Orbit Housing Association Limited (202410560)

Decision
Case ID	202410560
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Orbit Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 April 2026

Background

The resident raised concerns with the landlord about damp and mould in her property. The landlord took action to resolve the issues. However, the resident remained unhappy with its response and felt it had not kept to the promises it made her. The landlord has vulnerabilities for the resident’s household recorded on its systems, as her sons have asthma.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to damp and mould and related repairs.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s response to damp and mould and related repairs.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

There was a lack of ownership and communication by the landlord in its attempts to resolve the damp and mould. This had a significant impact on the resident as the issue went on for 18 months. It recognised the impact its poor service has on the resident, which its compensation offer reflected. However, it did not appropriately consider the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household. She has also told us damp and mould are still present in her bathroom.
The landlord’s complaint handling was confused. It effectively added a third stage to its 2-stage process by completing a further stage 1 investigation. The resident chased it for answers throughout which caused her inconvenience. Its compensation offer reflected the substantial delays she faced. However, its stage 2 response did not apologise or explain its delays to her at that stage.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It explains the reasons for its delays at stage 2 of the resident’s complaint. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 15 May 2026
2	Compensation order If it has not already done so the landlord must pay the resident directly £2008 which its stage 2 response offered and not offset against any arrears.	No later than 15 May 2026
3	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss her concerns about repairs to her property. It should consider if it needs to provide support such as: Appointing a single point of contact for the resident. If it needs to referral her to support agencies to assist her.	No later than 15 May 2026
4	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of her property. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the bathroom to assess the damp and mould reported by the resident. Inspects the roof to confirm it is no longer leaking. Confirms whether the insulation is adequate to assist keeping the property free from damp and mould. It must produce a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 January 2023	The landlord’s records show the resident raised her complaint on this date. There is no record in the landlord’s evidence that details what she said when she raised her complaint.
18 April 2023	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: It had completed major damp and mould repair work to her bathroom on 3 April 2023. However, it had not completed some boxing in and had raised a further repair for this. It had raised repairs to resolve damp and mould in her son’s bedroom. However, many of the repairs were not completed. It had raised a further inspection of the issue. It had not installed insulation due to the loft not being cleared. It had requested for a new repair job, but it was the resident’s responsibility to empty the loft. It needed to replace flooring. It would investigate if it could replace this like for like or review the cost for the resident replacing this herself. It would begin major repairs to skirting boards on 9 May 2023. Photos showed that it had renewed the felt on a flat roof. It had arranged an electrical inspection for 19 April 2023, after she raised concerns about her sockets making a buzzing sound. Due to her request that it immediately escalated her complaint it was unable to carry out any further investigation. It was unable to provide an accurate conclusion to her complaint.
31 October 2023	The landlord sent the resident a further stage 1 response. This repeated large parts of its first response and added: Following its recent inspection, it needed to complete a further inspection to replace all the insulation so that it can carry out a full inspection. It agreed to pay the resident for her costs for the flooring and paint. It had raised a further inspection of the damp in her son’s bedroom. This was not carried out on the basis that it had already raised repair works. This was likely due to a full property inspection it had carried out. It had installed loft insulation on 3 June. However, it needed to complete a further inspection of her loft. It had raised skirting board repairs on 21 November 2023, which it did not complete. However, it said it would complete the repairs on 10 November 2023. It had found that it had not securely installed the flat roof felt. It would arrange for the roof to be repaired again but could not guarantee this would be on 10 November 2023. It could not determine if it had completed the electrical repair work it raised for 19 April 2023. It apologised it had left her with exposed plug sockets, and it would complete this repair on 10 November 2023. It was sorry she had been left without gas for 6 days from 25 October 2023. It would complete this repair by 31 October 2023. A list of repairs it would complete at her property. It had incorrectly escalated her complaint without it completing a full stage 1 investigation. It was sorry this had caused her confusion and significant delays. Its communication with her and other departments had been poor. It would use this as feedback to improve its service. It would offer her £1261.70 compensation which was broken down as follows: £300 for its poor complaint handling. £400 for the inconvenience and poor communication. £70 for loss of service £326 for delays in it completing repairs. £143.20 for her flooring costs £22.50 for being without heating for 6 days.
Complaint escalated	It is unclear when the resident asked to escalate her complaint following the landlord’s second stage 1 response.
15 March 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said: Its surveyor had completed a damp and mould inspection at her property on 8 February 2024. Its inspection found the bathroom wall was very cold and needed thermal boarding. Its contractor attended but were unable to begin the repair. It had now booked the repair for 15 to 19 April 2024. There was water leaking from her loft into a bedroom. It would complete this repair on 25 March 2024. It would fit insulation from the outside of the roof so access would not be a problem. It would complete a damp and mould treatment to her property on 15 April 2024. It had raised a repair to replace internal doors on 25 September 2023. However, it could not find any record it completed this repair. It would complete this repair on 18 April 2024. It offered her £2008 compensation. This was made up as follows: £1538 it offered at stage 1. £70 for further service failure in not completing repair works. £200 for distress and inconvenience. £150 for poor complaint handling. £50 for damp and mould repairs outside its timeframe.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She said: She was concerned that the landlord had not completed the roof repair correctly. She was worried the damp and mould would return. She felt the landlord did not follow up on promises it made to her. She had chased it for answers which had impacted on her mental health. Her son had asthma and he was anxious that the damp and mould would return. The landlord removed her bathroom fittings so that it could install thermal plasterboard. When it refitted the fittings, it did not correctly fit the bath waste pipe. This caused further problems including mushroom growth and damp and mould were. It did not install a shower in her bathroom, it left a hole in her wall, where the extractor fan should be and the toilet was fitted incorrectly. She used her own money to resolve these issues. It had not installed insulation in her property as it agreed to. Its operative who came to repair her skirting boards was rude. She had to move her furniture for them, and she witnessed them incorrectly fitting the boards. She had to run a dehumidifier due to the problems. This and paying for private repairs had a financial impact on her.

