Orbit Group Limited (202223418)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223418

Orbit Group Limited

5 June 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould in the resident’s property.
2. Asbestos in the damp ceiling.
3. The complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. She lives in the property with her family. Her tenancy started in December 2008.
The resident told us about damp in her property on 30 December 2022. She previously had damp and mould issues in February 2021 which the landlord had fixed and also paid her compensation. The issue had now reoccurred. This is because she believes it did not fix her roof, so the walls, floor, and ceiling had water damage. She said there was asbestos in the ceiling, as a result the water damage affected her family’s heath. She had contacted the landlord on several occasions, but its specialists did not attend.
The landlord’s contractors noted on 16 January 2023 that there was severe mould throughout the property and major works were needed as a mould wash would not fix the issue. The resident’s councillor forwarded her complaint to the landlord on 26 January 2023. She said:
1. She had made 4 complaints. She was unable to speak to the complaints team as the landlord wanted to call her back.
2. The landlord had raised 3 jobs, for damp around her window, cleaning the damp and asbestos in the damp ceiling. Its contractor was due that Friday.
3. If there was damp, she wanted to leave the property. She was told that she could not have the report. It is unclear what report the resident is talking about.
The resident contacted both the landlord and us between 26 January 2023 and 6 February 2023. She told us that the landlord had not responded to her after 14 days and felt it was ignoring her. She told it that she had received a solicitor’s details, and 2 members of its staff were aware of the issue in her property. The landlord’s emails said it raised jobs, but these were not about acting on the damp. She said she wanted an action plan as she was aware her family may need to move for a few weeks to resolve the issue.
The landlord confirmed internally on 13 February 2023 that it received a complaint from the resident. It said she had appointed a solicitor. It detailed both the complaint received in January 2023 and February 2023. It provided its stage 1 response on 20 April 2023, explained the actions it had taken, and said that the resident had asked to escalate her complaint. It said this meant it had not had an opportunity to properly investigate her complaint and as such it did not uphold the complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 May 2023 and said she told it she remained dissatisfied with the outcome it provided, and she wanted the decision reviewed. She contacted it again on 6 June 2023 and said:
1. For the past 18 months her family slept and lived in a damp room. It was aware of this, and the living standards were unhabitable. Several members of its staff visited, nothing was actioned and there was no communication of what it would do, asides from an email detailing a small amount of works.
2. Both bedrooms in the property had damp and one of them read at 40% on the surveyor’s visit who said it was uninhabitable. There was also damp in the living room.
3. The leaking fascia caused the damp. Puddles appeared outside the property after it rained. It had a duty of care, and her home should be up to a living standard. Her insurance would not cover the issue as it was the landlord’s fault.
4. It needed to remove the plaster from the walls, the brick work needed to be rendered, and damp proofed then dried out. It needed to replaster and repaint.
5. She needed to claim for damage to her TV, wallpaper, new skirting boards, carpet, and stress of living in a damp property. It was ignoring her, and she had phoned up on 10 occasions and nobody called or emailed her back.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 4 December 2023. It acknowledged the 7 month delay and apologised. It said it was upholding her complaint. It awarded compensation and said it also recognised that the issues faced would have negatively impacted her ability to enjoy her home. It asked her to provide her energy bills between the dates she ran dehumidifiers, as well as a statement of her usage between the same dates of the previous year, it would be happy to review any increase in costs. It committed to completing works it described in the response by 27 December 2023 and awarded:
1. A 10% refund on her rent totalling £628.93.
2. £70 for its service failure
3. £400 for distress and inconvenience
4. £300 for its poor complaint handling, and time taken to resolve her complaint.
5. £289 for delays to works outside of its timeframe.
6. £105 decoration costs for 3 rooms.
On the same day, the resident told us that the damp and mould in her property had worsened. She said that she was not happy with the landlord’s final offer of £1,786.93. She raised concerns around inconvenience with waiting times, damage, and unacceptable standard of life as the property was not in a liveable condition. She reiterated the effects on her family’s health due to the damp, said there were 3 rooms with damp, and it led to expense for her in replacing items.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident also complains about the impact on her and her family’s health, and we understand how distressing these concerns are for her. We cannot determine liability for the impact on health, but we can assess the landlord’s service and any overall distress and inconvenience that has been caused. The resident has the option to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect further.
The resident raised concerns about a leak from her extractor fan in November 2023, damage to her belongings and on 11 December 2024 about a lack of water for a week and reimbursements for her costs. These issues did not form part of her original complaint. As such at the time of referring her concerns to us, these issues had not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. Based on this we will not consider these matters within this investigation.

Damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that if information received on an inspection request suggests that the property has significant issues with damp or mould, children, or elderly residents in habitation, an illness that may be exacerbated by damp and mould and/or any disability, it must contact the resident must within 5 working days to book an inspection unless the residents are not available.
The landlord’s compensation policy said it may award compensation if the standard of service it provides is considerably below the standard residents could reasonably expect. It will only pay compensation if the resident has experienced financial loss or significant distress and inconvenience. It says it will use its complaints and dissatisfaction procedure to consider compensation if Its service failed and consider:
1. If the event caused the resident financial loss or significant distress or inconvenience.
2. The resident lived in poor conditions for longer than was reasonable due to its failure to deal with repairs satisfactorily which were its responsibility, and it was aware of them.
We found that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns. For example, it delayed in raising the necessary works such as inspections. The landlord’s contractor said on 16 January 2023 that the resident’s property required major works. Although it said internally that it had raised the necessary works in January 2023, its records do not reflect this. In an internal email on 27 January 2023, it said it attended the resident’s property on 26 January 2023. It found that:
1. There was a hole in the external brickwork from scaffolding which needed repairing. The holes caused water ingress and slowed down the drying of the external brickwork and the damp inside the property.
2. The windows in the living room and bedrooms experienced severe black mould. This had only been an issue since the installation of new windows a few months prior.
3. Whenever it rained a puddle formed to the bottom corner of the block. This was where the mould in the living room was.
4. The plaster in the living room and ceiling were blown. The ceiling may contain asbestos, and it had requested an asbestos survey.
The landlord’s repair and damp, mould and condensation records do not detail this visit, nor its findings. As such it is unclear whether it took any action around them at the time. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping and it may have affected the service it provided to the resident. The landlord noted in August 2023 that it questioned whether its inspection recommended any works around replastering. We would expect a landlord to keep clear and robust records, to ensure that completes necessary actions promptly and provide residents with the best and appropriate service.
The landlord then completed an inspection of the property on 1 May 2023, 4 months after its initial visit in January 2023 and this was unreasonable. It found there were concerns with damp and mould in the living room and two bedrooms. It recommended a damp injection course and mould treatments.
Following the inspection, it then raised works to complete a mould treatment to the three affected rooms at the time on 11 May 2023, in line with the recommendations of the inspection. It completed these works on 31 August 2023, but we however acknowledge that there were some access issues, which contributed to delays in completing the works. It also tried to book another inspection with the resident in August 2023 which the records suggest she initially declined as there was an earlier inspection.
The landlord also asked if the resident was willing to allow it to complete mould treatment on 11 September 2023. As she had obtained independent advice, it queried if she would like another inspection to see if its operatives agreed with her external inspector’s comments about needing to replaster a wall. It explained she had previously said she did not agree with its plan of completing another mould treatment as she did not believe it would resolve the issue. It then completed another inspection on 6 October 2023.
The inspection found there was now mould in the hallway and kitchen as well as the living room and two bedrooms. It also identified works needed to the property and the landlord indicated in its stage 2 response that it would complete these works by 27 December 2023. These were:
1. Works to address water ingress from the bay window ceiling and the flat roof covering.
2. Lagging the small length of pipework in the hallway which had mould on it.
3. Replacing the skirting boards in the living room due to rot from water ingress.
4. Raking of mouldy window sealant and application of new sealant. Applying of external sealant on all windows on the outside due to gaps between the brickwork and frame.
5. Plaster works in the living room due to water penetration on the walls and cracks. Hacking off effected plaster, allowing it to dry and replastering the affected area. Completion of decoration works once its operatives completed the plastering.
6. Stripping the wallpaper in the small bedroom due to mould and removing all wallpaper so it could stain block the walls.
7. Completion of mould treatment to all affected areas including the living room walls, both bedrooms, piping in the hallway by the front door, kitchen windows, recesses, the side of the recesses, and all window recesses in the bedrooms and living room.
The landlord’s records show that it raised a number of these works on 9 October 2023, following the inspection. It also looked to provide the resident with a dehumidifier on 24 October 2023. The landlord explained to us that it cancelled the remaining works and raised them under 1 work order. It told us it completed the majority of the necessary works between 11 December 2023 and 18 December 2023, which is within the prescribed timeframe in its stage 2 response and this was appropriate.
However it missed the works required to the bay windows. It then raised further works on 21 March 2024 to inspect the flat roof of the living room bay window and check for signs of water ingress and defective seals. The landlord explained it originally missed this from the major works order it completed in 2023, and it attended on 3 May 2024. Its operative found the felt ripped on the bay window in several places. They confirmed that it needed to renew the felt on the bay roof, reseal it back to brick work, and stain block/ redecorate the bay window internally. It then attended on 5 June 2024 and completed the necessary works.
This was 5 months outside of the timeframe it provided in its stage 2 response for completing the works and this was inappropriate.
The resident also raised concerns about the habitability of the property. She explained that her family had lived with the issue for a period of 18 months. As the issue remained outstanding for such a substantial period, we would have expected the landlord to consider its options. For example, whether the issue was likely to affect any vulnerable individuals within the household, or impact on any health conditions. We also would have expected it to consider whether a temporary move was necessary. This is especially as it became aware the issue had reoccurred in the resident’s property as early as 16 November 2022.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it considered either of these things following its inspection in May 2023 where it identified three living spaces affected by the issue and December 2023, a period of 7 months. It also had the opportunity to reconsider its position in October 2023 where it rated the property as “high” and has not shown that it did. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System considers damp and mould as potential category 1 hazards. As such it potentially left the resident living with potential category 1 hazards for longer than was necessary and this was inappropriate and not in keeping with its policy.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £1,486.93 for its failings in handling the works to the resident’s property. Part of this compensation was £289 for the delays in its actions. While we have noted these delays as a failing, we consider that the landlord has appropriately acknowledged its failing, apologised and looked to put things right.
The landlord offered a further £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as part of its compensation offer. Whilst it did not directly show that it considered the habitability of the property, we consider its acknowledgement of the distress faced by the resident and the inconvenience of the situation sufficiently addressed the issue. Its further offer of £628.93 for the loss of enjoyment of the property also shows that it correctly reflected on the difficulties posed by the situation to the resident. Its actions were also in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord’s total offer also falls within the severe maladministration category of our remedies guidance and this was appropriate. This shows that it understood that there was a serious failing by it, its actions in completing repeated mould washes and inspections may have affected the landlord and tenant relationship and the failure may have had a significant failure on the resident. Had it not taken such action, and awarded sufficient redress, this may have led to such a finding in this instance. However, as it has appropriately recognised and addressed its failings, we find that there was reasonable redress for the complaint period.
However, as there was a further failing in the landlord’s handling of the repairs. It told the resident it would have the works completed by 27 December 2023, but it did not. As explained, it missed the works to the bay window and did not complete them until 5 June 2024. Based on this, we find that there was maladministration by the landlord. We order that the landlord pay the resident additional compensation for the inconvenience caused.

