Orbit Group Limited (202223818)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223818

Orbit Group Limited

31 May 2024

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 the resident’s reported damp and mould in her flat.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since July 2021 and lives in a 2–bedroom top–floor flat. At the time of the complaint she lived with her partner and young child.
In December 2021 the resident reported that a leak was coming into her flat from the roof. She also said that damp and mould was forming in one of her bedrooms. The landlord’s records show that it attended and carried out some repairs, but it is not clear from its repair logs what this entailed and whether those repairs were completed. The resident nor the landlord raised any further issues with either the leak or damp and mould in the following months.
On 17 November 2022 the resident reported a further ingress of water to the landlord and that the damp and mould had returned. She described the damp and mould as being “black, green and yellow” which was “spreading quickly” and had started to “ruin” her furniture. She explained that her 1 year old daughter had been unwell with respiratory problems, as such, she had to seek medical advice. She said the mould was making her daughter ill.
On 23 December 2022 the landlord visited the resident to investigate the mould and damp. The outcome of the visit is unknown from the evidence that is available.
In March 2023 the landlord’s records note that the roof needed to be replaced as it was at the end of its life span.
On 12 April 2023 we contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident. We told it that the resident had made a complaint about its handling of her reported damp and mould. We said the resident wanted the following resolution:
1. compensation for:
  1. the impact the damp and mould had on her family’s health.
  2. property and internal decoration damage caused by the damp and mould.
2. the damp and mould resolved or to be moved to a suitable property.
The landlord carried out mould wash treatments around mid-April 2023.
Around the beginning of May 2023, the landlord issued it stage 1 response. It said:
1. the resident first raised damp and mould issues on 29 November 2022 and a damp and mould inspection was carried out an inspection on 23 December 2022. The inspection identified that there were outstanding repairs to the roof, which was the root cause of the damp and mould issues.
2. its major works team would contact the resident to arrange an appointment to complete the roof repairs.
It offered the resident £2,142.98 compensation. Although, it is noted that given the breakdown provided, this figure was incorrect and should have been £2,132.98. This was comprised of:
1. £10.00 for a failed March 2023 appointment.
2. £1142.98 for damage to personal property/belongings.
3. £70.00 for failings in the service provided.
4. £250.00 for inconvenience.
5. £660.00 for the roof repair being out of time frame by 660 days.
The resident subsequently escalated her complaint. We do not have a copy of the escalation request, as such it is unclear what the resident’s outstanding concerns were. On 23 May 2023 the landlord acknowledged the escalation request and advised that it was experiencing a high volume of enquiries which meant that there would be a delay responding.
On 13 July 2023 the landlord carried out a temporary repair to the roof.
Between July and mid-October 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it had extended its stage 2 complaint response deadline approximately 3 times.
On 19 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
1. its records show that the resident had reported a roof leak in December 2021. A work order was raised to repair the roof in February 2022, but it had been cancelled and the reason was unknown.
2. it had carried out mould treatments in March and April 2023.
3. a temporary roof repair was completed on 13 July 2023 and the roof was scheduled to be replaced within that current financial year.
4. the resident’s concerns that her daughter had severe asthma caused by the living conditions had been recorded on her file. It said that it had also noted that her daughter was “sensitive” to strong smells and abnormal temperatures therefore it needed be aware of the products it used when carrying out repairs in her home.
5. the resident had reported that she as still experiencing damp and mould issues. It had arranged for another survey to be completed for Monday 23 October 2023. Following the survey, it would book any follow up works and monitor the case.
6. it had increased its compensation amount to £3,460.98, which comprised of the original compensation offered at stage 1 and an additional:
  1. £578 for damage to personal belongings and furniture.
  2. £250 for distress and inconvenience.
  3. £150 for distress and inconvenience the impact the situation had on the resident’s daughter’s health.
  4. £200 for delays.
  5. £150 for the number of complaint response extensions it had requested.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to us. She said:
1. the landlord had not compensated her for all damaged personal belongings and furniture despite providing it with evidence of proof of purchase and photo evidence damaged items. It had not compensated her for other damaged items, such as her daughter’s bedroom furniture set because she could not find the receipt.
2. the leak was ongoing and the damp and mould was getting worse.
3. outstanding repairs had not been completed and she was told that she would be moved to a new home while the repairs would be carried out but had not heard from the landlord.
4. she would like to be moved permanently or her current home restored to the condition it was when she had first moved in.

