Orbit Group Limited (202324575)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324575

Orbit Group Limited

31 July 2025

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 response to the resident’s reports of cold and request for insulation.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in November 2015. The property is a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat that is open plan. The resident has said she has vulnerabilities that are affected by the cold.
The resident first raised concerns about the property’s temperature and insulation issues in November 2022. She said that one heater was not working, and the other heaters were not adequate for the size of the room as the property was open plan. Repairs to the heater were carried out on 3 January 2023. The resident continued to report feeling cold and felt the storage heaters were not sufficient.
In May 2023, further works were raised to supply and fit draught excluders on internal doors and new window seals, aimed at reducing heat loss. These works were recorded as complete in early May 2023, but the resident still expressed dissatisfaction with the overall warmth of the property. A survey in May 2023 recommended installing additional panel heaters in the living room and bedroom, which were subsequently supplied and fitted by August 2023. Despite these measures, the resident continued to experience discomfort, citing that the property remained too cold, impacting her health and well-being.
In August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord saying that the property was cold all year round and she believed this was due to the windows and insufficient wall insulation. She went on to say that there was nothing visibly wrong, but the cold was affecting her arthritis. Internal emails of 2 and 8 August 2023 made reference to using thermal imaging at the property and a contractor saying that they had attended the property and “couldn’t find any faults with the existing windows” and “never advised they needed replacing”. An entry in the repair log for 18 October 2023 cancelled a cavity wall insulation survey.
The resident raised a complaint on 1 December 2023, expressing frustration over the ongoing coldness and the perceived inadequacy of the insulation. She said that the property “never” reached a comfortable temperature, and the landlord was not replacing the windows as it was “cutting back”. She went on to say that she was feeling “very depressed” and the issue was affecting her health. The complaint also detailed the resident’s dissatisfaction with the response process, including delays and a lack of resolution. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 March 2024, outlining its understanding of the complaint and confirming that it would “conduct a full investigation” and keep the resident updated.
On 11 April 2024, the landlord contacted the resident again explaining that it was not yet in a position to conclude its investigation. It provided an update of its actions so far and said that it would arrange an inspection of the property. It went on to apologise for the additional delays. The landlord liaised internally and requested arrangements be made to carry out a damp and mould inspection.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 29 May 2024. It apologised for any inconvenience caused and explained that it found the resident’s concerns with heating, damp, and mould were partially upheld. It went on to say that heaters and sealing work had been performed but noted that new windows were not recommended for replacement at the time due to the age of the property. The resident was advised to complete an online form in relation to the damp and mould for an inspection to be carried out. The landlord also said that the property’s insulation was verified as adequate and it had partially upheld the complaint. In total it offered the resident £570 in compensation for service failures, poor complaint handling, and associated distress and inconvenience.
On 5 June 2024, a damp and mould inspection was carried out. The notes said that there were no damp and mould issues at the property and no works were required. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 26 June 2024. She said that she was unhappy with the advice she was given to clean the mould with surface wipes, as it was unmanageable to do using a ladder or chair, due her arthritis. Additionally, she said she was experiencing health issues, including arthritis and eye problems worsened by damp spores, and felt the living conditions had not improved. The resident requested the landlord to consider rehousing her if no further action could be taken to address these issues.
Between July and August 2024, the landlord liaised internally. It said that:
1. During an inspection, the property’s internal temperature was 19°C and warm.
2. The contractor believed their advice and inspection was accurate and complete, and no further damp and mould involvement was necessary.
3. The contractor found no faults, though noted the windows were very old and the resident wanted them replaced.
On 7 August 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said that:
1. It had contacted the window contractor who advised that the windows did not need replacing.
2. The works raised on 2 May 2023 to address the draught were not carried out due to an administration error, and a new works order had been raised.
3. It would carry out an inspection in the winter months as this would be more “beneficial” to accurately assess the situation.
4. During an inspection, its contractor confirmed the indoor temperature was recorded as 19 degrees and no mould treatment was necessary for the ceiling area. They recommended cleaning the surface with wipes and increasing heating and ventilation to help prevent mould growth.
