Orbit Housing Association Limited (202325918)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325918

Orbit Housing Association Limited

25 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the property condition when it was let, in relation to:
  1. The bathroom.
  2. The balcony doors.
2. Compliant handling and record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident lives in the property with her husband and 2 young children with no known vulnerabilities.
The property was recorded as empty and within the landlord’s void process from 30 October 2022 until the resident’s occupation of the property, which was 9 December 2022.
On 26 June 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint to her landlord. The resident said:
1. The property had a historic and re-occurring leak that had not been resolved before her occupation. She said the leak had been concealed by the landlord to make the property suitable for let.
2. The balcony doors were unsafe and required replacing.
3. Window repairs, identified as snagging upon her occupation, have only just been completed following numerous visits and rescheduled appointments.
4. Kitchen repairs were required because of a leak.
5. The landlord had not shown any accountability or transparency for the problems she had encountered. She said the complaint handling was poor and she was required to constantly chase for information.
On 1 August 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It:
1. Confirmed that some of the complaints raised had previously been through the internal complaints process, and therefore it was unable to consider these again.
2. Acknowledged that a differing opinion between staff members regarding the resident’s sign-up date for the property had caused confusion. However, it confirmed that the 3 snagging repairs identified at the post void inspection would not have prevented occupation or indicated that the property was unsafe to let.
3. Concluded that the resident was aware of the 3 snagging repairs that were outstanding, and it had not withheld the true condition of the property.
4. Partially upheld the complaint and apologised for its complaint handling.
On 11 August 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation to stage 2. This was because she remained unhappy with the outcome provided.
On 27 October 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It:
1. Acknowledged that the resident felt that she had no choice but to sign the tenancy agreement even though she thought the property was in an unsafe condition. However, it explained that incoming residents must accept or reject the property after viewing.
2. Confirmed that the miscommunication around the property’s ready to let date caused a degree of confusion and alarm. However, the snags were recorded as minor repairs, and it would not have been able to hold the property while works took place. It apologised if this information was not delivered in a clear or appropriate manner.
3. Advised it was unable to agree that the property was let in an unsafe condition because it had no prior knowledge that the leak was impacting the property, and that the balcony doors were not reported as unsafe until May 2023.
4. It said it partially upheld the complaint and awarded a total of £1,221.01 in compensation, this comprised of:
  1. £400 for distress, inconvenience, and confusion.
  2. £250 in recognition of the ongoing delays to replacing the balcony doors.
  3. £421.01 as a 5% rent refund due to the loss of enjoyment of the home. The landlord has not detailed the time period for its calculation.
  4. £150 for poor complaint handling.
On 27 and 30 October 2023, the resident requested for the stage 2 response to be formally reviewed due to factual inaccuracies. She said:
1. The balcony doors were first reported in December 2022 not May 2023.
2. The landlord’s contractor had confirmed the historic and ongoing leak to her and that a previous complaint response indicated that the landlord was aware.
3. She said she wanted a full year’s rent reimbursement of £8,420.34 because she had been left in a dangerous insecure property and that a housing safety officer had confirmed this.
On 30 October 2023, the landlord agreed to review its final response.
On 15 December 2023, the landlord submitted its revised stage 2 response. It thanked the resident for her time and patience while it had completed the review. Further, it said:
1. The resident had provided further evidence regarding the timeline of events for the balcony doors. It acknowledged that an inspection did take place on 6 January 2023.
2. It apologised for how the original stage 2 letter had made the resident feel and explained that the letter sent was a summary based on the information and evidence available at that time.
3. The case had been reviewed with colleagues across empty homes and lettings, responsive repairs, and partnering contractors and said that there was no evidence to suggest that the property was let in an unsafe condition. All known issues were minor and listed as snagging.
4. Appreciated that the resident’s personal circumstances at the time the property was viewed together with the differing opinion regarding the property sign-up date may have caused a degree of confusion and alarm.
5. Confirmed that the works identified to the balcony doors were regarded as the locking mechanism and while the doors would not lock, they did shut. Therefore, this was not identified from a health and safety perspective.
6. Acknowledged concerns about the quality of its record keeping. This was because an email had not been recorded and because the resident was informed that her account had been deleted. It was clarified that specific users can delete accounts: however, this is rare and property work orders are maintained and re-raised. It apologised and accepted that its record keeping had fallen short of its usual standards.
7. The IT team and partnering contractor had completed a review of all work orders raised for leaks impacting the property and 2 others. The records received from both corroborate one another that reports of leaking started in December 2022.
8. A leak had impacted the property in March 2018, but it was recorded as minor damage and only required some redecoration. No other leaks had been reported.
9. The complaint was upheld, and it apologised for the resident’s experience and the difficulty she had in striving to feel believed.
10. It confirmed that the original stage 2 offered a total compensation amount of £1,221.01. In light of the findings in the revised stage 2, it offered an increased award of £866, making a total offer of £2,087.01. The additional £866 comprised of:
  1. £70 for service failure.
  2. £196 for a delay in works being raised for balcony doors.
  3. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
  4. £150 for record keeping failures.
  5. £150 for poor communication post-stage 2.
  6. £200 for time and trouble.
The resident escalated her complaint to this service because she believed she was let an unsafe and dangerous property. She wanted compensation to include a full rent refund of £8,420.34 from the date she occupied the property until the balcony doors were replaced in December 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is acknowledged that the resident had raised a number of complaints which she had escalated through the landlord’s internal complaint process to resolution. These complaints included repairs required to the kitchen, delay to the replacement of balcony doors, a significant leak to the bathroom, window repairs, and other general repairs. The complaints have reached the end of the internal complaints process with the landlord and have not been escalated to this service. Therefore, this investigation is unable to comment upon these complaints; however, the resident has the option to refer these complaints to this service if she remains concerned.
As mentioned above, the resident has raised a previous complaint with the landlord regarding a delay to the replacement of the balcony doors, which has not been referred to this service for investigation. It is evident that the replacement of the balcony doors is ongoing and as such the landlord has included further compensation for this delay within the formal responses referred to in this investigation. The landlord offered an additional amount of £446 compensation for the delay to the replacement doors, which comprised of £250 at stage 2 and £196 at the stage 2 review. As the delay to the replacement doors has not been escalated to this service, this element of the complaint and compensation amount will not be included further within this investigation. Nevertheless, we have added a recommendation that the landlord pays the £446 compensation as offered.

