Orbit Group Limited (202317747)

Background

1. The resident occupies a 2-bedroom house with her 2 children. The landlord is aware she is a domestic abuse survivor and is currently receiving relevant support.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord failed to conduct a timely and sufficiently robust investigation into the resident’s ASB reports, in line with its policy. Consequently, it caused delay in action being taken against the perpetrator. Its communication with the resident was also poor.
5. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was, for the most part, outside the timescales prescribed in its policy. Its responses did not fully address the resident’s concerns or put things right.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. This investigation has not assessed whether the alleged ASB has taken place, nor does it apportion blame. Instead, it has focused on whether or not the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports reasonably in all the circumstances.
7. We note the landlord has provided us with an ASB policy dated May 2021 and an ASB procedure dated October 2021, which contain inconsistencies in approach and timescales for action. For practical ease, we have assessed against the more recent of the documents, being the ASB procedure.
8. The landlord did not deal with the resident’s ASB reports within the timescales set out in its ASB procedure. Specifically, it did not contact the resident within 2 working days to do a thorough assessment of her report of 6 April 2023. The evidence indicates a risk assessment was conducted on 21 April 2023, 10 working days after the report.
9. We have not been provided with any risk assessments carried out by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of ASB. This points to a record keeping failure and/or failure to provide us with information for our investigation. In the circumstances, the outcome of the initial risk assessment was unclear. In any case, the landlord did not contact the resident until 11 May 2023, which was beyond the timescales in its procedure (5 working days for high risk cases and 10 working days for low/medium risk cases).
10. To the landlord’s credit, it took swift and appropriate action to address the behaviour it witnessed by the neighbour’s adult child during its visit to the resident’s property on 22 May 2023. This was consistent with the commitment in its ASB policy to provide timely and proportionate responses. However, it did not put in place an action plan or consider signposting to relevant support services.
11. It was inappropriate for the landlord to close the ASB case on 5 June 2023 given further issues reported by the resident on 23 May 2023. It failed to take any steps to address this and subsequent reports in June and July 2023, contrary to its policy of prompt and thorough investigations into reports. Similarly, it did not update its risk assessment, in line with its policy to keep this under review, despite the resident’s escalating concerns for her own and her children’s safety and welfare.
12. There was an excessive and unreasonable delay in the landlord addressing those further reports. The resident had chased an update numerous times, including on 1 August 2023. The landlord spoke to the resident and neighbour about their respective allegations against each other on 16 August 2023. In line with its procedure, it offered the parties mediation but this was not agreed. We note the resident expressed concern about the offer of mediation in her request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. However, it can be an effective measure for early intervention and is a tool available to landlords to resolve disputes. As such, we cannot criticise the landlord for considering this.
13. The landlord also contacted the police for details of the reports made to them. While these were appropriate steps, the approach adopted was not sufficiently robust and the landlord should have done more to ensure a thorough investigation. For instance, the procedure states the case handler should review previous notes on its systems, which they did not do, as reflected in their email of 1 September 2023 to the police. Those notes included the independent evidence of the previous ASB case handler who had witnessed first–hand the behaviour reported by the resident, as well as reference to other neighbours also experiencing issues.
14. While an internal email dated 26 October 2023 stated that the police had spoken with the occupants of neighbouring properties “who could not provide any additional evidence”, this is not supported by the evidence provided to us. In fact, subsequent investigations identified 3 other neighbours who gave evidence that corroborated the resident’s reports.
15. Further, more robust investigations into the resident’s reports were only undertaken after she requested an ASB case review on 14 December 2023. Those further investigations found multiple sources of evidence that supported the resident’s reports and a community protection warning was duly issued to the neighbours. This further highlights deficiencies in the approach adopted prior to closure of the ASB case in September 2023, which caused the resident to feel the landlord had not listened or taken her reports seriously.
16. The landlord’s communications with the resident between May and September 2023 were poor and she repeatedly chased for updates. This was not in line with its policy, which committed to proactive contact to keep all parties updated. We also note that the available evidence does not show that the ASB case handler contacted the resident every 2 weeks, as advised on 16 August 2023.
17. Matters were compounded by the landlord’s suggestion, on 4 January 2024, that the second case handler would be the resident’s point of contact going forward. This demonstrated a lack of awareness of and/or sensitivity to the concerns she had raised about the second case handler in her email of 6 November 2023. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s emails of 5 and 17 January 2024, pointing out she did not have any contact details for the second case handler and she had still received no contact from them. However, it reassigned the matter to another ASB case handler on 29 January 2024, which was appropriate.
18. The landlord’s multiple failings in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports caused her additional distress and inconvenience to that which she experienced as a result of the ASB reports themselves. Its offer of £70 compensation does not adequately reflect its shortcomings and the resulting impact. Therefore, in line with our remedies guidance, we consider it is more proportionate to award compensation to reflect the fact there were failures which adversely affected the resident but no permanent impact.

19. For the most part, the landlord failed to deal with the resident’s complaint within the timescales set out in its complaints policy, which are consistent with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’):
    1. It acknowledged the stage 1 complaint 19 working days after it was raised, which exceeded the 5 working days allowed in its policy.
    2. The stage 1 response was issued 2 working days after the landlord’s acknowledgement, which was within the 10 working days provided in the landlord’s policy and the Code.
    3. It did not acknowledge the stage 2 escalation request, which it ought to have done within 5 working days of receipt.
    4. It issued its stage 2 response 48 working days after receiving the resident’s request to escalate her concerns. This was excessive against the 20-working-day timeframe in its policy.
20. The landlord’s failure to deal with the complaint within prescribed timescales was not acknowledged or addressed in either of its responses, which was inappropriate.
21. The stage 1 response did not identify the numerous shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports up to and including October 2023. This points to an insufficiently objective approach consistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes).
22. The stage 2 response did not address the detailed points in the resident’s escalation request, nor did it review the stage 1 response. This was inconsistent with the Code. While the landlord acknowledged the length of time the resident had been chasing the matter, there was no explanation for its failures, no acceptance of responsibility or accountability. We are satisfied it tried to resolve matters by way of its compensation offer and focusing on the next steps it would take to address the ongoing ASB reports. However, there was no indication of any learning from the resident’s experience. Overall, the stage 2 response did not reflect our Dispute Resolution Principles.
23. The landlord failed to use its complaints procedure as an effective tool for resolving the resident’s concerns fairly. As a result, she experienced avoidable distress and inconvenience in referring her complaint to our Service. Therefore, in line with our remedies guidance, we have awarded compensation in recognition of the impact to her.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

24. There were some gaps in the evidence provided to us by the landlord. It is unclear whether this points to record keeping omissions. It should be mindful of its obligations to keep contemporaneous and accurate records and to provide us with information for our investigation.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. This is an area for improvement.