Orbit Housing Association Limited (202428247)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428247

Orbit Housing Association Limited

26 September 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 of damp and mould, and the associated repairs, including:
  1. A leak from a wet room shower.
  2. External repointing and render repairs.
  3. Roof repairs.
2. The associated complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord has recorded the resident as vulnerable due to health conditions.
In May 2022, the resident first reported issues with roof leaks, followed by multiple recurring reports about problems with external and internal leaks. The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of these repairs in August 2023. The landlord provided a stage 1 response in January 2024 and committed to completing a property inspection. This inspection led to the landlord approving a major works order in March 2024, which this investigation has considered.
In April 2024, the resident complained because they felt no progress had been made since the January 2024 inspection. They said that the issues at their property had worsened, leading to extensive damp and mould, which caused damage to their possessions.
The landlord raised the major works order in April 2024, and various works commenced shortly afterwards.
On 11 July 2024, the landlord responded, it summarised several repairs which it had completed within its timescale for major works, acknowledged that delays had occurred and that there were failures in its handling of some repairs and the complaint. It offered:
1. £140 for complaint handling failures.
2. £390 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by having to chase the landlord about the issues.
3. £20 for failed appointments.
4. Total: £550.
The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process in August 2024, stating that several repairs were still incomplete or ineffective.
On 27 November 2024, the landlord issued its final complaint response. It acknowledged the impact of the repair delays on the resident and offered them the following compensation:
1. £300 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the non-completion of the repairs.
2. £100 as a gesture of goodwill to address any health impacts resulting from the repair delays.
3. £138.12 as a room loss adjustment.
4. £70 for service failures.
5. £30 for 3 missed appointments.
6. £250 for failures in complaint handling.
7. Total: £1,438.12 (including stage 1 offers).

Events after the landlord’s complaints process

The landlord moved the resident to temporary accommodation in January 2025 and placed their possessions into storage for the works to be completed. They returned to the property in February 2025, as the landlord said the works were mostly completed.
In March 2025, the resident reported that “at least half” of the major repairs were incomplete.
The landlord raised further major works orders in April and May 2025. The landlord has said that it completed these in June 2025. The landlord offered the resident a further £600 for the impact and delays relating to these works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This report focuses on the key events and evidence that affect the outcome of the complaint. It does not list every repair order and communication, although we have considered all the information that both sides have provided. The findings are based on the evidence available at the time of our investigation.
In January 2024, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response after the resident complained about the overall condition of their property and multiple repairs. It acknowledged that there had been recurring repair issues and committed to completing a property inspection due to the extent of the problems reported. The landlord provided evidence relating to this complaint, and upon review, we identified that the resident did not escalate the matter to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, as this complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints process, we have not investigated these events. They are referenced only for context, and we are only assessing any distress and inconvenience caused by these overlapping issues from January 2024 onwards.
The landlord provided temporary accommodation and storage of the resident’s possessions to facilitate the completion of the repairs. We understand that the resident may have dissatisfaction relating to these arrangements. The resident also had to chase the landlord for the compensation payment offered at stage 2 of the complaints process. However, these matters were not raised as part of the resident’s formal complaints. Therefore, we have not investigated these events. The resident may wish to contact the landlord and raise these as new complaints. If they remain dissatisfied after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure, they may be able to bring those complaints to the Ombudsman for consideration.
We have seen correspondence in which the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to a Subject Access Request (SAR). We acknowledge any frustration caused by this matter. While we recognise the serious nature of this complaint, this is not a matter which we can consider. Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) investigates complaints about an organisation’s handling of personal data, including SARs. The resident can raise a complaint with the ICO if they wish to pursue this matter further.

