Origin Housing Limited (202435202)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435202

Origin Housing Limited

29 July 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 the resident’s reports of:
   1. Outstanding roof repairs.
   2. Condensation and damp in the property.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has occupied the property, a 2 bedroom house, on an assured periodic tenancy since 2015. She lives with her 2 children, who both have autism. The landlord is a housing association.
4. The landlord’s records show that jobs were created to inspect and repair the roof on 15 June 2023 and 21 October 2023 due to there being a reported leak in the property.
5. On 29 December 2023, the resident’s sister complained on her behalf that although a couple of minor repairs to the roof had been done, there was still a major repair needed. She said the roof damage was causing damp and mould and there were high levels of condensation.
6. A surveyor attended on 7 January 2024 and found minor damp and mould. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response on 17 January 2024. It said it would arrange for the flat roof causing issues to be replaced and in terms of condensation and damp, it was arranging for a survey to be done. However, to acknowledge the delays that she had experienced and some missed appointments, if offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience experienced.
7. The resident escalated the complaint on 30 January 2024 and the landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 8 April 2024. It apologised for the delay sending a surveyor to assess the damp and mould. It said someone attended on 24 January 2024 and roof tiles and guttering were inspected on 21 March 2024. It also confirmed works to replace approximately 6 tiles and 6 meters of lead flashing had been carried out. It said fans would be fitted in the kitchen and bathroom on 12 April 2024 and it would replace damaged render. It then increased its offer of compensation to £1,950, and this was paid on 8 May 2024. This offer took in to account another issue (about hot water/water temperature) that the resident said did not need to be considered here as the matter was resolved.
8. Further roof repairs were carried out in April and August 2024 and a damp and mould survey was done in December 2024. This had an amber rating which indicated works were needed. It highlighted there was an issue with damp and mould and made suggestions to remedy the situation.
9. Having been chased for an update, the landlord acknowledged on 2 April 2025, that roof repairs remained outstanding and that there had been a number of rescheduled or cancelled jobs. It accepted the issue had gone on for a long time and during April 2025, liaised with the resident and her sister about the work that needed to be done. That being, a replacement window and roof repairs which would then be followed by a damp treatment, replastering and redecoration.
10. In June 2025, the resident confirmed the landlord had recently completed the roof repair, treated the property for damp and redecorated.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. In this case, the resident has referred to issues with the roof and damp and mould going back some time. It is evident that reports of a leak into her property were made in 2023, and a complaint made in December 2023. For completeness and given the length of time the resident has been reporting the same issue, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from this date. We have also considered events following the landlord’s final response as the issue remained unresolved.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding roof repairs

