Orbit Group Limited (202302138)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302138

Orbit Group Limited

30 September 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. Handling of its concerns about clutter in the resident’s home.
    2. Response to the resident’s complaint about the cost and efficiency of his heating system.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The evidence shows the resident raised with the landlord in 2021 and 2022 his concerns that the heating system in his home was inefficient and costly to run. No clear response from the landlord has been seen.
  3. Around the same time, in mid-2022, the landlord raised with the resident concerns it had about the volume of belongings he had in his home. In a letter to the resident’s MP following enquiries made on his behalf, the landlord explained it had discussed its concerns with the resident, especially in regard to what it saw as a fire risk. It said it was attempting to arrange an inspection.
  4. Following a visit to the resident in May 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out the agreement it said they had both reached. The agreement was that the resident would reduce by a quarter the number of items he was keeping in his home, with a target date of mid-September. It explained its concerns about fire risk, potential lack of access for repairs, and the way in which some items had been stacked. It also explained that hoarding was against the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement. It said it would visit again in September, and asked the resident whether he needed support or assistance.
  5. In several email exchanges with the landlord in May and June 2022 the resident explained in some detail that while he was attempting to reduce the volume of contents in his home, he felt the landlord was not being entirely reasonable. He said his health and wellbeing was being impacted by what he saw as its intrusive behaviour.
  6. The landlord’s internal notes state it visited the resident in early July 2022 and found the property to still be cluttered, and in a similar condition to the first visit.
  7. The resident updated the landlord in January 2023. He said he was making efforts to declutter, but the property was excessively cold which was impeding his efforts. He explained why he believed his heating system was not sufficient for the property size, and that he could not afford to run it.
  8. The landlord visited the resident again on 18 January 2023. He then made a complaint to the landlord on 22 January. He complained about the landlord’s actions in regard to his home and disputed its characterisation that he was hoarding. He explained how the large amount of items in his home had come about, and that it was only a temporary situation until he was able to sell much of it – to alleviate both the clutter and his financial situation. He felt the landlord was threatening and bullying him and was causing him distress and anxiety. He also complained that the heating system was inefficient and too costly to heat his home to a reasonable standard.
  9. The landlord sent its complaint response on 3 February 2023. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns, but explained the reasons for its own concerns about the impact of his home’s cluttered condition, particularly fire hazards and general health and safety. It referred to having offered support from several services to help him declutter, along with the use of a skip for anything he wished to throw away. It explained it was not acting maliciously, and apologised for the resident feeling bullied by its actions. Nonetheless, it said its position had not changed, and it required him to reduce the clutter as it had previously asked.
  10. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 February 2023, following up on its visit to him on 18 January. It explained it had not seen any meaningful improvements in the property’s condition since the previous year. It emphasised the different types of assistance it had offered, none of which the resident had taken up. It listed the specific areas and concerns which it said the resident should address. It said it had previously asked the resident to provide a plan of action to address the issues, but had not received one. It explained it would visit the resident again on 21 February and that it wanted him to declutter one of the areas it had listed by that time. It urged the resident to take advantage of the support services it had described.
  11. The resident immediately asked to escalate his complaint because he did not agree with the landlord’s timescales, or its demands. The landlord acknowledged his escalation on 8 February 2023. It explained its response might be delayed by the volumes of work it was currently dealing with. 
  12. The February 2023 visit was moved to 17 April. The landlord’s note states the resident was accompanied by a friend, and there was disagreement about the property’s condition. The resident had suggested a timetable for completing the declutter by mid-2024. The resident then wrote to the landlord on 19 April explaining in detail how he intended to resolve the clutter by June 2024. He asked the landlord to confirm its agreement.
  13. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 28 April 2023. It set out the history of its actions with the resident regarding the decluttering, and explained it could not see evidence of its officers acting incorrectly. It emphasised the support it had offered, and the amount of time it had allowed the resident since mid-2022 to resolve the problem. It explained again why it believed it was important the resident comply with its requests, and that not doing so carried a risk of breaching his tenancy.
  14. The landlord also addressed the resident’s heating concerns. It said it had no recent record of him reporting repair issues with it. It explained it could inspect the system to check it was running correctly and gave details for arranging that. It also gave information about support with energy costs. It concluded by referring the resident to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
  15. The landlord’s notes show it did not agree to the resident’s proposed 2024 timetable. It is not clear from the evidence when it informed him. However, in an email he sent the landlord on 17 May 2023 he explained his disappointment with its decision. He then complained to the landlord that it had reneged on its agreement. He also complained about the length of time its final complaint response had taken.
  16. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 May 2023. It confirmed the 2024 date was too far away for it to accept as a reasonable plan. It asked him to promptly provide a plan of action to address the areas it had listed within the next 3 months.
  17. The landlord sent a further complaint response in July 2023. It addressed the resident’s complaint about the 2024 plan. It explained its officer had not accepted it when the resident had originally suggested it because the timescale was too long. It therefore did not agree it had acted incorrectly. However, it acknowledged its April complaint response had been delayed and outside its timescales. It apologised and offered the resident £100 compensation for its poor complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

