Octavia Housing (202405592)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405592

Octavia Housing

8 October 2025

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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s management of boiler repairs.
2. The landlord’s management of a fair rent review.
3. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
4. The landlord’s response to reports of nuisance from the adjacent nursery including children playing in the garden, inappropriate storage of waste, and screws protruding through the fence.
5. The landlord’s decision to rent the premises next door to the nursery, in the first instance.
6. The landlord’s decision that the nursery had the right to use a fenced off area as a garden for their children.
7. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord at his property since 12 December 1985. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette. The landlord lets the premises next door to a nursery which has use of a back garden where the children play. There is a boundary fence between the garden area used by the nursery and the resident’s garden.
On 21 May 2024, the landlord logged a stage 1 complaint after speaking to the resident. It noted that he had raised the following concerns:
1. It had taken 6-8 weeks to complete a boiler repair, with several engineers visits and separate parts installed at different stages of the process.
2. He had received no confirmation that his rent increase had been registered with the fair rent office.
3. He disagreed with the landlord’s commercial let to the neighbouring nursery due to nuisance from noise from children playing, the dumping of rubbish, and lack of parking. The resident also highlighted his tenancy agreement did not state he had a shared garden.
4. The landlord had confirmed it would inspect damp in a cupboard in the hallway and at the bottom of stairs; however, it had not done so.
5. The landlord had delayed in responding to his previous correspondence on these matters.
The landlord sent the stage 1 response on 2 July 2024. It said the following:
1. It explained the actions taken to repair the boiler between 17 January 2024 and 6 March 2024, when the heating contractor serviced the boiler. It noted the contractor installed parts at different appointments and delivered a fan heater on 3 February 2024. It agreed there had been delays including missed appointments and poor communication.
2. The nursery had agreed to designate times when it would not use the back garden, buy a bin to store rubbish until the street collection, and remove items screwed to the fence.
3. The fair rent issue was being progressed.
4. A building inspector would inspect the damp and mould on 18 June 2024.
5. It would offer compensation of £659.84 comprising:
  1. £50 for the delay in the response.
  2. £609.84 for the lack of heating and hot water during January and February 2024.
On 7 July 2024, the resident escalated his complaint and said the following:
1. He wanted reassurance about steps to prevent other delays in repair works to boilers.
2. The fair rent assessment was outstanding after 2 years.
3. The landlord had not responded to his point that his tenancy agreement stated he did not share a garden.
4. He remained concerned about the management of the rubbish from the nursery and the screws in the boundary fence.
5. The landlord did not consult him when it decided to offer the commercial premises to a nursery.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 2 August 2024:
1. It explained how it managed the contract with its heating contractor. It confirmed the contractor would be stocking more boiler parts so it could carry repairs in one visit.
2. It confirmed that it had applied to the Rent Officer for a fair rent and provided all information. However, it apologised for taking too long to do this.
3. It noted the fence was in place when the resident moved in. It could not confirm this was purely for privacy as the previous neighbour was a doctor’s surgery. It interpreted the tenancy agreement as the resident’s excusive use of the back garden referred to the area up to the fence. The nursery had the right to use the garden under the lease, and it did not intend to change that arrangement.
4. It committed to inspect the nursery regarding their management of rubbish at the front and screws in the fence when they reopened after the summer holidays.
5. It explained when the surgery closed in 2012, it relet the premises to the nursery, which had made the only offer. It could not convert the premises to a residential property due to planning permission. It advised it used the income from commercial properties to maintain and improve its housing stock. It would check with the nursery if they could provide times when they would use the rear garden space.
6. It increased the offer of compensation to £709.84 comprising:
  1. £50 for the delay in the stage 1 response.
  2. £50 for the delay in the progression of the fair rent.
  3. £609.84 for the lack of heating and hot water in January/February 2024, (16 Jan 2024 to 28 February 2024).
The resident initially referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 24 September 2024. In this and in his further contact, he advised that he wanted us to investigate all issues. He stated he, in particular, disagreed with children playing in the nursery’s garden. He believed under his tenancy agreement he should have exclusive use of that area.
After we notified the landlord that the resident had referred his complaint to us, it sent him a further response on 9 May 2025. It stated the following:
1. It offered a rent reimbursement of £1,691.23 for the delay in processing the fair rent, which was only resolved in September 2024.
2. It would commence damp works on 29 May 2025, and it apologised for the delay. It could complete a mould wash in the interim.
3. It offered further compensation which comprised:
  1. £100 for its delay in getting the fair rent reviewed.
  2. £750 for delaying in dealing with damp and mould.
  3. £200 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the damp works.

