Orbit Group Limited (202320553)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320553

Orbit Group Limited

27 August 2025

Updated following review on 2 February 2026

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the condition of the property when moving in.
2. Reports of leaks, damp, and associated repairs within the property.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a house. The resident has 2 children.
In April 2022 the resident applied for a mutual exchange to her current property. On 5 April 2022 the landlord completed a mutual exchange inspection report. This inspection did not raise any concerns about the condition of the property.
In June 2022, the resident moved into the property and reported a leak in the bathroom. The resident also said there were electrical wires exposed in one of the bedrooms and in the garden.
The landlord arranged for a decant (temporary move) for the resident because of the damage caused by the leak. The resident and her family returned to the property in the middle of July 2022.
Between July 2022 and December 2022, the resident raised a number of repairs in the bathroom, to the loft hatch, and to the skirting boards throughout the property. During this time the landlord repaired the loft hatch. The landlord also raised a further job to carry out repairs to the roof and to complete the repointing of the damaged brickwork.
On 23 January 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the leaks, damp, and outstanding repairs since she moved into the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 June 2023. The landlord said its surveyor had visited the property on 9 February 2023. The surveyor said the damp in the property had been caused by missing roof tiles and a leaking radiator. The landlord said it had raised a job for these repairs to be completed.
On 29 June 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaints. The resident said she had been reporting the issues to her property for over a year, and the works remained outstanding.
On 24 August 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints. The landlord said it had raised works to carry out the repointing to the property and awarded the resident £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaints. She brought her complaints to the Ombudsman stating the previous resident had left their personal belongings in the property. The resident said they had left a significant amount of damage, as well as a leak in the bathroom which had saturated the floorboards and joists in the property.

Between February 2024 and March 2024, the resident said she had water coming through the bathroom light. The resident also said she still had issues with damp in one of the bedrooms. During this time, the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection at the property. The landlord said it accepted the staining on the bedroom wall looked like water ingress, but the damp readings of the walls were within an acceptable level.
On 1 May 2024 the landlord provided a further response to the resident’s complaints. The landlord increased its award of compensation to £1,120 and apologised for its previous handling of her complaints. The landlord said it was not liable for the personal belongings left behind by the previous resident. The landlord said it would repair any damage for which it was liable and accepted some of the works remained outstanding.
In July 2025 the resident told us she no longer has issues with leaks at the property. The resident said there is still a temporary repair in place to the guttering. The resident is seeking for the landlord to ensure all works it is responsible for have been completed. She would also like the landlord to be accountable and learn from its errors, so it improves its service for all residents.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies our Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states the landlord should carry out a property inspection with the outgoing resident. This is to allow the landlord to identify any repairs including those for which it is liable before it authorises any exchange. Where possible this inspection report should be signed by the incoming resident. If the incoming resident moves into the property 56 days after its original electrical test and inspection, then the landlord is required to carry out a new inspection.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for repairing and maintaining its buildings, and any fixtures and fittings it has provided. The landlord sets out a number of categories as to how it will respond to repairs. This includes:
1. Emergency – This is where there is an immediate risk of health and safety or security to the property. Its contractor will respond within 4 or 24 hours depending on the repair and will make the repair safe.
2. Routine – This is a non-emergency repair which the landlord will respond to within 28 calendar days.
3. Major – These are complex repairs which the landlord will finish within 90 calendar days.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s complaint within 3 working days at each stage. The landlord will provide its stage 1 written complaint response within 10 working days. It will then provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord will provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond.

The resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when moving in.

The resident moved into the property on 6 June 2022. This was 62 days after the landlord carried out its mutual exchange inspection at the property. The landlord should have carried out a further inspection of the electrics in the property before the resident moved in, in line with its mutual exchange policy.
On 8 June 2022 the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the property was appropriate. This was because its operative attended the same day and turned the radiator valve off which stopped the leak. The landlord then put the resident and her family into temporary accommodation for 5 weeks to allow the damp caused by the leak to dry out.
Between June 2022 and July 2022, the resident told the landlord there were holes in the bathroom flooring and around the ceiling light. She said the bathroom tiles had fallen off the wall. The resident also said a window had been screwed shut from the outside and another window was missing a handle.
The information provided by the landlord has lacked sufficient detail for us to be able to determine the dates it responded to these repairs. We would expect the landlord to be able to provide sufficient information about the repairs it completes. This is evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord.
We understand some of the concerns raised by the resident about the condition of the property included that the previous resident had left rubbish and personal belongings in the property. The resident also said there was damage caused to the doors of a built-in wardrobe. Whilst the landlord was not responsible for these issues, we have seen no evidence the landlord communicated this to the resident at the time. This is evidence of poor communication as we would expect landlords to respond to residents’ queries within 10 working days.

