Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Orbit Group Limited (202009566)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009566

Orbit Group Limited

10 July 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. the level of compensation awarded following repairs in the kitchen; and
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a weekly assured tenancy with six rooms. She says she has experienced damp issues at the property intermittently since 2013.
  2. The landlord conducted a damp survey on 8 October 2018 which made several recommendations for major work inside and outside the property. The landlord raised a job for the recommended works which were not started. The landlord identified in January 2021 that this job had been deleted for an unknown reason.
  3. The resident complained to their landlord via this Service on 11 January 2021 and was particularly concerned about damp and mould in her kitchen and a defective door. The resident informed her landlord this had caused damage to the kitchen, and she was concerned about the length of time the works were taking to do. The landlord raised a job for the works in January 2021.
  4. The landlord began work on the kitchen in March 2021 but had to suspend this as a shared water supply was discovered on inspection. This needed the involvement of the local water company to separate the water supply between the resident and a neighbour. The landlord contacted the local water company to assist, but the landlord was unable to finish the kitchen works without the water company doing its work.
  5. The landlord was unable to complete the kitchen works until November 2021 and did not complete the door repair until March 2022. It paid compensation of £1,709 to the resident on 23 May 2021 which was agreed on 30 March 2021.
  6. The landlord responded at stage one of its complaint process on 2 November 2021. It acknowledged that the resident had been without a kitchen for an extended period. It said that this was largely down to delays in the water supplier attending the property to change the water supply from a joint to a sole supply. The landlord further stated that:
    1. It had paid the water company in June 2021 so it could begin the works that it needed to do. The landlord explained that the work the water company needed to do was complicated and this was not communicated to the landlord earlier.
    2. It completed some repair works to the resident’s kitchen on 22 July 2021 but there were still delays in having the kitchen works finalised due to delays in the water company attending.
    3. The water company eventually advised the landlord that its works could go ahead before the water company completed its own work. As such, a kitchen designer attended the resident’s property on 4 October 2021. The kitchen replacement works were to be completed by 8 November 2021.
    4. It acknowledged that the resident had experienced multiple delays in the works being completed. These were partly due to delays with the water supplier which were outside the landlord’s control. The landlord was willing to pay compensation because it felt it could have done more to obtain information from the water supplier to prevent the resident from being without a kitchen for so long.
    5. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered the resident a further £2,085 in compensation, made up of £1,015.00 for service failure, £470 for distress, and inconvenience and £600 for a new fridge/freezer as required by the new kitchen unit design.
    6. It understood the resident was happy with this resolution and upheld her complaint.
  7. The resident accepted the compensation of £2,085 which was in addition to the £1,709 offered in May 2021. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and requested her complaint be escalated. She stated that there were issues with the quality of the kitchen units. She also claimed that the back door had not been fixed and that the walls had not been finished. The resident explained that she had not been adequately compensated in her opinion.
  8. On 17 March 2022, the landlord stated in its stage 2 response that the completion of the kitchen work was delayed due to the local water company needing to change the property from a joint water supply to a sole supply. It upheld the findings at stage one but increased the amount of compensation being offered to £2415.
  9. The resident accepted this but was paid £330 as she had already received the sum of £2,085 previously. The resident remained unhappy with the level of the compensation offered and felt the offer made in March 2022 was misleading.
  10. The resident has received in total £4,124 in compensation, being £1,709 she received on 23 May 2021 and £2,415 from March 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation   

  1. There is a historic element to this complaint, with the resident complaining of damp and mould at her property since 2013/14 and with the landlord trying to resolve this over the years. This report focuses on events from the resident’s complaint made on 11 January 2021. This assessment will not look at any complaints made in preceding years. This is because this Service cannot investigate complaints that were not complained about at the time and so have not exhausted the complaint procedure or were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention more than 12 months after a resident exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.

The landlord’s obligations  

  1. The landlord was responsible for repairing sinks, basins, and kitchen fittings. It was also responsible for ensuring the property was ‘fit for human habitation’. This means the property must be safe, healthy, and free from things that could cause serious harm. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy requires it to respond to emergency repairs in four to 24 hours and most repairs within 28 days.

How did the landlord respond to the outstanding kitchen works? 

