Origin Housing Limited (202332476)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332476

Origin Housing Limited

22 August 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:
1. Reports of racial discrimination
2. Reports of poor communication
3. Concerns about its oversight of the housing cooperative’s responsibilities
4. Associated complaint

Background

The resident lives in a flat and is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident’s flat is part of a small number of properties managed by a housing cooperative (referred to in this report as ‘the cooperative’) on behalf of the landlord. The cooperative outsources its day-to-day housing services to a separate organisation, referred to in this report as ‘the managing agent.’
The resident is recorded as vulnerable on the landlord’s customer information system.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 9 October 2023:
1. Racial discrimination
  1. She said the cooperative had racially discriminated against her by failing to respond to letters she sent in 2022. She said she wanted the landlord to take ‘appropriate’ action against the cooperative for not responding to her letters and for failing to meet its 10-day response target.
2. Poor communication
  1. She said she had asked when the cooperative would adopt the landlord’s policies on antisocial behaviour (ASB) and supporting vulnerable residents. She said she had not received a response and asked the landlord to confirm when the cooperative would begin following these policies.
  2. The resident said a client relationship officer, employed by the managing agent, took 18 months to respond to a letter she sent in 2021. She said she wanted the officer to take responsibility for the delay, rather than referring the matter to the cooperative. She asked the landlord to assign another staff member as her point of contact for future communication with the managing agent.
3. Cooperative not meeting its responsibilities
  1. The resident said the cooperative was not meeting its responsibilities under the management agreement, as the landlord had to chase it to respond to her letters. She asked the landlord to consider taking back direct management of its properties and to monitor the performance of the managing agent. She said the cooperative should consider using a different organisation to carry out its services.
On 6 November 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident:
1. Racial discrimination
  1. It accepted that the cooperative had not responded to some of the resident’s earlier letters and said it had already apologised for this. The landlord also addressed a separate complaint the resident had raised in 2021. That complaint was also about her concerns of racial discrimination by the cooperative. The landlord said its responses at the time could have been more empathetic when explaining that it did not have enough evidence to support the resident’s allegations.
  2. The landlord revisited some of the questions it asked in 2021, such as whether the resident could provide CCTV footage of the alleged discrimination. It said it was unsure if she had provided this evidence and asked if she had any further information to support her claim. It also asked her for an update on a police investigation, as she had reported the cooperative to the police.
  3. The landlord also referred to a previous determination by this service (case 202205059), which found that poor recordkeeping had prevented it from carrying out a full investigation into the resident’s racial discrimination allegations. The landlord said those records still did not exist, so it remained limited in what further action it could take. It confirmed it had already complied with the determination, including paying compensation to the resident.
2. Poor communication
  1. The landlord said it would remind the cooperative of the importance of service standards and timely responses to residents. It told the resident she should raise future concerns and complaints directly with the cooperative, not the managing agent. It said it expected the cooperative to already be adopting its policies and that this was being monitored closely.
3. Cooperative not meeting its responsibilities
  1. The landlord said that it had carried out a light-touch review of the cooperative in 2022. This led to agreement that the management agreement needed updating. The revised agreement was awaiting approval from the cooperative management committee, and the landlord expected it to be in place by early 2024. It said the new agreement included a stronger performance framework to improve oversight and support.
  2. The landlord asked the resident if she had any recent concerns about the cooperative not following the agreement, as previous issues had already been addressed. It said it currently met with the cooperative quarterly to discuss performance issues and had no immediate plans to take back management of the properties.
On 8 November 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She raised the following concerns:
1. Racial discrimination
  1. She asked why the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response had focused on her 2021 allegation of racial discrimination, rather than the more recent issue of the cooperative failing to respond to her letters in 2022.
  2. She said she had already provided an update on the CCTV evidence and police investigation
  3. She said the landlord had not investigated her racial discrimination reports thoroughly and asked for reassurance that she would not experience further discrimination
  4. She also said she was worried she could be victimised by the managing agent’s client relationship officer, even if she did not have direct contact with them.
2. Poor communication
  1. The resident said she did not accept the landlord’s apology for the letters the cooperative failed to respond to. She said she wanted the landlord to take stronger action.
3. Cooperative not meeting its responsibilities
  1. She said the 2022 review of the cooperative had made no difference, and that it was still not meeting its responsibilities. She asked the landlord to provide evidence that the cooperative would comply with the management agreement.
  2. She asked why the cooperative needed a separate organisation to carry out its services.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 8 December 2023.
1. Racial discrimination
  1. It apologised for repeating its request for CCTV footage and a police update, acknowledging the resident had already provided this. It said that based on the available evidence, it could not take the investigation into her 2021 allegations any further.
  2. It said that it had carried out a formal interview with a cooperative representative about the resident’s racial discrimination concerns. It provided a copy of the questions and responses, and said it found no evidence of discrimination. It said it had given full consideration to the Equality Act 2010.
2. Poor communication
  1. The landlord said it had no further comments to make in relation to the resident’s letters not being responded to in the past. It said it could not speculate on what could happen in the future.
3. Cooperative not meeting its responsibilities
  1. The landlord said it was part of the management agreement for the cooperative to appoint a separate organisation to deliver services. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the managing agent and said this had been shared with the cooperative. It said the agent was in the final quarter of its contract, and the cooperative was looking for a replacement.
  2. It said that it continued to monitor performance and that the resident had not raised any new issues.
The resident escalated her complaint to our service on 14 December 2023. She said she remained dissatisfied with how the landlord handled her concerns. She said she still believed the cooperative were racially discriminating against her and that she wanted compensation for the distress caused. She also said she wanted the landlord to meet more frequently with the cooperative to address performance concerns.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident raised concerns about racial discrimination through the complaints process. While we acknowledge the seriousness of this allegation, determining whether the cooperative’s actions or inaction amounted to racial discrimination, is a legal matter, which must ultimately be decided by a court. This investigation has not considered that question. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she intends to pursue this matter further.
Although we have not assessed whether discrimination occurred in a legal sense, we have considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. Our role is to decide whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident said the managing agent took 18 months to respond to a letter she sent on 29 April 2021. However, this matter was already considered as part of a previous investigation by this service (case 202205059), which dealt with the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. That investigation looked at the issues raised in the letter and the actions taken by both the managing agent and landlord in response. We will not reconsider matters we have already decided, therefore this issue is outside the scope of this investigation.

