Orbit Group Limited (202233468)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233468

Orbit Group Limited

30 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 to the air source heat pump system.
2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom bungalow. The landlord’s records state the resident has mental and physical vulnerabilities.
4. In 2022 the resident was waiting for a management move and contacted the Ombudsman as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his move. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 26 May 2022 requesting a response be issued to the resident. In the meantime, the resident moved into the property on 30 May 2022.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 June 2022. It said the resident was dissatisfied with the length of time his management move had taken. The landlord detailed the timeline involved. It acknowledged the resident had incorrectly been offered a flat initially which had caused a delay. The landlord said the resident was then offered his property and was told it would be ready to move into on 12 May 2022. It said the resident’s move was then delayed to 30 May 2022 due to the electrics being unsafe in the property. The landlord acknowledged that when the resident moved into the property on 30 May 2022, the heating was not working. It said an appointment had been booked for 24 June 2022 to resolve the issue. The landlord apologised and awarded the resident £233.75 compensation.
6. The resident escalated his complaint on receipt of the stage 1 response. He said the appointment to fix the heating that had been scheduled for 24 June 2022 had not occurred.
7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 October 2022. It said it planned to install a storage heater in the property, but the resident did not want this form of heating. The landlord said, at the resident’s request, it had arranged for an air source heat pump (ASHP) to be fitted. It stated that the resident was advised there would be a delay to fitting this as an ASHP was outside of the usual scope for the property. The landlord said the ASHP was fitted on 2 September 2022. It said there were issues with its functionality after the installation which resulted in its contractor attending the property twice.
8. The contractor was happy the ASHP was fitted correctly so the landlord said it had referred the resident to an energy charity for support. It recorded on 13 October 2022 that the resident was going to track and monitor energy usage over 3 to 4 weeks with the energy charity. The landlord said if any issues relating to the system were identified through the resident’s work with the energy charity, it was committed to putting them right. It awarded the resident £1,001.75 in compensation. This was made up of compensation for loss of heating, service failure, missed appointments, complaint handling and stress and inconvenience regarding the management move and the heating.
9. The landlord issued a post-stage 2 response on 14 March 2023. It said the resident had reported problems with the ASHP reaching desired temperatures and that it did not work below temperatures of -4c. The landlord said the contractor had visited several times and all reports found the ASHP to be working as intended. It stated that it was identified the thermostat could be improved so a new one was fitted. The landlord said that when the resident continued to report concerns about the ASHP, it had contacted the manufacturer who came out to visit. It said the manufacturer had made 2 recommendations for work and the contractor was going to attend on 14 March 2023 to complete that work. The landlord said that the resident had declined the recommended work to be completed as he wanted a radiator fitted in the kitchen. It said this was not a recommendation and stated the reasons why it could not do this. The landlord asked the resident to let it know when he would like the recommended work completed. It said this was its final response and if the resident remained dissatisfied, he should contact the Ombudsman.
10. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 23 March 2023. He thought his ASHP was not fitted correctly. On 24 June 2025 the resident told the Ombudsman that he had experienced continued problems with the ASHP. He said the ASHP had to be reinstalled in 2024. The resident said the ASHP does not work on the most economical setting and records incorrect temperatures. He said the tank size was too big for a single person that does not have a bath in the property. The resident said he had been advised the ASHP unit might need to be moved to the other side of the property and that there is a rusty valve on a part in the loft. He said the problems with the ASHP had made him ill and he had been in hospital due to stress and a mental breakdown over this matter.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident told this Service that the ongoing problems with the ASHP had affected his physical and mental health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these problems, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on the resident’s health. Such matters are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the air source heat pump system.

12. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states its repair responsibilities include to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the property for space heating and heating water. The landlord also has repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
13. The landlord installed an ASHP on 2 September 2022. The evidence showed that the resident reported problems with the ASHP in early September and the contractor was due to attend on 6 September 2022. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the contractor missed this appointment and attended on 9 September 2022 instead. It said the system was tested and found to be working correctly at this appointment.
14. The resident contacted the landlord again on 12 September 2022 as he was still having issues with the ASHP. An appointment was booked for 21 September 2022 for the contractor to attend. It was unclear from the repairs logs what work was carried out at this appointment. Call logs showed that the resident contacted the landlord on 21 September 2022, a few hours after the contractor had attended. The resident reported that since the contractor had left, the heating had only gone up by 1.5 degrees. He thought there was a fault with the ASHP’s ability to heat the property, the speed at which it was heating up, and the maximum temperature it was reaching.
