Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Origin Housing Limited (202333666)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333666

Origin Housing Limited

27 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s report of a leak.
    2. The subsequent repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom terraced house. The landlord is aware the resident has learning difficulties and suffers with her mental health.
  2. For context, the resident said she has had 2 previous leaks in the property. She said they were “left leaking for several weeks and caused large areas of damage to the property.”
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 October 2023 and said:
    1. She had a leak through her living room ceiling.
    2. Her house had no heating due to the leak.
    3. She wanted the repair booked for after 11 October 2023.
  4. The resident emailed again on 10 October 2023 and said:
    1. The ceiling needed to be removed to access the leak.
    2. She had spoken to its contractor and they “do not remove ceilings.”
  5. The contractor attended on 11 October 2023, as requested by the resident. However, it was unable to repair the leak as it could not cut a hole in the ceiling.
  6. A second landlord contractor attended on 16 October 2023 to cut the hole. However, the resident raised a formal complaint as the landlord had not arranged for its first contractor to repair the leak the same day. She said “there is an active leak from the heating system, which has a bucket underneath in the middle of the living room.”
  7. The landlord’s first contractor attended again on 18 October 2023. But said it could not repair the leak as the ceiling hole cut by the second contractor was “too small.” After the visit, the resident emailed the landlord and said she had now had 3 separate visits, but no one had repaired the leak.
  8. The resident chased the landlord on 30 October 2023 after no response. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response the next day, in which it upheld the complaint. It said:
    1. The resident should report urgent repairs by phone to ensure a repair is raised straight away.
    2. The second contractor stopped the leak on 16 October 2023, but further pipework repairs were required.
    3. It was extremely disappointed to hear the pipework repairs could not be completed on 18 October 2023 as the ceiling hole was too small.
    4. The repair was poorly managed and both contractors should have attended together.
    5. It would ensure the repair was completed as “a matter of priority” and any decorative remedial work is completed promptly thereafter.
    6. It awarded £100 compensation to recognise the poor service received.
  9. The resident escalated the complaint on 7 November 2023 as the leak was still unresolved. She said the leak had not been stopped and water was still dripping from the ceiling.
  10. The leak was subsequently repaired on 21 November 2023. After the resident emailed a week later in relation to the ceiling holes, the landlord said it would arrange for the repairs to be completed “prior to Christmas.”
  11. The landlord sent its stage 2 response, in which it upheld the complaint, on 6 December 2023. It said:
    1. It had told its first contractor that leaks should be attended to as an emergency as part of the standard service.
    2. It apologised for:
      1. The poor communication.
      2. The poorly managed repair.
    3. The failings identified were raised with its head of repairs to learn from the complaint.
    4. It was aware there were further delays as its first contractor did not turn up to a joint appointment arranged with the second contractor on 20 November 2023 due to staff sickness. But the first contractor returned the following day and resolved the leak.
    5. As mentioned in its email of the 30 November 2023, it said it had instructed its second contractor to fix the ceiling holes in the next 3 weeks.
    6. Although it was not part of the original complaint, a surveyor visit was booked for 28 December 2023. This was due to a number of outstanding issues the resident had raised in relation to the property condition prior to the leak.
    7. It increased the compensation offered to £250.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. It was unclear exactly when the ceiling repairs were completed. However, the landlord’s repair log showed the lounge ceiling light was replaced on 7 May 2024. It noted a decorator was required to finish the ceiling repairs.
  2. In a call with us almost a year later on 26 March 2025, the resident said the ceiling repairs had been completed but was now “mostly bare plaster.”