  1. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered puts things right and resolves the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.
  2. The landlord has accepted that it failed to do the recommended works in 2018 regarding damp and offered £1,709 on 30 March 2021. The landlord was meant to make the payment within 14 days of acceptance, but the landlord did not make the payment until 23 May 2021. There was an unacceptable delay in the landlord making this payment resulting in the resident having to chase her landlord.
  3. The resident indicates that the work on the kitchen started on 15 March 2021 but was not completed until November 2021 (around 8 months). It was suspended on 17 March 2021 after the landlord discovered a tap and pipe which showed a shared water supply with a neighbour. This was an unforeseen event and so it was reasonable for the landlord to stop work until it had clarity from the water company about how much it would cost to separate the supply.
  4. The evidence from the landlord indicates that it paid the water company on 21 June 2021 to do the works and said that the water supply pipe issue would be dealt with as an emergency on 15 July 2021. Under the landlord’s repair policy, this would usually require a 24-hour response. There is some evidence that the landlord was looking to do the work to the water supply themselves before it was determined this was not possible. This is because the water supply works were more extensive.
  5. The landlord completed some works on 22 July 2021 but there were still outstanding works required by the water company preventing the kitchen works from beginning at that time. The water company agreed for the kitchen works to be completed before it finished the works it was responsible for. As such, in October 2021 the resident’s kitchen was re-designed and the kitchen works completed in November 2021. The delay in completing the kitchen works was therefore not solely the responsibility of the landlord as it had to wait for the water company to do works to the water supply.
  6. However, the landlord accepted that it could have done more to chase the water company. It failed to provide evidence of its contact with the water company. It is important for landlords to be proactive in working with and chasing up third parties. It is also of concern that the resident did not have the use of a kitchen sink between 15 and 25 March 2021.  This was unreasonable and meant that the resident had to wash dishes in her bath. The landlord was responsible for repairs to the sink and was required to ensure the property was fit for human habitation. By failing to provide a working sink for ten days it failed in this responsibility.
  7. The landlord left the resident with no connected washing machine in March 2021 until April 2021. The evidence also shows that on 21 April 2021, the resident advised the landlord that its contractors had not reconnected her cooker and she had to arrange for a friend to reinstall it in March 2021. It is not clear from the evidence when the cooker was disconnected. As part of the repairs, a landlord would be responsible for placing the resident back into the position they were in before the works started. This would include reconnecting the cooker and washing machine.
  8. In May 2021, the resident was still without the benefit of two base units in the kitchen which had been taken out in March 2021. This meant that the kitchen was not fully repaired at that time. This is likely to have caused frustration to the resident. The landlord did not offer a decant until September 2021, which indicates it accepted that the property was not fit for human habitation at least from that point. It is important to note that the resident had been living in a property with ongoing works to the kitchen for six months. This is likely to have affected the resident’s quiet enjoyment of their home.
  9. There is a lack of any evidence to show that the landlord took active steps to help alleviate the hardship caused to the resident or that it made any efforts to source a suitable decant sooner than September 2021. It is also a concern that there is no evidence provided to show that the landlord chased up the water company regularly or kept the resident updated. This is likely to have affected the well-being of the resident and her household, including two vulnerable children. Had the landlord taken these reasonable steps it would have helped the resident deal with the adverse consequences of not having a fully functioning kitchen.

Was the compensation paid fair?  

  1. The landlord’s own policy does not set out how it will award compensation. On that basis, we assess whether the award of compensation was equal to an award the Ombudsman would make under our Guidance on Remedies.
  2. The landlord offered £1,709 compensation in March 2021, made up as follows:

£350 for complaint handling

£889  for the delays to the kitchen

£70  for service failure

£400  for distress and inconvenience

  1. The landlord awarded the resident £2,085 on 2 November 2021. This was in addition to the £1,709 it paid in May 2021. The November 2021 payment was made up as follows:

£470  for distress and inconvenience

£1,015 for service failure in the kitchen installation

£600  for a replacement fridge and freezer.

  1. In March 2022, the landlord offered another £330, including an additional £150 for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage one. It offered a further £180 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. The resident has received in total £4,124 in compensation.
  3. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident’s enjoyment of the property was affected from at least January 2021 to November 2021 and the average rent paid to decide if the compensation is fair.
  4. The average social rent for a property in the resident’s area is £109.11. As the resident’s property has six rooms and only the kitchen was affected then this Service would expect any compensation to reflect 1/6 of the rent (£18.19) for the period the works were outstanding. This is from 11 October 2018 (the initial report of damp and mould) until the kitchen works were resolved on 8 November 2021. The total indicative rent refund would be £2,928.59.
  5. The landlord offered £600 for the fridge and freezer – which would increase the award to £3,528.59.
  6. The Ombudsman would have made the following awards:

£400  for the time taken to resolve the issues with the door

£200 for poor complaint handling

Totalling: £4,128.59

  1. Whereas the resident was offered £1,709 on 23 May 2021 and £2,415 on 17 March 2022 totalling £4,124. Taken together, this means the level of compensation awarded by the landlord was fair to recognise the delays caused by the landlord and is in line with the type of award that would be made by this Service.
  2. The resident has also complained that the level of compensation offered to her in March 2022 was misleading. It was clear that the landlord was increasing the compensation as opposed to offering £2,415 in addition to the £2,085 (offered in November 2021).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident to resolve the complaint about repairs in the kitchen and the complaint handling. This is because the landlord paid a total of £4,124 compensation to recognise the impact of its errors. This was in line with the type of award this Service would have made.

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure that it reviews its processes around the time it takes to make compensation payments. It should also review how the works in this case came to be deleted so that it can ensure this does not happen again.
  2. The landlord should review its practices on how it deals with external organisations and third parties that are responsible for works. This should be to ensure it has a plan in place to send regular chasers to third parties and regular updates to residents on the progress of works.