Octavia Housing (202435281)

Decision
Case ID	202435281
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Octavia Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 May 2026

Background

The resident reported several concerns about repairs and asbestos between October 2024 and February 2025. She requested a management transfer due to this. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her concerns which led to her complaint.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s asbestos concerns.
2. Roof leaks and associated damp works.
3. Repairs to the:
  1. Staircase.
  2. Front external door.
  3. Rear backyard door.
  4. Guttering and external works.
  5. Windows.
  6. Internal doors.
  7. Boiler cupboard and the resident’s request to move the boiler.
4. The resident’s request for a management transfer.
5. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s asbestos concerns.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of roof leaks and associated damp works.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
5. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of the resident’s asbestos concerns

There were some delays in the landlord inspecting some areas of the property and providing the resident with copies of asbestos reports. However, the landlord apologised for this and offered compensation in line with its policy and our compensation guidance.

The handling of roof leaks and associated damp works

The landlord acknowledged delays in its handling of roof leak repairs. However, it apologised and offered the resident compensation and reimbursement for running a dehumidifier which exceeded its compensation policy and our guidance.

The handling of repairs

The landlord handled some repairs well but there were minor delays in completing others. It offered proportionate compensation. However, it is unclear whether the landlord has completed soffit, drainage cover and bathroom window repairs.

The handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer

The landlord gave fair advice about a management transfer to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the stage 1 complaint. However, it apologised and offered compensation for the delay in line with its policy and our compensation guidance.

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	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. 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 window, external soffit and external drainage covers of the property for outstanding repairs and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: whether there are any hazards 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 repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work	No later than 21 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,000 previously offered in its complaint response for the failures in its handling of repairs. 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 paid.	No later than 24 June 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Inspection order

The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed.

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 window, external soffit and external drainage covers of the property for outstanding repairs and produces a written report with photographs

The survey report must set out:

whether there are any hazards
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 repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible)
the likely timescales to commence and complete the work

No later than

21 July 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £1,000 previously offered in its complaint response for the failures in its handling of repairs.

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 paid.

No later than

24 June 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord pay the remaining £2,000 compensation offered in its complaint responses. This amount reflected genuine elements of service failure in its handling of the resident’s asbestos concerns, roof leak and associated repairs and its complaint handling. Our reasonable redress findings are made on the basis this amount is paid to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 November 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about several outstanding repairs and the general condition of her property. She requested copies of all asbestos and surveyor reports from 2014 onwards. An email from her MP on 7 November 2024 supported her complaint.
13 November 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
20 November 2024	The resident complained again about the landlord’s handling of repairs.
27 November 2024	The landlord extended its stage 1 response time and gave a new target date of 11 December 2024.
17 December 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process as her issues remained unresolved.
19 February 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident. It upheld her complaints about its communication relating to asbestos, and repair and complaint handling delays. It did not uphold her complaints about the staircase, and boiler cupboard plastering works. It raised works for outstanding repairs and gave housing options advice. It offered £2,520 compensation, comprising: £150 for delays in service delivery relating to the roof repair £50 for complaint handling delays £300 reimbursement for 4 weeks of running a dehumidifier £2,000 for inconvenience and impact £20 for its failure to provide asbestos reports
20 February 2025	The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 due to outstanding repairs, asbestos concerns and an insufficient compensation offer. She asked for a transfer to a more suitable property due to her asbestos concerns.
21 February 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
21 March 2025	The landlord extended its stage 2 response time.
1 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident. It agreed with its stage 1 decision but increased its compensation for asbestos and complaint handling to £200 and £100 respectively. It found its stage 1 offer for repair delays and inconvenience was sufficient. It confirmed receipt of her transfer application and did not agree to a rent refund as it did not find her son’s bedroom to be uninhabitable. It said its stage 1 response was unreasonable as it did not address all the issues raised or offer reasonable compensation. It arranged for relevant repair teams to follow up with the resident and offered an added £480 compensation, bringing its total offer to £3,000.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her asbestos concerns, her request for a management transfer and its handling of her complaint and repairs. She would like the landlord to complete all repairs, further check for asbestos disturbance, accept her transfer request and pay added compensation for distress and inconvenience.

