Orbit Group Limited (202230719)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230719

Orbit Group Limited

25 July 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. He succeeded his long-term partner’s tenancy following her death in October 2022. The property is a 1-bedroom, mid-terrace bungalow. The resident’s late partner was disabled. The resident feels the landlord accelerated a decline in her health because it failed to tackle ASB from neighbours over a prolonged period.
  2. The resident’s complaint focussed on 2 neighbours who occupied the bungalows on either side of the property. This report refers to them as neighbour A and neighbour B respectively. The resident feels the ASB issues stemmed from neighbour A, who encouraged other parties to get involved. It is understood a member of neighbour A’s household was related to neighbour B.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy shows any action the landlord may take in response to ASB will be proportionate and at the landlord’s discretion. It also shows the landlord’s discretion based approach applies to various measures including any legal or enforcement action. The policy confirms the landlord may take action against customers and non-customers (such as household members or visitors).
  4. The landlord provided a copy of its relevant complaints policy. It shows the landlord aimed to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aimed to respond within 20 working days. The policy excluded issues  that had already been through the landlord’s complaints procedure, or which occurred more than 6 months ago. The landlord could disapply this time limit if there was a valid reason why the complaint was delayed.

Summary of events

  1. In late July 2022 the Ombudsman determined a previous ASB complaint that was made by the resident’s late partner (our reference 201813089). We noted the landlord’s past actions were consistent with a reasonable response to reports of ASB. However, we found the landlord could have been more proactive in response to the ASB reports the resident and his late partner made during the period we investigated. We said simply referring them to the police was not an adequate response to the family’s reports. We determined there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s ASB and complaint handling.
  2. Within days of our report, a member of neighbour A’s household (the offender) pleaded guilty to separate offences involving harassment and criminal damage. The offences occurred in 2021 and were directed towards the resident’s family. The landlord has acknowledged one of the incidents was a “hate crime”. On 4 August 2022 the resident told the landlord about the outcome of the court case. He said his family had been granted a restraining order against the offender. He wanted the landlord to evict neighbour A. Records show the landlord did not update its ASB case files to reflect his important update.
  3. The landlord’s case evidence to the Ombudsman included a brief summary of events in October 2022. It suggests the resident complained about the landlord’s lack of action at this point. In a related email to the landlord, the resident said abuse and threats were ongoing from several members of neighbour B’s family. The email also said a vodka bottle had been thrown at the property, and an operative working for one of the landlord’s external contractors was involved in the ASB. The landlord’s summary said the landlord issued a stage 1 response around a week later. It also said the resident’s complaint was rejected on the basis the landlord had not received any instructions from the court.
  4. The landlord’s ASB case records show it applied for a certificate of conviction on 10 November 2022. A separate legal case history shows the police wanted to exchange information with the landlord around a month later. From the landlord’s records, it was unclear if the landlord responded to this important  request. The landlord’s correspondence shows it issued a notice of seeking possession (NOSP) to neighbour A on 3 February 2023. This was around 6 months after the resident told the landlord about the offender’s conviction.
  5. The landlord provided a transcript of the resident’s current complaint. It said it logged the complaint on 13 March 2023. The transcript shows the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s ASB handling from December 2021 onwards. He felt its case handler had taken the neighbours’ side, was rude, and had treated his family with “complete contempt”. The resident referred to several interactions with the case handler which occurred between February and June 2022. Other key points from the transcript were:
    1. Another aspect of the resident’s complaint involved a gardener that worked for the landlord’s external contractor. The resident said the police were concerned about the operative’s conduct towards him.
    2. The resident said the landlord should help the police with their enquiries. He referenced several incidents involving the gardener. They occurred between April 2019 and July 2022. They included verbal abuse, damage to plants, and taking pictures of the resident.
    3. The resident felt the landlord had allowed the gardener to “behave in a thuggish manner”. He also said the landlord had disclosed the family’s private information to the neighbours in late July 2022.
  6. In early April 2023, the landlord’s legal team advised neighbour A to move using a mutual exchange process. This was on the basis a court would not grant the landlord a possession order “if (they) were no longer a tenant”. Later that month, the landlord opened a new ASB case in response to a fresh report from the resident. The report related to threatening behaviour and verbal abuse from neighbour B. The landlord’s initial case notes show the resident also alleged the offender had breached their restraining order. He said there was “no point” in reporting the breach to the police because they would refer him back to the landlord.
  7. On 24 April 2023 the landlord declined to investigate the resident’s most recent complaint. Its relevant response letter was issued around 27 days after the complaint was raised. The landlord did not acknowledge a delay. The letter said the events the resident had complained about occurred more than 6 months ago. As a result, they were not covered by the landlord’s complaints process.
