Orbit Group Limited — case 202516303

Decision Case ID 202516303 Decision type Investigation Landlord Orbit Group Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 29 January 2026 Background The resident has an assured tenancy and has held this since April 2025. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident complained to the landlord about damp and mould in her home and about a shed in the garden. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: reports of damp and mould in the resident’s home reports of issues regarding the shed in the garden following a leak associated complaint Our decision (determination) We have found maladministration relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her home.

We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues regarding the shed in the garden following a leak. We have found service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Reports of damp and mould in the resident’s home The landlord was delayed for a prolonged period of time undertaking damp and mould works. The resident felt unable to live in her home because of the damp and mould.

The landlord did not provide all the relevant information to the resident and the works are still outstanding. Issues regarding the shed in the garden following a leak The landlord made an error in the tenancy agreement, it knew about the resident’s vulnerabilities, and did not seek to resolve the shed issues at an early stage. The associated complaint The landlord was delayed in its complaint responses and did not follow its own policies and procedures or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling 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 person to the resident for the failures identified in this report.

The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior manager 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 26 February 2026 2 Compensation order (based on rent) The landlord must pay the resident £408.48. This is based on 10% of the rent between 10 April 2025 and 26 November 2025 at £1.77 per day for 230 days for loss of enjoyment of the kitchen. The landlord may deduct the £199.

25 it offered in its stage 1 complaint response for loss of use and/or enjoyment of the home if it has already paid this to the resident. No later than 26 February 2026 3 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident and additional £600 made up as follows: £500 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the delays in resolving the damp and mould £50 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the failure relating to the garden shed £50 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the failure relating to the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord must pay the resident £700 as offered in its complaint responses and further correspondence with the resident if it has not already done so. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 26 February 2026 4 Inspection order The landlord must undertake an inspection of the resident’s home. The inspection must: Have due regard to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) evaluation tool Evaluate external condition of the property and its impact on the interior of the resident’s home.

The landlord must produce and action plan with timescales to resolve any issues identified in the inspection. The landlord must provide a copy of the inspection report and action plan to the resident. The landlord must provide evidence that this has been provided to the resident by the due date. No later than 26 February 2026 5 Insurance Order The landlord must provide details of its insurer to the resident. The landlord must provide documentary evidence by the due date. No later than 26 February 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations The landlord should review its decision about the resident’s priority for the planned kitchen replacement and set out the reasons for its decision to the resident. The landlord should consider retraining its complaint handling staff to ensure they understand the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 2 May 2025 The resident raised a stage 1 complaint stating that the kitchen was in disrepair and needed replacing and the cupboards were warped.

The kitchen was full of mould, and she felt it was unfair for the landlord to have signed off the property in that condition. She also reported a leak from the shed in the garden had damaged belongings. On 12 May 2025, the landlord called the resident to acknowledge her concerns. 27 May 2025 The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: it partially upheld the resident’s complaint confirmed the kitchen was planned to be refitted in full and would be completed by May 2026 it confirmed the damp, mould and condensation (DMC) team would be in touch to arrange treatment and removal of damp and mould in the kitchen following photos supplied by the resident it was unable to find a service failure relating to the shed as it was signed for as gifted in the signed tenancy agreement it was unable to verify if the insides of the kitchen cupboards were checked during the void inspection as no photos were supplied with the void report it identified a service failure for not telling resident sooner about the kitchen being on the planned renewal list it offered compensation for a partial room loss adjustment, distress, and inconvenience and as an apology 4 June 2025 The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, saying she should not be expected to live with a substandard kitchen for over a year, the shed was not fit for purpose and had damaged her personal items.

She had been paying rent despite being unable to move into the property or use the kitchen. On 12 June 2025, the resident contacted the landlord who confirmed her complaint had been escalated to stage 2. 22 July 2025 The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said: the landlord did not hold responsibility for gifted items, and it could not investigate the damaged items the kitchen replacement was still on the planned maintenance programme for this financial year it did not feel the kitchen replacement needed to be expedited on 11 June 2025, a mould inspection was completed.

