Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Orbit Housing Association Limited (202315797)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315797

Orbit Housing Association Limited

12 June 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 repairs.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, which began on 16 December 2015. The landlord is a local authority. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat on the second floor. We informed the landlord on 5 May 2025 that the resident suffers from complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and personality disorder.
  2. As part of the orders for a previous investigation, we required the landlord to inspect the property to identify works required. The landlord did this on 21 April 2023 and, on 27 April 2023, raised orders for various repairs. On 11 May 2023, it wrote to the resident to confirm the works it would undertake.
  3. On 4 August 2023, due to not completing the works, we raised a complaint to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. On 10 August 2023, the resident phoned the landlord and asked to speak to the case handler. He said the landlord had authorised replacing 3 windows, but 5 needed replacing. Due to receiving no response, the resident phoned to complain on 18 August 2023, the key points were as follows:
    1. He requested a phone call on 10 August 2023 but received no response.
    2. Multiple windows were leaking and needed replacing. The chimney was also leaking.
    3. Damp and mould in the property was impacting his health.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 and 25 August 2023, the key points were as follows:
    1. It needed to complete multiple repairs, but appointments continued to be pushed back.
    2. The resident had raised concerns regarding the windows in the property, stating they constantly leaked and had caused damp, mould and condensation. It said it had booked an appointment for the windows for 12 September 2023 and needed to complete a further investigation into the issues.
    3. It expected to confirm its investigation and conclusion of the complaint by 30 September 2023.
  5. It issued a stage 1 complaint response on 29 September 2023, the key points were as follows:
    1. A damp and mould inspection on 21 April 2023 recommended:
      1. A 3-stage mould treatment.
      2. Replacing the bath and window sealant.
      3. Installing trickle vents.
      4. Installing thermolining
      5. Replacing blown–out windowpanes.
    2. The contractor removed the defective sealant on 2 May 2023 and installed trickle vents on 18 May 2023 but postponed the other works due to a lack of materials. It said the resident then advised that all works needed closing down while he approached the Ombudsman for advice
    3. It re-raised works for the windows and thermolining on 18 August 2023. Due to the nature of the works and materials needed, the contractor extended the routine repair timeframe from 28 to 90 days, with works to be completed on 11 October 2023. The landlord said it would contact the resident following this to ensure all works were completed to a satisfactory standard.
    4. It offered £479 compensation comprising:
      1. £40 for the delay caused by works being closed down.
      2. £100 for the delayed response to the complaint.
      3. £139 for completing the works 139 days outside its timeframes.
      4. £200 as a gesture of goodwill for distress and inconvenience caused, for which it also apologised.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 6 October 2023, the key points were as follows:
    1. The case handler had made errors.
    2. He phoned on 5 October 2023 to request a call back but did not receive this.
    3. He arranged a call back for 6 October 2023, but did not receive this.
  7. On 12 December 2023, we chased a response to the complaint from the landlord on the resident’s behalf.
  8. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 22 December 2023, the key points were as follows:
    1. It had logged the resident’s escalation request but apologised for not raising this correctly. It said it had provided feedback to ensure it handled all escalation requests correctly.
    2. Mould works remained outstanding.
    3. The resident was unhappy to book any further appointments due to the lack of response to his complaint. It said, after speaking to him, it understood that he was happy to proceed with works and that the contractor would contact him to arrange these. The landlord said it would manage the works and send a post stage 2 letter following completion.
    4. It apologised for the overall experience, including the time take to provide a stage 2 response.
    5. It offered £949 compensation, comprising:
      1. The £479 offered at stage 1.
      2. £200 for poor complaint handling due to delays.
      3. £70 for service failure.
      4. £200 as a gesture of goodwill.
    6. It said it would calculate any additional compensation for repair delays after 22 December 2023 in a post stage 2 letter.
    7. The resident could contact the Ombudsman if he remained unhappy.
  9. The resident referred his complaint to us on 12 January 2024. The complaint became one that we could consider on 7 June 2024.

Events Post Internal Complaints Process

  1. This Service is aware that issues remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This assessment will consider events from 27 April 2023, which is when the landlord raised orders for works required following an inspection, until the stage 2 response issued on 22 December 2023. Reference to historical and more recent events is to provide context only.
  2. The resident says damp and mould has impacted his health. The Ombudsman cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy says it has a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. It should raise mould treatments on a 7-calendar–day repair priority.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
  3. The tenancy agreement sets out that the tenant must allow entry to the home to allow the landlord to carry out necessary works. Failure to allow access after notification would place the tenant in breach of their agreement, which could result in it taking legal action.

