Origin Housing Limited (202329774)

Background

1. The resident viewed a property with the landlord’s member of staff prior to a mutual exchange. She moved to the property with her children through the mutual exchange. She raised concerns with the landlord about outstanding repairs to the property and the fact some of the previous resident’s items remained in the home. She also raised repair issues after she took possession and told the landlord she could not live in the property due to the issues. She requested to move her to a bigger property. The landlord raised works to address the resident’s concerns which it completed in November 2023. The landlord explained to us that the resident ended her tenancy in August 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports about the condition of the resident’s property following a mutual exchange.
   2. Reports of repair issues with the property.
   3. Reports of staff conduct.
   4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. No maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports about the condition of the resident’s property following a mutual exchange.
   2. Reasonable redress with the landlord’s response to reports of repair issues with the property.
   3. A service failure with the landlord’s response to reports of staff conduct.
   4. Maladministration with the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports about the condition of the resident’s property following a mutual exchange

4. The resident and the landlord inspected the property in line with its mutual exchange policy. The resident accepted the property “as is”, as required by a mutual exchange. The landlord identified repairs which were its responsibility prior to the valid completion of the mutual exchange, but they remained outstanding after the resident signed the tenancy. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy however allows for it to complete repairs after the new resident moved into the property. This also meant as the resident had taken possession of the property through the exchange, she was responsible for removing any items left by the previous occupant. This is the same for any outstanding repairs they did not complete prior to the exchange.

Reports of repair issues with the property

5. The landlord poorly documented its handling of the repairs within its repair records. Its records provided no dates for completion of works, or explanation for delays. While there were significant delays, these were partly due to access issues. The landlord acted reasonably by offering to waive the resident’s rent, acknowledging delays, and offering compensation. It also replaced her kitchen when the evidence suggested repairs were not sufficient to resolve the issues it identified. Its offer of compensation was in line with its policy, our Remedies Guidance, and proportionate to the failings and detriment to the resident.

Reports of staff conduct concerns

6. The landlord failed to show it investigated all of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. It did not show that it investigated her concerns around its contractors conduct with her.

The complaint

7. The landlord failed to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint such as her concerns about its contractors conduct. This was a missed opportunity to explain its investigation and show that it had taken her concerns seriously and tell her what it found. It only focused on the fact it responded to her concerns about the conduct of its member of staff in its response of 23 March 2023.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. The evidence shows that the landlord and resident attended the property for an inspection prior to the exchange in line with the landlord’s mutual exchange policy. The resident explained that the previous occupant of the property had had their stuff in the property and therefore had masked repair issues. Often during mutual exchange inspections, properties contain the belongings of exchanging residents. This can make it difficult for parties to identify all outstanding repairs, as items may cover some repairs and make them invisible.
9. The resident also disputed that the landlord completed an inspection. However, a mutual exchange inspection is usually only a visual inspection of the property rather than an in depth survey. The resident’s evidence to us supports that such an inspection took place as she said to us on 7 July 2024 in relation to another complaint that “On the day she first went to view the house, the previous occupant told the landlord’s member of staff about concerns with the flooring and their belief of a water issue underneath the house”.
10. The landlord’s policy also makes it clear that repair issues which are the previous occupant’s responsibility, but remain outstanding after signing the necessary documents, become the responsibility of the new resident. The resident also explained that some of the previous occupant’s items remained in the property, however, as she accepted the property in the state it was in and signed the tenancy, responsibility for removing those items was with the resident, and not the landlord. The landlord confirmed this in its responses, and we found this was in line with its mutual exchange policy.
11. A mutual exchange is not a new tenancy, but a means by which residents’ step into the shoes of other residents they wish to exchange properties with. This means that the incoming resident takes up occupation of the property ‘as is’. The landlord does not need to carry out void checks, and the property may not be to the same standard of repair as a property which had gone through the landlord’s voids process. The landlord is only able to refuse a mutual exchange in certain circumstances, and the condition of the property is not one of the grounds on which a landlord can refuse a mutual exchange.
12. We understand that repairs remained outstanding following the mutual exchange. However, we cannot look at the landlord’s handling of the repairs prior to the mutual exchange as during this time the landlord was not in a legal relationship with the resident. We understand that this was frustrating for the resident, but we have found that the landlord acted in line with its mutual exchange policy during the events of the mutual exchange.
13. However, the landlord’s mutual exchange policy specifically says it will complete any repairs which were its responsibility, and which were outstanding prior to the exchange as soon as possible after the new resident moved into the property. As such we will investigate this in the following section.

