Origin Housing Limited (202539912)

Background

1. The resident reported a leak into her property on several occasions. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response and the time taken to progress repairs. It was aware that the resident’s daughter had asthma.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks into her property.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks into her property.
   2. Complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into her property

4. The landlord did not complete the repair within a reasonable timescale. Its communication with the resident was poor throughout. It did not fully resolve the matter through its internal complaint procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord did not record the complaint at the earliest opportunity, causing delays in its complaints handling. This was not in line with its complaint’s policy.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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

6. The resident told the landlord that the condition of the property had impacted her daughter’s health. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. The resident made a second complaint in February 2026 about the ongoing leak and reported a ceiling collapse. The landlord issued a stage 1 response in March 2026. She told us that she did not escalate this complaint. As it has not exhausted its internal complaint procedure, we cannot investigate it. This investigation has therefore focused on the first complaint and the landlord’s responses in October and November 2025.

What we did investigate

8. At stage 1, the landlord stated the resident first reported the leak in June 2025. It did not provide records to evidence this or demonstrate what action it took at that time. Its repair logs refer to a leaking patio door in May 2025; however, it did not clarify whether this related to the same issue. This lack of clarity prevents a full understanding of when the problem began and whether it responded appropriately from the outset.
9. The landlord failed to maintain a clear and accurate audit trail of the repair. Its poor record keeping limited our investigation and suggests a lack of oversight of the case. Adequate records should have enabled it to track the history of the issue, monitor progress, coordinate with contractors, and provide consistent and accurate updates to the resident.
10. While leaks in blocks of flats can be complex and require time to trace, the landlord remained responsible for managing the issue with appropriate urgency. This includes ensuring timely inspections, progressing investigations, and coordinating effectively with relevant contractors and third parties. There is no evidence that it did so. Instead, there were avoidable delays and ineffective management.
11. The landlord erected scaffolding in July 2025, indicating that it anticipated external works. However, roofing repairs had still not been approved by 17 October 2025. This delay significantly exceeded its 20‑working day target for responsive repairs and demonstrates a failure to progress the works within a reasonable timeframe.
12. The resident contacted the landlord at least 9 times between August and October 2025 seeking updates. This level of contact shows it did not provide regular updates or communicate effectively. As a result, she repeatedly chased for information, increasing her time and trouble which likely contributed to frustration and uncertainty.
13. A surveyor inspected the property on 27 October 2025 and recommended a mould wash and additional repair works. However, records indicate that the landlord did not raise a job for the mould wash until 14 November 2025, over 2 weeks later. This delay was unreasonable, particularly as the resident was concerned about the effect of mould on her asthmatic daughter.
14. When the mould contractor attended on 14 November 2025, they identified a “severe mould problem” and noted that areas remained wet due to ongoing roofing issues. This confirmed the link between the unresolved leak and the deterioration inside the property. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord took prompt or effective action to address the underlying cause.
15. The landlord failed to follow through on actions agreed during the complaints process. At stage 2, it scheduled roofing works for 5 December 2025. It has not provided evidence that it attended on this date. This demonstrated a failure to carry out the agreed resolution and continued poor management of the repair.
16. The landlord did not identify the cause of the leak within a reasonable timeframe. It is unclear whether the original issue was linked to a neighbouring property, as later suggested. Or, if there were several points of water ingress caused by different issues. This uncertainty highlights weaknesses in its investigation, record keeping, and coordination of a likely complex repair involving third parties.
17. These failings likely had a significant and prolonged impact on the resident. She lived with an unresolved leak and worsening internal conditions, including mould, over an extended period. The lack of clear information and repeated delays likely caused distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty. The need to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates added to her time and trouble.
18. The landlord offered £800 compensation in its final complaint response. This falls within the range of awards set out in our compensation guidance for cases involving significant service failure. It demonstrates some recognition of the impact on the resident.
19. However, we do not consider this amount fully reflects the duration and impact of the landlord’s failings. It delayed the repair well beyond its policy timescales, did not maintain effective oversight, communicated poorly, and failed to resolve the matter after completing its complaints process. We recognise its compensation offer; without it we may have found severe maladministration.
20. In line with our compensation guidance, a higher award is appropriate where there has been a significant and long‑term impact. We find that total compensation of £1,100 more accurately reflects the severity, duration, and cumulative impact of the failings. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £300.

21. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days. This is extendable by up to 10 and 20 working days respectively in agreement with the resident.
22. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and response times in its complaint policy were in line with the Code. The Code does not require residents to use the word “complaint” and says landlords must raise a complaint where a resident expresses dissatisfaction with the response to a service request.
23. The landlord missed an opportunity to raise a complaint for the resident on 29 August 2025. She had clearly expressed dissatisfaction with its lack of action. This led to her requesting to raise a complaint on 18 September 2025 which it did not acknowledge until 29 September 2025, 7 working days later, and 2 working days later than its complaint policy timescale.
24. The landlord extended the stage 1 response date by 10 working days and issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 October 2025. It acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within 1 working day and issued its stage 2 complaint response 21 working days later. This was 1 day outside its20-working day timescale set out in its complaint policy.
25. The landlord offered £25 at stage 1 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint, but it did not identify or remedy its wider complaint handling failures at stage 2. We note the issue remained unresolved after its final response, and the resident went on to make a further complaint in February 2026. This is significant because the Code requires landlords not only to identify failings and offer appropriate redress, but also to follow any remedy through to completion. The fact she had to raise a further complaint demonstrates it did not do so and led to further time and trouble.
26. The landlord’s handling of the complaintlikely caused the resident frustration and undermined her confidence in the complaints process.Taken altogether, we have ordered compensation of £125. This is in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling failures which had a significant impact.

Learning

General learning

27. It is important for landlords to see complaints as opportunities to recover failings. Landlords need to set out commitments to resolve outstanding issues within the complaints process and complete them. Otherwise, it compounds the breakdown of trust and damages the landlord/resident relationship. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Repairing Trust.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. Good record keeping allows landlord to know and understand its assets generally. It ensures that it effectively manages repairs without unreasonable delays. In this case, there were repair delays perhaps impacted by record keeping. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

29. The landlord failed to consistently communicate throughout the repairs process in this case. Effective communication is vital and ensures landlords manage expectations, even when delays occur. This improves the experience of residents.