Landlord’s handling of repairs

  1. On 27 April 2023, the landlord raised orders for various repairs following an inspection. Also on this date, the contractor said the resident did not want to arrange an appointment due to not knowing what works had been recommended. It said it would await further instruction from the landlord. On 11 May 2023, the landlord wrote to inform the resident of the works it would complete, which was appropriate. The landlord listed 44 repairs, comprising of internal and external works. It said it would also redecorate rooms affected by the works.
  2. The landlord exchanged emails with the contractor on 9 June 2023 but provided no instruction about completing any works, which prompted the contractor to chase an update. We would have expected the landlord to ask the contractor to continue with works as soon as it wrote to confirm these to the resident. However, it did not do this until 5 July 2023. This was not appropriate, as the landlord needs to ensure it raises repair requests at the earliest opportunity to ensure that it then completes repairs at the earliest opportunity.
  3. The landlord completed some repairs in line with its responsive repairs policy. These included removing and replacing defective sealant, reinstating trickle vents and replacing 3 windows within its timeframe for routine repairs, which was appropriate.
  4. However, it completed some repairs outside its specified timeframes, which was not appropriate. For instance, after confirming works to the resident, the contractor completed a mould treatment throughout the property 138 days outside of the priority timeframe. The contractor also failed to treat some of the required areas, which meant the landlord had to re-raise the works. The contractor then took a further 37 days outside the priority timeframe to complete these. The significant delay and failure to initially complete the mould treatment followed by a further delay in completing this work was not reasonable. This likely caused the resident inconvenience and some distress.
  5. The landlord’s records indicate that it completed 12 repairs within specified timeframes, 10 outside its timeframes and that it failed to complete the remaining repairs. This is a significant failing. Having committed to complete 44 repairs plus redecoration of affected rooms, it was reasonable for the resident to expect the landlord to do this.
  6. The landlord’s failures to raise and complete repairs in a timely manner likely inconvenienced the resident and caused distress. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that multiple repairs remained outstanding, which it said it would manage through to completion. However, it did not clarify the outstanding repairs, which was not appropriate. It would have been useful to consolidate works completed against those identified at the outset.
  7. Overall, the landlord offered £649 compensation, comprising of £249 for repair delays and service failures and £400 for distress and inconvenience caused. Its failings will have had a significant impact on the resident. Taking into account the above, we consider there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs and an order has been made for remedy.

Complaint handling

  1. On 4 August 2023, we logged a formal complaint with the landlord on the resident’s behalf.
  2. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and issued a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. Where it is unable to issue a response within this time, it may extend this by a further 10 working days by contacting the resident to discuss and explain reasons why, as well as confirm this in writing.
  3. There is no evidence that the landlord logged the initial complaint, which indicates an issue with its record keeping. On 10 August 2023, the resident phoned the landlord and asked to speak to the case handler. We would expect a landlord to respond to a call back request within a reasonable timeframe, usually 5 working days, but it did not do this. The landlord’s failure to contact the resident prompted him to complain on 18 August 2023 and likely caused the resident inconvenience.
  4. On 24 and 25 August 2023, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had complained to it directly. However, this was 14 working days after we raised a complaint on the resident’s behalf and, therefore, 9 working days outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy. This is a failing. The landlord said it expected to issue a stage 1 response by 30 September 2023. It told us that the delay was due to staff absence. However, there is no evidence that it agreed the extension with the resident or told him the reason for this, which was not in line with its process. The extension also exceeded the additional 10 working days detailed in its complaints process, which was not appropriate.
  5. The landlord unsuccessfully tried to contact the resident by phone on 29 September 2023 before issuing its stage 1 response that day, which was 6 working days outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy, which is a failing.
  6. The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 6 October 2023.
  7. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation request within 5 working days and issued a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days.
  8. The landlord logged the resident’s escalation request but did not acknowledge this. This is a failing, which prompted the resident to phone the landlord on 8 November 2023 and contact us on 24 November 2023.
  9. On 12 December 2023, we chased a response from the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The landlord updated the resident on 13 December 2023. It issued a stage 2 response on 22 December 2023, which was 30 working days outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy. This was not reasonable and likely caused the resident some distress.
  10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained the reason for its delayed reply and how it had learned from this, which was appropriate. It apologised for the overall experience provided and offered a further £200 compensation in recognition of the delays caused by its poor complaint handling.
  11. Although it failed to reply on occasions and issued delayed responses, the landlord identified issues, demonstrated learning and apologised for the level of service received. Therefore, we consider that its total offer of £300 compensation is reasonable redress for the time and trouble caused by the failings identified.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failings identified.
    2. Contact the resident to establish whether there are any outstanding repair issues from those detailed in its letter dated 11 May 2023 and, if so, agree a timebound action plan aimed at resolving them.
    3. Pay compensation totalling £949, comprised as follows:
      1. £40 for the delay caused by works being closed down, if it has not already done so.
      2. £139 for completing the works 139 days outside its timeframes, if it has not already done so.
      3. £200 as a gesture of goodwill for distress and inconvenience caused, if it has not already done so.
      4. £70 for service failure, if it has not already done so.
      5. £200 as a gesture of goodwill, if it has not already done so.
      6. A further £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its repair handling failures.
  2. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders within the timeframe set out above.

Recommendation

  1. As a finding of reasonable redress has been made based on the landlord’s offer of compensation, it should pay the £300 compensation offered to the resident in recognition of its complaint handling failures, if it has not already done.