5. It acknowledged that due to the resident’s arthritis, wiping the ceiling may have been challenging and the contractor apologised for not being aware of her difficulties during the inspection.
6. If the resident continued to have concerns about the mould, it would arrange for treatment.
7. In relation to her request for a move, which it said did not form part of the stage 1 complaint, this was not something it could review at that time.
8. The resident should contact the local authority regarding rehousing and an occupational therapist to assess any physical needs.
9. It had increased its offer of compensation to £780, made up of:
  1. £463 for the delay in completing the repair.
  2. £200 for the inconvenience and time spent.
  3. £70 for the administrative error in relation to the repair.
  4. £25 for its poor handling of the complaint and extension beyond the timeframe.
On 29 August 2024, the repairs concerning the installation of draught excluders on the internal doors were completed. The resident expressed continued dissatisfaction with the repairs and said that she did not believe they would resolve the issue of inadequate insulation in the property.
During recent communication with the resident, she said that extra heaters had been provided in the bedroom and living room; however, this did not improve the cold temperatures inside the flat. She told us she believed that the flat was insufficiently insulated.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the situation had on her health and that of her family. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.
The Ombudsman cannot determine whether or not the resident’s property requires additional or alternative insulation. Rather, the role of this Service is to consider whether the landlord has taken appropriate steps, in line with its relevant policies and procedures, to address the resident’s reports of cold temperatures within the property.

The resident’s reports of cold and request for insulation

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and ensuring the proper functioning of the property’s structure and exterior, including windows and windowsills.
According to the landlord’s repair policy, repairs are classified as either emergency or routine. Emergency repairs are to be completed within 24 hours, while routine repairs should be addressed within 28 days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy specifies that damp inspectors should contact residents to arrange an appointment for an assessment, which should occur within 20 working days (28 calendar days) of receiving a report. If the assessment determines that no repairs are necessary, the Technical Surveyor should consider installing heating and humidity sensors for a period of 2 weeks and review the sensor readings before concluding that the cause is property usage.
On 29 November 2022, the resident reported issues with the property’s storage heater. An inspection was subsequently conducted on 20 December 2022. The repair log confirmed that the repairs were completed on 3 January 2023. Although the repairs were carried out within 14 days of the inspection – an adequate timeframe – it was unreasonable for the landlord to delay scheduling the inspection until 20 December 2022, which was 21 days after the resident’s initial report. This delay was unfair to the resident, especially since she expressed feeling cold and it was during the winter months.
The repair log indicates that on 2 May 2023, a works order was raised to install draught excluders on the internal doors. According to the log, these works were completed on 5 May 2023. However, the repairs were not actually finished at that time, as later acknowledged by the landlord in its stage 2 response, which attributed the discrepancy to an administrative error. This highlights poor internal coordination and record keeping. Record keeping is a fundamental aspect of a repairs service, as it allows for the monitoring and management of outstanding repairs and ensures the landlord can provide accurate information to residents.
On 31 May 2023, a heating survey was conducted. As we have not seen the survey report, we have relied on the repair log. The notes indicate that the heating assessment recommended the installation of 2 panel heaters in the property. The repair log shows that these heaters were installed on 8 August 2023, and the resident confirmed that they were installed in the bedroom and living room. To maintain accurate records, the landlord should have included more detailed information in the log regarding the specific locations of the installed heaters.
On 25 July 2023, a survey was conducted regarding the windows. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 August 2023, reporting that the property was cold throughout the year and attributing this to the windows and poor insulation. The contractor advised the landlord that there were no faults with the existing windows and that they did not require replacement. Internally, the landlord considered using thermal imaging to assess insulation issues but noted that the effectiveness of this method would depend on weather conditions, as warmer weather could obscure the thermal imaging results. Given this, it was reasonable to delay thermal imaging until the weather was cooler to obtain accurate and reliable results.
