Orbit Housing Association Limited (202343356)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with her 2 young children, both of whom have health vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. We have looked at the landlords:
   1. Handling of the damp and mould.
   2. Handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the handling of the damp and mould.
   2. Reasonable offer of redress in the handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould.

4. The landlord did not raise the necessary repairs that were causing damp and mould in line with its policy times. Its communication was poor throughout. Although it has acknowledged this failure, it has not provided appropriate remedy to recognise the impact caused to the resident.

Complaint Handling

5. While the landlord’s complaint handling was not in line with the code or its policy, it apologised to the resident for the failings and offered compensation which amounts to a finding of reasonable redress.

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 have not looked at

6. Throughout the complaint the resident mentioned the impact the damp and mould had on her children’s physical 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 dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury. We’ve not investigated this further but have considered the overall distress and inconvenience.

7. The evidence shows the resident reported damp and mould on 24 November 2023. She reported this again on 5 December 2023 and 15 January 2024. The landlord raised a new case on 15 January 2024 and arranged to complete a mould treatment and for a survey to be completed, in line with its policy. It is not appropriate that it took the resident reporting the issue 3 times for the landlord to take any action. Landlords need to take a proactive approach to reports of damp and mould to understand the risk and resolve the issues promptly.
8. The landlord attended on 16 January 2024 to complete the mould wash and to inspect the property. This action was in line with its policy which says it would complete mould treatments within 7 days of raising a new case. We understand the contractor was unable to complete all the required works on that date and due to the resident’s availability causing 2 cancelled appointments and so completed it on 15 April 2024. While it was unfortunate the landlord was unable to complete the mould wash within its published timescales, it cannot be held accountable for the delay in this instance.
9. The landlord completed a survey of the property on 23 January 2024, in line with its published 28 day timescale.
10. The first inspection on 16 January 2024 raised the need for further works including a full loft inspection. While the landlord attended the complete the works, including unblocking the trickle vents, a full loft inspection and a full 3 stage mould wash throughout, it attended outside of the repair timescales in its policy. However, it appropriately apologised for this and offered compensation to reflect the delays.
11. The landlord completed the loft inspection on 26 March 2024; however, it has not provided details of the outcome of the inspection, which indicates a record keeping issue. Neither did it provide any details to the resident in its stage 1 response. Yet, the evidence shows that the inspection found the insulation in the loft was poor and there was a hole in the roof. It therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised the follow-on works needed after the inspection. The lack of effective communication between the landlord and contractor and its failure to raise the necessary works caused a delay in it resolving the issue for the resident.
12. The resident chased the landlord for updates on the loft issue on 28 May 2025 when she escalated her complaint. However, the landlord did not chase the contractor to understand what follow-on works it needed to raise until 13 September 2024. It is not appropriate that it took 6 months alongside considerable time spent chasing by the resident, for the landlord to take any further action to investigate and resolve the issue.
13. The landlord’s damp and mould team completed a further inspection of the property on 25 September 2024 which found the need for further mould treatment in the property and the need for a thorough inspection of the loft and roof. The landlord attended, in line with its repairs policy, on 17 October 2024 to complete the full roof inspection with scaffolding. We understand that the landlord did not attend to replace the loft insulation until February 2025, over 12 months since it first found the issue. We also understand that the damp and mould issue is still unresolved.
14. In the resident’s request to escalate her complaint she also raised other issues within the property. The landlord included these in part of its stage 2 response. It helpfully confirmed it had been unable to see that the resident had previously reported the issues and confirmed it had referred each issue to the relevant team to inspect and repair, as necessary. Given the resident’s concerns, this was reasonable.
15. It is important to note that the resident said she raised the extra issues during the inspection completed on 25 September 2024. The evidence shows the landlord appropriately confirmed with its surveyor if it could remember the resident raising these, who said that it had noted any issues raised the inspection report. In this instance, while we do not dispute what the resident has said, the landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified surveyors that they do note down all the issues raised by a resident.
16. Throughout the complaint the landlord did not evidence that it gave consideration to the need for any temporary solutions while it was awaiting the necessary inspections and repairs to help alleviate the issues in the property for the resident.
17. The resident’s complaint raised issues with poor communication from the property manager. In such cases, we expect the landlord to investigate. The landlord informed the resident that the relevant manager would review the issues and conduct an investigation but explained it could not share the findings due to data protection. While we understand the resident was dissatisfied with this, the landlord was entitled to not share the outcome. It appropriately reassured her that it had taken her concerns seriously.
18. In its complaint response the landlord offered compensation to the resident of £820. This offer would have been appropriate if it had resolved the issues within reasonable timeframe and had evidenced that it had undertaken learning throughout the complaint process. At the time of the stage 2 response, the landlord had ordered further investigations to understand the root cause of the issue which was appropriate. However, the issue is still unresolved. While it was appropriate of the landlord to offer compensation, its offer is insufficient to avoid an adverse finding.

19. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition. Our findings are:
    1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the code in respect of timelines.
    2. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days but provided its response 62 working days outside of its published timescales. While it requested an extension on 22 February 2024, it has not evidenced that it sent further correspondence to the resident to manage her expectations as to when to expect a response. The landlord acted outside its policy and the Code.
    3. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 May 2025 which the landlord did not acknowledge within 5 working days. It acknowledged the request on 23 August 2024.
    4. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 October 2024. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 October 2024 to request an extension request, however this was 11 working day after the response was due. While it was appropriate of the landlord to request an extension, do so after the response was due was a failing.
    5. The landlord apologised for its failings in its complaint handling in both responses and offered the resident a total of £150 compensation to reflect the delays.
20. The apology and compensation offered were reasonable in the circumstances.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The delays in raising the required inspection and follow-on works for the loft and roof in the property suggest a lack of effective record keeping within the repairs department. The landlord must ensure that robust systems are in place to support clear communication across departments, so that repair requests—particularly those concerning damp and mould—are promptly addressed. This is essential for taking a proactive approach and adhering to its own policies.

Communication

22. The landlord’s communication in this case was poor. It needs to ensure that it has processes and procedures in place that enable effective and regular communication with its residents. In this case the resident spent a significant amount of time chasing the landlord for updates. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system, and the landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.