Damp, mould and the associated repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy says major repairs, which are more complex than day-to-day routine repairs should be completed within 90 calendar days.
A delay in repairs does not always constitute a failure, particularly if the issue is complex. Multiple repair attempts and extended timeframes alone do not always amount to service failure. We understand that damp and mould cases may require multiple attempts and different approaches before issues are fully resolved. However, the landlord must proactively manage the repair, complete it as soon as possible and ensure it makes reasonable efforts to do so effectively. It must also update the resident and manage their expectations until it has resolved the issues.
The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of these repairs, as evidenced by its complaint responses and compensation offers. In such cases, our role is to consider whether it did enough to put things right for the resident. When doing this, we assess the landlord’s actions against our dispute resolution principles:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
By the time the resident made their complaint in April 2024, it had been almost 2 years since the resident first reported issues with water entering their property and causing damage. We identified that the landlord raised at least 8 repair orders from 2022 until April 2024 relating to internal and external leaks, and on various occasions, the resident reported subsequent water damage to the interior of their property. The landlord previously acknowledged that the issues were recurring due to ineffective repairs. Nevertheless, this was an excessive amount of time for the resident to live with these recurring issues, and they likely caused significant distress and inconvenience.
The resident complained to the landlord in April 2024 and stated that “absolutely nothing” had been done since the landlord completed a full property inspection in January 2024. However, records show that in early March 2024, the landlord approved an extensive schedule of works totalling over £11,000. We note that various repairs contained within this schedule overlapped with the findings of a damp and mould survey completed on 18 April 2024. This indicates that the landlord failed to maintain adequate communication with the resident regarding the progress and timeline of the major works order.
Although the resident reported extensive damage to their possessions caused by the damp and mould, we have seen no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with details of the process for claiming damages to belongings. The landlord only addressed this matter in its stage 1 complaint response, where it stated that it had not seen any evidence of damage. This was inappropriate, as we have seen no evidence that it requested such evidence from the resident until it issued its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord’s failure to fully inform the resident as soon as they reported damage represents a missed opportunity to put things right at the earliest stage. We have ordered the landlord to tell the resident how to refer a claim to its liability insurer or internally to the landlord. If the landlord decides to assess the claim itself rather than going through its liability insurer, it should explain its decision to the resident in writing, including the reasons for the decision.
The landlord also had a responsibility to oversee the repairs carried out by an external contractor. However, it did not consistently maintain this oversight. In July 2024, the landlord sought an update from the contractor regarding various works that were not completed by the completion due date of 30 May 2024. The contractor subsequently responded in August 2024, indicating that the property was overcrowded with belongings and requested the landlord’s assistance. Furthermore, the contractor suggested that the landlord consider providing storage and temporary accommodation to facilitate completion of the works. Despite identifying in September 2024 that the resident was willing to move items into storage if given notice, the landlord did not provide storage and temporary accommodation until January 2025. We have seen no evidence to explain this overall delay, which was unreasonable.
While the landlord completed various repairs within reasonable timeframes, it did not complete multiple repairs raised as part of the major works within its 90-day timescale. This included major repairs to the roof and various internal repairs. This further prolonged the distress and inconvenience to the resident. In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for its failures and offered the resident a total of £1,048.12 in compensation for this matter.
When considering whether the level of compensation the landlord offered was reasonable, we consider what the impact of its failures had on the resident. In this case, the impact on the resident was considerable. The resident expressed concern about approaching winter without completed roof repairs and that the damp and mould may worsen. It was positive that the landlord also recognised the health impact of the overall situation on the resident and provided compensation for this.
Our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, outlines our approach to compensation. According to this guidance, compensation of £600 to £1,000 may be appropriate when a resident has been significantly adversely affected by the landlord’s errors, often over a prolonged period and the landlord has not fully rectified the situation. Considering the extent of the failures and the impact on the resident, we believe that the compensation offered by the landlord was fair and reasonable when it issued its stage 2 response.
Despite the landlord’s assurance in its final response that work would begin in December 2024, the start date was postponed to January 2025. It is unclear why this delay occurred, so we can only assume this was a failure by the landlord. The landlord did not proactively inform the resident about this change, continuing a pattern of poor communication that likely increased their distress.
In February 2025, the resident returned home after having moved into temporary accommodation in January 2025. The external contractor informed the landlord in mid-February 2025 that all internal work was completed, and that roofing work would be finished shortly after. However, the resident reported that only half of the major repairs had been completed. The resident noted that at least 20 repairs as part of the major works remained unfinished, and signs of water damage began to reappear. There were several delays in conducting a property inspection, but the landlord eventually raised further major works orders in April and May 2025.