15. The landlord raised a 24-hour emergency appointment in line with its responsive repairs policy. It was unclear from the repairs logs when this appointment took place and what work, if any, was carried out at this appointment. However, internal landlord emails between 23 September and 26 September 2022 showed that the landlord was satisfied the ASHP had been correctly installed and was working. This was also stated in the landlord’s stage 2 response.
16. The evidence showed that the landlord thought the issues the resident was experiencing were due to user error. In an internal landlord email dated 23 September 2022, the landlord said that ASHP systems were not used in the same way as gas boilers and that they take time to reach a desired temperature. It stated ASHP systems do not work well on demand. The landlord stated it thought the issues were “more around user error than the systems efficiency”.
17. An internal landlord email on 26 September 2022 stated the resident’s property was listed as ‘C’ on its energy performance certificate. It said this should be fine for an ASHP to work. This email explained that the ASHP should not be turned off completely because it would be very expensive when turned back on as it can take several days to restore the home to a comfortable temperature. It said the desired temperature should be adjusted by the thermostat. There was no evidence to show that this information was given to the resident at this point. This information was not included in any of the landlord’s complaint responses.
18. As the landlord thought user error was the underlying problem, it sought out additional support for the resident. It checked the instructions for the ASHP had been left with the resident, which was confirmed it had. The landlord raised that it needed to consider if there were any literacy needs and suggested an appointment to show the resident how to use the system again might be needed. These were appropriate considerations. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence regarding the outcome of these considerations and what action, if any, the landlord took about these matters.
19. As the landlord’s focus changed from inspections and repairs to support for the resident, the landlord referred the resident to an energy charity, with the resident’s consent. The referral to the energy charity was made by the landlord on 28 September 2022. The energy charity advised the landlord it would contact the resident early the following week. The landlord’s case notes showed that the energy charity was sending a monitor to the resident. He was going to take notes regarding the usage of the ASHP for 3 weeks. It was unclear from the evidence whether the referral achieved its objectives and what the outcome was of the resident tracking his energy usage.
20. The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 January 2023. He said the ASHP stopped working at temperatures below -4c. An internal landlord email dated 3 January 2023 explained that the ASHP would operate well in minus temperatures. It said that an ASHP is supposed to run 24/7 in cold weather as it provides ambient temperatures, not instant heat. The landlord stated to get maximum efficiency from the unit, it needs to run. It said if the pump is turned off, then it can freeze. The landlord advised the resident of this information on 5 January 2023. The resident said the ASHP had not been switched off and was still failing to reach and maintain temperatures. He said the ASHP was struggling to exceed 18c.
21. The landlord contacted the manufacturer on 9 January 2023 and asked if it could check the ASHP at the resident’s property. In the meantime, the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 20 January 2023. The contractor topped up the system pressure, adjusted the temperature, bled the system and explained to the resident how the ASHP worked.
22. On 30 January 2023 the landlord chased the contractor to see if the manufacturer had been to check the ASHP. The contractor advised the landlord that it had cancelled the manufacturer’s visit. It said that when it attended the property on 20 January 2023, it had left the ASHP working so it had cancelled the appointment. The contractor said if the system went down again, it would contact the manufacturer.
23. The manufacturer attended the property on 6 February 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord arranged this. It showed the landlord was committed to resolving the problem for the resident. The landlord’s post-stage 2 response stated this visit occurred because the resident remained dissatisfied with the functionality of the ASHP. The manufacturer found 5 issues. The issues identified were:
    1. The antifreeze valves were fitted high. The manufacturer said the manufacturing requirements state these are recommended to be fitted as low as the heat exchanger to be effective in a freeze prevention situation. It said the way it was currently fitted may not protect the machine.
    2. The lagging had not been done well. It said there were lots of open gaps and heating produced was escaping before it entered the property. The manufacturer said it should be lagged better and tightly to aid efficiency and costs to run.
    3. The factory supplier strainer had not been installed. The manufacturer said this meant the unit had no protection from debris entering the heat exchanger in the outdoor unit.
    4. The thermostat that had been used was not just a thermostat. The manufacturer said it was also a timer and a timed dictation depending on the input schedule. This meant it had the ability to alter temperature in a background schedule. The manufacturer advised the resident to use this in manual mode only. It said that the heating immediately improved to 22c in this setting. The manufacturer said that some of the heating issues the resident was experiencing may be due to the thermostat.
    5. The manufacturer said the 18L buffer vessel was not secure. It said it had touched a pipe to check the lagging and the whole buffer and pipework above started swaying. The manufacturer said that although this would not affect the operation, this was under strain and needed to be secured.
