Orbit Housing Association Limited (202528810)

Decision
Case ID	202528810
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Orbit Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 March 2026

Background

1. The resident is vulnerable because of physical and mental ill-health. She lives with 2 young children, one of whom is autistic. She has been in temporary accommodation since August 2025 because of a pest infestation at her permanent property, which she complained to the landlord about together with heating inspections and roof leak issues at the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about a pest infestation.
   2. Oil central heating inspections.
   3. Roof leak.
   4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about a pest infestation.
   2. Oil central heating inspections.
   3. Roof leak.
   4. Complaint.

Summary of reasons

4. There were delays and poor communication in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint issues. However, it has fully accepted its service failings, apologised, and offered sufficient redress for its failures.

Putting things right

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £980 compensation it offered during its complaint procedure if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 July 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about a rodent infestation. She said she would not have accepted the property if it had told her about this. She said she received threatening letters from its solicitor about refusing oil heating system inspections, but she had allowed them, and its operatives had taken photos of the electrical heating unit. She said she had long-term health conditions and vulnerable children in the property. She wanted the matter resolved quickly.
15 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and upheld the complaint for its “disappointing service”. It summarised a timeline of events and the repairs completed and scheduled. It acknowledged the vulnerabilities in the household, the stress and inconvenience caused, and apologised. It offered £730 total compensation made up of: £40 for failings in its complaint investigation, £40 for unsuccessful appointments, £400 for the stress, discomfort, and impact of the ongoing pest issue on a vulnerable resident, £150 for the service failings and confusion caused by the oil central heating issue, and £100 for the inconvenience caused by the leak in the roof and the affected bathroom fan.
3 September 2025	The resident escalated her complaint and said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of a flea infestation. She said it was not communicating effectively with her or its contractors.
1 October 2026	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged further delays and described the next steps and planned repairs. It apologised for poor communication, said it provided feedback to the relevant departments, and offered a further £250 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s communication. She wanted the landlord to pay compensation, replace all her damaged belongings and furnishings, and environmentally clean the property.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Concerns about a pest infestation
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we did not investigate

5. The resident has logged other complaint(s) with the landlord in October 2025 about its handling of ongoing issues, temporary accommodation, and other matters. Our investigation focuses on the complaint which completed the landlord’s complaint process on 1 October 2025. This is because the resident’s later complaint issues have occurred since her complaint exhausted the complaint process. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. Therefore, we have no power to investigate the above issues because there is no evidence the resident raised them as part of the earlier complaint.
6. The landlord responded to some of the resident’s desired resolutions, such as an environmental clean and the replacement or refund of personal belongings, after the conclusion of this complaint. Its stage 2 response of 1 October 2025 is the cut-off point for our current investigation. For the above reasons explained to the resident, we have not investigated the follow-on complaint(s).
7. The landlord’s contractor found evidence of rodent activity in July 2025 during a visit ahead of planned works. The resident said it should have told her about the infestation before she signed the tenancy agreement. The state of the property on letting and void inspections were not the subject of this complaint, and we cannot investigate reports and the landlord’s actions from before the resident signed her tenancy agreement. This is because they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process and so we have no power to investigate them, as explained above. Instead, we considered when the landlord became aware of the current pest infestation.

