Orbit Group Limited (202231176)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231176

Orbit Group Limited

27 June 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Damp and Mould in the resident’s property.
    2. Heating and repairs in the resident’s property.
    3. Pest control.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant whose tenancy began in August 2022 following a mutual exchange. The resident lives in the property with her children and her partner. At the time of her move the resident was pregnant.
  2. After moving to the property in August 2022, the resident raised concerns about damp and mould and the heating within the property. The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend the property, but they could not complete works around the damp and mould while the resident remained in the property with her children. She informed the landlord of this, and its contractors attended on numerous occasions without prior appointments, and reiterated they could not complete the works with the children in the property.
  3. Following her reports, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 7 October 2022 over the telephone. She explained:
    1. Since moving into the property, she had no heating. Its contractor had attended and condemned the heating. The works were meant to have been completed before she moved into the property as she had a young child and was also pregnant.
    2. She was told by the landlord heaters would be provided and this had not occurred.
    3. She was told by its contractor that they had not been instructed to provide the heaters.
    4. There was also damp and mould in the property, this was in every room, and she wanted it sorted “asap”, as her children were not well due to this. She said she had to move to her parent’s property to stay warm. She could not do this any longer due to a lack of room.
  4. On 14 October 2022, the resident also raised concerns about a hole in her property and exposed pipes. She told the landlord that the exposed pipe work got hot, and her child had tried to grab it several times.
  5. The landlord provided the resident with 3 updates on her stage 1 complaint between 25 October 2022 and 22 November 2022. On each occasion it explained it wanted to speak to its contractor or obtain information from its contractor and this was delaying its response. It also provided her with dates it aimed to respond to her complaint.
  6. On 1 December 2022, the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She explained the actions she had taken to report her concerns after moving to the property, the landlord’s lack of contact, and her having to chase it for weeks around the works. In summary she raised concerns with:
    1. Its handling of the damp and mould and the delays associated with this. This included issues with its contractor’s attendance, and the fact she believed it was affecting her children’s health. She also told it her newborn baby had been hospitalised twice with breathing difficulties due to the mould in the property.
    2. Its handling of the heating concerns and replacement heating system. She identified there was a delay in providing temporary heaters and she moved out of the property. She told it that she was sleeping in the property whilst pregnant and her 11 month old was also in the property while it was cold. She had chased for updates as it was getting cold. When it did complete the works, it left large holes in the walls and exposed pipe work which her child had almost burned themselves on several times. When she explained this to the landlord, it told her it would not be responsible if they hurt themselves and to cover it with a towel. She was also told by its contractor that her husband should remove the gas fireplace by himself and an old gas radiator as it was not connected to the main gas supply anymore.
    3. Feeling she was being “palmed off” and told what she wanted to hear. She believed the property was harming her family’s health and had affected her mental health. She was having to go to her parents to eat. She told it to either move her to an appropriate property or raise the standard of the current property.
    4. A reported mice infestation in the property. She believed originally that mice had entered the property through the large holes left after the completion of the works. Its contractor had confirmed that there was evidence of an issue prior to this as there was old mice bait underneath the kitchen cabinets.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 5 December 2022. It said it found that:
    1. In connection to the heating and hot water, an appointment was raised for 14 November 2022, but this had been brought forward due to the urgency of the works required.
    2. She now had a new heating and hot water system installed, however, there was a delay in the removal of the fireplace and the connecting pipes. An appointment was arranged for 5 December 2022, to remove the pipes but there had been no appointment made for the removal of the fireplace.
    3. As it was unable to secure a date for this, it was unable to provide a resolution to that aspect of her complaint.
    4. In relation to the finish of the works following the removal of the old system, to gain a better understanding of the works, it contacted its heating team to ask for comment. They forwarded the request to its contractor who it had been waiting for information from for some time despite chasing several times.
    5. Due to this, it had been unable to reach a resolution to that aspect of her complaint. As it had been unable to obtain the information required, she had asked for her complaint to be escalated.
    6. In relation to the damp and mould, as she stated despite the mould wash, the mould remained. It had raised the matter with an area inspector who would contact her within 5 working days to arrange an appointment to assess the mould and damp, and action any necessary works following the visit.
    7. In relation to the pests entering her property. It felt they were entering through the holes left during the radiator works. It had arranged for a pest control contractor to complete an assessment. They reported that they were unable to determine where the pests were entering, therefore, it would not be responding to provide any pest control methods and would not be upholding that aspect of her complaint.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 February 2023. It said the resident had asked for further issues to be included in her complaint such as how it managed the damp and mould issue. She had requested for the contractor who attended her property to be investigated. It stated:
    1. It agreed with the findings of its stage 1 response.
    2. It had received confirmation that a decant had taken place and she was moved out of the property. Since then, works had commenced on the property and a report had been submitted confirming completion of the works on 23 January 2023.
    3. Its contractors had attended her property to measure a window. It was confirmed that material could take up to 6 weeks to fulfil so it was unable to advise of a future appointment at that time. Its contractors would contact her to arrange a suitable appointment as soon as possible.
    4. The information she had provided about the contractor had been sent over to senior members of staff and the management team with the contractors to be investigated internally.
