Orbit Housing Association Limited (202442458)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442458

Orbit Housing Association Limited

31 July 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a request for an accessible external pathway.
The Ombudsman is also considering the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident occupies the property under an assured tenancy agreement and has done so since December 2023. The property is a one-bedroom bungalow. The landlord is a housing association. The resident is partially sighted, has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and has mental health conditions.
On 29 February 2024 the resident reported that a concreted area in the property’s front garden was uneven and cracked. On 18 March 2024 the resident informed the landlord that they had tripped on the concrete. The resident said this was dangerous as they had difficulties with co-ordination and balance from being partially sighted.
On 15 May 2024 the landlord inspected the area and arranged for a new levelled path to be installed. Contractors attended the property on 17 May 2024, but they did not complete the work as they considered the area to be a driveway.
On 9 May 2024 the resident’s MP asked the landlord for an update on the repair. The landlord treated this email as a complaint.
In its stage one response dated 31 May 2024 the landlord said:
1. The resident had asked the landlord to repair the concreted area on 29 February 2024. Contractors attended the property and decided not to complete the works as the area was a driveway.
2. The landlord raised works for the sunken concrete to be removed and replaced with soil on 16 June 2024.
3. It offered the resident compensation of £130 for distress and inconvenience experienced, and £70 for a failure of service.
On 10 August the resident’s MP asked for an update on the works. The landlord treated this email as an escalation request.
In its stage 2 response dated 2 October 2024 the landlord said:
1. A senior member of staff had decided the concreted area was a driveway which it was not responsible for maintaining.
2. It was responsible for maintaining the footpath leading to the resident’s front door, and the path leading from the front door to the side gate. It said maintenance of the driveway was the resident’s responsibility.
3. It had decided to remove the sunken concrete and fill the area with soil because of the resident being partially sighted. Contractors attended the property to complete the works, but the resident refused the works.
4. The concrete slabs had been installed by a previous tenant who had not obtained the landlord’s permission before doing so.
5. The resident had raised concerns about moving wheelie bins down the main footpath which had steps. It suggested the resident could move the bins across the lawn once the sunken concrete had been removed.
6. It said the resident could request a home adaptation to assist with transporting their wheelie bins from the landlord.
The resident contacted this Service on 22 January 2025 as they were not satisfied with the landlord’s assessment that it was not responsible for the concreted area. The resident said the matter was a health and safety issue and they just wanted a functional path which met their mobility needs.
The resident has said, following their complaint being referred to this Service, the landlord has advised them to request an occupational therapist assessment via their GP and the landlord will consider this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a request for an accessible external pathway

