Orbit Housing Association Limited (202431727)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431727

Orbit Housing Association Limited

23 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about a boiler issue.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. Handling of the resident’s reports of a porch leak.
4. Response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
5. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association and has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
This Service has been provided with an undated copy of the resident’s complaint. The resident complained that she had no heating for 3 weeks and had not heard from the boiler manufacturer. She told the landlord that the boiler was in her son’s bedroom and was disturbing his sleep.
On 4 June 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded compensation to recognise the upset caused. It said:
1. It would not move the boiler as this would impact the manufacturer’s warranty. It explained that relocating the boiler could only happen if the manufacturer supplied a new boiler or if it was changed as part of planned maintenance (due in May 2038).
2. It found no actions logged for its damp and mould team and raised this for the resident.
3. The repair for the leak had not been completed and it raised works.
4. If it found asbestos it would arrange for specialist removal. It did not keep records of properties with asbestos and explained it was considered safe unless disturbed. It accepted the presence of asbestos delayed the repair and explained that an administrative error contributed to this.
5. It offered £130 compensation and said this was made up of £70 for the delay caused by an administrative error and £90 as a goodwill gesture for the distress caused.
It is unclear when the resident raised her escalation request. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response from 13 December 2024 said it took 6 months to issue its stage 2 response. The stage 2 response said:
1. Following the report of an issue with the boiler in May 2024 it attended the same day and determined the boiler was under warranty. It asked the resident to contact the manufacturer to arrange an appointment. It attended on 11 June 2024 and found the boiler was not registering hot water flow, it completed work to resolve the issue. It apologised that its stage 1 response did not address this.
2. It accepted the resident was without hot water for 4 weeks and agreed to compensate her.
3. It had no concerns about the location of the boiler impacting how it worked.
4. It received reports of damp and mould on 26 April 2023 and its visit on 8 August 2023 found no damp and mould. It accepted that it did not complete a damp and mould inspection within 28 days and took 4 months to do this. It apologised for the significant delay and said it completed mould treatment in June 2024.
5. It attended for the leak in February 2024 and in error the work was marked as completed, when it was not. It raised the work again on 31 May 2024 and completed it on 24 July 2024. It apologised for the delay.
6. It found no reference to asbestos and was unsure why the resident was told it was present.
7. Its stage 1 response did not address parts of the complaint and accepted it had taken 6 months to provide its stage 2 response.
8. Its stage 1 compensation was not sufficient to address the failings and it increased the compensation offer to £1,012.50. It said this was made up of:
  1. £70 for the delay in telling the resident to contact the boiler manufacturer.
  2. £127.50 for not having hot water for 4 weeks.
  3. £75 for the delay in carrying out the initial damp and mould inspection in August 2023.
  4. £70 for the delay in the April 2024 inspection.
  5. £300 compensation for the frustration and inconvenience its service failings caused in relation to the damp and mould.
  6. £70 for the failure to arrange an appointment to repair the porch.
  7. £300 for its poor complaint handling.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred the matter to this Service for further consideration. It is noted that the resident raised a disrepair claim in November 2024.

Assessment and findings

Handling of a boiler issue

The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the installations within the property for heating water, amongst other things.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for repairing and maintaining its buildings, and any fixtures and fittings it originally provided. For repairs it says:
1. An emergency repair is something that poses an immediate risk to health, safety or security of the resident’s home. It will carry out emergency repairs within 4 or 24 hours depending on what needs fixing.
2. A routine repair will be completed within 28 calendar days. Some routine repairs for heating are done within 14 calendar days.
The evidence shows that on 23 February 2024 the resident reported a boiler pressure issue. The landlord appropriately attended on 14 March 2024 and found the heating and hot water were working.
On 8 May 2024 the landlord was made aware of no hot water at the property. There is no evidence to show the landlord attended the property or considered the support it could provide the resident due to having no hot water. This was not appropriate.
On 20 May 2024 the resident contacted the landlord “upset and frustrated” that she still had no hot water. At that time, the resident was told to contact the manufacturer as the boiler was within the warranty period. It is unclear why the landlord took almost 2 weeks to refer the resident to the manufacturer. In addition, it failed to consider the support it could provide the resident especially when it knew there was still no hot water at the property. The landlord’s failure to consider what it could do was unreasonable.
It is unclear when the manufacturer completed works. However, the landlord has said it attended on 11 June 2024 and found the boiler was not registering hot water flow. It fixed the issue on the same day and received no further reports. It is not disputed that the resident had hot water after this date. The landlord has said the resident had no hot water for 4 weeks. However, during those 4 weeks, the landlord did not consider the support it could provide the resident. This was not appropriate.
It is noted that the resident told the landlord in May 2024, of concerns about the boiler being placed in her son’s bedroom due to the noise disturbances it caused. Within the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses it said it could not move the boiler due to warranty issues. While the landlord’s position, that it could not relocate the boiler is one it is entitled to make, there is no evidence to show it investigated the resident’s concerns about noise disturbances from the boiler or that it was satisfied that the level of noise was reasonable. This was not appropriate.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the boiler issue was not appropriate. It took too long to refer the resident to the manufacturer and failed to consider the options available to it while it waited for the manufacturer to complete work. This meant it left the resident and her 2 children without hot water for a significant time (4 weeks). It is accepted that the resident would have been caused distress and inconvenience in not having hot water for 4 weeks. The landlord missed opportunities to investigate the resident’s concerns about the noise disturbances caused by the boiler and instead focused on why it could not move the boiler.
The landlord’s handling of the boiler issue amounts to maladministration.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord offered compensation of £197.50 for its handling of the boiler issue. This includes £127.50 for not having hot water at the property (£31.88 per week). The landlord’s attempts to acknowledge its failings and put things right are noted; however, its compensation offer was not proportionate to the impact the situation would have had on the resident.
When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered along with the landlord’s failings and the impact this would have had on the resident. As such the compensation payment has been increased to £300 to acknowledge its failure to refer the resident to the manufacturer sooner, it not providing the resident with support for the timeframe she had no hot water and it not investigating the resident’s concerns about the boiler noise or explaining its position in relation to this.
The amount of £300 fallsin line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances of maladministration and has been decided as more appropriate.