Legal policy and framework

Under the management agreement between the cooperative and landlord, the cooperative is responsible for carrying out delegated housing functions, while the landlord retains oversight duties.
The agreement requires the cooperative to agree key performance indicators with the landlord, which provides framework for monitoring service delivery. The agreement also requires both parties to hold monitoring and development meetings at least twice a year to review performance. The agreement further states that the cooperative must produce an annual report and share it with the landlord and residents. The landlord must also monitor the effectiveness of the cooperative’s Equality and Diversity policy, showing it retains responsibility for oversight in key areas.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of racial discrimination

The resident said the cooperative discriminated against her by failing to respond to letters she sent in 2022. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged that some letters had not been replied to at the time and said that it would remind the cooperative of the importance of meeting service standards. As the landlord could not retrospectively change what had occurred, it was appropriate that it acknowledged the service failure and took steps to prevent it from happening again.
In addition, as part of its stage 2 investigation, the landlord interviewed a cooperative representative and put the resident’s racial discrimination allegations to them. The representative said the failure to respond to the resident’s letters had been an oversight and not deliberate, and that it had not treated her differently to other residents. Asking the cooperative for an explanation directly, showed the landlord took the resident’s concern seriously. From this it could then consider whether there was any evidence to support the allegation of differential treatment. This was a reasonable step to help understand the reasons for the missed replies.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also asked the resident whether any queries from the 2022 letters remained outstanding. This showed it was checking whether the previous failure to respond was still affecting her or if anything remained unresolved. While the evidence shows that the resident may not have agreed with the responses she received, she did not identify any specific points that had gone unanswered. As the letters had since been responded to, the landlord’s consideration of the racial discrimination allegation – based on those missed replies – was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
The resident said she wanted the landlord to take stronger action against the cooperative for not responding to her letters within the 10-day response target. In addition to the steps it had already taken, the landlord said it was monitoring performance of the cooperative under the management agreement. It also confirmed it was awaiting approval of an updated agreement to strengthen its oversight further. These steps were reasonable. The management agreement required the landlord to monitor the cooperative’s performance through regular meetings and reporting, rather than taking punitive action for isolated failings.
By reinforcing expectations and continuing its oversight, the landlord used its available powers to address the issue and reduce the risk of it recurring. However, without more recent examples to point to, it is understandable that the resident may have felt unsure about how the landlord’s oversight was working in practice.
As part of its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord addressed how it had handled a previous complaint from the resident in 2021 about racial discrimination. It explained that this matter had already been investigated by our service and that it had complied with the orders from that case. It also said it had reflected on its communication and reviewed the tone of its responses from that time. This showed a willingness to learn from the past and improve on how it handled sensitive matters. The landlord also invited the resident to provide any new evidence that might support revisiting the issues from the complaint.
This showed the landlord had taken a balanced approach: it acknowledged the resident’s ongoing concern about discrimination while respecting the fact the matter had been closed.
The landlord carried out a formal interview with a representative from the cooperative as part of its stage 2 investigation. This formal step showed that the landlord was willing to engage with the organisation directly, rather than rely solely on assumptions or second-hand accounts. By putting the resident’s discrimination allegations to the cooperative, the landlord gave the organisation a fair opportunity to respond and explain its position.
The evidence shows the landlord asked the cooperative about its process for handling complaints involving discrimination. The cooperative explained that if an issue could not be resolved informally, it would be presented to the committee for a formal response. If a resident remained dissatisfied, the matter would then be escalated for a response from the Chair. The cooperative also confirmed its commitment to the Equality Act and said it did not tolerate discrimination. These responses showed the landlord had taken reasonable and transparent steps to understand the cooperative’s procedures, test its approach, and explore the resident’s concerns in a fair and proportionate way.
Overall, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of racial discrimination. It responded to concerns by acknowledging and addressing past service failures, seeking direct input from the cooperative. It asked appropriate questions about the cooperative’s processes, reinforced expectations, and sought assurances around compliance with the Equality Act.
While we acknowledge the resident remained dissatisfied, there was no evidence the landlord acted unfairly or unreasonably in how it considered or responded to her concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor communication

