Octavia Housing (202533112)

Decision
Case ID	202533112
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Octavia Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

The resident lives at the property which is a first-floor flat in a residential building (the building) which is owned by the landlord. In 2024, he raised concerns about ASB by a neighbour and damp and mould. The landlord carried out mould treatments in October 2024 but did not respond to the ASB report. In July 2025, his rent account was in arrears. The landlord took legal action for possession of the property. The resident complained.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Alteration of a direct debit without his authority.
2. Decision to take legal action against the resident for rent arrears and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
3. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
4. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. Handling of the resident’s application for a move on medical grounds.
6. Handling of the resident’s requests to have access to part of the building’s garden.
7. Handling of a report of noise coming from the property.
8. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We will not investigate the alteration of the direct debit as it is outside our jurisdiction.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s application for a move on medical grounds.
2. Handling of the resident’s requests to have access to part of the building’s garden.
The landlord has made reasonable redress for failures in its:
1. Decision making over taking legal action against the resident for rent arrears.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. Handling of a report of noise coming from the property.
5. Complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Direct debit

This a data protection issue which is best investigated by the Information Commissioner. For that reason, we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Legal action for rent arrears and reasonable adjustments

The resident was significantly in arrears and so, according to its policy, the landlord was entitled to take legal action to recover those arrears. However, it failed to record his attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnosis and so did not consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments.

ASB

The landlord accepted in its complaint response that it had failed to open an ASB case in June 2024. It apologised, paid the resident £100 and opened a case to investigate his concerns.

Damp and mould

The landlord failed to investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould in line with its policy. It has since done so and has apologised and paid the resident compensation.

Move on medical grounds

According to its policy, the landlord did not have to offer the resident a move on medical grounds in June 2024 because of arrears. However, it passed his application to its medical assessor in July 2025 who decided that he did not qualify for such a move.

Staff behaviour during noise report

The resident complained that an officer had been rude during a phone call but both the landlord and the officer apologised. This was sufficient to remedy any distress caused.