The landlord’s policies and procedures and legislation

At the time of the complaint the landlord’s damp and mould policy stated:
1. it kept accurate records of damp and mould. It would carry out a risk assessment and the details would be recorded and logged on its system. The risk rating would be determined in line with current regulations, such as Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
2. its responses to reports of damp and mould would be timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Inspections and responsive repairs to diagnose and alleviate damp would be carried out as quickly and efficiently as possible.
3. where extensive works may be required, it would consider the individual circumstances of the household, including any vulnerabilities, and whether it is appropriate to move residents out of their home at an early stage.
Its responsive repair policy stated:
1. emergency repairs would be carried out within 4 and 24 hours.
2. routine repair, within 28 calendar days and;
3. non-responsive repairs, such as roof replacements would be grouped together and included in programmed works in order to deliver value for money.
Its complaint policy stated:
1. it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2.
2. If a complaint response extension was required at stage 2 of its complaint process, the Head of Service could extend the case for up to another 10 working days. The Head of Service completing the review should ensure that the need of extension is discussed with the resident and that they are advised when they could expect a response.
Its compensation policy stated it would consider compensation for damages to resident’s personal property, where it was caused by a direct result of something that it did. It said that it needed proof of ownership of the damaged item(s) and a value for each item. It said that it would take the age and cost of the damaged items into account and pay a percentage towards the cost.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS.
Damp and mould are health threats due to dust mites, mould or fungal growth. Health effects may include allergies, asthma, breathing difficulties, fungal infection, rhinitis, depression and anxiety.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident has explained that the damp and mould in her property affected her health and that of her family. The landlord offered the resident a £150 for distress and inconvenience “in recognition of the impact [the delays]” had on her daughter’s health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. Therefore we have not considered the landlord’s offer of compensation on this matter. We have however, considered the impact of any failings by the landlord and the associated distress and inconvenience that was caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported damp and mould

