Orbit Group Limited (202207351)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207351

Orbit Group Limited

13 May 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns about the allocation and marking of parking bays.
2. The resident’s concerns about the standard of gardening and grounds maintenance.
3. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom house.
On 5 January 2022 the landlord’s Community Safe and Anti-Fraud team (CSAF) contacted the resident with the outcome of a review of her reports made on 29, 30, and 31 December 2021. It stated the following:
1. The resident had complained about her neighbour using 2 parking spaces. It reminded the resident that a letter was sent to all residents on 3 February 2022 which stated that it would not manage the use of visitor’s parking bays or become involved in disputes around who was parking in a visitor’s space, or how long a vehicle was parked. It said no further action would be taken.
2. The resident had submitted an image of a car parked in front of another car in a parking space. The landlord confirmed that it was unclear how long the car was parked there for, or who it belonged to, and no further action would be taken.
3. The resident had submitted an image of vehicles parked with wheels slightly on or a door open over the hatched area of her disabled bay. The landlord said that while it may cause her annoyance it was not an obstruction or nuisance as she was still able to enter/exit her vehicle and parking space. Therefore, no further action would be taken.
4. It would be instructing a parking enforcement company to monitor the parking on the estate. It stated that all residents would receive letters in due course. It said it hoped implementing a parking enforcement company would help to reduce parking related issues.
5. It had received complaints about the resident taking photos of neighbours and it was understood that there was a community protection notice (CPN) in place preventing the resident from taking photos of her neighbours and it would contact the police to establish if the CPN had been breached.
On 4 May 2022 the resident raised concerns about the service provided by grounds maintenance. She said she could see it being done on other developments but they had failed to do it around her home. She said there was rubbish, leaves, and overgrown weeds which had not been dealt with. The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 May 2022 to say she had not received a response and she was paying for a service which had not been done. An inspection report dated 19 May 2022, did not identify any issues with litter, leaves or weeds and outlined overgrown bushes as the only issue with the grounds maintenance service.
The resident informed the landlord on 9 June 2022 that she had video footage of her neighbour throwing cat litter on to her front garden and that she wanted the landlord to take action. The landlord spoke to the resident on 14 June 2022 to state that it would need the crime reference number and it would speak to the police. It said if there was evidence it would issue a verbal warning and work with the police if it was part of a bigger harassment case. The landlord spoke to the neighbour on 16 June 2022 and said if the police believed the allegations were harassment it would be considered as a breach of tenancy. It gave him a verbal warning not to speak or engage with the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 July 2022 to say that water had been thrown on her door and CCTV showed it was her neighbour. She said she would be contacting the police. The landlord contacted the resident on 8 July 2022 to say that it had previously scheduled a meeting with the police for 16 June 2022 to review the CCTV footage but it had been rescheduled to the following week. It said it could not make a judgement until the CCTV was viewed and perpetrator was seen.
Through the Ombudsman, the resident complained to the landlord on 1 November 2022. The complaints included the delays with the landlord’s proposed implementation of a parking scheme. The resident stated that the landlord had refused to implement the scheme due to there being ample spaces, however, the resident did not agree. She said that the grounds maintenance contractors were not carrying out the works that they should be doing. The resident also complained about how the landlord had handled her reports of ASB. The resident said her neighbour had thrown cat faeces onto her property, killed her roses by spraying chemicals on them, and swept debris from under his car onto her entrance way. She said she provided footage of this to the landlord.
The resident wanted the landlord to mark the bays clearly, implement a parking scheme, ensure grounds maintenance was carried out, and take appropriate action in relation to her ASB reports.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 15 November 2022. It stated that:
1. There were ongoing issues with the resident and her neighbour. It said it had explained that most of the reports made did not amount to a breach of tenancy and it must act proportionately. It said regular contact had been made with both parties and the police were informed in June and July 2022. It stated that there was a court case scheduled, where the evidence would be assessed independently before it would decide on any action it could take. The landlord confirmed that with the court case and open cases with CSAF and the Police, it could not do anything further to assist.
2. A letter was sent to all residents on 21 October 2022 advising that no parking enforcement would be put in place for the short term. It said the remaining residents were all opposed to parking enforcement and sent in a petition which accused the landlord of introducing it for 1 resident and not being reflective of the other households. It had deemed there were ample spaces for each household. The landlord confirmed that visitor spaces had been added to the property management estate improvement budget. However, it was on a priority basis and marking of bays was not a priority for the financial year.
3. It stated that the complaint was not upheld due to the business process and policy that the landlord was required to follow. It highlighted that during a call with the resident she was unhappy with the outcome so it would escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 February 2023. The response reiterated what it had said at stage 1 and added that it had discussed the grounds maintenance works with the manager who was aware of the issues. It said evidence had been provided which showed the contractors attended the site regularly between 2020-2023 and it was satisfied that they were carrying out the required work. It said works related to the issues the resident reported were ongoing and the estates team would try to stay in contact with the resident to address any issues she had. In relation to the ASB it stated that a multi agency meeting would be scheduled to discuss the case and the best route forward, however it may not be able to confirm any action against individuals due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). It highlighted that the complaint regarding debris being swept onto her entrance way was historic and would not constitute a breach of tenancy.
The landlord stated that the complaint was not upheld. It apologised for the delay in responding at stage 2 and awarded £100 compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred the case to the Ombudsman. She stated that she would like a service charge refund due to the gardening and maintenance. She wanted the landlord to allocate visitors parking bays and protect her use of the disabled space. She said that the landlord did not do anything in relation to her reports of ASB apart from say it was a police matter, but she felt the landlord had a role too. She would like the landlord to rectify the issue, pay compensation, and apologise.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

