Origin Housing Limited — case 202431366

Decision Case ID 202431366 Decision type Investigation Landlord Origin Housing Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 30 January 2026 Background The resident reported a leak coming from the flat above (‘Flat A’). The landlord took some steps to investigate the cause of it. During that period, the resident raised concerns that the leak had been ongoing since she moved in (which was July 2023). She also said that the landlord had not resolved the leak and the associated remedial works within her flat in a timely manner.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We have found that there was: Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord acknowledged and reasonably compensated the resident for its delays to investigate the leak and carry out the remedial works within its stage 2 response.

However, it has not demonstrated that it reasonably progressed the repairs following its response as it said that it would. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. Due to record keeping issues, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it responded adequately to all aspects of the resident’s complaint. 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 27 February 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £3025.92 made up as follows: £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of a leak. £2375.92 for the loss of enjoyment of her bedroom. £250 for its complaint handling failings. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 27 February 2026 3 Contact order The landlord must contact the resident to ascertain whether: There are any outstanding issues with the leak and associated repairs. If there are, the landlord should consider whether any further compensation is warranted and inform us of its decision. She has any outstanding concerns in relation to her escalated complaint. If she does, the landlord should reasonably respond to them in line with its policies and procedures.

No later than 27 February 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 8 to 13 May 2024 The landlord attended to the resident’s reported leak on 8 May 2024. It was unable to gain access to the resident’s flat or Flat A on that day. On 13 May 2024, the resident told the landlord that she was staying with friends and family because she was worried that the ceiling would cave in due to the leak. She asked the landlord to resolve the matter. 21 May 2024 The resident made a complaint.

She said that there had been an ongoing leak since she had moved in and that she had 2 vulnerable children. She asked the landlord to: Resolve the leak and repair the internal damage that it caused. Refund her part of the rent that she had paid for when the flat was unusable. Decant her until the leak was resolved. 28 May 2024 The landlord inspected the resident’s flat. It stated: The leak had caused damage, damp and mould to the ceiling. The flat was habitable. There was no need for a decant.

It was unable to gain access to Flat A on the day to investigate the cause of the leak. 5 June 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: It had reviewed the resident’s repair history for the past year and could only see one record of a leak which was raised on 8 May 2024. It had attended the report, but it was unable to gain access to the resident’s flat or the flat above. It had raised a new work order to investigate and resolve the leak and make good any damage caused to the resident’s flat as a result.

It had asked an officer to inspect the resident’s flat. Once done, it would be able to provide a response to her request for a refund for the time period the flat was “unusable”. It upheld the resident’s complaint because it should not have taken raising a complaint to progress the repair. 27 June 2024 The landlord attended Flat A and recorded that there was no sign of a leak. Around July 2024 We do not have a copy of the resident’s escalated complaint. However, the evidence provided states she was concerned that she was unable to fully use her second bedroom or stay in her home for a long period of time because of the leak.

She asked the landlord for compensation for the delays, not being able to access the second room and being away from the home for 2 months due to the lack of action by the landlord. 31 July 2024 The landlord attended Flat A and recorded that there was no sign of a leak. 30 September 2024 The resident chased the landlord for an update. She said that her flat remained unhabitable. 6 November 2024 The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It could not find a leak. Therefore, it would carry out another inspection.

Once it was satisfied that there was no leak, it would carry out remedial works to the resident’s flat. It accepted it had not been proactive in resolving the repairs. Its communication had also not been as efficient as it should have been. It had reviewed its May 2024 inspection report and considered that it would not have been reasonable for the resident to have used the second bedroom. It offered £1,833.92 for the loss of use of the room. This covered the period from 1 March to 31 December 2024.

It stated this was to allow enough time for the works to be completed. As the property was habitable, it was unable to offer compensation for the resident not being able to stay in her home for 2 months, as there was no evidence that she needed to be moved to temporary accommodation. It also offered: £250 for distress and inconvenience. £150 for its delayed stage 2 response. February 2025 The resident chased the landlord for an update as she had not heard from it. She said that it had told her that the works would be completed by December 2024, but they were not.