Jurisdiction

Decision to rent the premises next door to the nursery

The resident has complained about the landlord’s decision to rent the premises next door to a nursery. He notes that the landlord did not consult with him at the time.
Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. In essence, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This allows the landlord to have a reasonable opportunity to consider and resolve the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In this case, it was around 12 to 13 years ago when the landlord decided to rent the premises next door to the nursery. As such, the resident did not make his complaint about this decision within a reasonable period of the decision. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, this complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s area to consider.

Decision that the nursery had the right to use a fenced off area as a garden

Aside from the landlord letting the premises next door to the nursery, the resident also disputed the nursery should have use of the garden area. He highlighted to the landlord that his tenancy agreement states he has “exclusive” use of the garden. The landlord has provided us with a plan which shows a boundary between the resident’s garden and the garden used by the nursery. A fence marks the boundary on the ground. The landlord in its complaint response confirmed its interpretation of the tenancy agreement. It specifically stated the resident’s exclusive use of the back garden referred to the area up to the fence.
Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The resident disputes the landlord’s interpretation of his tenancy agreement as he thinks the garden used by the nursery is in fact demised to him. Ultimately, resolution on this matter requires a definitive or legally binding ruling on the interpretation of the resident’s tenancy agreement with specific regard to the property boundary. It may also require consideration of the landlord’s agreement with the nursery. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, this complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s area to consider.

Assessment and findings

Management of boiler repairs

On 16 January 2024, the resident reported a loss of heating and hot water. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s obligation “to keep in good repair and working order all installations provided for the supply of …, space heating and water heating.” The landlord’s heating contractor initially attended the following day in line with the landlord’s policy to attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. However, the contractor did not fully repair the boiler until 28 February 2024, according to the landlord’s records. Within this time, any restoration of the heating and hot water system was temporary and/or caused other problems with the boiler and system. The contractor made several visits to the resident and installed various parts for the boiler on at least 4 separate occasions. Within this period, the resident also reported a missed appointment on 7 February 2024. After the repair of 28 February 2024, the contractor serviced the boiler on 6 March 2024.
The landlord also delivered a fan heater on 3 February 2024. This was appropriate as it mitigated the loss of the heating.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord offered £609.84 compensation to cover the period from 16 January 2024 to 28 February 2024. The landlord did not confirm to the resident how it calculated this award. It has advised the Ombudsman that it would have applied its Compensation Procedure at the time. This states it would offer 20 percent of the rent after 5 working days for no hot water, It would offer 100 percent of the rent after 72 hours between October to March only where no alternative temporary heating was provided.
44 days elapsed between the resident’s report and the full repair of the boiler. 18 days passed before the landlord provided alternative heating, on 3 February 2024. Therefore, before that date, the landlord should have reimbursed all the rent, which at the time was £165.08 per week, under the policy. After that date, the landlord should have offered 20% or 40% of the rent for the lack of heating and hot water. Taking into account the number of days before compensation was payable, the landlord’s offer exceeded the amount directed by the Compensation Procedure. Therefore, while it is not clear how the landlord calculated its compensation award for the lack of heating and hot water, the award was reasonable.
In his complaint, the resident requested reassurance about how the landlord would prevent delays to repairs to boilers in the future. In the stage 2 response, the landlord explained the following:
1. It held contract performance and management meetings with contractors.
2. The heating contractor had committed to address shortfalls and adequately resource. This included stocking more boiler parts so it could complete repairs in one visit.
3. It had raised turnaround times with the heating contractor and there had recently been an improvement.
4. It held weekly and monthly catch-ups to measure customer satisfaction and address emerging issues.
Learn from Outcomes is a dispute resolution principle of the Ombudsman and contributes to the redress that can resolve a complaint. Through outlining steps to improve the performance of the heating contractor, the landlord offered further redress to the resident.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them. The Ombudsman may make a determination of reasonable redress where a landlord has offered compensation that provides redress for failures and satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
In summary, the landlord delayed in completing repairs to remedy the resident’s loss of heating and hot water. However, through offering compensation and explaining how it managed the performance of the heating contractor, it offered reasonable redress that satisfactorily resolved this complaint. This finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs or the impact on the resident was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects there were failings by the landlord, which its compensation offer acknowledged and provided redress for in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.
The resident has explained to the Ombudsman that when contacting the contractor, there are different phone operators who take the call. They cannot contact engineers. The resident also stated that different engineers and different managers would call him back. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord liaise with the contractor to ensure they minimise any lack of cohesion and delay to their service.