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said her mental health has deteriorated as a result of living at the property. Unlike a court, we cannot establish whether the landlord’s actions/lack of action affected her mental health, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy (August 2022) says:
    1. Routine repairs:
      1. Should be completed by contractors in 10 working days. Exceptions to this must not amount to more than 20 working days and must be approved with the landlord and resident.
      2. Can be reported at any time through online methods.
    2. Emergency repairs:
      1. Must be reported by phone.
      2. Should be attended to within 2 hours to ‘make safe’ and repaired if possible. If further works are required, residents will be contacted the following day with a suitable appointment.
      3. Examples are major damage to property, flooding, major electrical fault, and hot water failure (between October and March).
    3. It operates an ‘out of hours’ emergency service for emergency repairs required out of normal office hours or at the weekend.
    4. When it requires emergency access to a property, it will follow its ‘No Access’ process. A copy of this process was not provided to us.
    5. The landlord is responsible for repairs to pipework.
  2. The evidence shows that the resident did not call the landlord to raise an emergency repair and this appears to have delayed the repair. However, the landlord’s initial handling of the leak was poor. The landlord:
    1. Should have checked its repairs inbox on 9 October 2023 at the latest and raised an emergency repair.
    2. Failed to note the resident’s comments on 10 October 2023 which meant when the contractor attended on 11 October, the repair could not be completed. This caused the resident inconvenience.
    3. Arranged for contractors to attend 3 times between the 11 and 18 October, but did not resolve the leak. The landlord’s failure to arrange a joint repair and decision to use a contractor that was unable to cut a ceiling hole to access a leak protracted the issue for the resident.
    4. Could have arranged an alternative contractor that was able to remove the ceiling and repair the leak at the same time, particularly after the third failed contractor visit.
    5. Raised a repair on 24 October 2023 to make a larger ceiling hole. The repair log showed this repair was cancelled on 1 November 2023, but it was unclear why.
    6. Was poor in its communication with both the resident and its contractors.
  3. We acknowledge the landlord used its stage 1 response to try and put things right for the resident, which was positive. However, there was no evidence it continued to monitor the leak or repairs after the stage 1 response. This led to the resident escalating the complaint. This caused further inconvenience and was a failing.
  4. The repair log showed a joint contractor visit raised on 14 November 2023 for 20 November 2023. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to prioritise the repair at this point, but there was no evidence it did so. There was a further delay as the first contractor did not arrive due to sickness. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the repairs, regardless of whether it outsources the work to contractors. With that in mind, the landlord should have done more to follow up with both the resident and its contractors rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates, which was a failing.
  5. Overall, the resident was left with a leaking pipe for 46 days with the landlord responsible for most of the delay. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s response time for both an emergency and routine repair. This was unreasonable and a failing. The landlord has acknowledged some failings and made some attempt to put things right. It was positive that it identified areas of learning. The amount of compensation offered was in line with our remedies guidance for an issue where a resident has been impacted and experienced time and trouble in pursuing their complaint. Taking account of all the circumstances of the case, we find that the landlord’s response was appropriate and proportionate, so a finding of reasonable redress is made. The landlord offered redress to the resident which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy (2022) says:
    1. It is responsible for repairs to ceilings.
    2. The resident is responsible for internal decoration (but minor patch repairs may be undertaken after a leak).
  2. After the leak was addressed, there was no evidence the landlord followed up with the resident or its contractors in relation to the ceiling holes. This was unreasonable and meant the resident had to chase again on 29 November 2023. The landlord said it aimed to repair the ceiling “before Christmas.” However, the repair records showed the ceiling repairs were not raised until a week later which was a further delay. The repair had a target date of 17 January 2024. There was no evidence the landlord attempted to contact its contractor to bring the repairs forward. Given it had raised the resident’s expectations the repairs would be done before Christmas, it would have been reasonable for it to do so.
  3. The resident contacted us on 22 December 2023 after the repairs were not completed. The evidence suggests the resident cancelled the ceiling repairs arranged for 10 January 2024, which were then rescheduled for 16 February 2024. It was not clear when the ceiling was repaired, however the ceiling light was reinstalled on 7 May 2024. This was 7 months after the reports of the original leak. We acknowledge the landlord was not solely responsible for the delays repairing the ceiling. However, by the 10 January 2024, the resident had lived with holes in her ceiling for around 3 months. This was an unreasonable length of time which affected the enjoyment of her property.
  4. The landlord said the ceiling repairs and decorative work would be completed as a matter of priority in its stage 1 response. But there was no evidence either were completed as a matter of priority. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs was poor. The ceiling was not repaired for several months after the stage 2 response, which was unreasonable. And while it is usual practice and acceptable for the landlord to only decorate the affected areas following a leak, there was no evidence this if/when this was completed. There was therefore maladministration and a further order for an additional £250 compensation is made. The landlord should also contact the resident to discuss decorative repairs to the property following the leaks (if it has not already done so).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident, with respect to its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident and not offset against any monies owed £500 compensation. The landlord may deduct the £250 it has offered previously if this has already been paid.
    3. Contact the resident to arrange decorative patch repairs to the ceiling. It should provide an action plan/timescale for decorative repairs to the living room ceiling (if it has not already done so).

Recommendations

  1. When contacting the resident in relation to ceiling decoration, it would be reasonable for the landlord to discuss decorating areas affected by previous leaks at the property (if it has not already done so).