Orbit Group Limited (202329055)

Decision
Case ID	202329055
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Orbit Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	13 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat within a block. He reported that he could regularly hear banging from the communal pipes, which had impacted his sleep. He also said he would not pay his service charge until the pipes were repaired. He was unhappy with the landlord’s actions to resolve the noise and its response to his service charge arrears.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s:
   1. reports of banging pipework noises
   2. service charge arrears
   3. complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of banging pipework noises.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s service charge arrears.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to the banging pipework noises

6. The landlord did not keep to its Repairs Policy and delayed repairs for more than 18 months. It missed several opportunities to investigate inside the flat and put things right sooner. The compensation it offered did not reflect the impact on the resident.

Response to the service charge arrears

7. The landlord did not reasonably manage the resident’s expectations and missed opportunities to explain the purpose of the service charge sooner. It failed to give clear advice and its communication was inconsistent.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord did not respond to either complaint in line with its policy or the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, it acknowledged these failings, apologised, and offered a reasonable amount of compensation. This went far enough in putting 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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 11 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 made up as follows: £120 it offered at stage 2 (complaint 1) in relation to the pipes £300 it offered after the stage 2 (complaint 1) for the noisy pipes £180 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble it caused by its handling of the repair £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s service charge arrears This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 11 May 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Our finding of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling is based on the landlord paying the resident the £150 it offered in its stage 2 response (complaint 1), and the £200 it offered in its stage 2 response (complaint 2). We recommend that the landlord pays this compensation if it has not done so already.
The landlord could provide the resident with details of its liability insurer, so that he may submit a claim to it for the damage to his health, if he wishes to do so.
The landlord could consider reviewing its Repairs Policy to ensure its processes are effective in managing recurring or overdue repairs. This could include how it identifies repeated repairs within a defined period to enable proactive investigation, and how it communicates with residents when issues persist.
The resident told us he can still hear banging pipes and water noises inside his flat. We recommend that landlord contacts the resident to arrange an inspection. It could consider an externally appointed independent surveyor to identify the cause of the noise and what, if any, actions it could take to resolve the noise.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 January 2024	The resident made complaint 1. In summary, he said: banging communal pipes had affected his sleep for more than 6 months he would not pay his service charge until the pipes had been fixed no one had listened to why he was not paying the service charge
17 April 2024	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. In summary, it said: it acknowledged that the noise had continued for over a year its contractor would make an appointment with the resident to investigate the pipes it would see the repair to completion it offered the resident £150 compensation for its delayed complaint response
17 April 2024	The resident escalated complaint 1. In summary, he said: the landlord did not give a timeframe for when the contractor would contact him he would not pay the service charge until the pipes had been fixed the £150 compensation did not reflect the unnecessary stress and his disturbed sleep
17 May 2024	The landlord gave its final complaint response (complaint 1). In summary, it said: on 21 July 2023 the resident first reported the noisy pipes on 31 July 2023 its contractors attended, could not access the resident’s property, but inspected the communal pipes and found no issues on 9 January 2024 the resident raised another repair, which it attended on 10 January 2024, but the resident was unaware of the appointment on 6 February 2024 the contractor did not keep to an appointment on 19 February 2024 the contractors attended and reported a clicking noise coming from a meter cupboard by the resident’s flat it would attend on 23 May 2024 and, if the outcome remained the same, it recommended the resident contact his meter supplier It offered £270 compensation, made up of: £150 it offered at stage 1 for its complaint handling £120 for the distress and inconvenience in relation to the pipes
14 October 2024	The resident made complaint 2. In summary, he said: banging pipework had affected his sleep and health for more than 15 months the landlord was responsible for communal repairs the landlord had chased him for arrears payments he would not clear the service charge arrears because he felt the landlord had not kept to its contractual obligations
22 January 2025	The landlord gave its stage 1 response (complaint 2). In summary, it said: on 17 January 2025 it raised a repair for the downpipe, attended the same day, and found the pipe was in working order it had responded to the resident’s concerns about the pipework in complaint 1 but confirmed it was attending the property on 28 January 2025 it would credit the resident’s account if it had missed any services he pays for as part of his service charge it was essential for the resident to maintain payments to prevent further action being taken against him
22 January 2025	The resident escalated complaint 2. In summary, he said: he was unhappy with the landlord’s response he wanted the landlord to complete a more thorough investigation
30 May 2025	The landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response. In summary, it said: it had responded to the resident’s noisy pipe under complaint 1 it found a lack of insulation around the soil stack, which could be the reason for the noise between 2 and 4 June 2025 it would complete the works, which included removing the resident’s mirror, sink and tiles to access the pipes behind the ensuite wall and install insulation the service charge does not cover communications between residents and the landlord but is to maintain communal areas such as grounds maintenance and cleaning it recommended that the resident contacted its Income Team to pay the service charge arrears It offered the resident £200 compensation, made up of: £100 for failing to respond to all points raised at stage 1 £100 for its delayed complaint response
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us. He said the banging and water noises had continued. He was unhappy with the landlord’s repair delays and arrears communication. To resolve his complaint, he wanted the landlord to: apologise compensate him for the distress and inconvenience clear his service charge arrears investigate and resolve the water noises