Response to reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy says it has a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould. It says it will ensure it is supportive in its approach, ensuring good communication throughout.
The landlord’s repairs policy says if damp and mould is reported it will arrange to attend and diagnose the cause before it decides on the action to take. It also says routine repairs are usually done within 28 calendar days.
It is not disputed that the resident reported damp and mould in April 2023. While it was reasonable for the landlord to have conducted a damp and mould inspection, it should not have taken until August 2023 to do this. It is noted that it found no issues following its inspection.
On 4 January 2024 the landlord conducted a further damp and mould inspection. At that time the landlord was shown areas in the bathroom. It found the issues were not mould and “not something [it] would do”. It is understood that the landlord found the issues were the resident’s responsibility. Later in January 2024, the resident made another report of damp and mould, here the landlord reviewed photos and found the issues were the resident’s responsibility.
However, in February 2024 further reports of damp and mould were made, including black mould on walls and windowsills. It took the landlord until 2 April 2024 to raise treatment work. This timeframe of almost 2 months to raise works was not appropriate. It is noted that the landlord was unable to complete the treatment until June 2024; however, this was for reasons outside its control.
The evidence shows the landlord raised a request for a damp and mould inspection on 2 April 2024. It did not complete this until 28 November 2024. This timeframe of around 7 months to complete a damp and mould inspection was not appropriate. The landlord significantly exceeded its 28 day timeframe. It missed opportunities to conduct an inspection sooner, especially following the resident’s repeated contact about the issue and its stage 1 response from June 2024.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property was not appropriate. It did not always act quickly to attend and diagnose the issue and significantly exceeded its policy timeframes. It is accepted that the landlord’s delay would have added to the resident’s frustration with its service.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it appropriately acknowledged its failings when handling the reports of damp and mould. It recognised the impact the situation would have had on the resident and offered £445 compensation for its overall handling of damp and mould. The amount of £445 falls in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances of maladministration. When considering this alongside the landlord conducting an inspection and completing work, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The compensation amount satisfactorily resolves this complaint. Had the landlord not increased its compensation offer at stage 2 and not completed work, the Ombudsman would have found some level of maladministration.

Handling of reports of a porch leak

The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property including drains, gutters, external pipes, external doors and frames, amongst other things.
On 29 January 2024 the resident reported a leak around the front door. At that time the landlord logged the work as a routine repair (28 calendar days). The landlord has accepted that the work was marked as completed in error in February 2024. This was not appropriate.
The evidence shows the landlord raised the work again on 31 May 2024 with a target date of 28 June 2024. It attended on 13 June 2024 but had to return to complete work, this was then completed on 24 July 2024. While this timeframe (from 31 May 2024 to 24 July 2024) exceeded its 28 day routine repair timeframe, the evidence shows the landlord managed the repair more reasonably at this stage.
Overall, the landlord took around 6 months to complete a routine repair for an external leak. It closed the work in error and when it reopened the work it did attempt to manage it better despite exceeding its 28 days routine repair timeframe. It is accepted that the resident would have been caused some frustration in having to contact the landlord to complete works and in finding it had closed the work in error.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it appropriately apologised for its failings. It made attempts to put things right and offered £70 compensation to acknowledge its failings. This amount falls in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances of service failure. When considering the mitigating factors and it completing work, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s reports of a porch leak. The compensation amount satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Response to concerns about asbestos