Property condition

The landlord’s voids management procedure states:
1. That re-let properties are clean, free from the need to carry out immediate maintenance, and that all equipment, fixtures, and fittings are in working order and conform to safety standards.
2. An inspection is completed when the property is empty and all repairs identified are added to the void inspection form. Once works are completed, a further inspection is carried out to check for quality, quantity, and adherence to the lettable standard.
3. At post inspection, the inspector will pass the inspection if no more than 5 minor snags/repairs are remaining to be completed. One major snag or more than 5 minors is considered a failed inspection.
The landlord’s lettable standard states that it checks that all external doors and windows are secure, and locks are changed on external doors. Windows must open freely with handles, catches, and restrictors operational and window lock keys provided. It states that the bathroom must be clean and in working order.
It is evident that during the void works, the landlord completed the relevant safety checks which included an electrical safety check, gas safety check, legionella report, and energy performance certificate. It also noted that doors were eased and adjusted, and a new set of lever handles added to an external door.
The evidence provided by the landlord includes a void inspection record, a post-void inspection record, and a tenancy sign-up record. All the records indicated that some minor works were required, which included 2-bedroom windows not opening, a letterbox key missing, and a dripping/leaking kitchen tap. It did not detail any required repairs to the bathroom because of a leak or any problems with regards to securing the balcony doors. The document was signed by the resident and landlord. The tenancy sign-up record states that it should only be signed if the information is accurately reflected.
The landlord’s voids process states that up to 5 minor snagging repairs are considered a pass for post-void inspection and allows the property to be occupied. The resident has told this service that the lettings officer did not consider that the property was ready to let; however, the lettings manager said that with the snagging issues identified this would not prevent the property to be lived in or that it would be able to hold the property while works took place. The landlord has acknowledged that this would have caused concern and confusion, and it was right to acknowledge this as a service failure.

Property condition – Bathroom leak

The resident has said that the landlord was aware of a historic and ongoing leak to the property from the flat above prior to the resident’s sign-up for the property. However, the landlord disputes this information.
It is evident that the first reported leak to the bathroom was on 22 December 2022. On 26 April 2023, the resident reported a further leak. This was reportedly a significant leak, which resulted in major works in May 2023.
The resident said that while major works were completed to the bathroom, bathmats and shower curtains were found in the ceiling void. She said this indicated that previous leaks and multiple previous repairs had occurred. The resident said this was a deliberate cover up to make the property suitable for let despite the landlord being aware that major repairs to fix the leak were required.
Further, she said that within a final response of a prior complaint, which had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process, the landlord had awarded compensation for a leak that spanned over a period of 484 days. The resident had not lived in the property for that period of time and therefore felt that this evidenced that information was contained on the landlord’s system regarding an ongoing leak. The landlord disputes this and said the only previous record of a leak at the property was in 2018, which caused minor water damage to the ceiling. The landlord told the resident that it could not account for the timeframe provided on the previous complaint response and said that it was unable to speak to the officer who had completed the response as they had since left.
Where such a complaint is made, it is reasonable for a landlord to consult its records and make enquires with the parties involved. In this case, it is evident that the landlord was unable to speak with the relevant officer involved regarding the alleged mistake with the calculation of the leak time period and was unable to conclude why such an offer was made. While it is frustrating for the resident that it was not able to provide clarity, this was a reasonable investigation in the circumstances.
It is evidenced that on 3 November 2022, an electrical check was completed, and the outcome was recorded as being unsatisfactory. It is noted the failure had occurred because of an incorrectly installed light fitting. On 18 November 2022, the landlord completed works and installed an LED enclosed light to the bathroom which resulted in a satisfactory Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) being issued. The evidence suggests that had an active leak been observed at that time then the works would not have proceeded.

