Origin Housing Limited (202336564)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat on the ground floor with her young children. She has complained about persistent leaks, damp and mould and structural damage. She asked us to investigate after repeatedly chasing the landlord about the unresolved repair issues. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions and final response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould and the associated remedial works.
   2. Reports of structural damage to the property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in its response to reports of leaks, damp and mould and the associated remedial works.
   2. Maladministration in its response to reports of structural damage to the resident’s property.
   3. Service failure in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. In summary we found that:
   1. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it responded reasonably to the leaks, damp and mould in the resident’s property.
   2. The landlord did not prioritise identifying and resolving the root cause of the leaks, damp and mould and the remedial works.
   3. The landlord has not demonstrated that it provided support or resolutions to the resident’s concerns about structural damage to her property.
   4. It did not provide its complaint responses within the timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
   5. The landlord needs to take further action to put things right with the leaks, damp and mould, structural damage and its complaint handling.

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.

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us that the property condition has negatively impacted her family’s 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 are best placed to 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 will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. The resident has complained about the issues within her property for several years. However, we have not seen evidence of a formal complaint exhausting the landlord’s complaints process until 6 December 2023. In the interests of fairness, and taking into account the availability of evidence, this investigation is focused on events from December 2022, which were addressed in both stages of the complaints process.

What we did investigate

8. Under its repairs policy, the landlord’s responsibilities include to repair issues with the property’s structure and to remove severe mould stains from walls and ceilings. It acknowledges its responsibility to address damp and mould issues and will arrange a surveyor’s inspection or expert’s report. It aims to complete routine repairs within 10 working days and to attend to emergency repairs within 2 hours to make the situation safe.
9. Throughout 2023, the resident reported multiple issues in the property, including leaks, a blocked sink and water on an exterior wall. In July 2023, the landlord raised a job to inspect the kitchen and bathroom after the resident said they were unsuitable and required repairs due to the leaks.
10. As the reports related to damp and mould, it was important for the landlord to have ensured it took steps to rectify the issues. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) states that damp and mould can be a threat to health, particularly for people with breathing difficulties and asthma. The landlord was aware that there were young children living in the property and it should have prioritised repairs accordingly.
11. Although the repair logs show invoices were raised, there is no record confirming when each repair was completed. Without this, the Ombudsman cannot assess if repairs met the timeframes in the landlord’s policy. The landlord must prove it took appropriate action, but there is no evidence to suggest that it did this. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail.
12. On 12 January 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, it said that a surveyor inspected the property in July 2023. However, it has not provided evidence of this. The surveyor recommended repairs throughout the property and renewal of the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. However, a technical error prevented the report from being logged or sent to its contractor. Its contractor subsequently failed to raise the orders when they were sent over to them in November 2023. As the surveyor acted on the landlord’s behalf, it can be held responsible for these errors, which delayed the resolution of the issues in the resident’s property and was unreasonable.
13. In its stage 1 complaint response, it stated that the surveyor had recommended adding the kitchen and bathroom to its planned works programme. These works were on hold, and it was hoping works would commence in the spring. This was reasonable, as the delay applied to all planned works and was not specific to the resident’s works. However, it should have been proactive in ensuring there were no urgent repair issues requiring earlier attention.
14. On 29 January 2024, the resident tried to contact the neighbourhood manager about ongoing repairs. However, it is unclear whether a call had been scheduled. The landlord acted reasonably by contacting the resident the following day. It is important that landlord’s return the contact of residents promptly. When a landlord commits to contact on a specific day, it must follow through to build trust and confidence. This was especially important because the resident was frustrated by unresolved repairs. A timely response would have shown that her concerns were being taken seriously.
15. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed the kitchen and kitchen flooring would be replaced by the end of April 2024. On 5 April 2024, the resident confirmed the contractor had discussed measurements and other details with her. Following this, she chased the contractor, recognising she would have limited kitchen access and needed time to prepare in advance. It was understandable that the resident was eager to know when the kitchen would be done, particularly as she has young children. The Service is pleased to see that the landlord completed works in the resident’s kitchen by 30 April 2024 and it therefore adhered to the timeframe it had given.
16. On 28 October 2024, the landlord inspected the resident’s property. It found the resident had been cleaning mould in her property, a pipe feeding the bath from the boiler was leaking, and the bathroom basin was backing up. These findings should have prompted the landlord to carry out remedial works and seek to establish the root cause of the damp and mould. However, there is no evidence that it took any action. Landlords must prioritise identifying and fixing the source of leaks, as these can often lead to damp and mould. In this case, the situation appeared to be worsening more than a year after the resident first reported leaks, which was unreasonable.
17. On 13 November 2024, the resident asked to be moved out of the property as there had been an ongoing leak in the kitchen, making it unusable. She raised further concerns about the repairs team on 20 November 2024. Her dissatisfaction was understandable, given how long the issue had continued without a permanent fix.
18. Following this, on 21 July 2025, a contractor visited the property and found that the remedial works to the kitchen and bathroom were inadequate. The notes state that the kitchen flooring needed to be redone, 2 leaks were found around the bath and wall panels needed to be removed due to poor installation. It was unreasonable that the landlord’s previous repairs were not a permanent solution to the leaks throughout the resident’s home. The Ombudsman recognises that this likely caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident, as she would need to have further works done in her home.
19. For most of the repair issues, the Ombudsman has received limited information. We have not received confirmation that jobs were completed satisfactorily or within the landlord’s timescales. As the resident has been living with leaks and damp and mould, we would expect the landlord to act proactively and promptly, to resolve the root cause of these issues. However, we have not received sufficient evidence to show this was done, which is unreasonable.
20. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Repairs (published May 2025) highlights that it is the responsibility of landlords to maintain trust and to strengthen relationships with residents. By failing to provide lasting solutions to the issues in the property, this would likely reduce the resident’s trust in the landlord.
21. The evidence also shows poor communication and record keeping from the landlord, as the resident had to chase for updates and it has been unable to demonstrate if or when it completed repairs within the resident’s property.
22. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the issues the resident had been facing with her property and provided £750 compensation. As it did not differentiate how much compensation was allocated for each complaint issue, we have acted on the assumption that £375 has been provided for the leaks and damp and mould, and £375 for the structural damage issue. As the landlord did not provide a permanent fix or address the root cause of the leaks and damp and mould, we do not consider this compensation award to go far enough to put things right. The issues have been ongoing for an unreasonable length of time, and we recognise that the unresolved repair issues would cause distress and frustration.
23. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaks, damp and mould. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £600 and £1000 for such situations where there was a failure that had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord’s award of £375 is not within this range and does not adequately recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. Nor does it reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident pursuing a remedy for the leaks, damp and mould over a 2-year period. The landlord missed the chance to put things right resulting in the finding of maladministration.
24. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £350. This is to recognise the inconvenience and distress caused by the ongoing repair issues. We also order the landlord to inspect the resident’s property and establish if there are outstanding issues relating to the leaks and damp and mould.