It is noted that the resident reported that that there was a leak, damp and mould in her property in December 2021. The landlord’s repair logs set out on 28 February that the felt roofing above the affected areas in the property were sealed. The operative who completed the repair believe that this would “rectify the issue” The repair logs also suggest that it had carried out some treatment to the damp and mould in March 2022. However, in its complaint responses the landlord stated that the February appointment had been cancelled and it did not refer to any damp and mould treatment at that time. Therefore, while it is unclear why, the landlord’s complaint responses were not consistent with the contemporaneous evidence. The basis for its comments are therefore unknown, but suggest that the landlord’s investigation into the resident’s complaint may not have been particularly thorough. However, the fact that there was an absence of reporting between February 2022 and November 2022 suggests that some level of repair was completed and that this did resolve the issue that had been reported.
On 17 November 2022 the resident reported that there were “new” leaks via the landlord’s online portal. She explained that there was damp and mould in two of her bedrooms which was spreading quickly, making her daughter, who had respiratory problems, ill. She said that the damp and mould was starting to ruin her furniture and furnishings. She asked the landlord to treat her report as an emergency. The evidence available demonstrates when the landlord did not respond, the resident chased it approximately 4 times in November and December 2022. However, the landlord still failed to take any action. This caused the resident time and trouble. The landlord’s policy stated that it would respond to reports of damp and mould in a timely manner and reflect the urgency of the issue. In addition, our 2021 Damp and Mould Spotlight Report sets out that landlords should adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould and respond to reports proactively. Therefore the landlord’s lack of response did not align with its policy or our position on the matter. This is a failing.
The landlord carried out an inspection on 23 December 2022, which was approximately a month after the resident had reported the damp and mould. It is unclear why an inspection was not undertaken sooner. While the reason for the delay is unclear, given the resident’s concerns, that there was one is failing.
The landlord has not provided us with a contemporaneous records of the outcome of the inspection. Its responsive repair policy stated that it would conduct a risk assessment upon receiving a damp and mould concern from its residents. Its Damp and Mould policy adds that the assessment would be accurately recorded on its system which included a risk rating. The evidence available does not demonstrate that the landlord carried out such an assessment. This is a further failing.
Furthermore, the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond appropriately to the concerns that the resident had raised about the impact of the damp and mould on her daughter’s health. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this and to consider whether any further investigation was required to ensure that the family were adequately supported. That the landlord did not give the matter such consideration was a further failing in its response to the resident’s reports.
The evidence available suggests that the landlord did not take any further action once it had carried out the inspection. This meant the resident had to chase it again for an update in January 2023. She reiterated her concerns that the damp and mould were affecting her daughter’s health and damaging her personal belongings and furniture. She said that her daughter was using an inhaler 4 times a day and in “serious poor health”, which had happened when the mould appeared. Despite this, the evidence available suggests that the landlord missed another opportunity to carry out a risk assessment. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the landlord responded to the resident at that time. This is a further failing. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged the resident’s comments, confirmed its position in relation to its investigations and any proposed works and arranged a risk assessment. That the landlord did not take such action was a significant failing.
The evidence suggests that the landlord completed the damp and mould treatment around March/April 2023. This meant that resident was left with untreated damp and mould in her home for approximately 5 months. The evidence does not suggest that this delay was unavoidable. The landlord offered the resident £70 for failings in its service at stage 1 of the complaints process. However, it is unclear what specifically this was with reference to. Given that the inspection was delayed and the landlord took approximately 5 months to carry out the damp and mould to treatment; the resident should be compensated for the delay.
It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out damp and mould treatment. However, it would have been appropriate for it to have monitored the situation and proactively kept in contact with the resident at this time, given that the cause of the damp and mould had not been resolved. This would have ensured it continued to take appropriate and timely steps to mitigate the damp and mould issues during the ongoing leak. There is no contemporaneous evidence to demonstrate that it did so.
Following the repairs to the roof in July 2023, the evidence demonstrates that the resident asked the landlord to carry out further repairs, such as damp and mould treatments and replastering the walls. She also said that the some of the rooms needed to be redecorated. She said that there was now damp and mould in each room of her flat.
It is unclear what transpired in the following months. In the absence of contemporaneous records, the evidence available suggests that the landlord did not take any further action to resolve the resident further reports of damp and mould and investigate her reported repairs to her flat. This is a further failing that would have exacerbated that resident’s distress and inconvenience.
In October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged that the resident had reported that she was still experiencing damp and mould issues. It said that it would carry out “another” damp and mould survey. While there is evidence that it had carried out previous inspections, there is no evidence that it had previously carried out a damp and mould survey. Therefore it is unclear what the landlord was referring to. In the absence of contemporaneous records, the evidence provided suggests the survey carried out at this time was the first one in relation to this case. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have carried out such a survey at an earlier stage in the case. Especially as the resident had raised health concerns in relation to the damp and mould.
Also in its stage 2 response, the landlord provided the resident with its final offer of compensation for some of the items that she had reported damaged by the damp and mould. The resident explained to the Service that the landlord did not compensate her for all of the items that were damaged despite providing it with proof of purchase and evidence of damage. She also said that it did not compensate her for such items as her daughter’s bedroom furniture set because she no longer had proof of purchase.
The landlord’s compensation policy stated it needed “proof of ownership” for it to consider compensation for damaged items. While proof of purchase may have been one method of providing evidence of ownership Its policy stated that it needed proof of ownership of the damaged item(s) and a value for each item, this suggests that it was not the only method.
Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered alternative methods to satisfy itself that the resident “owned” the furniture that she no longer had proof of purchase for. In the absence of contemporaneous records, the landlord’s calculations and reasons for compensating the resident for only some of the items, and not for the items the resident did not have proof of purchase for, is unknown. Therefore, a recommendation has been made for it to review its position on the matter.
The landlord offered £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience by its failures. Taking into consideration its failures over approximately 9 month period, the compensation offer was reasonable at that time. However the resident reported soon after the landlord’s stage 2 response, that the leak, damp and mould had returned. The evidence available suggests that the landlord did not monitor the matter, nor keep in reasonable contact with the resident at this time. As such, the resident had to chase it several times in the following months. Given the assurance the landlord had provided to monitor the situation in its stage 2 response, this was a failing. It was also the cause of further inconvenience to the resident. Therefore an order has been made for additional compensation for further distress and inconvenience caused.
It is noted that the resident had reported that the roof was leaking again on 17 November 2022. The evidence available demonstrates that the landlord failed to take action to resolve the leak at the time. Furthermore, it shows that it continued to miss several opportunities to do so, despite the resident’s reports that the repair remained outstanding. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that it failed to complete the roof repair within its own timescales, which was appropriate. The evidence suggests that some repair was completed, but the landlord has accepted that a full repair of the roof was delayed. It identified that it was unable to demonstrate that the roof was repaired when the resident reported the leak in December 2021. Therefore its calculation for its compensation for the delays to repair the leak started from that period, which was reasonable. In its stage 1 response it offered the resident £660 for its failure to repair the roof within its own timescales, which was reasonable. The landlord then took approximately another 3 months to repair the roof. It offered the resident a further £200 in it stage 2 response for “delays”. It is of the Ombudsman opinion that this compensation was in recognition of that delay. As such, the further compensation was reasonable.
The landlord told this Service that the roof will be replaced in its 2024 to 2028 programme. This is concerning, given that it told the resident that it would replace it within the previous financial year (2023 to 2024). The reason for the works being pushed back is unclear and it is acknowledged that the landlord must work in accordance with any budgetary constraints. However, the landlord failed to follow through with its commitment to replace the roof by the timeframe it told the resident. As a result, she has been further disappointed by its response to the concerns she has raised.
The landlord has informed us that the installation of the ventilation system was recommended in its October 2023 Damp and Mould survey, will be carried out on 23 May 2024. This is 7 months after it had been recommended. While the delay is unclear, that there was one is a further failing.
Overall there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported damp and mould. This is because the landlord failed to:
1. carry out a damp and mould risk assessment. Taking into consideration the resident’s concerns that the living conditions were affecting her daughter’s health.
2. take meaningful actions to investigate, treat and monitor the damp and mould within a reasonable timeframe.
3. demonstrate that it took reasonable and appropriate steps to fairly compensate the resident for her damaged personal belongings and furniture.
4. resolve the cause of the damp and mould; the leaking roof, within a reasonable timeframe.
In 2023, the Service investigated a number of individual cases in relation to the landlord’s handling of reported damp and mould by its resident’s. Collectively, those cases identified that the landlord’s failings did not pertain to just individual cases, but it had similar failings across the board, such as poor record keeping and failing to carry out inspections. Therefore, we ordered the landlord to carry an independent review under the Social Housing Regulation Act.
The independent review was carried out and the landlord has responded to its recommendations. Given the failings found in this case, we would ordinarily order the landlord to carry out a case review. However, we are satisfied that the landlord has reviewed its practices and we will not duplicate the recommendations highlighted in the review within this report. Therefore, we will not order the landlord to carry out a review, but instead recommend that it uses this case as part of its continuous commitment to improve its damp and mould services alongside the independent review’s recommendations.