  1. All tenants in general have a responsibility to keep their homes in a reasonable state of cleanliness and decoration. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the same obligation.
  2. A landlord may wish to inspect one of its properties, or raise concerns about clutter caused by the level of belongings its tenants are storing in their homes for several reasons. Such reasons can broadly relate to concerns around health and safety, or antisocial behaviour, both of which a landlord has an obligation to address. Specifically, a landlord’s concerns about clutter can include it leading to unhygienic conditions, attracting pests, posing a fire risk, creating obstructions during emergencies, or blocking access for repairs.
  3. The evidence shows the landlord visited the resident on at least two occasions in the first half of 2022. Following the second visit it wrote to him in May 2022 setting out its concerns. These centred on what it saw as a potential fire risk posed by the large number of books in his home, the overall clutter impeding access for repairs, and its concern about safety risks posed by items it said were stacked to the ceiling. It is clear, therefore, that the landlord’s grounds for asking the resident to reduce the number of items in his home were based on relevant concerns, in line with general practice and the tenancy agreement.
  4. Given its concerns and obligations, it was also reasonable for the landlord to discuss the issue with the resident. Its May 2022 letter states that the resident agreed to reduce the volume of items in his home by around a quarter within the next 4 months. It accepted that time scale.
  5. However, around the same time the resident disputed the landlord’s assessment of his home and told it he felt it was acting unfairly towards him. His disagreement with its view and its requests of him continued through the rest of the year, and into 2023.
  6. On multiple occasions the landlord explained a range of support options it could provide or signpost the resident to, to assist him with decluttering his home. That was appropriate and reasonable, because it was clear to the landlord from the content of much of the resident’s correspondence how distressing the issue, and its actions, were for him.
  7. The landlord’s records make a reference to having referred its fire safety concerns to the local fire brigade in March 2022. That was a sensible and reasonable action given that that concern was the most serious. No evidence of the actual referral, or a response or outcome has been provided. There was no further consideration of seeking fire brigade guidance or assessment until September 2023, well after the landlord’s final complaint response. The fire brigade inspected the property and told the resident and landlord it had no concerns.
  8. Despite the eventual outcome, the landlord’s concern at the time about the fire risk was understandable and wholly appropriate. However, it first raised its fire concerns with the resident in May 2022. The only fire brigade assessment we have evidence of was in September 2023, approximately 18 months later. The benefit of such a fire risk assessment was that it would either support the landlord’s concern and help persuade the resident, or it would provide reassurance to the landlord and resident that the fire risk was not as significant as originally thought.
  9. Either way, it would have provided valuable information for the landlord. Its biggest value was in the early stages when the landlord was first considering the situation and its actions, or in response to the resident’s initial dispute of its concerns. It was still valuable at the stage it was received in September 2023, but if it was obtained earlier it may have presented different and less intrusive options for the landlord to resolve its concerns. Because of that, the time taken to arrange the fire brigade inspection was not reasonable.
  10. The other grounds for concern given by the landlord appear to be less significant than the fire risk. Obstructing access for repairs is an important issue, but no evidence of that becoming a persistent problem has been presented. Its concern about the safety risk posed by high stacks of books or other belongings was well intentioned. Landlords are obliged to keep their properties safe and free from health hazards, but that relates primarily to gas, electricity, fire risk, and keeping the fixtures and fittings they own in an appropriate state of repair. The basis on which the landlord was concerned about how the resident stored his own belongings is, therefore, not fully clear from the evidence.
  11. The resident complained to the landlord that it had initially accepted his intention to complete his decluttering by mid-2024, but then demanded an earlier date. It investigated and concluded that it had not agreed to his date because it was too far off. No evidence of the landlord formally agreeing to the resident’s suggested timescale has been seen in this investigation, and so the landlord’s explanation appears reasonable.
  12. The landlord’s final complaint response significantly exceeded the 20-day target set out in its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It did not acknowledge that delay when it issued its response. The delay, and initially failing to acknowledge it was a service failure. However, following the resident’s further contact it identified its omission. It apologised and offered £100 compensation. In the circumstances, and in accordance with the Code’s expectations, those were reasonable steps to take to remedy its failing.
  13. Overall, the landlord’s actions were in line with its safety responsibilities and were reasonable in that regard. It was entitled to raise its concerns with the resident and ask him to take steps to address the issues it had seen. It then showed flexibility by extending its target deadlines, and explained on multiple occasions the support options available to him. This was clearly a distressing matter for the resident. While he did not agree with its position, the landlord demonstrated in its correspondence with him, and in its responses to his complaints, that it was aware of and taking the impact on him into account.
  14. Nonetheless, the time taken by the landlord to arrange a fire brigade inspection was not reasonable, given the resident’s dispute of its views about the level of clutter in his home and the potential seriousness of its concern.

