Orbit Housing Association Limited (202432267)

Background

1. The resident’s property is a bungalow, where she lives alone. The property has a utility room which is an extension of the kitchen. In January 2024, the landlord started works to refurbish kitchens in the area under a planned works programme. The resident has said in March 2024, she cleared out her kitchen for replacement and the utility room for renovations by placing objects in the lounge. The landlord’s records state that it completed the works in May and June 2024 and that the contractor returned in November 2024 to complete snagging works.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of works to her property, in particular to the kitchen and utility room.
   2. The landlord’s handling of her complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in its handling of works to the resident’s property, in particular to the kitchen and utility room.
   2. Service failure in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord delayed in completing major works at the resident’s property. In particular, it delayed in identifying and resolving snagging works. Within this time, neither the landlord nor its contractor provided clear updates to the resident consistently. While the landlord accepted its failings and offered redress this was not fully proportional to the case. In particular, it did not acknowledge that the resident did not have full access to her lounge until all flooring works were completed.
5. The landlord offered compensation for the delays in its handling of the complaint. However, it did not offer redress for its delays in paying compensation awards that were made in a previous case and this case.

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. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord will maintain and keep in proper working order fixtures in the bathroom and kitchen. The landlord’s website confirms it had a planned programme of kitchen works which include kitchen replacements. After the initial survey, it will discuss and agree with the resident the layout of the new kitchen. It aims to complete the works within 10 working days. The landlord carried out kitchen replacement works in line with planned improvement works. It also agreed to complete plastering works in the utility room to resolve damp issues.
7. The resident cleared her kitchen and utility room in March 2024. The landlord’s records show that it started works in her property in May 2024 and completed the works on 7 June 2024. The resident in her complaint of November 2024 noted that she had reported incomplete and poor-quality works in May 2024 in both the kitchen and utility room. This included reporting that a painter had damaged the new kitchen flooring (vinyl tiles) that was installed. Although there is no contemporaneous evidence of these reports, the landlord had a responsibility to check that all works had been completed satisfactorily, for instance by completing a post-inspection. Its website also says that on completion of major works, it should send a satisfaction survey to the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord took these or other necessary steps to ensure satisfactory completion of the works and to identify any snagging issues.
8. The landlord only reattended the resident’s property in November 2024. It is not clear what prompted the landlord to reattend at this time. When investigating the resident’s complaint, the contractor said it had access difficulties for 2 months while the resident was unwell. However, there is no contemporaneous evidence of any access issues which indicates a failing in the landlord’s record keeping. Ultimately, the contractor reattended 5 months after the works were complete. This was an unreasonable delay, in particular as the resident’s items remained in her lounge. In fact, the landlord’s Repairs Policy states major repairs should be completed within 90 calendar days.
9. During November 2024, the landlord completed snagging works related to the sealant around the floor and sockets, according to its internal correspondence. The resident confirmed the kitchen fitter had returned to replace the flooring but “cut it very badly” leading to a disjointed pattern. The resident also complained that the kitchen fitter had applied silicon messily and left marks on the floor. The contractor agreed to change the flooring from cushioned vinyl to better withstand the feet of kitchen appliances in December 2024. It postponed the works to the following year to align with other works in the utility room.
10. In January 2025, the landlord advised it would repair the utility room floor and inspect sockets. However, there was a delay in the flooring works as its contractor referred flooring works in both the kitchen and bathroom back to the landlord. This was because the contractor thought the works should be covered under the guarantee for the planned works. On 31 January 2025, the landlord agreed that the contractor would complete flooring works as part of the works in the utility room. It confirmed the contractor would also resolve the socket issue.
11. The resident contacted the landlord at least 3 times in February 2025 to advise outstanding works were not completed. She highlighted the contractor had not attended an appointment or rearranged. The outstanding works included the flooring in the kitchen and utility room, unfinished electrical trunking in the utility room, electrical works in the kitchen such as the sockets, and unfinished plastering in the utility room. This caused a further delay to the satisfactory completion of the planned works. The resident confirmed on 17 March 2025 that works were still outstanding and she still could not access her lounge. She noted that from speaking to the contractor, it had incorrect information on what works were outstanding. It is also evident from the resident’s correspondence that the further delay without a clear indication of what works would be completed and when exacerbated her frustration, distress and inconvenience.
12. The landlord confirmed it had made appointments for outstanding works in the stage 1 response. This demonstrated it had taken greater oversight over the contractor and was more proactive in ensuring its contractor identified and completed outstanding works. Nonetheless, it should have taken this approach sooner as 4 months had passed since the resident’s complaint.
13. The landlord’s repair records show that during April and May 2025, it repaired the flooring in the utility room, the kitchen window cill, and some kitchen sockets. It carried out plastering works in the utility room too. The resident confirmed on 20 May 2025 that the contractor had repaired the kitchen flooring. The landlord at this stage had resolved the snagging issues, aside from 3 sockets. However, ultimately, a year had passed since the works commenced. This was an unreasonable and avoidable delay during which time the landlord and contractor did not provide clear updates consistently. Our Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that landlord can avoid failures by:
    1. letting residents know what to expect regarding repairs and providing a clear schedule for repair visits.
    2. gathering feedback from residents and conducting inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
14. The landlord did not handle the works at the resident’s property in this way. The landlord should consider how to apply the recommendations in the Spotlight report, in particular regarding major works programmes.
15. The landlord initially declined to move 3 sockets on the basis they were safe and operational. (It later arranged for a plumber and plasterer to complete the works on 20 August 2025). The landlord did not keep a record of its inspection of the sockets. It did not therefore keep evidence to support its initial position.
16. In general, there were shortcomings in the landlord’s and its contractor’s communication and record keeping. In fact, the stage 1 response accepted it “found there was a lot of unclearness with which jobs needed completing and which jobs were conducted on certain visits. This made it extremely difficult … to investigate different aspects of your complaint”. The stage 1 response also accepted that neither the landlord nor the contractor informed the resident (who was staying elsewhere) when works were originally completed on 7 June 2024. Our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management notes that “Good records assist housing providers to offer efficient and effective services by ensuring that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information. Clear information is readily available to any member of staff who becomes responsible for a particular matter, easing handovers between staff. Communication with residents is improved when staff are able to access all of the relevant up to date information and get a good understanding of the issue, and what action has been taken (or not taken) and why. If a housing provider is asked to explain what happened, and why, good records will enable it to do so.” The landlord should consider how it can apply the recommendations in the Spotlight report especially with regards to major works programmes.
17. Aside from its offer of compensation for room loss and missed appointments, the landlord offered £610 compensation for its handling of the works. This corresponded to its Compensation Policy which suggests awards of £650 for “major disruption”. The award is also in line with awards we may make for maladministration. It was also reasonable that the landlord offered compensation for loss of use of the lounge. This is because she could not move items back into the kitchen and utility rooms until it had completed the works there.
18. The landlord at stage 1 offered 5% of the resident’s rent, (£125.01 for 2024-25) to represent partial loss of the lounge for 21 weeks. This amounted to £131.25. The resident could not use her lounge fully since the initial completion of the works on 7 June 2024. It therefore would have been more reflective of the resident’s circumstances to calculate its compensation from this date. Given that works were not completed when the stage 1 response was sent, it would have been fairer for the landlord to extend the room loss calculation after. For this reason, we have not found that the landlord offered reasonable redress. We have ordered the landlord to compensate for the partial loss of the lounge for the period between 7 June 2024 to 20 May 2025 when the landlord had completed the flooring works, 49 weeks. We have used the rate of 5% and factored in the rent for 2025-26, £128.39. This amounts to (5% x £125.01 / 7 x 298 days) + (5% x £128.39 / 7 x 50 days) = £266.09 + £45.85 = £333.94. As the landlord has paid the compensation it offered within the complaints procedure, we order it to pay the difference, £202.69.