Complaint Handling

In responding to our request for information, the landlord provided 3 copies of its stage 1 response. Each had a different date. Having considered the other evidence that is available, it appears the response was issued at the beginning of May 2023. However, the landlord should ensure that there is clarity within its record keeping.
It is noted that we informed the landlord of the resident’s concerns in April 2023. This included the impact the damp and mould had on her family’s health, and damage caused to internal decoration. Our Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code 2022) stated that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. In this case, the landlord did not address the specific concerns raised in the complaint. That was a failing. Addressing each issue the resident raised would have demonstrated that it had fully considered and was committed to resolving her complaint.
The resident subsequently asked for her complaint to be escalated. Her specific concerns are unknown as we have not received a copy of the correspondence. Nevertheless, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 23 May 2023. Within its acknowledgement it explained that it was experiencing high volumes of enquiries which meant that there would be a delay in contacting the resident about her complaint. This was reasonable at this stage of the complaint escalation request.
However, the landlord should have issued its stage 2 response to the resident by 21 June 2023, which it failed to do. This would have been in line with its complaint policy timescales of 20 working day response. It is unclear whether it informed the resident that it intended to extend its complaint response deadline. Its complaint policy stated that it could extend its response deadline up to a further 10 working days upon discussing the extension with the resident, which aligns with the Code 2022. However, there is no evidence that it did so, which is a further failing.
The evidence available demonstrates that it informed the resident that it had extended its response deadline approximately 4 times between July and October 2023. Its policy stated that it could extend its response up to a further 10 working days. It is clear that the extensions went significantly passed that. The Code 2022 states that if a landlord required an extension longer than 10 working, this should be agreed by both parties. There is no evidence that demonstrates that it agreed these extensions with the resident. Therefore this was a further failing. Furthermore, given the circumstances, the several response extensions would have exacerbated the resident’s distress and inconvenience as she waited a resolution to her complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 October 2023, which was approximately 106 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This was a significant departure from its own policy timescales of 20 working days. The landlord offered the resident £150 for the number of extensions it had requested, which went some way to put matters right. However, in absence of clarity of the compensation offer at stage 2. It is unclear whether the landlord offered the resident compensation for time, trouble and distress caused by delayed stage response. Therefore an order has been made in relation to this matter.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, because it failed to:
1. offer reasonable redress for the time, trouble, distress caused by its delayed stage 2 response.
2. acknowledge and address the resident’s specific concerns in its complaint responses.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported damp and mould in her flat.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord should do the following:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case, in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
2. pay the resident £700 compensation. This comprises of:
  1. £250 for it 5 month delay in carrying out damp and mould treatment.
  2. £200 for distress and inconvenience for delays in its stage 2 response.
  3. £250 for distress and inconvenience caused after it failed to take meaningful action after it issued its stage 2 response.
3. provide the resident with its next steps to resolve her complaint. In doing so, it should:
  1. inspect the resident’s property in line with its damp and mould policy. It should also identify any outstanding repairs and discuss with the resident whether a decant is required.
  2. confirm with the resident whether the roof is still leaking and if a further repair is needed.
  3. provide evidence to this Service that the ventilation system has been installed.
4. pay the resident the compensation it offered during its complaint process if it has not done so already.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
1. consider permanently moving the resident if the leaks to the roof continue and there is no specific and/or timely date to when the roof will be replaced.
2. review its compensation offer for the resident’s personal belongings and furniture damaged by the damp and mould.