Origin Housing Limited (202347796)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347796

Origin Housing Limited

28 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 no heating and hot water in the property and associated repairs.
2. reports of repairs to the balcony door.
3. report of staff misconduct.
4. complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated 14 June 2023. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a first floor, 2- bedroom flat with their 2 children. The resident has a physical condition and they, and their children, have respiratory health conditions.
The resident reported to the landlord on:
1. 31 July 2023 that they had no heating.
2. 18 October 2023 that heating in the bedroom was not working and this was affecting the health conditions of the residents in the property.
3. 1 November 2023 that the underfloor heating was not working.
On 2 November 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. They said the heating was not working in the bedroom, they were sleeping in the lounge to keep warm, and the cold affected them and their children’s health. They said a staff member was rude and told them if they called about the repair throughout the day, it would report them to their housing manager.
On 9 November 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that it had not fixed the heating in the bedroom, it had not fixed the vent, and it had not fixed the balcony door, which was letting in a draught.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 November 2023. It provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 21 November 2023. It:
1. offered £28.50 for the 19 days the resident was without heat and hot water.
2. said its staff conduct was below standard and provided feedback.
3. offered £51.50 for its failure of service during a call with a member of staff.
Between 1 December 2023 and 15 January 2024, the resident reported that the landlord had not fixed the balcony door and vent. They also said theheating and hot water had stopped working in the property.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 15 January 2024. They said they were unhappy and felt ignored due to the delay to resolve the heat and hot water issues. The resident wanted compensation and for the landlord to compensate them for the heat and hot water usage whilst it was not working.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 February 2024. It:
1. apologised it had not resolved the heat issue in a reasonable time.
2. replaced the thermostat and said it will need to return to replace it with a similar model to the original thermostat.
3. set out an action plan to repair the air vent, the balcony door, the intercom screen, and the peephole.
4. increased the total compensation offer to £180, broken down as:
  1. £51.50 for the service received from a member of its staff.
  2. £28.50 for the lack of heat in the property for 19 days.
  3. £100 as it had yet to replace the thermostat.
On 24 March 2024 the resident referred the complaint to us. They said they wanted us to consider that the heat and hot water in the property did not work, the balcony door let in a draught, a staff member was rude, and they felt ignored. They said this affected their mental health and the resident’s health conditions. They said the temporary heaters were expensive to run and no longer work. They wanted compensation, and for the landlord to complete the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident referred to the impact the cold had on them and their children’s health. We are unable to find if a landlord’s actions or inaction had impacted someone’s health, and we cannot calculate or award damages for this. These matters are likely better suited for a court, or a personal injury or insurance claim. Should the resident want to pursue this, they can seek independent advice. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
We are unable to assess how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters.
However, the Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s communication with the resident about the concerns raised. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be against the landlord rather than the individual.

