Origin Housing Limited (202425920)

Decision
Case ID	202425920
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Origin Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	24 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a first floor, 2 bedroomed flat.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s request for information about his service charge costs.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about his service charge costs.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Service charge costs

The landlord did not provide the resident with a response within a reasonable timeframe. There is no evidence it was investigating this issue until after it sent him its stage 2 response, despite telling him it was. Although it did provide him with a breakdown of its service charge costs, it did not provide him with an answer if its costs represented value for money or why these had increased.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not clearly tell the resident that it was not considering part of his complaint, as it had already provided him with a stage 1 response on this issue. There is no record that it formally acknowledged his complaint at either stage. Its responses were over its published timeframe by a total of 35 working days, which caused the resident inconvenience.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 21 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows: £100 for the failures identified in its response to the resident’s concerns about his service charge costs. £100 for the failures identified in its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 21 November 2025
3	Information order The landlord must provide the resident with a written response clearly explaining why his service charge costs had increased.	No later than 21 November 2025

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord arranges complaint handling training for its staff to ensure that its complaint policy and the Code are followed
It is recommended that the landlord considers available leasehold best practice from published sources such as Tenant Participation Advisory Service (TPAS).

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
04/04/2024	The resident raised his complaint to the landlord. He said that: He had sent it an email, contesting its service charges around 4 weeks ago. It had sent him a response on 8 March 2024, but he had not heard from it since. He wanted to know why his service charge costs were increasing. That the standard of its repair’s contractor was “appalling.”
03/05/2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It said: It was sorry that it did not respond to his email, contesting his service charge costs. There was a significant increase to his service charge due to changes it had made in how it calculates them. It had done this to ensure it was more consistent and transparent. It would need extra time to investigate why the costs for maintaining the boiler and lift had increased so much. It had sent him a stage 1 complaint response on 17 April 2024, in response to his email on 7 March 2024. It partly upheld his complaint, as it should have investigated his query before then.
31/05/2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said nothing had happened since he received its stage 1 response, despite it saying it would provide him with follow-up information. He wanted it to provide him with a breakdown of the costs it had incurred and the reasons why its costs had increased.
21/08/2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld his complaint and said: Although it had agreed an extension with him on 8 August 2024, it was unable to provide him with an answer about its service charge costs, due to the complexity of his query. It would provide him with a full response on the service charge issue by 20 September 2024. This would highlight what it had charged him, if this was correct or outline how it would refund him any costs. It had attached a breakdown of its repair costs from 2021 to 2023, which it had previously provided to his neighbour as part of a group complaint. It would also review its charges for water ingress for this time period to see if these were correct. Its costs for servicing lifts and boilers were specific to each block of flats. Its charges were based on the equipment at each block and covered planned servicing, maintenance and repairs. Its contractor applied an annual uplift for increases in material and labour costs. However, there had been no significant increase in the services it delivered to his block of flats which would have seen such an increase in costs. This was why it could not provide him with a response on the actual charge, and it needed to investigate this further. It had developed a neighbourhood action plan to address some of the concerns he had raised. It had arranged for its contractor to inspect the lift in his block to ensure there were no water leaks into it. It had also added this to its neighbourhood action plan to ensure residents were kept informed. It was looking at refunding part of his service charge which it would check it had applied to his account.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us. He was unhappy: With the landlord’s repairs and maintenance of his block. He wanted it to return the building back to the visual state before it had completed repairs which he felt had damaged the appearance of the communal areas. With the landlord’s delay in providing him with a breakdown of its service charge costs and explaining why its costs had increased. That his service charges were relatively high and the services it provided residents did not represent value for money. The landlord had not kept the CCTV at the block in working order and there was antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the block. This had caused a lot of distress for residents. The landlord was not fulfilling its contractual obligations to residents and its response time to queries they had raised was poor.