For context, it is relevant to acknowledge that the resident has made other complaints to the landlord regarding parking and ASB from her neighbours, including complaints which have been referred to the Ombudsman for determination. This investigation focuses on the events from the CSAF email on 5 January 2022 as a reasonable period to evaluate the landlord’s handling of the reports made from the resident before the formal complaint in November 2022. Separate issues, and events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure (which concluded on 3 February 2023) have not been investigated here and are referenced for contextual purposes only. This is in accordance with 42c of the Scheme.

The resident’s concerns about the allocation and marking of parking bays

The landlord’s car parking management procedure states that it will consider introducing car parking management on schemes where there is limited or no parking on site, where most customers on the scheme request it, and where parking facilities are misused or become a location of nuisance. It states that where there is a lack of demand for parking on a scheme and no parking management controls in place, customers may use the car parking spaces on a first come first served basis. The policy also states that where individual parking bays have been allocated, customers should only park in the one designated to the application.
As per the landlord’s parking management procedure, the landlord can consider introducing car parking management, where necessary. In this case, the landlord responded to the resident on 5 January 2022 and confirmed it was in the process of instructing a parking enforcement company to monitor the parking on the estate where she lived. It said it hoped it would help to reduce the parking related issues. The landlord’s response and actions at the time were reasonable and in line with its policy.
The landlord’s records show that it responded to the resident’s queries in relation to the parking in a timely manner. Although the landlord had initially confirmed it would introduce parking enforcement, consultation evidenced that no other households wanted it to be done and had no issues with parking. While the parking situation at the property appeared to be distressing for the resident, the resident had an allocated space outside her property and the landlord confirmed that there was adequate parking space for visitors. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord at that point to consider all the residents and whether its approach was proportionate.
To summarise, the landlord had followed its own policies and procedures in handling the issues raised. It explained the reasons why it would not be proceeding with the parking enforcement but also what action it would take to assist with the visitor bays. It is recommended that the landlord confirms its intentions regarding the marking of the visitor bays and informs the resident as to when this is to be carried out if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman has found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the allocation and marking of parking bays.