14. The resident explained the situation affected her mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts can deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it lasted. We’ve not investigated this further as we do not have the required expertise. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
15. We have investigated between July 2022 and November 2023. This is because the landlord explained it completed the repairs which formed part of the resident’s concerns at this time. The landlord’s records show that the resident raised significant concerns with damp and mould after this which did not form part of her original complaint.
16. In July 2022, and prior to the mutual exchange, the evidence shows that the landlord inspected the property and identified repair issues. Some were the previous resident’s responsibility, for example, missing wall tiles, front door repairs, and damaged bannisters. Others were its responsibility, such as the kitchen countertops and flooring.
17. After the resident moved into the property, the landlord’s repair records show that it carried out a second inspection on 27 October 2022 and identified necessary repairs. It raised work orders, but the resident declined appointments. Its records explain that she did so because she wanted a new kitchen. In November 2022, the landlord agreed to replace the kitchen and added her to its replacement programme.
18. Between October 2022 and August 2023, the landlord raised 6 jobs according to its records. These included front door repairs, kitchen flooring, a damp and mould check, and kitchen inspections. Records show it repaired the front door in November 2022, and the resident confirmed satisfaction with the works. However, the records lack details about all the works raised by the landlord. They provide no explanation around access concerns, completion dates, or reasons for delays. This raises concerns about its record keeping.
19. In its March 2023 response, the landlord explained that contractors attempted 4 times between October 2022 and January 2023 to contact the resident for access but were unsuccessful. Attempts included telephone calls and letters. Despite raising jobs, its records do not show completion dates or reasons for delays. As such, while we acknowledge that the resident may not have lived at the property during this time, we cannot fully verify the reason for those delays. Poor record keeping hindered this investigation and the lack of information was inappropriate.
20. By 28 July 2023, the repairs remained outstanding according to the evidence. The landlord offered a reasonable solution. It asked the resident to either return to the property or provide her keys temporarily so it could complete the works without disrupting her family. This was an appropriate consideration by the landlord. It thought about the impact of the works on the family and placed them at the centre of its decision making.
21. The evidence shows that the resident objected to paying rent while not living in the property. However, by law, accepting a mutual exchange means accepting the property “as is.” When signing the tenancy, she accepted any outstanding repairs, including those left by the previous resident. The landlord continued charging rent because inspections suggested the property remained fit for occupation. It could also complete repairs while she lived there. There is no evidence the property was unsafe based on its repair responsibilities, or uninhabitable or to suggest the landlord should have considered temporary rehousing. Based on this, the landlord’s decision was reasonable.
22. Despite this, there were failings on the landlord’s part. Inspections in July and October 2022 identified the need to check for leaks under the bath and wastepipe. There is no evidence it completed these checks after the mutual exchange. They do not appear in repair logs or in the list of works named in September 2023. This raises further concerns about its record keeping.
23. The evidence suggests that the kitchen works remained outstanding for about 16 months. This was far beyond the 10 working day timeframe in its repairs policy for routine works. It is unclear if the landlord continued to treat the issue as a routine repair after adding it to its replacement programme. We would expect the landlord to explain how it categorised the works and provide a timeframe. We cannot see that it did, and this was inappropriate, raising concerns about its communication.
24. To ensure it completed the repairs in a reasonable timeframe, the landlord could have taken firm action, for example seeking an injunction. This would have ensured it met its legal obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
25. In July 2023, the landlord offered to waive rent if the resident temporarily provided her keys. It inspected the property again in September 2023, identified further issues, and began repairs in October 2023. While the inspection did not evidence the property being uninhabitable, it waived her rent during this period. This was a customer focused approach. It demonstrated that the landlord considered her circumstances and was solution orientated.
26. The evidence shows that the landlord completed all internal works identified on 13 September 2023 by 4 October 2023. Although this exceeded the 10 working day target, it was within the 20 working day exception allowed by its repairs policy. It raised external works on 5 October 2023 and confirmed it completed them on the same day. Overall, this handling was appropriate.

