Origin Housing Limited (202522698)

Decision
Case ID	202522698
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Origin Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	26 January 2026

Background

The resident lives in a 2–bedroom flat on the third floor. She reported a leak from the property above which had damaged her kitchen ceiling and left water on the cooker and floor. She was unhappy with how the landlord handled the ongoing repair and her complaint.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a leak

The landlord initially responded quickly, identified the leak, and offered some redress. However, there has been continued delays in resolving the leak and its actions to gain entry to the property above.

The complaint

The landlord acknowledged the delay in providing its complaint responses, recognised its failings and apologised. It also offered proportionate compensation.

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 23 February 2026
2	Repairs order The landlord must complete the necessary repairs to resolve the leak. The landlord must contact the resident to provide an update, a likely timescale for the repair and the actions it is taking to gain access to the other property. It must also provide regular updates until completion of the repair. If the landlord has been unable to gain access to the relevant property, it must evidence it has followed its no access policy and applied for an injunction.	No later than 09 March 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £750 made up as follows: £500 for distress and inconvenience for the continued delay in completing the repairs. £250 offered in its stage 2 response. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 23 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £75 as agreed in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 March 2025	The resident complained about a recurring leak in her flat. She said the landlord failed to resolve it despite multiple reports. She first reported the issue in December 2024. Although a temporary fix was carried out, the leak continued, with water dripping into the kitchen forcing her to cover appliances to prevent damage. She was told that it had been unable to contact the neighbour above, and the leak got worse. Over a 3 month period, the resident said she contacted the landlord several times but felt no effective action was taken. She said communication between it, its contractor, and the neighbourhood team was poor. Each new report felt like restarting the process. She requested an inspection, proper repair of the leak, clear communication among all parties, and a timeline for permanent repairs.
4 April 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
6 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It explained that, after receiving reports of a leak, its contractor attended the property on 24 February 2025. It said that, due to GDPR, it could not share full details of the inspection carried out in the neighbour’s home but confirmed the contractor did not identify the source of the leak. It said it had been trying to arrange an inspection of both properties but had been unable to contact the neighbour. It told the resident she would be informed once contact was made so that she could also be available.
14 May 2025	The landlord inspected both properties and identified that the neighbour had installed a bathroom without consent.
16 May 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
16 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It summarised the complaint and acknowledged the leak remained unresolved. It apologised for the delay and accepted the situation was unacceptable, causing the resident frustration, distress, and inconvenience. It accepted that its communication fell below standard. It said the main delay resulted from its inability to access the neighbour’s property. It stated it was taking legal steps to resolve the leak and complete any remedial work. It committed to giving her regular updates and improving communication between all parties. The landlord recognised that its response might not meet the resident’s expectations. It apologised again and offered £250 for her time and trouble and £75 for the delayed complaint response, totalling £325 compensation.
Between July 2025 and December 2025	The contractor reported that it could not locate the leak without removing tiles, which would render the neighbour’s bathroom unusable. It noted the bathroom would require a full renewal. On 30 October 2025, the landlord wrote to the neighbour explaining the situation and attempted to gain entry. It made further attempts on 7 November 2025 and discussed applying for an access injunction with forced entry. It said a new survey would be needed to confirm the status of the leak. As of December 2025, the leak was still ongoing.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint as she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She was unhappy with the length of time taken to address the issue and her associated complaint. She wanted it to complete the repair.

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	The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak
Finding	Maladministration

The resident reported a leak in December 2024. The landlord treated the report as an emergency call-out and attended the property, identifying that the leak likely originated from the property above. The repairs policy does not clearly state whether an emergency call-out counts as an emergency repair requiring a 2 hour response. However, the landlord responded quickly to attend within 48 hours. It made multiple visits without completing any repairs, stating that it could not gain access to the property above.
The landlord became aware in February 2025 that the flat above had installed a new bathroom without consent. It wrote to the neighbour in March 2025 and inspected both properties on 14 May 2025. The contractor advised that the unauthorised bathroom was likely causing the leak. Requiring inspections of both properties before arranging repairs aligned with its repairs policy and was reasonable in this case. However, it had been aware of leak since December 2024 and by May 2025 it remained outstanding.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord upheld the complaint and acknowledged it should have been more proactive in addressing the leak. It said it had difficulty gaining access to the property and had involved the Neighbourhood Manager to progress matters. In its stage 2 complaint response, it said it was exploring legal and procedural options, but we saw no evidence that it took any action at the time. It did not appear to begin its no access process until October 2025, 3 months later. Although it stated it later sought an injunction it has provided no evidence that it pursued the injunction or completed any repairs. It is unclear whether it followed its no access procedure, and it failed to provide a copy of the policy.
The landlord’s offer of £250 compensation for time and trouble was reasonable at the time of its final response. However, the leak remains unresolved as of December 2025. A further delay of 6 months.
While the landlord moved toward an injunction, it did so 5 months after the inspection. It is also unclear from the evidence if it has pursued the injunction at this stage. As a result, the resident has lived with the ongoing leak for more than a year. With consideration of our remedies guidance, we have made orders for the landlord to apologise, pay additional compensation for the further delays and complete outstanding repairs. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord acknowledged the original complaint within its policy timeframes. It confirmed the escalation request, although the evidence does not show when the request was made.
The landlord issued both complaint responses outside its policy timeframe, 10 working days late at stage 1 and 22 working days at stage 2. It did not provide any evidence of an agreed extension at either stage. That said, both responses addressed the resident’s concerns, and it apologised for the delays. It recognised its failures and offered £75 compensation for the inconvenience. This was within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance.

Learning

General learning

The landlord should ensure that where it commits to offering a remedy in its complaint responses, that it follows through with the identified action.

Communication

Communication with the resident was limited, and the landlord could have been more proactive after the contractor reports, inspection and no access in keeping her updated.