Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Origin Housing Limited (202013540)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013540

Origin Housing Limited

21 October 2022


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
    1. The level of redress provided by the landlord following acknowledged delay and failure to repair a roof leak.
    2. The associated complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy under Section 19A of the Housing Act 1988. The tenancy began on 23 Nov 2018 and is a maisonette with two bedrooms.
  2. The resident says the property had a roof leak which affected the upper part of his property which was being used as his children’s bedroom. The resident said that the leak was present since the start of his tenancy. The leak caused damp and mould problems and the resident says that as a result his children stopped using their bedroom.
  3. The first record of a reported roof leak is from December 2018. Within repair records, the leaks are described as “pretty severe” and requiring scaffolding to access.
  4. The first repair was carried out by the landlord on 18 March 2019 when flashing was replaced and repointing completed. The problem re-occurred in November 2019 and plasterwork was renewed in December 2019 and internal redecoration completed. Both these repairs proved unsuccessful and the problem returned.
  5. The landlord was unable to identify the cause of the leak and this resulted in a prolonged period of disruption and inconvenience without resolution to the problem. The resident has said that scaffolding was up almost continuously since the start of his tenancy for a period of about 18 months.
  6. On 6 January 2020, a surveyor inspected the property. The landlord later used this date as a starting point for when the resident’s upstairs bedroom became ‘unusable’ for the purposes of the landlord’s compensation policy.
  7. The resident says he made a formal complaint on 25 June 2020 after the ‘initial failure of the roof repairs.’ The resident says the complaints process ‘failed’ and no evidence has been provided of how the landlord responded. The resident has provided a reference number for the complaint which relates to his ongoing roof repair request.
  8. On 5 Feb 2021, following another visit from a roofing specialist the previous day,  the resident contacted his landlord and made a further complaint saying that this was the landlord’s ‘last chance’ to fix the roof. The resident said that if the roof was not fixed he would refuse to pay rent, take legal action and “make a claim for significant damages for disrepair.” The evidence indicates that the resident has previously made similar successful claims or applications to the Tribunal service at the same address. 
  9. The resident again contacted the landlord on 19 Feb 2021 to chase a response to his email of 5 February. Internal communications show that the complaints team established that an email response had been sent but no co-ordinated complaint response was sent by the landlord and the resident was dealing with several different officers.
  10. At the beginning of March 2021, the landlord sent a letter to the resident regarding proposed rental and service charge increases. On 7 March 2021, the resident stated his refusal to pay any additional charges given the ongoing condition of his property. The resident said he would continue to pay rent at the existing level until 1 April 2021, at which point he would reduce it to £500 due to the unresolved roof leak issue. The resident also said that his previous complaints from February had gone unanswered and the landlord should not have let out the property given its condition.
  11. Following his refusal to consent to rental increases, the landlord contacted the resident by phone on 9 March 2021. This call clarified the resident’s reasons for dissatisfaction and the landlord says it logged a stage 1 complaint on 1 April 2020.
  12. A contractor attended the property on 31 March 2021 to inspect the affected area. No information or update was provided to the resident following this visit despite the resident chasing this on 8 April 2021. The landlord’s repair manager confirmed in internal communications that the landlord had carried out two repairs which it thought were successful but the leak kept re-emerging. The landlord now said that in order to fix the leak “coping stones would need to be lifted and sealed”.
  13. On 20 April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident confirming it had made an error on his rent account and had ‘double-posted’ a rental payment in November 2020 relating to a rent payment for April 2020. 
