Orbit Housing Association Limited (202334619)

Decision
Case ID	202334619
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Orbit Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	27 November 2025

Background

The resident has complained that she has paid for services that she has not received, specifically grounds maintenance and lighting. She asked us to investigate after receiving responses from the landlord that she remains dissatisfied with, including its refusal to refund service charges that she has already paid.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about being charged for service charges (specifically grounds maintenance and lighting) that she said she did not receive.
2. How the landlord handled the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its response to the resident’s concerns about service charges that she said she did not receive.
2. The landlord is responsible for service failure in its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her service charges

The landlord did not provide clear information or address the resident’s concerns about the lack of lighting or grounds maintenance. It should have demonstrated that the services had been provided.
It should have addressed why the lighting was missing or confirmed that no issues had been reported since the lighting was installed.
The landlord did not provide evidence that it had maintained the shrubbery it was responsible for or evidence that maintenance was to a reasonable standard.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s explanations and alleged evidence relating to the lighting or ground maintenance services, which caused distress and inconvenience.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not provide its complaint responses within the timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.

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.

Orders

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

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by its complaints team. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 06 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300. This is made up of: £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries. £100 for the landlord’s 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 06 January 2026
3	Review its records relating to lighting outside of the resident’s property The landlord should review its records to establish when the lights were installed, if it had been notified that the lights were missing and whether it would be appropriate to apply a credit to the resident’s account. If it has no evidence, it should proceed with crediting the resident’s service charge account. It should send a letter to the resident (and provide a copy to the Ombudsman) which should include any evidence it has relied upon and its decision. If applicable, this should include evidence of crediting the resident’s account.	No later than 06 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord prioritises keeping records (for example, through taking photographs) to evidence the services it provides, the standard of works and to keep an audit trail.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 August 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint following the landlord’s responses to her service charge queries. She said: She had been paying for lighting and grounds maintenance for 18 months. However, the lamp posts outside of her property had been empty and they did not have lights attached to them for 18 months. The shrubbery had not been maintained. She was unhappy with the response she received and wanted to be refunded for the services she had not received. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response that the amount she has paid will be taken into account for next year’s budget.
06 December 2023	The landlord apologised that the resident felt she needed to raise a complaint and for the inconvenience caused by the situation. It said: Its contracts and standards team had reviewed the works completed and appointed a new contractor to conduct all grounds maintenance within the residents’ area. Its service charge team would review the charges the resident had paid for maintenance and lighting. If it finds there has been an overcharge due to works not being completed, a credit will be applied to the 2024-2025 service charge statement. It apologised for the lack of grounds maintenance and confirmed that a new contractor had been appointed, which it was confident will improve future services. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint but confirmed that any credit due would be applied to next years’ service charge statement and reduce the resident’s monthly charge.
08 December 2023	As the resident was unhappy with the outcome provided, she escalated her complaint to stage 2.
21 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and said: It had discussed the complaint with its estate services team and found that its contractor had visited the site twice a month from 6 February 2023 to 7 November 2023. It had hired a new contractor on 16 November 2023, who had agreed to ensure all works were carried out. If there had been an overcharge due to lack of services, credit would be applied to the next years’ service charge statement, reducing the resident’s monthly charge going forward. It was satisfied that its ground maintenance team had been making regular visits to the resident’s estate. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident complained that she had paid a significant amount of money for services that she has not received. This includes: Since February 2022, she has been paying for lighting that was not installed outside of her property for 18 months. Paying for maintenance of shrubbery outside of her property, which the landlord has not maintained. She is seeking a refund of the charges she has paid, where she has not benefitted from the service.

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	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her service charges.
Finding	Maladministration

Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is permitted to charge for its outgoings to manage the resident’s property. The landlord’s service charge policy states that it collects charges for services, insurance, general maintenance, repairs and reserve or sinking funds. Its customer handbook explains that the service charge is billed at the same time as rent payments, paid in advance and based on the landlord’s estimated costs for a 12-month period, from April to March. At year-end, the landlord issues a statement showing actual costs versus the budget. Any surplus or deficit will be included in the next years’ service charge budget.
The resident has complained about not receiving the services she has paid for, so the Ombudsman has assessed whether the landlord has demonstrated that it delivered the services charged for and whether these were to a satisfactory standard. The resident has also complained about the response she received from the landlord, so we have also assessed if its responses were reasonable.
On 1 August 2023, the resident reported that she had been paying for services for 18 months, which she had not benefited from. This includes empty lamp posts which did not have lights attached to them for 18 months and unmaintained shrubbery. The landlord responded on 7 August 2023 and confirmed the amount she was charged throughout the year was based on an estimated cost. If it did not provide any of the services, this would be credited on the landlord’s year-end statement issued around October, which would be included within the following years budget and reduce that year’s charge.
While the landlord gave a timely and detailed response, it failed to specifically recognise the assertions made about lighting and gardening maintenance, and to confirm that these specific charges would be accounted for. When residents have raised specific issues or requested information, it is important that landlords are clear and transparent about the information they hold and address the concerns raised.
On 16 August 2023, the resident continued to query why she would not receive a refund for any services she had not received. The landlord responded on 18 August 2023 by reiterating its previous explanations, that refunds would be reflected on the following years statement. This resulted in the resident raising her complaint.
The landlord continued to investigate the resident’s concerns on 2 November 2023, citing its customer handbook which confirms that any credit due to the resident would be applied to her service charge account. As the landlord provided information consistent with its service charge policy, we find the advice at this time reasonable.
The landlord’s internal notes state that it could not find reports about delays in installing lighting. It is unclear if this is because concerns were not raised or due to record keeping issues. While it is reasonable that the landlord was trying to investigate this, we have not seen any evidence that it shared this information with the resident. It would have been reasonable for it to have addressed why the lighting was missing or, to confirm that no reports of issues had been made since its (evidenced) installation.
From the evidence that we have seen, the landlord did not respond to this assertion at all and this was unreasonable. It also did not consider the evidence (pictures) the resident advised she held of the empty lamp posts. Landlords should be able to demonstrate that a service has been provided where they seek to serve residents with the charges and should offer reasonable consideration where access to such services has been disputed. It does not appear that the landlord did either of these things.
For the ground maintenance, the landlord acknowledged widespread issues and changed contractors on 16 November 2023. The information provided to the Ombudsman shows the resident first raised concerns relating to the grounds on 1 August 2023. However, the landlord’s system notes recorded that the issues were first reported on 21 September 2023. This discrepancy shows the landlord did not have accurate records. We recognise that it has said it cannot provide site reports as it had a previous contractor who it has ceased working with. Nevertheless, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to retain the reports for auditing purposes.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 6 December 2023, the landlord confirmed that it had appointed a new contractor to conduct all grounds maintenance. It explained that it would pass on the resident’s concerns about the delays in installing lighting and lack of ground maintenance to its service charges team to review the charges. While this was a reasonable response and action for it to take, the resident first raised her concerns in August 2023, therefore, it had taken it over 4 months to provide a response to the queries the resident had, and it should have investigated any issues sooner.
The landlord’s records show it continued to investigate the situation with the ground’s maintenance, and it noted on 15 December 2023 that the issue around the resident’s property had been passed over to its contractor on many occasions. It noted that the area had been visited, but it could not definitively say when this was. It is good practice for landlords to make notes and take photos as evidence of any works it carries out in relation to the services it charges for. This is particularly important so that it has evidence that it has provided services to a satisfactory standard.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 21 December 2023, the landlord further noted that its new contractor had taken over the contract on 16 November 2023, who was working through all sites to address the standards and bring them up to acceptable levels. It assured the resident that the contractor was aware of the area close to her property and instructed them not to miss it. This was a reasonable action and demonstrated that it was taking the situation seriously.
During its investigation, it found that, on average, its contractor visited the resident’s estate monthly from January 2023 to November 2023. While it was reasonable that the landlord had been able to provide this information to the resident, it was unable to demonstrate that the shrubbery had been maintained, and it should have had these records. Its internal notes also stated that the landlord does not expect the shrubs to be maintained on every visit, however, there is no evidence it was maintained on any of the visits. We also have not seen evidence that the landlord explained this to the resident, which it should have done.
Following the landlord’s internal complaints process, it confirmed to the resident on 11 June 2024 that the cost of services provided was less than budgeted, meaning a surplus of £188 had been incurred on the resident’s account, due to missed maintenance visits. As this has been applied to the resident’s account, the landlord confirmed that the resident’s service charge went from £5.32 a month for the 2023-2024 financial year, to £0.01 for the 2024-2025 financial year. We recognise the time and effort it takes to collate this information, so it was understandable that the landlord was not able to provide this information sooner. It was also reasonable that it did what it said it would and credited the resident’s account for missed maintenance appointments. Still, there was no evidence the shrubbery was ever maintained.
Based on everything we have seen, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries. This is because it failed to consider the validity of the resident’s assertion that there were no lights for a significant period of time and address her concerns about the subsequent costs. Simiarly, it was unable to demonstrate that it had previously maintained to the shrubbery it is responsible for, and to evidence that this was done to a reasonable standard.
As it was unable to demonstrate that the resident benefitted from the services she was paying for, the resident was understandably not satisfied with its response. As such, we have found that the landlord could have managed this complaint more appropriately and have ordered it to pay the resident £200 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there is a failure by the landlord which it has not appropriately acknowledged.
The compensation recognises the distress and inconvenience that has arisen because of the landlord’s failure to properly consider and evidence that the lighting was in place over the period the resident has alleged it was not. The landlord should review its records to establish when the lights were installed, if it had been notified that the lights were missing, and subsequently whether it would be appropriate to apply a credit. If there is a complete absence of evidence, it should proceed with a credit.
The landlord was also unable to demonstrate that it maintained the shrubbery, as the resident had asserted. While we appreciate that ground maintenance would include more than just the maintenance of shrubbery, the Estate Inspection policy says that this will be pruned at least once a year. The order of compensation has therefore been made to also recognise that the resident did not receive the full service and the landlord’s oversight in acknowledging this.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (“the Code”) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The resident formally complained on 18 August 2023, and the landlord responded on 23 August 2023, stating that it would forward the resident’s email to its customer relations team, to be raised as a complaint. However, it issued another acknowledgement email on 9 November 2023, confirming its understanding of the resident’s complaint and that it would fully investigate the resident’s concerns. In our view, the landlord’s email on 23 August 2023 acknowledged the resident’s complaint and should have been used as an opportunity to understand her concerns. Another acknowledgement months later was unreasonable, as it further delayed its internal complaint response.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 December 2023, which was 75 working days after its initial acknowledgement on 24 August 2023, this was a significant delay, which would have likely caused frustration to the resident, particularly as she was waiting on answers to her queries.
The resident requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process on 6 December 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this request on 8 December 2023, which was in line with the timeframe set out in the Code. It subsequently issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 December 2023, which was within the 20-working day timeframe set out in the Code.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to provide the stage 2 response without unreasonable delay, it significantly delayed its internal complaints process when the resident first raised her complaint. It did not provide any compensation for the delay it caused, despite it being a departure from what it should have done. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a minor failure by the landlord and it has not appropriately acknowledged it.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should ensure it has accurate information readily available relating to the service charges that its residents pay. It should also ensure it has accurate records of when services are carried out by its contractors.

Communication

The landlord should ensure it provides clear information to its residents and responds to the specific concerns being raised.