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 handling of the resident’s asbestos concerns
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord requested an asbestos survey on 30 and 31 October 2024, following the resident’s concerns about material crumbling from the walls around her boiler. It had surveyed the whole property in 2018 but was unable to access this area at the time. It booked an appointment for 5 November 2024 but ended up cancelling this as the resident wanted the entire property surveyed.
In the following days, the resident twice asked for copies of all asbestos reports from 2014 onwards. The landlord provided a report, but it is unclear which date this was from. She further requested reports from 2015 and 2016. It continued to try and book a survey with the resident, ultimately agreeing on 18 November 2024 to complete a full survey of the property to include the boiler cupboard and loft space.
The landlord found no asbestos in the boiler cupboard during an inspection in November 2024. There is no evidence it told the resident this in the following weeks.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord told the resident the results of the inspection. It said it would be checking the loft in March 2025. It told her it found asbestos in 2018, but this posed no immediate risk to her health. However, it conceded it should have shared the findings with her. It apologised for this and provided copies of both the 2018 and 2024 report.
In its response, the landlord explained its approach to managing asbestos and that it would only remove asbestos if it interfered with or obstructed works. This is in line with its asbestos management survey. It offered the resident £20 compensation for not providing reports when she requested them. This was in line with its compensation policy for minor distress and inconvenience.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord noted it had not completed the check of the loft space as promised. It said this was due to staff resourcing issues. It confirmed an appointment for this on 8 April 2024 and increased its compensation offer to £200. This was in line with its compensation policy for significant distress and inconvenience.
The landlord completed the asbestos survey in April 2024 as arranged. During the inspection, it reassured the resident of her safety with the asbestos in the property.
Overall, the landlord acknowledged its failings in providing the resident with reports as requested and in its delayed inspection of the loft. However, it worked to reassure her of her safety in the property and was transparent about the presence of asbestos and its management of this. Its compensation offer was in line with its own policy and our compensation guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The handling of roof leaks and associated repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident reported a roof leak to the landlord in December 2022. It attended but could not access the property. There were no further reports until 11 April 2024, when she reported the roof leaking into her son’s bedroom. It repaired the roof on 26 April 2024.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will prioritise repairs based on urgency. On this occasion, it completed repairs within its 15 working day routine repair policy timescale. This was fair in the circumstances as the resident did not highlight works as an emergency or of any immediate risk to her household or the property.
In October 2024, the resident reported a new roof leak. The landlord did not raise works for 3 days. However, it attended and completed works to the roof within 15 working days, confirming it was watertight. It found a small area of damp in the bedroom from the leak and requested a dehumidifier for 2 weeks. Its contractor noted no damp in some areas which the resident suspected were suffering from damp, saying wallpaper removal had instead pulled off blown plaster. The contractor requested a property survey.
The landlord provided a dehumidifier within a week of completing roof works. The resident requested a full roof inspection, saying the issue kept returning in previous years. In November 2024, the landlord confirmed it would inspect and complete mould washes to any affected areas.
In an email to the resident’s MP, the landlord said all but one wall was free of damp. However, when stripping old wallpaper, the resident had pulled some old plaster off. It said it would make good the walls in the bedroom as a goodwill gesture, ready for her to decorate. It noted the front bedroom wall was very damp and needed attention. It completed plastering works within 15 working days of this email.
The landlord acknowledged delays in progressing repairs for the ongoing roof leak in its stage 1 response. It said it had found a guttering obstruction had caused the most recent leak and said it would follow this up by 28 February 2025 with scheduled dates. However, it said it had completed internal plastering works satisfactorily. It offered £150 compensation for roof repair delays, £300 reimbursement for 4 weeks of running the dehumidifier and £2,000 for inconvenience and impact. As this amount covered both the roof repair and several internal repairs, we have attributed £1,000 of this amount to its handling of roof repairs. Therefore, its total offer was £1,150 for its handling of repairs.
The landlord’s compensation offer exceeded its policy for distress and inconvenience. Its reimbursement for dehumidifier costs would usually be £2.50 per day. If it paid this for 4 weeks, it would have only paid £70. In contrast, it offered £300 which exceeded its policy.
The landlord confirmed it completed roof works in mid to late March 2025 in its stage 2 response. It exceeded its 15 working day policy response time. However, its stage 1 compensation offer and reimbursement for dehumidifier running costs exceeded its policy and our own compensation guidance for serious failures by a landlord.
After the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident raised further concerns about water ingress into her bathroom from a joined garden wall. It raised works for this. If she is unhappy with its handling of these works, she can make a new complaint to the landlord.

Complaint	The handling of repairs
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days and routine repairs within 15 working days. Emergency repairs are those needed to remove immediate danger to people or property. Urgent repairs are those needed completion quickly but without immediate health and safety risk. Routine repairs are all other repairs which do not cause immediate risk or inconvenience but should not wait for planned work.
Throughout the complaint period, the resident raised many different repairs which we will detail below. We will assess the landlord’s overall handling of repairs and its complaint responses in summary at the end of this section.