Conclusion

27. The landlord offered £150 compensation at stage 2, in line with its compensation policy allowing up to £250. There was a 16 month delay between July 2022 and November 2023, far beyond policy timeframes. While much of the delay was due to lack of access, the landlord could have taken additional steps to meet its obligations. We also identified some record keeping, and communication concerns.
28. The landlord’s compensation offer addressed delays in handling some repairs and delays in replacing the kitchen. It also waived rent from September 2023 until at least 15 November 2023 while it held the keys to the property, a period of around 3 months. This was a further considerable step to put things right for the resident, given there was no evidence that the property was uninhabitable. This offer was proportionate and aligned with our Remedies Guidance, as the failings did not cause significant permanent detriment. Together with the further action to replace the kitchen and complete the repair, the compensation and waiving the rent from September 2023 provided reasonable redress for the failures we have identified in this report.

29. The resident complained to the landlord that its member of staff was late, unprofessional, did not complete an inspection, and offered no help with repairs prior to the mutual exchange. She reported in March 2023 that a contractor called her property “trash”. She also said in September 2023 that a contractor insulted her, calling her a “waste of space and liar,” and said the housing officer failed to address this.
30. In its March 2023 response, the landlord explained it had spoken to the housing officer, who confirmed they arrived on time. The schedule of works from July 2022 also suggests it completed an inspection. The landlord’s explanation that it spoke to the staff member and obtained their account was appropriate. It demonstrated that it investigated the resident’s concern in this respect.
31. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it investigated the contractor’s alleged comments on 2 separate occasions and this was inappropriate. It should have carried out a robust investigation to establish what occurred and whether it could substantiate the resident’s allegations. A resident may see a failure to do so as bias and this could impact the landlord and tenant relationship negatively. The landlord as such missed opportunities to remind its contractors of expected standards towards residents, even if it found no concerns with their conduct, and reassure the resident.

32. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code of providing its responses within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It also allows the landlord to request extensions where necessary to provide its response. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint on 29 November 2022 until 8 March 2023 when she raised another complaint. To address the delay of over 3 months in its complaint handling, it offered the resident compensation of £150 and apologised. However, there were further failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.
33. Following the landlord’s response in March 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint on the same day. The landlord however did not provide a stage 2 response despite contacting the resident to ask how much compensation she felt was warranted on 30 March 2023. Within her escalation request she raised concerns about the landlord’s contractor. She also raised concerns about ants in the property. She explained that the contractor told her they could not fix the problems with the property as it was “trash”. As she felt her concerns remained unresolved, in relation to the contractors, she raised a third complaint. This was inappropriate and not in line with its obligations to respond at both stages of a complaint.
34. Within this complaint she raised concerns again about its contractor’s conduct. In its response to her complaint in September 2023, it said it had responded to her staff conduct concerns in its response in March 2023. It only responded at stage 1, despite the resident’s request for escalation. It denied the resident the opportunity of a 2 stage complaints process about the issue. The landlord then failed to ever respond to her concerns about its contractor’s conduct between 28 March 2023 and 24 November 2023, a delay of over 7 months across 2 complaints, and this was not in line with its complaints policy.
35. Furthermore, the resident initially raised concerns in November 2022. The landlord failed to address them in a responsible manner through its complaints process. This means that the complaints process ran for around 1 year between November 2022 and November 2023 and we consider this excessive and inappropriate.
36. The landlord however provided its responses at both stages of her complaint within the necessary timeframes within its policy. It however did not treat the stage 2 escalation as a formal response. After deciding to accept the escalation, it decided to treat it as a compensation review. We understand that the resident’s main concern was about the compensation, however this was another opportunity for the landlord to respond and set out its position on the repairs. Rather than reviewing its compensation offer, it should have reviewed the level of service provided across her concerns and decided whether its position remained reasonable. The failure to do so was inappropriate.

Learning

37. While the landlord’s policy makes each parties responsibilities clear around mutual exchanges, it may be helpful to provide verbal explanations or ensure residents completing exchanges read and understand the policy and keep a record of this. That way it can avoid unnecessary complaints about such issues.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord should make sure its records show when it completed works, explain any gaps in evidence, and show exactly what works it addressed within specific work orders, with completion dates for each aspect. This will allow it to show whether it adhered to the timeframes within its policies.
39. The landlord should also ensure its logs reflect the reasons for any delays in works completed to allow for identification of whether residents actions contributed to any delays in completing raised works.
40. The landlord should ensure it logs and fully understands a resident’s complaint and escalation. While it may have responded to some aspects, it should consider whether the resident has raised any new issues it needs to respond to that its previous response may not cover.

Communication

41. The landlord should ensure where there are delays, which are its own or its contractor’s fault, it promptly updates residents.