Orbit Housing Association Limited (202322306)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322306

Orbit Housing Association Limited

13 May 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. repairs to the roof and damp and mould.
2. windows and front door repairs.
3. the resident’s request for compensation for damaged items and additional costs he said he incurred.
4. the complaint.

Background

The resident has a fixed term tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house where the resident lives with his wife and 3 children. The landlord said it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, the resident said in correspondence to us and the landlord that 2 of his children are disabled.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 April 2023 to report mould issues within the property. He reported staining to the ceiling at the top of the stairs, moisture within some window units and that the front door was not well sealed.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 2 June 2023. It noted there was condensation and a roof leak. It recommended mould treatment to the bedrooms, replacement of 2 window units, loft insulation, work to check the performance of extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen and to look at potential cold bridging.
The resident complained to the landlord on 25 July 2023. He said he had not heard about the next steps following the inspection. He said some of his furniture had been damaged by mould. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 16 August 2023. It apologised for the delay in attending to inspect the resident’s report of April 2023. It said this was due to it not having sufficient resources to attend within its 28-day timeframe.
The landlord said that work identified during its inspection of June 2023 had now been raised and it would contact the resident on 8 September 2023 to check on progress. The landlord awarded the resident compensation of £450 made up of:
1. £30 for failed or missed appointments.
2. £70 for failings in its service
3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
4. £50 for poor complaint handling.
At the end of August 2023, the resident requested escalation of his complaint. He questioned what work was to be done to resolve the roof leak and issues with his front door and windows.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 27 October 2023. It said:
1. it had raised new work to address damp and mould and would be in contact with the resident to arrange this.
2. the resident’s concerns about this front door and windows had not been part of the original complaint and it would start a new complaint about this.
3. it would contact the resident to co-ordinate roof repairs.
The landlord noted the resident was still waiting for damp and mould to be resolved in his living room and for repairs to his roof. It said it had awarded further compensation of £950. This was made up of:
1. £150 for poor complaint handling.
2. £250 for distress and inconvenience.
3. £200 for delays.
4. £200 for the miscommunication around the bedroom window and front door.
5. £150 for distress and inconvenience and impact on the resident’s wife’s mental health.
The landlord completed a further inspection of the property on 3 November 2023. This found condensation and a roof leak. The resident contacted the landlord again in mid-January 2024. He said:
1. work completed by contractors was only “half done” and now needed redoing due to roof issues being unresolved.
2. he was still waiting for work to the front door to be booked.
3. he wanted the landlord to investigate cold bridging as set out in its first inspection.
4. he had wasted annual leave from work due to the landlord operatives attending repeatedly for the same work.
5. issues were affecting his family’s mental and physical health.
The landlord completed a further inspection on 26 February 2024. At the end of February 2024, it noted that roof work was complete and that it could proceed with internal repairs. However, following the resident’s report of ongoing concerns about a roof leak, further work was completed in May 2024 to install roof vents.
The landlord provided a further stage 1 complaint response on 1 July 2024. It said:
1. there was no work completed to the roof between November 2023 and February 2024.
2. a mould wash to the bedrooms, hallway and bathroom was completed in June 2024.
3. its contractor had attended to inspect the front door on 28 June 2024 and had said the front door could not be repair due to unavailability of parts.
4. it had completed work to install new window units in September 2023 and January 2024.
5. it acknowledged the resident had said he had not heard from it about outstanding repairs following his previous complaint.
The landlord offered the resident further compensation of £810, made up of:
1. £650 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
2. £100 for complaint handling.
3. £40 for unsuccessful appointments.
4. £20 for repairs outside its target timeframe.
The resident responded to the landlord in early July 2024. He said the landlord had not addressed his concern about his damaged possessions or his request for reimbursement of increased utility costs. He said he had lost earnings and holiday due to repairs and had been caused stress. He said he wanted to move to a new property.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 8 October 2024. It said:
1. further investigation should have been completed to establish the next steps after the resident’s front door issues remained unresolved in June 2024.
2. a new front door had since been installed in September 2024.
3. it had completed further a damp and mould inspection in August 2024 and a survey to install a PIV at the end of September 2024.
4. some work was still outstanding, including laying loft insulation, and sealing external bricks and its contractor would contact the resident to arrange this work.
The landlord noted the resident had provided receipts for carpets, paint and a dehumidifier amounting to £533.06. It said it had awarded him further redress of £1,203.06, made up of:
1. £533.06 costs/redress for damaged items.
2. £40 for not meeting its repairs timeframe.
3. £100 for poor complaint handling.
4. £500 for additional time, trouble and inconvenience.
5. £30 for excessive appointments that were not required.
The landlord noted its £1,400 award during its handling of the resident’s earlier complaint. It said it total compensation award was now £3,413.06.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. It says that major repairs will be grouped together to deliver value for money.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will take a proactive approach to damp and mould and will offer support to its residents to ensure issues are resolved satisfactorily. It says it will complete repairs as quickly and efficiently as possible and in line with its responsive repairs policy.
The landlord’s compensation policy and guidance says it will consider awarding compensation when a resident has experienced significant distress and inconvenience as a result of a failing. It also says:
1. it may consider compensation if there is damage to a resident’s personal belongings.
2. it will only consider payment if the damage is as a result of something it has done or failed to do, and if it receives proof of ownership and value of the item from the resident.
3. it will consider quantifiable loss as a result of an incident it is responsible for or for anything it has failed to do.
The landlord operatives a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgment. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Scope of the investigation

