Origin Housing Limited (202121339)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121339

Origin Housing Limited

27 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Recurrent leaks from the property above and associated repairs.
2. Repairs to resolve a draft in a bedroom.
3. The resident’s concerns about poor signage to the property.
4. The resident’s request that communication be via email and concerns about the standards of communication.
5. Complaints.
6. Knowledge and information management.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) and 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of:
  1. Recurrent leaks from the property above and associated repairs.
  2. Repairs to resolve a draft in a bedroom.
This is because these aspects of the complaint were subject to a legal settlement under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules made between the landlord and the resident via her solicitors. The Ombudsman considers that it may be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective for the resident to seek a remedy through the courts, and the complaint concerns matters where the resident has or had the opportunity to raise these matters as part of legal proceedings. If the resident wishes to pursue these aspects of her complaint the Ombudsman advises her to seek legal advice from a solicitor, or legal advice service.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a three-bedroom ground floor flat within a block.
The landlord has recorded on its system that the resident has vulnerabilities or a disability. The resident says that she suffers from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety and asthma.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its repairs responsibilities including for the structure and exterior of the property, installations and pipework for gas, water, and electricity, and is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The policy also states that the landlord will be responsible for condensation, damp, and mould in certain cases under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and that it will inspect or obtain an expert report to assess this.
The policy classes repairs as emergency which the landlord will make safe within two hours, or routine which the landlord will complete within ten working days, which can be extended to 20 working days by agreement.
The landlord has a disrepair policy, which defines disrepair as when there are outstanding repairs which the landlord is responsible for, has been given notice of and has not repaired within a reasonable amount of time. Under the policy, when a letter of claim is received the landlord will instruct a surveyor to inspect the property and produce a report. The landlord will comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Disrepair cases and may outsource the matter to its solicitors.
Under the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulations, a resident has the right to make a subject access request ‘SAR’, and this can be done verbally or in writing. The landlord must provide copies of the personal data it holds for that person to them either electronically or on paper; it must do this without charge and within one month from when it received the SAR.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out 21 recommendations to help landlords improve their management of knowledge and information. These include developing an organisational key data recording standard to set out the minimum standard to which data must be entered in the landlord’s databases, and to make adherence to this part of the service level agreement with third parties, for example contractors.
Under the landlord’s reasonable adjustments policy, it is “committed to making reasonable adjustments to its policies, procedures and services so that individuals are not negatively impacted or disadvantaged due to disability or any other protected characteristic”. The policy says that residents can ask for a reasonable adjustment at any time. The policy includes a non-exhaustive list of adjustments including provision of information in alternative forms, and use of email or telephone in preference to letters.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” It also distinguishes between a service request and a complaint being if the landlord had failed to deal appropriately with an initial service request.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage one complaints within five working days and will contact the resident by telephone or in person, unless the resident has requested a different form of contact, to discuss the complaint. The landlord will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days, but if it is unable to do this it will contact the resident to explain and will provide its response within a further ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can request escalation to stage two within ten working days, although late requests may also be considered. The landlord will decide whether to escalate, and if it decides not to will tell the resident that its stage one response was its final response. If escalated the landlord will respond to the stage two complaint within 20 working days. If it is unable to do this, it will contact the resident to explain and will provide its response within a further ten working days.
The landlord has a compensation policy which says that when it considers offering compensation, this will be calculated based on the circumstances of the case, and recognise “the inconvenience caused, not to recompense specific out of pocket expenses or claims for stress, distress and upset.” The policy includes tables of reasons why compensation might be paid and suggested values. These include that the landlord will pay £10 for late complaint responses and can make discretionary payments as part of stage one and two complaint responses.