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will aim to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, routine repairs within 28 days and major repairs within 90 days. The landlord will prioritise repairs if a resident has physical and/or mental health conditions. This can include treating repairs as emergency repairs if there is a risk to a resident’s health and safety.
In its repairs policy the landlord commits to helping residents with disabilities and vulnerabilities to live independently. This can include making alterations to a property to meet a resident’s need.
The repairs policy says the landlord is responsible for maintaining any fixtures and fittings it originally installed or provided. It is not responsible for maintaining any alterations or fixtures left in the property by previous tenants.
The landlord’s additional assistance policy says it can offer reasonable adjustments for vulnerable customers. The policy notes that under the Equality Act 2010 it has a responsibility to arrange necessary adjustments for disabled residents, to enable them to access support and services. Residents can also request adjustments from the landlord to meet physical needs. The landlord will discuss adaptations with the resident, and consider what actions are reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
The Equality Act 2010 places legal obligations on social landlords to prevent discrimination based on protected characteristics. Under the act disability is a protected characteristic. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act, this can only be done by the courts. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to keep the structure and exterior of a property in good condition. This responsibility does not automatically extend to pathways, driveways or external decorative structures
The resident’s tenancy agreement says it is the resident’s responsibility to keep the property’s garden, and any driveways or pathways within the garden well maintained and in a good condition.
There are 3 external pathways which can be used to access the property from the street. One is a footpath leading to the front door, there are steps built into this pathway. The two additional pathways run in parallel to each other and lead from the street towards the side of the property, the concrete used for these parallel paths is in a poor condition. The pathways appear to be spaced at the appropriate width for a vehicle to park on the area, which could suggest the concrete was installed to be used as a driveway.
The landlord’s repairs records show that on 29 February 2024 it logged that the pathway leading to the side of the property had uneven and cracked concrete. The landlord classed the repair as a routine repair and noted that the resident was partially sighted and elderly.
On 18 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to ask for an update and said they had tripped on the concrete as it was uneven. The resident said as they were partially sighted, they struggled with co-ordination and balance. As such they considered the uneven surface to be a hazard and asked for it to be levelled and for a pathway to be laid. The resident said they wanted the landlord to fully consider their needs and to treat them fairly and equally. In this email the resident also sent the landlord supplementary medical documents about their diagnosis.
As the landlord was aware of the resident’s disability and their mobility needs, it should have acted in line with its repairs and additional assistance policies to consider if adaptations or adjustments were needed to meet the resident’s needs. The information provided by the resident also meant the landlord had a requirement to consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, as disability is a protected characteristic under the act.
The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint internally to seek additional support or advice from its adaptations department, or any other specialists to determine how to best meet the resident’s needs. This was inappropriate as it was aware of his personal circumstances including health conditions.
On 15 May 2024 the landlord conducted an inspection. The resident said during this inspection the landlord committed to removing the sunken concrete and installing a new pathway which would allow them to safely transport their wheelie bins. The landlord arranged for works to occur on 17 May 2024, this was an appropriate timeframe considering the resident’s mobility needs.
On 17 May 2024 contractors attended the property. The contractors did not start the works as they considered the area to be a driveway rather than a pathway. The landlord later agreed with the contractors’ assessment that the area was a driveway. As such the landlord decided it would not complete the works as it did not have a responsibility to maintain or repair this area. While this decision was in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord reversing its previous commitment to complete the works would have caused the resident distress and frustration.
In its complaint responses the landlord said the resident was responsible for maintaining the area, but because of their disability it had agreed to remove the sunken concrete and re-fill the area with soil. In its stage 2 reply the landlord suggested the resident could transport their wheelie bins over the soil once the concrete had been removed.
The landlord should have carefully considered the resident’s mobility needs before proposing to backfill the area with soil. Considering the resident’s disability, and its obligations under the Equality Act it should have considered an alternative method which could reduce the risk of slips and trips. Soil is not a stable surface, and following rain and in the colder months the area could likely become muddy and slippery. The landlord’s proposal suggests it did not give appropriate consideration to the resident’s disability and the health and safety risks the resident had highlighted.
More recently the landlord has asked the resident to obtain an occupational therapist’s report to assist in finding a reasonable solution to the health and safety risks highlighted. This is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances, however the landlord should have suggested this at an earlier stage.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said the resident could request an adaptation to their property to help them with moving their wheelie bins. The landlord said if the resident opted to do this, the resident would need to provide it with supporting evidence. The landlord’s suggestion was inappropriate as the resident had already asked the landlord to make an adaptation when they asked for a levelled path to be installed. Additionally, the resident had had already supplied the landlord with evidence of their disability on 18 March 2024, so the landlord should have considered the matter to be an adaptation request linked to the resident’s disability. If the landlord required additional evidence, it should have outlined the specific documents needed and supported the resident with obtaining the required material.
The Ombudsman has asked the landlord to outline why it considers that it is not responsible for removing the concrete and installing a levelled pathway. The landlord did not cite the resident’s tenancy agreement as a reason for its decision. Instead, it said as the concrete was installed by a previous tenant, under its repairs policy it is not required to maintain the area. The Ombudsman considers this stance to be unreasonable as the driveway is not included on the tenancy agreement as a gifted item installed by the previous tenant. Therefore the resident would have been unaware that the concrete was installed without the landlord’s permission, so they would not have known the landlord expected them to maintain this area.
The Ombudsman is not in a position to decide what adaptations should be made to meet the resident’s specific mobility needs, this should be determined by an Occupational Therapist. Currently the resident is in the process of obtaining an assessment by an Occupational Therapist. As such, an order has been made for the landlord to support the resident during the process of obtaining an Occupational Therapist’s report, and to carefully consider what steps it can take to adopt achievable recommendations identified by the Occupational Therapist.
In its complaint responses the landlord offered the resident compensation of £130 in recognition of the resident’s distress and inconvenience and £70 for a failure of service. The Ombudsman considers £200 compensation without committing to completing or considering any adaptations to be insufficient in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord did not give adequate consideration to the resident’s health condition, their mobility needs and their vulnerabilities. It should have fully considered its obligations under the Equality Act, and the content of its vulnerable persons policy when considering the requested works, and when suggesting alternative arrangements. The landlord’s actions would have caused the resident to feel distressed. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction made about the landlord.
The landlord’s complaints policy outlines the timescales in which it will respond to a complaint. The landlord commits to acknowledging complaints within 5 working days, and to provide its stage one response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If the resident wishes for their complaint to be escalated to a stage 2 complaint, the landlord will acknowledge this request within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
On 18 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and said they had been advised to make a complaint. In this email the resident outlined the nature of their complaint, and how the issues were impacting them. The landlord should have logged this as a complaint and initiated its complaints processes, this did not occur. This was a failing.
The landlord classified the resident’s MP’s email of 9 May 2024 as a complaint. It acknowledged the complaint on 16 May 2024 which was 6 working days later. The landlord provided its stage one response on 31 May 2024, this was 16 working days after the acknowledgement. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint or provide its stage one response in line with the timescales in its complaints policy. This was a failing.
The resident’s complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 10 August 2024, and the landlord acknowledged this on 20 August 2024 which was 7 working days later. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 2 October 2024, this was 32 working days after the acknowledgement. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation request or provide its stage 2 response in line with the timescales in its complaints policy. This was a failing.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred after considering:
1. The landlord did not identify the resident’s 18 March 2024 email as a complaint.
2. The landlord did not provide any of its complaint responses in line with its policies.
3. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for its complaint handling delays.
Poor complaints handling can cause a resident to become frustrated with their landlord, and to question their landlord’s abilities. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to award the resident £25 in compensation for each delay during the complaints process, and £50 for the landlord’s failure to identify the resident’s complaint. This brings the compensation awarded to £125 in recognition of the distress associated with the landlord’s complaints handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the request to install a level pathway.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £525 to the resident. The landlord may deduct the £200 previously offered if this has already been paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £400 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s handling of the request to install a levelled pathway.
2. £125 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s complaints handling.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to apologise to the resident for the failings outlined in this report.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to contact the resident to discuss the process of, and the support it can provide the resident, in obtaining an Occupational Therapists report. Upon receiving the Occupational Therapist’s report the landlord should carefully consider any recommendations made and explain to the resident what action it now intends to take in relation to his request for works to the pathway area. It should also update the Ombudsman on this decision.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the determination date.