Orbit Group Limited (202411340)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411340

Orbit Group Limited

30 April 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports about repairs needed to her home.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a sole assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, a housing association.
The resident reported issues affecting the condition of her home to the landlord in 2023 and early 2024. These included water ingress, leaking pipes and installations, and damp and mould. The landlord attended the property on multiple occasions. It completed some repairs and noted the need for technical investigation and works to resolve the cause or causes of ongoing issues.
On 30 May 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She provided a detailed list of problems that she continued to experience, including damp and mould, rodents and broken external doors. She supplied photographs of her living conditions, for example pictures of fungal spores, mould and damp patches, large internal cracks, and mould on her furniture. She raised concern that the landlord had not resolved the issues in her home for a lengthy period. She described risks to her family’s health, wellbeing, and security.
On 5 July 2024 the landlord issued to the resident its first stage complaint response. It said that:
1. It was responsible for service failings and upheld her complaint. It apologised for her experience and its impact.
2. It acknowledged repairs identified in 2023 as ‘ongoing’. It described taking steps since her complaint to progress works and gave guideline timescales for resolution of outstanding issues in July and August.
3. Its complaint response was delayed due to administrative error.
4. It offered her £400 compensation, of which £300 was to recognise delayed repairs and the associated upset, trouble, and inconvenience caused and £100 for its accepted complaint handling failings.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 9 July 2024. She disputed the landlord’s background summary, including its suggestion of occasions when she had failed to allow access. She raised concern about the outstanding repairs and its communication about works. She explained that the compensation offered did not reflect the impact of its failings and expressed concerns about ongoing risks at her home.
On 19 September 2024 the landlord sent its final response to the resident. It:
1. Acknowledged and apologised for failings in its handling of repairs including delay. It accepted failings in its investigations.
2. Detailed when it would resolve the issues with the property condition. It said that its aftercare team would be in touch and ensure that works were carried out as planned and ‘seen through to completion’.
3. Apologised for its failings and their impacts and offered her additional compensation of £2,310.
The resident referred her complaint for investigation by this Service. The landlord completed further works at the property in early 2025. When liaising with us in February 2025, it acknowledged that multiple issues were outstanding. It said it would give an update of their completion in due course. No further update was supplied. The resident described to us ongoing poor living conditions. She would like the landlord to repair her home and provide clear communications on how and when it will do outstanding works. She expressed a desire for it to take responsibility and pay additional compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said this situation had a negative effect on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
The resident raised dissatisfaction to this Service about enforcement warnings issued by the landlord regarding her payment of rent. This matter did not form part of the complaint considered by the landlord’s final response in September 2024. This issue was therefore outside of the scope of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs needed to her home

The landlord’s was required by the tenancy agreement to keep the structure and exterior of the property and the installations for the supply of electricity, water and sanitation in ‘good repair’. It was also responsible by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 for making sure the property was fit for human habitation. The existence of any hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System was a relevant factor to assessing fitness. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause harm to occupants and include damp and mould growth, excess cold, access for pests and risk of entry to intruders. Related repair or other remedial action was required within a reasonable period.
At the point of the landlord’s final response in September 2024:
1. It had been aware of damp and mould in the resident’s bedroom since mid-2023 but failed to take effective steps to resolve it. The resident continued to live with water leaking into her room.
2. The resident made frequent reports of water leaking at low level in the kitchen from April 2023. While it attempted some repairs, these did not stop leaking and damage to affected areas.
3. It had received repeat reports of damp and leaking installations in the bathroom and water ingress into the kitchen walls and ceiling since at least March 2024. The resident experienced pooling and leaking water, extensive damp patches, and mould development including fungal growth.
4. Its own staff reported on visits in 2023 and 2024 cracks to walls and obvious defects to the external structure of the property, for example damp patches. These issues were outstanding.
5. The landlord’s contractor had confirmed evidence of rodents and slugs at the property since her complaint, however the pest proofing works recommended were outstanding, for example holes to the structure and drainage defects.
6. The rear external door raised in her complaint 4 months earlier remained broken and insecure. The resident was still unable to lock her door.
The landlord failed to ensure that the property was kept in ‘good repair’ or respond in a reasonable time to resolve concerns of potentially serious health or safety hazards. Unreasonable and severe delay was repeated across multiple items of concern. The landlord failed to meet its own contractual or statutory obligations to the resident.
The records considered by this Service and the landlord’s stage 1 response made reference to some issues accessing the property to investigate or do works. While we noted multiple occasions on which the landlord was unable to enter, there was no evidence that it gave the resident any corresponding advance notice. For example, it sent no notice to her of its intention to visit her home on 14 November 2023 to check her windows, on 17 July 2023 to do electrical works or on 4 September 2024 to investigate pipework and guttering. On visits arranged in advance with the resident, she made access arrangements as quickly as possible. The resident could not reasonably be expected by the landlord to enable access for visits that it made without reasonable or any notice. It was unreasonable that it made any reference to or suggestion about these visits contributing to its delay. The delay was the landlord’s alone.