  8. The landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s escalation request. The evidence suggests the request was made around 9 May 2023. A case note from this date shows the resident reported ASB incidents were still ongoing. It also shows he felt the landlord acted unfairly by applying its standard 6 month time limit to his case. This was on the basis he suffered a breakdown following his partner’s death in October 2022. Over the next few months, the landlord issued at least 4 holding letters confirming its stage 2 response was delayed.
  9. On 1 June 2023 the landlord issued the resident a final written warning letter. It said it had been notified that he was engaging in conduct that was causing harassment, alarm, and distress to the landlord’s contractors. It also said the resident’s unacceptable behaviour must stop. In addition, failure to comply would result in formal action by the landlord. From the landlord’s records, it was unclear why the warning was issued.
  10. On 5 June 2023 a court struck out the landlord’s application for a possession order against neighbour A. Records confirm the landlord’s case was struck out because its legal specialist did not attend the hearing. Around 10 days later, the landlord advised neighbour A the hearing had been rescheduled. It also said the landlord would not ask the court for a possession order. Instead, it would seek to adjourn the case and include an option to restore the proceedings in the event there was any further ASB. This was so neighbour A’s “move could proceed”. Later, in its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord implied the court adjourned the case because neighbour A had agreed to move. It also said “time was allowed for them (to move)”.
  11. ASB records show the resident made further reports about neighbour A and the offender in July and August 2023. The reports included an alleged breach of the restraining order, damage to plants, and shouted threats to kill. The records also show the resident told the landlord the police were not taking any action in relation to these incidents.
  12. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 22 September 2023. The evidence suggests this was around 4 months after the resident’s escalation request. The response was prompted by an intervention from the Ombudsman. The landlord awarded the resident £250 in compensation to recognise the delay. However, it rejected his core complaints on the basis its investigation did not identify any service failures. Other key points from the landlord’s response were:
    1. There was insufficient evidence to support the resident’s allegations, so the landlord would not take any eviction action against neighbour A.
    2. The landlord was aware the resident had a restraining order against the offender. The offender was not the landlord’s tenant and the resident should alert the police if the order was breached.
    3. The police had decided not to proceed with any of the resident’s ASB complaints about the neighbours.
    4. In relation to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s external contractor, the contractor had carried out an internal investigation and it found its employee was not at fault.
    5. The resident had complained about the conduct of 2 of the landlord’s own staff members. The landlord’s complaints team had previously responded to his complaint and the events in question occurred more than 6 months ago.
  13. The landlord’s records confirm neighbour A moved through a mutual exchange in December 2023. This was around 16 months after the court convicted the offender. Subsequently, the landlord closed its case file in January 2024. The records show the landlord had erected a fence at the property to resolve issues with the gardener. The closure notes said there were no further ASB issues.
  14. In June 2024 the landlord supplied its case evidence to the Ombudsman. In its file summary, the landlord said its tenancy services team was unable to respond to the resident’s complaint about the gardener. This was on the basis its estates and contract management teams were responsible for complaints about the landlord’s contractors. The evidence included an ASB case record from 2019. It shows the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about the gardener at this point. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord instructed the gardener to stop maintaining the property several years ago. It also shows the gardener was allowed to continue working on the surrounding homes. After 2019, there was no evidence to show the landlord completed any subsequent investigations into the gardener’s conduct.
  15. The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 12 July 2024. He confirmed neighbour A had previously moved. He said some ASB issues were ongoing because the offender had moved into another home nearby. In summary, he felt the landlord declined to engage with evidence of ASB, gave contradictory information, and failed to respond to various communications. He wanted the landlord to acknowledge his family had experienced ASB from the neighbours. He also wanted the landlord to withdraw its tenancy warning against him.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is recognised the situation has caused the resident and his late partner considerable distress over the years. The evidence shows he has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or damage to personal belongings. We will not reconsider the family’s previous complaint to the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The resident has said the landlord promised to evict neighbour A if there was a successful conviction. He feels the landlord gave him this assurance in March 2022. We checked the landlord’s records for any evidence of a similar promise. However, from the evidence provided, no information was seen to show the landlord made a commitment that it subsequently failed to fulfil. Similarly, there was no evidence the resident was given any incorrect information around legal action.
  2. It took the landlord around 6 months to issue neighbour A an NOSP after the offender’s conviction in August 2022. The evidence shows the delay occurred because the landlord failed to act on the resident’s important update on 4 August 2022. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord was unable to take any legal action until the conviction was confirmed. On that basis, it should have taken proactive steps to obtain a certificate of conviction at this point. The landlord’s lack of proactivity was unreasonable given the serious nature of the offences.