Asbestos

The resident also raised concerns about asbestos and cracks in the ceiling. She felt it also caused health concerns as well as the damp. The landlord’s repair records show that it raised an asbestos inspection for the resident’s property on 18 January 2023. It completed this on 6 February 2023, but its notes do not detail what its findings were, and if it needed to take any further or specific action.
We understand that the damp and mould were pressing issues, however, the resident had raised concerns with the landlord that she believed the asbestos may also be affecting her health. As such, we would have expected the landlord to ensure it provided her with updated information on its findings around the issue. However, the call logs, and other evidence do not show that the resident raised concerns around the matter after her initial report.
The lack of information around its findings, and evidence of updates to the resident raises concerns with its record keeping, communication, and investigation of the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s contractor then discussed the asbestos in December 2023. They said they needed more time, and referred to an operative’s notes, which the landlord has not provided to us. As such it is unclear what the findings were around the asbestos. It is also unclear whether it completed any works to address the resident’s concerns around the asbestos and cracks in the ceiling. Based on this we find that there was a service failure. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, we order that it pay the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused around this issue.

Complaint handling

The landlord complaints policy says it aims to fully respond to complaints. It operates a 2 stage complaints process and says it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. If a complaint will take longer than 20 working days, it will contact the resident to discuss, explain why it may take longer to resolve, and advise when it expected to provide a response. It says it will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. If is unable to do so, it will contact a resident to advise when it expects to provide its response. It says it will acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 letter that there were delays in its handling of the resident’s concerns at both stages of its process. It said that there was a 2 month delay at stage 1 and 7 month delay at stage 2. It also offered the resident compensation for the delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint. While appropriate that it recognised there were failings in its approach, it did not recognise all its failings.
As previously identified, the landlord did not show that it investigated all the resident’s concerns. It also did not respond to them in its complaint response. For example, in relation to her concerns around the asbestos and cracks in the damp ceiling. This was inappropriate and not in keeping with its policy of fully responding to complaints.
The landlord also said in its response that the resident raised her complaint on 13 February 2023. This was incorrect, as she had raised her complaint via her councillor on 26 January 2023, and they sent this to the landlord. Within this she expressed her dissatisfaction. She then expressed dissatisfaction again on 6 February 2023. The landlord’s failure to recognise, and act in line with its policy which defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction was inappropriate.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £300 for its complaint handling failings. This was in line with its policy as it recognised the failure in its service. Whilst we have found further failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, we believe that the amount offered by the landlord for the failings it identified and the further failings we have found to be reasonable. As such we find that there was service failure but make no further order for compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of:
1. Asbestos in the damp ceiling.
2. The complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of these orders the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology around the failings identified.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £2186.93. We break this down as:
  1. £1,786.93 offered in its complaint’s response. If the landlord has paid this to the resident already, it should subtract this, and the total payable is £400.
  2. £250 for the inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the works to the bay windows.
  3. £100 for its handling of asbestos in the damp ceiling.
  4. £50 for its complaint handling failings.
3. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.