Reports of no heating and hot water and associated repairs

Accurate record keeping is essential and helps landlords meet their repair obligations. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it also has an obligation to provide us with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. In this case, the landlord’s provided limited repair records and its poor record keeping made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident reported to the landlord on 31 July 2023 that they had no heating.
The tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep in good repair and proper working order:
1. any installations for space heating, water heating, and sanitation, including water heaters and central heating installations.
The landlord’s repair policy says:
1. it considers a heating failure between October to March as an emergency repair, as well as a hot water failure at any time.
  1. it will make emergency repairs safe within 2 hours, and it will complete any further repairs the next day.
2. it considers routine repairs as those that do no cause immediate inconvenience or danger. It will complete repairs within 10 working days or, in exceptional circumstances, may take up to 20 working days.
3. it will update the resident throughout the repairs being carried out.
4. where the property is covered under a defects period, the original contractor may carry out repairs or it may exercise warranties to carry out repairs.
  1. the landlord will ensure there is minimal impact on the resident whilst it decides if the issue is a defect or covered by warranty.
On 31 July 2023 the landlord referred to the developer to see if it would repair the heating issue. The landlord said the developer was unable or unprepared to fix it. There is no evidence of this. This is a failure of its record keeping.
The landlord was entitled to check if the lack of heating was a property defect that may be covered by the developer. However, there is no evidence the landlord minimised the impact on the resident during the time the heating was not working and considered alternative heating provisions. This was inappropriate and not in line with its repair policy.
The landlord arranged a contractor to assess the heating issue on 15 August 2023. The contractor found no issues and explained to the resident how to use the heating system.
Our Spotlight report on heating, hot water, and energy, published in February 2021, says landlords should provide clear information about the heating system and the thermostat at the start of the tenancy to avoid problems later.
There is no evidence the landlord provided instructions to the resident about the heating system and thermostat when they became a tenant of the property in June 2023. This was unreasonable. Had the landlord followed the recommendations set out in our report, it might have prevented this failure of service.
On 18 October 2023 the resident reported the bedroom heating was not working again. They said the cold affected their asthma and their children’s asthma. On that day the landlord contacted the developer to repair the issue. There is no evidence of the developer’s reply or whether the landlord continued to chase for a response. This was unreasonable.
The landlord was aware there were children in the property and of the medical conditions of the residents in the property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess the circumstances and consider repairing the heating as an emergency, as set out by its repair policy. The fact it had not done this was inappropriate, not in line with its repair policy, and caused delay.
On 1 and 2 November 2023 the resident continued to report problems with the bedroom heating. They reiterated the impact this was having on their children’s conditions and that it affected the resident’s physical health condition.
A contractor called the resident on 2 November 2023. The next day the contractor found the heating in the bedroom was not working and ordered a new part to fix it. The delay to assess the issue was inappropriate and outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s repair policy.
The resident chased the landlord about the heating repair on 9 and 15 November 2023. The landlord updated the resident on 20 November 2023 that the parts to repair the issue would arrive the next day. There is no evidence it completed repairs since assessing heating issues in the property. It was inappropriate that it had not proactively updated the resident about the issue and had not completed repairs in line with the time set out in its repair policy.
On 3 and 4 December 2023 the resident said the heating was not circulating to the bathroom. There is no evidence the landlord assessed this issue within times set out in its repair policy. This was inappropriate.
On 11 December 2023 the resident reported that heating had stopped working throughout the property. The contractor inspected the issue on the same day. It found the heating system was turned off. The contractor provided the resident information on how to use the heating system. It was appropriate to inspect and respond to the issue on the same day.
On 3 January 2024 the resident reported the heating was not working in the property, there was no hot water, and they had not been able to shower. The resident chased the landlord about this on 11 January 2024.
There is no evidence the landlord assessed the issue and responded in line with the times set out in its repair policy. It also had not considered providing alternative provisions to the resident. This was inappropriate and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who said, “they felt neglected.”
On 15 January 2024 the landlord provided the resident temporary heaters. It provided them an update that it was waiting for a new valve to repair the heating system. It was appropriate to provide interim heating measures. However, there is no evidence it provided interim provisions for the lack of hot water in the property. This was inappropriate.
On 2 February 2024, the resident reported a lack of heating in the property and that the temporary heaters had broken. The landlord replaced the temporary heaters the same day and said that it needed to replace the bedroom thermostat. It was appropriate to replace the temporary heating measures whilst it repaired the issue.
On 6 February 2024 the landlord provided the resident a property user guide and video. This was appropriate. However, the delay to provide information about the property since the resident became a tenant was unreasonable.
On 12 February 2024 the contractor invoiced the landlord for the repairs to the heating and hot water. There is no evidence of when the heating and hot water repair was completed, and what happened to repair the issues. This has made it difficult to assess the landlord’s actions and is a failure of its record keeping.
The landlord replaced the thermostat on 22 February 2024. On 26 February 2024 the resident confirmed the heating was working, but that the landlord had not replaced the thermostat with a similar model.
It was appropriate that the landlord fixed the heating issue. However, the delay to complete the repairs was outside of its repair policy and the tenancy agreement. This was inappropriate and meant the household endured a lack of heat and hot water during the winter and had to repeatedly raise the issue.
In the landlord’s complaint responses, it apologised it had not resolved the bedroom heating issue within a reasonable time, and for the impact on the household. It offered £129.50, broken down as:
1. £29.50 for the heating issue.
2. £100 for the delay to replace the thermostat like for like.
When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is our role to consider if what it offered had put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this we consider if the landlord’s commitment to remedy issues have been in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
There is no evidence the landlord recognised:
1. the delay to provide the resident information about the heating system and thermostat.
2. the delay to provide interim provisions when the resident reported an issue with heat and hot water in the property.
3. the distress and inconvenience caused to the household for the lack of heating in the property, for the period without hot water, and for the resident chasing the landlord for the issues to be remedied.
4. the inaction to assess the reports made and repair the issues within the times set out in its repair policy.
5. the lack of proactive communication with the resident about the repairs.
Since the stage 2 response there is no evidence the landlord completed all recommended repairs to the property, such as replacing the thermostat for a similar model to the original. There is also no evidence the landlord fixed the hot water. We cannot confirm it resolved all the issues reported by the resident.
Therefore, we find there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.
The landlord’s offer of compensation for the delay to remedy the issue was not proportionate for the distress and inconvenience caused to the household as set out in this report. It also had not recognised the additional issues listed above when considering the compensation payment.
Considering the landlord’s compensation policy, our remedies guidance, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the household, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident of £500. It can deduct the £129.50 previously offered in its complaint responses, if it can evidence this has been paid to the resident.
The landlord offered the resident £29.50 for 19 days without heat to parts of the property. However, it had not replied to the resident’s complaint:
1. as to whether it would cover energy costs for heat and hot water whilst it was not working.
2. the additional costs of running temporary heaters whilst the heating was not working.
The landlord should consider its compensation policy and the delay to repair the heat and hot water in the property and respond to the resident. This should set out if it will provide compensation to the resident for heat and hot water costs whilst it was not working, and the costs to run temporary heaters.
The landlord should also apologise to the resident for the issues in this report and set out how it will learn from this to prevent it happening again in the future.
The resident has said since the landlord’s stage 2 response that the heat and hot water issues have been intermittent and not fully resolved. The landlord should contact the resident to inspect the issue and set out an action plan to ensure intermittent issues with the heat and hot water are remedied within a reasonable timeframe.

