Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Orbit Housing Association Limited (202427014)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427014

Orbit Housing Association Limited

2 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The property is a ground floor 2-bedroom flat. The resident has lived there since 2015 with his wife and 2 children. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. There were no records or communication provided to us about damp and mould prior to 2024. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 18 April 2024 regarding these issues. He said he noticed damp and mould a few weeks after moving into the property and the landlord had painted over the mould but it had returned.
  3. In its stage 1 response of 2 August 2024 the landlord recognised it had not responded sufficiently and offered £340 compensation. This was made up of £240 for the substantive issue and £100 for complaint handling. It noted there were repairs required but the resident was not allowing their completion.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 20 August 2024 as the issue was ongoing. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 1 October 2024 it offered an additional £250 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience and said another inspection was required.
  5. During that inspection more repairs were identified. It is unknown whether all have been completed. The resident contacted us on 13 October 2024 to say the property was still damp and there was mould on his clothes, wallpaper and bedding. He provided photographs which showed this. He says the landlord is reluctant to solve the problem.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. It is not possible to accurately assess the landlord’s actions prior to 2024 as there is no evidence of earlier records. It is not known when the resident first reported the issue. Photographs provided by the resident show black mould covering his belongings. The extent of this and how it covers the mattress, bedding and clothes indicates it had been a problem for a significant period before the stage 1 complaint of April 2024.
  2. A damp, mould and condensation inspection was raised on 13 February 2024 and completed on 27 March 2024. This was outside the landlord’s target timescale of completing an inspection within 20 working days. At this inspection, follow on jobs were raised including finding any water ingress and removing and replacing the insulation. Attempts to do this were not made until 29 April 204, which was not appropriate and outside the landlord’s target timescales.
  3. A contractor attended on 29 April 2024 but left a card as there was no one at home. The job was not rebooked and a member of landlord staff said the property did not require insulation as it was a ground floor flat. This shows miscommunication and a contradiction between what the inspection identified and the landlord’s actions.
  4. At the point of making the stage 1 complaint, the resident informed the landlord his property was “infested” with mould and it covered his children’s beds and clothes. The photographs supported this. The resident said: the landlord had previously treated the mould but had not addressed the root cause; the property had poor insulation and ventilation; the issue had been ongoing for years; and it had health implications for his family. His comments should have highlighted to the landlord how serious and urgent the issue was.
  5. Internal emails on 23 May 2024 showed the landlord’s position was that the source of mould, potentially water ingress, needed to be addressed before any other works. On 3 June 2024 another inspection was done. The operative said there was no water ingress but the windows had heavy condensation and needed new glazing and gaskets. The damp readings showed there was no cavity wall insulation and insulation was recommended for all 3 external elevations. The fact the previous insulation job was closed was a failure in service, as it clearly needed to be done.
  6. The landlord noted internally on 18 July 2024 that it was “back to square one” as the resident had refused any work to be done until the water ingress was resolved. The follow up job to address condensation was closed. While it may have been difficult to progress, the job should not have been closed as the issue was ongoing and the resident remained dissatisfied. This was a failure in service as the landlord should have remained committed to addressing the issue, particularly given the resident’s comments about the impact on his family.
  7. The stage 1 response offered £240 compensation for the substantive issue (£40 for not completing an inspection within agreed timescales, £200 for time, trouble and inconvenience). Given the level of mould evident on the photographs provided by the resident and his assertion it had been an issue for a number of years, this was not proportionate to the distress caused. Further, the landlord had still failed to rectify the cause of the damp and mould.
  8. In its stage 1 response the landlord said the contractor closed the repair jobs as the resident had refused them. The resident said he did so as he believed the landlord was going round in circles and not fixing the source of the problem. This is understandable given it had been ongoing for a long time and causing such a negative impact on his family. At this point, the landlord placed the blame for the ongoing issues on the resident.
  9. The landlord’s statement at the beginning of its damp, mould and condensation policy is “We will ensure that we treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy and will recognise that having mould issues in a home can be distressing for our customers. We will ensure we are supportive in our approach, ensuring good communication throughout.” The landlord did not demonstrate this in its stage 1 response.
  10. Following receipt of the resident’s stage 2 complaint, internal communication showed the landlord chasing its repair team to see whether the jobs of glazing and cavity insulation needed to be raised again. The landlord’s surveyor said the property needed to be reinspected as the previous survey was done by an agency and was not clear. This was not helpful to the resident as it caused further delay in establishing the problem. It is understandable the resident had lost trust in the landlord and was reluctant to allow works when the landlord’s position changed in this way.
  11. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered an additional £250 for its “disappointing service”, the upset caused, and the length of time taken to resolve the issue. It said it appreciated the resident felt he was going round in circles. It said his concerns that the issue was being caused by a lack of insulation had been passed to its inspector. There appears to be confusion about whether the issue was related to insulation given a previous staff member said it was not necessary. The landlord said its aftercare team would be in touch to manage an inspection and any necessary work.
  12. The landlord did follow up by doing an inspection on 3 October 2024. It found that insulation was required in the bedroom walls as they were cold. It recorded that, when the contractor attended on 25 November 2024, the resident would not allow measurements or photographs to be taken as there were too many items in the bedroom. It was also noted that he refused a 3-stage mould treatment around the windows on 24 October 2024. An urgent repair was raised to replace the ventilation system which was deemed to be 20 years old. The fact this had not been checked or replaced before, given its age, is a failure.
  13. The landlord’s contractor attended on 27 November 2024 to replace the ventilation system. It was noted the resident was not at home so the repair did not happen. It is not clear whether these works have been completed to date. If not, this must be done as soon as possible given the seriousness of the issue and the delays so far.
  14. There is evidence the landlord has tried to complete some repairs. However there is also evidence of miscommunication and that the issue has been ongoing for too long. The resident’s mistrust and frustration is understandable. Multiple inspections have taken place, all recognising the same need for insulation without it being rectified. While the landlord has made some effort, there has been an accumulation of failures which amount to maladministration.
  15. Repairs have been delayed and there have been multiple inspections with little progress. The resident has told us he just wants to live in a “safe and healthy home” and he is concerned for his family’s health. The distress and worry caused to him, and the potential physical impact, is serious. The landlord has not responded properly and further action is required to put things right.
  16. The resident’s report of how badly this is affecting him shows he is willing to work with the landlord to rectify it. The landlord must be committed to completing the necessary repairs to ensure the damp and mould is addressed. The landlord is, therefore, ordered to meet with the resident to agree a schedule of works to resolve the issues, including specified timeframes for the works to be completed.
  17. Previous inspections identified that a new ventilation system was required, alongside insulation and new glazing. There is no evidence that these works have been completed to date. Therefore, the schedule of works should include these repairs, as well as the treatment of any existing mould and any other necessary repairs relating to that issue.
  18. In terms of compensation, the £490 offered for the substantive issue is at the lower end of what is suggested in the landlord’s compensation policy. It did not reflect the distress caused to the resident. The policy says compensation of £451 to £650 should be considered where the landlord’s service failure has had a significant impact on the resident. This case meets the landlord’s definition of high-level failure where its delays or failures have prevented a resident from enjoying their home.
  19. The amount suggested in the landlord’s policy is not sufficient in this case. It is not proportionate to the level of failure and detriment caused. A sum of £1,000 is considered more appropriate and in line with our own remedies guidance for this level of maladministration. The landlord is ordered to pay this sum within 4 weeks of this determination (inclusive of the £490 already offered).