The resident said she wanted the managing agent to take responsibility for delays in communication, particularly in responding to a letter she had sent in 2021. However, the managing agent is not contractually accountable to the resident; it is accountable to the cooperative, which is in turn accountable to the landlord. Under the management agreement, the landlord remains responsible for overseeing the cooperative’s performance, including the performance of agents acting on its behalf. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord and cooperative to acknowledge the communication delays and for the landlord to take responsibility in line with its oversight obligations. This approach reflected the structure of accountability and ensured the resident’s concerns were addressed by the correct parties.
It was also appropriate for the landlord to reinforce that the resident raise any future concerns directly with the cooperative or the landlord, rather than with the managing agent. This showed the landlord was seeking to reduce further distress and avoid confusion by setting clear boundaries around communication. It also demonstrated that the landlord recognised its accountability for overseeing the cooperative and its agents and was taking steps to ensure future concerns could be properly captured and addressed within the formal complaints framework.
The evidence shows that in October 2022, the resident initially asked the cooperative when it would adopt the landlord’s policies on ASB and supporting vulnerable residents. A month later, in November 2022, the cooperative sent its ASB policy and the management agreement. It explained that, as a small voluntary organisation, its policies differed in tone but were in line with the landlord’s expectations. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response that it already expected the cooperative to follow its policies, which the cooperative also reiterated in its formal interview.
There was no evidence the cooperative had failed to meet the landlord’s expectations in practice. The resident had not raised any specific examples of poor service linked to policy use. On balance, the landlord had set clear expectations, and it was reasonable to rely on its existing oversight arrangements unless concerns about actual service failures arose.
Overall, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor communication. The landlord took reasonable steps to clarify communication channels and confirmed that the cooperative was expected to follow its policies.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its oversight of the cooperative’s responsibilities

The resident said the cooperative was not meeting its management responsibilities because the landlord had to chase it to respond to her letters in 2022. As already explored in earlier sections of this report, the landlord accepted that there had been delays and took steps to address them. These issues occurred more than a year earlier and had already been acknowledged and apologised for. It was reasonable for the landlord to check whether the resident was experiencing any ongoing problems, rather than reopening resolved matters. This showed it was forward-looking and trying to establish whether further intervention was necessary.
The landlord also explained that it had carried out a formal review of the cooperative in 2022. This led to an updated management agreement which included a stronger performance framework, due to be implemented in the coming months. This showed the landlord was taking steps to improve long-term accountability and oversight.
The resident asked whether the landlord would consider taking back direct management of its properties and questioned the role of the managing agent. The landlord said it had no plans to take back management responsibilities and continued to meet with the cooperative on a quarterly basis to discuss performance. This was a reasonable position. The decision to delegate management was within the landlord’s discretion, and it had taken steps to ensure appropriate oversight remained in place through regular performance monitoring.
As part of her escalation, the resident told us she wanted the landlord to increase the frequency of its performance meetings with the cooperative. This request reflected her loss of confidence in how the cooperative was being managed. However, there was no evidence of ongoing service failings that would have required greater scrutiny. The existing quarterly meetings allowed the landlord to monitor performance proportionately and escalate concerns as needed. It was reasonable to continue this arrangement unless specific evidence showed it was not effective.
The cooperative also confirmed during the formal interview that it was approaching the end of its contract with the current managing agent and was looking at alternative options. This was a proportionate response to the concerns raised. The cooperative’s willingness to explore alternatives showed that it was reflecting on service quality and open to improvement.
Overall, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the cooperative not meeting its responsibilities. The landlord acknowledged past failings, took appropriate steps to improve oversight, and reasonably assessed whether further intervention was needed. While the resident remained dissatisfied, there was no evidence the landlord acted unfairly or failed to meet its obligations in how it responded to her concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The resident raised a formal complaint on 9 October 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 21 working days later, exceeding its complaints policy timescales.
However, the evidence shows that on day 10 it informed the resident that there would be a delay. It explained this was because it needed more time to review the historic issues she had raised. It also gave her a revised date for response, which it met. While the delay may have been inconvenient for the resident, this approach aligned with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This allows landlord to extend complaint timeframes when needed, as long as they provide a clear reason and set a new deadline.
The landlord’s approach demonstrated that it was aware of its obligations under the Code and took reasonable steps to manage the complaints transparently and in good faith.
The resident escalated her complaint on 8 November 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 23 working days later, slightly outside its complaints policy timescales. While this was a delay, it was minor and did not affect the substance of the response or the resident’s ability to progress her concerns.
Overall, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint. The evidence does not show any significant failings or detriment to the resident that would amount to maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of racial discrimination.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of poor communication.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about its oversight of the cooperative’s responsibilities.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s formal complaint.