  14. The landlord contacted the resident by phone and sent a stage 1 complaint response on 12 May 2021. The response consisted of an apology for the delay on the repair and informed the resident how to escalate this further. The substance of its stage one response was contained in a follow-up letter of 27 May 2021 which outlined the works the landlord intended to carry out and explained that the works would involve the resident being decanted to a hotel for a period of seven days. The works were split in to three stages including a drying out period and redecoration to the property. The works and the decant period were due to commence on 1 June 2021.
  15. On 10 June 2021, the resident returned from the hotel to his home to find what he described as a ‘shambles’ and unfinished work. The resident reported this to the landlord and expressed his dissatisfaction with the works done to date.
  16. On 12 June 2021, a post work inspection was carried out and the work was verified as successful. This date was used as a stopping point for the purposes of calculating the landlord’s compensation offer.
  17. On 14 June 2021, the resident requested escalation of his complaint to stage 2 saying that the landlord’s service had been ‘disgraceful, chaotic and inadequate.’ The resident said that he intended to pay only a nominal rent of £1 from July onwards due to the ‘uninhabitable condition’ of his property. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint was at stage 2 on 15 June 2021.
  18. On 9 July 2021, the landlord sent a stage two complaints response to the resident. The response said that the resident had confirmed that works had been completed to a satisfactory level and the roof leak issue had been resolved. The landlord said that the only outstanding issue remaining was to discuss and finalise the appropriate amount of compensation with the resident.
  19. Following a conversation on 12 July 2021 with the resident, the landlord made an initial offer of £750 compensation. The landlord said this was in line with its compensation policy and comprised three payments of £250 for each year that the resident had suffered distress and inconvenience from the failure to successfully repair the roof leak.
  20. The resident did not accept the initial offer again pointing out the service failures of the landlord and saying it had not complied with its obligations within the tenancy agreement. On 11 August 2021, the landlord revised its offer doubling the amount of compensation to £1500. This offer was also refused by the resident.
  21. On 5 September 2021, the resident clarified the reasons why he was not willing to accept the offer. The resident said that the compensation offer did not allow for:
    1. The landlord ‘breaking the rental contract and mismanaging’ the repairs
    2. the uninhabitability of one of his rooms
    3. loss of income due to the need for the resident to work from home
    4. misuse of scaffolding
    5. Emotional damage to him and his family
    6. The residents’ time spent managing the repairs because the landlord had not managed these appropriately.
    7. Clerical errors in his rent account causing arrears.
  22. On 23 September 2021, the landlord sent a formal compensation offer letter which broke down the factors taken in to account and explaining how each part of the offer had been calculated. The four sections were inconvenience, loss of earnings, loss of a room and breach of tenancy.
  23. For inconvenience, loss of earnings, and breach of tenancy the landlord made a discretionary offer of £1500. This was £500 for each year since November 2018 that the resident had been affected by the roof leak.
  24. The compensation offer for loss of a room was £5725.56. This was calculated on the basis of the room being unusable for 75 weeks (from 6 January 2020 until 12 June 21) and on the basis that the landlord’s compensation policy indicates residents can claim 20% of their weekly rental charge as compensation for loss of a room. The landlord split the calculation in to two payments since the resident’s weekly rental charge had changed from 1 April 2020. The total of £5725.56 was comprised of a 12 week payment of £869.52 and a 63 week payment of £4856.04.
  25. The total amount of compensation offered by the landlord in its final response was therefore £7,2225.56. The resident confirmed he was willing to accept this amount on 13 October 2021. However, the resident has confirmed that he wants this service to review his complaint. 