Where the resident had raised multiple concerns about repairs, the landlord should have carried out an inspection of the property. It should have then communicated to the resident which repairs it was responsible for. The landlord should have then completed these repairs in line with the timescales published in its repairs policy. This would have also allowed the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations for works it was not responsible for. The landlord’s failure to do this led to confusion, delays, and poor communication which ultimately caused inconvenience to the resident, who was trying to resolve the repairs.
The resident told us the damaged window was replaced by 30 September 2022. This was carried out within a reasonable timescale because it is accepted that if external windows need to be replaced, this can take longer than 28 days, which is the industry best practice for a routine repair to be completed. This is because windows need to be measured, manufactured, and fitted.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports about the holes in the bathroom floorboards. We understand the resident then paid a carpet fitter to carry out these works so she could lay down flooring in the bathroom. The landlord should have fixed the holes in the flooring as a routine repair, within 28 days in line with its repairs policy. We will order the landlord to compensate the resident for the cost of these works, subject to the resident providing a receipt.
On 15 September 2022 the landlord approved the installation of a new bathroom, as well as carrying out an upgrade of the insulation at the property. It said these works would be completed in the financial year of 2023 to 2024. We understand these works have not been completed. The landlord should have installed the new bathroom within its agreed timescale. The landlord should have also updated the resident if it needed longer to complete these works. This is evidence of the landlord’s poor handling of its repairs. We will make an order for the landlord to carry out these approved works within 12 weeks, which is an appropriate timescale for a bathroom refit.
On 3 November 2022 the landlord agreed to repair the loft hatch which the previous resident had made smaller. The landlord completed this work by 29 November 2022. This was reasonable because this would have been considered a routine repair, which should be completed within 28 days.
On 3 November the landlord also raised a job to replace the skirting boards throughout the property. The landlord then failed to carry out these works and the resident paid a private contractor to complete them. The landlord would not have been responsible for this type of repair. This is because the skirting would been considered decorative rather than part of the structure of the building. However, where it agreed with the resident to replace the skirting boards it should have done so as a routine repair, in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s complaints about these repairs within its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. We understand the landlord’s poor communication had caused a significant adverse effect on the resident, who was trying to use the landlord’s complaints process to get the landlord to resolve the repairs for which it was responsible.
On 1 May 2024 the landlord carried out a further review of the resident’s complaint. It was right the landlord apologised for its failing to replace the skirting boards as it had agreed. It also compensated the resident £50 for having to pay for the works to be completed. The landlord also awarded the resident an additional £570 which we understand to be for its delays, service failures, and inconvenience caused in respect of its handling of this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
Whilst the landlord’s response was positive, any offers made after the end of the complaint procedure will not influence our overall findings, although we will consider any offers of compensation when assessing how much compensation to award. This is because it is our role to assess the landlord’s handling of the complaint through its formal complaints process and whether it made a reasonable offer as part of this process.

This further award of compensation is in line with our remedies guidance, which sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there have been failings by the landlord which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, but there may be no permanent impact from the failings. In this case, there were significant delays in completing repairs, but the repairs were ultimately completed so there was no permanent impact.
Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a maladministration for the landlord’s errors in its handling of resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when moving in. This is because, although it made a reasonable offer of compensation, it only did so after the end of its complaints process.

The resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.

On 7 December 2022 the resident reported the radiator in the bathroom was leaking. The landlord’s operative failed to attend the appointment because they had been sent to an emergency. We understand landlords may sometimes need to cancel its appointments. However, the landlord failed to inform the resident of this, which would have caused her inconvenience. The landlord should have contacted the resident, and it should have explained when it would be able to respond to the repair. This is evidence of poor communication.
We have not been provided with evidence of the date this leak was fixed. The resident has told us this repair was completed before her first winter in the property. Therefore, based on this information from the resident we can state the repair was carried out within a reasonable timescale.
On 24 October 2022 the resident reported a tile had fallen from the roof of the property. The landlord’s operative visited the property 36 days later, on 29 November 2022, to carry out an inspection. The landlord should have completed this within 28 days. However, we accept this was not a significant delay.