Staircase repairs

On 18 October 2024, the landlord raised works to repair a wooden panel at the top of the stairs. In an inspection on 25 October 2024, it found the stairs in a bad condition. It said it needed to complete urgent health and safety works. It attended within 5 working days and found only the top step needed repair.
The landlord tried to arrange to move the resident to a hotel during works. It said she refused but later said it found an email in which she agreed. Its contractors reported difficulty agreeing works with the resident as she wanted them to replace the whole staircase instead of just repairing the top and installing a handrail.
The landlord completed works on 12 November 2024, 12 working days later and outside its urgent repair timescale. However, we note that contractors tried to complete works on 30 October 2024, but the resident refused the repair. Due to this, we are unable to find failing in the landlord’s handling of the repair at this stage.
The resident reported further issues with the top step on 9 December 2024, which the landlord repaired on 23 January 2025, 30 working days later. This was outside its routine repair timescale. However, the resident’s MP told the landlord in December 2024 that the resident was happy to wait for all works except in the boiler area until early January 2025.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord confirmed it completed works and explained it would not be replacing the staircase as there was no health and safety risk. At stage 2, it found it did not respond to the resident’s email about temporary accommodation. It apologised for this and found service failure but felt its stage 1 compensation for inconvenience (£2,000) sufficiently covered this.

Front external door repairs

The resident reported gaps in her front door causing draughts on 18 October 2024. The landlord attended within routine repair policy timescales to complete a repair during which it installed a weather strip to try and close the gap.
The landlord visited the resident on 25 November 2024 and found contractors had not completed the front door repair well. It said it would reschedule this. It did not reattend until January 2025, in which it completed some works to reduce the draught and said it would attend in February 2025 to finish repairs.
The landlord said it had raised an order for the front door works in its stage 1 response. It said it would contact the resident within 15 working days to arrange an appointment. On 19 February 2025, its contractor advised there was nothing wrong with the front door and but there was a small gap due to the new flooring. The contractors told the resident they would fit a draught excluder but said she refused as she wanted a new door. However, it attended as promised on 25 February 2025 to complete repairs.
Again, there was a slight delay in the landlord completing repairs. However, it had to work with the resident to agree works and her MP told the landlord she was happy to wait until January 2025 for works.

Rear backyard door repairs

The resident did not raise concerns about the backyard door and suspected asbestos until she discussed her stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 19 February 2025. It included this in its complaint response and said it had raised an order for this.
It inspected the door within a week of its response. It fitted a new lock but found it needed to replace the door due to rot. The property is a listed building and as such, the landlord needed to measure and design the new door before getting approval from the local authority planning department to go ahead with works. It installed the new door in August 2025 once it received permission to do so.
The landlord did not clearly mention these repairs in its stage 2 response, but it did acknowledge outstanding repairs, and it considered these in its compensation offer for inconvenience. It is common for permission and works to listed buildings to take time. As it had secured the door and begun the process of replacing it within policy timescales, we find no failing in the landlord’s handling of this repair.

Guttering and external works

As part of roofing works on 29 October 2024, the landlord cleared the guttering at the property along with repairing a crack to the brickwork rendering. In a reply to the resident’s MP about outstanding works in late November 2024, the landlord said it would clear the bathroom guttering and schedule works to repair or replace a soffit, exposed brickwork and a small drainage cover.
We cannot see the landlord completed these works ahead of its stage 1 response in February 2024, when it again raised works to clear the blocked guttering. A week after its response, its contractor said it had previously done this work on 29 October 2024. We cannot see evidence of completed soffit repairs or a replacement drainage cover.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said it would inspect the property on 8 April 2024 to check for outstanding repairs. During this inspection it found it should replace the guttering due to wear and tear. It completed these works in June 2025.
It is unclear whether the landlord fully completed the identified works. As such, we have ordered the landlord to inspect the property for any outstanding external works to the soffit and drainage covers.

Windows

The resident reported problems with window locks on 4 November 2024. It repaired this on 12 November 2024, within its routine repair policy timescales.
On 15 January 2025, the landlord raised works to ease and adjust the bathroom window as the resident was struggling to open it. It attended within a week, within policy timescales, and completed repairs. It noted the window had never been opened before because of its proximity to the shower.
The resident reported still being unable to use the window on 19 February 2025. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it raised works to restore full use of the window. Its contractor booked works for 25 February 2025, but the landlord noted this remained outstanding in March 2025.
In a property inspection of 8 April 2025, the landlord found the windows of the property to be in good condition but said it would be beneficial to complete repairs as they arise.
As we cannot be certain the landlord completed works to the bathroom window, we have ordered it to inspect the window for any outstanding repairs.

Internal doors

The resident reported unknown issues with the living room door on 4 November 2024. The landlord completed repairs within its routine repair policy timescale but noted the internal doors were showing signs of wear and tear in line with the age of the property.
In December 2024, the resident reported the boiler door had no handles and was not closing. It inspected in January 2025 and raised follow-on works for 25 February 2025. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said the resident had requested new boiler cupboard, kitchen and living room doors. It raised works for this.
The landlord received an email from its contractor explaining the boiler cupboard door just needed a new handle. They said the resident had refused works as she wanted a special type of door which they had rejected. However, they had kept the appointment for 25 February 2025 to repair other doors. It completed these works and installed new hinges and handles on the boiler cupboard door as planned.
While there was a small delay in installing handles to the boiler cupboard door, this was not a repair which caused any immediate health and safety risk to the resident. As such the impact of this delay was minimal and we have identified no failing.