    5. It was unable to share any actions which it may or may not be taking about the complaint due to data protection. It wanted to reassure her that it would be dealt with where appropriate. It apologised that she was made to feel uncomfortable in her property and assured her that it took such reports very seriously.
    6. In relation to the heating issues, it was confirmed that the initial issue was reported on 19 August 2022. A plan was put in place in September 2022 with a route forward, but delays were experienced due to the need for an asbestos survey. Temporary heaters were delivered on 7 October 2022 and following this works completed on 12 October 2022.
    7. Based on the information it was upholding her complaint. It was clear following the mutual exchange, the property she moved into did not have full heating capabilities which required replacement.
    8. She experienced multiple issues in the property regarding damp and mould and this resulted in a decant out of the property. Works were booked in, reported, and completed 23 January 2023.
    9. It awarded her compensation of £444.50 broken down as:
      1. £54 for repair delays.
      2. £50 for poor complaint handling.
      3. £150 for distress and inconvenience.
      4. £20 for failed appointments.
      5. £170.50 for the decant period.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident raised concerns about the effects of the property on her and her family’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. Personal injury claims must be decided by the court as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on her health.
  2. The resident has raised concerns around a rat infestation in the property. She has explained to the Ombudsman that she was informed by the landlord’s contractor that they believed that the rat infestation was in the property at the time of her moving in. She was informed of this after her initial complaint and works completed around the mice infestation. As such, this was not considered within the original complaint brought to the landlord. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this has exhausted the landlord’s complaint’s process. As such is unable to consider this aspect of the resident’s concerns within this determination. Should the matter exhaust the landlord’s complaint’s process and the resident wishes for this to be investigated by the Ombudsman, she may bring these issues to the Service.
  3. The resident has also raised concerns around her decants. Some of these issues are in relation to matters which occurred after the completion of the complaints process, and in relation to new concerns which led to further decants. The Ombudsman understands that these issues are/ were being considered as part of another complaint. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to consider these issues within this determination. This determination will focus on the decants which occurred because of the issues raised within the resident’s complaints which completed the landlord’s complaints process on 3 February 2023.
  4. The resident has raised several concerns with the Ombudsman such as its handling of the decant. For example, she said it told her it did not decant unless there was a risk to life and that it would be ending her decant as works had been completed to the property when they had not. Whilst the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s recollection of events, it has not been provided with any evidence that these were raised with the landlord, or that they exhausted its complaints process. In the absence of clear evidence about these issues, the Ombudsman considers it would be unfair to make a determination about them.
  5. The resident further advised the Ombudsman on 26 June 2024 that the landlord’s contractor visited on that day to remove a radiator it had installed on the wall. She advised after removing the radiator, there was mould on the wall, and provided photographs of this. She said this meant a mould wash had not been completed on the wall prior to the installation of the radiator. The Ombudsman in unable to draw such a conclusion as it would be unfair to make such an assumption. As the matter is also substantially outside of the timeframe of the resident’s complaint, the landlord has not been provided with an opportunity to provide a response around the issue. The resident is able to make a complaint to the landlord about the issue, and should she do so, the landlord is encouraged to provide the appropriate responses.

Damp and Mould in the resident’s property.

  1. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that a property inspection must be completed prior to an exchange. It also states that a work order is to be raised for an asbestos survey as part of the process. Whilst the landlord did complete an inspection of the property, the copy of the findings provided to the Ombudsman lacked in detail. It failed to provide dates and details such as if it completed an asbestos survey. This raises questions with the landlord’s record keeping, especially as the only asbestos survey the landlord provided was for the front door in 2017.
  2. The failure to complete a survey also raises questions about the landlord’s considerations of health and safety. Under the Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), asbestos is considered a category 1 hazard. As such it should have taken more care to ensure there was no exposure and completed a survey as it was aware that there was asbestos in the property prior to the exchange. This would have allowed it to assure both itself and the resident that the asbestos had not been disturbed during the move by the previous resident. The failure to do so was inappropriate and contributed to delays in completing repairs later to the property as it required a survey for works to be completed to her kitchen.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out what the Ombudsman expects from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, communicate effectively with residents, and, where significant works may be required, it should consider whether the resident should be moved from the property at an early stage. Its damp and mould policy also make similar comments around its zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it took such an approach, and this was inappropriate.
  4. The landlord’s damp and mould policy provides no timeframes for the completion of damp and mould works. It confirmed to the Ombudsman in an email on 4 June 2024 that there was a 7 day service level agreement for mould treatment. Its records demonstrate that it raised works to address the damp and mould in the property on 20 August 2022, however the evidence shows that the works did not start until 12 September 2022. This represents a delay of 23 days. It is unclear why there was such a delay, and the landlord has not evidenced that it kept the resident updated about the delays and this was unreasonable.
  5. When the resident reported her concerns in August 2022, she explained that there was mould in every room. The landlord immediately requested for a mould wash to be completed. Whilst appropriate that it took prompt action, due to the widespread nature of the concerns raised by the resident, it would have been beneficial for it to have also completed an inspection or survey by a suitably qualified person prior to acting. This would have allowed it to tailor its approach to identifying a more sustainable solution to the issue. It did not demonstrate that it did so, and this was inappropriate.
  6. It also could have been proactive in its approach by employing temporary measures. For example, it could have provided the resident with a dehumidifier, to assist with the moisture levels within the property. It has not demonstrated that it considered this, and this was unreasonable.