Complaint handling

The landlord failed to consider an element of the resident’s complaint in its stage 1 response but did so at stage 2. It paid him £100 in compensation. This was sufficient to remedy the failure.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord should pay the resident the £750 it offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not already done so. This recognised genuine elements of service failure and we have made the reasonable redress finding on that basis.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 June 2025	The resident complained about the call he had with a member of the landlord’s staff about his 8 July 2024 allegations of noise, who he said had been rude.
18 June 2025	The landlord’s medical assessor refused the resident’s 22 July 2024 application for a move on medical grounds saying there was “no medical priority”.
19 June 2025	The landlord apologised for a call made the previous day and said the officer concerned would apologise in writing.
6 July 2025	The resident complained formally about the landlord’s decision to begin legal proceedings against him for outstanding arrears. He also said the landlord had responded inadequately to his: reports of damp and mould (reported 15 August 2024) concerns about losing access to part of the building’s garden medical transfer application
6 July 2025	The resident said the landlord had failed to record his report of ASB by the Neighbour. The resident received a summons threatening eviction for non-payment of rent either on or around this date.
8 July 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
21 July 2025	The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response. It said: it had invited the resident on multiple occasions between June 2023 and June 2025 to address growing arrears on his rent account. It sent him notice of its intention to seek possession on 30 October 2024 when the arrears were £3,205.58. As they had not reduced, it had issued a summons the landlord had passed the resident’s request for a transfer on medical grounds to its independent medical assessor which had rejected the request. It said the resident could always apply again if he had further evidence or his circumstances changed the resident had reported damp and mould in 2024. The landlord had sent a contractor which had carried out a mould wash. As damp and mould had returned, it would send a specialist contractor to carry out a ventilation survey. It would continue to monitor the property as necessary the resident had reported suffering abuse from the neighbour in July 2024. The landlord accepted it had failed to open an ASB case at the time and apologised. As this failure occurred over 12 months previously, it would not treat it as a complaint point but would open a new ASB investigation. It apologised and offered £100 in compensation.
29 July 2025	The resident asked to escalate his request to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. He said: the landlord had breached its ASB policy by failing to open an investigation in June 2024 he had reported damp and mould present at the property to the landlord “throughout 2024” it only carried out a mould wash in July 2025 he had asked to move on medical and other grounds since 2018 the landlord had failed to make reasonable adjustments for his vulnerabilities he had provided evidence of his ADHD and other vulnerabilities to the landlord in 2024 He said he was seeking: an apology confirmation that his medical needs and reasonable adjustments were properly recorded on the landlord’s systems the damp and mould to be remedied A review of his request for a managed transfer for a different officer to be assigned to his account compensation of £1,250 comprising £500 for failures in handling his ASB report, £250 for Equality Act failures, £150 for the impact on his health, £100 for staff rudeness and £250 for inappropriate eviction action
30 July 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
4 August 2025	The resident complained again about the landlord taking him to court and about damp and mould.
21 August 2025	The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It said: it said it had failed to deal completely with the possession case at stage 1. It apologised for the distress it caused. It had now added his vulnerabilities to his record. It agreed to strike out the case when he had paid the £4,000 arrears on 30 July 2025 applications to be moved on medical grounds were processed by the landlord’s independent medical assessor. If the resident had further medical evidence, he could apply again it had no record of the resident providing evidence of his vulnerabilities it had attempted to solve his damp and mould problem but apologised for its failure to find a long-term solution. It said it would send a contractor to carry out a ventilation survey it apologised again for its failure to respond appropriately to his report of ASB in 2024. It was now investigating his concerns it offered him £750 in compensation comprising the £100 offered at stage 1, £150 for poor record keeping, £200 for ongoing damp and mould issues, £100 for its failure to address all complaint points at stage 1 and £200 for inconvenience
12 December 2025	The resident confirmed to us that he wanted us to investigate: the landlord’s “unlawful” commencement of the possession case its failure to log ASB since 2017 damp and mould since 2015 and the impacts on his family’s health. its failure to offer him a move on medical grounds its refusal to allow him access to the building’s communal garden its failure to make reasonable adjustments

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	Alteration of a direct debit.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident has complained that the landlord amended a direct debit in October 2024 to allow it to take £20 per month towards his arrears. He said the landlord had not been authorised to do this.
The Scheme says that we may not investigate matters which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. This is a complaint point which concerns matters covered by the Information Commissioner’s Office. For that reason, we have not investigated this part of his complaint.

Complaint	Legal action for rent arrears and reasonable adjustments.
Finding	No maladministration

The resident’s rent account was in arrears for some years. The landlord contacted him in June 2023 about the growing arrears and he made undertakings to reduce them. He said on 2 occasions that he would call the landlord back but did not do so. It says it attempted to contact him again in October 2024 and sent him notice of its intention to seek possession of the property if he did not clear the arrears. It had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident at this time.
By 28 July 2025, the arrears stood at £3,909.70. It was at this time that the landlord began legal action seeking possession of the property.
The landlord’s Income Management and Prevention of Arrears Policy says that it will use all available remedies to collect income owed including legal action. It also says that it will take appropriate steps to assist vulnerable customers. The policy does not say at what level of arrears it will take legal action but given that the arrears were around £4,000 at the time that it issued its notice to take legal action, this was a step it was entitled to take.
The resident says that he suffers from ADHD. He sent the landlord evidence of this on 11 June 2025. He says that the landlord failed to consider his rights under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) or to make reasonable adjustments for his disability, as the Act requires it to do, when deciding whether to take legal action for the recovery of the arrears.
The Act says that private registered providers of social housing like the landlord have a duty to make “reasonable adjustments” to their processes for service users who have a “protected characteristic”. Protected characteristics include mental or physical disability.
It is not our role to decide what would be a reasonable adjustment for a landlord to make. So we cannot say that the landlord should not have issued legal proceedings in this case. We can only decide whether it failed to consider its duties under the Act and if it should have done so.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response that, at the time that it issued proceedings, there were no recorded vulnerabilities on the resident’s account. Therefore, as it was not aware of any qualifying characteristics, it had no reason to consider making reasonable adjustments. It said it would update his records once he provided medical evidence.
In his escalation request of 29 July 2025, the resident said that he had already submitted evidence of his ADHD diagnosis to the landlord. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted that he had done so. It said it had kept records poorly. It apologised for the distress this caused. It paid him £300 in recognition of poor record keeping and distress, a proportion of which was intended to remedy its failure to record his disability.
This was in line with our compensation guidance for cases where there was failure which adversely affected the resident. As the landlord has also apologised and recorded the resident’s vulnerabilities on his file, it has sufficiently remedied the failure. As the resident has now paid the arrears the possession claim has been withdrawn. Therefore, there is no continuing hardship to him.

