Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Origin Housing Limited (202004858)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004858

Origin Housing Limited

26 July 2023

 

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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. repairs in respect of damp and mould;
    2. the subsequent complaint and its offer of compensation in respect of those repairs;
    3. the resident’s allegations that the landlord discriminated against him during the license period;
    4. the resident’s housing application under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996;
    5. the resident’s reports that his car was damaged on the estate;
    6. a rent increase letter from the landlord in March 2021; and
    7. additional complaints about another property with another landlord following being rehoused.

Jurisdiction

  1. The Scheme sets out what complaints the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate. We call this the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Discrimination

  1. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”

  1. The resident has alleged he has been discriminated against. However, there is no evidence this has been raised as a formal complaint and has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint.
  2. In the interests of fairness, the sphere of this investigation is limited to the issues raised as part of the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions, before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to the complaints process need to be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The damage to the car on the estate

  1. There is no evidence the resident has raised this as a formal complaint or that it has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. As such, we have no power to investigate it under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme as specified above.

The complaint about the way the housing register application was dealt with

  1. Firstly paragraph 34(a) of the Scheme states:

“What can be complained about

34. A complaint:

a. Relates to the actions or omissions of a member which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have adversely affected the complainant in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property”

  1. It would be the local authority who was responsible for a decision on a rehousing application made to it and not the landlord. Therefore, this is not a complaint about the acts or omissions of the landlord.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman Service does not look at local authority housing applications more widely, under paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme.

The complaint about rent increases

  1. Paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: (e) concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.”

  1. As this aspect of the complaint relates to an increase in the amount of rent that was due at the property, this issue falls outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate.

The complaint about issues at another property owned by a different landlord

  1. The concern raised by the resident relates to another member landlord and separate property. If the resident still considers the issue to be outstanding, it is recommended that he raises this as a complaint with the relevant landlord; and if required uses his right of referral to the Ombudsman for investigation.
  2. For this complaint as it does not relate to the acts or omissions of this landlord-member, it fails to meet paragraph 34(a) of the Scheme (as quoted above) and will not be investigated by this Service.

Scope

  1. For the avoidance of doubt, this investigation has focussed only on the landlord’s handling of the repairs and its associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupied the property under a licence agreement with Origin Housing Limited which commenced on 17 September 2017. The property was a House in Multiple Occupation (‘HMO’) with shared facilities.
  2. The earliest identifiable report, based on the evidence provided, is in April 2020. However, the resident says he reported dampness and mould in the property in the early months of 2020. He specifically states that he reported instances of damp and mould since 2019. The outstanding repairs agreed on were:
    1. mould and dampness in bedroom, hallway, toilet and bathroom;
    2. rotten wood in the toilet and bathroom;
    3. repairs to a wardrobe;
    4. loose electrical wiring at the flat entrance;
    5. exposed plastering from incomplete jobs; and
    6. A loose metal carpet fastener underneath the bedroom door.
  3. The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 2 July 2020 and issued its stage 1 response on 20 October 2020. It subsequently issued four stage 2 responses on 20 November 2020, 14 December 2020, 18 February 2021, and 8 December 2021. Both complaint stages were triggered because of intervention from the Housing Ombudsman Service. Its stage 1 response did not uphold the complaint on the basis that it had no record of the resident having logged the damp and mould issues.
  4. The landlord surveyed the property on 16 October 2020 and created a schedule of works for completion. The resident made a compensation claim for £2,000 because of the impact that the work had on him. The landlord surveyed the property again on 5 November 2020, confirming that the work was planned for 16 November 2020. The landlord confirmed that the repairs for the hallway and walk-in wardrobe would take place once a contractor provided a quote. The resident advised the landlord he would be withholding rent until the issues within the property were resolved.
  5. In its first stage 2 response on 20 November 2020, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for its delays. Following a contractor visit on 8 December 2020, it issued a further stage 2 response on 14 December 2020 confirming the reported repairs had been completed. The resident refuted this.
  6. There were various contractor visits to the property from 17 December 2020 to 28 January 2021 to try to resolve the outstanding repairs. The evidence shows that the contractor visits were delayed due to positive covid tests as well as poor communications between the landlord and the contractor, resulting in only part of the remedial work being completed.
  7. On 31 January 2021, the resident confirmed that all repair works raised in the complaint had been completed to a satisfactory standard. In February 2021, both the landlord and resident agreed to a compensation figure in full and final settlement totalling £2,300. The landlord issued a further stage 2 response letter on 18 February 2021. However, following a rent increase letter from the landlord on 1 March 2021, the resident stated that he was no longer satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded. The landlord reviewed the resident’s stage 2 complaint and dismissed it. The landlord’s final response was not issued until 8 December 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the subsequent complaint and its offer of compensation