  7. The works were then not completed until 14 October 2022. This represents a delay of 48 days to complete the mould treatment, and this was inappropriate and outside of the timeframes provided. The landlord should have acted quicker to ensure the works were completed in a timely manner and within its provided timescales. This is especially the case as it was aware there were young children in the property, and that the resident was pregnant. It has not demonstrated that it considered whether there were any vulnerabilities and if the potential category 1 hazard posed a health and safety risk to individuals within the family, and this was unacceptable. This caused the resident frustration and distress.
  8. Damp and mould are also regarded as a category 1 hazard under the HHSRS. The previous resident informed the resident that the issues had been ongoing in the property, and the landlord was aware, and said it was due to condensation. It said internally, on 3 October 2022 that there was a historic damp and mould issue in the property, which also demonstrates awareness of the issue. As such, it should have taken the relevant steps to ensure it was treated before the exchange, or explained to the resident that it would be completing works to address it. The landlord failed to effectively communicate with the resident, and this was unreasonable. This led to her deciding on the mutual exchange without awareness of all the facts. It also failed to take adequate measures to satisfy itself that the damp and mould had been dealt with prior to the exchange. Its failure to act exposed the resident and her family to a potential category 1 hazard under the HHSRS, which was unacceptable and caused the resident frustration and distress.
  9. The resident informed the landlord of the issues on several occasions since August 2022. The hospital provided the resident with a letter in December 2022 following her child’s admission due to breathing difficulties, recommending that she was moved from the property whilst the required works were completed. It should have reevaluated whether the actions it was taking/had taken were appropriate at this point. The failure to do so may have led to her and her family being exposed to the category 1 hazards longer than necessary. It did not consider decanting her from the property until December 2022, 4 months after she had repeatedly expressed her concerns over the issues in the property. Its inaction, and responses, were inappropriate, and caused her distress, as she had received the recommendation, following her newborn baby being hospitalised.
  10. When it did complete an inspection on 8 December 2022, this informed its decision that the resident should be decanted from the property, and identified the level of treatment that was required. Had it taken a proactive effort earlier in the process, this may have led it to taking prompt action to remedying the issue at a quicker pace. Instead, the resident was left to live in the property exposed to the issues for longer than was necessary and this was unreasonable. The Ombudsman has also not been provided with a copy of this inspection, and this raises questions with the landlord’s record keeping.
  11. The resident reportedly raised concerns with the landlord about its contractors and their conduct between 21 December 2022 and 22 December 2022. They had said she refused works on 21 December 2022, and they had completed a mould wash on 22 December 2022. She said a senior member of its staff then attended on 23 December 2022 with the contractor’s supervisor and found that no works had been completed.
  12. The resident advised the Ombudsman that following the managers attendance at the property on 23 December 2022, they then tried to organise a mould wash. The landlord’s records also show that jobs were raised on 19 December 2022 and 23 December 2022 for a mould wash to be completed, and mould treatment to the resident’s property. Both jobs were completed on 23 December 2022. She said she was also told that the reason for “such a rush” was that there were “no hotels available due to Christmas”. She was then moved back in the property as it believed it to be safe. She advised that her family returned to the house, but it was still full of mould. It is unclear whether she reported this issue to the landlord on the same day. Its contact logs however show that she continued to chase the issue between 28 December 2022 to February 2023.
  13. The Ombudsman understands that landlord’s resources are often stretched however, its approach to the situation was unreasonable. She advised she had raised a dispute about the works completed during the decant. The landlord had a responsibility to ensure that it had adequate checks in place to confirm that the works had been carried out within a reasonable amount of time (i.e. whilst the resident remained decanted), and to an acceptable standard. Its failure to do so led to the resident returning to a property she felt was unsafe for her family as she identified it was still full of mould. This saw her moving out of the property again to her parent’s home. The landlord’s actions caused the resident and her family frustration, distress, and inconvenience.
  14. The landlord’s repairs policy states that where a resident reports damp and mould, it would conduct a risk assessment with them before determining whether a repair was required. It has not demonstrated that it completed any risk assessment, and this was unsatisfactory. Had it done so it may have identified the vulnerabilities within the household at a much earlier point. This would also have allowed it to cater and structure its approach on how it dealt with the required damp and mould works, and the support it offered to the resident and her family. The failure to do so contributed to the delays faced by the resident.
  15. The landlord’s contractor appropriately did not want to complete the mould wash at the original appointment due to the presence of children in the property and concerns on the impact of the chemicals on them. However, the landlord should have been aware of the presence of the children, and the resident’s pregnancy based on the tenancy information and taken the necessary considerations prior to issuing the job. It should have then informed the resident ahead of time to ensure she was appropriately informed of the need to make alternative preparations. This would have been such as temporarily leaving the property, as this may have allowed the works to be completed in a timely manner. It raised the works without appropriate awareness and consideration of the surrounding issues, which contributed to the delays.
  16. The resident explained that the landlord’s contractors attended her property 4 times unannounced to try to complete the required works. Each time she had her children in the property, so the works could not be completed. This was inappropriate, as it should have ensured that it was monitoring the works, confirmed a prearranged appointment with her, and informed its contractors of this. This raises further concerns with the landlord’s communications both with the resident and its contractor. This may have also contributed to the resident’s loss of confidence in the landlord.