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 did not consider

In her communication the resident has also referenced how the situation has impacted her health and finances. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. We are also unable to establish legal liability or calculate or award damages This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused, and whether the landlord gave due regard for her household’s health conditions and the financial impact on her.

Complaint	Damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s repair records show it raised a repair on 13 September 2022 after the resident contacted it. She reported gaps in her front and back door. Its records show it completed back door repairs on 2 November 2022. However, it raised a further repair on 3 October 2022 as its systems did not “pull” the front door repair through. Its records show it completed this repair on 1 December 2022. It is unclear why it did not complete both repairs at the same time. However, this was a failure to follow its repairs policy that says it will complete repairs right first time.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 October 2022. She reported damp and mould in her downstairs bathroom. The landlord said that it completed an inspection of the property on 18 November 2022. However, there is no record of this in its evidence, which was a record keeping failure. Its records show on 21 November 2022 it raised the following repairs:
1. Flat roof above ground floor bay window was leaking.
2. Insulate downstairs bathroom, including pipes.
3. Renew skirting boards.
4. Repoint brickwork near back door.
There is no record that the landlord contacted the resident to keep her updated about the repairs. She chased it for an update on damp repairs on 12 January 2023. She also wanted to know when a damp surveyor would attend. Again, there is no record the landlord contacted her to discuss this. This was unreasonable and a failure to follow its damp and mould policy that says it will ensure its communication with residents is good.
The landlord discussed the issue internally on 24 February 2023. It said that it had completed a damp and mould inspection. However, there is no record of this in the evidence it has provided this investigation. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord had further internal discussions about the damp and mould on 3 March 2023. It said that the resident’s property “should be prioritised.” Despite this the landlord had not successfully resolved the issue by the conclusion of the complaint process, over a year later. Its stage 2 response on 15 March 2024 advised the resident of repairs it still needed to complete to resolve the issue. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its damp and mould policy that says it takes a zero-tolerance approach to the issue.
During the period from November 2022 to March 2024 the landlord did engage with the resident, however its actions did not always meet the expected standards. The evidence documents instances of the landlord closing repairs before completion, poor coordination of contractors and a lack of ownership of the issue. For example:
1. It raised a job to renew insulation above the bathroom on 21 November 2022, which it then deleted.
2. It raised a repair to the resident’s floor on 13 February 2023. This was after it had deleted the same repair on 13 January 2023.
3. On 15 March 2023 it noted that some repairs had been lost and changed because different people had picked up the work.
4. It contacted the resident on 3 August 2023 to ask her what repairs were still outstanding.
5. The resident reported her plug sockets made a buzzing noise on 20 March 2023. By the time of the landlord’s further stage 1 response, it had not resolved this and advised it would complete the repair on 10 November 2023.
The landlord’s records show it was aware the resident’s son’s had asthma. However, there is no evidence that its approach to resolving the damp and mould considered this, despite its responsibility to act in the resident’s best interests when managing repairs. This was a missed opportunity to take a proactive approach, as damp and mould are known to adversely affect certain health conditions. This could have informed a more tailored response.
Our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould says the language used by landlords may result in meaningful advice being less effective than required, and a lack of empathy and recognition of the pressures on households. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 8 February 2024. Its records show its surveyor downplayed the severity of the damp and mould in her property. This was unreasonable given it had been 16 months since she had first reported the damp and mould issue.
The landlord’s inspection on 8 February 2024 found condensation and a roof leak was the root cause of the damp and mould. It raised repairs following this which its records show it completed on 19 April 2024. However, it completed a post inspection on 26 April 2024. This found there was no extractor fan in the bathroom, and it did not complete its repairs, or they were not to standard. It has told us that it did not raise further damp and mould repairs after this. However, the resident has told us that the issue remains.
The landlord’s further stage 1 response compensation offer included £143.20, as a good will gesture. This was for the costs she had for replacing her flooring. This was reasonable and shows it considered the financial impact on her.
The landlord’s compensation offer included £22.50 for loss of heating and hot water for 6 days. Its compensation policy does not set out a daily amount for such a payment. However, the daily amount of £3.75 was in line with what other landlords award in similar cases we have considered. Due to this we consider its offer was reasonable
The landlord’s stage 2 response said it had offered the resident £1538 compensation at stage 1. However, its stage 1 offered £1261.70 compensation. It is unclear why its stage 2 advised of a higher amount. Using the overall compensation offer from its stage 2 response of £2008, this included £1558 compensation for the substantive issue. This recognised the poor quality of its repairs service had caused the resident inconvenience and distress. This offer was in line with our compensation guidance for cases where a resident has experienced significant service failure. This demonstrates that the landlord recognised the seriousness of its failings and the impact on the resident and tried to put things right.