24. During the visit the manufacturer made some adjustments to the hot water and heating settings. The manufacturer noted that the kitchen was never being heated as there was no radiator in the kitchen. It said the hallway thermostat was fitted next to the kitchen so there was a constant cold draft being sensed by the thermostat which was having a negative influence. The manufacturer said that this would affect how long it took for the thermostat to sense a true reading of the property as the kitchen is cooling the stat down lower than the true reading. It stated that it expected the heating performance to improve once the property was better insulated. The manufacturer concluded that the ASHP was working well. It said that there were the issues identified that the landlord needed to consider but there were no faults with the manufacturer’s equipment.
25. The manufacturer’s report showed that the resident’s repeated concerns about the efficiencies of the system were not unfounded. While the unit was operating well, there were changes needed to settings and some recommended work to carry out, to ensure optimal operation of the ASHP. The contractor’s portal notes acknowledged that its installers were required to return to correct the issues.
26. In its post-stage 2 response dated 14 March 2023 the landlord said that prior to the manufacturer attending the property it had noted the thermostat could be improved so it had fitted a new thermostat. It said that the manufacturer had confirmed the ASHP was in good working order but that it had made 2 recommendations regarding the position of the anti-freeze valve and the lagging. It was unclear why the landlord said the manufacturer identified 2 recommendations when 5 had been listed in the report. The landlord did not reference the missing strainer, the buffer vessel needing securing, the adjustments to settings that the manufacturer had made during its visit and that once the property was better insulated, the manufacturer would expect the heating performance to improve.
27. The landlord noted that the thermostat needed to be used manually as the time temperature dictation was affecting the efficiency of the ASHP. It said its heating contractor had attended the property on 6 March 2023 to order the required parts for the recommendations and an appointment had been scheduled for 14 March 2023 to carry out the work. The landlord said the resident had declined the recommended work being carried out as he wanted a radiator fitted in the kitchen. It explained a radiator being fitted in the kitchen was not a recommendation from the report. The landlord asked the resident to let it know when he was happy for the recommended work it had listed to be completed.
28. An internal landlord email dated 15 March 2023 showed there were some issues regarding scheduling the appointment for the work. The resident was under the impression an appointment had been arranged for 1pm-6pm that day but when he had contacted the contractor, it was unaware of the appointment which had frustrated the resident. The landlord stated in its internal email that the resident said he no longer wanted the contractor to enter his property as it had not managed to complete the work and never turned up with the correct equipment. On 22 March 2023 an internal landlord email stated the resident wanted the manufacturer to carry out the work instead of the contractor as he felt the contractor did not know how to work the system. In an internal landlord email dated 23 March 2023 the landlord stated it was in partnership with the contractor, and it could not go outside of its contractual agreement and procurement rules for repairs.
29. On 8 November 2023 there was a service of the ASHP carried out by the contractor. The service report listed under “further works required/defects picked up” that the antifreeze valves were fitted too high, it was poorly lagged, and that the debris strainer was not fitted. These were the same items identified in the manufacturer’s report from 6 February 2023. The evidence showed that the landlord had attempted to arrange an appointment for this work earlier in the year, but the resident had declined this. The Ombudsman is unable to criticise the landlord for these works being outstanding where it has made a reasonable attempt but the resident has refused access.
30. It was unclear from the evidence when the impasse about this matter was resolved. However, reports about the ASHP from 2024 reference the unit had a strainer fitted, therefore, the recommended work was completed at some point.
31. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 12 April 2024 to say the ASHP had “finally” been correctly installed approximately 17 months after the initial installation. The resident told the Ombudsman on 24 June 2025 that the ASHP had been reinstalled in his property in 2024. The evidence suggested this happened in early 2024 as there was a manufacturer’s commissioning report dated 29 February 2024. This commissioning report listed a “site defect” as “strainer blocked”. It said on opening the strainer it was found to be nearly fully blocked by thread sealant compound from the installation. The report found a low flow rate but after the strainer was cleaned the flow rate increased.
32. The evidence showed the resident experienced further problems with the ASHP as the manufacturer attended the property again on 4 October 2024. Its report stated it “attended site to investigate system performance”. It found that the outdoor ambient temperature was showing on the panel as 16c when it was only 10c. The manufacturer stated, “the system will not work as efficiently on the weather dependent setting due to outdoor unit being in direct sunlight of outdoor coil”. It was also found there was a 3-degree difference in temperature readings in the living room which the operative offset to -1.5 degrees to provide a more accurate reading. A 3-port valve was tested and was found to be fully operational, but the manufacturer said it had a lot of fluctuations in flow rates.