  3. The resident reported further incidents while the delay was ongoing. In October 2022 he referenced threats and a vodka bottle that was thrown at the property. It is understood some of these incidents involved other parties (not neighbour A or the offender). However, it is reasonable to conclude they may have been prevented if the landlord had issued the NOSP swiftly. This is because the offender and neighbour A were associated with the other parties. Ultimately, the resident was impacted by the landlord’s inappropriate record keeping. Since it failed to act quickly in relation to the conviction, the landlord missed an opportunity to demonstrate a zero tolerance approach to confirmed ASB.
  4. The resident made further reports after the NOSP was issued. In April 2023 he referenced threatening behaviour and a breach of the restraining order. Earlier that month, the landlord advised neighbour A to seek a mutual exchange prior to any court hearings. In effect, the landlord told neighbour A how to avoid its possession action. Since more incidents occurred before it gave this advice, there was no evidence the landlord caused any additional ASB at this point. However, its actions can be reasonably interpreted as favouring neighbour A. It was noted the resident’s complaint in March 2023 alleged the landlord was biased towards the neighbours.
  5. Subsequently, the landlord’s case was struck out because it failed to attend a key court hearing. Since he was let down by its lack of professionalism, the landlord’s failure to attend the hearing arguably showed a lack of care towards the resident. Although the landlord restored its proceedings soon afterwards, the evidence confirms it adopted a more lenient approach. At this point, instead of resuming its eviction action, the landlord adjourned the proceedings to allow neighbour A time to move.
  6. This suggests the landlord supported neighbour A in sustaining their tenancy rather than taking steps to remove it. Though it explained its new approach to neighbour A in June 2023, there was no evidence to show the landlord ever consulted the resident about its decision. This was unreasonable given the nature and frequency of the incidents he had reported and the landlord’s responsibility to be fair to all parties.
  7. In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord did not explain why it felt a more lenient approach to neighbour A was justified. It is accepted the landlord has discretion over its response to ASB. However, the evidence provided suggests its revised approach was highly disproportionate given the offender’s hate crime conviction. In addition, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to include the resident in its decision-making process. For example, it could have completed a risk assessment to inform its decision.
  8. In its case summary to the Ombudsman, the landlord suggested the court was responsible for its revised approach to neighbour A. Its legal case history notes confirm this was not the case. Specifically, entries from 6 and 16 June 2023 show it was the landlord that changed the direction of its legal proceedings. The legal case history also confirms the comments in the landlord’s case summary provide a false impression of the evidence. Since the notes in its legal case history were clear, the landlord should ensure its submissions to the Ombudsman are accurate and do not provide a false impression of the evidence.
  9. Neighbour A did not move for around 16 months after the offender’s conviction. The evidence confirms the resident continued to experience ASB (from several parties) during the interim period. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was distressing for him. The evidence suggests he spent a significant amount of time pursuing his concerns with the landlord. It is likely this was inconvenient and distressing for him. Ultimately, the landlord could have reduced the above identified 16 month timescale. With swift action, it may also have prevented some of the ASB.
  10. The landlord could have taken steps to have neighbour A evicted based on the offenders’ conviction. It could also have obtained a certificate of conviction (to issue a NOSP) much earlier. There was no evidence the landlord consulted the resident before it changed its approach towards the legal proceedings. There was evidence the landlord failed to respond to a police request (to share information) in December 2022. Aspects of its ASB record keeping were inadequate and the resident was impacted. In these circumstances and with the absence of any explanation to the contrary, some of the landlord’s key actions can be reasonably interpreted as favouring neighbour A.
  11. A key aspect of the resident’s ASB complaint involved the gardener’s conduct. Though his concerns were important to the resident, the landlord provided little evidence to show how it handled the matter. Its related ASB case record was closed in 2019. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said its contractor had completed an internal investigation which found the gardener was not at fault. In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord said its other (internal) departments were responsible for investigating complaints about contractors.
  12. The landlord did not provide any evidence relating to the contractor’s investigation or findings. It was therefore unclear whether it questioned the gardener about the situation. It was also unclear when the contractor’s investigation occurred and if the landlord examined it. Ultimately, the contractor was employed by the landlord and it was acting as the landlord’s agent. The landlord was not a bystander and it had significant power to influence events. It was for the landlord to decide whether it was satisfied with the contractor’s investigation.
  13. It is reasonable to conclude a range of options were available to the landlord. For example, it could have instructed its contractor to send a different operative to the area going forwards. However, there was no evidence the landlord explored any alternative solutions with the contractor. Its overall response to the resident’s reports was unreasonable in the circumstances. The situation was distressing for the resident. The landlord has been unable to show it responded accordingly to his more recent concerns about the gardener.
