Octavia Housing (202502547)

Background

1. The resident said various repairs, including remedial works following damp and mould treatment, a broken wash basin and cracks in the ceiling had been outstanding for some time before she complained to the landlord. Additionally, she said there was still evidence of mould in the property. The resident’s husband has a progressive lung disease which the landlord had been aware of since at least July 2022.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration for its handling of repairs.
   2. Service failure for its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of repairs

4. Despite acknowledging its failings, the landlord failed to complete the repairs within a reasonable timescale and did not show it had learned from its mistakes during the complaint process.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not show how it had learned from its failings or how it would stop similar mistake from happening again.

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 will not investigate

6. We will only investigate issues raised as part of the complaint and addressed by the landlord in its stage 2 response on 6 February 2025. We will not investigate anything that postdates the landlord’s final response other than to ensure it follows through on agreements made during the complaints process. This means we will not investigate the resident’s concerns that the landlord has not provided an update on its asbestos inspection. This is because it occurred after the landlord’s final complaint response.
7. The resident has told us her husband has a progressive lung disease, and the mould has affected his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to make appropriate decisions. We understand the landlord provided the resident with its insurers details as part of its ‘putting things right’ review of the complaint on 21 October 2025. We have not investigated this further. However, we will consider the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the issue complained about.

What we have investigated

8. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a covenant on the landlord to keep in repair the installations for the supply of water, this includes sink baths and basins, but not other fixtures, fitting or appliances for making use of the supply of water.
9. Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint and report of outstanding repairs, a building inspector attended on 6 February 2024 to assess the issues and schedule any required works.
10. According to an internal email the inspector could not see any issues with the bay window. However, he noted the resident had raised concerns about contractors having damaged the bedroom carpet while investigating uneven sub-flooring. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord updated the resident with the outcome of the inspection.
11. However, on 4 March 2024 the landlord asked the resident to provide full details of the outstanding repairs, which she did on 6 March 2024.
12. Evidence showed the landlord carried out some of the repairs between June and July 2024, including removal of a heater from the bedroom wall and repaired the plaster. However, an inspection by the landlord found the quality of the plaster work to be poor.
13. Although there is evidence the landlord completed some of the outstanding repairs before its stage 1 response on 30 August 2024, the majority of the repairs including works to address the mould in the bedroom remained outstanding. Additionally, we have not seen any evidence the landlord updated the resident about its progress with the remaining repairs until its stage 1 complaint response.
14. The landlord failed to respond to the repairs within the 15 working day timescale set out in its policy. This was not appropriate. Additionally, its failure to keep the resident updated was unreasonable and caused the resident further distress.
15. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings in its stage 1 response and told the resident it would arrange an inspection and a single point of contact throughout the process. This was a reasonable proposal and demonstrated the landlord was keen to reach a resolution.
16. However, it did not provide the resident with a timescale for the repairs and additionally, failed to follow through on its proposals.
17. On 17 December 2024 following a phone call with the resident the landlord confirmed in an email to her that it would start the repairs and would deal with the mould and the outstanding repairs in the bedroom as a priority. The landlord summarised the outstanding repairs.
18. In its stage 2 complaint response on 6 February 2025, the landlord listed the outstanding repairs, which included all issues raised by the resident in her stage 1 complaint and subsequent clarification of issues form on 6 March 2024. It apologised for its delays dealing with the repairs and said it would arrange for a building survey to assess the repairs.
19. The surveyor’s report on 14 February 2025 confirmed the repairs raised by the resident remained outstanding and recommended works in every room in the property apart from the kitchen.
20. Despite the landlord acknowledging the delays and telling the resident it would complete the repairs; evidence showed the repairs remained outstanding for many months after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
21. The landlord’s damp and mould inspection report dated 24 September 2025 did not find evidence of any mould and stated, ‘recent mould works had been effective’. The resident has confirmed this and also confirmed the landlord installed improved ventilation.
22. Although it is encouraging to hear the mould treatment works completed by the landlord were effective, it took the landlord too long to address the issue of the mould which evidence showed the resident reported on 11 January 2024. The landlord’s delay in treating the mould far exceeded the timescales set out in its damp and mould policy. The landlord was not proactive in its actions, nor did it identify and remediate the mould as early as possible as set out in its policy.
23. In this case the landlord was aware of the household’s vulnerabilities and its failure to act in line with its policy caused the resident distress.
24. Evidence showed it took the landlord until 7 October 2025 to determine the issue with the electric shower. This was approximately 15 months after the resident first reported it was not working correctly in July 2024. And until 8 October 2025 to complete the remaining repairs in the bedroom and living room. This was approximately 20 months after the resident first reported them.
25. The landlord’s delay in completing the repairs was inappropriate and far exceeded the timescales set out in its policy for routine repairs.
26. Furthermore, despite the landlord reviewing its handling of the issues on 21 October 2025 and highlighting both the issue with the carpet and the front door as outstanding, it has yet to resolve these.
27. In cases like this where the landlord has taken responsibility, apologised, and made an offer of compensation, we must consider if the redress offered by the landlord was reasonable.
28. During the complaints process the landlord offered the resident £900 for its delays dealing with the repairs and £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused. However, it failed to learn from its mistakes and did not follow through on the agreements made at both stages of its complaints process. It took the landlord too long after its stage 2 complaint response to complete the repairs and we have seen very little evidence that it communicated with the resident about its progress. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
29. The landlord offered the resident a further £900 outside of the complaints process as part of its ‘putting things right’ process. While it was reasonable for the landlord to review its handling of the complaint and make an additional offer of compensation for the continued delays, we would not consider this reasonable redress as it occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. And after we started our investigation.
30. Having carefully considered the evidence available we find maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the repairs. The landlord took too long to complete the repairs and failed to communicate effectively with the resident. The landlord has not provided any valid reasons for the delays, nor has it shown how it has learned from its failings.
31. Its delays in dealing with the mould and resolving the shower functionality had a significant impact on the resident because of the known vulnerabilities in the household. Had it not been for the landlord acknowledging its failings and offering compensation we would have found severe maladministration for its handling of the repairs.
32. In considering an offer of compensation we have referred to the landlord’s compensation policy and to our own remedies guidance. We are satisfied that the total compensation of £2,200, which includes the £900 offered by the landlord after the stage 2 response is proportionate to the failings identified and is in line with our remedies guidance for failures by a landlord that have had a significant impact on the resident. We will not be making any further order of compensation.

