Orbit Housing Association Limited (202431910)

Background

1. The resident reported a leak into his flat from the roof. The landlord took some steps to carry out repairs. However, the resident complained to the landlord that the issue was unresolved. Through a settlement agreement the landlord agreed to pay the resident compensation and complete the roof works and associated repairs. The resident remains unhappy with how the landlord responded to his reports and has concerns that the leak remains unresolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord missed several opportunities to progress and resolve the resident’s reports of the leak. There is also no evidence that it had learnt lessons from its failings.
6. The landlord offered proportionate compensation for its delayed complaint responses.

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. It is clear that the landlord missed several opportunities to appropriately resolve the resident’s concerns that there was a roof leak.
8. The landlord should have taken reasonable steps to investigate the issue when the resident told it that the leak was not resolved in October 2023. However, the evidence available shows that it noted that the repairs were completed in September 2023 without further investigation. The reason that the landlord did not carry out any meaningful investigations into the resident’s concerns at this time is unclear. Nonetheless, that it did not was a missed opportunity to ensure that no further works were required to fully resolve the issue. If it had done so, it may have mitigated further distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident.
9. When the resident complained that the leak had not been resolved in June 2024, the available evidence shows that the landlord did not raise an order to investigate the repair until August 2024. While the reason for the delay is unknown, that there was one is a further failing that exacerbated the resident’s distress and inconvenience as his concerns went unaddressed.
10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that it had not identified any leaks when it attended in August 2024. While the landlord’s comments are noted, we have not been provided with any contemporaneous evidence in relation to this. As such, the landlord has failed to demonstrate how it reached its conclusion and that it was correct.
11. The landlord went on to advise in its stage 2 response that remedial works would be undertaken. How and when the landlord identified these repairs is unclear. Especially given its comments regarding the August 2024 inspection and that no leaks were identified at that time. Nonetheless, in its stage 2 response the landlord told the resident that it would carry out the works to the roof by 2 December 2024. It also said that it would carry out a post inspection once the works were completed.
12. We do not have contemporaneous records of the outcome of these orders and actions either. Therefore the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it reasonably followed through with these commitments. Whether the landlord does not have the information mentioned above, if no record was kept, or if it failed to provide it for the purposes of this investigation is unclear. Regardless, this is a record keeping issue.
13. There is also no evidence that it meaningfully updated the resident about the outcome of its actions during this period either. That is unreasonable and would have added to his distress.
14. In February 2025 the resident contacted his solicitor in a bid to progress the repairs with the landlord as the leak went unresolved. Given that the resident had already raised his concerns as a formal complaint, it should not have been necessary for him to seek the assistance of a solicitor. This caused him time, distress and inconvenience that may have been avoided if the landlord had taken meaningful and appropriate steps to resolve the leak.
15. Given the several failings identified before and after its stage 2 response, we are not satisfied that the landlord learned from this situation. Therefore, we have found that there was a service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. We have made an order for the landlord to carry out a case review to ensure similar failings do not occur in the future.
16. In August 2025 both parties approved a settlement agreement in relation to the leak and associated repairs. The landlord paid the resident £2700 and agreed to carry out repairs by 15 October 2025 as part of the agreement.
17. We have concluded the offer was reasonable because the resident accepted it based on advice from his legal advisors and that it was the type of award we could have made for its handling of the matter from 2023 onwards. It is noted that the landlord also offered compensation in relation to its failings within its complaint responses before additional compensation was paid through the agreement. Taking the above into consideration, no further compensation has been awarded.
18. The landlord has told us that works have been carried out, no further leaks have been reported and it has arranged to carry out internal repairs. However, the resident has told us that the leak has not been resolved. He explained that the landlord attended at the end of November 2025 to complete internal repairs but was unable to carry out the work because the leak was still present. He told us that a 2025 property report stated that the roof should be replaced, but the landlord has not done so.
19. It is unclear whether the landlord has carried out a recent post inspection of the roof repairs. Given the resident’s concerns an order has been made for it to complete one. It should provide the resident and us with a written outcome of the inspection. The landlord should consider offering the resident further compensation if further roof works are required.  If they are, they should be completed, alongside any associated repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The resident may wish to consult with his solicitors if he wishes to legally pursue the matter further as outlined in the settlement agreement.

20. The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it would respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 30 working days respectively. However, it issued its stage 1 within 50 working days and its stage 2 response within 32 working days. The landlord acknowledged its failings and offered the resident £150 compensation for its delayed response. Given the length of time of the delays this was reasonable and in line with our Remedies Guidance. Therefore we have found that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
21. It is noted that at the time of the complaint, the landlord’s stage 2 response timescale was not in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, the landlord has since revised its response times to align with the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and Communication

22. The evidence suggests that the landlord’s poor record keeping and communication practices contributed to its failings in this case. An order for the landlord to carry out a case review has been made.