Management of a fair rent review

The landlord’s Rent Policy notes that a “Fair Rent – is the maximum we can charge a tenant who is protected by a secure tenancy. These values are set on request by a Rent Officer at the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) and can be requested every two years.” The Ombudsman notes that a tenancy created before 15 January 1989 can also be known as a regulated tenancy.
On 2 June 2023, the landlord advised the resident it would make an application to the Rent Officer within the next 3 months. The VOA confirmed to the landlord that month that it would help. However, the landlord did not make an application to the VOA within the time period it advised to the resident. Compounding this, it failed to respond to an email he sent on 3 January 2024 in which he sought an update on the fair rent application. As a result, it both delayed in initiating the application and failed to manage the resident’s expectation about how long the process would take.
It was not until 11 March 2024, then 11 June 2024, that the landlord provided information required by the VOA for the fair rent application. The VOA was processing the application at the time the resident pursued his complaint. The landlord missed opportunities to confirm the status and progress of the application from the VOA and update the resident.
The VOA registered the resident’s rent on 21 September 2024. In its complaint responses of 2 August 2024 and 9 May 2025 the landlord offered a total of £150 for its delay in registering the fair rent. This was in line with the discretion allowed within the landlord’s Compensation Procedure for instances where it “act[s] unreasonably and the resident is significantly inconvenienced”. It was also within the range of compensation in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for cases of maladministration with no permanent impact. We therefore consider the award reasonable and proportionate for the delays.
The landlord also on 9 May 2025 offered the resident a rent reimbursement of £1,691.23, as it had overcharged him rent. The resident accepted the amount. This reimbursement was appropriate as it brought the resident to the position he would have been in if his fair rent had been set without delay. However, the VOA had confirmed the resident’s rent in September 2024. It was unreasonable that it took 8 months to provide the reimbursement.
The Ombudsman usually will not make a determination of reasonable redress where the landlord makes an offer of compensation after its complaints procedure. It should make redress prior to when the Ombudsman accepts a complaint for investigation and on its own initiative. In this case, the landlord has offered and paid compensation for its failings in the management of the fair rent review. However, it appears to have been prompted to reconsider its position after the resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not make a finding of reasonable redress despite the landlord now offering proportionate payments for the failings.
In summary, the landlord delayed in dealing with the fair rent application for the resident and it did not update him about the progress of the application. While it has now offered reasonable redress, it failed to do so within the complaints process or when the VOA registered the fair rent. We therefore find that there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint.
To resolve the resident’s complaints, we have ordered the landlord to complete a case review, taking account of the findings of this investigation. As part of the case review ordered, we order the landlord to review its handling of the fair rent review. We also recommend that the landlord consider drafting a procedure for managing of fair rent reviews and registrations for regulated/secure tenancies across its housing stock.