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

The resident told us of ASB within the block of flats. We are unable to consider this issue as it has not been through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Complaint	Service charge costs
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaint response told the resident that it would provide him with a breakdown of its service charge costs by 20 September 2024. However, its evidence shows that it sent him this information on 22 October 2024. Due to this, this investigation will consider events up until this date.
On 19 February 2024 the landlord sent the resident details of its service charge costs for the 2024/25 financial year. It said it had worked out these by looking at previous costs, together with any changes in the price of a contract, the amount of VAT and the level of service required.
When the resident raised his complaint, he said that he had sent the landlord an email on 8 March 2024, contesting the new charges. Although the landlord’s complaint response acknowledged it had failed to respond to his email, there is no record in its evidence provided to us of this email. This was a record keeping failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said it needed extra time to investigate its increase to the resident’s service charge. However, it did not explain to him how it would be investigating this, to manage his expectations.
The resident was particularly concerned about the landlord’s costs for maintenance servicing contracts, for the boiler and lift at his block of flats. Both the landlord’s complaint responses were unable to address his concern, despite agreeing that these costs had “increased significantly.” It told him it would provide him a breakdown of its costs for these 2 items by 20 September 2024. However, it did not provide him with this until 22 October 2024, which exceeded its target to respond to him, and it did not explain to him the reasons for this delay.
The landlord provided the resident with a breakdown of its service charge costs 159 working days after he had first contacted it to contest its charges. Its complaint responses said the reason for its delay was due to the complex nature of his query. Had robust mechanisms for the audit and scrutiny of the landlord’s costs, been in place as outlined in its terms of reference with its maintenance contractor, it should have been straightforward for it to deal with the resident’s query. However, there is no evidence in its records that it was investigating the issue before it met with its head of finance on 10 September 2024. This indicates there was a lack of ownership by it on the issue he had raised and the mechanisms it had in place for the audit and scrutiny of its costs were lacking. This caused the resident inconvenience as he chased it for answers on 31 May, 2 July, 4 October and 18 October 2024.
Under the terms of his lease the landlord had to provide the resident with its estimated costs that it had reasonably incurred ahead of the start of each financial year. The resident would have expected it to have known the reason his service charge had increased. As its costs for the servicing of the boiler and lift had “increased significantly” it should have considered providing him with an explanation for this, in its letter to him on 19 February 2024. Had it done so then it may have been able to have resolved his concerns without the need for him to pursue this through its complaint’s procedure, which caused him time, trouble and inconvenience.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 August 2024. He said he would have expected it to have investigated why its costs were high and give him an explanation for this. Although it provided him with a breakdown of costs on 22 October 2024, there is no record that explained to him why its costs had increased. Its failure to address this was not reasonable and is likely to have caused him confusion. He has also told us that it still has not provided him with this information.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days at both stages. It will provide a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
When the resident raised his complaint, he told the landlord he was unhappy with the standard of its repairs and maintenance at his block of flats. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it had addressed his concerns in an earlier stage 1 response on 17 April 2024. This indicates that it was not considering this issue as part of his complaint. There is no record that he asked it to escalate his earlier complaint. Due to this, we are unable to consider this issue, as the matter did not complete the landlord’s complaints process. However, its stage 1 response should have made it clear to him that it was not considering this issue under the complaint he made on 4 April 2024, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord including this issue as a complaint definition in its stage 2 was a mistake, as it did not consider this in its response. Had its stage 2 response clarified that it was not considering this issue, as the matter was part of an earlier complaint, it is likely that the resident would not have experienced confusion and inconvenience. This was a complaint handling failure.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint as it had not responded to him, as its stage 1 had said it would do. It apologised to him on 31 May 2025 and said it had been awaiting confirmation on the service charges before it responded to him. It is reasonable to conclude it knew its response to him would be delayed, so it should have told him of this delay earlier. Although it said it would contact him by 6 June 2024, there is no record in its evidence that it did this. Its failure to explain its delay or follow-up on promises it made inconvenienced him as he had to chase it for answers.
There is no record in the landlord’s evidence that it formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint at either stage. Its stage 1 response was 6 working days outside of its published timeframe for responding to a complaint. Although the delay was minor and had little impact on the resident it was a complaint handling failure.
The landlord contacted the resident to gain an understanding of the issues and the outcomes he wanted when he escalated his complaint. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord requested an extension to its stage 2 complaint, which the resident agreed to. However, this was 29 working days after it was required to send its response to him under the timeframe of its complaints policy. This was a failure by it to follow its complaints policy that says if it cannot provide a response within 20 working days it will contact the resident to explain this. Although it sent its response within the agreed extended timeframe, it was still outside its published timeframe for responding to his complaint. This was a complaint handling failure.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said it had developed a neighbourhood action plan which it had added some of the resident’s concerns to. However, there is no record that it gave him a copy of this document or told him which of his concerns it had added to this. This was a complaint handling failure as it did not clearly explain to him which of his concerns it had included in its action plan.
The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for its delays in responding to the resident’s complaint and the inconvenience it had caused him. While this went some way to address its failures, we do not consider this was proportionate given. Its complaint response delay totalled 35 working days and its communication with him about the delay was poor.

Learning

Where possible the landlord should ensure that it has mechanisms in place to be able to answer residents’ questions about service charges quickly. Having the correct and updated financial information on such matters will improve transparency in the services it provides.