12. The landlord’s compensation policy states routine repairs should be carried out within 30 days. Its damp and mould policy also says it will address the root cause of the damp, including roof repairs. In particular, where the damp might be caused by rain penetration through missing or slipped tiles or slates or deterioration of a flat roof covering. It goes on to say it will also consider health issues and vulnerabilities and monitor the work.
13. It seems the issues with the roof were contributing to the damp and mould in the property, and the landlord was on notice that the resident was vulnerable and struggling to deal with things and had her sister helping her. While the landlord did carry out some minor roof repairs from 2023, it is difficult to establish from the evidence provided the exact dates when work was carried out. This is because there is reference to appointments being made and not attended as well as contractors attending with no notice. It is not always clear whether these related to the roof repairs, or other issues. It does though, indicate a degree of disorganisation on the part of the landlord and a lack of clarity in its record keeping.
14. With the repairs that were carried out, the landlord did not always comply with the 30 day timescale required. For example, a job was created to repair the roof on 15 February 2024, but the work was not completed until 21 March 2024. Not only did the landlord fail in its obligations in terms of timescales, but the confusion over appointments caused the resident a lot of distress. She explained she was having to try and balance working shifts as a nurse, looking after her 2 children and accommodating appointments to carry out repairs.
15. It is recognised that the landlord apologised at stage 2 for the length of time the roof repairs had taken and commented that it thought the work had been completed. However, it also acknowledged that further issues had been identified and this led to additional roof repairs being needed on 18 April 2024 and 1 August 2024 and therefore prolonged the issue. In addition, correspondence between the resident and landlord several months later in April 2025, shows that despite some repairs having taking place, there was still a leak and more repairs were needed to the roof.
16. The landlord confirmed at that time, that the roofing job was still open on its system and it accepted there had been rescheduled and cancelled jobs which had caused the resident disruption. There had also been times when jobs had been attended but contractors did not have the required tools so work could not be done. It accepted the issue had been going on a long time and said it would ensure the works were closely monitored.
17. Despite the landlord’s policies saying it would be mindful of the resident’s vulnerabilities and that it would monitor work being done, the evidence does not support that. The fact the roofing job was still open and it was not until the resident followed up on the issue that this became apparent, shows it was not proactively monitoring the job, in line with its damp and mould policy. Roof repairs were done in a piecemeal way and over several appointments, which inconvenienced the resident. For example, there is reference to contractors attending to carry out repairs but there being no scaffolding in place, so work could not be done.
18. Overall, it took the landlord nearly 2 years to fix the roof completely, and not only was the resident inconvenienced by the time things took, but also by errors being made with appointments. It took many appointments before the roof was finally fixed and this created inconvenience to the resident that could have been avoided, had the repairs been managed better.
19. Having reviewed the evidence, there has been maladministration. The landlord did offer to pay the resident £1,950 compensation at stage 2. However, this was said to be “recognition of the delays and inconvenience caused. This relates to a discount of your rent of 20% for the 42 weeks that you were impacted”.
20. The landlord has been unable to explain how this amount of compensation was calculated. However, a stage 2 ‘Escalation Handover Sheet’ has been supplied which sets out compensation the resident at that time had said she was seeking. It records she wanted £20 a week for 42 weeks, amounting to £840 as well as £150 towards fuel costs (a total of £990), as compensation for the hot water issue, which did not form part of this investigation. Therefore, although the landlord has been unable to attribute specific amounts to each issue raised, based on the wording of the stage 2 offer, that of the £1,950 offered, compensation of £990 was likely to be attributable to the hot water issue. That would mean the remaining compensation of £960 was offered as a remedy to resolve the leak as well as the damp issue, that have formed this investigation.
21. In cases like with where the circumstances for maladministration apply and the redress needed to put things right is substantial, our remedies guidance suggests compensation of between £600 and £1,000. Due to the stage 2 offer encompassing more than one issue, we will summarise our position on remedy for this part of the complaint, following our conclusion on the matter of damp and mould, below.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of condensation and damp in the property

22. Having complained about high levels of condensation and damp on 29 December 2023, a survey carried out on 7 January 2024 confirmed there was damp and mould. The property was given a green rating, which meant minor damp had been identified. It said the roof needed to be assessed, there needed to be ventilation improvements and the exterior wall improved. The landlord confirmed that fans would be fitted in the kitchen and bathroom on 12 April 2024 and it wanted to replace damaged render. This was in addition to roof repairs that were also needed to prevent the damp.
23. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delay in arranging a surveyor and referred to another inspection taking place on 24 January 2024. However, despite us asking for a copy of this, nothing has been provided. It is therefore not clear whether a survey was actually done that day, or what the outcome was, The stage 2 response of 8 April 2024 does summarise the landlord’s position though following an inspection. It said it had:
    1. Inspected the lead roof tiles and guttering on 21 March 2024 and it had replaced approximately 6 tiles and 6 meters of lead flashing.
    2. Ordered extractor fans for the kitchen and bathroom and they were to be fitted on 12 April 2024.
    3. Attempted to remove damaged render from the external wall and reapply render but the work had been declined. It asked the resident to confirm it could be done.
24. Therefore, while some work had been done to address the damp and mould, other work was still outstanding 4 months later. No evidence of further work being done throughout 2024 has been provided, but another survey was carried out on 23 December 2024. This gave the property an amber rating (moderate), suggesting during the 8 months from the stage 2 response being sent, the damp and mould had got worse. The recommendations made involved a mould wash, redecorating 2 bedrooms and plastering around windows. It also said a new double sash lounge window was needed and a humidistat fan should be installed. That is something the landlord said would be done in April 2024 and had evidently not been addressed.
25. It is accepted that the landlord had to manage addressing the roof repairs with the damp and mould issue, as it seems the roof issues may have been the cause of the problem. However, our Spotlight on Damp and Mould report, it’s not lifestyle (October 2021) says landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. They should ensure that responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. This is not the case here, as very little seems to have been done to address the issue, and any action that was taken, did not improve the situation.
26. There is no evidence that the landlord discussed moving the resident and her family either temporarily or permanently while works were carried out. It could have also offered the resident dehumidifiers and regular mould washes until the issue was resolved. The only mention of a mould wash we have seen in the landlord’s records, was following the inspection on 23 December 2024 and it is not clear if, or when, that was actually done.
27. Overall, the condensation and damp were not addressed as quickly and effectively as they should have been, and that amounts to maladministration. It is positive that the damp has now been treated, but to recognise the time things took and the lack of proactivity on the landlord’s part, it is appropriate for compensation to be paid to the resident.
28. We acknowledge that the condensation and damp affected the resident and family for a long time, but it did not cause permanent damage. However, the circumstances for maladministration apply and the redress needed to put things right should be substantial. Our remedies guidance suggests compensation of between £600 and £1,000 and this will be addressed further, below.