The landlord’s approach to ensuring the completion of the repairs was not proactive. Given the scope of the repairs and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord should have inspected the repairs to verify that they met the expected standards before the resident returned to the property. By failing to do so, the responsibility fell on the resident to report that the repairs were incomplete upon returning home, resulting in further distress and inconvenience.
The landlord has stated that it completed the subsequent major works orders in June 2025. We have seen no evidence to indicate that these repairs remain unfinished. However, we recommend that if the resident reports any incomplete repairs, the landlord should conduct a full property inspection and produce an updated schedule of works.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, as well as the associated repairs. These failures were systemic and prolonged, extending from the initial report until the final completion in June 2025. The landlord displayed poor communication, inadequate oversight of contractors, and did not consistently meet its repair timelines.
In June 2025, the landlord paid the resident an additional £600 due to delays in completing the further repairs. It is positive that the landlord acknowledged the further delays and paid additional compensation. However, our role is to assess how landlords handle complaints through their formal complaint processes. We can still determine that maladministration occurred if the landlord makes a reasonable offer only after the complaints process has concluded, although this may not result in an increased compensation award.
We consider the landlord’s total compensation offer of £1,648.12 for its handling of the damp, mould, and associated repairs to be reasonable. The remedies guidance (as referenced above) suggests awards of £1,000 or more where there has been a serious failure by the landlord which has had a serious detrimental impact on the resident.  On this basis, we are satisfied that the compensation offered is reasonable and exceeds what we would have awarded in this case. Therefore, we have not ordered the landlord to pay any additional compensation.
The landlord’s records show that the compensation offered has been paid to the resident. However, the resident should contact the landlord if this is not the case, and we would expect the landlord to pay any outstanding amount as offered.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure which aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code sets out our expectations of complaint handling practices. In line with the Code, the landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 17 April 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint to the resident, which was a failure. Under the Code, landlords are expected to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Additionally, we have come across an undated letter the landlord sent to the resident’s MP that contains placeholder text, which may undermine confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling process.
The landlord extended the complaint response deadline twice, first on 17 May 2024, and again on 28 June 2024, without showing that it sent regular updates about the complaint status to the resident. While we recognise the complexity of investigating repair issues, the landlord’s failure to maintain communication shows poor complaint handling practices and is not in line with the Code.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 July 2024, approximately 62 working days after the resident made their complaint. This significant delay would have increased the resident’s frustrations and constitutes a serious failure by the landlord to meet its complaint handling obligations. Although the landlord appropriately offered £140 for its complaint handling failures, we identified errors in the compensation calculations in both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses. The stage 1 compensation breakdown totalled £510, but £550 was awarded, leaving £40 unaccounted for, which we have allocated to its handling of the repairs, for the purposes of assessing compensation. In its stage 2 response, the landlord incorrectly stated it had awarded £400 for time, trouble, service failure, and inconvenience at stage 1. These mistakes demonstrate a lack of diligence that further undermines the complaint handling process.
The resident escalated their complaint on 14 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged this escalation on 20 August 2024, which was appropriate. However, it failed to inform the resident that an extension was needed until 22 October 2024, approximately 45 working days after the acknowledgement. This excessive delay in communication highlights a pattern of poor complaint handling. The landlord had committed to responding by 19 November 2024 but did not do so until 27 November 2024.
The landlord has appropriately acknowledged its failures and offered an additional £250 for the delays in providing its stage 2 response, bringing the total compensation for complaint handling failures to £390. This amount aligns with our remedies guidance for failures that cause distress and inconvenience to the resident but do not result in permanent impact. The compensation reflects the repeated nature of the failures and the cumulative impact on the resident.
We are satisfied that the landlord has offered reasonable redress for these failures. The landlord’s records show that the compensation offered has been paid to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves concerns about its handling of the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must either provide the resident with its liability insurer’s details so they can make a claim for their damaged possessions or confirm what information it needs from the resident to assess a claim internally.

Recommendations

If the resident reports that repairs remain incomplete or ineffective, the landlord should complete a full inspection of the property. It should clearly identify any outstanding, incomplete, or remedial works. Following the inspection, the landlord should produce a comprehensive schedule of works to share with the resident.