19. The landlord should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and send the stage 1 response within 10 days of the acknowledgment. The landlord should acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days of receipt and send the stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. It may extend the deadline for responding at stage 1 by 10 working days and at stage 2 by 20 working days. This accords with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
20. The landlord took over 4 months to send the stage 1 response. This was because it sought updates from the resident and the contractor about the status of outstanding works. It also sent holding responses to the resident. Nonetheless, the Code states “a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.” The landlord should have sent the complaint response earlier. Had it done so, it could have identified the outstanding issues earlier and provided a clearer plan of action, with its expectations, to all parties. This would also have provided reassurance that the landlord was actively engaged in resolving the matter. As a result, it missed the opportunity to resolve the complaint in a more timely and effective manner at stage 1. The landlord sent the stage 2 response within the required timeframe and addressed the outstanding issues.
21. The landlord offered a total of £160 compensation in its complaint responses for the delay at stage 1 and for poor complaint handling generally. This was within the range within its Compensation Policy for failings in its complaint handling where there is “medium disruption”.
22. Within her complaint, the resident also said the landlord had not paid compensation of £2,112 that it had previously awarded in 2023. The landlord said it would resolve this issue in its stage 1 response; however, it did not investigate the issue or address it in its stage 2 response. The resident had to spend further time and trouble pursuing the payment after the stage 2 response. She contacted the landlord on several occasions, including on 4 June, 25 June, and 28 July 2025. The resident also asked what process she should follow to receive the compensation of £931.25 offered at stage 2.
23. The landlord did not pay the resident both sets of compensation until 11 August 2025. This was an unreasonable delay. The resident had to spend an unnecessary amount of time and trouble chasing up the payments. The landlord has not acknowledged this, nor offered redress for the late payment. For this reason, we find that there was service failure in its complaints handling.
24. The delay in making the payments further indicate shortcomings in the landlord’s record keeping, in particular the administration of compensation awards. The landlord should consider how the recommendations in the Spotlight report on knowledge and information management can prevent further payment delays. The recommendations intended to “Ensure appropriate systems are in place” are particularly relevant.