The resident’s concerns about the standard of gardening and grounds maintenance

The landlord’s estate services procedure states that it will deliver a service which includes seasonally aligned grounds maintenance works, including the upkeep of grass, shrubs, borders, and boundaries, on a twice monthly basis or as appropriate. It states that it will complete a set number of site quality inspections per month to monitor the condition of communal areas. The procedure outlines that it will work collaboratively with the Service Charge team to ensure that accurate service charge budgets are set up, monitored, and finalised each year for gardening and cleaning services on each estate.
The landlord’s estate services grounds maintenance specification guide states that throughout the summer months dependent on site need, all sites will receive fortnightly maintenance visits as a minimum. It states that throughout the winter months the visits may reduce to monthly. The general duties are outlined as litter, tree debris and leaves to be swept and removed from site. It states that all ivy, bindweed, brambles, nettles, self seeded trees, and other weeds should be removed.
Following the landlord’s inspection report on 19 May 2022, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident and provided a response to the issues raised. There is no evidence to suggest it did so.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 May 2022 to state that contractors had attended the day before but no weeding was done. The resident continued to contact the landlord in June and July 2022 to raise concerns about the grass, and weeds. There is no evidence the landlord responded to these concerns. The resident stated on 17 June 2022 that a member of staff had visited the site with her and agreed that “things should be being done” but it there is no record from the landlord of this visit, when it took place, or what action was taken following it.
In an estate services contract meeting held by the landlord on 20 July 2022 the minutes stated that work was ongoing on the resident’s development and it was hoped to be completed by mid-August. It is unclear whether the work was relevant to the resident’s complaints but if it were, it would have been reasonable to have updated the resident with the timeframe for completion. This would have helped to manage her expectations and prevent her from having to raise the issues again.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns regarding maintenance of the estate in its stage 1 response, which was a failing. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that contractors had visited regularly between 2020 to 2023 and it was satisfied it was carrying out the work required. It also stated that works related to the resident’s issues were ongoing and referred to maintenance carried out regarding trees. The landlord’s response was not appropriate as it did not address the specific issues which had been repeatedly raised by the resident. The response referred to trees but they were not included within the resident’s complaint. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to outline what action was taken in response to the resident’s concerns and how it would ensure the issues were resolved.
The landlord’s policy suggests that the landlord should complete a set number of site quality inspections per month. The landlord has provided evidence of the contractor attending the site in line with its policy, however, it has not provided enough evidence to show that it inspected the site at least once a month, which would have been in line with its policy. From the inspections provided in April, June, and August 2022 the weed control and litter were often below average which suggests that there was merit to the resident’s complaints. From the evidence provided, it is unclear what action the landlord took to remedy the issues.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports and formal complaint regarding the grounds maintenance in a timely manner, which led to the resident having to repeatedly raise her concerns. It did not evidence that routine inspections had taken place in line with its policy, and it missed opportunities to update the resident following any action it had taken. It is unclear what action was taken to remedy the issues raised by the resident, which is not acceptable. Taking these into account, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of gardening and grounds maintenance.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation. £50 of the payment is to reflect the landlord’s poor communication and failure to address the issues raised. The additional £50 is to compensate the resident for the time and trouble caused in having to chase the landlord.

