Origin Housing Limited (202342796)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342796

Origin Housing Limited

27 March 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:
1. handling of reports of damp and mould.
2. handling of reports of a loss of heating and hot water.
3. response to concerns about staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in 2-bedroom flat. He occupies the property with his wife and 4 children. His children have physical health conditions, including asthma, which the landlord is aware of.
On 12 December 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the quality of works carried out in his home and asked it to survey the property. The landlord responded to his complaint on 3 January 2024 and subsequently inspected the property on 18 January 2024. It found damp and mould throughout the property. It recommended various repairs, including a new bathroom and extractor fan in the kitchen and all the plumbing services in the bathroom be checked. Its inspection report also noted that the household would need to be decanted, and that the landlord would need to address the overcrowding in the property. On 21 February 2024 the resident reported a loss of heating and hot water.
On 26 February 2024 the resident complained to the landlord again. He said the household had been without heating or hot water for over 5 days, and its contractor had only left him with temporary heaters. He explained that the contractor would not wait 20 minutes for him to return to the property for appointment, despite explaining that his children had physical health conditions. He was unhappy that the landlord had not treated this matter as an emergency and would not consider temporary accommodation. He raised concerns about the landlord’s staff members’ conduct and felt it had shown a lack of empathy, and the landlord’s attitude was dismissive. He said damp and mould persisted, no repairs had been carried out, and he felt the property was unfit for human habitation. As an outcome, he wanted the landlord to rehouse them, carry out all the repairs, compensate him, and provide clear repair guidelines. The same day, the landlord attended the property and left the household with heating and hot water.
On 25 March 2024 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said:
1. Its contractor attended to the report of loss of heating and hot water on 22 February 2024, and the resident was not home when they arrived.
2. The contractor’s scheduling meant that if they waited for the resident to get home, this would have prevented other residents from receiving their appointments.
3. They attended again the next day and found that parts were needed and left the resident with 2 temporary heaters. On 26 February 2024 they left the property with heating and hot water and completed all work the following day.
4. It was not part of its procedure to move residents from their homes for a 5-day heating and hot water loss.
5. It listened to the call on 26 February 2024 with its customer relations officer and did not hear anything dismissive.
6. It could only surmise that the complaint must relate to the resident’s conversation with his neighbourhood manager, which was not recorded. It had passed his comments on to their manager for discussion.
7. There was a delay in approving the damp and mould repair work, and it was working to improve its processes.
8. It would offer £82 compensation, comprised of £32 for 2 heaters for 4 days and £50 to recognise the delay in getting the required repairs booked, following the surveyor’s visit in January 2024.
The next day, the resident asked to escalate the complaint. He disagreed with the landlord’s response and felt it made significant mistakes. On 9 May 2024 the landlord informed the resident that it would need to decant the household to carry out the necessary repairs. It also advised that the overcrowding would need to be addressed as it felt this significantly contributed to condensation and damp.
The same day, the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. In summary, it said:
1. It apologised that no work had taken place since its stage 1 response.
2. It wanted to meet with the resident to discuss the outstanding works, and following this visit, it would write to him within 5 days on the actions and deadline for completing these.
3. It would consider whether it should offer further compensation after this visit.
4. Its stage 1 response appropriately addressed the loss of heating and hot water.
5. It had listened to the call he made on 26 February 2024 and concluded that its officer did not dismissively speak to him.
6. It listened to the exchange between the officers as the call was transferred and agreed its staff attitude was dismissive and lacked empathy.
7. Having listened to this call, it accepted what the resident said about how staff had treated him. It apologised and would raise this with relevant staff members so it would not happen again.
8. It would offer £500 compensation, comprised of £300 for delays in carrying out works to address the damp and mould and £200 for failings in staff conduct.
The resident subsequently asked this Service to investigate all aspects of his complaint. He added that the damp and mould persisted and was affecting the health and wellbeing of the household.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said the damp and mould problems affected the household’s health and well-being. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the damp and mould within the property and the household’s health. The resident, therefore, may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if they consider that their health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, the Service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it aims to investigate and diagnose the cause of damp and mould in a timely way and deliver effective remedial solutions. It states that timescales for completing remedial work will depend on the resident’s needs, circumstances and the extent of remedial work required. It explains that it will identify if it should offer a temporary move to the household whilst the remedial works are completed. It also states that it may refer residents to its lettings team for advice on housing options, as sometimes overcrowding may be a factor.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs must be completed by its contractors within the targets set by the landlord, with an expectation of this to be no more than 10 working days. Exceptions to this must not amount to more than 20 working days and must be approved by the landlord and the resident.
Following the resident’s December 2023 complaint the landlord inspected the property within a reasonable timescale. It found damp and mould in the hallway, bathroom and kitchen. It concluded there were multiple signs of ‘extensive’ damp-related damage that required ‘immediate’ remedy. It added that the bathroom and hallway walls showed significant water damage with blown plaster. It recommended multiple remedial works, including a new bathroom, an extractor fan in the kitchen and an investigation of the plumbing services. Its report also said overcrowding in the property needed to be addressed.
However, the landlord failed to carry out any of the recommended repairs within its policy timescales. These repairs remained outstanding at the time of the landlord’s final response, almost 4 months after its January 2024 inspection. Further, while it appropriately identified at its January 2024 inspection that a temporary move would be needed, it failed to act on this this until 9 May 2024, when it drafted a ‘decant’ request form. This was an unacceptable delay, and the landlord failed to treat this matter with any level of urgency. This was despite it being aware of the household circumstances and the fact that its own January 2024 report highlighted that the damage caused by the damp needed immediate remedy. Moreover, despite being aware that overcrowding was likely a contributing factor in this case, there was no evidence that it referred the resident to its lettings teams for housing advice, as outlined in its policy. This was another failing on the landlord’s part.
This Service expects a landlord to have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and must ensure its response to reports are timely and reflects the urgency of the issue. The repair log for the property indicates previous historical reports of damp and mould from 2016 onwards. As the landlord had recorded similar issues during the resident’s occupation of the property, it should have put the landlord on notice that the damp reported as part of the resident’s complaint required active management. While this report does not assess the historical incidents of damp or repairs, it provides context that the landlord’s records should have put it on notice of potentially ongoing issues within the property and the need to complete any necessary remedial works within a reasonable timescale.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould outlines that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner’. It continues that ‘landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage resident’s expectations’. In this case, the resident was left exposed to damp and mould in his property for a prolonged period because of the landlord’s inability to coordinate the required remedial works satisfactorily. The adverse effect caused to the resident was likely significant given the fact that he occupied the property with his children, who have health conditions, including asthma.
It is unclear if and when these works were carried out or whether the household was temporarily moved. The landlord’s 9 May 2024 final response said that it would meet with the resident to discuss the outstanding repairs and would write to him with follow-up actions and deadlines for completing these. In addition, its final response said it would be happy to revisit its compensation offer after its visit to him. However, there is no evidence that either of these things happened. Indeed, the evidence showed that the repairs were still outstanding at the end of June 2024 and the resident informed this Service as late as December 2024 that the damp and mould persisted. This has been considered in our orders below.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould was poor, and it failed to deliver effective remedial solutions. Due to the landlord’s delay in completing the repairs the resident has lived with damp and mould for a prolonged period, and its actions demonstrated that it did not fully consider the household’s needs. In view of this, the landlord’s offer of £300 compensation is not proportionate to redress the failures identified in this report. This amounts to maladministration. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards from £600 compensation should be considered where failings have significantly affected the resident and orders are made below for remedy.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a loss of heating and hot water