Response to the resident’s complaint about the cost and efficiency of his heating system.

  1. The resident explained on several occasions to the landlord that he believed his heating system was not suitable for his property because it was too expensive to run. In later correspondence he made clear this was not a repair issue.
  2. The landlord did not dispute its responsibility for repairs and maintenance to the property’s hot water and heating systems. The initial expectation on a landlord when it receives reports of issues in its properties is to investigate the report. The resident has confirmed that the landlord assessed his home’s energy efficiency in 2023. He explained that the initial results indicated poor efficiency, but further assessment showed no specific problems. It is apparent then that the landlord took some steps to inspect the property in light of the resident’s concerns.
  3. In response to his complaint on the subject the landlord explained how the resident could ensure any future repair issues related to the heating system were acted on. It also acknowledged his concerns about the cost of heating his home and referred him to sources of advice and support for heating costs. Its responses were reasonable in the circumstances he had described and in the absence of any current repair issues.
  4. In general, landlords do not have an obligation or responsibility to improve systems in tenants’ homes if there are no issues of repair with them and they are functioning appropriately. The evidence shows that is the situation in the resident’s home. Heating costs is a wide-scale problem, and the resident’s concern is understandable. There are a range of support options available for tenants facing high heating bills, and it was appropriate for the landlord to provide information and guidance about them. The landlord’s response to the issue was, therefore, reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of its concerns about clutter in the resident’s home.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the cost and efficiency of his heating system.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s general handling of its concerns about the level of clutter and belongings in the resident’s home was in line with its obligations and responsibilities, and the tenancy agreement. However, in the face of its fire risk concern and the resident’s disagreement, the time it took to arrange a fire assessment was not reasonable.
  2. The landlord is responsible for repair and maintenance of the resident’s heating system. However, it is not obliged to improve the system when it is otherwise operating correctly. There are other options available to tenants with high heating costs, and it was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to them in response to his complaint.

Orders

  1. In light of this investigation’s findings the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £300. This is inclusive of the £100 it previously offered. This payment must be made within 4 weeks of this report, and evidence provided to the Service.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord has not provided any specific guidance or processes it has in regard to issues of clutter and similar situations in its tenants’ homes. This is a sensitive and emotive topic. Because of that the landlord may wish to consider creating guidance setting out how it will handle and resolve such issues, especially in regard to identifying at what stage it should consider seeking input and assistance from relevant and specialised external sources.