Orbit Group Limited (202347131)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347131

Orbit Group Limited

22 May 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 handling of works to the resident’s garden.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and lives in a 3 bedroom house. Her tenancy started in November 2020.
The resident raised historical concerns about her garden between 2015 and 2023. The landlord investigated and found concerns including a collapsed drain, subsidence, a shallow drain, unlevel paving, ground level dropping in different places and high drain covers due to the ground level which presented a hazard. The resident told the landlord that her child had hurt themselves on the raised drain covers. She also raised a complaint in both August 2023 and October 2023 which did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints process at the time.
The resident told us on 20 March 2024 that unspecified problems with her garden caused her inconvenience and she wanted the landlord to complete the job properly. She then raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 2 April 2024. The landlord noted internally on 10 April 2024 that the resident said its contractor had told her that they had not laid grass even though they had completed the work. She was unhappy as she had been dealing with the issue for a long time.
Following an extension request on 24 April 2024, and further communications with the resident, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 7 June 2024. It said it agreed that following major works, it did not complete the identified follow-on work, and it had now raised the works again. It concluded that:
1. It did not complete the works as described and it did not conduct the follow on work as promised.
2. It did not communicate with her about delays and closed her case without a full resolution.
3. This was a service failure and did not meet its customer service experience and was not in line with its policy.
4. It also did not keep to its agreed timeframes to complete the works.
5. In view of this it upheld her complaint and awarded £1000 in compensation. It broke this down as:
  1. £70 for the failure in its service.
  2. £400 for distress and inconvenience.
  3. £150 for poor complaint handling.
  4. £200 delays to works out of timeframe.
  5. £180 for damage to planting/ private property.
The landlord provided the resident with its notes on 11 June 2024 following a visit to her property. It said it needed to completely scrape back, level and returf the garden. Its contractors originally agreed this when they attended previously. It also said it found raised manholes in the garden which needed lowering. There were gaps under the fence and rotten fence posts. In relation to the original work, there were a couple of lose slabs which it could repair. It also asked for her bank information so it could pay the compensation offered.

The landlord’s records say that on 24 June 2024 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as work remained outstanding. There is also an email from the resident to the landlord dated 26 June 2024 where she explained someone called her on 25 June 2024 to ask if she was satisfied with the work on her garden. She told them it remained outstanding, and they told her they had escalated the matter to stage 2.

It is unclear what the outstanding works were in the resident’s escalation request, however, the landlord’s records show that it raised works on 17 July 2024 to:
1. Rotavate the rear garden so it was level
2. Supply and install turf.
3. Lower the drain
4. Replace the concrete gully surround.
5. Install concrete spurs to the timber posts to strengthen the fence x4.
The landlord continued to discuss the repairs internally with its contractor. It provided its stage 2 response on 21 August 2024. It concluded that it was clear that there was a delay in resolving the issues with the resident’s garden. In view of its findings, it upheld her complaint. It awarded an additional £250 in compensation and broke this down as:
1. £100 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience
2. £150 for its poor complaint handling.
The resident contacted us 26 October 2024 and told us she had spoken with the landlord about her garden. She explained the length of time the issue was outstanding and explained the works it had done to try to resolve the issue. She said she was asking for an extended patio, so it was half grass and slabs. She explained this was due to a relative’s disabilities. She said she was told by the landlord it could not do this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s decision not to install an extended patio. Whilst we sympathise with her concerns, this did not form part of the resident’s original complaint to the landlord. There is also no evidence that this matter exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Our scheme says we may not consider matters which have not exhausted a landlord’s complaint’s process. As such we will not consider this matter within this investigation.
We understand that the resident has been raising concerns since May 2015, and has raised previous complaints with the landlord. We have seen no evidence that the previous complaints exhausted the landlord’s complaints process as they appear to have been resolved at stage 1. As such we shall not consider any previous issues between 2015 and 20 March 2024. The focus of this investigation will be on the complaint raised about issues with her garden which exhausted the landlord’s complaint’s process in August 2024.
The resident has raised concerns about the impact of the situation on her health. However, the Ombudsman is unable to consider this. We cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. The courts must decide on personal injury claims as they can consider medical evidence. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on hers and her family’s health.

