Orbit Housing Association Limited (202315779)

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with ongoing damp, mould and cracks in the property. He said it was impacting the health of his family who have long-term respiratory conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. response to the resident’s reports of issues with cracks, damp and mould in the property
   2. handling of the complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We’ve found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of issues with cracks, damp and mould in the property
   2. no maladministration in its complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with cracks, damp and mould in the property

4. The landlord delayed unreasonably in dealing with the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It failed to consider the potential impact of the issue on vulnerable people in the household.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord showed efficient complaint handling, keeping to its policy guidelines and communicating clearly with the resident in its 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.

What we haven’t looked at

6. The resident raised several issues in his initial complaint which were not escalated to stage 2. He confirmed these issues did not need further investigation in a call to the landlord in August 2025. These included concerns around a subject access request, scaffolding, window seals, heating issues and the request to move house. We have not looked at these issues because the landlord did not investigate them fully as part of its internal complaints process.
7. The resident said the issues impacted his health and the health of his family. We cannot assess whether something caused an impact on health. He could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered any distress or inconvenience caused by any failings by the landlord.

What we have looked at

8. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 August 2024 to report issues with ongoing damp, mould and condensation in the property. He expressed concerns about the impact it was having on his health and the health of his children. The landlord failed to respond to this report. It should have arranged an inspection within 20 days of the report as its Damp, Mould and Condensation Procedure says it will.
9. The resident made a further report on 10 February 2025. He said there was damp on the walls and the property was draughty. He again raised concerns about the impact on the health of his family and asked the landlord to resolve the issue. This time the landlord responded and organised an inspection of the property, which resulted in works being raised. These included:
   1. resealing windows
   2. replacing skirting
   3. repairs to the front door
   4. installation of trickle vents
   5. repairs to windowsill
10. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged it had failed to respond to the resident’s initial report. It apologised for the inconvenience he faced which was appropriate. However, it said it failed to act on the timelines set out in its complaint policy which incorrectly framed the issue as a complaint handling failure. It should have referred to its obligation to arrange an inspection following a report set out in its Damp, Mould and Condensation Procedure. This shows that its failure was more significant than it had considered as it missed his report entirely. Its failure to follow its policy meant the resident faced 6 months of uncertainty without a response.
11. The landlord conducted a damp and mould inspection on 3 June 2025 after its stage 1 response. However, it failed to raise works correctly within a reasonable time. Its Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy says if works are identified in an inspection, they should be raised at the earliest opportunity. While it identified its failure and re-raised the works on 10 July 2025, the delay did not show it was learning from the failing it had identified in its stage 1 investigation. It missed an opportunity to improve its response to the issue, taking 27 working days to raise the works. The resident faced further distress and inconvenience as a result.
12. The landlord said the damp and mould works, namely replacing window seals and repairing water ingress, were completed by 23 July 2025. It recorded completed jobs on its system and asked the resident to confirm the works were finished. While he did not agree that the works had been completed, it was appropriate that it kept in contact with him to ensure the issue was being addressed. It asked him to provide photos of any new damp and mould so it could take steps which was appropriate and showed it understood he was still concerned. The landlord conducted a property inspection on 8 November 2025 once more photos were provided. The inspection report recorded no hazards or damp and mould. This showed it was satisfied that works were completed to a good standard.
13. The resident told the landlord several times that he and his children were vulnerable and that their health was being impacted by ongoing damp and mould. He specified issues with breathing that affected him and his children. In its Additional Assistance and Reasonable Adjustment Policy it says the landlord will recognise the individual needs of its vulnerable residents and respond appropriately, considering if it can offer assistance in accessing its services.
14. There is no evidence that the landlord considered any changes to its approach, such as prioritising the works or conducting risk assessments as its Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy says it will where there is a high risk to health. This was unreasonable since it knew there were vulnerabilities in the household before the complaint was made. The resident was not shown it recognised the severity of his concerns or was considering whether he and his family were at an increased risk due to their respiratory health conditions.
15. It was appropriate that the landlord made an offer of compensation but it did not go far enough. An order for further compensation has been made to reflect the impact of the delays on the resident. We have considered this in line with its Compensation Guidance and Complaints Resolution Procedure, along with our remedies guidance. The landlord failed to respond to his reports of damp and mould in August 2024 and did not show that it had sufficiently satisfied itself that there was no additional risk to the resident and his family as a result of their health conditions.
16. The resident raised ongoing concerns about the landlord’s repair of the cracks in the property. He said it was not addressing the root cause of the issue as its previous attempts to plaster them had not stopped them from returning. While older reports were not investigated in the complaint due to their age, reports made during the complaints process resulted in the landlord attending on 29 July 2025 to complete plastering work. This was appropriate and showed it wanted to resolve the problem.
17. The landlord responded to this concern appropriately in its stage 2 response, confirming that its previous inspections had determined the cracks were decorative and could be resolved with plastering works. This was reasonable and showed that it was taking the resident’s concerns about the cracks seriously. It scheduled replastering work for 3 September 2025. It showed it was taking this aspect of his report seriously and had a plan for resolving the issue.

18. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code.”)
19. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord gave its stage 1 response within 11 working days after requesting an extension (20 May 2025 to 5 June 2025) which was in line with the Code
    2. the landlord gave its stage 2 response within 1 working day (31 July 2025 to 1 August 2025) which was in line with the 20 days the Code allows
20. The landlord showed it had good oversight of the complaint process. When it knew it would have difficulty keeping to its timelines, it spoke to the resident to request an extension, which was appropriate. Its responses touched on all complaint points he raised and made clear when it was not escalating specific issues at stage 2. It can reflect positively on its complaint handling as it showed strong communication, clarity and fairness.

Learning

21. The landlord could reflect on how the resident’s experience of the complaint issue would have been different had it considered adaptations to its approach that recognised the vulnerabilities in the household.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord was delayed in completing remedial damp and mould works because of poor record keeping. It could reflect on how effectively it used its systems, both following reports of issues from the resident and also the requests for completion of works following inspection of the property.

Communication

23. The landlord’s communication was good during the complaints procedure but ineffective following the initial reports of damp and mould. It could reflect on whether more consistent communication would have helped it to provide a resolution sooner and also identify the potential risks to the resident and his family as a result of health conditions.