33. The report showed a flow sensor was inspected which found a lot of dried-up debris and paste inside. The sensor was removed, cleaned and reinstalled. The manufacturer said this resulted in much better and more steady flow rates in both heating and hot water modes. The report concluded that due to the findings found, the system was not fully working as efficiently. It stated this was due to the flow sensor having debris build up and not reading correct flow rates. The manufacturer said therefore the pump and compressor would not modulate accordingly or correctly.
34. The manufacturer recommended that if the system was to be set up on “weather compensation”, an additional ambient sensor would be required to be installed in a location that would give a true ambient outdoor reading. It was unclear from the evidence if the weather compensation was being used and therefore whether the landlord carried out this recommended work or not.
35. The resident advised the Ombudsman on 24 June 2025 that he has had so many appointments regarding the ASHP. He said it doesn’t work on the most economical setting. The resident said the ASHP had experienced dropped pressure. He stated that temperatures were being recorded as up to 40c outside, when it was not that temperature. The resident said he had been told that the machine might need moving to the other side of the property. He was concerned because when the contractor last attended, he was told there was a rusty valve in part of the installation in the loft. The resident thought this referred to the air release valve. He said nobody had been back to replace this valve.
36. The landlord awarded the resident £233.75 compensation in its stage 1 response. This was made up of £78.75 for 21 days without heating, £55 for the service failures on behalf of its lettings team and contractor and £100 goodwill payment for the stress and inconvenience caused by the management move. These payments were not in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repairs on the ASHP.
37. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had reviewed the compensation it had previously offered at stage 1. At stage 2, the landlord awarded the resident £1,001.25. This was made up of £341.25 for 91 days without heating, £70 for service failures, £40 for missed appointments, £200 for poor complaint handling and £350 for the overall experience the resident had regarding his management move and heating. This level of compensation was appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance. However, these payments were not specifically in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repairs on the ASHP. This compensation only took into account the issues the resident experienced up to 27 October 2022 and not the ongoing issues that have occurred.
38. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the ASHP. This is because it was clear from the evidence that there had been ongoing problems with the ASHP. The issues the resident experienced may have been addressed at an earlier time if the manufacturer had been contacted sooner. While the landlord cannot be held responsible for any delays caused by the resident declining access for the recommended work, it was responsible for the delays in contacting the manufacturer. Although the manufacturer did not find any faults, its report concluded that the unit could have been installed for more efficient and practical use.
39. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the ASHP, the landlord should award the resident £250 in compensation in recognition of the delays in contacting the manufacturer, issues identified with the installation and the ongoing problems the resident has experienced.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

40. The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 stages to its complaints process. The policy states the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
41. The landlord recognised the resident’s dissatisfaction with the installation and repair of the ASHP at stage 2. Although this was connected to the original complaint, it was a new complaint matter and should have been logged and responded to at stage 1.
42. Instead, the landlord responded to the complaint for the first time at stage 2. This was not in line with the Code. A two-stage process gives residents the opportunity to challenge the landlord. It also gives the landlord a chance to consider whether it took the right response, got anything wrong and to determine how to put things right if needed.
43. The landlord issued a further response on 14 March 2023. However, the resident would not have been aware a further response was coming. By addressing the new complaint matter at stage 2 instead of stage 1, the resident was not given the opportunity to challenge the landlord or escalate the matter to the next stage. The landlord did not provide this further response within the usual timescale a stage 1 and stage 2 response would be given.
44. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged delays in issuing its responses. It awarded the resident £200 for poor complaint handling to reflect the length of time the resident’s complaint had been ongoing. This was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge. While the landlord did not acknowledge its errors in responding to the matters at stage 2 instead of stage1, the level of compensation issued in its stage 2 response was proportionate to the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
45. Considering the above, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord made an offer of redress which was satisfactory in resolving the complaint handling failures. This is because the landlord acknowledged the poor complaint handling and awarded the resident £200 in compensation which was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the air source heat pump system.
47. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

48. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 in respect of its handling of repairs to the air source heat pump system. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to his rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to the Ombudsman.
49. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must complete all works recommended by the manufacturer in the last inspection report and arrange a post-inspection by the manufacturer to confirm there is nothing further needed. If further recommendations are identified by the post inspection, these works must be carried out by the landlord. On receipt of the post inspection report, the landlord must send a copy of the report to the resident and the Ombudsman.
50. The landlord must consider how it can improve the insulation at the property. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must submit a copy of its findings to the Ombudsman, detailing what action it will take.