It advised the mould in the kitchen needed cleaning off the cupboards a work order was raised to repoint some brickwork, a contractor attended but a second appointment was needed it partially upheld the complaint as the resident was advised at stage 1 her case was to be passed to the Aftercare team. This was not completed and the landlord apologised it advised the resident the stage 2 complaint response was extended outside of timeframe by 5 days and apologised for the poor service it awarded additional compensation for the complaint being outside of timeframe and the case not being passed to the Aftercare Team Referral to the Ombudsman The resident came to this Service as the issues were ongoing 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 The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the resident’s home Finding Maladministration Between 26 February 2025 and 8 April 2025, before resident signed her tenancy agreement, the landlord’s records show that void works were carried out at the property. The records also show the landlord granted permission to its contractor to undertake damp injections to guarantee damp works carried out.

On 2 May 2025, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint, saying she was offered the property as suitable for her health needs, but the kitchen was in disrepair, full of damp and mould, and should not have been signed off. On 12 May 2025, the landlord spoke with the resident, who said she felt unable to live in the property due to the kitchen’s condition. On 13 May 2025, an internal email from the Voids team said the kitchen had been inspected for damage and damp, mould and condensation (DMC), was handed back in good, lettable condition, and had “a full sparkle clean.

” On 27 May 2025, the landlord issued its stage 1 response, partially upholding the complaint. It could not verify if cupboard interiors were checked during the void inspection, which it accepted as a service failure. It said the DMC team would arrange treatment following the resident’s photos sent on 6 May 2025 The landlord also confirmed the kitchen was planned for replacement by May 2026. It identified a service failure for not informing the resident earlier that the kitchen was on the planned renewal list.

It awarded the resident £399.25 which was: £199.25 for partial room loss adjustment for the time the resident felt unable to live in home awaiting treatment of damp and mould and repairs £200 for the distress and inconvenience and as an apology for the incomplete information the resident received The award for partial room loss was unreasonable in the circumstances because the resident was unable to live in the property. On 4 June 2025 the resident escalated her complaint, saying she should not have to live with a substandard kitchen for over a year, the compensation did not reflect the impact, and she had paid two months’ full rent without being able to move in or use the kitchen.

On 11 June 2025, the landlord’s repairs history show a damp, mould and condensation (DMC) inspection was completed. On 22 July 2025, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said: on 11 June 2025, an inspector attended to carry out a mould inspection the inspection notes advised mould within kitchen needed cleaning off the cupboards a works order was raised to repoint some brickwork on 16 June 2025 contractors attended to carry out this work but did not have enough time so another appointment had to be raised the kitchen was still planned to be replaced but did not feel it needed expediting Offered £50 for not passing the resident’s case to the Aftercare Team On 16 December 2025, the landlord provided an update to this Service and said on 26 November 2025 a mould wash was completed.

It offered a further £400 compensation to the resident for time, trouble, and inconvenience for the delays in removing mould. Outstanding work for repointing and an asbestos check booked for 24 February 2026 and it is trying to bring the date forward and repairs have been raised for the warping of the kitchen cupboards. In January 2026, the resident told this Service she had not moved into the property and was paying full rent. The landlord had cleaned the kitchen cupboards approximately 4 weeks earlier and had done a “really good job”.

The landlord is due to attend on 28 January to remove any asbestos from the damp proof course and repoint much of the property. From the resident signing her tenancy on 10 April 2025 to the mould wash on 26 November 2025 was 33 weeks and 6 days. This was an unreasonably long delay because: the landlord carried out a mould inspection 2 months after the resident signed her tenancy and this was not in line with its own policies and procedures the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and initially told the resident to clean the damp and mould in the kitchen cupboard herself the resident felt unable to move into the property due to the damp and mould the works relating to the damp proof course and repointing are outstanding In March 2025, the landlord’s records show the void works were stopped due to damp and mould.

This was a missed opportunity to ensure the root cause of the damp and mould identified and resolved prior to the resident signing the tenancy agreement. Following the DMC inspection in June 2025 it took over 5 months for the landlord to have someone attend to clean out the kitchen cupboards despite the landlord stating in its internal emails that the resident could not clean them herself due to her vulnerabilities. This demonstrates that it failed to give due regard to its duties as set out in the Equality Act 2010.