  17. Although the landlord told her it had raised these concerns with the contractor, it could have done more to reassure her around the actions it took to address the issue. For example, it could have told her what the outcome of its conversation was with the contractors, and how it was monitoring performance going forward.
  18. Although the landlord said it had attended to complete works to rectify the issue, the damp and mould continued in the resident’s property for a substantial amount of time. It is acknowledged that it attended on numerous occasions to complete works. However, it has not demonstrated that it reevaluated its position, at any point, and considered alternative approaches to try to identify the root cause and rectify the issue. It had numerous opportunities to reevaluate its position, such as when she raised concerns about the damp and mould following her initial report, or when she identified there had been black mould in her child’s bottle maker. It could also have used the decant periods, as opportunities to explore, employ different measures and identify the underlying issue. For example, it could have arranged for an independent survey to identify the cause of the issue or explored installation of additional vents and extractors. It has not demonstrated that it took any satisfactory action, and this was inappropriate.
  19. The resident was then decanted from the property again in February 2023 due to the concerns around damp and mould. This lasted until March 2023, but there were issues with the decant such as being moved to a temporary apartment which also had damp and mould issues. This was inappropriate and the landlord should have completed its due diligence prior to the move. It did however act quickly to rectify this and placed her in a hotel before identifying an appropriate temporary move.
  20. The landlord completed another inspection on 22 November 2023. It made assumptions based on observations to reach a conclusion that the issue was condensation. For example, it said there were no trickle vents open throughout the property, and the resident used a condensing dryer. It provided no evidence of any damp meter readings for example which might have informed its decision. The governments guidance on damp and mould specifically states that residents should not be blamed for damp and mould and the presence of such issues are not the result of lifestyle choice. It further states that it is the responsibility of landlords to identify and address the underlying causes of the problem such as structural issues or inadequate ventilation. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it did this and this was unreasonable.
  21. The issue continued to reoccur in the property, and the resident informed the Ombudsman that as at June 2024, there was still damp and mould present in the bathroom. The landlord continued to attend, to complete works, but did not provide a lasting solution. This represents a delay of almost 2 years to identify a permanent solution to the resident’s concerns and this is unacceptable and not in keeping with its damp and mould policy. This caused further concern as the resident had informed the landlord, she believed it contributed to her newborn baby being hospitalised on 2 occasions with breathing difficulties, and she had other young children living in the property.
  22. The landlord has appropriately acknowledged that there were failings in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property and acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused. It offered a total of £390.50 in compensation for its handling of the issues. Whilst this goes a way in addressing the landlord’s failings, the Ombudsman believes it does not appropriately reflect the level of distress, frustration, and inconvenience caused to the resident. It also does not breakdown what element of the repairs each payment is in relation to. Some of the issues around the damp and mould also remained outstanding following the landlord’s final complaint response and works remain ongoing to rectify them. The landlord did not take a proactive approach around the damp and mould issues. It was aware of the presence of these issues prior to the exchange and did not consider the vulnerabilities of the household. There were delays in its handling of the situation and it failed to reevaluate its position despite several opportunities to do so. It also failed to demonstrate that it considered taking any temporary measures. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration.
  23. An order has been made for an additional amount of compensation to be paid to the resident due to an inability to have full enjoyment of the property. This is based on approximately 20% weekly rent between August 2022 and March 2023. This is because the mould issues had been addressed by the landlord in the majority of the property at this time, however concerns of mould remained in the bathroom. A further 5% is to be paid to the resident between April 2023 and June 2024, as the damp and mould issues remained unaddressed in the bathroom. This amounts to £1198 and is not a rent refund or intended to be an exact calculation of rent paid for that period. A further £200 is awarded additionally for the frustration, inconvenience, and distress caused to the resident, bringing the total to £1398.

Heating and repairs in the resident’s property.

  1. The landlord’s mutual exchange inspection report stated that there was no central heating in the property. It found that there were gas radiators in the bedrooms and said there was “nothing in the main bedroom”. The resident advised that once she moved into the property, in August 2022, she did not have any heating. A gas safety operative attended, and the gas radiators were condemned. The landlord’s notes of 7 October 2022 state that the works should have been completed prior to the resident moving into the property. It is however unclear if this was the resident’s report, or the landlord stating this to be the case. This raises questions around the landlord’s record keeping.
  2. The resident notified the landlord of the issues with the heating, damp, and mould in the property in August 2022. It did not demonstrate that it considered whether these issues were serious enough to warrant a temporary decant from the property within a reasonable amount of time. This is especially important, as a lack of appropriate heating may have also contributed to the damp and mould issues within the property.
  3. Following the resident’s reports in August 2022, she advised she had to chase the landlord around the installation of the central heating as it was starting to get colder. She had informed it in October 2022 that she had moved out of the property temporarily due to the temperature. The resident told the Ombudsman that she had moved out of the property for a period of 2 weeks. She also advised that she had waited for 2 to 3 weeks for the landlord to provide her with temporary heaters. It did not do so until 11 October 2022, this represents a delay of 53 days before it took any measures to assist the resident. During this period, the landlord had several opportunities to reconsider its position, not only around the heating issues but all the concerns raised by the resident. This was because there was a potential for a culminative effect on the resident and her family. It has not demonstrated that it did, and this was inappropriate.