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to banging pipework noises
Finding	Maladministration

9. On 21 July 2023 the resident first reported banging noises coming from the communal pipework, mainly at night. The landlord’s contractor attended on 24 July 2023 but could not access the resident’s flat (the property). It inspected the communal pipes and bled air from service valves. It did not identify any faults.
10. Although the contractor attended within 28 days as required under its Repairs Policy, it did not arrange an appointment with the resident. Without notice, he reasonably could not give access. This was not consistent with its Repairs Policy to contact the resident prior to visits.
11. Between July and December 2023 the landlord’s records are limited. This raises concerns about its record keeping. Accurate records are important because they allow landlords to monitor repairs, understand the history of an issue and make informed decisions about next steps.
12. On 9 January 2024 the resident reported the noise continued. The contractor attended the next day and failed to make an appointment again. It then missed a further appointment on 1 February 2024 that the resident had waited in for. This was not consistent with its Repairs Procedure, which requires it to contact the resident if it is unable to attend. This likely caused the resident inconvenience.
13. After the resident raised complaint 1 on 15 January 2024, the landlord took no action until 19 February 2024, when it raised another repair. Contractors attended the block that day and noted a clicking sound coming from a meter cupboard next to the property. The landlord missed another opportunity to investigate the noise from inside the property.
14. Following this, the landlord told the resident its contractor would arrange an appointment with him, but it did not raise another repair order until 17 April 2024. This was not consistent with its Repairs Procedure, which requires repairs to be raised within 24 hours. The landlord likely left the resident feeling his concerns had been overlooked.
15. On 17 April 2024 the landlord gave its stage 1 response, which partly acknowledged its failings. It apologised for not making appointments with him and accepted that the noise had continued for more than a year. It promised to monitor the repair through to completion.
16. While these were reasonable steps, the landlord missed the opportunity to compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience it caused by its repair delays. It could have set out a clear plan on how it would resolve the noise. For these reasons, the resident escalated his complaint on 17 April 2024.
17. The same contractor continued visiting the block but focussed oninspecting communal areas. The landlord did not raise follow on works and could have considered whether a specialist was needed. Despite its visits, the noise remained unresolved, prolonging the resident’s distress.
18. In its stage 2 response, dated 17 May 2024, the landlord summarised the actions it had taken since July 2023. This was appropriate and showed it had reviewed the repair history. However, it told the resident to contact his meter provider if it could not find any issues with the pipes. This likely caused him frustration as he had been reporting banging noises, not clicking noises.
19. The landlord’s response did not reflect that, since July 2023, it had visited the block 4 times without accessing theflat. Nor had it thoroughly investigated the causeof the noise.
20. Although the landlord eventually identified possible causes, its communication was poor and it delayed escalation to specialists. For example, on 17 June 2024 the landlord found no faults with the communal pumps and no evidence of rodents. It recommended a pump specialist, but it did not raise this repair until 30 August 2024.
21. The specialist pump contractor recommended a new water vessel, which could have been the cause of the noise. The contractor fitted the vessel on 23 October 2024. While this exceeded the 28-day repair timeframe, the specialist nature of the part meant the delay was outside the landlord’s control.
22. On 14 October 2024 the resident made complaint 2. He said the noise continued and affected his sleep. He said he had not received an update from the landlord since 13 September 2025.
23. On 9 January 2025, more than 2 months after the vessel was fitted, the landlord asked the resident if the noise had stopped. The landlord delayed contacting the resident, raising concerns about its oversight of the issue. The resident told it the noise had continued and that he had sent a video on 2 November 2024 but received no response. This was not consistent with its stage 2 promise to see the repairs through to completion.
24. In its stage 1 response, dated 22 January 2025, the landlord said it had raised a repair for a loose communal downpipe. It also said that it would visit on 28 January 2025 to investigate the noise further.
25. The landlord did not consider additional compensation for ongoing delays. The resident had provided evidence of the noise but was repeatedly told no issues were found. He escalated his complaint.
26. Between January and March 2025 the landlord and resident were in contact about the ongoing noise and agreed an inspection for 5 March 2025. The inspection identified work was needed to remove part of the ensuite wall and reinsulate the waste stack. This suggests that the landlord’s earlier investigation was poor. It could have considered whether the Surveyor’s visit would have been appropriate sooner.
27. On 10 April 2025 the contractor recorded the resident did not want the work undertaken as he did not want visible taped joints in his bathroom. Under the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing any damage it caused by repairing communal pipes. It was reasonable for the landlord to discuss how to approach the intrusive works with the resident. This showed it had listened to the resident’s concerns.
28. Due to personal reasons outside of the resident’s control, the contractor did not complete the work until between 2 and 4 July 2025. This was almost 2 years after the resident began reporting noisy pipes.
29. On 30 May 2025 the landlord gave its stage 2 response (complaint 2). It confirmed it had arranged repairs and set out the required work. It explained there was a lack of insulation around the soil stack, which could be the cause of the noise.
30. The landlord missed another opportunity to consider the further delays after complaint 1 and compensate the resident. He had told the landlord his health and employment had been affected by the situation. The landlord should have explained its insurance process to the resident.
31. We cannot assess or award compensation for personal injury or matters which are better handled by insurers. However, we can assess how the landlord communicated about these issues and the impact this reasonably had on the resident, including any time, trouble, distress or inconvenience. By overlooking the resident’s concerns about the impact on his health and employment, the landlord added to his frustration.
32. On 7 July 2025 the resident reported that he was satisfied with the work that had been completed. He asked the landlord to keep the ‘complaint open’ for 4 weeks to ensure all noises had stopped.
33. Between 30 July and 18 August 2025 the landlord spoke with the resident. He told it that the banging had stopped but he could still hear water coming from the pipes. The landlord raised a new repair for the water noise. This was reasonable as the banging had ceased. It could not foresee the water noises would disturb the resident.
34. On 21 August 2025 the landlord offered the resident a revised compensation amount of £300 for the repair delays.
35. Throughout the complaint, the landlord missed opportunities to resolve the complaint sooner and show learning. It did not consistently arrange appointments with the resident, limiting its ability to investigate the resident’s concerns further.
36. These failures and delays affected the resident’s sleep for more than 2 years. The cumulative impact caused him prolonged distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
37. When making our additional compensation award, we have considered the impact on the resident, the landlord’s Compensation Policy and our compensation guidance. This sets out payments up to £600 are appropriate where there has been a failing by the landlord which has had a significant impact on the resident.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge arrears.
Finding	Service failure