Summary of remedy for the resident’s reports of outstanding roof repairs and condensation and damp in the property

29. As already explained, during the complaints process, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £1,950 to remedy 3 issues and this was then paid. One of the issues did not form part of this investigation, that being an issue with hot water/water temperature, as the resident confirmed she was satisfied that point had been resolved. The evidence suggests that of the £1,950 offered, £990 is attributable to that issue. That would mean the remaining compensation of £960 was offered to remedy both the leak issue as well as the condensation and damp issue. For that reason, it is sensible to consider the matter of remedy for both of these issues, together.
30. The leak was reported a few months before the complaint about damp and mould but it took just under 2 years for the leak to finally be fixed, and about 18 months for the damp issue to be resolved. The offer made by the landlord was to address all issues and omissions, and that included a number of factors, such as fuel costs, inconvenience, delays and missed, wasted or unexpected appointments.
31. Both the leak and damp issues were not resolved until more than a year after the stage 2 response was issued and the landlord’s offer was made. If the landlord deemed a remedy of £960 reasonable in April 2024 to remedy both issues, after they had been going on for a few months, it would be appropriate to increase that to take in to account that matters were not resolved for another year.
32. When considering what a fair remedy would look like now, we have referred to our remedies guidance. Having done so, compensation of £800 for inconvenience caused by the leak, and £600 for the condensation and damp, is reasonable. Both amounts fall within the guidelines of £600 – £1,000 as explained earlier. Neither issue has caused permanent detriment to the resident but the amount suggested is greater for the leak, as the issue went on for longer. We are satisfied that the amount totalling £1,400, is proportionate to the initial remedy offered by the landlord at stage 2 and fairly reflects the additional impact on the resident while waiting for the issues to be fully resolved.

The landlord’s complaint handling

33. The landlord’s complaints policy states a stage 1 response will be issued within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. If more time is needed, the landlord says it will explain the reasons why that is the case and when a response will be sent.
34. In this case, the complaint was submitted between Christmas and New Year, therefore it is fair to deem 2 January 2024 as the first working day after the holiday break. Taking that in to account, the stage 1 response was then issued 11 working days later.
35. It is not clear whether or when the landlord acknowledged the complaint and its complaints policy from the time did not mention a timescale for acknowledging the complaint. It said a response would be issued within 10 working days (of the complaint being made). Therefore, there was a slight delay in the landlord responding at stage 1.
36. The complaint was then escalated on 30 January 2024 and the stage 2 response issued 49 days later. No evidence has been provided to indicate the resident was made aware the response would be delayed or when to expect it, which is unreasonable, and again not in line with the complaints policy.
37. It is good to see that the landlord did apologise for the delay in its stage 2 response, but it missed an opportunity to consider whether it should offer any redress, such as compensation. It did increase the compensation it had offered at stage 1, but that was for the issues raised as part of the complaint. It was not in recognition of the delay in its complaint handling.
38. Where there has been a minor failure that the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge or put right, this amounts to a service failure, and is the case here. While the landlord’s compensation policy does not suggest an amount of compensation that might be reasonable, our remedies guidance does. It says compensation of up to £100 ought to be considered.
39. In this case, the resident’s complaint was actually brought by her sister, as she was offering her support. By having her act on her behalf, this alleviated some of the stress on the resident, so the impact of the service failure was lessened. Having said that, in this case we have seen that the resident did actually draft the complaint, and her sister just sent it. She also liaised with her sister on the complaint. Therefore, she was put to the trouble of having to complain about the service she was receiving and suffered detriment as a result of having to wait so long for the stage 2 response.
40. Taking that in to account, to recognise the frustration caused by the delay in the complaint handling, the landlord should pay the resident £75 compensation.

Determination

41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of:
    1. Outstanding roof repairs.
    2. Condensation and damp in the property.
42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

43. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident £1,475 compensation (inclusive of £960 compensation offered at stage 2) made up of:
       1. £800 for the inconvenience caused by the leak.
       2. £600 for the delay and inconvenience caused by condensation and damp.
       3. £75 for its poor complaint handling.