The landlord delayed responding at both stages of the complaints process. It also failed to confirm its understanding of the complaint at stage 1 and raise a new complaint about a different leak.

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 20 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £725 made up as follows: £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about the security of the communal cycle store. £100 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about the lift repairs. £375 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor 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.	No later than 20 November 2025
3	Inspection order The landlord must arrange an inspection of the lock to the cycle store. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. What the inspection must achieve Confirm if the repair is still required. If a repair is needed, a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue. The likely timescales to commence and complete any necessary work.	No later than 20 November 2025
4	The landlord is to contact the resident regarding her complaint about a leak to confirm if she would like it to open a further complaint about this matter.	No later than 20 November 2025

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
All staff are trained on its complaint policy to ensure complaints are processed according to its policy.
The landlord should review its staff training needs in regard to the importance of communicating with residents throughout the repair process.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 August 2023	The resident was included in a group complaint to the landlord from resident’s of the block. This was about repairs and compensation for lift breakdowns.
30 September 2023	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said someone had entered the cycle store that day and closed off the water supply. She asked the landlord to secure the water tank access and install a new lock to the cycle store. The resident also explained she was having issues with a leak and the lift.
6 December 2023	We asked the landlord to provide a stage 1 response to the resident because she told us she had not had a response to her complaint.
14 December 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. This said: It was following up with its contractor to secure access to the water tank in the cycle store. It raised a repair on 22 November 2023 to the cycle store lock. A leak in the communal area was reported on 29 September 2023. It completed repairs on 6 and 24 October 2023. It failed to correctly pick up the resident’s complaint and offered £75 compensation for its delayed response.
22 December 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said the repairs to secure the cycle store remained outstanding, and she was complaining about a different leak. The landlord escalated the complaint on 22 February 2024 after contact from us.
4 March 2024	The landlord provided its final response. It said: It had asked its contractor for an update on a new lock and securing access to the water tank. Staff shortages had caused delays in responding to enquires about the lift repairs in December 2023. Compensation in regard to the lift for all residents would be picked up separately outside of the resident’s complaint. The leak the resident had raised in her escalation was not the leak that formed part of the complaint. It had raised the issue to its contractor. It increased its offer of compensation to £375. This included £275 for poor complaint handling, and £100 in recognition of delays to the enquires raised.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and offer of compensation. She has asked us to investigate her complaint.

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	Handing of the resident’s reports about the security of the communal cycle store
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord did not complete these repairs in line with the timescales in its repairs policy of 20 working days. The resident reported the repairs on 30 September 2023. The landlord’s final response of 4 March 2024 stated the repairs were still outstanding. However, its records show it completed the work to secure access to the water tank on 8 February 2024, with further works completed on 19 March 2024. The resident confirmed to us the repair to the replacement door lock remained outstanding. There is no evidence that this has been completed. The resident told us she purchased her own lock but it is not clear if this has fully resolved the issue.
This is a communal repair in an area that is under the direct control of the landlord. As such a resident does not need to give notice for the landlord’s repairing obligation to arise. As it is in a communal area the landlord ought to have in place procedures for regular inspection and reporting about issues in these areas. This would have allowed it to know when the disrepair occurred and if, and when, it has been properly repaired. The responsibility should not be on the resident to raise, chase and update the landlord on the status of the repair.
On 2 October 2023, the landlord told the resident it had raised the repairs with its contractor. The evidence shows the resident had to chase the landlord for an update. The resident also asked for a timeframe for the work on 17 October 2023. There was no evidence of the landlord providing this. Its repairs policy says it will let the resident reporting a communal repair know the timeframe for completion. Its communication here was poor and not in line with its repairs policy. As such, she did not know when the repair would take place.
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged it had raised jobs but not competed them. It confirmed a new maglock was needed for the cycle store door. The landlord’s records show this was raised to a contractor in November 2023. The landlord did not provide a reason for the delays.
The landlord should have a robust repair process that tracks outstanding repairs, their status, completion, and any post-inspection checks. There appears to be insufficient oversight of the contractor to ensure awareness of what work has been raised, completed, and when.
The landlord went some way to putting things right. It acknowledged its delays and offered part of £100 overall compensation for this. However, it failed to identify the reasons for the delays or complete the repair to the lock as promised.