Summary of events

On 10 September 2020 the resident reported a leak coming through the ceiling into her bathroom. It is not clear from the repairs record what works were completed.
The resident and landlord exchanged emails about the leak on 5 January 2021. The landlord said it was investigating the source of the leak.
Between 26 March 2021 and 30 March 2021 the landlord sent internal emails about the leak. In these emails it:
1. Quoted an email it had received from the resident which said that she had mould on the walls and floor in her bedroom, her daughter’s bedroom, the hallway, and kitchen.
2. Said it had spoken to the resident and that there had not been a further leak since January 2021.
3. Had inspected the property with a surveyor in October 2020, and reinspected in March 2021. It could not locate any records from the earlier inspection and the surveyor was no longer working for the landlord.
On 8 April 2021 the resident made a stage one complaint by email. Her complaint was about:
1. The landlord not having responded to her emails and requests for information for months; that her emails had not been acknowledged or replied to. She was frustrated as she did not know what was going on.
2. Not knowing if or when her repairs were going to be completed as she had received no contact from the landlord, and wanted these repairs completed.
3. That there was rising damp in her bedrooms and her and her daughter were having to sleep in these conditions. The resident said she was asthmatic, and her use of her inhaler had increased; her doctor had also increased her medication. She said she felt vulnerable due to living in those conditions and did not know whether she should be left in that position, or if the landlord should provide hotel accommodation until the damp issue was fixed.
4. Not knowing who her housing officer was.
5. Not having been provided with a copy of any surveyor’s reports.
6. The landlord and its contractors having an incorrect telephone number for her, despite the resident having informed the landlord of her new number five times. This had caused problems with contractors attending saying they could not get hold of her by telephone.
The resident also requested a report of her calls, emails, requests regarding the repairs and details of the actions the landlord had taken.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the 9 April 2021 by email.
On 13 April 2021 the landlord emailed the resident. It said it had tried to call her that day but did not get an answer. It also said it had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the following day, as the previous surveyor who inspected no longer worked for the landlord. The resident replied by email the same day to say it was possible the landlord had called an old telephone number. She also asked for communication to be by email so that she could keep a record and declined a callback. She said she still would like to see the first surveyor’s report.
On the same day, 13 April 2021, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response letter by email. In its response it:
1. Apologised for not having completed the outstanding repairs and said that it would do this once its surveyor had inspected the following day.
2. Apologised and accepted that its communication had been poor and said it was working to improve this.
3. Provided details for the resident’s housing officer.
4. Said it did not have a copy of the surveyor’s report from the inspection in October 2020 and so could not provide this.
5. Said it did not have access to the information and records the resident had requested and advised her to make a SAR.
6. Explained how to escalate the complaint if the resident remained dissatisfied.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 14 April 2021. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the surveyor’s report or any notes from the inspection. The repairs records say that repairs were raised on 21 April 2021 “as requested…after survey”, however the repairs are not set out and there is no information on what and if those repairs were completed.
The resident emailed the landlord’s contractors on 29 October 2021 and on 2 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord about the leak. In her email she said that the source of the leak had been identified a month earlier in October 2021. She said that some repairs had been completed but there was no confirmation that the leak had been repaired and other repairs were outstanding. She also said that she had been asking for a copy of the ‘customer charter’ or similar document and that her stage two complaint had not been acknowledged. This Service has not been provided with any evidence of when the resident first made her request to escalate her complaint.
On 10 November 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge her stage two complaint.
The resident reported a leak from above on 6 December 2021. The repairs records do not say what repairs were completed other than that the electrics were made safe.
The resident contacted her councillor and on 15 December 2021 the councillor emailed this Service, under the ‘designated person’ requirements in place at the time. The councillor set out the resident’s complaints about:
1. The leak and repairs, including a new leak in December 2021.
2. The lack of communication the resident had received from the landlord.
3. Other repairs including a draft coming from a door into the bedroom.
4. The property having poor signage and the resident not having received important post because of this. In addition, that the resident had requested communication by email but that the landlord had continued to send letters.
5. Not having been provided a copy of the ‘customer charter’ or complaints policy.
6. The landlord not having replied to her stage two complaint.
Regrettably the Ombudsman did not contact the landlord following the councillor’s email.
On a date not known to this Service, the resident instructed a firm of solicitors to pursue a disrepair claim against the landlord. On 3 March 2022 a surveyor inspected the property on instruction by the resident’s solicitors and produced a report. A copy of the report has been provided to this Service.
The resident emailed this Service on 18 March 2022 to say that she still had not received a stage two complaint response. The Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 29 March 2022 asking the landlord to provide its stage two response.
On 31 March 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to ask for more information on the resident’s complaint about the signage.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 12 April 2022. In its response it:
1. Said it could and should have dealt with the resident’s concerns more effectively and apologised for this.
2. Defined the resident’s reason for her stage two complaint as having concerns about the:
  1. Quality of communication in dealing with her complaint.
  2. Length of time that it had taken to provide a stage two response.
3. Said the repairs had been completed, but it recognised the time and effort the resident had used in getting the repairs completed. It offered £100 in compensation in recognition of this.
4. Set out its plan for improving communications and would give additional training to complaints officers.
5. Accepted that the delay in responding to the stage two complaint was “unacceptable” and had been caused by changes in staff and an increase in complaints. It said it was recruiting more staff and offered £100 in compensation.
6. Said it would contact the resident about her concerns about signage.
7. Gave details on how to contact this Service if the resident remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