Following further enquiries by this Service, the landlord provided a property inspection certificate dated 10 August 2023, which referred to an inspection that included the use of a thermal imaging camera. The surveyor’s notes indicated they were “satisfied that the property does not require cavity wall insulation installing.” The thermal imaging inspection helped accurately assess the property’s insulation needs, supporting informed decision-making by the landlord. However, as the inspection was apparently not conducted during the winter months as proposed, its usefulness may have been limited.
The repair log for 18 October 2023 indicates that a cavity wall insulation survey was scheduled but subsequently cancelled. However, the log provides no further information or explanation regarding the reason for the cancellation. While the landlord provided evidence of this upon further enquiries, the absence of detailed documentation or justification represents a failure in record keeping. Effective record keeping is essential for ensuring transparency, accountability, and proper management of repairs and surveys. In this case, the lack of comprehensive records hinders the ability to track the progress and decisions made regarding the cavity wall insulation, which could impact future planning, maintenance, and communication with the resident.
On 1 December 2023, the resident submitted a complaint. She stated that the property did not maintain a comfortable temperature during the winter months and that she had been informed new windows were needed. She expressed concern that the windows were not being replaced due to budget cuts or “cutting back”. Additionally, she mentioned that she had not been contacted regarding the thermal imaging assessment. The resident also highlighted her health concerns and explained that the ongoing situation has caused her to feel depressed. She requested an apology from the landlord and for it to fulfil the commitments it had previously made. The resident and landlord liaised and on 23 April 2024 the resident raised further concerns in relation to damp and mould on the ceiling and curtains.
The landlord responded at stage 1 by stating that the windows were 17 years old and would not need replacement for another 13 years. It also asked the resident to complete an online form regarding the damp and mould. It was unfair for the landlord to place the onus on the resident to fill out the damp and mould form, especially since she had reported the issue 36 days earlier. According to the landlord’s damp and mould procedure, an inspector should have arranged an inspection within 28 days of it receiving the report. However, the inspection did not take place until 5 June 2024, 43 days after the report was received. As a result, the landlord failed to adhere to its policy, which was not appropriate.
The landlord explained that the property was scheduled for cavity wall insulation in its 2023 plan. However, it was later found that insulation had already been installed when the property was built. The landlord stated that the property was constructed in 2007, categorising it as a “modern building”, and therefore did not require additional insulation. The landlord’s response was reasonable because it clarified that the property was built with cavity wall insulation already in place, meaning that the planned insulation in 2023 was unnecessary since the building was considered modern and properly insulated from the outset. Additionally, identifying the construction year (2007) supports the assertion that the property was built to modern standards, which typically include adequate insulation. This explanation provided the resident with context based on the building’s age and construction standards.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £320 for any distress and inconvenience caused. This was a positive step to put things right. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 26 June 2024, expressing her dissatisfaction with being advised to wipe the mould spores on the ceiling. She also said that the temperature in the property was between 7 and 13 degrees, and if there were no plans to improve the property she wanted to be rehoused. The landlord responded at stage 2 explaining that it had liaised with its contractors who advised that the property did not require new windows. This was evidenced by internal emails and an appropriate step in the investigation to confirm its position.
Additionally, the landlord stated that it would arrange for an inspector to visit the property to investigate the issues during the winter months, as this would be more beneficial. It was reasonable to postpone further thermal imaging until the weather was cooler to ensure the results would be accurate and reliable. However, it is unclear from the evidence if this was carried out in the winter months of 2024 into 2025.
The landlord’s response also addressed the resident’s concerns regarding damp and mould. It explained that its contractor recorded an indoor temperature of 19 degrees and determined that no mould treatment was needed at that time, with wiping the area being sufficient. They also suggested increasing the heating and ventilation. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for not recognising the challenges the resident faced in cleaning the area. Additionally, it demonstrated a solution focused approach by offering to clean the affected area.
