Orbit Group Limited (202442428)

Background

1. The property is a ground floor flat in a block. Between July 2021 and September 2024 the resident reported multiple leaks into her bathroom from the property above. The landlord noted it contacted the neighbour and attended on multiple occasions.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks.
   2. Associated formal complaint.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. There were delays and communication failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks. It took action to resolve the leak and offered reasonable redress to put things right. However, it failed to follow up to ensure the resident received the redress it had offered.
6. There were minor delays in the landlord acknowledging the stage 1 and 2 complaints. It did not acknowledge the failures or offer redress in accordance with its compensation procedure.

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. The resident has said the leaks started in 2021. Our investigations generally cover the period 12 months before the resident made their formal complaint. In this case, the landlord assessed its handling of this matter back to 2021, and so we have done the same. The resident reported further leaks after the landlord sent its stage 2 response and said the issue was not fully resolved until August 2025. We can only assess the landlord’s handling of this issue up to the stage 2 response. Any concerns about the landlord’s handling of this issue after this date need to be raised as a separate complaint.
8. The landlord’s website confirms the resident is responsible for repairs to the interior of the property, including fixtures and fittings. As the leak was coming from the property above, which is owned by the landlord, it was responsible for repairs to resolve this. Any internal repairs to the resident’s property are her responsibility.
9. The resident reported at least 10 leaks from the property above between July 2021 and November 2024. In response, the landlord contacted the neighbour via phone, email and letter. It also attended their property on multiple occasions, some of which were done as  emergency repairs. These were appropriate actions to investigate the leaks.
10. From the records provided it is not clear the outcome of all of the landlord’s visits to the neighbour’s property. Despite asking for this information, the landlord has failed to provide this to us or explain why it has been unable to do so. The lack of records has prevented us from fully assessing the landlord’s handling of this matter, which is a concern.
11. The landlord’s stage 2 response said there were access issues that contributed to the delay in it resolving the leak. Where a landlord is not given access, any delay as a result is not a failure attributable to the landlord. However, in this case, the landlord said when no access was given jobs were closed and it did not follow its access procedure. This means the landlord did not do all it could to progress the matter and so it was partly responsible for the delay. The landlord acknowledged it should have made continued attempts to access the property to repair the leak. This was positive and showed it had identified learning from the complaint.
12. More than half of the leaks happened over a 3 year period before the resident made her formal complaint. On at least one occasion she said this had been ongoing for years. Despite this, the landlord did not link the reports and dealt with them in isolation. It was only when the resident made her complaint in October 2024 that the landlord took more robust action to investigate this issue. The landlord acknowledged this failure in the stage 2 response, which is positive.
13. The landlord’s failures meant the resident had intermittent leaks into her property for more than 3 years, which caused damage to her bathroom. This affected her enjoyment of the property for an extended period. This was distressing for her and she said it affected her mental health. While some of the delay was not attributable to the landlord, it could have done more to investigate and resolve this issue sooner. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response, which was appropriate and showed it had taken responsibility for the failures.
14. The resident reported the leaks affected the electrics in her property as water came through the light fitting and switches. She said this caused power cuts and electric shocks. As the resident is responsible for internal repairs to the property, it was reasonable that the landlord declined to attend to check or make safe the electrics. It told her this was her responsibility, which was appropriate.
15. The resident asked the landlord to repair damage to her property. Again, as she is responsible for internal repairs, it was reasonable that the landlord declined to do this. The landlord told her she could claim via its insurance and gave her the details on how to do this. This was appropriate and in line with its insurance claims process that says for leaseholder property claims the leaseholder should contact the insurance company to make the claim. The resident has confirmed she has contacted the landlord’s insurer and they have inspected the property.
16. From the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It did not update her following visits to the neighbour’s property or tell her what it was doing. This meant she spent time and effort re-reporting the leaks and chasing for updates. She has said this made her feel helpless. The resident has told us she asked the landlord what caused the leaks and what works it has done to fully resolve this. She said the landlord told her it could not share this information because it is confidential. The resident is asking for information about the property, not about the neighbour. Therefore, this is not confidential.
17. The landlord should tell the resident what caused the leaks and what it has done to resolve these. This will help reassure her that the matter is fully resolved, which is important considering the length of time the leaks went on for and the impact on her. We order the landlord to confirm in writing the cause of the leaks and what works it has done to resolve these.
18. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered a total of £1,350 compensation. At the time of the stage 2 response, it had also taken action to address the leak and believed it had resolved this. The resident has subsequently said the leak continued and the landlord did not resolve this until August 2025. Our assessment is of the landlord’s handling of this matter up to the stage 2 response. Therefore, we have considered whether the redress offered at that time was reasonable for the failures up to that point.
19. The landlord’s compensation procedure says it will consider paying compensation for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience. For major disruptions it will pay between £451 and £650. The landlord’s total offer exceeded this, which was appropriate considering the length of the delay and showed it had recognised the significant impact on the resident. Therefore, the landlord’s offer was reasonable.
20. While reasonable, the resident has told us she never received the compensation. She said she tried to accept the stage 2 offer but could not do so as the link the landlord provided did not work. She told the landlord this on 19 December 2024 but there is no evidence it replied or followed up to ensure she received the money. This means despite offering reasonable redress, the landlord has not done enough to put things right. Therefore, a finding of service failure is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise and pay the resident the £1,350 compensation previously offered.

21. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.
22. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 4 November 2024, 10 working days after the complaint was raised. This was double the committed timescale set out in its policy. During the period of delay the resident spent time and effort chasing an update on at least 1 occasion. The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 10 working days, in line with the committed timescale.
23. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 11 December 2024, 16 working days after the resident escalated the complaint. This was again over the committed timescale set out in its policy. It sent the stage 2 response in 2 working days, in line with its committed timescale.
24. The landlord did not identify the complaint handling failures or offer redress. While the delays were not significant, it should have acknowledged these and taken steps to put things. Its compensation procedure says it will consider paying compensation for complaint handling failures. It says failures to acknowledge complaints within the target timescale are low impact, causing minor disruption. For these it will pay between £25 and £100. As the landlord offered no redress, it did not comply with its compensation procedure.
25. We find there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling. We order it to apologise to the resident and pay her £50 compensation. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation procedure for low impact failures where it did not follow its complaints process.

Learning

26. Where no access is given for repair visits, the landlord should ensure it follows up and takes action in line with its no access procedure to minimise any delay.
27. Where residents repeatedly report leaks, the landlord should consider whether these are linked and take robust action to investigate and find a permanent resolution.
28. The landlord should consider the extent of the delays and impact on the resident when offering redress, as it did in this case. Where compensation is offered, it should take steps to ensure this paid so it fully puts things right for the resident.
29. The landlord should acknowledge any failures in its complaint handling and offer redress in line with its compensation procedure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. There are missing records which have affected our ability to fully investigate this matter. It is not clear if this is because they do not exist or because the landlord failed to provide these. The landlord should keep records of the outcome of all repairs visits and where appropriate, provide these to us for consideration as part of our investigations.

Communication

31. The landlord should update residents on the outcome of repair visits and provide sufficient information to reassure the resident that the issues have been resolved.