Origin Housing Limited (202441080)

Decision
Case ID	202441080
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Origin Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	21 October 2025

Background

1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom maisonette in a residential block. The resident lives there with her 2 children. The landlord holds a lease for property, but the block is managed by the freeholder’s managing agent. Since moving into the property in 2020, the resident had reported issues with leaks from the flat above. This flat is managed by the managing agent.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A loss of hot water
   2. Leaks, damp and mould.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress for its handling of a loss of hot water.
5. The landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress for its handling of leaks, damp and mould.
6. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Loss of hot water

7. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its contractor’s failure to log a call out the first time the resident called. The landlord’s offer of £25 compensation was reasonable considering the brief delay caused by this failure, which did not significantly affect the outcome of the repair.

Leaks, damp and mould

8. The landlord has not evidenced that it appropriately pursued the managing agent to expedite repairs to the leak. Nor that it appropriately communicated with the resident and provided regular updates on the situation. However, its offer of compensation represented reasonable redress for these failings.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord acknowledged its delay in escalating the resident’s complaint and offered redress for this. However, it failed to acknowledge its delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint. It also inappropriately escalated the complaint to stage 2, when it would have been appropriate to log a new complaint instead.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the additional failings 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 18 November 2025

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord arranges for a suitably qualified person to inspect the property to assess whether: The leak repair has been effective and lasting. The issues with damp and mould have been resolved. Any further work is needed to make good damage caused by the leak.   We recommend that the landlord shares its findings from the inspection with the resident in writing.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 October 2024	The resident made her complaint to the landlord. She said that she had reported a loss of hot water in the property to it that afternoon. When she had called back several hours later, to see when it would be attending, she had been told that “told there is no job and no one is aware”. She said her 18 month old child was unwell, and she was in “desperate need of hot water”.
22 October 2024	The landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint. During this call the resident also expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had failed to schedule works recommended by its surveyor following an inspection on 23 May 2024. The landlord added this to her complaint.
4 November 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said that: Its repairs contractor had passed the resident’s initial report of no hot water to its evening ‘emergency call out team’ to raise. However, “unfortunately it looks like this was missed”. It apologised for this and would like to offer her £25 compensation for the mistake. Its contractor had raised a call out after the resident had called the second time. It then attended that evening. The contractor found there was an issue with the communal boiler, affecting multiple flats. This was the responsibility of the managing agent, which attended the following day and got the boiler back up and running. Its surveyor had said the resident refused the works identified during their inspection on 23 May 2024. This was because she did not want to have its repairs contractor ‘back to the property’. It had emailed the resident advising it was unable to offer an alternative contractor and asking how she wished to proceed.
10 December 2024	The resident emailed the landlord asking it to “Please escalate this complaint regarding this ongoing leak since 2020 as I am still none of the wiser after formal complaints”.
25 February 2025	The resident emailed the landlord as it had not contacted her since she asked to escalate her complaint. She said that the leak was still ongoing and causing damp and mould in the property.
11 April 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said that: Investigations had taken place this week and identified where the leak was coming from. It was in direct contact with the managing agent and would “oversee their approach” to resolving the leak. It would arrange for a surveyor to visit the property and check the areas affected by damp and mould. It could start damp and mould treatment, and any other works recommended by its surveyor, once the leak had been resolved. The resident had sent her first request to escalate her complaint to a staff member who had left its employment. The staff member had left a task for a colleague to pick this up, but this had not been done. It offered the resident £400 compensation for inconvenience and distress caused by the delays in carrying out repairs and escalating her complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 26 June 2025, the resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said that although work had begun to repair the leak, the mould and damage to her property still needed addressing. She said due to the history of leaks, she was not confident that they would not reoccur and wanted the landlord to undertake investigations to ensure this.
2 July 2025	The landlord reviewed its offer of compensation. It increased it to a total of £2,710, made up of: £800 for distress and inconvenience. £1,000 as a contribution towards “out of pocket expenses” the resident told it she had incurred. £910 towards belongings the resident told it had been damaged.   The resident accepted the compensation, which the landlord paid to her on or around 22 August 2025.
11 July 2025	A contractor appointed by the managing agent completed remedial works to the resident’s property.

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.