38. When the resident made complaint 1 on 15 January 2024, he explained that he would not be paying his service charge until the noisy pipes had been fixed. In its stage 1 response, dated 17 April 2024, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concern. This likely made him feel that the landlord had not taken his complaint seriously.
39. That day, the resident escalated his complaint and repeated he would not pay the service charge. On 24 April 2024 he asked the landlord to contact him but there is no evidence it did so, leaving the resident uncertain about his arrears.
40. On 17 May 2024 the landlord gave its stage 2 response. It missed another opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns about his service charge arrears and discuss a way forward. It could have explained what the service charge covered.
41. Uncertain of the landlord’s position about his account, the resident contacted it on 23 May 2024 for an update. The landlord did not contact him to discuss his account further.
42. This was not reflective of landlord’s Debt and Service Charge Policy, which says it will contact residents early to resolve outstanding debts. It also says it will negotiate payment arrangements with residents, but there is no evidence it did so.
43. Between 11 and 13 September 2024 the resident repeated that he was withholding payments until the noisy pipe had been fixed. He asked the landlord to confirm it would not pursue him for the arrears.
44. The landlord missed opportunities to confirm how it would approach the arrears and what the resident could expect next. This likely caused confusion and uncertainty about whether he would face consequences.
45. On 14 October 2024 the resident made complaint 2. He repeated he was withholding payments as he felt landlord had not fulfilled its obligations to keep the block in good repair. He asked the landlord to contact him and confirm it would not chase him for the arrears.
46. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident until 9 January 2025, when the resident reportedthe landlordchased him forarrears. Although contact from the Income Team was not unreasonable, the landlord had still not set clear expectations about arrears management.
47. When the landlord gave its stage 1 (complaint 2) response, dated 22 January 2025, it said it would credit the resident’s account for any services it did not deliver. This was appropriate as it explained it clearly explained what action it would take in this scenario.
48. However, it did not acknowledge that its communications were poor, and the resident spent time and trouble contacting the landlord for an update. Had it done so, the resident may have felt that the landlord understood his concerns and reasons for withholding the service charge.
49. The resident escalated his complaint on 22 January 2025 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. There is no evidence the landlord contacted him against until 29 April 2025 when it recorded it left a voicemail for the resident to discuss his service charge arrears.
50. On 30 May 2025 the landlord gave its final response. It explained that service charges cover communal services, not communication between staff and residents. It was reasonable to set out the purpose of the service charge. It also told the resident to contact its Income Team to arrange payment and to avoid any further consequences.
51. Overall, the landlord’s responses did clearly set out its position in relation to the debt aside from telling the resident to pay them. It missed opportunities to explain the purpose of the service charge sooner, manage his expectations, and clarify what action it would take regarding the arrears. It also did not advise him on withholding payments, such as keeping the funds separate, or explain the possible consequences of non‑payment.
52. To resolve his complaint, the resident asked the landlord to clear his service charge arrears. We are unable to order this as the resident’s lease sets out that he is responsible for paying service charges. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to continue charging them. However, where service failure is identified, we can award compensation for distress, inconvenience, and for the resident’s time and trouble.
53. We have made our compensation award in line the landlord’s Compensation Policy and our compensation guidance, where there have been failings by the landlord that haveundermined the resident’s confidence in itsservice.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