  4. When it did provide the temporary heaters, the resident advised it provided her with 2 or 3 heaters which were not enough to warm the property. Although appropriate that it provided the heaters, it should have considered or contacted the resident to identify whether they were enough to adequately warm up the property. It has not demonstrated that it followed up with her after the delivery, and this was inappropriate.
  5. It is acknowledged that at the time of year of the resident’s report, it was unlikely that she required use of heating to a substantial degree. Despite this however, it could have been proactive in its considerations and taken the necessary steps to review the temperature of the property, at a much earlier point, and take the necessary action sooner. The HHSRS identifies excess cold as a category 1 hazard, and the fact she had moved out of the property temporarily suggests the heating was not at an appropriate level for the family, despite the time of year. This is especially the case, as its EPC certificate had identified in 2018 that the insulation in the walls of the property were poor. Further, there were young children in the property, who she evidenced were affected by the temperature. As such it should have taken necessary and prompt action to ensure the temperature of the property was at a comfortable level.
  6. The landlord’s internal notes show that it arranged for the works to be placed on its planned works list on 6 September 2022. It said in an email on 3 October 2022 it had informed the resident that the works had been placed on the list. As this was an important issue for the resident, it should have ensured it updated her promptly about this. From the evidence, it updated her 27 days after it had decided how it would address the works and this was inappropriate.
  7. Although the landlord updated the resident, it has not demonstrated that it informed her what the works would entail, or how long they would take. It also has not demonstrated that it kept her updated around any delays in completing the works. It could have for example, provided her with a schedule of works which identified the necessary works, and timeframes for their completion. The failure to do so was unreasonable.
  8. The landlord’s repairs policy does not set out a timeframe for issues of heating or hot water loss. However, it does state that it will attend to emergency repairs within 4 to 24 hours. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on landlords to keep in proper working order installation that supply heating such as boilers, radiators, and gas fires. It also states that the landlord must complete repairs within a reasonable time. Issues around heating are often seen as an emergency and requiring urgent attention. As such the landlord should have taken action to ensure there was adequate heating in the property within the emergency timeframes of 4 to 24 hours in its policy. It has not demonstrated that it did so, and this was unreasonable.
  9. From the resident’s initial report of the issues in August 2022, until it completed the replacement works on 14 October 2022, there was a delay of over 1 month and this was unreasonable. This is because although it provided temporary heaters, the resident reported that the property remained cold, as such it had not ensured the adequacy of the temperature within the property. This caused the resident frustration and saw her taking the time to repeatedly contact the landlord around the issue.

Holes in walls and piping.

  1. The resident told the Ombudsman that following the removal of the gas radiators in early September 2022, she was left with holes in her wall. She explained that they were big holes, which allowed her to see the sunlight through them and she advised the landlord of this in September 2022. The Ombudsman approached the landlord for information around this on 20 June 2024. It responded on 25 June 2024 and said it was unable to confirm the works to remove the radiator from the wall and fill the last remaining hole had been completed. This was unreasonable and raises further questions with the landlord’s record keeping.
  2. Following the replacement of the radiators, on 14 October 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the holes in the wall remained, and pipes which got hot were left uncovered. She had an expectation that any works completed by both it and its contractor would be to a safe and reasonable standard. It also had a responsibility to ensure this was the case. It would have been a reasonable approach for it to have attended the property, and completed a post inspection, and identified if there were any steps it could take to temporarily make the holes safe. This was also an opportunity for the landlord to reconsider its position and consider whether it remained safe for the resident and her family to remain in the property. It has not demonstrated that it did so. The landlord’s inaction was unacceptable and caused the resident frustration and distress.
  3. The resident advised that after she raised her concerns about the holes to the landlord, she was told to fill them with newspaper and cardboard by its contractors. At the time, she was 7 to 8 months pregnant. The landlord then did not attend until October 2022 to address the holes in the property. It is unclear from its records when it removed the radiators, and created the holes, as it had not provided this information. The records do however show that there was a telephone call with the resident in September 2022, but the details were unavailable as they had been deleted. The records provided around the heating show works in September 2022 but give no details on what occurred. These raise further concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. However, from the information provided by the resident, there was a delay of at least 1 month, as she explained she took photographs of the holes in her children’s room on 5 September 2022. This was unsatisfactory and caused the resident frustration and distress with the landlord.
  4. The landlord’s records show that it then attended again on 7 December 2023, as a hole remained outstanding in one of the children’s bedroom, behind the radiator its contractor installed. The resident told the Ombudsman she raised this with the landlord prior to it completing the repair, however, it should have been aware of the outstanding issue. She also advised that it attended to fill the hole from outside, however it was unclear when this was, raising further concerns with the landlord’s record keeping.
  5. The landlord advised it had tried to attend on 3 occasions in January 2024, but was unable to gain access to the property to fill the hole behind the radiator. Despite this however, the landlord had a substantial period of time to ensure this issue was rectified. Both the landlord and resident advised that it had attended the resident’s property on 26 June 2024. Following the visit the resident contacted the Ombudsman on the same day and said that it planned to attend to fix the hole in her child’s room on 28 June 2024. This represents a delay of 21 months in addressing the issue since she raised her concerns, and this was unreasonable.