The landlord offered £899.25 to the resident through its complaints process and following further correspondence with the resident. Given the period of time and the detriment to the resident, this was not proportionate to put things right in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay compensation to the resident for the failings identified. Had the landlord not taken steps to resolve the issue there would have been a finding of severe maladministration in this case.

Complaint The issues regarding the shed in the garden following a leak Finding Service failure On 12 May 2025, the landlord spoke with the resident, who said the shed had been ‘gifted’ and described as in full working order, but it had leaked and damaged her mum’s gardening tools. The same day, an internal email between the Complaints and Voids teams recorded that the shed was not fit for purpose and asked whether it could be removed or repaired, noting the resident’s disabilities which meant she could not remove it herself.

On 13 May 2025, the Voids Team told the Complaints Team the shed had been left as a gifted item, signed for at tenancy sign‑up, and believed it to be in good condition, and that post‑inspection photos were available. Undated photographs in the landlord’s records showed exterior and interior images of a shed, including guttering and workbenches, but did not show the full condition of the roof. On 27 May 2025, the landlord issued its stage 1 response, stating there was no service failure because the shed had been gifted and it had no responsibility for repair or removal.

The resident escalated her complaint on 4 June 2025, saying the shed was not fit for purpose, had caused damage to belongings, and she wanted it removed. On 22 July 2025, the landlord’s stage 2 response repeated that it had no responsibility for gifted items and could not investigate the damaged items. The tenancy agreement included a section for gifted items (including sheds), which was marked with a cross, but the shed itself was not listed, which it was required to be. In January 2026, the resident told this Service a family member had disposed of the shed, but the landlord had not discussed damage to belongings.

This Service is unable to assess any damage to the resident’s belongings. It would be more efficient and fairer to seek a remedy through an insurance claim or in the courts. But we can assess whether the landlord communicated fairly and whether the landlord gave appropriate advice, consideration and details to the resident. We can also assess whether there was any distress or inconvenience in any failing. The landlord’s handling of the issues relating to the shed was unreasonable because there were administrative errors in the tenancy agreement and it did not show evidence due regard to the resident’s mobility issues when she asked for the shed’s removal.

Its complaint responses did not provide any insurance information to the resident. We have made an order for the landlord to apologise to the resident for this finding. Complaint The handling of the associated complaint Finding Service failure On 2 May 2025, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about kitchen disrepair. On 12 May 2025, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the complaint. This contact was 6 working days after the complaint was raised and was not in line with the landlord’s policies and procedures.

On 27 May 2025, the landlord issued its stage 1 response, 11 working days after acknowledging the complaint. This was not in line with the landlord’s own policies and procedure. On 4 June 2025, the resident requested escalation to stage 2. On 10 June 2025, she contacted the landlord for an update. On 12 June 2025, the landlord confirmed the complaint had been escalated. This was 7 working days after the escalation request. The landlord did not acknowledge this delay. This was unreasonable and not in line with its own policies or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

On 27 July 2025, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It stated that on 15 July 2025 it had informed the resident of a 5‑day extension and apologised for this, offering £50 compensation, which was appropriate in the circumstances. But 27 July 2025 was 32 working days from complaint acknowledgement. The 5-day extension would have given the landlord 25 working days. The landlord did not acknowledge this further delay. This was unreasonable because it exceeded the timescale advised to the resident.

On 4 October 2025, the resident contacted the landlord to chase the compensation offered but had not been received. On 13 October 2025, the landlord’s records show it had authorised and set up the compensation payment for the resident. The landlord’s complaint handling was unreasonable in the circumstances. While the delays were minimal and unlikely to have caused significant detriment to the resident. But the resident had to chase the landlord, and the landlord did not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code or its commitment to the resident.

We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay compensation. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) As mentioned in this report, the tenancy agreement did not explicitly include the shed despite it being clear it should be itemised. The landlord should ensure its staff complete documentation accurately to help prevent complaints being raised. This report mentions no void inspection photos were available for the inside of the kitchen cupboards. The landlord should ensure that its processes are robust to ensure it can fully document all stages of work carried out.

Communication As mentioned in this report, the landlord was slightly delayed in acknowledging the resident’s complaint and issuing complaint responses. We have made a recommendation relating to this.