Repairs to the garden

There were historical works in relation to the garden, and the landlord has confirmed it did not conduct the follow on works after promising to do so. We can see from the landlord’s records that it raised works to the resident’s garden in June 2024, around fences and fence posts. Its records say it later deleted these works, but it is unclear why and unclear whether they went ahead. The landlord then raised more works in July 2024. It explained in its stage 2 response that there was a delay due to an issue with its contractor around the quotes.
This led to further delays in its handling of the issue and this was inappropriate. As at the completion of the complaints process the works raised in July 2024 remained outstanding. However, evidence provided by the landlord suggests it completed the works around December 2024, and post inspected them in January 2025. However, the resident has disputed this.
There were also failings in the landlord’s communication around the delays as it has not shown that it kept the resident informed. It did not meet its customer service expectations identified on its website. These were mainly around it being easy to deal with, listening and acting, and putting things right when they went wrong. It has shown it did not abide by these principles by not ensuring it raised the works promptly and communicating effectively with the resident about what it was doing to resolve the situation. It also did not keep to its agreed timeframes to complete the works.
The landlord has accepted there were failings in its approach, which reflect the failings identified in this report, in its complaints process and looked to compensate the resident. It has acknowledged that its actions in dealing with her concerns were unreasonable. As such, we shall consider if there were any further failings in its approach which it did not identify. We will also consider if it has done enough to put things right.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider whether an event has caused a resident significant distress or inconvenience. It will consider whether a resident has lived in poor conditions longer than was reasonable due to its failure to deal satisfactorily with repairs that it is aware of and are its responsibility.
The landlord’s compensation guidance says it will consider compensation for distress and inconvenience where there is evidence that there has been a service failure that affected the resident. This includes failure to follow policy and procedure leading to a delay or inaction, lack of, or delays to responses to enquiries within a suitable timescale. It will consider compensation for compensation for time, distress and inconvenience considering both the impact that the service failure had and the effort the resident needed to make for it to resolve the issue.
The guidance provides examples of what it considers to be “high effort” and “high impact” for residents. These include high volumes of correspondence required to resolve an issue, involving an external agency such as the Housing Ombudsman, and repeated requests for information. It also says that things such as excessive delays to carrying out works or resolving issues and preventing a resident from enjoying their home are things it will consider.
It says that it may make payments of up to £400 in recognition of time, distress, and inconvenience of a service failure. It runs a scale of low to high effort/ impact but does not break down how it apportions the payments.
Through its complaint responses, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £1,250 in acknowledgement of its failings, and this was appropriate to try to put things right. Its actions were in line with both its policy and guidance. Its offer of £500 for distress, inconvenience, and time across its responses also falls within the high effort and impact scale within its policy which was appropriate.
The landlord’s offer shows that it recognised the seriousness of its inactions, delays, distress, inconvenience caused to the resident, and communication failings. However, it has not shown that it specifically considered the resident’s and her household’s vulnerabilities. It should have shown it considered this in line with the needed works to the garden, to address the resident’s mobility and balance concerns. This is especially due to the presence of a young child and the risk of slips and trips associated with the issues in the garden.
This should have been part of its considerations around the repairs and the need to ensure it completed them in a reasonable amount of time. However, its offer of redress does take into consideration the level of distress caused to the resident, and the inconvenience around the issue.
Despite the landlord’s failure to show it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities specifically, we consider that the landlord’s offer of £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident adequately addressed the distress faced in relation to her vulnerabilities and the use of the garden. We also consider that its total offer of £1,250 was appropriate to the level of failings identified. As such we find that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s garden.
The evidence provided suggests that the completion of the works remained outstanding until around December 2024. The landlord also failed to post inspect the works until January 2025. The landlord explained that it attended the resident’s property in April 2025 and she has asked it to redo the works.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states it operates a 2 stage process. If it requests an extension at stage 1 it will explain to the resident, provide a clear timeframe, and date it will respond. It will not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. Both parties would need to agree to this. The policy also says it recognises that some complaints may be more complex and therefore, it would conduct an assessment to identify this. It would assign complex cases to specialist officers.
The policy also says that it will usually send its stage 2 response within 30 working days of acknowledging a stage 2 complaint. If it needed more time, it would provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe of when they would receive the response. This would not exceed a further 20 days without good reason. The landlord’s complaints procedure however says it aims to resolve and respond to all complaint reviews within 20 working days.
The resident raised her complaint on 2 April 2024 and the landlord responded on 7 June 2024. Its stage 1 response was due on 23 April 2024, but its records show that it requested an extension to provide its response on 24 April 2024. It has not provided a copy of this to us but did provide us with a copy of another extension request dated 7 May 2024 and a final request dated 17 May 2024.
While appropriate that the landlord kept the resident updated on the delays, neither of these letters provide a timeframe in which it would respond. This is unreasonable and we would expect the landlord to provide a timeframe in which it aimed to respond.
There then appears to be some confusion around when the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord’s records say that she escalated her complaint on 24 June 2024 as the repairs remained outstanding. The resident however explained on 26 June 2024 that it had told her it was escalating the complaint as the repairs remained outstanding. While this does not cause any detriment to the resident, the landlord has been unable to demonstrate if the resident made the escalation request.
The landlord then provided its stage 2 response on 21 August 2024. Its records show that it requested an extension for the provision of its response on 26 July 2024. We have however not seen a copy of the request to determine if its request met its policy. However, in line with its policy, the request should not have exceeded 20 days. As such its response was due on 15 August 2024.
We have seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord requested a further extension. As such its delayed its response by a further 6 days. The timeframes provided within the landlord’s policy also exceed those provided within the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code).
The Code says that a landlord must provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days unless an extension is required which the landlord must agree with the resident. The landlord’s policy says it will provide a response within 30 working days, 10 working days more than allowed by the code, and this is inappropriate.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider compensation where there is evidence that it has not handled a complaint in accordance with its policy and procedure. The offer will reflect the effort made by the resident to resolve the issue and the impact on them. It may pay up to £150 in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience of a service failure. It uses a 3 tier scale ranging from minor delays to significant difficulties in complaint handling.
The landlord awarded the resident £300 across its stage 1 and 2 responses (£150 at each stage) for failings with its complaint handling. It however has not specifically explained what these failings were. Despite this, we consider that its offer of redress was in line with both its policy, and our remedies guidance. This is because, we believe it reflects the level of failings, we identified with its complaint handling. It addresses the delays, and issues with its service provision to the resident.
In summary, the landlord appropriately kept the resident updated about delays at stage 1 and requested extensions to provide its response. It however failed to be clear around its response times at stage 1. There was then some confusion around who escalated the complaint and when this was. The landlord then correctly requested an extension to provide its stage 2 response. However, it still provided the response late. While its procedure says it will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days, its policy states it will do so within 30 working days. This is not in line with the complaint handling code.
However, the landlord’s offer of compensation falls within our guidance for the identified failings. A finding of maladministration would have been made, had the landlord not recognised its failings, and compensated appropriately. As such we find that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was reasonable redress with:
1. The landlord’s handling of works to the resident’s garden.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendation

If it remains outstanding, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £1,250 offered in its complaints responses.