Orbit Group Limited (202210392)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210392

Orbit Group Limited

21 June 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of a roof renewal and the conduct of its operatives.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has since advised this Service that the resident has moved address.
3. The landlord’s contactor wrote to the resident on 17 December 2021 to confirm that it planned to renew his roof on behalf of the landlord. It said that it would erect scaffolding between 27 and 30 December 2021, and begin the roofing works on 4 January 2022. It provided the resident with details by which to contact it if he had any queries or concerns.
4. An inspection of the roofing works was undertaken on 19 January 2022. It noted “works completed to a good standard no snag issues, dust/dirt around chimneys needs to be washed down”. A post inspection of the property was undertaken on 28 January 2022. The inspector noted that they did not gain access that day as the resident was not available, but took photos of the rear and front areas of the resident’s home. An aspect of the inspection report was to observe if the works had resulted in any damage to the resident’s property, but none was recorded. The report noted that the inspector called the resident that day and that he said he was happy with the overall work.
5. The following month, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He explained his dissatisfaction with the lack of notice prior to the works being carried out and the time of year they were undertaken. He also raised concerns with various aspects of the operatives’ conduct. This included damage to his fence, mess left behind by operatives, and operatives smoking on the scaffolding.
6. The landlord first responded to the complaint informally. When the resident remained dissatisfied it sent formal complaint responses. The landlord did not agree that the amount of notice given for the roof renewal was unreasonable. It noted that the resident could have contacted it or its contractor if the time of year in which the works were scheduled to be undertaken posed an issue for him, and that it saw no evidence that he had requested alternative dates. It also said that its contractor denied causing damage to the fence, and that the photographs the resident provided did not show any clear damage. It said that its contractor denied that operatives had smoked on the premises, but explained they had smoked in an area away from the property boundaries. The landlord acknowledged that photos provided by the resident showed “some mess” left on the patio by the operatives. It apologised for the inconvenience that caused to the resident, but said that it did not consider the scale of the issue to be significant.
7. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said that the landlord delayed the roofing works which caused them to be undertaken during colder months of the year. He remained dissatisfied with the conduct of the contractor’s operatives, in particular the alleged smoking and fence damage. To resolve the complaint, he wanted the landlord to apologise and pay compensation for the delays.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

8. The resident’s initial complaint to the landlord included a wider range of issues than were in his escalated complaint. These included communication and safety issues, noise from drilling, ventilation, privacy issues, damage to a car tyre, parking issues, mess left behind by operatives, and impact on health. Only the issues of a mess left behind by operatives, smoking, fence damage, and the handling of the roof renewal were included in the stage two complaint. The Ombudsman will only investigate complaints which have exhausted a landlord’s complaints process, as a landlord needs to given the opportunity to respond to matters at both stages. Any concerns about issued which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints process should be raised directly with the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns with its handling of a roof renewal and the conduct of its operatives when carrying out the work

9. In his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident explained he was dissatisfied with the lack of notice given prior to the roof replacement taking place and that it was undertaken in January (when it is colder). He believed this was an unsuitable time of year to replace the roof. In response, the landlord’s explained that its contractor wrote to the resident prior to the works commencing and provided him with a schedule of works. The landlord also explained that the contractor highlighted that it was acting on behalf of the landlord and appropriately advised the resident to contact it if he had any question or concerns. The evidence does not show that the resident contacted the contractor or landlord, prior to the works commencing or during the time they were undertaken, to request alternative dates or raise his concerns. The landlord explained that the resident had had the opportunity to raise his concerns before the work was done, and had not done so. Nothing in the evidence seen for this investigation indicates the landlord’s explanation was incorrect.
10. The resident complained that operatives broke his fence when climbing it to gain access to erect scaffolding. He provided photos in support of his complaint. There is no evidence of him explaining the specific nature and extent of the damage. In response the landlord explained that after the roofing works was complete, its post-work inspection was unable to see any damage. This matches the inspection report. Subsequently, the landlord also considered the photographs the resident provided, but concluded that they did not show any clear evidence of damage. It was appropriate for the landlord to reply on the outcome of its post-work inspection, and for it to consider the resident’s photos. While the landlord’s conclusions did not match the resident’s, this investigation has not seen anything indicating the landlord overlooked something of relevance, or reached an unreasonable conclusion.
11. The landlord responded to the resident’s concern about some mess left on his patio. It apologised, but explained that it did not consider it to be of a significant scale. Nothing has been seen indicating that was an unreasonable conclusion to reach.
12. In response to the resident’s allegation that operatives smoked on the scaffolding and flicked cigarette ends into his garden, the landlord said that its contractor denied that smoking took place whilst the operatives were on-site. The resident provided the landlord with a photograph of cigarette ends gathered in a concentrated area of his garden near a fence. On its own, that was not sufficient evidence of the operatives smoking on the premises. Given the two conflicting accounts, and the absence of any further evidence, this service cannot determine that there was any service failure by the landlord in that respect. Nonetheless, the landlord made appropriate enquiries in response to the resident’s concerns and clearly explained its findings.
13. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns appropriately and in line with the evidence it had available.

Complaint handling

14. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that when a complaint is made, landlords must respond to a stage one complaint within ten working days. The revised Code (published March 2022) sets out that it is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘pre-complaint stage’) as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents.
15. The earliest evidence of the resident making a complaint was on 24 February 2022. However, there is no clear evidence of the landlord acknowledging the complaint or attempting to contact the resident to discuss the complaint further, until approximately two months later in April. The landlord has not acknowledged nor provided an explanation for this significant delay. Furthermore, the landlord did not issue a formal stage one response to the resident’s complaint until 30 June, which was approximately four months after the resident raised it. Part of that delay was because the landlord initially treated the resident’s complaint informally. Even allowing for that, the informal response appears to have been provided in late May, which was itself a significant delay.
16. The landlord’s complaints policy allows it to attempt to resolve a complaint informally. That is counter to the Code, and appears to have been part of the reason the complaints process was unduly long for the resident.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of a roof replacement and the conduct of its operatives.
18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

19. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation for its failure to follow an appropriate complaints process, and its complaint delays. Evidence of payment must be provided to this Service by the deadline.
20. The landlord must confirm that its current complaints policy is compliant with the Code in relation to informal complaints. If it is not, the landlord must review its policy to address the discrepancy. Confirmation must be provided to the Ombudsman within four weeks of this report.