Orbit Group Limited (202432089)

Decision
Case ID	202432089
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Orbit Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	23 April 2026

Background

1. The property is a top‑floor flat within a communal block, of which the landlord is the freeholder. The resident has complained about delays in the investigation into the cause of damp and mould in the property, as well as about responsibility for internal repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

4. The landlord failed to maintain adequate oversight of its investigations into the cause of the reported damp and mould. There were errors and delays throughout the process, resulting in the investigations taking 11 months to complete.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord significantly delayed issuing its stage 1 response. Its responses did not fully address all the concerns raised in the resident’s complaint and it did not identify service failings which had occurred, despite available evidence.

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 provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 21 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of his reports of damp and mould. £150 for the complaint handling failures identified. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 21 May 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord follows up on the contractor’s advice given on 21 March 2025 by assessing the loft area to ensure it has adequate insulation, if it has not already done so.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
April 2024	The resident reported damp and mould in his property, explaining that he had been treating it with anti‑mould spray but that it kept returning.
6 June 2024	The resident complained to the landlord, stating that it had advised him it was not liable for the damp and mould issues in his flat. He said he felt the landlord had shown no urgency or duty of care, and that he feared for his partner’s health as a result.
18 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It partially upheld the complaint, acknowledging a delay in issuing the response and offering £75 compensation in recognition of this. However, it did not uphold the damp and mould aspect of the complaint, stating that while it was responsible for communal works, repairs inside the resident’s property were his responsibility as a shared owner.
3 January 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He said the £75 compensation offered at stage 1 would not address the damp and mould issues and asked whether he would receive additional compensation so he could purchase a dehumidifier and try to address the problem himself.
25 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint as it was satisfied that the information provided at stage 1 was correct. It stated that it had been unable to identify any structural issues with the roof that had affected the resident’s property internally and said he had been correctly advised that the landlord did not have repair liability for works inside the home. It acknowledged delays at stage 1 and confirmed that compensation had been appropriately awarded to address its complaint handling failures.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate, saying he could see “no end” to the issues he was experiencing and describing the landlord’s communication as “horrendous.” He said he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response because it had committed to inspecting his loft space, but this inspection had not yet taken place.
1 April 2026	During his contact with us, the resident explained that after treating the mould in his property around a year ago, it had not returned. As an outcome, he said he would like a vent fitted in the built-in wardrobe. He also asked us to review the level of compensation he had been offered.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

