Orbit Housing Association Limited (202438192)

Background

1. The resident has lived in the property as an assured tenant since February 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident said she has health conditions that affect her immunity. She also has young children and was concerned the damp and mould could affect their health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Complaint handling.
5. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

6. The landlord responded in line with its procedure to the resident’s first report of damp and mould in February 2024. However, following its complaint response in April 2024, it did not do the agreed repairs due to its poor record keeping. The landlord accepted its failings in its final response and offered reasonable compensation for the delays between April and August 2024.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy at stage 1 but offered reasonable compensation in its final response.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. The resident told us the damp and mould had damaged their health and personal possessions. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a claim for any injury or damage caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute. We have not investigated this further. The Ombudsman can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
9. Records provided by the landlord show the resident first reported damp and mould on 6 February 2024. The landlord then arranged an inspection. The inspection took place on 21 February 2024 and found a “moderate” amount of mould. It said the cause was condensation on external walls. It said the landlord needed to do pointing to external brickwork. It advised the resident on heating her home.
10. Following the inspection, the landlord arranged a mould wash for 26 February 2024. A contractor attended as arranged, but the landlord’s records say it could only mould wash a bedroom “due to the circumstances” it found at the time. We have not seen what the circumstances were. Because of this we cannot comment on whether it was reasonable for the landlord not to complete the work at this appointment. However, the landlord arranged a new appointment with the resident for 21 March 2024. It also arranged to repoint the brickwork in April 2024.
11. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure says it will review reports of damp and mould within 5 working days and give the case to a surveyor. The surveyor should then contact the resident to arrange an inspection within 20 working days. It also says that if the surveyor finds property usage could be contributing to condensation, they should discuss the findings with the resident, explaining the importance of heating and ventilation.
12. The landlord’s response to the first report of damp and mould was reasonable. This is because it responded in line with its procedure and did a survey 12 working days after the first report. It then did a part mould wash 4 working days later. As it could not complete the work, it agreed a new appointment with the resident and arranged repairs to deal with what it thought was the cause. It also gave advice.
13. In her complaint of 27 February 2024 the resident said the landlord had only mould washed a bedroom. She said she had a child under 2 years who had repeated chest infections and who had been hospitalised because of this. She said the landlord had not investigated the cause of the damp and mould.
14. In its complaint response on 19 April 2024 the landlord said after the appointment on 21 February 2024, its contractor attended as arranged on 21 March 2024 but could not get access. It said the resident then agreed another appointment for a mould wash on 29 April 2024. It said it would repoint the brickwork on 25 April 2024. It apologised for distress and inconvenience the damp and mould had caused and offered £100 compensation because of this.
15. This was a reasonable response at this stage. This is because the landlord set out what it had done and what it would do to fix the damp and mould. It also apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused and offered a reasonable amount of compensation for the delay as some of the delay was because it could not get access at an arranged appointment.
16. A contractor attended on 25 April 2024 to repoint the brickwork but did not do any work. In its final response, the landlord accepted that it did not give the contractor information on what work needed doing.
17. On 29 April 2024, the landlord’s records said it had completed the work. However, in its final response, the landlord said it did not do a mould wash on 29 April 2024 as the walls were damp. It said it had no information on its system to show if it had completed the job.
18. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 July 2024 and said there was still mould in her home. She said her home was not habitable. The landlord arranged an inspection for 7 August 2024. It escalated the complaint on 2 August 2024 as its contractor had not done the work it said it would do.
19. In its final response on 7 August 2024 the landlord said it had not done the agreed work. It said it would arrange any necessary work after the inspection on 7 August 2024. Because of its failings it increased the offer of compensation to £557.05, including the £100 for the distress and inconvenience offered at stage 1. The increase of £207.05 was for loss of enjoyment of the home and failure to complete works, and £250 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
20. The survey on 7 August 2024 found “minor” damp and mould in the living room. It recommended removing unused vents. It said it needed to repair plaster. On 16 September 2024 the resident told the landlord it had done the repairs, but the plaster had cracked. The landlord arranged follow up work and completed this on 16 October 2024.
21. Overall, we have found the landlord’s final response was reasonable. After the first report of damp and mould in February 2024, it acted reasonably. However, there were then failings in its communication and record keeping, which meant there was a delay in doing the repairs it promised. In its final response, the landlord accepted its failings and offered £557.05 compensation. It also arranged a survey and for its aftercare team to contact the resident to discuss the outstanding repairs. It is our view that this was a reasonable amount of compensation for the delays between April and August 2024.
22. The Ombudsman has seen the resident reported that mould had returned in June 2025. She raised concerns about whether her home was habitable and said she wanted to move because of the effect on her family. This is outside the scope of this investigation as we will ordinarily not investigate matters that the landlord has not had an opportunity to put right first. The landlord has given us evidence to show it arranged an inspection, which found the mould was “minor”. We have also seen that the council’s environmental health team inspected the property and referred to mould around windows and on walls but did not raise concerns about whether the property was uninhabitable.

23. The resident complained about how the landlord dealt with her reports of damp and mould on 27 February 2024. Its response on of 19 April 2024 was 38 working days later. It did not follow its complaints policy, which says it should respond in 10 working days.
24. Following a further report of damp and mould, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 2 August 2024, as it had not completed the works it promised in its stage 1 response. This was a positive step by the landlord as it recognised its failures and escalated the complaint.
25. The landlord’s final response on 7 August 2024 was sent 3 working days later. This was well within the response target of 20 working days at stage 2. In its response the landlord offered £200 compensation for the failures in its complaint handling.
26. Overall, the landlord delayed in responding at stage 1 of the complaint. However, its offer of £200 compensation in its final response adequately resolved this failing.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. We have found there were lapses in the landlord’s record keeping as it did not have a record of what it did after the stage 1 response. We have made a recommendation on this.