Certain failings were repeated by the landlord that contributed to its overall delays:
1. It logged repair investigations or works as ‘completed’ after 1 failed access attempt. This occurred despite its lack of advance notice.
2. It deleted repair investigations or works ordered on its system before the steps required were completed.
3. The landlord inspected the property on a significant number of occasions in 2023 and 2024 but failed to diagnose the defects causing water ingress.
4. It attended the property unprepared for its task or out of appropriate sequence, meaning visits had to be rescheduled. For example, on 30 November 2023 it did not attend with the type of ladders needed and on 19 July 2024 it attended to do works that required an outstanding dye test.
5. There was internal confusion about the status of works, cause of damp and mould, and the interrelation between different outstanding jobs. This lead to jobs orders being closed in error, for example works to the gutter and pipe work in July 2024.
6. There was no after-care or post-monitoring of any attempted repairs.
The landlord’s repetition of these failings increased the delay experienced by the resident. It also placed unfair burden on her to re-request repairs, remind it of the works outstanding, and enable its access to re-check jobs that it had prematurely closed down. This caused her significant time, trouble and inconvenience that could reasonably have been avoided by co-ordination of attendance arrangements and the effective oversight and proactive monitoring of her case.
This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould highlighted the need for particular care by landlords when handling complex cases. We recommended appropriate strategies for internal liaison, co-ordination of works, monitoring and after-care. There was no evidence of effective processes supporting the landlord to tackle the serious damp and mould issues at the resident’s home. The landlord was made subject to a wider order by this Service in October 2023 after we found it responsible for maladministration in multiple cases that considered how it handled damp and mould and repairs. Its responsive independent review in April 2024 outlined numerous initiatives that it planned to improve its approach. The issues noted in this case raise concern as to the landlord’s implementation of the learning it identified by this review.
The resident’s reports and her complaint to the landlord detailed multiple issues that carried potential risks to her health, wellbeing and safety and that of her household. The broken external door had associated serious risks to her security. The resident made the landlord aware that this was causing her anxiety and lack of sleep. She had reported extensive mould growth and damp that it had noted on its visits. Contemporaneous photographs show that the internal growth of mould and fungi was severe. As documented within our spotlight report, damp and mould causes health risks. The resident herself raised to the landlord vulnerability from an existing respiratory condition and negative impact on her mental health. The landlord also confirmed the presence of rats and other pests at the property and their potential entry points. The landlord would reasonably be aware of health risks linked to rodents and displayed this awareness when it advised her to avoid the garden.
Although the landlord was aware of health related and safety risks, there is no evidence that it had appropriate regard to these or adopted a suitable risk-based approach. The external door repair was held up for months in its internal approvals and administrative process. There is no evidenced consideration of the interim risks to the resident or her belongings from unauthorised entry, or whether it could complete an interim make safe, or enable a fast-track repair. There is no evidence that it considered the risks from damp living conditions or rats. The combined risks at the property were potentially serious but it completed no assessment of whether the property remained habitable or if the conditions could negatively affect the health of the resident’s family. It was a serious oversight by the landlord over a lengthy period to fail to appropriately assess the risks and consider any mitigation measures. It showed a disregard for the impact on the resident and her family.
The landlord’s lack of regard to the resident’s experience was also evident in the arrangements it made to attend her home. As noted above, it attended without advance notice to her. When it raised multiple jobs at once requiring different trades, it made no effort to try to schedule attendances together to minimise the number of visits to the property. Instead, it attended 1 by 1, sometimes repeating visits and checks due to the errors noted above. This increased the amount of time that the resident booked off work to enable its access. The landlord showed no consideration of the disruption and inconvenience it caused the resident and no effort to adapt its processes in a way to minimise the impact on her.
The landlord also failed to communicate appropriately with the resident. It failed to contact her about attendances in accordance with its repairs policy. Its policy said that it would ensure that she was informed about how its repairs were going. However, prior to her complaint, there was very little evidence of any proactive contact by the landlord to inform her of any plan it had to complete works. While it carried out multiple inspections, it did not update the resident of its findings or how it would respond next. This put further burden on the resident to chase it for an understanding of its position. This occurred even after the landlord promised in its stage 1 response to keep her updated, for example on 6 and 22 August 2024.
The landlord’s failures were in totality significant. Its delay completing repairs and lack of regard to health and safety risks were particularly serious failings. Its complaint response showed some acceptance of its failings. However, while it acknowledged overall delay and failures of investigation, it did not complete a sufficient reflection exercise to identify the wider extent of its failings, for example whether it considered the interim risks to the family. It did not appropriately reflect upon how and why it had failed to complete repairs for such a lengthy period of time. This was important learning to support the landlord to avoid the same situation recurring and ensuring that it completed the steps it promised to put matters right.
The landlord’s complaint response promised to take steps to resolve multiple condition issues at the property within specific timescales. It assured the resident it would implement aftercare monitoring and liaise with her. It failed to meet these promises; it did not do the works or stay in touch. This resident had to re-report and chase its progress again. This led to the landlord acknowledging internally in December 2024 that the case was ‘in a bit of a mess and has no aftercare’. The landlord completed works in early 2025, including to the roof and the rear door. However, its most recent contact to this Service acknowledged that major works linked to damp were outstanding and investigations into pest activity still awaited. The kitchen ceiling at the property collapsed in February 2025, caused by water saturation from defects left unresolved for almost 2 years after the resident’s repair reports.