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

The landlord’s ASB policy states that if an allegation meets its definition, a case would be immediately opened and categorised as either A or B. It categorises verbal abuse, harassment, and intimidation as A and criminal damage as B. It states it will respond to category A within one working day of receiving the allegation and category B cases within 3 working days of receiving the allegation. It states it will carry out a risk-based assessment and agree an action plan with each complainant or witness, including how and when it will keep in contact, any support needs they may have and how these are to be delivered. It states that before closing a case it will contact complainants and witnesses to explain why.
The ASB policy states that in some cases, it may not always be the organisation with the responsibility or powers to deal with the allegation(s) made. It states that in those circumstances it will adopt a partnership approach and work proactively with other professional organisations such as the police or local authority. It states that where it has an interest but another organisation is leading, it may decide not to act until the outcome of their investigation is known.
The landlord’s actions in response to the reports made by the resident were reasonable at the time. It responded to the resident within 3 working days of the report. It is positive that it then liaised with the police, and outlined what action it could take with both the resident and the neighbour.
Even if the landlord determined that it could not act until the outcome of the police investigation, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have conducted a risk assessment. This would have helped the landlord to assess whether it had any safeguarding responsibilities for the resident and may have helped managed the resident’s expectations in relation to what action it could take. This was especially important following the second allegation made against the neighbour in July 2022 which was also referred to the police, and it was a failing that the landlord did not appear to have done so. A safeguarding referral was submitted for the resident in September 2022. It is unclear what the referral was related to and whether any support was put in place for the resident as a result.
The landlord’s records stated that the case would be kept open until the police confirmed what action they were taking. In a phone call to the resident on 17 June 2022 the landlord told the resident that it had a different version of events from the neighbour, but the police would have the definitive say as they have the evidence. Where there are allegations of criminal activity the police would be expected to lead the investigation and the landlord would not interfere with the police investigation. If the police investigation results in criminal charges the landlord may wait until after the criminal court case is concluded before pursuing its own action. While the time for the police investigation to be conducted would be frustrating for the resident, the Ombudsman has seen evidence of the landlord liaising with the police and the resident regularly in relation to the case.
Th landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed that it was still liaising with the police and waiting for an outcome. It said a multi agency meeting would take place in the next 2 weeks to discuss the best route forward. The landlord’s response at the time was reasonable, however, the resident stated that she is not aware of any action taken by the landlord since. The court case took place in July 2023, the neighbour was found guilty and was given a conditional discharge. An order has been made for the landlord to confirm the outcome of its case with the resident if it has not already done so.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that the debris swept onto her entrance way was historic and not a breach of tenancy and therefore it could not take any further action. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 May 2022 in relation to this, it stated that it had received a counter allegation of the resident doing the same to the neighbour and it would not be investigating either complaint. It explained that they do not fall into the categories of ASB that it could investigate as a reasonable and impartial landlord. It asked that both the resident and her neighbour resolve the matter by stopping the behaviour, as there was no breach of tenancy. It also advised the resident not to communicate or have contact with the neighbour and said it had advised the same to the neighbour. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s handling of the report regarding sweeping debris was fair and appropriate.
Overall, the landlord’s actions in handling the resident’s reports of ASB were reasonable and proportionate. The Ombudsman can understand that ASB cases with allegations and counter allegations over an extended period can be among the most difficult for a landlord to resolve. That difficulty is not the fault of any party, but it is important that the Ombudsman’s assessment of the landlord’s actions recognises this. If the landlord had completed a risk assessment, it would have been able to satisfy itself and the Ombudsman that it had considered any additional support the resident may have required during the police investigation. As it did not, this was a failing and the Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
The landlord acknowledged its delay in responding at stage 2 and awarded £100 in compensation, which was reasonable. However, there was also a failing in the landlord’s handling of the ASB which the landlord had not accounted for. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay a further £50 in compensation for the landlord’s failure to follow its policy in completing a risk assessment for the ASB case. This is in line with the remedies guidance which acknowledges that there was a failure by the landlord in the service it provided but it may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the allocation and marking of parking bays.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of gardening and grounds maintenance.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to offer a meeting with the resident, with the opportunity for third party mediation if desired. The purpose of the meeting is to re-establish the relationship between the landlord and resident. It will be an opportunity to discuss any additional support or signposting which the landlord can offer, the outcome of the ASB case, and any ongoing concerns in relation to the grounds maintenance. The resident is not obliged to attend if she does not wish to. If she chooses not to, the landlord should write to the resident to confirm the outcome of the ASB case.
The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £150 comprising of:
1. £100 for the landlord’s poor handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the grounds maintenance.
2. £50 for the landlord’s failure to conduct a risk assessment during the ASB case.
The landlord is ordered to provide compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should confirm to the resident if the visitor bays have been marked and if not, what the timeframe is for this to be carried out.
The landlord should consider the learning from this case and previous cases related to grounds maintenance. This is to ensure its estate inspection practices are consistent, clear in their frequency and scope, and align with best practice principles.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £100 it previously offered for its delays in responding to the resident at stage 2.