Property condition – Balcony doors

The resident said that the balcony doors within the property were unsafe, specifically that she was unable to lock the door. The landlord said that there was no issue recorded with the balcony doors upon void or at post inspection. It said its usual practice upon voids was to ease and adjust the doors and replace the lever handles, which it completed. It said it was after the property sign-up that an issue with the door was recorded.
During our investigation, we have found inadequacies in the records provided by the landlord regarding the problem with the doors and if they were first identified by the lettings officer prior to the resident taking up the tenancy or identified later within the commencement of the tenancy. However, the records were regarding being unable to open the doors not regarding the locking mechanism. What can be evidenced and agreed between both landlord and resident is that the balcony door was reported by the resident on 22 December 2022, prompted by a repairs visit while outstanding works to the windows were completed.
On 6 January 2023, the landlord’s voids assessor and contractor inspected the balcony door. The evidence suggests that it was during this inspection that the issue with the door was identified as non-repairable because the required parts to complete the repair were not available and therefore replacement doors were agreed and the resident informed that they would be put on order.

Property condition – Summary

In conducting our investigations, we rely on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
With the evidence available to this service, it cannot be concluded that the landlord failed to undertake the necessary repairs to the bathroom and that the bathroom was leaking at point of let. Or that it let the property in the knowledge that the balcony doors would require such major or replacement works. However, it is acknowledged that the numerous leaks and insecure balcony doors of which the resident experienced so soon into the commencement of the tenancy would clearly cause distress, frustration, upset, and upheaval.
Where there are admitted failings, as in this case, it is our role to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings and accepting that its failings had adversely affected the resident. It also apologised and offered £1,191.01 compensation to put things right. While its offer of compensation was unclear on the period it covered, the amount offered was in the range of sums prescribed in the remedies guidance for situations where there was a severe long-term impact and as such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate for the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property condition when it was let.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints procedure details a 2-stage complaints process in which all complaints are acknowledged within 5 days and complaints are responded to at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. It confirms that a complaint can be extended by up to 10 additional days; however, this should be discussed with the resident and a valid reason provided.
The stage 1 acknowledgement contained details on what complaints could be brought to the landlord following the resident previous complaints. Further, it clarified the complaint the resident wanted investigated. It was correct for the landlord to clarify the complaint, which ensured the correct understanding of the issue to be investigated.
The stage 1 complaint was received by the landlord on 26 June 2023, and it was acknowledged by the landlord on the same day. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 1 August 2023. The response took 27 days, which was outside of the landlord’s policy and was therefore unreasonable.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint process on 11 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day. On 27 September 2023, the landlord said that it required an extension and aimed to respond to the resident’s complaint on 11 October 2023, it did not provide a reason for this. This was inappropriate and not in line with its policy.
On 12 October 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and apologised that the stage 2 response remained outstanding; however, again it offered no reason for the delay. This was inappropriate and not in line with its policy.
On 27 October 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. The response took 56 days, which was outside of the landlord’s policy and therefore inappropriate.
On 30 October 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that the stage 2 response was not factually accurate and disputed many of the landlord’s facts. She provided further evidence and documents, which led to the landlord agreeing to review the case. While it is usually the case that the landlord should not provide further formal responses beyond its stage 2 response, given that the request had come from the resident, this was an appropriate and reasonable approach from the landlord.
That said, it is evidenced that the landlord’s poor record keeping had affected its ability to accurately investigate the complaint. It relied heavily on its staff’s comments following the event as it was unable to find or locate accurate and reliable records. This was a failing and caused the resident time and trouble in having to provide her evidence and escalate the complaint for a second time.
On 15 December 2023, 35 days after the landlord agreed to review its stage 2 response, the landlord provided its revised stage 2. This was outside of the landlord’s timescale for a stage 2 response and was unreasonable.
The landlord’s revised stage 2 complaint acknowledged and apologised for the failures it had found in investigating the resident’s complaint and for the distress it had caused to the resident. It is noted that the landlord undertook a more robust and through investigative approach to provide an accurate revised stage 2 response. It was good practice for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and identify its learning from the investigation.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it offers payments when it has failed to deliver a service to its advertised standard, in recognition of financial loss or significant distress or inconvenience. In this case, the landlord offered £150 at stage 2 for its poor complaints handling. In its revised stage 2 response, it also offered £150 its record keeping failures and £150 for its failings following the stage 2 response. The landlord’s apologies and compensation demonstrated good adherence to the dispute resolution principles. It acknowledged that its complaint handling had fallen below its expected standards and offered the resident appropriate redress for this. As such, a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate for the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in the way it handled the concerns raised by the resident about the safety and condition of the property when she moved in.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord for its compliant handling and record keeping.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £1,641.01 compensation as offered within the formal complaints process.
Pay the additional £446 offered to the resident within the formal complaints process regarding the delays to the replacement of the balcony doors.
The landlord may deduct any amount already paid as part of its offer.
Compensation payments should be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) states that, “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.” The landlord should take the opportunity, if it had not done so already, to review and self-assess against the spotlight report to identify any areas in need of improvement. The report can be found on the Housing Ombudsman’s website.