  6. The landlord should have ensured that its contractors had a plan and were aware of all the necessary repairs they needed to complete, to confirm they were completed at the same time. If there were any reasons why they could not complete the repairs in 1 appointment, this should have been explained to the resident. This caused the resident frustration and distress as her child believed that pests would enter through this hole. This led to her having to swap rooms with them.
  7. The landlord’s repairs policy defines an emergency repair as any repair that is required to sustain the immediate health, safety, or security of the resident at risk. The resident told the landlord that the holes made it difficult to heat the property, and it was expensive. She said that the exposed pipes were dangerous as her child had tried to touch them, and they could have been burnt. The resident reported that she was told to cover the pipes with a towel, and if her child hurt themselves, it would be her responsibility. The landlord should have treated this as an emergency repair, due to the risk of harm to the resident’s child in line with its policy. Its failure to do so was unacceptable and demonstrates it failed to act in line with its policy or take an empathetic, or sympathetic approach.
  8. The landlord’s repair logs show that after the resident’s report on 14 October 2022, it raised works to address the loose and exposed heating pipes on the same day. It acknowledged that they were dangerous due to the children in the property, and the risk of harm to them. It then, however, did not begin the works until 9 December 2022. It also raised works to box in loose pipes and did not start the works until 23 November 2022 and completed them on 5 December 2022. The landlord has not demonstrated that it kept the resident informed, or explained the reason for the delays and this was unsatisfactory and raised further questions with the landlord’s communication.
  9. The landlord acknowledged that there was a risk of harm and danger to the children. The Ombudsman would have expected it to have attended to ensure it made the situation safe if it was unable to complete the repairs in a timely manner. It has not demonstrated that it did so, and this was unacceptable. There was then a delay of over a month to complete both works around the pipes (addressing the loose pipes and boxing the pipes) and this was unacceptable. This caused the resident distress as she was worried for the safety of her children.
  10. Following the resident’s reports of holes following the works, the landlord appropriately looked to identify with its contractors, if its actions were consistent with standard practice. It repeatedly had to chase its contractor for the information on this throughout November 2022, and it has not demonstrated that it received a response. Its contractor informed it that it had arranged for a subcontractor to attend to make good the holes. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to remind the contractor of any standards it required them to adhere to when completing works to a resident’s property. Further, as it did not provide it with the information it requested in a timely manner, it should have raised this as a concern with the relevant individuals with the contractor’s organisation. It could then have considered alternative means to identify whether the approach taken was in line with best practice and inform its approach to getting the holes attended to earlier than it did. The failure to do so was unreasonable.
  11. The landlord confirmed that the removal of the gas fireplace was outstanding in its stage 1 response, and that it could not resolve this as it could not provide a date for the works. The resident also identified in her stage 2 escalation that its contractor had told her husband to remove the gas fireplace himself. This was an unempathetic approach for its contractor to have taken.
  12. Although the landlord identified that it had raised an issue with the contractor with the management teams, it was unclear which issue this was and if it included its comments to the resident. The landlord’s records show that it did not begin works to remove the gas fireplace until March 2023. It is also unclear when this was completed, as it placed a number of jobs on the same work list. It had explained previously that the fireplace had been capped off at the gas supply. However, it has not demonstrated that it kept the resident informed of progress about this issue. This also means that the works remained outstanding for a period of 5 to 6 months and that was unsatisfactory.
  13. The landlord appropriately offered the resident compensation during its stage 2 response, however this was in relation to all of the issues complained of by the resident. Whilst this goes a way in addressing the landlord’s failings, it does not sufficiently specify which parts of the compensation relate to the issues complained of by the resident. The Ombudsman also does not believe it goes far enough in addressing the detriment to the resident. An order has been made for a compensation amount to be paid to the resident due to an inability to appropriately enjoy the property. This is based on approximately 20% weekly rent to be paid to the resident between August 2022 and October 2022. This is because the resident identified to the Ombudsman that it had provided temporary heaters and attended to install new radiators in October 2022. This amounts to £220 and is not a rent refund or intended to be an exact calculation of rent paid for that period. A further £350 is awarded for the frustration, inconvenience, and distress caused to the resident, for the delays in filling the holes, bringing the total to £570.
  14. In summary the resident moved into the property and found that the heating facilities were inadequate. She had to chase the landlord for a resolution, and it also delayed in providing a temporary solution to her heating concerns. It failed to reconsider its position on whether it was safe for the family to remain in the property. This is especially important as the lack of appropriate heating may have contributed to the damp and mould concerns. It failed to reassure both itself and the resident that the temperature was adequate. She moved out of the property temporarily due to the cold. After removing the old, condemned radiators, it left the property with holes in the walls, which made it difficult for her to heat the property. The resident was told to fill the holes with newspapers and cardboard. It left her exposed to a potential category 1 hazard under the HHSRS until it attended to fix the holes in December 2023. However, 1 of the holes had only been filled from the outside and the remaining works to completely fill it remained outstanding in June 2024. It also left the property with loose and unboxed piping which led to a risk of burns to the young children in the property. Its contractor told her to get her husband to remove the gas fireplace and works to do so did not begin until March 2023. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Pest control.