Boiler cupboard repairs

The resident asked the landlord to inspect the boiler cupboard for holes and cracks on 18 October 2024. Its contractor inspected within 7 days and enquired about whether the landlord could move the boiler downstairs as the resident felt the boiler location in her bedroom was affecting her health. It shared this request with its asset compliance team.
In late November 2024, the landlord agreed to install a new boiler but said it could not move it to a new location due for “logistical reasons”. In an email to the resident’s MP, the landlord apologised for not installing this sooner.
On 9 December 2024, the resident’s MP reported the landlord had replaced the boiler but left holes in the cupboard wall without repair during works. It is unclear when the landlord completed works but in its stage 1 response, it told the resident it would undertake no further works as they would be cosmetic only. We can therefore assume it completed works between December 2024 and mid-February 2025.
Overall, the landlord may have completed works outside its routine repairs policy timescales. However, the impact of this was minimal and its compensation offer for inconvenience would have been proportionate to this.

Conclusion

Overall, there were minor delays in the landlord’s handling of some repairs. We have attributed £1,000 of the landlord’s payment for inconvenience to these failures. As we found minor failings in 4 repair issues, we can attribute £250 of this to each element. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for distress and inconvenience and our compensation guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident. Therefore, we will not order further compensation for this.
However, it is unclear whether the landlord has completed all repairs. We note the landlord was managing many repair reports and complaints which led to confusion at times, but it is important for landlords to continue to manage repairs as effectively as possible. We have therefore ordered the landlord to inspect these specific elements to determine whether any works are still outstanding.

Complaint	The handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer
Finding	No maladministration

During a conversation with the resident on 19 November 2024, it became clear to the landlord that she wished to move because of her concerns about asbestos and the general condition of the property. 2 days later, the landlord told her it could not offer an alternative home but recommended bringing her property up to standard instead. It explained that mutual exchange was an option but not always easy to achieve. There was no further evidence relating to her request until the landlord’s stage 1 response.
In its response, the landlord told the resident of her housing options. It enclosed a transfer form and explained how it assesses applications. This was fair in the circumstances. However, it is unclear why it took 3 months to send the application forms.
The resident sent her application to the landlord within a week of its complaint response. It shared this with its lettings team in March 2025. In its stage 2 complaint response, it confirmed its lettings team would be in touch with the resident with their outcome. However, it managed her expectations by explaining it was likely the lettings team would decide she had adequate housing based on her current housing need.
Overall, while there was a delay in the landlord providing the resident with transfer application forms, we have not seen evidence of the resident chasing the landlord during this period. The delay did not ultimately change the outcome of the process, and it was not obliged to offer her a direct transfer as there was no immediate risk to her or her son.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy which is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in its timings and definition of a complaint. It will acknowledge complaints at stage 1 and 2 within 3 working days. It will send its stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgment. It can extend its response time at both stages by a further 10 or 20 working days.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 3 working days. It extended its response time but then exceeded the new target date by 2 months. Overall, it took the landlord 73 working days to provide its stage 1 response. This far exceeded its 10-working day policy timescale. It apologised and offered £50 compensation for the delay.
While the landlord did receive a large amount of communication from the resident and her MP during this time, some of which presented as more complaints, its compensation offer did not reflect the time and trouble caused to her chasing responses.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request within policy timescales. It extended its response time again at stage 2 and sent its response within the additional 20 working day period. In its response it found it would have been better to provide the resident with a single point of contact throughout the complaint period to alleviate some delays. It increased its compensation offer to £100.
It is important to note the landlord was dealing with many complaint points raised at different times by the resident. This affected its ability to provide one overall prompt response, having to liaise with various departments to do so. We find the landlord’s final offer was proportionate to the time and trouble its delays caused to the resident. The offer was in line with its policy and our compensation guidance.

Learning

The landlord identified clear learning in its stage 1 complaint response relating to improving communications, strengthening its performance expectations from contractors and giving a centralised point of contact for complex complaint cases to prevent lapses in communication with residents. This showed its willingness to improve services.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

While we acknowledge the complexity of this case for the landlord, it is important for landlords to keep clear records of when it has completed repairs.

Communication

The landlord found gaps in its own communication with the resident. There were several occasions when its contractor had not told it about the resident refusing works until the landlord chased them for updates. It may wish to consider how it can strengthen its communication with contractors to enable it to help them progress works.