Between the 12 April 2022 and 14 April 2022, the resident and landlord exchanged emails. The resident said she was not satisfied with the complaint outcome. She said that the repairs and leak had not been resolved and that the response had not addressed all the aspects of her complaint. The landlord replied and offered to call the resident, while saying that it understood the resident preferred emails.
On 6 May 2022 the landlord and the resident’s solicitors agreed to a pre-court settlement of the resident’s disrepair claim under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The terms of the settlement were for the landlord to pay compensation in full and final settlement, and to complete repairs set out within the surveyor’s report dated 3 March 2022 within 56 days.
The landlord ordered a leak detection survey on 16 May 2022 which was completed on 6 June 2022; the survey identified the likely cause of the leaks.
On 23 June 2022 the resident replied to the landlord’s email of 31 March 2022 about signage. She agreed to meet the landlord to discuss the signage. On 25 July 2022 in an internal email the landlord said that the signage would be changed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 July 2022 to make a SAR. The landlord provided the resident with its SAR disclosure by email on 11 August 2022.
On 1 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that the repairs had still not been completed, even though her disrepair claim had been settled. This Service has not been provided with the landlord’s reply, if any was made.
The resident contacted her MP, and the MP emailed the landlord on 12 August 2022 about the resident having damp and mould in her property. This Service has not been provided with the landlord’s reply to the MP.
The repairs records state that repairs were raised on 26 September 2022 as disrepair works as per the surveyor’s report.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about poor signage to the property

The resident first raised her concerns about poor signage via her councillor’s letter to this Service on 15 December 2021. Her complaint was that post had not been delivered due to the poor signage for her block.
Following the Ombudsman’s email to the landlord on 29 March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident on 31 March 2022 about the signage. From the evidence this may have been the first time this complaint had been brought to the landlord’s attention. The landlord asked the resident for more information so that it could investigate her complaint. The landlord also included within its stage two response that it would contact the resident about this aspect of her complaint, even though it had not been raised at stage one, which was a solution focussed approach for it to take.
The resident replied to the landlord on 23 June 2022 and a site visit was arranged. Shortly after on 25 July 2022 the landlord said in an internal email that it was going to change the signage.
Although the landlord could have acted sooner to visit the block it would not have necessarily understood the resident’s complaint without having spoken to her. Once it had been able to visit and understand the issue, it said it would make changes to the signage. The landlord acted reasonably and, in a solution focused way, to resolve this aspect of the complaint. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that communication be via email and concerns about the standards of communication