Complaint	Loss of hot water
Finding	Reasonable redress

10. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy classifies a loss of hot water as an ‘emergency repair’. It says that it will attend these “within 2 hours” to make safe and repair if possible.
11. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that its contractor had failed to log a call out for the loss of hot water the first time the resident called. This meant that the contractor did not attend until approximately 4 and a half hours after the resident had first contacted it, failing to meet the landlord’s policy timescale.
12. The landlord said it had raised this with the contractor “to ensure we learn from complaints and that this error doesn’t occur again”. This was in keeping with our dispute resolution principle for landlords to learn from complaints.
13. The landlord apologised for the error and offered the resident £25 compensation. This was a reasonable amount, considering the relatively brief duration of the delay, which acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
14. Upon attending, the landlord’s contractor found that the loss of hot water was a wider issue within the block. It is evident that either the landlord, or the contractor, appropriately raised this with the managing agent. The managing agent then attended and resolved an issue with the communal boiler the following day.
15. In her complaint, the resident mentioned that she had had previous issues with her hot water supply. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will not accept complaints about “an issue that occurred more than 12 months ago”. It says that where there is “a long-standing issue” it will consider older reports if this helps resolve the issue.
16. We have not seen any evidence of the resident reporting a loss of hot water in the 12 months prior to her complaint. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord not to consider it a ‘long-standing issue’ and only investigate the most recent loss of hot water in its complaint responses.

Complaint	Leaks, damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

17. When escalating her complaint, the resident said the property had an “ongoing leak since 2020”. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 23 May 2024 using a damp meter. They recorded that “damp reads suggest all areas tested are now dry” and “tenant reports no water ingress since original leak”. In an email of 10 December 2024, the managing agent also wrote that it was “aware of a leak some time ago from the flat above…However have not been aware of anything since”.
18. Based upon this, we find on the balance of probabilities that the leak the resident reported in December 2024 was a new occurrence, rather than a previously reported ongoing unresolved leak. Due to this, we will not investigate the landlord’s handling of any earlier leaks – in keeping with its complaints policy. We will, however, assess its handling of remedial works recommended by its surveyor after their inspection on 23 May 2024.
19. On 23 May 2024, the landlord’s surveyor completed an inspection report. In this, they recommended decorative works to the living room and bathroom due to water damage from the leak. The surveyor wrote that the resident “refused these works” because she had “little faith” in the landlord’s repairs contractor.
20. The resident has disputed this. She says that she asked the surveyor whether the landlord was able to arrange for a different contractor to carry out the works – due to a bad previous experience with its repairs contractor. She says the surveyor told her he would enquire about this and come back to her. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that its surveyor had no recollection of saying this.
21. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine exactly what was said between the resident and the landlord’s surveyor. Nor do we have any evidence of the resident chasing the landlord up regarding these works prior to her complaint. Therefore, we are unable to establish any failing on the landlord’s part by it not progressing the works.
22. These works did not feature in the resident’s original complaint. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that she had raised when it had phoned her to discuss her complaint. It said it had emailed the resident on 23 October 2024 advising that it could not offer an alternative contractor and asking her how she wished to proceed. The landlord said the resident had not responded to this email and so it was unsure what outcome she was seeking.
23. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 November 2024. She said that the “suggested works are ridiculous as the leak is still not rectified.” It was reasonable for the landlord not to progress the decorative works further after this, as the leak was affecting the same areas.
24. The landlord raised a works order to investigate the leak on 23 November 2024. It’s contractor attended the property on 3 December 2024. We have no records of its findings from this visit.
25. The resident contacted the managing agent directly on 4 December 2024 to report the leak, which was coming from its property above. We have not seen any evidence to indicate that the landlord did this following its contractor’s investigation. As a tenant of the landlord, the resident has no contractual relationship with the managing agent. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised the matter to them, rather than relying on the resident to take the time and trouble to do so.
26. Repairing the leak was the responsibility of the managing agent. The landlord could not reasonably complete any remedial works to the resident’s flat until it was resolved. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have sought regular updates from the managing agent and passed these on to the resident. Our Spotlight Report on managing agents emphasised how landlords should be “proactive in pursuing managing agents and freeholders to discharge their responsibilities” and “take ownership for getting clear updates and action from managing agents”.
27. The landlord has not evidenced that it followed this approach. It has failed to provide any records of events between the resident contacting the managing agent on 4 December 2024 and its stage 2 response to her complaint over 4 months later. When the resident emailed it on 25 February 2025, chasing up the escalation of her complaint, she said that “I have not heard anything back from any of you or anyone else about this leak, damp and mould in my home”.
28. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the source of the leak had now been identified. It said it was in contact with the managing agent and would “oversee” its approach to resolving the leak. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence that it did this, or appropriately update the resident, in the period following its stage 2 response.
29. As part of its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord also said it would arrange a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property. It said that it would complete any works identified by this once the leak was resolved.
30. The landlord met this commitment, and its surveyor inspected the property on 24 April 2025. They found no mould present (although noted that the resident told them she had been cleaning this) but water marks and damp present in the living room caused by the water ingress from above.
31. The surveyor recommended that the resident was decanted for a week whilst the managing agent’s contactor carried out investigation works within her property. This involved cutting an ‘inspection hole’ in the living room ceiling to try and trace the leak from below. The resident has confirmed that the landlord did arrange this decant.
32. The managing agent’s contractor attended and repaired the leak in the flat above the property on 11 July 2025. This was over 7 months after the resident had reported this leak to it. This was an unreasonable delay, causing the resident to live with water ingress, damp and mould in the property for a prolonged period.
33. The landlord acknowledged this delay in its stage 2 response and made an offer of compensation. However, it did not provide any explanation for the delay. Its records which indicate the delay was at least in part due to the managing agent having difficulty accessing the flat above the resident’s. The landlord has also not evidenced that it pursued the managing agent to resolve the issue with appropriate urgency and minimise the delay.
34. After repairing the leak, the managing agent’s contractor carried out remedial works to the resident’s property. This involved filling the ‘inspection hole’ in her living room, and stain blocking and decorating the living room and hallway. The resident has told us she remains concerned that the water damage to the plaster, and cavity above her ceiling has not been properly addressed. She described the managing agent as having merely “painted over” the issue.
35. It is unclear whether she has raised these concerns with the landlord. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will monitor any work it carries out to address damp and mould “for a year afterwards” to ensure it has “been effective and resolved the issue”. While the landlord did not carry out these works, it would be appropriate for it to adopt this approach, and we have made a recommendation about this above.
36. When considering the landlord’s final offer of compensation to the resident, we note that this was calculated to offer redress for the leaks she had experienced since 2020. It also included compensation for out of pocket expenses and damaged belongings, which the resident did not raise as part of this complaint. Due to this we will only consider the £800 compensation the landlord offered the resident for distress and inconvenience.
37. Whilst the managing agent was responsible for repairing the leak, the landlord had a responsibility to maintain oversight, hold the managing agent to account and communicate updates to the resident. It has not shown that it did so. This lack of information is likely to have caused the resident distress, particularly with the lengthy delay in the leak being repaired.
38. The £800 compensation offered by the landlord is in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances of maladministration which have a “significant impact” on residents, either physically, mentally or both. Due to this, we make a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

39. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in escalating the resident’s complaint. It explained that the stage 1 complaint handler had left the organisation and the resident’s email of 10 December 2024 had been “regrettably missed”.
40. When the resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team on 25 February 2025, it did then escalate her complaint. However, the resident had asked it to “escalate this complaint regarding this ongoing leak since 2020”. As detailed above, this matter did not feature in her original complaint, or the landlord’s stage 1 response. The evidence shows that the resident had not reported the current leak until after receiving the stage 1 complaint response.
41. Our complaint handling code (the Code) says that where a resident raises additional complaints, and a stage 1 response has already been issued, the landlord must log the new issues as a new complaint.
42. The landlord’s failure to do this meant that its first response on the handling of the leak, damp and mould was also its stage 2 final response. This denied the resident the opportunity to escalate her complaint about its handling of these and have the landlord review its response.
43. Had the landlord logged a new complaint and allowed the resident this opportunity, it may have been able to complete its compensation review as a part of its internal complaints process – rather than doing so several months after its stage 2 response.
44. The landlord did not provide its stage 2 complaint response until 11 April 2025. This was 33 working days after the resident’s email to its complaints team. The Code requires landlord’s to acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within a further 20 working days.
45. The landlord has not provided us with any evidence of if, or when, it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. However, it is evident that its response exceeded the total possible 25 days applicable. The landlord has not shown that it agreed an extension to its response time with the resident. It also failed to acknowledge this delay in the response itself, referring only to the delay in escalating the complaint.
46. Due to these failings, we make a finding of maladministration. We order the landlord to pay the resident a further £150 compensation.

Learning

47. Where third part managing agents are involved in providing services to a landlord’s residents it is vital that the landlord has a clear line of communication with them. Landlords must be proactive in pursuing managing agents to discharge their responsibilities and take ownership for obtaining and sharing updates with residents.
48. Where a resident introduces new, unrelated matters as part of a request to escalate their complaint, landlords should log a new complaint about these. Failure to do this denies the resident, and landlord, the opportunity to have its response on these matters reviewed.