33. The landlord operates 2 stage complaints process compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
34. The landlord failed to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s complaints at both stages of the complaints process within the timescales set out in its own policy and the Code. This was not appropriate.
35. It took the landlord 162 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint and 100 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. Additionally, the landlord failed to provide the resident with a reason for the delay during the complaints process. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience and prolonged a resolution to the complaint.
36. Furthermore, in its stage 1 complaint response the landlord provided a single point of contact for the resident and said it would keep in contact with the resident throughout the process. While this was a reasonable suggestion the landlord failed to follow through on this agreement which the resident said caused her further distress during a time when she said she was already dealing with challenging issues in her personal life.
37. The resident spent more time than we consider reasonable seeking a response to her complaint. This was not appropriate.
38. At both stages of the complaints process the landlord acknowledged it had taken longer than it should to provide a response. It apologised for this, and across both stages of the complaints process offered the resident £700 for its complaint handling failures. However, it did not show how it had learned from its mistakes.
39. In cases like this where the landlord has acknowledged its failings, apologised, and offered compensation we must consider if the redress offered by the landlord was reasonable.
40. Having carefully considered the evidence available we find service failure for the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This is because the landlord failed to follow through on the agreements made at both stages of the complaints process and this caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Additionally, during the complaint process it failed to say how it would prevent similar issues from reoccurring in the future.
41. In considering an offer of compensation we have reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy and our own remedies guidance. The compensation offered by the landlord is proportionate the complaint handling failures identified, and we will not be making any further order of compensation.
42. The landlord has said that it has implemented new ways of handling complaints and introduced a quality assurance framework with a quality checking process for complaint responses. Additionally, it said it regularly audits complaint responses and gives feedback to its complaints officers so they can learn and improve. We will therefore not be making any orders in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

43. The landlord has said that following the conclusion of this complaint and in response to the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on rebuilding trust it has strengthened its approach to contractor oversight to ensure accountability and quality in service delivery.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. The landlord has told us it has made improvements to its record-keeping ensuring housing staff have real-time access to repairs information.

Communication

45. The landlord has acknowledged to us that there was a breakdown in communication with its repairs contractor. It said that since the conclusion of the complaint it will implement new systems to enable staff to log repairs with photos and reports, and to enable residents have real-time access to repair information. Therefore having greater visibility over their repairs.