The landlord’s failure to do what it promised to the resident and put right serious issues in her home exacerbated the detriment caused to her by its failings. She experienced serious repair issues for lengthy periods. The resident lives with mental health vulnerabilities linked to her experience as a survivor of domestic abuse. She described significant distress living with concerns for her health and feeling ‘constantly scared’ within her home. She also recounted distress that the landlord’s lack of contact lead to her feeling ‘ignored’ and as though she was ‘a nothing to them, just a number’. She used up her annual leave to enable the landlord’s visits to her home and significant time chasing its contact. The level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings was very serious. The landlord’s offer to the resident of £2,310 did not reflect the significance of its failings, the impact to her, or the continued detriment caused by its failure to put matters right into 2025.
Due to the serious level of its failings and detriment to the resident, this Service finds that the landlord was responsible for severe maladministration in its handling of her reports about repairs needed to her home.
The landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay additional compensation to the resident of £3,000 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble that she likely experienced. This is within the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the circumstances for severe maladministration apply, and the redress needed to put matters right is substantial.
The landlord’s most recent update to this Service acknowledged that multiple investigation and works are outstanding. The landlord has accepted that its prior diagnosis of the extensive damp issues at the property was incorrect. How it handled the resident’s reports of repairs has seriously impacted her trust and assurance in its ability to ensure that her home is safe. It has accepted repeatedly failing to diagnose the cause of issues at her home. We consider it reasonable in these circumstances to order it to instruct an independent expert inspection/s of the property and carry out any identified works to resolve any confirmed issue/s.
In view of the repeat issues identified in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and the time passed since its April 2024 ‘Driving Improvement’ review report to this Service, the landlord is required to assess the failings identified in this case against the improvement actions detailed within its review to consider any further learning it may implement.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident raised her complaint to the landlord on 30 May 2024. The landlord’s complaints and customer care policy required it to provide its first stage reply within 10 working days, in line with the response timescales set out in our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). The landlord gave its stage 1 response to the resident on 5 July 2024, 15 working days later than the required timeframe. This was delay outside of its own policy and Code requirements.
Both the landlord’s policy and the Code required the landlord to engage with the resident during its complaint process, acknowledge her complaint and keep her updated on its progress including any delay. The landlord failed to engage at all with the resident during stage 1 of its complaint process. Even after the resident chased it on 6 June 2024 and 19 June 2024, the landlord failed to contact her to provide information about the status of her complaint. This was a further failure to comply with its policy and the Code and caused her delay, time and trouble.
The resident raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response by her email of 9 July 2024. In line with its policy and the Code, the landlord was to progress her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process. It failed to escalate her complaint until after this Service intervened in August 2024 and the Code timeframe had passed for it to supply its stage 2 response within 20 working days. It provided its stage 2, final response to her on 19 September 2024, 52 working days after her escalation email. This represented further delay and distress experienced by the resident waiting for answers to her complaint.
The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged its delays at both stages of its process and poor engagement. It offered apologies to the resident and total compensation of £300 to reflect its complaint handling failings. It was appropriate that it acknowledged its failings and offered redress. It offered a proportionate level of compensation to address the impact of its failures. The amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guide for situations such as this where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but had no permanent impact.
We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports about repairs needed to her home.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Send a written apology to the resident from its chief executive for the failings identified in this report and their impact on the resident.
2. Pay the resident the compensation of £2,310 that it previously offered if this has not already been paid.
3. Pay the resident additional compensation of £3,000 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she may have incurred from its handling of the reports about repairs needed to her home. This sum is to be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any outstanding arrears.
4. Provide the resident with details in writing about how to make a claim on its insurance for damage to her belongings and decorations and costs incurred linked to damp and mouldy living conditions.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Contact the resident to arrange for an inspection of the property at a time mutually agreed to assess any ongoing damp and mould, pest entry points, and outstanding repairs that fall within the landlord’s repairing or fitness for habitation obligations. The inspection must consider what, if any, works, are available to resolve any confirmed issues. It must be completed by a qualified surveyor independent of the landlord and their findings detailed within a written inspection report.
2. The landlord is ordered to carry out the following steps within 2 weeks of the inspection report:
  1. Agree a schedule of any identified works with the resident. The landlord must consider the impact of disruption to the resident when proposing suitable arrangements, including her particular access requirements. The schedule must include arrangements for making sure the suitable cleanliness of the property at sign off, making good any damage caused to the property during works, interim risk assessments, post-inspection, and a reasonable period of post-monitoring.
  2. Provide a copy of the inspection report and agreed schedule of works to the resident and the Ombudsman.
Within 12 weeks the landlord is ordered to review the failings in this case against the improvement actions detailed within its ‘Driving Improvement’ April 2024 review and identify any further learning it may implement. The review should be conducted by a senior manager independent of the service areas responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. A copy of the above ordered review and any associated updated plans should be provided to the Ombudsman.