Orbit Housing Association Limited (202441912)

Background

1. The resident complained that the landlord failed to address her reports of damp and mould for several years. The landlord investigated her complaint and acknowledged delays from 2020 onwards. It offered compensation and committed to a schedule of works to address damp and mould throughout the property. The resident complained it then failed to complete these works.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled works to address damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in:
      1. How the landlord handled works to address damp and mould.
      2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to complete the works committed to in its final complaint response within a reasonable timeframe.
6. The landlord exceeded its stage 2 complaint response timescales. Its final response also failed to address concerns which the resident raised in her escalation request.

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.

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.

7. The resident considers the landlord has fully acknowledged and put right its omissions from 2020 until its 25 April 2024 stage 2 response. Her outstanding complaint is that it failed to suitably progress the works it committed to in its final response.
8. We note the landlord paid the resident £2,135 compensation as redress for its pre-25 April 2024 omissions. This sum is higher than the upper end of the scale set out in our own guidance. With this in mind, we accept that it has already put right its omissions pre-25 April 2024. Therefore, this investigation will focus on how the landlord handled the works committed to on 25 April 2024.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that it will complete major works within 90 calendar days. It also states that it will keep residents updated about the progress of works.
10. In its final response it committed to completing the following works:
    1. “Remove coving and skirtings and set aside.
    2. Remove dry lining to walls and dispose of.
    3. Use thixotropic cream sealer to the external surfaces.
    4. Use 25mm insulated plasterboard dot and dabbed to external walls including window reveal.
    5. Skim affected walls, when dry 1 coat watered down paint and 2 coats of white emulsion.
    6. Refix skirtings and coving.”
11. It also explained that it had raised these works as a major repair. On 20 and 24 May 2025 we can see the landlord reskimmed walls in the bathroom and hallway. We can also see it replastered and applied new sealant throughout the bathroom. These works were therefore completed within its 90-day major repair timescale.
12. There are then no repair records for works related to skirtings and covings, or the removal of dry lining to the walls. We recognise that landlords often have to adapt action plans in response to changing diagnoses of damp and mould issues. However, there is no audit trail to explain if these works were completed, and if they were not, why they were no longer necessary. We expect landlords to keep clear audit trails of works completed, and of any decisions they make to cancel outstanding works. There is no evidence of either here. On this basis, we are not persuaded the landlord handled these works appropriately.
13. There is also no indication the landlord kept the resident informed about the progress of these specific works as per its repairs policy. We consider this likely caused the resident some distress.
14. We can see the landlord insulated the internal wall between the bathroom and kitchen on 30 September 2025. However, as of 1 October 2025 it had yet to complete any works to insulate external walls as it committed to in its final response. The resident has advised that the landlord then insulated both upstairs bedrooms in late 2025, and that this resolved the damp and mould in these rooms.
15. It therefore exceeded its major repairs timescales by at least 450 days here, and there is no evidence within the records to justify this delay. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any internal communication related to these works following its final response until 25 July 2025. This lack of action was unacceptable. We consider it likely caused the resident distress and delayed any resolution of the issues. There is also no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated during this period. This likely compounded her distress.
16. Therefore, the landlord failed to complete all of the works it committed to at stage 2 within its major repairs timescales. It also failed to keep the resident meaningfully informed about its actions. With this in mind, we have ordered the landlord to pay further compensation to put this right.
17. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments of £100 to £600 are typically sufficient to put right failures which have adversely, but not permanently, impacted residents. The delay in completing the insulation works was significant and likely caused the resident significant distress. We also note that this distress was likely exacerbated given her evident concern about the impact of damp and mould on her children’s health. With these variables in mind, we will order the landlord pays a sum at the top end of our scale to put this right.
18. While we have considered the distress this may have caused the resident, this investigation has not considered any potential impact of damp and mould on the resident or her children’s health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this part to the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court.
19. The resident also complained that the landlord has failed to insulate external walls in the downstairs rooms. She explained that damp and mould continue to impact both the living room and kitchen as a result. We note that the landlord committed to insulate 1 bedroom only in its stage 1 response. However, in its final response it committed to insulate “external walls” and did not restrict this to any specific rooms. Therefore, given the ambiguity here, we will order the landlord to inspect the living room and kitchen and set out an action plan to address any issues identified. This will include setting out a position on whether it intends to insulate them.

20. The landlord’s complaint handling policy sets out that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of this. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and issue a response within 20 working days of this. When it is unable to do so, it will write to residents to explain this and provide updated timescales. This aligns with our Complaint Handling Code.
21. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 5 working days. However, it was 34 working days late in issuing a response. It acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation 7 working days beyond its timescale. It then issued its stage 2 response 41 working days beyond its timescale.
22. We also note that, in her stage 2 escalation, the resident asked the landlord to clarify whether it intended to insulate every room in the property. Despite this, it did not offer any kind of meaningful clarification on this in its final response. Instead, it committed to insulate “external walls”. This was ambiguous and represented a missed opportunity to clearly set out its intended action plan. It was also not in keeping with our Complaint Handling Code, which sets out that landlords should respond to all issues raised in a complaint.
23. The landlord has already paid the resident £150 compensation for the stage 1 delay. While we note this delay likely impacted her to some degree, we do not consider this impact went beyond minor frustration. Therefore, based on our own remedies guidance, we consider the landlord has already put this omission at stage 1 right with a proportionately minor sum.
24. However, the landlord has not acknowledged the stage 2 delays, or its failure to offer clarification on which rooms it intended to insulate. We consider these omissions likely caused the resident some further frustration. For these reasons we have found maladministration. To put this right, we will order the landlord pays a sum at the low-mid range of our scale.

Learning

25. The landlord’s handling of the works was generally poor. While it did well to complete the reskimming and sealing works, it failed to suitably progress the insulation works for at least 17 months. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on how it might have resolved any damp and mould in the property sooner had it been more proactive.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The record keeping was poor for some of the works. Specifically, the landlord failed to record whether it completed the lining, skirting, or coving works. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on the importance of keeping clear audit trials for repairs.

Communication

27. The landlord’s communication was poor following its final response. There is very little evidence of any meaningful communication with the resident to update her about the progress of works. We encourage the landlord to reflect on this and how better communication might have mitigated the impact of ongoing delays.