  1. The landlord’s pest control procedure states that residents should be reminded that treatment works, or repairs carried out in an occupied property or individual garden may be rechargeable, if the infestation is because of their actions/behaviour. The decision can be made after visiting the property, where the infestation has been reported. The resident reported that she noticed 2 mice in the property on 4 November 2022. She reported it the following day and was informed by the landlord it would not be acting and it was her responsibility to rectify. This was an unreasonable approach for the landlord to have taken. In the first instance, it should have explained that it did not believe it was responsible for the issue and why. The landlord could then have advised that if it agreed to take on the works, and if it was deemed that the matter was not because of its actions/inactions, it may charge her for the works, in line with its procedure.
  2. The resident states the landlord did not take responsibility until she advised she believed the mice may have entered her property through the holes left following the heating works. This would have been reasonable, as it took responsibility for its actions. However, its position was inappropriate and shows that it did not take a customer focused approach, in dealing with the concerns. It failed to demonstrate that it applied its discretion in line with its procedure until advised it may be responsible. This may have contributed to the resident’s frustration with the landlord. She also stated that it did not take responsibility until she involved the environmental health team from the local authority. The Ombudsman has however not been provided with any evidence of this as such cannot conclude that this was a contributing reason to its actions.
  3. The resident said that the landlord’s contractor informed her that there was evidence of a mice infestation in the property prior to her occupying it. There was reportedly evidence of old traps and bait within the property. Whilst the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident, from the evidence it is unclear whether these items were laid down by the previous resident, or the landlord’s contractor prior to the resident’s occupation. Further, although an inspection of the property was completed by the landlord prior to the exchange, it may have been difficult for it to identify such an issue. This is because often during mutual exchange inspections, properties contain the belongings of exchanging residents. This can make it difficult for the landlord to identify all outstanding concerns, as some issues may be covered and not visible. In most cases, such inspections are visual inspections and not technical, in-depth inspections, which would mean issues such as pests can remain unnoticed until a resident begins to live in the property.
  4. The landlord’s pest control procedure states that its pest contractor will attend within 5 working days (24 hours if it is an emergency) of receiving the work order. It would complete an investigation survey and submit a report with recommendations and costs, within 2 working days (4 hours in an emergency) of attending the site. The landlord’s logs were confusing as they show that on 7 November 2022, it raised works with its contractors to attend and inspect the property. It has provided no information on when these works were completed, but says they were reissued on 23 December 2022. The logs then show that the works around the inspection were completed on 16 January 2023.
  5. Between these time, on 16 November 2022, however the logs show that the landlord approved works to seal off gaps and holes around the property to prevent rodent access points. These were reissued on 30 January 2023, but have no completion date. As such it is unclear what works the landlord completed, and when, around stopping the infestation issue by sealing entry points, raising further concerns with its record keeping. By not having clear records, it also makes it difficult for the landlord to have oversight of the issue and satisfy itself that it was doing everything it needed to, to address the matter.
  6. Despite this however, the Ombudsman understands that pest control issues can often be difficult to rectify promptly and repeat visits may be required to identify the issue and ensure it is resolved. The evidence shows that the landlord did take necessary steps to try to address the concerns through the repeated visits of its contractor to complete works and this was appropriate.
  7. From the evidence however, there was an 8 to 42 working day delay in the landlord completing the inspection of the property. This was inappropriate and not in keeping with its policy. This caused the resident frustration and distress.
  8. Following the reissuing of the works on 30 January 2023, the evidence suggests the resident did not raise any further concerns around pests until October 2023. As such, the Ombudsman believes it reasonable to find that the landlord’s actions around the sealing works, appropriately remedied the concerns, but it is unclear when this was.
  9. The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 December 2022 advising that the issue was affecting her family. She said they had caught 2 mice in 30 minutes, and the mice all appeared to be in the kitchen. She raised concerns about hygiene and said she could not keep her newborn’s items sterile due to not knowing if the mice had been crawling on them. She also advised there were mice dropping around the entire house, and her 1 year old child was crawling around on the floor. The landlord had been aware of the issue for almost a month and did not demonstrate that it had considered any temporary solution to assist the resident. This could have been a temporary move whilst it gained an appropriate handle of the situation and the rest of the issues with the property. This is especially prudent given the fact there were young children in the property and due to the hygiene concerns. This was unreasonable and caused the resident frustration and distress.
  10. She explained that she was going to her parent’s home during the day to stay there and eat dinner. She advised the situation with both the damp and the infestation was affecting her children’s sleep and education. This was unacceptable, and the landlord should have taken robust action much sooner to rectify the situation. The failure to do so caused the resident distress with living in the property.
  11. The resident also reported concerns about the effects of the situation on her own mental health. The landlord did not demonstrate that it provided her with any assistance or considered the impact of the situation on her. It has not shown that it provided her with any signposting around this, or that it enquired if she required any assistance, and this was unreasonable. It has not demonstrated that it took a sympathetic or empathetic approach towards the resident or her concerns. This may have contributed to the resident’s lack of confidence in the landlord.
  12. Although the landlord offered compensation to the resident in its stage 2 response, there was no specific mention of the pest control issue. As at its stage 1 response, it had identified that it would not be taking responsibility for the issue. As such it is unclear why the landlord changed its position. Due to the failings identified, and the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, an order has been made for additional compensation to be paid to the resident.