During the landlord’s inspection of the property, the landlord:
1. Identified it needed to erect scaffolding to carry out the repair to the roof.
2. Recommended removing the ivy which had spread up the property.
3. Confirmed it needed to carry out repointing of the brickwork which had been damaged.
The repointing of the brickwork was completed 1 year later on 16 November 2023. The resident has told us the roof tiles were replaced after May 2024. This was over 18 months later. These are significant delays, which we understand will have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Throughout that period the resident had reported damp within the bedrooms of the property which was thought to be linked to the pointing and roof tile issues. She also said she had rainwater leaking through the bathroom ceiling.
We understand the landlord needed to locate and then erect scaffolding to carry out these works. Therefore, this would be considered a major repair within the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord states it will complete these types of repairs within 90 calendar days. These significant delays are evidence of the landlord’s poor handling of its repairs, and the landlord has not explained why this work was not done sooner.
The resident reported damp in the bedrooms of her property from December 2022. The landlord acted reasonably by carrying out a number of damp and mould inspections between December 2022 and October 2023. These inspections identified there was no mould and the damp readings on the bedroom walls were within acceptable levels.
The landlord offered to apply a stain block to the damp wall in the bedroom which the resident refused. We are not commenting on the resident’s reason for refusing this work, as she was entitled to. However, it was reasonable the landlord offered to complete this work as it can be helpful in preventing damp and mould stains from being visible in some cases.
The resident has told us the landlord has missed a number of appointments raised in respect of these repairs. We acknowledge what the resident has said. However, we have not been provided with any information about these missed appointments other than the one we have referred to on 7 December 2022. Therefore, we have only been able to assess the missed appointment for which we have evidence.
The resident has said the landlord has carried out a temporary repair to the roof felt which related to the leaks and the damp issues in the main bedroom of the property. The resident said the landlord had covered the damaged area next to the guttering in a blue polythene sheet and it has been like this for over a year. This is a significant time for the landlord to have left a temporary repair. However, the landlord has confirmed this was a permanent repair. Evidence provided shows it is acceptable as a long term solution.
For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and associated repairs within the property.
The landlord is to pay £400 for the distress and inconvenience these delays caused the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above.

The resident’s associated complaint.

On 23 January 2023 the resident raised the above complaints to the landlord. The landlord provided its stage 1 written complaint response to the resident’s complaints on 28 June 2023. This was 108 working days later which was a significant delay. The landlord should have provided its stage 1 written complaint response within 10 working days, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (which sets out our service’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling).
The landlord provided its stage 2 written complaint response on 24 August 2023. This was 40 working days after the resident requested to escalate her complaints. This was reasonable because the landlord had communicated to the resident that it needed extra time before it could provide its stage 2 written complaint response. This was in line with the Code which states that we expect landlords to provide it stage 2 written response within 20 working days. However, where the landlord may need further time to respond to a resident’s complaint at stage 2, this should not exceed a further 20 working days.
The landlord apologised for the delays and awarded the resident £100 compensation within its stage 2 complaint response for this aspect of the resident’s complaint. This amount awarded by the landlord is within the range of compensation the Ombudsman would issue if the landlord had not made this offer.
The landlord then increased its offer of compensation for its handling of the resident’s complaint to £400. This was after it carried out a further review of its handling of the resident’s complaint on 1 May 2024. We understand the landlord has already paid this to the resident. Although the landlord decided to increase its compensation offer, this does not mean its original offer was unreasonable. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s errors in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. concerns about the condition of the property when moving in.
2. reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves concerns about its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology is to be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration for which it expresses a sincere regret for its handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the condition of the property when moving in.
2. Reports of leaks, damp, and associated repairs within the property.
The landlord is to pay the resident £400 compensation for its errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and associated repairs within the property.
The landlord is to pay the resident the £1,120 it awarded the resident in its complaint responses within 28 days of this report, unless this has already been paid.
The landlord is to compensate the resident for the full cost of the repair of the bathroom floorboards. This is subject to the resident providing a receipt for the works completed.

Recommendation

It is recommended the landlord review the black spots in the bathroom. The landlord should consider if this is linked to the membrane and provide a solution.