As the resident has told us the damp and mould are still present and there is no evidence the landlord appropriately considered the vulnerabilities of her household we have made a finding of service failure. While the landlord has taken steps to put things right the complaint has not been fully resolved by its apology and offer of financial redress. Due to the landlord’s reasonable offer of compensation, we are not making an order for further compensation.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and contact her to arrange an inspection of her property. We have also ordered the landlord to contact her to discuss any support it can provide the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. It will respond within 10 working days of its acknowledgement at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If it needs to extend its investigation at either stage it will contact the customer to advise when it expects to respond.
The landlord’s records show the resident raised her complaint on 13 January 2023. There is no record that it acknowledged her complaint at stage 1. This was a complaint handling failure.
The evidence shows the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was confused. Its records show it contacted her on 7 March 2023 to discuss the issue. It told her it could not find any record that she had complained about damp and mould. In a separate communication it also advised her it had extended her complaint. However, it did not say when she could expect its response. This was a complaint handling failure.
The evidence shows the resident was unhappy with the situation. She asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 7 March 2023. Its records show it did not do this. This was a failure to follow its complaints policy that says if a customer is unhappy for it to extend its investigation it will close the complaint, issue its findings in writing and provide details of how the customer can escalate the complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did little to clarify its handling of the complaint. It said it was unable to carry out any further investigation or provide her with a conclusion, due to her immediate request to escalate her complaint. She contacted it on 17 May 2023 to express her unhappiness and said the situation was causing her frustration and distress. Despite this the landlord did not escalate her complaint. It contacted her on 2 August 2023 to say it had brought her complaint back to stage 1. This effectively added a third stage, which was a failure to follow its complaints policy that sets out a 2 stage complaints process.
The landlord sent a further stage 1 response on 31 October 2023. This was 203 working days after she had first raised her complaint. Its response in large parts repeated what its first response dated 18 April 2023 had said. This was unreasonable and caused the resident inconvenience as the evidence shows she chased it on several occasions for its response.
There is no record in the landlord’s evidence when the resident escalated her complaint, after its further stage 1 response. This was a record keeping failure. As a result, we are unable to determine if its stage 2 acknowledgement on 27 November 2023, was within its complaints policy’s timeframe.
The landlord extended its stage 2 investigation on 22 December 2022, 26 January, 9 and 23 February 2024. It did not explain to the resident the reasons for this. This was not reasonable given her complaint had spanned 13 months by the time of its fourth extension. Its final extension said it would respond by 1 March 2024. It did not do this, which was unreasonable and a complaint handling failure.
The resident’s complaint took 298 working days to pass through the landlord’s complaints process. Its stage 2 response was 56 working days over its complaints policy’s timeframe for responding. This was a complaint handling failure which delayed the resident accessing this Service.
There were inconsistencies in the landlord’s responses. For example, its compensation offer at stage 1 was less than what its stage 2 had said it offered at that point. Its further stage 1 response also advised it had raised a skirting board repair for a future date. This indicates there was a lack of care and attention in its responses. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
The landlord’s stage 2 response identified its poor complaint handling. It offered the resident £450 compensation for this. This was above our recommended range of compensation for complaint handling failures, which indicates it recognised its delays had a significant impact on the resident.
The landlord’s further stage 1 response apologised for its complaint handling delays and explained the reasons. This was reasonable. However, its stage 2 letter did not apologise or explain its stage 2 delays to the resident. For this reason, we have made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to apologise and explain the reasons for its poor complaint handling. This is in line with our compensation guidance where a landlord has made a compensation offer but did not apologise for the impact of its failings.

Learning

There is learning for the landlord from the resident’s complaint upon the introduction of Awaab’s law. Upon becoming aware of a potential hazard, it should use all available information to initially determine if the hazard is a potential significant or emergency hazard and take steps to complete relevant safety work within stated timeframes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We found record keeping failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability.

Communication

Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that proactive and tailored communication can reduce distress and minimise the impact of failures. The landlord may wish to review its communication with residents in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report if it has not done so already.