Orbit Group Limited — case 202529898

Decision Case ID 202529898 Decision type Investigation Landlord Orbit Group Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 11 February 2026 Background The resident lives in a flat with 2 children under 5. She reported damp and mould in December 2024. She was unhappy with how the landlord’s handled her reports. What the complaint is about The landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Reports of damp and mould. Complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found: Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Damp and mould The landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, and there were delays in completing the survey recommendations and the heating work. Complaint handling The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the complaint in line with its policies or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code (the Code). It did not acknowledge these failings or offer suitable redress in line with its policy and the Code.

Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.

The landlord must ensure: the apology is provided by the Complaints Team the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance No later than 11 March 2026 2 Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £920 made up as follows: £520 previously offered in its complaint responses on 10 February 2025 and 9 October 2025 for its failings in handling the residents reports of damp and mould additional £200 to recognise the continued distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould £100 previously offered in its complaint response on 9 October 2025 for its complaint handling failure additional £100 to recognise the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures in relation to the delays This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. No later than 11 March 2026 3 Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.

What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: inspects the ground levels in relation to damp and mould in the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards the most likely cause of the damp and mould whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the works whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works No later than 11 March 2026 4 Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the heating work is completed promptly and in any event by the due date.

If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident until the work is completed No later than 11 March 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 12 January 2025 The resident made a complaint.

She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould. The mould was having an impact on her son’s health, and it had caused damage to her belongings. She said she wanted to move. 10 February 2025 The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. It said: there was a delay in it contacting the resident, but it inspected within the agreed policy timeframe its inspection on 9 January 2025 confirmed condensation caused the damp and mould it would fit new fans in the kitchen and bathroom it could not offer compensation for any damage due to the lack of receipts The landlord offered £220 compensation which included: £20 for its lack of contact £200 for the overall distress and frustration.

The resident agreed on the same day the landlord could close the complaint, but she would wait to accept compensation once it had completed the agreed work. 4 August 2025 The resident made a second complaint. She said she had continued to experience damp and mould. She said it was impacting her and her family’s health, and she needed to move. 28 August 2025 The landlord gave its stage 1 response to the resident’s second complaint. It said: it had completed a survey which showed the residents damp and mould case at a rating of 5 which was minor it could reduce the mould with treatment, so there was no need for it to move her it had not found any failure with timescales if she wished to move it would support her with a move via the local authority The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on the same day as she disagreed with its findings.

She reiterated the damp and mould was impacting her and her family’s health. 9 October 2025 The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process. It said: the resident reported the mould again in the property on 11 March 2025, so it raised a job for treatment it booked another inspection for 14 April 2025 which found no visible signs of mould, but provided a hygrometer to help indicate humidity in the property when she reported in June 2025 that her child was ill, it completed another inspection on 21 August 2025 the inspection found high humidity, but recommended another inspection at the end of the year to check ground levels it inspected again on 27 August 2025 and recommended a heat loss survey so it would contact her to arrange this it was able to manage the damp and mould with treatment, and with correct ventilation in the property The landlord partly upheld the complaint due to the delay in the inspection being completed.

It offered a total of £400 compensation. This was £100 for the poor complaint handling at stage 1, and £300 for the time and trouble experienced by the resident. It said its Aftercare Team would monitor the required follow-on work. Post internal complaints procedure The landlord told us in February 2026 it has: completed the heating loss survey, changed radiator sizes with only the living room outstanding completed work in the bathroom including tiling up to the ceiling, fitted a glass shower screen and replaced the window glazing completed a mould treatment following our notification of a possible material change on 20 November 2025 completed a joint visit with the council in December 2025 which confirmed no raising damp completed an inspection on 6 January 2026.

It found no mould on walls but on some furniture and it gave advice about heating and ventilation requested a ground level survey Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate as she was unhappy with how the landlord had handled her reports. She said while visible mould clears up, the smell of damp remains and then the mould comes back. She is concerned about the impact on her and her family’s health. She wants the landlord to move her. 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 Damp and mould Finding Maladministration What we didn’t investigate The resident told us that the damp and mould affected her and her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for an injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last.

We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience. The resident wants the landlord to move her to another property because of the damp and mould. While we empathise with the resident’s situation, we can’t order the landlord to move her. This is because we would not make an order that could result in other residents being disadvantaged. Without assessing the landlord’s transfer list, we would be unable to establish if there are others with greater priority than the resident in this case or if ordering a transfer would disadvantage another resident.