The resident said the landlord’s handling of repair issues had negatively impacted his family’s health. We acknowledge his comments about this. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is a matter which is more appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer. It would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how he can make such a claim should he request this.
Throughout his complaint to the landlord the resident has expressed his desire to move from the property. We acknowledge the resident has said he has made this request due to the extent and length of repairs to the property. The landlord responded to the resident’s request and said he not meet the grounds for a management transfer. We cannot decide on or direct that the landlord should offer the resident another property. This is for the landlord to decide upon with reference to its own policies and procedures and the resident’s circumstances.

Repairs to the roof and reports of damp and mould

The resident reported mould issues to the landlord in April 2023. Its attendance to inspect issues was outside its target timeframe of 28 days and appropriately acknowledged and apologised for this in its subsequent complaint response. The inspection of June 2023 identified “moderate” issues at the resident’s property and set out a number of actions it needed to take.
The landlord did not set out to the resident what action it was taking to address mould issues until 4 August 2023. That was more than 2 months after the inspection, and after the resident chased progress. He detailed in his subsequent complaint the time he spent telephoning the landlord about this. The landlord should reasonably have set out at an earlier date all actions it was taking to address issues it had identified in the inspection. Instead, the resident had to spend time and trouble chasing it for this.
There was poor communication/ co-ordination of some of the repairs by the landlord. The resident set out that the contractor had attended on 21 August 2023 to complete mould cleaning, but he had not been notified in advance of the nature of the repair appointment. He said that, as a result, work could not go ahead as furniture needed to be moved. Further, he said was only given short notice of work to airbricks on the same day.
The landlord should have provided clear information to the resident in advance of repair appointments. That we have seen no evidence it did so is a failing. It resulted in a delay to work, and the resident being caused inconvenience by having to make himself available for another appointment in September 2023.
The landlord made no mention in August 2023 of any work it had raised to address the roof leak it had identified. Despite the resident questioning what it was doing about this on 10 August 2023, it did not address this concern in its stage 1 complaint response later that month. There is no evidence any roof work was raised until early September 2023. At this time, it raised work for scaffolding, noting that the roof valley needed to be replaced. However, it is unclear from records what action was taken to progress this or other roof work.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response of October 2023 that the resident was still waiting for repairs to his roof and to address damp and mould in his living room. While it completed a further inspection in November 2023, the landlord later acknowledged that no work had been completed to address roof issues between November 2023 and February 2024. The landlord subsequently told us it had planned to complete a post stage 2 response but the colleague dealing with the case left and it was not picked up by anyone else. As the landlord had identified outstanding work during its stage 2 response in October 2023, it should have taken adequate steps to monitor this work to timely completion. That it did not do so was a failing.
Records detail that work to replace the roof valley was completed in mid-February 2024. The roof issues had been identified in June 2023 and work to erect scaffolding to replace the roof valley was raised in September 2023. Given this, it is unclear why that work was delayed until February 2024. There is no evidence the landlord was taken appropriate steps to progress it or keep the resident appropriately updated. It should reasonably have done so to make him aware of what action it was taking to address issues.
The landlord completed a further inspection of the property at the end of February 2024. It noted issues at the property were “very minor.” Later it set out that internal repairs could proceed as roof work was complete. However, the resident reported his concern that a roof leak continued, and following this the landlord appropriately raised work to investigate this.
Subsequently the landlord’s contractor recommended on 21 March 2024 installation of vented roof tiles. It noted issues were being caused by condensation rather than a leak from the roof valley. However, while the landlord raised this as an urgent 7-day repair, there is no evidence work was completed until around 23 May 2024. Evidence suggests this delay was because the work was returned by the contractor due to the landlord not provided necessary approval. This delay inevitably further prolonged repairs.
It is apparent the resident was not fully aware of the work the landlord intended to complete to the roof. The landlord’s inspector noted they had verbally explained to the resident that issues with the roof were not believed to be due to the roof valley. However, the resident later questioned why work had not been completed to address a leak he believed to be ongoing. Had the landlord provided confirmation to the resident in writing of its roofing contractor’s findings, and the action it was taking, it could have avoided this confusion.
The resident had also asked the landlord in January 2024 what it had done to investigation potential cold bridging. While it noted it had raised work to investigate this issue in August 2023, there is no evidence it responded to the resident’s query around this. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould was published in October 2021. This outlines the importance of landlords clearly communicating its diagnosis and any relevant information to residents. This is to ensure the resident has confidence in and understands the next steps. We have ordered that the landlord confirm to the resident what steps it has taken to investigate potential cold bridging.
Records show that some internal repair work was completed by the landlord’s contractor at the end of May and early June 2024. However, the resident told the landlord in August 2024 of issues with mould returning. While we have not seen it, the landlord detailed in its stage 2 complaint response of October 2024 that a further inspection was completed in August 2024, which recommended installation of a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit. Following a survey in September 2024 this work was completed in October 2024.
We acknowledge that some damp and mould issues may be more difficult to diagnose and/or repair. It is clear in this case that the landlord has completed various work to try to resolve issues the resident reported. However, we have seen evidence that some of this work was unnecessarily delayed. The landlord failed ensure it communicated effectively with him about the work needed and appointments for repairs, leading to further delays and inconvenience to the resident.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in October 2024 the resident continued to raise concerns to us and to his MP about the outstanding work to the property. We acknowledge some additional work has arisen due to issues with the PIV. This could not have been foreseen by the landlord. However, it should have monitored work it had identified was still outstanding following the stage 2 response. This included external painting and loft insulation. There is no evidence the landlord took adequate steps to so and that is a failing, particularly giving the longstanding issues.
The resident asked that the landlord compensate him for loss of earnings/use of his annual leave during repair issues. In response the landlord said it did not compensate for loss of earnings. As set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, in general we would not propose compensation for time a resident has taken off work or for loss of earnings while repairs are completed.
We acknowledge that the work caused inconvenience to the resident. However, under his occupancy agreement he is required to provide access for repairs. In circumstances where repair appointments have been repeatedly missed or failed to resolve a repair issue it is appropriate for the landlord to consider compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
The landlord has awarded the resident a total of £2,280 in respect of time, trouble, missed appointments and the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of issues. It is clear some part of this award relates to the issues with the resident’s windows and front door. However, with consideration to all the circumstances of the case and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we consider it is a fair and reasonable award. It provides appropriate recognition of the impact of the landlord’s failings over a prolonged period.
Overall, while we consider the landlord’s award of compensation to be appropriate and have not ordered that it increase it, we have made a finding of maladministration due to its failure to take appropriate action to monitor the outstanding work to completion. We have ordered it provide the resident with a clear timetable for all outstanding work, including dates for the work. It should also provide him with a point of contact through to completion of outstanding work, and to ensure all appointments are clearly communicated to him in advance.