The Health and Safety Executive confirms that asbestos can be found in any building built before 2000. It confirms that if asbestos materials are in good condition, and in a place where they are unlikely to be disturbed, then they should not cause any harm. It is only when the materials are damaged or disturbed, that asbestos can become a concern.
The landlord’s asbestos management plan (procedure) says that when asbestos is identified during non-asbestos works, works must stop after necessary steps have been taken to prevent a risk or further damage. It explains it has an asbestos register that holds all its asbestos information including status within each asset including surveys.
The landlord has provided asbestos surveys for the property from 2015, 2017, and 2023. Its survey from 2017 noted the external damp proof course had chrysotile present (a type of asbestos).
On 12 February 2024 the landlord raised work for the external bricks following the resident’s reports that the brickwork had “perished”. The landlord’s repair notes from 11 and 25 March 2024 say “damp proof is asbestos so can not [complete] need shield”. It was reasonable for the landlord to have stopped work at that time, as per its procedure. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord assessed the condition of the external brickwork/damp proof in light of the presence of asbestos. This was not appropriate.
It is unclear why the landlord took until 5 July 2024 (5 months) to complete the works and there is no evidence to show it kept the resident updated at that time. This was not appropriate and exceeded its 28 day routine repair timeframe.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it told the resident that asbestos was considered safe unless it was disturbed. While this was correct, the landlord did not attempt to alleviate the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property and said it did not keep records of properties with asbestos. It said this despite what its procedure said about keeping an asbestos register. This was not appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 response incorrectly told the resident it found no reference to asbestos and was unsure why she was told asbestos was present. The landlord said this despite what it should have known about the work and the property from its previous surveys. This was not appropriate.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos was not appropriate. It has not provided evidence to show it assessed whether there was damage to the damp proof containing asbestos. Its actions and complaint responses demonstrate its failure to review its asbestos surveys and act in line with its procedure. It took 5 months to complete work and did not keep the resident updated during this time.
It is acknowledged that the resident would have been caused some worry when being told of the presence of asbestos. The landlord missed opportunities to alleviate her concerns. It is accepted that the landlord’s handling of the matter would have added to the resident’s frustration, upset and worry. This would have been exacerbated by the landlord’s complaint responses. As such, the landlord’s response to concerns about asbestos amounts to maladministration.
When considering an appropriate remedy in these circumstances, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered alongside the scale of the landlord’s failings. While the landlord did eventually complete work, it did not acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right. A compensation payment of £250 has been decided as appropriate in these circumstances. This amount accounts for the 5 months it took to complete work and falls in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances of maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints and customer care procedure says it operates a 2 stage complaints process. It says a stage 1 complaint will be responded to within 10 working days of acknowledgment and 20 working days for a stage 2 response. The procedure allows for an extension of 20 working days and says the resident must be updated.
It is unclear when the resident raised her initial complaint. It is also unclear when she escalated her complaint to stage 2. However, within the landlord’s stage 2 response it accepted that it took 6 months to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2. The timeframe of 6 months to issue a stage 2 response was not appropriate.
The landlord has not provided evidence to show it kept the resident informed of its delays or told her when it would respond. This was also not appropriate.
However, it is noted that within the landlord’s stage 2 response it identified where its stage 1 response fell short and made attempts to put things right. This was a positive step. While it did not identify all the issues missed by its stage 1 response, the boiler noise and the asbestos issue, as mentioned previously, its stage 2 response did demonstrate insight into its complaint handling failings.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it recognised its complaint handling was not appropriate and not in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. It offered the resident £300 compensation in attempts to put things right. The amount of £300 falls in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances of maladministration. When considering this, the landlord has demonstrated learning and offered reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling. The compensation amount satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of a boiler issue.
2. Response to concerns about asbestos.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of damp and mould.
2. Handling of reports of a porch leak.
3. Complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a manager to apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified within this report. It should provide a copy of its apology to this Service.
2. Pay the resident a total of £550 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. £300 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of a boiler issue. This amount includes the £197.50 it previously offered.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to concerns about asbestos.
3. Investigate the resident’s concerns about the boiler noise. Explain the outcome of its investigation to the resident, and this Service, detailing its planned approach, if required.
4. Explain in writing to the resident and this Service, its planned approach to damp and mould work following its most recent inspection. If works have been completed, it should confirm this.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident £815 it previously offered, if it has not paid this already. The amount is made up of:
1. £445 for its response to reports of damp and mould.
2. £70 for its handling of reports of a porch leak.
3. £300 for its complaint handling.