The landlord’s repairs policy defines the loss of heating and/or hot water during October to March as an emergency repair which will be attended to within 2 hours to ‘make safe’ and repaired if possible. It states that if further works are required it aims to complete the repair within 7 days. The Ombudsman expects landlords to attend to and complete repairs within a reasonable time.
The resident reported a loss of heating and hot water on 21 February 2024. The landlord’s contractor attended the following day. This was contrary to the landlord’s repair policy timescales and was a shortcoming on its part. Nevertheless, its contractor attended within 24 hours, which was within a reasonable time.
Upon arrival, the contractor was unable to access the property as the resident was not home. The resident said in his complaint that the contractor refused to wait 20 minutes for him to return. He added that he explained to them that his children had acute asthma and that sleeping in the house in these conditions affected their health. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said this was an arranged appointment and explained that, due to the contractor’s scheduling, if they waited, it would have prevented other residents from getting their appointments. Although it is unclear whether the contractor explained this to the resident at the time, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
Furthermore, the landlord acted fairly by arranging for its contractor to return to inspect the heating system the next day. At this inspection, they found that parts were needed to fix the issue, and the resident was provided with 2 temporary heaters. Again, this was reasonable, and the contractor returned promptly on 26 February 2024 to restore the heating and hot water. This was fair, and they resolved the issue quickly and repaired the heating system within the landlord’s policy timescales. This demonstrated that it considered the seriousness of the situation, given the household’s circumstances.
The resident suggested in his complaint that he was unhappy that the landlord would not consider temporary accommodation while it resolved this issue. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it was not part of its process to move residents for a 5-day loss of services. This was a fair response, and the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to move a resident in these circumstances, given the length of time it took to resolve this issue and the fact the landlord had provided the resident with alternative heating.
Furthermore, the landlord appropriately recognised that it should contribute towards the resident’s electricity costs, having provided him with temporary heaters. This is in accordance with its compensation policy, which states that if temporary heaters are provided, it will contribute £1 a day towards extra electricity costs. In this case, the resident had 2 temporary heaters for 4 days. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of £32 compensation was fair and over and above the amount outlined in its policy. As such the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports of a loss of heating and hot water. Nevertheless, the landlord should pay the above amount if it has not done so already, and a recommendation is made below.

