Orbit Housing Association Limited (202343750)

Decision
Case ID	202343750
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Orbit Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house under an agreement dated February 2021. The resident lives with his partner and 2 children. He raised concerns about damp and mould in the property, which he said have been ongoing since he moved into the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated works.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and associated works.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould, and associated works

6. We found that the landlord failed to assess whether the property was safe and habitable. It did not consider children in the household when deciding on a temporary relocation and failed to evidence that it completed all outstanding repairs.

Complaint handling

7. Whilst the landlord identified its poor complaint handling, we found that it failed to apologise or provide any clear reasons for the significant delays.

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 November 2025
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident the £2,562.95 offered in its stage 2 complaint response to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date, or evidence if it has already been paid.	No later than 27 November 2025
3	Inspection Order   The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection should be completed by a qualified surveyor from either the landlord or its chosen contractor. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.  If the landlord has already completed the below inspections, it must provide evidence of doing so by the due date.   What the inspection must achieve    The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects all rooms affected by damp and mould inside the property for safety and hazards and the external walls to assess if they are contributing to the damp and mould. The surveyor must produce a written report.   The survey report must set out:  Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. Its assessment of the external walls in relation to the cause of the damp and mould. The likely timescales to commence and complete any works if required.  Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 27 November 2025
4	Learning Order   The landlord must write to the resident and this Service and set out what it has learned from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 27 November 2025
5	Specific Action   The landlord must write to the resident explaining its position on placing the family in temporary alternative accommodation for the completion of replastering works. The landlord should make reference to its policies and any vulnerabilities in the household.	No later than 27 November 2025
6	Specific Action   The landlord must write to the resident responding to his proof of damaged personal items in line with its compensation policy and if required, provide details of its insurance policy.	No later than 27 November 2025

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The resident informed us that he believes there are outstanding repairs which were not directly associated to this complaint. We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss these concerns.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 1 March and 7 August 2023	The landlord completed various repairs for damp and mould. These included mould washes, replacing roof tiles, insulating the loft hatch, overhauling the windows and replacing the front door.
6 December 2023	The resident raised a complaint after trying to contact the landlord for 3 weeks with no response. The resident had been chasing one of the repairs, which was the installation of a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) unit.
Between 3 January and 10 May 2024	The landlord carried out inspections and repairs to the property. This included internal mould treatments, and externally it repointed bricks, installed rainwater drains and carried out roof repairs. The landlord extended providing its stage 1 complaint response 6 times.
13 May 2024	In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged its delayed response. It said it inspected the property in February 2023 and completed some repairs. It would install a PIV system by 5 June 2024, address the loft insulation and carry out replastering on 16 June 2024. It would assess if the resident required temporary relocation during the repairs. It requested proof and receipts for personal items the resident said were damaged by mould. It offered £1,452 compensation: £350 for service failure, £400 for distress and inconvenience, £150 for poor complaint handling, £452 for time taken to address concerns and £100 for failed appointments.
24 May 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said he was unhappy with the compensation offered and outstanding repairs.
29 July 2024	In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it identified 2 outstanding work orders. It would investigate a roof leak and carry out mould treatment. In addition, it would also inspect the external walls on 5 August 2024. It increased its compensation offer to £2,562.95, comprising of the £1,452 offered in its stage 1 response plus £1,010.95 for the loss of enjoyment of the home and £100 for the delayed stage 2 complaint response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted this Service as he was unhappy with the outstanding repairs and felt the landlord was not addressing the root cause of the issues, which he believed to be the external walls. He was also unhappy with its response to his compensation request for personal items damaged by damp and mould. As an outcome, he wanted the landlord to inspect the external walls and to complete all repairs.

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 reports of damp and mould, and associated works.
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

8. The resident asked for compensation for damaged belongings. The Ombudsman can assess the landlord’s response to the resident and whether it acted reasonably, but we cannot decide who is legally responsible or award damages. These matters should be handled through an insurance claim or court if the resident wishes.