Complaint	Handling of the resident’s reports about lift repairs
Finding	Service failure

The resident was part of a group complaint to the landlord in August 2023 about its handling of repairs to the lift. This group complaint has not been considered as part of this investigation. This investigation centres on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint on 30 September 2023.
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been ongoing issues with the lift since February 2023. It confirmed that it was calculating compensation for all residents separately from the resident’s complaint. At the time of the resident’s own complaint, the group complaint was at stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will not consider matters which have already been or are currently being considered under the complaints policy. This was also in line with the Code. Therefore, its response was reasonable.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident had not received a response to her email outside of the group complaint. The email was in response to its consultation for works to the lift. The evidence shows the resident had followed up on her email multiple times. The landlord explained the delays were due to staff shortages and it would ensure she received a response. It offered overall compensation at stage 2 of £100 for delays in responses. However, we have not seen evidence of a response as promised. The resident confirmed to us that she did not receive this. Therefore, the landlord failed to fully put this right for the resident.

Complaint	Handling of the resident’s reports about a leak
Finding	No maladministration

In her complaint, the resident said she was having difficulties with the landlord’s handling of a leak. The landlord’s records show a report about a communal leak on 29 September 2023. The landlord attended on 6 October 2023 to repair this and completed follow up work on 24 October 2023. The timeframe here was in line with its repairs policy.
At stage 2, the resident told the landlord that the leak it investigated at stage 1 was not the leak she was complaining about. She said this was a different leak which had been ongoing since 2020. At stage 2, the landlord said this leak had not formed part of her complaint. We have investigated this in the complaints handling part of the investigation.
At stage 2, the landlord instructed its contractors to investigate the other leak raised. This was appropriate given that the resident had reported the leak was still occurring. The landlord’s records show it attended to investigate this leak in March 2024.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the communal leak it investigated during the complaints process was in line with its policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition (April 2022). The landlord had a published complaints policy at the time which complied with the terms of the Code.
The landlord took 51 working days to respond at stage 1. While the landlord responded on 2 October 2023 to the resident’s complaint email, it was not clear if this was logged as a complaint. It failed to send an acknowledgement or contact the resident about her complaint until 12 December 2023. This was after contact from us. The landlord failed to follow its policy and acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 December 2023. The landlord did not escalate this until 22 February 2024 after contact from us. The landlord explained that it had continued to correspond with the resident and had asked her to allow it more time to resolve the complaint. It is noted the landlord had advised the resident that she could escalate her complaint if she remained unhappy. However, this approach was not in line with its policy or the Code.
The landlord took 48 working days to respond at stage 2. This was not in line with its policy or the Code.
On 30 September 2023, the resident had complained about a leak. At stage 1 the landlord investigated a communal leak that had been reported the day prior to the complaint. At stage 2, the resident told the landlord that the leak it had investigated was not the leak she was complaining about. She clarified that the leak was an existing one since February 2020 with water coming through the wall above her balcony door.
The landlord’s email to the resident on 12 December 2023 referenced a call to the resident that day about her stage 1 complaint. We have not seen records of this call. As explained above there is also no evidence of a formal stage 1 acknowledgement letter to confirm the points of the complaint. As such, the landlord failed to set out its understanding of the resident’s complaint in line with the Code.
At stage 2 the landlord confirmed this leak was not part of the complaint because it was a new issue. While it raised it as a service request, it failed to open a new complaint for the resident. This was not in line with the Code. This says where residents raise an additional complaint and the stage one has been issued, this should be logged as a new complaint. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to do so because the resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction about its handing of the issue in her complaint escalation. As a result, the resident has not received a response to her complaint on this matter.
The landlord attempted to remedy its poor complaint handling through its apology and offer of £275 compensation. However, it did not recognise the full impact of its failings or the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Learning

The landlord should have a robust process in place that will initially notify it and keep it informed of repairs that arise and remain outstanding in the communal areas as it is under the landlord’s direct control. It should not be reliant on residents to report these disrepairs.
The landlord did not correctly monitor its repairs process which indicates a record keeping failing. It should have sufficient oversight of its contractors so that it is aware of the status of all repairs that have been raised with them and carry out sufficient post work processes to confirm satisfactory completion.
It failed to communicate effectively with the resident about her complaint. Had the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint appropriately at stage 1, it would have identified the leak she was complaining about.
The landlord should acknowledge complaints in line with the Code. This lets the resident know that their complaint has been received and also helps to clarify the resident’s and the landlord’s understanding of what is being complained about. The landlord should consider if there is a need for further training for its staff in regard to this.
The landlord should ensure that its complaints are responded to within the timescales in the Code and if this cannot be met that extensions are agreed with the resident in line with the Code.