25. The resident has stated that she is worried about subsidence in the property, that there are issues with structural balance and visible cracks. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord must maintain the structure and exterior of the property. This places a clear obligation on the landlord to investigate and resolve any structural damage and carry out necessary remedial works. Given that the resident has young children, it was especially important for the landlord to act promptly and ensure the property was safe.
26. Subsidence does not necessarily have a quick resolution. There can be the need for lengthy monitoring periods to establish whether subsidence is occurring and to assess whether any repairs have been effective. However, this does not mitigate the landlord’s responsibility to address any immediate repair issues impacting the resident, including damp and mould, pests, and low temperatures. The landlord should also ensure that it provides the resident with regular updates regarding the subsidence to inform her of the actions it is taking and manage her expectations regarding the expected timeframe.
27. On 11 May 2023, the landlord inspected the road where the resident lives, focusing on the structural issues affecting the other properties. It is unclear why it did not assess the resident’s property, despite her reporting long-term subsidence issues to her property. On 12 May 2023, the resident reported cracks in her bedroom wall and ceiling. There is no evidence that the landlord responded or took any action.
28. The Ombudsman has received limited information about the subsidence issues at the resident’s property. As such, the landlord has been unable to show it took appropriate steps to investigate and where possible, address the structural concerns raised.
29. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained that the subsidence issue was subject to an active insurance claim, and it would provide an update when the relevant people returned from leave. However, there is no evidence that it followed up or provided any further information to the resident, which is unacceptable.
30. On 16 January 2024, the landlord arranged another inspection of the resident’s road. The report found tree root damage, pipe issues and ground settlement. These findings should have prompted further action, but there is no evidence of any plans to undertake or consider remedial work.
31. The Ombudsman has requested updates and records about the subsidence and the landlord’s communication with the resident. The landlord has failed to provide any information, which suggests it likely did not address the issue. The Ombudsman published a learning from severe maladministration report in September 2025, which concluded that good communication, knowledge and information management are essential for a positive response to subsidence. From the limited information provided by the landlord, it has not demonstrated any support or resolution to the resident’s concerns.
32. We appreciate that the landlord has apologised and offered £375 compensation for the structural damage issue. However, it is unclear if the landlord properly investigated and addressed the long-standing subsidence issues at the resident’s property, despite multiple reports and inspections showing structural concerns. There is no evidence that it followed up on the issues found in the reports, provided updates, or carried out repairs. This suggests that it did not complete the works. This likely caused frustration to the resident, as the structural damage remains and she has received minimal support.
33. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards of between £100 and £600 for such situations, where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. While the landlord’s award of £375 falls within these amounts, we do not consider this to go far enough to put things right for the resident. It does not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the issue. As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £225 and to arrange an inspection of the resident’s property, to assess any outstanding structural repairs. This should include any issues related to the tree root damage, pipework issues and ground settlement found previously.

34. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (“the Code”) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The resident formally complained on 6 December 2023, there is no evidence of when the landlord acknowledged the complaint, so we are unable to assess if this was done within the Code’s timeframe.
35. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 12 January 2024, which was 14 working days over the 10-working day timeframe set out in the Code. This delay would have likely caused frustration to the resident, particularly as she was waiting on the landlord to resolve the outstanding repairs in her property.
36. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 18 January 2024, and the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 response on 23 January 2024, within the 5 working day timeframe set out in the Code. It said it would aim to respond within 20 working days. The resident chased for a response to her complaint on 16 February 2024 and the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 3 April 2024. There is no evidence to show that it requested an extension to provide the response, and it was sent 30 working days over the timescales set out in the Code and was therefore unreasonable.
37. The landlord should have given the resident a better complaint handling experience and provided its complaint responses within the required timescales. It did not provide any compensation for its complaint handling and delay, and we think that it should have addressed this. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a minor failure by the landlord and it has not appropriately acknowledged it. 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord should ensure it has clear, accurate and detailed repair records, which set out all of the actions it has taken and when the job was completed.

Communication

39. The landlord should ensure it provides clear information to its residents. In this case, it was unreasonable that the resident had to chase for updates and information on what the landlord was doing to resolve the repair issues.