Report to repair the balcony door

On 9 November 2023 the resident reported the balcony door was letting in a draught.
The tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep in good repair and proper working order the doors, door frames, door hinges, and door furniture.
On 1 December 2023 the resident reported that the balcony door was not fixed and was making the property cold. The landlord arranged for the contractor to fix the door on 20 December 2023. It was appropriate to repair the issue. However, it had not repaired the issue within the time set out in its repair timescale. This was inappropriate.
On 21 December 2023 the resident reported to the landlord the balcony door was not fixed and continued to let in a draught. The resident chased the landlord about the issues with the balcony door on 26 February 2024.
There is no evidence the landlord assessed the balcony door and arranged any further repairs. This was inappropriate and not in line with its repair policy and the tenancy agreement.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 26 February 2024. It said it had not completed repairs to the balcony door and would set out to repair it, which may include referring the repair to the property developer.
It is our role to consider if what the landlord offered had put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. We consider if its commitment to remedy issues have been in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
In the complaint responses the landlord had not recognised:
1. the delay to assess and repair the balcony door and the distress and inconvenience caused due to the draught during the winter months.
2. the inconvenience caused to the resident for chasing the landlord about repairs to the balcony door.
Since the stage 2 response there is no evidence the landlord repaired the balcony door. Therefore, we cannot confirm it resolved the issue. Considering this, we find maladministration in how it handled the repair to the balcony door.
Taking account of the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident £250. It should apologise for the issues identified in the report and set out its learning to prevent this happening again in the future.
There is no evidence the doors have been fixed and the resident explained to us the repair is outstanding. The landlord should inspect the issue and set out an action plan to the resident to remedy it within a reasonable time, and ensure it is completed.