Damp and mould

On 23 November 2023, the resident reported damp and mould. He specifically stated it was on a bedroom wall, the wall on the stairs, the downstairs cupboard under the stairs, and the cupboard door. The landlord agreed that its damp and mould team would visit. However, it did not do so, even after the resident chased up an update on 3 January 2024. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord should consider whether any damp and mould problems amounted to a hazard and required remedying. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) highlights the general need for landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. It was therefore unreasonable and inconsistent with its repair obligations that the landlord failed to conduct the inspection.
It was only after the resident complained in May 2024 that the landlord acted on his report of damp and mould. This indicated that it had lost oversight of the report. It arranged a damp and mould inspection for 18 June 2024.
At the inspection, the landlord identified damp and mould in the hallway and recommended a survey by a damp and mould contractor. However, it was not until 29 November 2024, 5 months later, that the landlord instructed its damp and mould contractor. This again indicates that the landlord lost oversight of the resident’s report of damp and mould. This was especially unreasonable as the resident had complained about this issue. In fact, the landlord’s stage 1 response specifically noted there was an inspection of 18 June 2024. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, “Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.” The landlord did not meet this aspect of the Code.
The damp contractor, after inspecting, on 9 December 2024, reported the dampness appeared to be due to:
1. Rising Damp.
2. Plaster absorbing atmospheric moisture.
3. Possible sideways penetration of dampness due to high ground levels.

They recommended that they install a chemical damp proof course to one wall, which was by the stairs. They also recommended that the wall be replastered and redecorated.

It is reasonable for landlords to rely on the professional opinion of approved, expert contractors. However, in this case, having commissioned a damp contractor, the landlord decided one of its surveyors should inspect the damp and mould again. It did not attempt to inspect until 25 April 2024. This was 4 months after its damp contractor’s report, which prolonged the delay to remedial works. The resident declined the inspection stating the mould was “minor” and he was cleaning it himself. However, he wanted the landlord to progress the works identified by the contractor.
As confirmed in the landlord’s response of 9 May 2025, it arranged the damp works for 29 May 2025. The parties have confirmed the damp contractor completed the works in September 2025. The landlord has explained this was because the resident wanted more time to prepare and for the contractor to complete the works after he returned from holiday. As such, the landlord was not responsible for this aspect of the delay.
The landlord offered a total of £950 compensation in its responses for its delay in completing the damp works and the resident’s time and trouble. Ultimately, 18 months elapsed between the resident’s initial report of November 2023 and the initial appointment for damp works in May 2025. This amounts to over £50 a month for the period. The Ombudsman considers the offer to be proportionate given the damp and mould was localised to an area of the property that was not a room. However, again, we will not make a finding of reasonable redress as the landlord did not provide redress for the existing delay within the complaints procedure. It also did not use the resident’s complaint as a focus to track and expedite remedial works. We therefore find that there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint. We order the landlord to review its handling of the resident’s damp and mould case.

