Octavia Housing (202345630)

Background

1. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a converted terraced house. The property is in a conservation area and has some sash windows. The resident said he first reported window issues in 2015 and also tried to complain in 2022. The landlord has since merged to become a subsidiary of a larger housing association.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of repairs to the:
      1. Windows.
      2. Bathroom.
   2. Response to reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom.
6. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
7. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of repairs to the windows

8. It took the landlord 1 year and 8 months to complete the window repairs for the resident. This was significantly over the timeframe we would reasonably expect, even for planned repairs.

Handling of repairs to the bathroom

9. It took the landlord 9.5 months to complete bathroom repairs.

Response to reports of damp and mould

10. The landlord inspected the damp and mould in February and October 2024. However, there was no evidence a damp and mould surveyor attended. And the repairs to try and address the cause took too long.

Complaint handling

11. The landlord’s responses were late and failed to offer reasonable compensation. It also failed to follow-up on actions promised within the responses.

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.

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.

12. The landlord’s repairs policy from February 2024 says:
    1. It will attend to an emergency repair within 24 hours, if possible to make safe.
    2. Urgent repairs will be completed within 5 working days.
    3. Routine repairs will be completed within 15 working days.
    4. On occasion, it may not be possible to complete work within these times. For example when parts or materials need to be ordered.
13. The evidence showed the resident reported ongoing concerns with the window condition on 5 February 2024. He said:
    1. The frames were rotten.
    2. He had cracked glass.
    3. He wanted new windows.

The landlord visited to inspect the windows, although it was unclear exactly when. There was no evidence any repairs were raised, which was a failing. There was then no evidence of further action until the stage 1 complaint response, a period of around 3 months, which was a further failing. 

14. The landlord used its complaints process to:
    1. Acknowledge its failings in its stage 1 complaint response.
    2. Take the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations the windows would not be replaced.
    3. Try and put things right in relation to the windows by offering compensation.
    4. Chase its contractor.
    5. Find out when the windows were scheduled to be replaced as part of cyclical work.

These were reasonable steps to take.

15. However, after the stage 1 response, there was no evidence the landlord took any further action until 19 June 2024 when it chased the contactor. This was a further delay. A week later the resident reported the lounge window would no longer close. The landlord’s out of hours contractor attended the same day, in line with policy. It noted the resident needed new glass and a new window. The contractor returned 3 days later to measure the window. It was unclear why the out of hours contractor could not have measured the window. This second visit was unnecessary and caused further inconvenience to the resident.
16. There was then no evidence of any further action, which led the resident to escalate the complaint. The landlord inspected the property again on 2 October 2024, around 7.5 months after the first inspection. Pictures taken show the windows and frames to be in poor condition. In the stage 2 complaint response sent the following day, the landlord said the dining and front room windows needed to be replaced. The evidence showed the landlord then asked its contractor for a quote. This was positive and showed it was trying to resolve the situation for the resident. However, there was no evidence:
    1. Repairs were raised for the windows.
    2. The quote was followed up until 28 January 2025, nearly 4 months later.

These were failings.

17. The evidence suggests there was no further action until 14 July 2025. This was another 6 months later, when the landlord said it attended to measure the windows again. While this was another long delay, the landlord approved the quote promptly and said it raised work to replace 4 windows on 30 July 2025, which was positive. There was no record of this on the repair log.
18. The landlord initially arranged for its contractor to attend on 2 and 3 October 2025. The resident called us the same day and said no one had arrived. He said he had called the landlord and was told the job was “not on their system.” This was a failing and another example of poor record keeping. The landlord eventually installed 2 windows on 8 October 2025 and completed the work on 15 October 2025, 1 year and 8 months after the resident had re-raised the issue of the window condition.
19. We acknowledge there will always be some delays when replacing windows. This is due to manufacturing times and planning permission issues in older properties. However, the landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for repairs, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. With that in mind, it should have done more to follow up with both the resident and its contractors in February and October 2024. The evidence showed poor communication, poor record keeping, and a failure to follow-up in relation to the windows protracted the issue for the resident.
20. We welcome and encourage landlords to proactively revisit opportunities for the resolution of a complaint after the stage 2 response. A landlord is entitled to review its position.The landlord offered a total of £1,125 compensation in relation to the windows. However, £1,000 of this was offered after the end of the landlord’s standard complaints procedure. The complaint was not resolved at the earliest opportunity and caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident. As the suitable offer was not made until 9 months after the end of the complaints process, a finding of maladministration is made and an additional sum of £200 is awarded to recognise this further period of delay.