In her email to the landlord on 5 January 2021 the resident asked for communication to be by email; this was due to lack of and poor communication she had previously received and she wanted to be able to keep records. In her stage one complaint on 8 April 2021 the resident said that she had not received a response to her emails; she said her communication was not acknowledged or acted upon and asked to be communicated with. She also said that the landlord’s contractors had an incorrect telephone number for her, and she had asked for this to be updated five times and gave the correct number.
On 13 April 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to say that it had tried to call her. The resident replied to ask which number was called and asked again for communication to be via email. This Service has not been provided with the landlord’s reply, and it is not known whether it did reply, which it should have done to ensure the resident’s contact details were correct.
In its stage one response of the same date, the landlord apologised for the poor communication and said it was working hard to improve its processes, but failed to say how or what it was planning to do. It did not demonstrate how it would put things right or that it had learned from the outcome of the complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 November 2021 asking for a response from the landlord and an explanation of why her complaint was not escalated. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord replied to the resident’s email, which would have caused further frustration for the resident. The landlord did acknowledge the resident’s complaint escalation however this was done by computer-generated email. It would have been helpful, and more solution focused, if a member of the landlord’s staff had replied to acknowledge the escalation; this would have also helped to make the resident feel heard.
The landlord did not respond to the resident until after the Ombudsman had made contact on 29 March 2022, which was almost four months later. It emailed her on 31 March 2022 about her complaint about signage. However, in an internal email just five days after, a member of the landlord’s staff wrote that the resident “hasn’t responded to me regarding the signage issue at property and doesn’t like being phoned. Consequently, I don’t have an update on this aspect of the complaint and what we can do about it.” This email showed a level of disregard, and no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord had delayed in replying to the resident for almost four months but had appeared to have lost patience with the resident after five days.
In its stage two response the landlord said that it should have been clearer in saying what it was going to do to improve communications. It said it had arranged a meeting to discuss this, however, this Service does not know if this meeting took place or the outcome. The landlord failed to properly acknowledge the delays in responses and gaps in communication generally. That was maladministration, which caused distress and inconvenience, time, trouble, and frustration for the resident in having to chase the landlord for responses. An order has been made that the landlord pay £500 in compensation to reflect this.

The landlord’s handling of complaints

The resident made her stage one complaint on 8 April 2021 and the landlord acknowledged it the following day. It tried to call the resident to discuss the complaint as per its policy, however failed to acknowledge that the resident had requested contact by email. The resident had told the landlord that she suffers from PTSD and anxiety, and it was a reasonable request to be contacted by email rather than by telephone. The landlord provided its stage one response within its ten working days timeframe.
The stage one response did not adequately address all the aspects of the resident’s complaint, and did not say how it was going to improve its communication with her. The landlord was not able to provide a copy of the inspection report from October 2020 which the resident had requested saying that it did not have a copy of this. It also failed to offer any compensation for its failings in carrying out repairs, its poor communication and lack of records.
The resident had asked for a copy of her calls, emails, requests and the landlord’s responses and actions; without explicitly saying, she had made a SAR. However, the landlord failed to recognise this and suggested that the resident make a SAR. This was a failure as the member of staff dealing with the complaint should have passed the resident’s request onto the relevant team within the landlord to process the SAR and this would have helped to fully resolve the resident’s complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 November 2021 and asked why her stage two complaint had not been acknowledged. It is not known when the resident first requested to escalate her complaint and the Ombudsman has not seen an email or record of this request. However, the landlord was made aware of the resident’s request to escalate on 2 November 2021. It sent a computer-generated email to acknowledge the stage two complaint six working days later.
The landlord did not respond to the stage two complaint within its ten working days timeframe and did not ask for an extension. The landlord only replied after this Service asked it to on 29 March 2021, despite the landlord promising to improve its communications within its stage one complaint response. The landlord provided its stage two response on 12 April 2021, being 112 working days or just over three and a half months after 2 November 2021. This was an unreasonable and protracted delay in providing the complaint response, which caused the resident further distress and frustration. The resident had had to pursue her complaint further by contacting her councillor and the Ombudsman, which caused her further time and trouble.
In its response, the landlord redefined the resident’s complaint, narrowing it to a complaint about the quality of its communication in dealing with the complaint and the delay in its response. While those aspects were part of the resident’s complaint, her complaint was also about the general lack of communication and not having been provided with documents she had requested which the landlord did not address. The landlord also incorrectly said in both its stage one and stage two responses that the resident’s repairs had been completed, which was incorrect and caused further distress and frustration for the resident and reinforced her opinion that she was not being listened to or communicated with properly.
The landlord did accept that it had taken an unacceptable amount of time to provide its stage two response and offered £100 compensation, alongside £100 compensation for delays in repairs, which was within its guidelines for discretionary compensation following a complaint response.
In relation to the landlord’s failure to provide its stage two response within time, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In its response the landlord did say that it was recruiting more staff and providing further training to help improve its complaints handling, which was positive and demonstrated some learning from the outcome of the resident’s complaint. However, it did not explain how the resident’s escalation and then stage two complaint seems to have gone unnoticed until this Service intervened. In addition, considering what is fair in all the circumstances, the level of compensation offered did not go far enough to put things right or reflect the level of distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble suffered by the resident. There was maladministration without reasonable redress. An order has been made that the landlord pay additional compensation of £800 to reflect the impact this had on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of knowledge and information management