6. The resident first reported damp and mould affecting his property on 26 April 2024 and advised the landlord that his partner was severely asthmatic. The landlord did not respond until 9 May 2024, when it advised that a surveyor would be in contact. It then contacted the resident on 20 May 2024, 15 working days after his initial report, to arrange an inspection. This exceeded the timescales set out in the landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation procedure, which applies to all customers and requires contact within 5 working days to arrange an inspection where a household member has a condition that may be exacerbated by damp and mould. Had the landlord met its timescales, it could have avoided the resident’s distress and inconvenience and the unnecessary time and trouble he experienced in chasing updates on 4 occasions between 2 May and 16 May 2024.
7. The landlord inspected the property on 22 May 2024 and identified re‑occurring mould and damp staining, along with medium moisture readings in both bedrooms. The surveyor recommended follow‑on works to inspect the loft space for a suspected leak. The landlord raised these works on 6 June 2024 but subsequently deleted the job. It did not re‑raise the works until 22 July 2024, 9 weeks after the inspection, and only after the resident prompted it on multiple occasions.
8. The landlord explained that the delay occurred because it had not passed the job to its contractors, as the property held a “no repairs liability” due to it being shared ownership. The landlord appropriately apologised, confirmed it did have an obligation and advised it had now referred the works to its contractors. The delay was unreasonable, particularly as it was aware of health conditions within the household. Damp and mould are potential hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), and the landlord should therefore have treated the issue with urgency due to the potential impact on health. The delay also highlights a lack of effective monitoring and oversight. Once the landlord identified the need for further investigation, it remained responsible for ensuring the works progressed promptly. Its failure to do so likely caused the resident further frustration and inconvenience.
9. On 13 August 2024, the contractor attended and recorded that the occupant was unaware of any planned loft or roof inspection. The contractor’s records showed the same block name but a different area and postcode, indicating that the landlord had raised the job against an incorrect block address. Following further enquiries from the resident, the landlord raised a new repair order. The contractor then attended on 12 September 2024, 52 days after the landlord had advised the resident it had initially passed the works to its contractors, exceeding the landlord’s routine repair timescale of 28 days. These errors and delays prolonged the investigation into the cause of the damp and mould, likely causing uncertainty for the resident.
10. During the loft inspection on 12 September 2024, the contractor identified some mould but could not determine its source. The contractor was also unable to access the area above the resident’s bedrooms due to a fire blanket wall and therefore recommended that a specialist contractor attend to dismantle the wall to allow further investigation. However, there is no evidence that the landlord acted on this recommendation or raised any follow‑on works, leaving the resident with unresolved issues.
11. In its stage 1 response on 18 October 2024, the landlord stated that it would be liable for any leak identified in the roof. It also explained that, as the property was shared ownership, the resident remained responsible for repairs inside the property. While this was likely disappointing for the resident, it was consistent with the terms of the lease, which places responsibility for internal walls and ceilings with the resident. However, the landlord’s response did not acknowledge that further investigations remained outstanding following the contractor’s recommendation on 12 September 2024. This was a missed opportunity to progress the matter and to give the resident clarity and reassurance that it was addressing his concerns.
12. In its stage 2 response on 25 February 2025, the landlord advised that although it had suspected a leak, its investigations to date had not identified any signs of water ingress. It explained that it had not identified any structural issue affecting the interior of the resident’s property and had therefore correctly advised that it was not responsible for internal repairs. Where internal damage is caused by a confirmed structural defect, the landlord would normally consider responsibility through its buildings insurance. As no such defect had been identified at either stage 1 or stage 2, it was reasonable for the landlord not to accept responsibility for internal repairs.
13. As part of its stage 2 response, the landlord advised that it had arranged for its contractor to attend on 26 February 2025 to inspect the resident’s loft. While it was appropriate to progress further investigations, this was more than 5 months after the contractor had first recommended them, adding to the delays the resident had already experienced. On 26 February 2025, the resident reported that the contractor attended but did not conduct the loft inspection as planned. This was unreasonable, particularly given the length of time the resident had been waiting for further investigations. The landlord appropriately raised a new work order on 4 March 2025 for the contractor to revisit. However, the landlord’s repair records do not confirm the outcome of this visit, highlighting gaps in its record keeping.
14. The resident told us that his partner has severe asthma and that the damp and mould had caused her further respiratory problems, resulting in a referral to a specialist. The landlord was aware of these concerns from the time of the resident’s initial report. If the resident believes the situation caused an injury, it would be fairer and more effective for him to pursue a personal injury claim, as the courts can rely on independent medical evidence to determine the cause and duration of any injury. We have therefore not investigated this aspect further.
15. We can, however, consider whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. The circumstances should have prompted the landlord to act with greater urgency. It should have identified the household as vulnerable and prioritised its investigations accordingly. Its failure to do so was inappropriate and resulted in avoidable distress and inconvenience for the resident.
16. In April 2026, the resident told us that he had treated the mould in the property approximately a year earlier using mould spray and anti‑mould paint, and that it had not returned, with no current damp or mould issues reported. When we requested an update from the landlord, it confirmed that its contractor attended on 21 March 2025 and inspected the loft area, identifying no obvious issues but recommending that the north‑facing wall be checked to ensure it provided adequate insulation. As it is unclear whether the landlord has acted on this advice, we have made a recommendation in relation to this matter.
17. The landlord committed to investigating any structural issues that may have caused the reported damp and mould. This aligned with its obligations under the lease, which places responsibility for the structural elements of the building, including the roof and external walls, with the landlord. However, it took 11 months from the resident’s initial report to complete its investigations into the area above the bedrooms where the damp occurred. Although these investigations did not identify a clear cause, failures in the landlord’s handling of the reports unreasonably prolonged the process. During this period, the resident remained uncertain about the underlying cause of the damp and mould, which delayed resolution.
18. The landlord did not identify any failings in its complaint investigation and, as a result, did not offer any compensation as part of its complaint responses. We consider a payment of £400 to be appropriate. This has been calculated in line with our compensation guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures that adversely affected the resident, that the landlord has not acknowledged or put right.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

19. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant Code was published in April 2024. The timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy were consistent with the requirements of the Code. The policy allows for extensions of up to 10 working days at both stages of the complaints process. However, it states both parties must agree any extension beyond this, supported by a written explanation to the resident setting out the reasons for the delay.
20. There were delays throughout the stage 1 investigation. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within the required 5 working days. However, it did not notify the resident that it required an extension until 3 September 2024, 57 working days later. In line with its policy and the Code, the landlord should have informed the resident within the initial 10‑working‑day response period that it needed an extension and confirmed when it expected to issue its response. Its failure to do so, led the resident to chase the landlord for a response on 26 June 2024 and again on 11 July 2024, causing him additional time and trouble.
21. We are unable to confirm whether the landlord responded by the date specified in its extension, as it was unable to provide a copy of the extension letter, highlighting poor record keeping. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 October 2024, 33 working days after notifying the resident that it had extended the response timescale. Overall, the landlord took 90 working days to issue its response, significantly exceeding both its policy timescales and the Code.
22. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate the complaint. In assessing its response times at stage 2, we have therefore combined the timescales for acknowledging and responding. The landlord notified the resident of an extension on 11 February 2025, 27 working days after the escalation request, which exceeded the combined timescales set out in its policy and the Code by 2 working days. This delay was minimal, and there is no evidence that it caused any detriment to the resident. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 February 2025, 10 working days after notifying the resident of the extension, which was within its policy timescales.
23. The landlord’s complaint responses did not fully address all the points raised in the resident’s initial complaint. There was no acknowledgement of the resident’s concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on his partner’s health, despite these being raised throughout the timeline of the investigation. As a result, the responses were not proportionate to the seriousness of the concerns raised.
24. The stage 2 complaint was the landlord’s final opportunity to fully review its handling of the substantive issue, yet it did not identify the service failures that had occurred in its handling of the reported damp and mould. This was inconsistent with the available evidence and shows a lack of thoroughness in its investigation. This was a missed opportunity to rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship, failing to use its complaints process as an effective tool to put things right.
25. The landlord offered £75 in recognition of the delay in issuing the stage 1 response. However, given the additional complaint handling failures identified in this investigation, this amount is not considered proportionate redress. We consider a further payment of £75 to be appropriate to recognise the landlord’s failure to fully address all aspects of the complaint and to identify the service failures that had occurred. This brings the total compensation ordered for complaint handling to £150. This is in accordance with our compensation guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident and where the landlord’s original offer was not proportionate to the failings identified during our investigation.

Learning

26. The landlord should ensure that it conducts thorough investigations when handling complaints. Complaint responses should address all aspects of the complaint and should reflect and be proportionate to the resident’s concerns.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s record‑keeping was generally good, and it provided detailed records of its contact with the resident. However, some gaps were identified, including the absence of contractor notes for the visit on 21 March 2025 and omissions within the complaint records, such as missing acknowledgement and extension letters. This suggests there may be some areas where the landlord could strengthen its record‑keeping processes.

Communication

28. There was a lack of effective communication from the landlord. It did not keep the resident informed of the progress of its investigation as frequently as it should have, which led him to chase and request updates.
29. The landlord delayed in notifying the resident of an extension at stage 1, which resulted in the resident having to chase it for a response. This highlights the importance of communicating any delays clearly and at the earliest opportunity during the complaints process, to ensure residents are kept informed.