Windows and the front door repairs

As set out earlier, following its inspection in June 2023, the landlord delayed until August 2023 to raise work needed to replace 2 window units. There was an unavoidable delay after it attended in August 2023 due to it needing to order materials for this work and the repair was completed in September 2023. However, there was a failure to take timely action at the outset to raise work, which resulted in repairs being completed far outside its 28-day target for routine repairs.
When the resident escalated his initial complaint, he raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of window and front door repairs. The landlord said in its stage 2 response of October 2023 that it had not considered these concerns as they had not been raised in the initial complaint. However, it awarded the resident £200 for miscommunication about the windows and door repair. While it said it would raise a separate complaint for the resident, it did not do so. It is unclear why not, but it was a complaint handling failing nonetheless, which meant the resident did not receive a full response to his concerns.
The subsequent inspection by the landlord in November 2023 identified a further window needed to be replaced and this work was raised later that month. The landlord noted in its complaint response that its contractor attended in January 2024 to install a new unit, however the resident later reported a window had been broken during this work. The landlord later completed work to resolve this issue on 1 March 2024.
The resident raised concerns in April 2023 about his front door not being well sealed, but the landlord’s subsequent inspection in June 2023 did not cover this issue. The landlord did not raise a front door repair until November 2023. Following this, its efforts to address this repair were confused, with its contractors attending multiple times. Records show the contractor who attended in December 2023 noted the door should be replaced. Subsequently, another contractor attended in January 2024 to repair seals, but detailed then that the resident had understood the door was to be replaced.
The landlord’s inspector noted in February 2024 that the door was “operable” and recommended work to install draught/storm guard strips. But the lack of clarity continued as the landlord’s repair records noted in that it needed to measure for a new door. In June 2024 it raised work to overhaul the front door. Subsequently it noted at the end of that month its contractor noted the door could not be repaired. However, in its stage 1 response of July 2024 set out that permission had not been granted for the door to be replaced.
It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledge that it should have completed further investigation to establish the next steps after its attendance in June 2024. While it eventually completed work to replace the door in September 2024, the resident said by this time it had attended 11 times about the matter. This was unnecessarily protracted repair that the landlord failed to co-ordinate properly. It resulted in the resident being unreasonably inconvenienced by repeated appointments and by the issue with the door remaining unresolved since for more than 18 months.
The landlord apologised to the resident in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses of July and October 2024 for the delay in completing repairs. It did not specify how much of the further awards of £1,280 related to window and front door issues. It would have been better had it done so. We have considered all the circumstances, and the £200 compensation it offered previously. Overall, the amounts awarded by the landlord provided reasonable redress in recognition of the impact of its failings and delays. For this reason, we have made a finding of reasonable redress in respect of its handling of window and front door repairs.

