Orbit Housing Association Limited (202408056)

Background

1. The property was newly built when the resident moved in and there was no radiator installed in the hallway. She is unhappy the landlord refused to install one despite her reporting that the hallway was cold and damp.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to install a radiator in the hallway.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for it to install a radiator in the hallway
   2. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Radiator installation

5. While the landlord did eventually install a radiator as recommended by its contractors, it did not do this within a reasonable timescale. It provided reasonable compensation, but did so after we became involved, and it did not acknowledge the extent of its failings or apologise for these.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did recognise its complaint handling failures and offer an apology and reasonable compensation to recognise these. However, it did not do this until we became involved, which was not appropriate.

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.

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.

7. When the resident raised her complaint on 13 March 2024, she made it clear that the hallway was cold, also making her bedroom cold. The landlord conducted a damp and mould inspection on 14 May 2024 which was not within its repairs policy timescale of 28 calendar days. This represented an unreasonable delay.
8. The report noted that in the inspector’s professional opinion a double convector radiator should be installed in the hallway. They said that the stairway was cold, which would cause water vapour to condense, and the space required heating. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 23 May 2024 did not mention the possibility of installing a radiator, which was not appropriate.
9. In her response of 29 May 2024, the resident asked how the hallway could be considered compliant if it was 5°C in the winter. The landlord responded to say the home was fully complaint with building regulations. It did not comment on the temperature she was experiencing, which was not appropriate.
10. The landlord’s contractor conducted a heat loss survey on 9 June 2024. They found that the hallway was noticeably colder than the rest of the property and that it required a radiator. The landlord’s internal communication of 30 July 2024 stated that the heat loss calculation showed the property was ‘over-capacity’ but did not explain what it meant by this.
11. Regardless of whether the property as a whole had enough radiators, both the damp and mould inspection and the heat loss inspection stated that the hallway required a radiator. In its internal communication the landlord said there was no suggestion that the hallway required a radiator, which contradicted both inspection reports. It has not provided further evidence to support this conclusion. Therefore, this was not a reasonable assessment for the landlord to make.
12. In its stage 2 response of 5 August 2024 the landlord again told the resident the property met building requirements and installing a radiator would be based on ‘personal preference’. Two qualified professionals had deemed a radiator necessary so it was not appropriate for the landlord to suggest that the resident was being unreasonable in her request or that it was a matter of preference.
13. Over the following winter the resident continued to report that the hallway was cold and provided the landlord with evidence of the difference in temperature between the hallway and the rest of the property on several occasions. Its internal records of 6 November 2024 stated that the cold issue was a result of the resident’s lifestyle, despite evidence to the contrary, which was not appropriate.
14. On 12 February 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident to say it had reviewed the situation and would be installing a radiator, which it subsequently did. However, in this letter the landlord highlighted that it was installing this as a goodwill gesture, and that it was not a requirement. It failed to recognise that it had disregarded 2 professionals’ opinions during its complaint investigation, and did not apologise for this, which was not appropriate.
15. The landlord did not make it clear in this letter what the compensation amount of £1,000 was for. It has recently explained to us that this was to recognise the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delay in installing the radiator and the effort she had to go to for this to be resolved. Its total offer of £1,140 in relation to the radiator and damp and mould issues was reasonable, and in line with our remedies guidance.
16. This offer does not prevent a finding of maladministration as it was made 6 months after the stage 2 response and intervention by this Service. It was positive the landlord made this offer. However, it should have been considered during its internal complaint process and it should have acknowledged its failings earlier.

17. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord acknowledged the complaint 26 working days after the resident raised it (13 March to 19 April 2024) – which was not in line with its policy timescale of 5 working days
    2. it updated the resident on 2 May 2024 to say it needed more time, in line with its policy, but it did not provide a new target date for its response which was not appropriate
    3. it sent its stage 1 response 14 working days after this update (2 May to 23 May 2024) – which was not in line with its policy timescale allowing for extensions of 10 working days
    4. when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response, the landlord did not immediately clarify if she wanted it to escalate matters
    5. it did not escalate the complaint until 42 working days after she made it clear she remained unhappy (29 May to 26 July 2024) – which was not in line with its policy timescale of 5 working days
    6. it sent its stage 2 response 48 working days after the complaint should have been escalated (29 May to 5 August 2024) – which was not in line with its policy timescale of 20 working days
18. The landlord’s letter of 12 February 2025 recognised its complaint handling failures and offered the resident £300 compensation to recognise this. As explained above, it was not appropriate that this was not awarded until 6 months after it sent its stage 2 response. However, this amount was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance, so we have not awarded any additional compensation for this matter.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord’s records were adequate for it to make the correct assessment in relation to repairs. However, it failed to correctly interpret these records, impacting its decision making. Our Spotlight on Damp and Mould said that landlords should avoid assuming that a resident’s lifestyle is to blame for damp and mould issues. In this case, the landlord had evidence of a defect that required a remedy, but it still referred to the resident’s lifestyle choices in its internal communications. The landlord should ensure it uses the evidence available to it when making decisions on required repairs.

Communication

20. As stated above, while the landlord did eventually agree to install the radiator and provide compensation to the resident, its communications were unclear. It did not take accountability for its misinterpretation of reports and apologise for these failings. The landlord should ensure that it acknowledges its failings and apologises for these appropriately.