Complaint handling

  1. The resident made the stage 1 complaint on 18 April 2024. The landlord’s complaint policy says a response should be provided within 10 working days. It is allowed to extend this if it informs the resident. It did this on 9 May 2024 and told him it would respond by 23 May 2024. However, the landlord did not provide its response until 2 August 2024, which was a failure in service. This was 74 working days after the complaint was made and in breach of its policy.
  2. The landlord’s policy defines different levels of complaint handling failure. It includes the example of extending its complaint response time but not meeting that extension as high-level failure. For this it suggests a compensation amount between £201 and £300. The landlord offered £100 at stage 1 for poor complaint handling, which was not in line with this.
  3. In its response the landlord told the resident “This means the only jobs remaining are what (the contractor) have been refused to do which means the cause of the (damp and mould) is now on you.” The tone of this response was abrupt and unprofessional and failed to recognise the resident’s difficult position. It was not helpful to place responsibility onto the resident and the landlord showed little compassion or understanding. It was not appropriate wording for any communication to a resident, particularly in a formal complaint response.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 20 August 2024 but it was not acknowledged until 19 working days later on 16 September 2024. This was in breach of the landlord’s policy which says escalation requests should be acknowledged within 5 working days. The policy says stage 2 responses should be issued within 20 working days of acknowledgment. The response was issued 11 working days later, so technically in line with that. However, given the delay in acknowledgement, this cannot be considered policy-compliant.
  5. In the stage 2 acknowledgement the landlord said it should have responded to the escalation sooner. However, it did not offer any additional compensation for its complaint handling at stage 2 with that in mind.
  6. There were numerous failures in the complaint handling. The stage 1 response was excessively delayed and the stage 2 acknowledgment was delayed and failed its target. The content of the stage 1 response placed responsibility and blame on the resident. This accumulation of failures and the added stress and inconvenience caused to the resident, amounts to maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  7. A sum of £200 compensation is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration that has adversely affected the resident. It is applicable where the landlord’s offer is not proportionate to the failings identified. The landlord’s guidance also deems this amount to be appropriate for the level of failure in complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation for complaint handling failures (inclusive of the £100 already offered).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence it has:
    1. Paid the resident £1,200 compensation (inclusive of the £590 previously offered) as follows:
      1. £1,000 for delays in addressing the reports of damp and mould.
      2. £200 for poor complaint handling.
    2. Met with the resident to agree a schedule of works to address the damp and mould issues, including specified timeframes for the completion of each repair. This should include, but is not limited to, replacing the ventilation system, window glazing and insulation. A copy of the work schedule should be provided to us and the resident.