Orbit Group Limited (202345648)

Decision
Case ID	202345648
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Orbit Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	31 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lived in 1-bed flat in a block. She made reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour including noise nuisance, drug use and damage to communal areas. In February 2025, the resident moved to another property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord responded to:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Requests for a management move.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in how the landlord responded to:
      1. Reports of ASB.
      2. Requests for a management move.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

5. The landlord acted in line with its policy and used available tools to assist the resident. It provided adequate support and agreed a management move. It also demonstrated multi-agency partnership working.

Requests for a management move

6. Although the landlord acknowledged it could have handled things better – especially by agreeing to offer a property it was unlikely to deliver – it acted appropriately by apologising, offering compensation, and continuing to provide support. This was especially reasonable given that the landlord had managed expectations appropriately from the outset.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not recognise the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction as complaints and its formal responses were delayed, which was not sufficiently put right by its apology and compensation offer.

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.

Order

Landlords must comply with our order in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our order by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident £100 for the frustration caused by its complaint handling.   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 28 November 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 May 2023	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of ASB saying it took no action and was a “disgrace”.
7 March 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about the ASB. She described the situation as “out of control” including blood on walls, drug use and damage in communal areas, which left her feeling traumatised. She said the landlord had not taken action despite her reporting incidents numerous times.
16 March 2024	She reported another incident repeating her concerns and asked when a management move agreed with the landlord would happen. She felt the landlord ignored letters from her GP about how the situation affected her mental health.
23 May 2024	We chased the landlord for its stage 1 response.
4 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint, saying there was insufficient evidence to act on her reports. A management move was agreed in October 2023 and a flat was offered in November 2023 but declined. The landlord confirmed it had met with the resident to discuss ASB and support options. Following that, it agreed to monthly updates and to send a block letter addressing the ASB. It stated that regular email updates had been provided and expectations around the move were clearly communicated. Due to limited housing stock in the resident’s preferred areas, it could not give a timeline for a suitable rehousing offer and that the wait could be lengthy.
5 June 2024	The resident escalated the complaint. She felt the landlord failed to take action and that she could not live in her current flat due to the effect on her mental health. She also felt the landlord’s visit to the block put her at risk and potentially labelled her as a complainant.
17 July 2024	The landlord issued its final stage 2 response. It said it could not take enforcement action against the neighbour without clear evidence. The landlord felt it had taken reasonable steps to investigate, including home visits, target hardening, and tenancy sustainment referrals. It explained there was limited stock in her chosen areas, and acknowledged the move was agreed outside normal policy, without proper checks. It apologised for raising unrealistic expectations and offered £250 for this, and £50 for complaint delays.
Referral to Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us. She felt the landlord ignored evidence, did not communicate with her and did not take any action against the alleged perpetrator, which contributed towards her mental health problems. She was unhappy with the length of time the management move took. As an outcome, she wanted an apology and further compensation.

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	Reports of ASB
Finding	No maladministration

Investigation scope

8. The resident told us her health was affected by the reported ASB. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any 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 however decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Reports of ASB

9. It is clear that this situation has been distressing to the resident. This report does not look into the ASB itself. Instead, we assess how the landlord responded to the reports, based on its own policies and what we think is fair in the circumstances.
10. The resident reported noise nuisance, drug use, and damage to communal areas caused by a neighbour. She complained that the landlord failed to act, despite a history of ASB in the building. In its formal responses, the landlord said it had investigated but lacked sufficient evidence to take action against the neighbour. The evidence confirms the landlord’s position.
11. In May 2023, the resident reported damage to a communal wall and drug-related smells. The landlord responded promptly, spoke with the resident, and acknowledged her safety concerns. It explained that without identifying the perpetrator, its actions were limited – consistent with its ASB policy which requires sufficiently detailed allegations. A case was opened and referred to the landlord’s safeguarding team, which was appropriate given the concerns raised.
12. Around June 2023, the resident contacted the local authority about the ASB. The evidence showed that from this point the landlord was in regular contact with the local authority, which continued into 2024. This demonstrated good multi-agency collaboration in line with its policy.
13. The resident contacted the landlord again in August 2023 after hearing what she described as wall-punching noises. She felt no action had been taken and noted no visits or door knocks. The landlord responded in September 2023, apologising for the delay and advising her to report any assault or threat to the police. As the resident told the landlord she was not directly targeted, this advice was appropriate and proportionate.
14. In September 2023, the resident reported wall damage and blood stains to both the police and the landlord, identifying a neighbour allegedly responsible. She said the situation had worsened and affected her mental health. The landlord opened an ASB case, conducted a risk assessment, and created an action plan to liaise with police and contact the resident. It contacted the police the next day, showing a proactive, multi-agency approach.
15. The landlord updated the resident as agreed, offered target hardening (steps to make the resident and her property less vulnerable), which she declined, and made a safeguarding referral due to her mental health situation. This was in line its safeguarding policy to refer individuals to support services when needed.
16. On 3 October 2023, the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour. The landlord also agreed to a management move on 26 October 2023. These were appropriate steps and the landlord acted in line with its management move procedure having reviewed a GP letter confirming the risk to her.
17. In November 2023, police informed the landlord there was insufficient evidence against the neighbour. Subsequently joint visits with police to the neighbour’s property were arranged in January and February 2024, and the landlord’s actions showed ongoing monitoring and engagement with the police.
18. In March 2024, the landlord arranged a meeting with her away from the block, respecting her wishes. It explained its actions and the lack of evidence, noting the resident could not regularly report incidents due to spending time away from the block. The landlord outlined its ASB approach and enforcement limitations, summarised the visit in writing, and issued a block-wide letter in April 2024. These steps showed a willingness to adapt its approach to the resident’s needs as well as managing expectations.
19. In June 2024, the landlord again explained its limitations as the ASB was not directly targeted and evidence was lacking. It continued working with police and the local authority to discuss arranging CCTV in communal areas. A joint door-knock with the local authority was conducted to gather witness statements anonymously. This was a reasonable approach.
20. The resident’s situation was understandably distressing, but the landlord responded appropriately to her reports and her complaints. It investigated, communicated clearly, and explained it could not act without evidence. It took appropriate actions in line with its policy and showed good collaborative working with a number of agencies. It also provided appropriate support to the resident, demonstrated it had considered the effect the situation had on the resident. Its actions were in line with the circumstances of the ASB reports and its policies. They were reasonable and proportionate.