Our role is to assess whether the landlord considered the resident’s circumstances properly and acted fairly. What we did investigate What the landlord did well The landlord’s damp and mould procedure at the time required it to contact vulnerable residents within 5 working days when they requested a damp and mould inspection. The resident reported damp and mould on 11 December 2024. She contacted the landlord 7 times for an update, explaining she was pregnant and had a young child.

The landlord did not respond until 30 December 2024, which was not appropriate and caused her frustration as she continued to chase it for updates. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this delay in its stage 1 response to the residents first complaint on 10 February 2025. It offered suitable redress for the delay and distress caused, in line with its complaints resolution procedure. During its inspection on 9 January 2025, the landlord identified condensation as the cause of the damp and mould.

In line with its damp and mould policy, it provided the resident with advice on heating and ventilation and raised repair orders for the installation of new fans. This demonstrated that the landlord took appropriate steps to address the underlying issue and support the resident in managing the condensation. When the resident reported further concerns later in January 2025, it was appropriate for the landlord to record this as a formal complaint, in line with its complaints policy.

The landlord also raised a mould‑treatment job on 3 February 2025. Its damp and mould procedure required it to consider whether the issue needed immediate treatment and, where necessary, to raise the works under a 7‑day repair priority. The landlord applied this correctly, completing the mould clean within 5 days, which demonstrated that it took timely steps to address the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s response to the residents first complaint acknowledged the distress and frustration caused by its lack of contact.

It took steps to put things right by updating the resident about the fan installation and offering redress in line with its complaints resolution procedure. It also explained it could not compensate for damaged items without receipts, which was consistent with its policy. The resident confirmed she did not have receipts, so this was a reasonable approach. When the landlord received further reports of damp and mould from the resident another inspection was completed in line with its damp and mould policy timescales on 14 April 2025.

It found no visible damp or mould, but the landlord provided a hygrometer to help the resident manage humidity. It also identified damp from a previous bathroom leak, logged repairs to address this, and raised further works to replace the wet flooring and reseal the windows. The landlord completed the repairs within its repairs policy timescales in April and May 2025. This was also in line with its damp and mould procedure which required all identified issues to be recorded and actioned during an inspection.

The landlord’s damp and mould policy said it adopts a zero‑tolerance approach. The inspection on 21 August 2025 confirmed damp and mould were present. The landlord then raised further jobs for the bathroom, including extra tiling, a shower screen, and repairs to the window trickle vents. It also noted a possible leak from the property above, inspected it, and found no active leak. These actions showed the landlord continued to follow its zero‑tolerance approach by identifying and addressing possible causes of the issue.

An inspection on 27 August 2025 identified the humidity was slightly high in the property. The landlord recommended a further inspection in the winter to establish if ground levels were causing the issues. It again gave advice on ventilation. This provided some reassurance to the resident that it was considering possible causes, listening to her concerns and recognised the need for another inspection. At stage 2 of the resident’s second complaint, it was appropriate the landlord recognised the time trouble and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of damp and mould.

To put it right it confirmed the actions it would take to try and resolve the damp and mould issue she was experiencing. It offered suitable compensation, in line with its complaints resolution procedure with regards to time, trouble and inconvenience. What the landlord did not do well We cannot make findings on liability for health issues. However, once the resident raised concerns about her child’s health, the landlord should have considered reasonable adjustments, such as expediting repairs.

This was required by its damp and mould procedure at the time. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s health concerns or show empathy in its complaint responses. This was not reasonable, especially as the resident said her child had been in hospital and that she was worried. The landlord also missed an opportunity to offer support by signposting her to its liability insurer. As a result, she received no guidance on how to make a claim, which caused further frustration.

When the resident contacted the landlord in February 2025, she also provided supporting letters from her midwife and health visitor about the suitability of the property due to the impact the damp and mould was having on her children’s health. Although there was internal communication about her concerns, we have not seen evidence the landlord updated her on her request to move, which was unreasonable. When she reported further mould on 4 March 2025, the landlord arranged treatment and an inspection in line with its procedure.

This showed it would act when the resident made specific reports. But the earlier lack of communication meant the resident did not receive timely reassurance or clarity about the steps it had taken towards resolving her reports of damp and mould. The landlords damp and mould policy said it would be supportive in its approach, ensuring good communication throughout. The resident continued to report concerns about damp and mould in June and July 2025, but we have not seen evidence the landlord responded to these concerns.