  1. The resident raised his complaint to the landlord on 2 July 2020. The resident received formal acknowledgement of his complaint on 30 September 2020. The evidence shows that the complaint acknowledgement was only received after intervention from the Ombudsman on 8 September 2020.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy states “stage 1, the complaint will be logged and acknowledged within five working days.” The resident received the acknowledgement 64 working days after it was raised. The Ombudsman finds this delay unreasonable and a failure of the landlord to follow its complaint policy. It did not update the resident on when he could expect the formal response.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord apologised for the “short delay” in responding to the complaint. The Ombudsman considers this language unhelpful. It minimised the impact of the delay on the resident which at that point was 68 working days. This was also after the failures during the repair works.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2020. This was a total of 101 working days after the complaint was raised. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its response. The Ombudsman finds this to be a failure of the landlord to follow its complaint policy, as well as to communicate proactively with the resident to maintain a positive landlord-tenant relationship.
  5. The landlord stated that “no calls or evidence has been found of [the resident] reporting mould / damp within [the] room.” The evidence shows that the resident reported several outstanding repairs which included damp and mould as early as 2 July 2020. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy does not deal with how a resident can raise a repair issue and it would be reasonable to conclude that the resident had provided notice of the repair issues to the landlord. The landlord failed to communicate effectively across its teams. The Ombudsman considered this a service failure. The complaint investigation could not address the substantive issues of the repair as the repairs team did not share information vital to its investigation.
  6. On 14 December 2020, the landlord issued the resident with a second stage 2 response. The landlord contended that the outstanding repair works reported by the resident were complete, having consulted with the contractor and reviewed “some” photographs. Having regard to the evidence, this response had been drafted without considering the progress of the repairs at that time.
  7. The resident requested the landlord review its offer of compensation on 12 August 2021 based on the additional issues raised at paragraph 1(c)-(g) of this report. The landlord issued a fourth stage 2 letter on 8 December 2021 which confirmed an investigation of the stage 2 complaint. The landlord explained to the resident that having considered the issues further, it was unable to increase compensation and that letter served as formal closure of the complaint.
  8. The resident received four stage 2 responses on 20 November 2020, 14 December 2020, 18 February 2021 and 8 December 2021. Issuing multiple stage 2 responses served to confuse the resident on his rights to escalate to the Ombudsman and failed to provide closure on the matter.
  9. A landlord’s complaints process is an essential aspect of its overall service. An efficient complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues promptly. It will also provide learning for future service provision and assist in developing positive landlord-tenant relationships. In this instance, the landlord’s complaint handling lacked customer focus, failed to address issues with up-to-date information, failed to thoroughly investigate and took too long to progress through each stage of the procedure. Lastly, there were occasions when the landlord acted outside of its policy.
  10. On 4 February 2021, the resident requested compensation of £2300 for the impact of the repairs and the subsequent delay on him. The landlord in its third stage 2 response dated 18 February 2021, confirmed that both parties agreed that the repair works had been completed to a good standard.
  11. The landlord agreed to the compensation request of £2,300 based on the time taken to repair, the damage to the resident’s possessions, and it acknowledged that the repairs could have been completed sooner. On 18 February 2021, the resident accepted the compensation in “full and final settlement of the matter.”
  12. On 1 March 2021 the resident again raised the additional points of dissatisfaction noted at paragraph 1(c)-(g). This was following a rent increase letter from the landlord. He said that the compensation award did not fully compensate or consider said issues. The landlord offered an additional £100 gesture of goodwill to the resident before it sent a formal closure letter on 8 December 2021. Within that letter, the landlord explained that no further compensation would be offered.
  13. Although the Ombudsman considers the sum of £2,400 to be reasonable and proportionate to address the way the landlord managed the repairs, it did not consider the multiple failures experienced by the resident throughout its handling of his complaint.

Determination

  1. The landlord made an offer of redress before the investigation of £2400. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress to resolve the resident’s concerns about the repairs. This, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved this part of the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the subsequent complaint and its offer of compensation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
    1. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £300 compensation in recognition of the failures identified as part of its complaint handling.
    2. The landlord must write to the resident to apologise to acknowledge the failures of its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of its apology, compensation payment and case review to be shared with the Ombudsman within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
    1. The landlord conducts a joint case review with its contractor to address:
      1. how it will monitor outstanding repairs, including reviewing working practices on repeated repairs to ensure that repairs are resolved as promptly as possible.
      2. approach to record-keeping.
      3. its approach to damp and mould. In doing so, the landlord should consider to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports on Damp and Mould Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
    2. The landlord conducts a review of this case to identify any learning and improve its complaint handling. This review should be completed in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and specifically assess how the landlord will:
      1. ensure that relevant departments, systems, and documents are accessed during complaint investigations so that complaint responses are reflective of all recent events
      2. ensure that complaints are escalated in accordance with its policy and the Code.