Complaint	Requests for a management move
Finding	No maladministration

21. A management move was agreed around 26 October 2023 due to the resident’s concerns about safety and supporting letters from her GP. The evidence shows checks were completed, noting limited housing stock in the area. The resident wished to stay nearby due to her support networks.
22. On 24 October 2023, before the move was confirmed, the landlord told the resident that such moves were not an immediate solution and typically involve a 12–18 month wait. This early communication was sensible because it helped manage her expectations.
23. In early November 2023, the resident declined a flat in a different block, still within the area, stating it frightened her. On 7 November 2023, she confirmed she would only consider a move to a house. The landlord updated her preferences and reiterated the limited stock and uncertain timescale. On 14 November 2023, it confirmed the next available house would be offered to her. The landlord showed a customer-focused approach by updating her criteria to exclude flats.
24. The resident later complained about delays and poor expectation management. However, the landlord had clearly explained the likely wait in October 2023. The evidence shows the landlord continued to support her and provide updates about any available properties. It also managed her expectations around timescales and the time taken reflected the reality of the landlord’s limited stock.
25. Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord acted reasonably and managed expectations about the move appropriately. However, in its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it could have handled some aspects better. It accepted that it had promised something it could not deliver within a reasonable timeframe due to its limited housing stock. So it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise, offer compensation, and continue supporting the resident. The landlord remained supportive, and the resident was offered a property in November 2024, with the move taking place in February 2025.
26. The resident’s frustration and distress over the delay in the management move were entirely understandable. However, in this case, the landlord clearly set expectations from the outset and addressed the resident’s concerns adequately in its final response.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

27. The resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of ASB on 31 May 2023, describing the landlord as a “disgrace” for taking no action. Further concerns were raised on 10 August 2023, with the resident stating the landlord should be “struck off” for its treatment of residents. These comments were clearly expressions of dissatisfaction and should have been treated as formal complaints under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and the landlord’s policy. But this did not happen.
28. On 7 March 2024, the resident emailed the local authority, copying in the landlord and us, again expressing dissatisfaction about the ASB. However, a formal complaint was only made after the Ombudsman requested the landlord’s stage 1 response on 23 May 2024. The landlord issued this response on 4 June 2024 – well beyond its 10-working-day policy timescale – despite earlier signs of dissatisfaction. This delay was avoidable and unreasonable, yet the response failed to acknowledge any errors in its complaint handling.
29. The resident escalated the complaint on 5 June 2024. However, the landlord did not appear to acknowledge this as a stage 2 complaint. On 8 July 2024, after the original response deadline had already passed, the landlord requested an extension until 17 July 2024. It then asked for a further extension on 16 July 2024. This approach was not in line with the Code, which states that any stage 2 extension must not exceed 20 working days without a valid reason, and that the reason must be clearly explained to the resident.
30. The landlord issued its final stage 2 response on 17 July 2024, 10 working days late. It acknowledged delays and offered £50 compensation. However this offer did not go far enough considering the extent of the delays overall.
31. In summary, the landlord failed to treat early expressions of dissatisfaction as formal complaints, which delayed getting matters resolved, only acting after our intervention. Overall, the final response did not offer adequate redress for poor complaint handling.