  13. In summary, following the resident’s reports around the pest infestation, the landlord raised the necessary works, and its contractor attended multiple times around the issue. Although the resident believed that the infestation was in the property prior to her occupation, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord was aware of this. It would also have been difficult for it to identify such an issue during its inspection. It is unclear when it completed the works to address the issue due to its record keeping, and there were delays in it completing the inspection. It failed to take a customer focused approach as it could have taken responsibility at an earlier point and recharged the resident if it identified the concerns were not its fault. It also failed to take considerations around the hygiene issues and whether it needed to employ temporary measures. This led to the resident making lifestyle changes such as spending the day at her parents’ home and eating there. Following the works in January 2023, there appeared to be no other concerns until October 2023. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Common theme

  1. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) implies a statutory obligation on the landlord to ensure that the resident’s property is fit for human habitation at the start of the tenancy and throughout the term. Fitness for human habitation is measured by reference to the matters specified in Section 10 of the LTA 1985. Freedom from damp, is specifically mentioned under this provision, and also covers any of the 29 hazards identified under the HHSRS.
  2. The landlord must ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 says the landlord must ensure that its properties are free of category one hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action. Damp and mould, and excess cold are listed as a potential hazard. The landlord has not demonstrated that it met either of these two standards and this is unacceptable.
  3. Within each section of this report in relation to the substantive issue, the Ombudsman has observed that the landlord failed to consider the effects of the situation on the family. It failed to take consideration of whether there were any vulnerable individuals within the family who may be adversely affected by the issues in a timely manner. This is especially important in this case due to the multitude of issues with the property, and the potential effect they could have, especially on the younger members of the household. It failed to demonstrate that it had due regard for the impact of the situation on the resident’s family life and her ability to enjoy the property peacefully and appropriately. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation for this failing.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it operates a 2 stage complaints process. It states at stage 1 it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days of acknowledgement. If it is unable to do so it may extend the timescales by a further 10 working days. If more time was required beyond this, it would contact the resident to discuss this and explain the reason why. If it would take longer than 20 working days, it would explain why, and when it expected to be able to provide a response.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 7 October 2022 and the landlord acknowledged it on 14 October 2022. A complaint response was then due to be provided by 28 October 2022. The landlord was aware it required more information around the outstanding issues with the property. It informed the resident of the delay on 25 October 2022, and provided her with a new date it expected to be able to respond. This was an appropriate action to take and in keeping with its policy.
  3. As the landlord had not received the necessary information, it provided the resident with 2 more updates detailing when it expected to receive the information. Whilst appropriate that it updated her, the landlord could have done more to obtain a response from its contractor in a timely manner. It is acknowledged that it did seek updates from the contractor, however, it could have escalated the matter to the relevant service managers within both its organisation and the contractors. It should have then explained that the delays in their response was delaying its complaint handling. The failure to do so was unreasonable and contributed to the delays in its complaint handling and led to the resident’s escalation of her complaint before its response. The landlord then did not provide its complaints response until 5 December 2022. This represents a delay of 26 working days.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a stage 2 escalation within 5 working days and provide a response within 20 working days. If it is unable to do so, it will contact the resident and advise when it expected to be able to respond. Following the resident’s escalation, a response should have been provided by 10 January 2023. The landlord did not provide its response until 3 February 2023, and this represents a delay of 18 working days. The landlord has also not demonstrated that it kept the resident informed around the delays or that it requested an extension. Its actions around the stage 2 response were not in keeping with its policy and were inappropriate.
  5. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £50 in acknowledgement of its poor complaint handling. Whilst this was an appropriate action to take, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this did not go far enough in recognising the level of delays faced by the resident due to the landlord’s inaction. An order has been made for additional compensation to be paid to the resident.
  6. In summary, the landlord delayed in its provision of its stage 1 response, however, it appropriately updated the resident on each occasion. Despite this however, it failed to take appropriate action to remedy the situation at a quicker pace. It then delayed in the provision of its stage 2 response and has not demonstrated that it kept the resident informed in this instance. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme there was:
    1. Severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
    2. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of heating and repairs to the resident’s property.
    3. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of pests in the resident’s property.
    4. Service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology from its Chief Executive Officer around the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £3111.50 broken down as:
      1. £445.50 previously offered to the resident in its stage 2 response if it has not already been paid to her.
      2. £1198 for loss of enjoyment of the property due to the damp and mould issues.
      3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience due to the damp and mould issues.
      4. £218 for its handling of the heating issues between August and October 2022.
      5. £350 for the inconvenience caused by the delays in repairs to the hole in the wall for a substantial amount of time, and removal of the gas fireplace.
      6. £300 for the distress and inconvenience around its handling of the pest infestation.
      7. £100 for its complaint handling failings.
      8. £300 for its failure to appropriately consider the impact of the situation on the vulnerabilities within the family.
    3. Complete an independent survey of the resident’s property, which is to include damp meter readings. This must be completed by a suitably qualified person such as a surveyor. It must also complete a risk assessment on the impact of the works on the family and if it is reasonable for them to remain in the property whilst the works are completed. The landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of the survey and risk assessment. The landlord must also provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a schedule of works, and timescales for completion of any works identified. This is especially in relation to the bathroom which must be treated as a priority. Any works identified must begin within 28 days of this report.
    4. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.