The landlord apologised for the delay and raised an order to carry out remedial works to the resident’s flat. March 2025 The landlord’s records show that the remedial works were carried out on 31 March 2025. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident remained unhappy and brought her complaint to us. She explained that although she reported the leak many times from the time she moved in, the landlord failed to take timely action to resolve it and carry out the remedial works. 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 the resident’s reported leak Finding Maladministration When the resident reported the leak on 8 May 2024, the landlord attended on the same day, which was in line with its policy timescales. It is noted that the access issues were out of the landlord’s control at the time. However, the resident contacted it on 13 May 2024 to explain that she was concerned that the bedroom ceiling would “cave in” due to the leak.

Given her concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged an inspection of the resident’s flat at the time. Such an inspection would have supported the landlord to take informed and timely steps to progress the repair. It would have also reassured the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord carried out an inspection at this time. This was a missed opportunity to reasonably progress the repair in a timely manner, in particular as the leak went unresolved.

Subsequently, the resident raised a complaint approximately 8 days later, as her concerns went unaddressed. While the landlord’s 28 May 2024 report noted that the resident’s flat was habitable and that a decant was not required, we do not have any evidence to demonstrate that the landlord reasonably explained the outcome of the inspection to the resident. Given her concerns that the bedroom ceiling was unsafe, and request for a decant, it would have been appropriate for it to have responded to her concerns during the visit or soon after.

In particular, as the cause of the leak had not been investigated due to continued access issues. There is no evidence that it did so. Therefore, the landlord cannot satisfy itself or us that it appropriately updated the resident on her concerns. That is unreasonable. Following further access issues, the landlord was able to inspect Flat A on 27 June and 31 July 2024 and noted that there were no leaks coming from it. While this is noted, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord updated the resident and/or explained what steps it was going to take next to fully resolve the repair.

As such, the resident chased the landlord again on 30 September 2024 for an update. This caused her distress and inconvenience that could have been reasonably avoided if the landlord had kept in reasonable contact with her. There is also no evidence that the landlord responded to her contact or reviewed the condition of her flat to ensure that it had not deteriorated since its last inspection. This was a missed opportunity to reassure the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously and that it had appropriately reviewed the issues.

That the landlord acknowledged its delays and communications failings within its stage 2 response was positive. Taking into consideration mitigating factors such as access issues, the landlord had still taken approximately 2 months to meaningfully investigate the leak. Its offer of £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience was reasonable and is in line with our remedies guidance. Its additional offer of £1,833.92 compensation for the loss of the use of the second bedroom was also reasonable, as it was based on relevant evidence such as its May 2024 report.

However, we have not been provided with evidence that shows the landlord took reasonable steps to fully resolve the resident’s repair by December 2024 as it stated that it would in its stage 2 response. In addition, in February 2025, the resident had to chase it for an update as the repairs remained outstanding at that time. This caused her further distress and inconvenience. Therefore, we have ordered that the landlord pay an additional £150 compensation for this further failing.

Also, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the condition of the bedroom between January and March 2025 improved to allow the resident to reasonably use it. In particular, because the remedial works – which included a damp and mould treatment – remained outstanding until the end of March 2025. Therefore, given the circumstances we have also ordered a loss of amenity payment for the bedroom for the period from 1 January 2025 to 31 March 2025 (13 weeks). Considering the rent paid by the resident over the period, we consider it appropriate for the landlord to pay an additional £542 compensation.

This figure has been calculated as approximately 25% of the total rent during the period in question. This is because we consider that the resident loss use of 1 out of 4 rooms in her home. It is stressed that the loss of amenity payment is not intended to be a rent refund or rebate. Rather, rent provides an objective basis for approximating the loss of amenity. While we acknowledge that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to be a fair and reasonable approach taking all the circumstances into account.

Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response within its 10-working-day response timescale, which was appropriate. While its stage 2 response was issued significantly outside of its 20-working-day response timescale, it acknowledged the failing and offered the resident £150 for the inconvenience caused. Given the delay was approximately 4 months, the compensation was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance.

It was appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns that the leak had been ongoing since she had moved in. However, it has not provided evidence (such as its repairs records or its contact history with the resident) to demonstrate that its response was based on accurate and reliable records. It has also told us that it does not have a copy of the resident’s stage 2 complaint. These are indicative of record keeping issues. As a result, the landlord has not demonstrated that it appropriately or adequately responded to all aspects of the resident’s complaint, which is a failing.

Learning Knowledge and information management (record keeping) and communication The evidence demonstrates that the landlord’s poor record keeping and communication practices contributed to its failings in this case. Therefore the landlord may wish to carry out a review into the matter.