The resident’s request for compensation for damaged items and additional costs he said he had incurred.

The resident told the landlord in August 2023 that he wanted compensation for damaged possessions. The landlord appropriately requested that he provide further evidence, such as receipts. However, we have seen no evidence it appropriately responded to his subsequent email in November 2023, in which he said he had attached receipts for the damaged sofa and carpets. The landlord should have done so. As a result of its failure the resident spent additional time and trouble chasing a response. Even though the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s lack of response to this issue in January and April 2024, it failed to address the matter in its complaint response of July 2024.
Further, while its stage 2 response of 8 October 2024 awarded some compensation for damaged items, it made no reference to how it had considered the resident’s request about his sofa. He had requested it consider this item and had provided photos and receipts. The landlord should have provided a clear and timely response to the resident’s claim in respect of each item, in line with its compensation policy. That it did not do so was a failing that caused the resident additional time and trouble repeatedly raising this issue. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s request that it compensate him for increased utility bills. That it did not do so left the resident’s concern about this issue unanswered. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damaged items and additional costs he said he incurred.

The complaint

First complaint

The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial complaint was just outside its target timeframe. However, it appropriately contacted the resident in advance to apologise for this. In its eventual response it awarded him £50 in recognition of this. That was appropriate. Its stage 2 complaint response of October 2023 was more significantly delayed. While the resident asked that it escalate his complaint on 29 August 2023, it did not provide its complaint response for more than 8 weeks. It appropriately contacted the resident in advance to inform him of this delay and detail that it expected to be able to respond by 11 October 2023. However, we have seen no evidence that it contacted him again when it was not able to meet this timescale. It should have done so. However, the landlord’s award of £150 in recognition of this delay was appropriate.

Second complaint

The landlord initiated a second complaint after the resident contact it in mid-January 2024 to express his dissatisfaction with the progress of work. That was appropriate. However, it did not tell the resident it had done so until 27 February 2024. It should reasonable have done so at an earlier stage so that he was aware of how his concerns were to be addressed. Nor did it keep him appropriately updated about the complaint despite it not providing its stage 1 response until 1 July 2024. That was several months outside its 10-working day target. It awarded the resident £100 for poor complaint handling. However, it should also have apologised to him for the significant delay responding and for its failure to appropriately update him.
The resident requested escalation of his complaint at the beginning of July 2024, but the landlord’s complaint response was delayed again. It did not provide its further stage 2 response until 8 October 2024. That was more than 2 months outside its target response time. The landlord contacted the resident during this time to advise and apologise for its delayed response. It also awarded him £100 in respect of the delay. That was appropriate.
Overall, while we have identified delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, the total award of £400 it made in respect of this was reasonable and appropriately recognised its complaint handling failings. For this reason, we have made a finding of reasonable redress. This finding has been made on the understanding that compensation previously awarded will be paid if the landlord has not done so already.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. repairs to the roof and reports of damp and mould.
2. the resident’s request for compensation for damaged items and additional costs he said he had incurred.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of:
1. windows and the front door repairs.
2. its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £2,963.06, made up of:
  1. £2,280 it previously awarded in respect of its handling of repair issues.
  2. £533.06 previously awarded for damaged possessions/costs.
  3. £150 further compensation in recognition of the impact of failings in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damaged items and additional costs he said he had incurred.
3. provide the resident with a clear timetable for all outstanding work, including dates for the work. It should also provide him with a point of contact through to completion of outstanding work, and to ensure all appointments are clearly communicated to him in advance.
4. write to confirm to the resident what steps it has taken to investigate potential cold bridging at the property.
5. consider the evidence and receipts the resident has provided in respect of damage to his sofa and increased utility bills under its compensation policy and provide him with a clear outcome on this.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should consider the failing identified in its monitoring of outstanding work after its stage 2 complaint response. It should review whether it has adequate systems and processes in place to avoid these failings being repeated.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. pay the resident £400 previously awarded for complaint handling failings.
2. pay the resident £200 previously awarded for miscommunication about the windows and front door.
3. contact the resident to confirm any vulnerabilities it should record for his household.