Assessment and findings

  1. The Housing Ombudsman provides a dispute resolution service which is an alternative to a legal route. Our approach to providing remedies to cases following investigation is framed by three principles – be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. We cannot make the same findings that a court would, and we do not operate in the same way a court does. We do not make binding decisions on matters such as negligence, liability or discrimination and we do not make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages. Equally, we do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. In general, we would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out.
  3. Our focus is therefore on how the landlord reacted to the resident’s initial concerns and their complaint and whether this response was reasonable and in accordance with the landlord’s relevant policies and procedures.

Roof Repair

  1. It is not disputed by the landlord that it failed to meet its repair obligations to repair the roof under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 from November 2018 until June 2021. These obligations are set out in statute as well as in the resident’s tenancy agreement in section 22.3 which is given below:
  2. “To comply with the obligations to repair the Premises as set out in sections 11 to 16 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. These sections impose on the landlord obligations to repair and keep in good order the structure of the Premises and the exterior (including drains, gutters, pipes).”
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy dated July 2018 indicates that it aims to respond to routine repairs within 28 days.
  4. The landlord has accepted delay on the repair and a failure to meet its repair obligations for a prolonged period. The landlord has provided compensation for distress and inconvenience over a three year period from November 2018 to June 2021 of £1500. This is a reasonable time period for the landlord to use since it is based on evidence seen by a qualified surveyor and is not disputed by the resident.
  5. The impact on the resident has been considerable and includes the inconvenience of repeated visits, being decanted out of his property, having scaffolding up continuously for a prolonged period as well as a build-up of damp and mould problems during that time. The resident has also said he has had to ‘project manage’ contractors doing the work. Although the extent of the damp and mould is not known, the landlord has accepted the bedroom affected was unusable as a result and the resident has said this had physical and mental health implications for his household. 
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy dated December 2014 says that it will consider compensation in situations where “Our services have not been delivered appropriately to customers or to the required standard and reasonable steps have not been taken to address the service failure or we fail to provide a response to a complaint within the required timescale.” The landlord’s complaints policy dated December 2020 says that the landlord “reserves the right to use discretion when applying this policy and procedure.”
  7. Therefore, it was appropriate and in accordance with it’s policy for the landlord to use its discretion to award compensation in this case. The amount of £1500 is reasonable when taking in to account the additional payment made of 5725.56 for loss of a room and the Housing Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. This guidance says that payments of over £1000 are appropriate where there has been a “single significant failure in service or a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.”    
  8. The landlord’s compensation offer of £5725.56 for the loss of a bedroom for 75 weeks is also fair and the method of calculation used is reasonable. The compensation policy makes reference to a “summary tariff” for details on how such payments are calculated but this document has not been provided to this service. However, the formula of 20% of weekly rent for loss of a bedroom is appropriate and it is noted that the resident signed his acceptance of the settlement on 13 October 2021. 

Complaints Handling

  1. Overall, little information has been provided about the period from 2018 until 1 April 2020 when the landlord says it logged a formal complaint. The resident has said that he made a complaint in June 2020. No evidence has been seen that this complaint was ever acknowledged or responded to.
  2. Similarly, the resident contacted the landlord in February 2021 to make a formal complaint but no formal complaint was logged until 1 April.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy (dated December 2020) says that “we will make sure customers can easily make a complaint without restriction.” The policy says that the landlord will log and acknowledge stage one complaints within 5 working days and respond in full within 10 working days or explain why more time is needed.
  4. There is therefore evidence that there have been significant delays in acknowledging and responding to complaints. The landlord has not responded within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It is of concern that the landlord only appeared to begin taking note of the complaint when the resident began to threaten reducing his rent or refusing to pay rental increases.
  5. There is no specific mention of complaint handling failures in the landlord’s final settlement offer. In order to ensure recognition of these failures and learning from the complaint an order has been made below for an additional £150 compensation. This is in recognition of the failure to log, acknowledge or respond to a complaint in a timely fashion and failure to provide proper access to the complaints procedure by not dealing with the residents initial complaint in June 2020.
  6. The time taken to respond to the resident’s complaint of 5 February 2021 was also unacceptable as it was over 60 working days. The landlord did not effectively respond until 12 May 2021. Although the landlord has provided compensation, it has yet to demonstrate any learning from the complaint or adjust its processes to ensure complaints are handled in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the landlord has provided reasonable redress for failure to repair the roof leak between Nov 2018 and June 2021.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. There was delay from November 2018 until June 2021 in establishing the cause of the roof leak and carrying out the necessary repairs. This resulted in significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord offered the resident a total of £7,225.56 which was reasonable redress. However, the landlord has failed to identify or learn from its complaint handling failures within its redress package and therefore an order has been made for an additional payment.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident £150 within four weeks. The landlord should also write to the resident to apologise for the complaint handling failures and outline any recent service improvements resulting from the complaint.