What we did investigate

8. Evidence shows the landlord did work in the resident’s loft during the void period and there was no sign of rodent activity at that time. We have, therefore, considered how it responded following the report of this in July 2025.
9. The landlord’s pest control policy requires it to inspect the property to find if it’s responsible for repairs to address the issue. Evidence shows it did this promptly, drafted a treatment plan, and instructed the identified work. It then completed treatments on 14 August 2025. It has accepted there were access issues due to ongoing planned woks, which caused a delay. It also accepted its contractor left insulation in the front garden. It apologised for its failings and offered £440 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, especially considering the resident’s and her family’s vulnerabilities. This was a reasonable response to the complaint at this stage.
10. The resident then reported a flea infestation on 21 August 2025. Given her distress with the situation, the landlord placed her in temporary accommodation the same day while it considered its next steps. The resident said the flea infestation was because of the rodent infestation, which spread following the removal of loft insulation. However, we have not seen evidence to support this. The evidence shows only a small section of insulation, which got wet during the roof leak, was removed in August 2025. We have not seen evidence of an established cause of the flea infestation. Therefore, we cannot conclude the landlord was responsible for this.
11. Under the landlord’s pest control policy, flea infestations are the resident’s responsibility to resolve unless there is a property defect or the fleas were present before the property was let. As there was no evidence of either, the landlord first informed the resident it would not take further action. However, it then reconsidered its position because of her vulnerabilities and circumstances and agreed to treat the infestation. This was a positive response showing the landlord was engaged with resolving the issue. Since its stage 2 response, inspections have declared the property clear of the infestations.
12. The landlord conducted the required inspections and treatments in the property. It apologised for the communication issues the resident experienced, shared feedback internally, and offered an additional £250 for the further time, trouble, and inconvenience. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord’s offer of £690 is proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance. This recommends awards in this range for when there was such a significant impact on the resident. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of her concerns. We recommend it pays the £690 offered for its failures if it has not already done so. The reasonable redress finding is based on this sum being paid.

Complaint	Concerns about oil central heating inspections
Finding	Reasonable redress

13. The landlord accepted its service failing in incorrectly inspecting and sending an automated letter to the resident about oil central heating she did not have. It explained the error occurred because it had not updated its system. This auto-generated letters and it made unnecessary visits. It fully recognised its error, updated the system, and offered £150 to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused. This was a reasonable response to the complaint.
14. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord’s offer of £150 is proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance. This recommends awards in this range for when there was such a negative effect on the resident. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of her concerns. We recommend it pays the £150 offered for its failures if it has not already done so. The reasonable redress finding is based on this sum being paid.

Complaint	Concerns about a roof leak
Finding	Reasonable redress

15. The landlord accepted the resident’s roof leak occurred because it carried out work without sufficiently waterproofing the area. This caused water leaks after a heavy downpour. An emergency electrician attended to isolate the bathroom fan and made the area safe within 24 hours on the same day on 20 July 2025. It then booked and carried out a follow-on routine repair within 20 working days on 14 and 15 August 2025. This was in line with its website’s repairs policy’s timescales for these repairs. It apologised and offered £100 for the inconvenience caused. This was a reasonable response to the complaint.
16. The resident recently told us she was concerned about the quality of the repair. However, we have not seen evidence that this was raised with the landlord as a complaint first. We are unable to investigate a complaint until the landlord has first addressed it. She should tell the landlord about her concerns if she has not already done so.
17. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord’s offer of £100 is proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance. This recommends awards in this range for when such distress and inconvenience was caused to the resident. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of her concerns. We recommend it pays the £100 offered for its failures if it has not already done so. The reasonable redress finding is based on this sum being paid.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

18. The landlord’s complaints and customer care policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure generally follow the Code. However, the Code requires a full response at stage 2 to be issued within 20 working days. Whereas the landlord’s policy says it has 30 working days to provide the full response.
19. The landlord’s stage 1 response was 2 working days late before it notified the resident of the delay and provided a revised timescale, which it then met. It issued its stage 2 response in line with the timescale requirement of the Code. Its complaint responses addressed the resident’s concerns in detail, provided the necessary explanations, and offered redress for identified failures. This was in line with the requirements of the Code.
20. The landlord has offered £40 for its complaint handling service failings. Our own remedies guidance does not recommend compensation for a minor delay like this and considers an apology to be sufficient. Therefore, we consider the landlord’s offer to be reasonable redress for the failings identified.
21. On 8 February 2024 we issued the statutory Code which sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in policy and practice. The Code applied from 1 April 2024, and we have a duty to monitor compliance with it. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. As a result, no specific order is made on this case with regard to the landlord’s compliance with the Code, and the contents of its policies and procedures in that regard, because this is monitored and enforced by our duty to monitor team.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord provided us with sufficient information to investigate the complaint and reach a decision. However, its evidence submission unnecessarily duplicated information, such as emails. This added an avoidable delay to our investigation.

Communication

23. The landlord did not always communicate clearly or promptly with the resident. It should make proactive and timely contact with residents to give updates or explain delays, even when these are minor. This approach supports good customer service and helps prevent avoidable trouble and inconvenience for residents.