Report of staff misconduct

On 2 November 2023 the resident explained to the landlord that a member of its staff was aggressive to them on the phone earlier that day. On the call the resident said the staff member told them not to repeatedly call about the repair as it would report them to their housing manager.
In the landlord’s complaint responses, it said it investigated the call between the resident the staff member. It agreed it was a poorly handled call that fell below its standards and that its Head of Customer Experience would provide feedback about it. It apologised for the call and offered the resident £51.50. It was reasonable to investigate the issue and provide feedback about the call.
The landlord acknowledged the failures of its service in its complaint responses, provided feedback about the call, and offered compensation which was in line with our remedies guidance and its compensation policy.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.
Our determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the landlord’s offer of compensation of £51.50 is paid to the resident within 28 days of this report, if it has not already paid this to them.

Complaint

Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must ensure it:
1. acknowledges a complaint within 5 working days of receiving it.
2. responds to the complaint within 10 working days of logging the complaint.
  1. if the landlord needs an extension, it should communicate the timescale to the resident, and that it is no longer than a further 10 working days.
3. if the resident escalates the complaint to stage 2, the landlord should provide its response within 20 working days of the escalation.
  1. if the landlord needs an extension, it should communicate the timescale to the resident, and that it is no longer than a further 10 working days.
  2. if the landlord needs a further extension, it should agree this with the resident.
The landlord’s complaint policy is aligned with the Code.
The resident raised their complaint to the landlord on 2 November 2023, and it had until 9 November 2023 to acknowledge it. The landlord acknowledged the complaint late on 15 November 2023. This was a shortfall of its service.
The landlord had until 29 November 2023 to provide the stage 1 response or confirm an extension. It provided its stage 1 response on 21 November 2023. This was appropriate and in line with the Code and its complaint policy.
The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 on 15 January 2024. The landlord had until 12 February 2024 to provide its stage 2 response. The resident chased it for a response on 19 February 2024. It told them on 23 February 2024 it would need more time to respond. It provided its stage 2 response on 26 February 2024.
It was appropriate that the landlord explained to the resident that it would need an extension. However, this was after the due date had passed and the resident chased for a response. The delay was inappropriate and inconvenienced the resident.
Overall, the landlord had not acknowledged the complaint in time, and there was a delay to confirm a stage 2 extension. On that basis the landlord failed to comply with its own complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Code. This caused inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord had not acknowledged its complaint handling failures in their complaint responses. This is not in line with our dispute resolution principles. Taking this into account, we find service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint. It should apologise for the issues and set out what lessons it has learnt to prevent it happening again.
Considering the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance, it should pay the resident £50 to recognise the inconvenience caused to them.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of no heat and hot water and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports to repair the balcony door.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of staff misconduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to:
  1. apologise for the failures set out in this report.
  2. explain the lessons it learnt from these, and how it will prevent them happening again in the future.
  3. provide a response to the resident’s complaint that they want compensation for heat and hot water costs and for the costs to run temporary heaters, whilst the heat and hot water was not working.

(1) the landlord should consider its compensation policy before setting out to the resident if it will offer any compensation.

inspect the property and set out an action plan to:
1. remedy the intermittent heating and hot water issues in the property.
2. remedy the issue with the draught from the balcony door.

(1) the action plan should include the inspection findings and a reasonable timeframe to complete repairs.

a copy of the action plan should be provided to the resident and this Service.

the landlord should pay the resident a total of £800, broken down as:
1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the household for the heating and hot water issues.

(1) the landlord can deduct £129.50 offered in its complaint responses, if it’s evidenced this has been paid to the resident already.

£250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the household for the delays to repair the balcony door.
£50 for the inconvenience caused to the resident for its complaint handling.

The landlord should provide us evidence of compliance of these orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

Our determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that within 28 days of this report, the landlord:
1. pays the resident £51.50 compensation that it offered in its complaint responses. If the landlord has paid this to the resident already, it should provide evidence of this.