21. The resident reported the bathroom sink had started to come away from the wall on 5 February 2024. He also said the cabinets and bath panel were rotting. Rather than raise repairs, which would have been reasonable, the landlord inspected the property. As above, it was unclear exactly when. The evidence showed a sink repair was then raised on 19 February 2024. It was unclear what happened with this repair, but the landlord should have monitored and followed up with its contractor and the resident. There was no evidence it did so, which was a failing.
22. It was positive the landlord used its complaint process to try and put things right by chasing its contractor. However, there was no evidence it chased again in relation to the bathroom sink until 19 June 2024, almost a month later. This was a further delay.
23. After contact from us, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 and inspected the property again almost 7 weeks later. It then used its stage 2 response to say it would repair the sink as well as complete other bathroom repairs. The evidence showed it measured the sink on 24 October 2024, and replaced it and completed repairs to the bath on 25 November 2024, a month later.
24. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 July 2025 and offered further compensation for its poor handling of the repairs and complaint. However, there was no mention of the sink. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the bathroom repairs was poor. As above, the landlord is responsible for repairs. It took the landlord 9.5 months to repair the sink. This was significantly over its timescale of 15 working days for a routine repair. There was therefore maladministration. The landlord is ordered to pay an additional £400 for the significant delays replacing the sink and completing bathroom repairs.

25. The landlord’s damp and mould policy (February 2023) says it will:
    1. Take a zero-tolerance approach to reports of damp and mould.
    2. Identify and remediate cases of damp and mould as early as possible.
    3. Respond to initial reports of damp and mould within 5 working days by carrying out an inspection. It will assess the current impact of any damp and mould present, and aim to identify the cause, and current risks. Depending on the outcome of this initial assessment, it will take appropriate remedial actions.
26. The resident’s email of 7 February 2024 said damp came into the bathroom and kitchen when it rained. As above, the landlord’s building inspector visited the property. However, it was unclear whether this was within 5 working days in line with policy. Internal landlord emails of 24 May 2024 show the building inspector said there was “minimal mould present” in February 2024. And to “advise a damp and mould surveyor to inspect.” There was no evidence a request for a damp and mould surveyor was raised, which was a failing. There was then no action until 19 June 2024 when the landlord chased the contractor. This was nearly a month later, which was a further delay.
27. After another inspection in October 2024, the landlord used its stage 2 response to communicate the repairs it had identified to address damp and mould. Extractor fans were then installed on 31 October 2024, which was a positive step. But there was no evidence repairs to the property exterior were raised until 11 November 2024, which was over a month after the inspection. This was slow. The resident called us on 28 February 2025 and said mould was continuing but the landlord came once a month to clean it.
28. Overall, the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould has been poor. The landlord said it would repoint brickwork in its stage 2 response. However, this is still yet to be completed. In the complaint follow-up sent 15 July 2025, the landlord did not acknowledge or address its failings in dealing with the reports of damp and mould. There was therefore maladministration. An order for a further £500 is made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings in dealing with the damp and mould in line with policy.

29. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says:
    1. Stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged.
    2. Stage 2 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged.
    3. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.
30. The resident raised his complaint on 7 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 3 working days later, in line with policy. However, it did not send the stage 1 response until 23 May 2024, another 71 working days later. This was a significant delay and only appeared prompted by contact from us on 8 and 16 May 2024, which was unreasonable. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the delay responding to the complaint. However, there was no evidence it offered any compensation, which was a failing. Following the stage 1 there was no evidence:
    1. Any updates were provided to the resident.
    2. The repairs were monitored.

These were failings.

31. The resident contacted us on 29 July 2024 and requested we escalate the complaint on his behalf, which we did on 8 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation 5 working days later, in line with policy. However, the stage 2 response was not sent until another 35 working days later, which was outside the policy timeframe. This was another failing.
32. It was positive the stage 2 response tried to put things right for the resident and listed the repairs it said it would do. However, it did not:
    1. Consider additional compensation for the:
       1. Further delays with the complaint.
       2. Further delays with the repairs.
    2. Track the repairs in line with policy.

These were failings.

33. Overall, the landlord acknowledged some failings, but failed to address the detriment to the resident. As mentioned in the windows assessment, it was positive the landlord offered £300 in relation to its complaint handling failings. However, this cannot be considered reasonable redress as it was offered 9 months after the end of the landlord’s complaints procedure. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It:
    1. Sent responses to both stage 1 and 2 significantly outside policy its and our Code timeframe.
    2. Did not track outstanding actions in line with the Code following either complaint response.
    3. Failed to consider further compensation in stage 2.
    4. Seemed only prompted to address the resident’s concerns after contact from us and the complaint escalation.

There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order for £200 compensation is made in recognition of the delays in offering suitable compensation.

Learning

34. It was positive the landlord said it had learned lessons from the complaint in its stage 2 follow-up sent to the resident in July 2025. It has since recruited more complaint handlers to avoid delays going forward which is positive.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. There were multiple examples of missing work orders in the evidence provided by the landlord, for example:
    1. No record of all the repairs raised to address damp and mould.
    2. No record of the window repairs following the visits in February and October 2024.
    3. No record of its contractor measuring windows on 14 July 2025.
    4. In a call with us on 3 October 2024 after the contractor did not attend, the resident said he had called the landlord who said the “job was not on their system.”
    5. No evidence of the monthly mould washes.

As outlined in the recommendations section, the landlord should consider ways it can improve monitoring repairs outsourced to a contractor.

Communication

36. The landlord’s communication with the resident and its contractors has been poor. The evidence showed months passed went by without any update provided to the resident.