Complaint	ASB
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

The resident initially reported ASB by a neighbour. One part of his report was that the neighbour’s ASB prevented him from using a communal garden. He later entered into a dispute with the landlord about whether he was entitled to enter that part of the garden. The landlord investigated and found that he was not as the area was only for residents of a few ground-floor flats. The resident did not agree with this finding and began a lengthy correspondence with the landlord about this which continued until recently.
We have not investigated this issue in this report as it was not raised in the resident’s complaint of 6 July 2025 and we do not have the information to do so. If he wants us to investigate this in future, he must first complain formally to the landlord and he can then ask us to investigate if he is not satisfied with its response.

What we have investigated

The resident complained on 6 July 2025 that he had raised a report of ASB against a neighbour on 7 July 2024 and the landlord had not investigated it properly.
The landlord accepted in its 21 July 2025 stage 1 response that it had failed to open an ASB investigation but said that it could not accept the complaint as concerned events occurring more than 12 months before the complaint. It did however agree to open a new investigation into ongoing ASB. It also offered him £100 for the failure to investigate.
This was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns. We have seen no evidence of him making any further reports of ASB during the year between the first report and the complaint response so any inconvenience or distress appears to have been limited. The landlord’s offer was sufficient to remedy the service failure identified.

Complaint	Damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

Our scheme rules say that we may not investigate complaints if the complainant did not refer them to their landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally within 12 months. The resident has stated they were aware of damp and mould at the property from 2017. However, there is no evidence they raised a complaint until July 2025. For that reason, we will not investigate prior to July 2024.
The resident told us that the landlord’s failure to address the damp and mould at the property has caused or worsened his children’s health conditions. 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 decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

The resident reported damp and mould at the property on 8 July 2024. The landlord sent a contractor to the property on 23 August 2024. It recommended damp and mould treatments in 2 bedrooms and the hallway. These works were completed on 30 to 31 October 2024.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will inspect a property within 5 working days of a report of damp and mould. It did not do so in this case. It took 34 days to attend and inspect the property after the resident’s report. Its repairs policy says it will carry out routine repairs within 15 working days. In fact, it took 49 working days to schedule the works after the inspection. This, again, failed to comply with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord failed to recognise this delay either in its stage 1 or 2 complaint responses. It therefore failed to remedy its failings at the earliest stage. However, in the stage 2 response of 21 August 2025, it apologised for its failure to find a permanent solution to the problem and offered the resident £200 compensation in recognition of that failure.
The landlord also offered the resident £150 for poor record keeping and £200 for inconvenience caused by its failures. It upheld 3 of the resident’s complaint points. Therefore, somewhere between £100 and £150 could reasonably by attributed to the damp and mould issue. This means that the landlord’s offer of compensation was, altogether, appropriate and in line with our guidance on compensation.
The evidence we have seen suggests the landlord has since inspected twice more and had a positive input ventilation system which will help control moisture in future. The landlord has, therefore, apologised, taken steps to remedy its failures and offered compensation, all of which we would expect as part of a good complaint response. We have therefore found that it has offered the resident reasonable redress for its failures.

Complaint	Move on medical grounds
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident recently told us that the landlord has given him a Band C priority for a move on medical grounds. We have not investigated this because he has not yet complained to the landlord about it. If he wants us to investigate, he must first complain formally to the landlord. If he is unhappy with its response, he can come to us.