However, according to the damp and mould procedure, if the assessment concludes that no repairs are needed, there should be a consideration of installing heating and humidity sensors for a 2-week period, reviewing the sensor readings before determining that the cause is related to property usage. Neither the repair log nor the case notes mention that this step was undertaken (or considered and precluded), which is inconsistent with the requirements outlined in the damp and mould procedure.
This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould says that failing to carry out these steps could lead to incomplete or incorrect conclusions about the source of damp or mould, potentially resulting in unresolved issues and resident dissatisfaction. It also highlights the importance of clearly recording all actions taken, including the installation and review of sensors, to demonstrate compliance with procedures and to support a fair investigation.
The landlord offered the resident an additional £733 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in carrying out the necessary repairs. This demonstrated a recognition of the substantial impact that the delays had on her.
The decision has been made to address the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the substantive complaint. This is because it offered £250 compensation for its delay at stage 1 and an additional £25 for its delay at stage 2. Its total offer of £275 is considered proportionate to put things right, and had this Service assessed complaint handling separately, we would have found reasonable redress.
In conclusion, while the landlord took some positive steps – such as offering compensation for distress and inconvenience, providing explanations about the property’s insulation, and attempting to coordinate repairs – there were other areas where its approach was inadequate or inconsistent. For example:
1. There was a delay of 21 days in scheduling the inspection for the storage heater, which was unreasonable given the winter conditions and the resident’s discomfort.
2. The damp and mould inspection, which should have been arranged within 28 days, was conducted 43 days after the report was received, exceeding the landlord’s policy timescale.
3. The repair log for installing draught excluders on 2 May 2023 showed the works were completed on 5 May 2023, but this was later acknowledged as an administrative error, highlighting internal coordination issues.
The landlord’s response was often reactive rather than proactive, and its failure to fully adhere to its own policies contributed to the resident’s dissatisfaction and distress. Nevertheless, it offered the resident a total of £1,053.While offering compensation is a positive step towards addressing a resident’s concerns, it is also important to consider whether this amount adequately reflects the extent of the inconvenience experienced and aligns with the severity of the delay. At both stages of the complaint process the landlord identified its failings and offered appropriate redress. Overall, we consider this award indicates an effort by the landlord to acknowledge and mitigate the distress and inconvenience caused. However, the resident reports that the issue with cold still remains, and the evidence indicates that the landlord has not taken all reasonable steps to investigate it. For example, it has not carried out thermal imaging in the winter months or provided thermal/humidity sensors as per its policy. This has prevented a finding of reasonable redress.
Taking the full circumstances into account, including the things the landlord did well, and the level of redress offered, we find there was service failure in its response to the resident’s reports of cold and request for insulation. The compensation offered to the resident aligns with the landlord’s compensation policy for such situations, as well as our remedies guidance, and is considered sufficient to address the failings. Therefore, no additional award of compensation will be ordered. The orders we have made are instead focused on resolving the substantive issue.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of cold and request for insulation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £1,053 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the landlord’s handling of her reports of cold and request for insulation, if it has not already done so.
3. Arrange to install heating and humidity sensors in the resident’s property for a period of at least 2 weeks. Once it has retrieved the sensors and reviewed the readings it should provide the resident with a written summary of its findings and outline any action it intends to take as a result. Any such action should be in line with the procedures and timescales outlined in its relevant policies.
4. Commit to carrying out thermal imaging of the property during the winter months of 2025/2026 and at a time agreed with the resident (if it has not previously done so). Details of the outcome to be provided to the resident. Provide written confirmation within 4 weeks that this will be carried out.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Pays the resident the £275 compensation previously offered to her at stage 1 and 2 for its complaint handling failures, if it has not done so already.
2. Familiarises itself with this Service’s spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge and information management (KIM). It should consider self-assessing against these reports, if it has not done so recently, and any training needs of its staff in these areas.
3. Contacts the resident in order to confirm the nature of her vulnerabilities. It should then update its records to reflect these and any reasonable adjustments required.
4. Explores any support, signposting, advice or resources it may be able to offer the resident to assist her in remaining comfortable while she lives in the property.