What we did investigate

9. There is a history of reports of damp and mould in the property since 2021. Our investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from February 2023. This is also the period the landlord investigated in its internal complaint procedure. We may refer to events before this for context.
10. The resident reported damp and mould in the property on 23 February 2023. The landlord inspected the property and raised repairs on 1 March 2023, arranging to carry out the repairs on 15 March 2023. The landlord responded in line with its repairs policy, which gives a 28 working day timeframe for responsive repairs. However, we cannot determine whether it completed all recommended repairs, as the landlord was unable to locate the inspection report. This is a record keeping failure.
11. There is no evidence the landlord assessed whether the property was habitable after being notified of damp and mould. This was a failure to consider its duties under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and section 9A of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018.
12. On 1 June 2023 the landlord raised further work orders to treat the damp and mould. It carried out repairs between June and August 2023. It is unclear what prompted the repairs, so we cannot assess whether the landlord’s response was reasonable.
13. The resident raised a complaint after chasing and getting no response regarding the installation of a PIV unit. The landlord told the resident that a contractor would arrange a date to carry out the work, but there is no evidence that this happened. It was unreasonable that the resident had to chase for updates due to poor communication.
14. The landlord inspected the property on 3 January 2024. It is unclear if the resident’s complaint prompted this. The inspection report made a further recommendation to install a PIV unit. It also recommended repairs such as mould washes which the landlord completed a week later and installing external water drains. The landlord completed the drain works on 11 April 2024. It is unclear why there was a delay with the drain works but the time to complete them was unreasonable.
15. The inspection report recommended replastering some rooms. On 12 January 2024 the resident told the landlord his family needed temporarily relocating during the repairs for health reasons. He believed the damp and mould had already affected his children’s health and didn’t want the dust from replastering to make things worse. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it would assess how extensive the work was before deciding on relocation, which was reasonable.
16. In its stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident that it would install the PIV unit by 5 June 2024. It would also complete other repairs and raise another damp and mould inspection. The landlord acknowledged that the time taken to address the issues had been unacceptable and offered compensation of £1,302 to cover service failure, delays, missed appointments and distress and inconvenience. This was a positive attempt to put things right and in line with its compensation policy.
17. On 6 June 2024 the landlord attempted to install the PIV unit. The resident was not home as he was not aware of the appointment, therefore the installation did not take place. Landlords should confirm appointments and send reminders using an agreed method of contact. There is no evidence the landlord did this. This was a communication failure by the landlord.
18. On 13 June 2024 the landlord told the resident it would replaster one area at a time, taking less than a day to complete. It said there was no need for a temporary relocation because the work area would be sealed off from the rest of the home. Whilst it was positive that the landlord considered the resident’s request, it made no reference to his health concerns or the children in the household. This was not in line with its damp, mould and condensation policy.
19. The resident requested compensation from the landlord for personal items damaged by the damp and mould. In its stage 1 response, the landlord requested proof of damage and receipts for the items. The resident sent pictures but there is no evidence that the landlord responded. The landlord also failed to provide information on making an insurance claim which was not in line with its compensation policy.
20. From mid-June to August 2024 the landlord carried out more inspections and repairs to fix the damp and mould. This included repointing bricks, clearing gutters, and internal mould treatments. It had installed the PIV unit by 4 July 2024, over a year after it was first recommended. There is no evidence that the landlord provided any reasons for the delay to the resident.
21. In June and July 2024, the resident told the landlord he believed the damp and mould issues were caused by poorly insulated external walls, which had black mould on them. He said the landlord should have assessed this. In its stage 2 response, the landlord identified outstanding work orders for a mould treatment and a leak investigation and said it would complete them by 12 August 2024. Following the resident’s concerns, it would also inspect the external walls on 5 August 2024. This response demonstrated that the landlord had listened to the resident’s concerns and tried to take steps to put things right.
22. The landlord increased its compensation offer by £1,010.95 in recognition of the resident’s loss of enjoyment of the home. This was a positive step to put things right.
23. The records show that the landlord rescheduled the external wall inspection. However, it is unclear if the landlord completed the inspection or the previous outstanding repairs. This is a record keeping failure.
24. The landlord made some reasonable attempts to resolve the issues and acknowledged the delays. However, there were issues with outstanding repairs, including the replastering due to the matter of temporary relocation. Our Outcomes Guidance is therefore clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made in the circumstances.
25. The landlord offered compensation in line with our Remedies Guidance and recognised the distress caused to the resident. We have therefore not ordered any further compensation. However, we have made orders for it to pay the compensation offered, if it has not done so already, and to address the required repairs. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles of be fair and put things right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

26. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint 18 working days after he raised it. This was outside the 5 working days outlined in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which was a failing.
27. In the complaint acknowledgement the landlord did not provide a response timescale. Though not a failing as per the Code, it would have managed the resident’s expectations had it given a date by which it would respond.
28. Between 18 January and 3 April 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident 6 times to say it needed to extend the timeframe to respond by around 10 working days. Whilst it was right to inform the resident of the extensions, the landlord did not give any clear reasons for the delays. This was not in line with the Code which states that reasons for delays must be clearly explained to the resident.
29. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 90 working days after acknowledging the complaint. Whilst this did not align with the Code, the landlord acknowledged the delays and poor complaint handling in its response. It offered redress in line with its compensation policy which was reasonable.
30. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation 23 working days after he requested it. This was not in line with the Code. It wrote to the resident on 15 July 2024 to say it needed to extend the timeframe to respond by 10 working days. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response in line with the extension. In its response, the landlord acknowledged its delay and offered redress. However, it did not apologise or provide any clear reasons for the delay. This was a service failure.
31. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised its poor complaint handling and offered redress in line with our Remedies Guidance. We have therefore not ordered any further compensation. However, we have made an order for the landlord to apologise for the failures identified in this report and set out any learning. We have also made an order for the landlord to pay the compensation offered if it has not done so already.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord has not provided evidence of all completed inspections or remedial works. Some of its records are unclear and do not detail the outcome of inspections and dates of completion or works. At times, this has impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

33. The landlord failed to provide the resident with adequate progress reports or respond to his requests for updates which led to him raising a complaint. It also failed to provide any explanation for the delays to its repairs. The lack of communication likely added to the resident’s distress and could have resulted in a lack of confidence in the landlord.