What we have investigated

The resident says he first applied for a move on medical grounds in 2017. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s statement, we do not have evidence of this request. The starting point for our investigation will be 12 July 2024 when the resident contacted the landlord requesting a move on medical grounds.
The landlord’s Transfer Policy says, “tenants who owe us monies for rent arrears or chargeable works are usually not eligible for a transfer until they clear the debt”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 July 2024 requesting a move on medical grounds. The landlord emailed him a medical transfer form but explained that he could not apply while his rent account was in arrears, which it was at the time. It was entitled to use its discretion in this way under its policy. The resident returned the form on 23 July 2024 and said he would pay the arrears shortly. He did not do so.
The resident then wrote to the landlord again on 11 June 2025 saying that he had not received a response to his application. He added that he had recently been awarded enhanced Personal Independence Payments (PIP) due to his disability. The landlord responded that day and said that it could not find the application in its systems and asked for medical evidence.
Despite the fact that the resident’s rent account was still significantly in arrears, the landlord sent the application to its independent medical assessor. The medical assessor refused the application saying that the available evidence did not make out a case for a move on medical grounds. This was an example of the landlord going beyond what was necessary and therefore good service.

Complaint	Staff behaviour during noise complaint.
Finding	Reasonable redress

In June 2025, a neighbour reported noise emanating from the property. The landlord determined that a visit would be necessary to see whether the resident and his family were responsible for ASB or whether this was a case of “noise transference” where day-to-day activities cause disturbance through no fault of their own.
On 18 June 2025, a housing officer phoned the resident to explain this and ask for access to investigate. The resident considered that the officer had been rude during the call and complained to the landlord. The landlord and the officer apologised for any offence caused which was sufficient to remedy any distress caused to the resident.
The landlord made several further attempts to gain access to the property. It sent emails on 24 June, and 17 and 28 July 2025. Unfortunately, the resident did not respond. It requested a visit again on 4 August 2025. This took place on 8 August 2025. The officers found no evidence of ASB or breach of tenancy conditions. It wrote to him on 12 August 2025 to explain that it had closed the ASB case.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:

The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales which says that landlords must:
1. provide a complaint response within 10 working days of a complaint
2. provide a stage 2 response within working 20 days. They can, though, ask for a 20 extra working days to deal with complex complaints
3. acknowledge complaints and escalation requests in writing within 5 working days
In this case, the resident complained about the same issues on several occasions within the space of a few days. He first complained about rudeness from a member of the landlord’s staff on 18 June 2025. He also complained that he did not have access to part of the building’s garden.
The landlord dealt with the staff conduct issue informally outside the formal complaints procedure. It apologised and also asked the officer concerned to apologise which they did. It also said that it would investigate the garden matter. This was an appropriate response. The landlord treated the contact about access to the garden as a request for information as it was not aware of this issue before the complaint. This was appropriate.
The resident then complained on 6 July 2025 about several issues:
1. the decision to issue a claim for possession for arrears
2. a breach of his rights under the Equality Act
3. damp and mould and other required repairs at the property
4. being excluded from part of the communal garden due to ASB by a neighbour
5. the rejection of the medical transfer
The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 8 July 2025, well within its policy commitment. In the acknowledgment, it set out the complaint definition, as is required under the Code. It provided its stage 1 response on 21 July 2025, exactly 10 working days after the complaint. This was therefore, in time.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 29 July 2025. The landlord acknowledged this request on 30 July 2025. It again set out the complaint definition. It provided the stage 2 complaint response on 21 August 2025, 17 working days after the request and therefore, again, in good time.
However, as the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 request, it failed to address the resident’s concerns about the possession action at stage 1. This was a failure. The landlord acknowledged this by offering £100 compensation. This was a sufficient to remedy, so we have found that the landlord made reasonable redress.

Learning

The landlord failed to open an ASB case following a report by the resident in 2024. It might consider how it records reports of ASB in future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord accepts that it failed to record the resident’s ADHD diagnosis as soon as it received evidence. It might consider assessing itself against our Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s communications.