  14. The comments in the landlord’s case evidence to the Ombudsman were also inappropriate. As a key point of contact for both the resident and the Ombudsman, the landlord’s complaints team is responsible for gathering information from its various departments. It should have taken responsibility for resolving matters and coordinated the landlord’s response. It was also noted there was little evidence in the landlord’s ASB records to support its tenancy warning to the resident in June 2023. The resident has said he feels this warning was not justified.
  15. Overall, the evidence confirms there was severe maladministration in respect of this complaint point. Instead of being proactive, the landlord adopted a relaxed approach to the resident’s ASB concerns about neighbours and the gardener. The evidence shows the landlord could have done more to influence events and reduce the overall timeline. Based on the evidence, it is reasonable to interpret some of the landlord’s key actions as favouring neighbour A. The resident was impacted by the landlord’s inappropriate ASB record keeping and he experienced significant distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. At stage 2, the landlord awarded the resident £250 in compensation for a delay at this stage. This was a proportionate award given the resulting distress and inconvenience to the resident (who approached the Ombudsman to obtain a response). However, the evidence shows the landlord failed to acknowledge a shorter delay that occurred at stage 1. Since it was around 17 working days, the landlord should have awarded the resident compensation to address it. Instead, the evidence shows the landlord failed to consider its own complaint handling over the full complaint journey. To address any procedural delays and failures accordingly, it should do this at both stages of its complaints process.
  2. The landlord also adopted a narrow view of the resident’s complaints during the timeline. The evidence suggests its response in October 2022 failed to address the resident’s concerns about ongoing ASB from the neighbours and the gardener. This was unfair, inappropriate, and contrary to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) as published in March 2022. Section 5.6 said, “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”. There was no indication the landlord responded accordingly in line with the Code.
  3. The evidence suggests the pattern repeated when the resident complained again in March 2023. Though his concerns involved allegations of bias by the landlord and criminal conduct by the gardener, the landlord focussed on the specific incidents he referenced to reach an out of jurisdiction finding. For clarity, landlords can override their own policy time limits to investigate serious incidents such as alleged criminality. It is often good practice for landlords to do this because it demonstrates a commitment to investigating serious incidents.
  4. Similarly, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s comments about a “breakdown” at stage 2. Since the matter was important to him, it warranted a response from the landlord. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s failure to acknowledge his upsetting circumstances, caused additional distress for the resident. There were also other issues with the landlord’s stage 2 response. Though it referenced a previous complaint response, there was no indication the landlord enclosed a copy for the resident’s reference. This is a good practice measure that would have helped the landlord explain its decision.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response also contained incorrect information. It said there was insufficient evidence to support eviction action against neighbour A. This was incorrect due to the offender’s conviction. The response also implied the landlord had little influence over the offender’s conduct. This was also incorrect for similar reasons. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms the landlord can act against non-customers, such as visitors to properties. Overall, the landlord’s narrow focus and incorrect stage 2 response likely caused additional distress for the resident. The evidence confirms there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. It also shows the landlord’s compensation was disproportionate given what went wrong.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. Instead of being proactive, the landlord adopted a relaxed approach to the resident’s ASB complaints. The evidence confirms it could have done more to influence events and reduce the overall timeline. Based on the evidence, some of the landlord’s key actions can reasonably be interpreted as favouring neighbour A. The resident was impacted by the landlord’s inappropriate ASB record keeping and he experienced significant distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period. The landlord failed to show it responded accordingly to his ASB concerns about its contractor.
  2. The landlord failed to redress the resident accordingly for a complaint handling delay at stage 1. Subsequently, it adopted a narrow view of his complaints and failed to respond accordingly to a number of key issues. These issues were important to the resident and they warranted a response. The landlord’s complaint handling was unfair, inappropriate, and contrary to the Code. Aspects of its stage 2 response were also incorrect. Its compensation award was disproportionate given what went wrong.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders a relevant member of the landlord’s executive team to apologise to the resident. The apology should acknowledge the offender’s conviction confirmed that the resident’s family was experiencing ASB. It should also recognise the key failures identified in this report (summarised in the reasons section above). Given its lack of supporting records, the landlord should retract its final tenancy warning from June 2023. The landlord must share a copy of it relevant correspondence/call summary with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  2. The landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,350 in compensation within 4 weeks. The compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It comprises:
    1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB.
    2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. If it has previously paid this figure, the landlord is free to deduct the £250 it awarded the resident at stage 2.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks, it should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include the landlord’s approach to the reported ASB and opportunities for it to have been proactive in line with its policy, its ASB record keeping, its narrow view of the resident’s complaints (as opposed to the holistic approach it should have adopted), and its failure to consider its own complaint handling over the full complaint journey. The landlord is free to include other issues. Identified improvements should be cascaded to its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence it has complied with the above orders within the relevant timescales.