Reports of nuisance from the adjacent nursery

The resident has explained that his property is within a converted Victorian house. The neighbouring premises within the building was a doctor’s surgery when he first moved in. There was a fence in the garden area when he moved in. The resident states he was informed this was because the doctor’s patients required privacy. After the doctor moved out, around 12 years ago, the landlord relet the premises to a nursery.
The landlord’s records show that the resident from 2022 periodically raised concerns about noise from the nursery, in particular from children playing in the garden. In his complaint of 21 May 2024, he raised concerns about nuisance from noise from children playing, the dumping of rubbish, and lack of parking. The resident noted his tenancy agreement does not state he has a shared garden.
On 10 June 2024, the landlord advised that it would agree times with the nursery when the children would play outside. The landlord has a Neighbourhood Relationship Policy which recognises “Neighbour Disputes are where two or more neighbours disagree about something that then becomes a source of distress and frustration.” The policy states, “If the problems are about noise transference, we can facilitate a discussion as to what hours are reasonable for certain activities to take place.” It was in line with the policy that the landlord sought to agree times children would use the nursery garden. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident has declined this as he does not want to feel restricted in his use of the garden. Nonetheless, in the event of the nursery remaining, the landlord’s position was reasonable, as the children would continue to access to the garden.
The Ombudsman also appreciates that the resident does not believe the landlord should continue to let the premises next door to a nursery, due to the impact on him. Our role is to consider complaints relating to housing activities, therefore we cannot comment on or overturn commercial decisions made by landlords. Other agencies like OFSTED and the local authority may be able to advise whether the building and the premises next door is suitable for providing day care for children.
The resident complained that the nursery stored its rubbish inappropriately and had screwed nails in the fence which protruded on his side. The landlord confirmed on 10 June 2024 and then in the stage 1 response that it had raised these concerns with the nursery. It conveyed that the nursery had agreed to buy a bin and remove the screws. It was appropriate that the landlord informed the nursery of the resident’s concerns so it could take corrective action.
After the resident escalated his complaint, the landlord updated him in the stage 2 response, and then on 13 August 2024. Specifically, it made clear that the nursery had purchased a bin for use after the holidays. It further stated the nursery would remove the screws later that month. The landlord therefore managed the resident’s expectations about how these issues would be resolved.
A contractor for the landlord inspected the nursery on 15 January 2025. They confirmed that items had been removed from the fence and bins had been provided. Through the inspection, the landlord took appropriate steps to ensure the nursery had resolved these issues.
In summary, the landlord acted in line with its Neighbourhood Relationship Policy to resolve the resident’s concerns about noise from children in the nursery garden. It also took reasonable steps to resolve his concerns about inappropriate storage of rubbish and screws protruding through the fence. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration in respect of this complaint.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaints Procedure states at stage 1, it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and send the stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgment. If this is not possible, it will extend the complaint giving the complainant a clear explanation and details of when they will receive the response. This will not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
In this case, the landlord logged a complaint on 21 May 2024 and sent the stage 1 response on 2 July 2024. Therefore, it took over 6 weeks to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint which was 4 weeks over the required time scale. There is no evidence it sent a holding response or otherwise advised the resident when it would respond, as required by the complaints procedure. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord offered compensation for the delay in its complaint responses.
The landlord offered £50 for the delay in the stage 1 response. This was in line with the discretion allowed within the landlord’s Compensation Procedure for instances where it “act[s] unreasonably and the resident is significantly inconvenienced”. It was also within the range of compensation in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for cases of service failure which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident. We therefore consider the award reasonable and proportionate for the stage 1 delay.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states at stage 2, it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and send the stage 1 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgment. The resident escalated the complaint on 7 July 2024, and the landlord sent the stage 2 response on 2 August 2024. It therefore met the required time scale for sending the stage 2 response.
In summary, the landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. However, it offered reasonable redress that satisfactorily resolved the delay in its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s decision to rent the premises next door to the nursery is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s decision that the nursery had the right to use a fenced off area as a garden for their children is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress prior to investigation that satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint about the management of boiler repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its management of a fair rent review.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of nuisance from the adjacent nursery including children playing in the garden, inappropriate storage of waste, and screws protruding through the fence.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress prior to investigation that satisfactorily resolved the failings in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks, to:
1. pay the resident £2,791.23, if it has not already done so, comprising:
  1. the £150 it offered for the delays in its handling of the resident’s fair rent review.
  2. the rent reimbursement of £1,691.23.
  3. the £950 it offered for its delay in completing the damp works and for his time and trouble.
2. carry out a case review. This should include consideration of:
  1. why there were delays in its handling of the fair rent application and why it did not respond or otherwise provide updates to the resident.
  2. whether staff had a common understanding who had responsibility for collating supporting evidence and liaising with the VOA and the resident.
  3. whether any timeframes and time targets applied for the fair rent application and whether it could have better monitored the application.
  4. why it did not provide the rent reimbursement sooner.
  5. the delays in completing damp and mould works and inspections, and how it could have avoided or mitigated them.
  6. whether it could have improved its record-keeping and internal communications on the resident’s damp and mould case.
  7. whether it could have better updated and communicated with the resident about how it was dealing with his damp and mould case.
  8. whether there are additional issues and learning from this case that can inform any future review of how it deals with damp and mould.
  9. the reasons why it delayed in providing a full resolution to issues of the fair rent and damp and mould, after responding to the complaint.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. pay the resident compensation of £659.84, if it has not already done so, comprising:
  1. The £609.84 offered for the loss of heating and hot water.
  2. The £50 offered for the delay in the stage 1 response.
2. liaise with the heating contractor to ensure they minimise any lack of continuity and delay to their service from different people handing repairs.