Throughout its complaints process, and the Ombudsman’s investigation, the landlord’s handling of knowledge and information management has been shown to be poor. There are several times documents have not been retained or produced by the landlord to this Service or to the resident. These include:
1. The landlord was not able to provide a copy of the inspection report from October 2020 which the resident had requested saying that it did not have a copy of this and was unable to obtain one.
2. The copy of the inspection report from April 2021, or a full list of repairs recommended, has not been provided to the Ombudsman.
3. The landlord’s replied to some of the resident’s emails and her MP’s emails have not been provide to the Ombudsman.
4. The landlord’s repairs records do not contain enough information to be able to see what works were completed and when.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out steps a landlord can take to improve in this area.
Overall, there was maladministration which hampered the landlord’s ability to respond fully to the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s request that communication be via email and concerns about the standards of communication.
2. Complaints.
3. Knowledge and information management.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about poor signage to the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(f) and 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of recurrent leaks from the property above and associated repairs, and repairs to resolve a draft in a bedroom, are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of communication because the landlord delayed and failed to reply to the resident’s emails or to keep in contact with her. It retained incorrect contact details and at times ignored her request to only be contacted by email. The landlord did not make the resident feel heard.
There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of complaints as it failed to respond to the resident’s stage two complaint for an unreasonable amount of time. Information included within both complaint responses was incorrect. While the landlord accepted there had been failings, it did not demonstrate clearly how it would prevent these in future and its offer of compensation was too low to reflect the impact of the failings on the resident.
There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of knowledge and information management because the landlord failed to keep records of inspections and its repairs records lacked relevant information. This hindered its ability to fully response to the resident’s complaint and negatively impacted the Ombudsman’s investigation.
There was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about poor signage because the landlord contacted the resident once it became aware of this aspect of the complaint. It considered the resident’s complaint and made changes to the signage.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of the landlord’s staff for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £1,500 made up of:
  1. £200 previously offered in its stage two complaint response or provide evidence if it has already done this.
  2. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its communications failings.
  3. £800 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its complaints handling and knowledge and information management.
3. Provide the resident with a copy of its complaints policy.
4. Provide evidence to this Service that all the repairs set out within the surveyor’s report dated 3 March 2022 have been completed.
5. Provide the resident with written confirmation that it has updated its, and its contractor’s, records with the resident’s correct telephone number and that it has recorded her preference for communication by email.
6. Review how it records contact from residents, whether by email, telephone, in-person or by letter, and whether it uses a CRM type recording system, and provide the outcome of this review to this Service including any recommendations for improvements.
7. Complete a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code, and specifically detail any processes or systems it has or will put in place to ensure it is made aware of recorded complaints before and after they pass a response timeframe.
8. Complete a self-assessment against the recommendations set out within the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
9. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.