The landlord’s response to concerns about staff conduct

The landlord’s code of conduct states that its employees must always be courteous and fair to residents. The Ombudsman would expect landlords to treat residents with respect and kindness. It is important to note that the Ombudsman will not consider the landlord’s handling of personnel issues, including any disciplinary investigations the landlord may have conducted . However, the landlord would be expected to respond to the resident’s reports about staff conduct and, where it identifies failings, offer an appropriate remedy reflecting the impact and circumstances of the complaint.
In this case, the resident felt the landlord had shown a lack of empathy and that its attitude was dismissive. Although it was unclear if this related to a specific interaction or was a general comment about the landlord’s staff’s behaviour, it acted reasonably by listening to the resident’s most recent call to it on 26 February 2024. Its stage 1 response said it did not find the staff member’s conduct dismissive. However, it surmised that the general thrust of his complaints may have related to the neighbourhood manager and said it would pass his concerns onto their manager to discuss with them. This was a proportionate initial response.
In the resident’s escalation request, he disagreed with all the points highlighted but did not elaborate further. Nevertheless, the landlord acted fairly by revisiting this aspect of his complaint in its final response. This demonstrated a proactive approach and a willingness to address his concerns. In doing so, it listened to the exchange between officers on 26 February 2024 as the call was transferred. While it is unclear why it did not listen to this earlier and at stage 1, it appropriately recognised that this conversation was dismissive and lacked empathy. Indeed, the landlord provided this Service with this call recording, and we consider the landlord’s assessment to be broadly accurate. In addition, it acknowledged that although it had not listened to other calls, on balance, it accepted what the resident said about how staff had treated him. This was fair and showed a customer-focused approach.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct was reasonable and showed that it carried out a fair and proportionate investigation into his concerns. It also appropriately explained the steps it would take to make sure this did not happen again, showing an openness to learn from its mistakes. Given the resident experienced distress and frustration because of the landlord’s staff conduct it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for its failings. Its offer of £200 compensation was broadly in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which suggests awards from £100 should be considered where there have been failings that have adversely affected the resident. As such, the Ombudsman considers this was satisfactory in putting things right.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that at stage 1 it will contact the resident to gain an understanding of this issue and provide a response within 10 working days. It adds that where this it is not possible, it will contact the resident to explain this, setting out the reasons why and when they can expect to receive the response. At stage 2, it says that it will decide whether it can accept an escalation request within 5 working days and will provide the resident with a response within 20 working days. It says that it may extend the time we have to investigate and respond to the complaint by a further 20 working days, but not without good reason, and it will clearly explain the reasons to the resident.
The resident made a formal complaint on 26 February 2024. Although the landlord appropriately contacted him on 5 March 2024 to better understand his complaint, the landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until 26 March 2024. This was 15 working days after its conversation with the resident and 21 working days after his February 2024 complaint. While this was a minor failing, there was no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to explain this delay in line with its policy. Nor did it acknowledge or apologise for this failing in its stage 1 response.
Additionally, it took the landlord 31 working days to issue its stage 2 final response. While it is recognised that this was another minor failing, there was no evidence of any good reason for this delay. In addition, there was no evidence that the landlord clearly explained the reasons for the delay to the resident. This was contrary to its policy, and it again failed to identify or apologise for these errors. These were delayed resolutions and would have likely frustrated the resident. This amounts to service failure and an award of compensation has been made below in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of a loss of heating and hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s response to reports about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £850 comprised of:
  1. £350 for the delays in addressing the damp and mould as offered in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses if it has not already done so.
  2. A further £450 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
  3. £50 for the delays in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Write to the resident to set out a schedule of works for any outstanding repairs to resolve the damp and mould. The schedule must provide timescales for completion. The landlord must also provide an action plan taking into account the suitability of the resident’s current accommodation.
The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Pay the resident £200 compensation as offered in its stage 2 final response for its staff conduct failings if it has not already done so. This Service has found reasonable redress based on this being paid to the resident.
2. Pay the resident £32 as offered in its stage 1 response for using temporary heaters if it has not already done so.
3. Consider whether any additional compensation is due to reflect the delay in completing repairs for damp and mould from the date of its 9 May 2024 stage 2 final response until the date it completes the outstanding works. It must write to the resident to confirm its decision.