She explained the effect the issues were having on her child’s health and on her own wellbeing. The lack of response was not appropriate and did not reflect the landlord’s damp and mould procedure for responding to vulnerable households. This caused further distress and inconvenience, leading her to make a second complaint on 4 August 2025. Where extensive works may be required, the landlord’s damp and mould policy said it should consider the household’s circumstances, including any vulnerabilities, when deciding if a temporary move was appropriate.

The resident repeatedly said she wanted to move because of the impact the damp and mould were having on her children’s health. The procedure also said damp and mould alone would not justify a management move, and a temporary move should only be considered as a last resort. In this case the works required were not extensive, so the landlord was not required to offer a move on that basis. However, the resident was pregnant during some reports so was vulnerable, had a young child and later a newborn.

The landlord still needed to consider whether her vulnerabilities affected the suitability of the home. Its complaint responses said the case was minor, but it did not show how it took her vulnerabilities into account. A risk category alone did not show that the landlord thoroughly evaluated whether the home was suitable for a vulnerable household during ongoing damp and mould issues. The landlord’s reasonable adjustment policy says it will make sure its homes are “fit for human habitation” and it will work with residents to resolve the issue using reasonable adjustments.

The landlord did not record any assessment of the resident’s vulnerability, or show it applied this policy, which left her unsure whether it had taken the right steps to protect her household. While it was positive it offered support with a move to a new provider via her local authority, its lack of consideration regarding a temporary move was not reasonable in the circumstances. This approach was unfair and added to her frustration and distress. Conclusion Our findings show the landlord took steps to identify and try to resolve the damp and mould issues.

It inspected in line with its policies and procedures, and where there had been failings it compensated appropriately. However, there is no evidence it reasonably considered her and her family’s vulnerabilities in line with its reasonable adjustment policy when considering a temporary move. She told the landlord it continued to impact her and her children. The resident reports she continues to live with mould in her property. She has been living with the issue for over 1 year.

This is an unacceptable amount of time to live with such conditions. Given the above post internal complaints procedure update, it is positive that the landlord followed through on its stage 2 commitment and offered additional measures to help reduce mould growth. It was also positive it acted on our notification of possible material change in November 2025 and completed mould treatment. However, it has still not completed the ground level survey recommended in August 2025 or fully completed the heating work.

This has caused distress and frustration for the resident as she has continued to experience damp and mould. Therefore, we have found maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £200 in compensation. This reflects the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and the delays in completing the survey recommendations and the heating work. This is proportionate given the £520 already offered and is in line with our remedies guidance where service failure has had a significant impact.

We have also made orders for the landlord to inspect the property and complete any required outstanding works. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the April 2024 edition. Our findings are: The landlord has a published complaints policy that complies with the Code in respect of timescales and complaint definition. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s first complaint on 12 January 2025 within 11 working days, which was outside its policy timescale of 5 working days.

It responded within 10 working days, which was in line with its policy timescales. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s second complaint on 4 August 2025 within 5 working days, in line with its policy timescales. It responded within 12 working days, which was outside the target timescale of 10 working days. In its stage 1 response to the resident’s second complaint, the landlord did not confirm that it would carry out the damp and mould inspection at the end of the year, despite this being agreed during the August 2025 visit.

This failure meant the landlord did not give the resident reassurance about the next steps; this likely contributed to her decision to escalate the complaint. It was appropriate that, at stage 2, the landlord acknowledged its failure to provide an update on its next steps and offered suitable redress in line with its complaints resolution procedure. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for escalation of the second complaint to stage 2 within 4 working days, which was within its 5 working days policy timescale.

It responded within 26 working days, which was outside the target timescale of 20 working days. There were delays in the landlord’s acknowledgements to both stage 1 complaints, and it also delayed its stage 2 response to the second complaint. These delays would have caused further frustration for the resident as she waited for a resolution. The landlord did not acknowledge these delays or offer any additional redress, even though its complaints resolution procedure allows it to do so.

Therefore, we have found service failure in its complaint handling. Learning The landlord took some steps to address the damp and mould by arranging surveys, treatment and repairs. This showed willingness to address the resident’s concerns. However, where damp and mould issues persist, it could consider adopting a more proactive approach to root cause analysis. It is important for landlords to acknowledge and offer suitable redress for any failings in its complaint handling policy such as delays in acknowledgements or responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord should strengthen its record keeping so it can demonstrate how it considers residents vulnerabilities when dealing with reports of damp and mould. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response its systems are not clear on information and communication. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices, with consideration being given to our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management. Communication The landlord should ensure it acknowledges communication from the resident, especially when third party health professionals are providing support.

This may help to ensure any additional insight informs any decisions it needs to make.