54. The Code sets out when and how landlords should respond to complaints. The landlord’s Complaint Policy is consistent with the Code.
55. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 22 January 2024, within 5 working days. This met both its policy and the Code’s requirements.
56. Between 5 February and 3 April 2024 the landlord extended the stage 1 deadline 5 times. Although the Code allows extensions of up to 20 working days, it is unclear why repeated extensions were necessary. This caused unreasonable delay and likely undermined the resident’s confidence in the process.
57. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 17 April 2024, 62 working days after acknowledging the complaint. This exceeded the Code’s 10‑working‑day timeframe. It apologised for the delay and offered £150 compensation.
58. This aligned with its Compensation Policy, which allows awards of up to £150 where there have been complaint handling failures. The resident declined the landlord’s offer.
59. On 17 and 24 April 2024 the resident contacted us as the landlord had not escalated his complaint. On 13 May 2024 we asked the landlord to give its final response within 1 week. Had the landlord acknowledged his escalation earlier, it could have avoided causing him unnecessary inconvenience.
60. On 17 May 2024 the landlord gave its stage 2 response, 22 working days after the resident’s initial escalation. This fell slightly outside of the Code’s 20 working day timeframe. However, it appropriately apologised and re-offered the £150 compensation. This was reasonable, given the landlord had delayed its stage 1 response. Therefore, it went far enough in putting things right.
61. On 14 October 2024 the resident made complaint 2 but the landlord did not acknowledge this. It gave its stage 1 response on 22 January 2025, 70 working days after it received the complaint. This did not meet the timeframe set out in its policy or the Code.
62. When the resident escalated his complaint on 22 January 2025, the landlord failed to acknowledge it until 23 April 2025. This was not consistent with its policy timeframe. On 22 May 2025 it extended the complaint deadline. This was appropriate and in line with the Code, which allows landlords to extend a response by 20 working days.
63. It gave its final complaint response on 30 May 2025, 6 working days later. This met the timeframe. Itscompensation offer was consistent with both its policy, and our compensation guidance. This suggests payments between £50 and £100 where there have been failings that had no lasting impact on the resident.
64. Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to put matters right through its final responses, despite earlier failures in timeliness and communication.

Learning

65. The landlord missed opportunities to progress a fuller or specialist investigation into the noise. Better oversight and clearer escalation processes would have supported more effective repair handling. Early referral to specialist contractors could also have helped identify and resolve the issue sooner.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

66. Internal departments were copied into messages, but information did not always reach the correct team, and some repair‑related emails went to the wrong inbox. Although teams generally responded within a reasonable timeframe, this lack of coordination meant actions were not always monitored or followed through. The landlord could strengthen its approach by improving how repair information is shared and ensuring teams have a clear process for tracking progress and escalating delays.

Communication

67. The resident said he needed time in advance to provide access. The landlord could consider regular meetings with its contractors to ensure appointment‑making procedures are kept to. Better communication would prevent repeat visits without access.