Orbit Group Limited (202302222)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202302222
Orbit Group Limited
27 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
- Reports of a damaged fence.
- Complaint.
Background and summary of events
- The resident lives in a 3 bedroom house that she has occupied since February 2021. She is an assured tenant of the landlord.
- On 18 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report a damaged communal boundary fence. She said that it was “tipping and dragging the rest of the fence down”. She chased up the repair on 23 June 2022 and 12 January 2023 and told the landlord that children could hurt themselves on the fence if it was not repaired. On 22 February 2023, she raised a stage 1 complaint, and stated that:
- She was unhappy about the lack of contact from the landlord regarding the repair to the fence.
- There were approximately 10 panels affected.
- Although the landlord had assessed the situation, it had not started any work.
- The contractor told her that the work “exceeded” its remit and so it would subcontract it out. However, this had not taken place.
- She had asked for the property manager to call her back on 12 January 2023 but this did not happen.
- She wanted someone senior to the property manager to inspect the fence and oversee the required work.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 24 February 2023. It told her that its senior property manager had referred the repair to its responsive repairs team, along with her initial request for a call back. It added that it had made an urgent request for the team to allocate the repair and contact her. On 17 March 2023 the resident called the landlord to say that nobody had been in touch. She stated that she was frustrated because she had been told the fence was dangerous and the issue had been going on for a year.
- On 20 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to let her know it was not yet in a position to conclude its investigation. She called it on 11 April 2023 to ask for an update on the repair. It told her it had received 2 quotes but needed to cut down some branches before it could start work on the fence. The resident stated that 2 fence panels had blown down leaving the garden “fully exposed”. She added that 2 of her bikes had been stolen from her garden. It is unclear whether the landlord had asked the resident whether she had reported this to the police and if she had a crime reference number.
- On 13 April 2023, the resident told the landlord she was unhappy the matter had not been resolved and that she wanted to escalate her complaint The landlord sent her its stage 1 response on 14 April 2023. It stated that:
- In February 2022 she had reported an issue with her fence panels. It raised a major works repair and this was approved on 23 June 2022.
- It had chased the repair with its contractor in September 2022, and on 12 and 27 January 2023. The contractor attended to carry out an assessment on 30 January 2023.
- On 21 March 2023 it had made a further request to complete the works and this was “still live”, with no updates provided.
- It would address her complaint about the lack of contact from the property manager as part of its stage 2 response.
- It upheld her complaint due to “severe delays” in completing the works and responding to her complaint.
- It wanted to offer £492 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
- £392 for the delay in the works being completed between 18 February 2022 and 14 April 2023.
- £50 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
- £50 for the delay in responding to her complaint.
- As she had asked to escalate her complaint, it would continue to investigate it as a stage 2 complaint.
- The landlord repaired the fence on 9 May 2023. On 12 June 2023, it sent the resident its stage 2 response. This stated that:
- The repair was first raised on 21 March 2023, but this was incorrectly classified as a routine repair with a 28-day timeframe.
- According to its contractor, due to the level of work required, the repair should have been raised as major work, with a 90-day timescale. It acknowledged the administrative error and the delays this had caused.
- As the resident had not been able to provide crime reference numbers or receipts, it could not offer any redress for her stolen bike.
- It acknowledged it had taken a long time to respond to her complaint. This was because it was experiencing a “backlog of cases”.
- It upheld her complaint and made an increased offer of £812 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
- £492.50 as awarded at stage one.
- £70.00 for the administrative error.
- £150.00 for poor complaint handling.
- £100.00 for distress and inconvenience caused.
- The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She stated that:
- She was unhappy with the length of time the landlord took to respond to her complaint.
- She felt the landlord’s communication was “very poor”.
- She had told it that 2 bikes had been stolen and she was unhappy about the landlord’s decision not to reimburse her for them.
- She felt the compensation the landlord had offered did not account for the “mental and physical stress” the complaint had caused her.
Assessment and findings
Legal and policy framework
- As per Section 11 of the Landlord of Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and keeping in proper working order boundary walls and fences where the fence adjoins a public footpath or public open space. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
- The landlord’s responsive repairs policy lists 3 categories of responsive repair:
- Emergency repairs are attended to within 4 to 24 hours. These are any repairs required to sustain the immediate health, safety or security of a resident, or that affects the structure of the building.
- Routine repairs are non-emergency repairs that are completed within 28 calendar days.
- Major repairs are those that take longer than 4 hours to complete, and need several different trades or a specialist contractor. The timescale for these repairs is 90 calendar days.
- The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2 stage formal complaints process. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it requires an extension, it will provide an explanation with a clear timeframe for when it will issue its response. Extensions beyond 20 working days in the case of stage 1 and 30 working days in the case of stage 2 should be agreed between both parties. This is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
- The landlord’s compensation guidance says that it will make payments of up to £400 in recognition of distress, inconvenience and time taken as a result of a failure in service. The amount will depend on the level of impact and effort the resident has made to pursue their complaint. Furthermore, it pays compensation of up to £150 in recognition of poor complaint handling.
Scope of investigation
- The resident has stated that the landlord’s lack of action in completing the repair to the fence has negatively impacted her mental and physical health. The Ombudsman is sorry to learn of this, and does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health. However, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. These are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
- The resident has requested compensation for items stolen as a result of the landlord’s delay in repairing the fence. We can consider the impact of the outstanding repairs, and whether the landlord acted reasonably. However, we cannot determine liability or issue a binding decision about awards for loss and damages. As above, this matter is better suited to an insurance claim or the courts.
Reports of a damaged fence
- The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect this, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
- The records show the resident first reported damage to the communal boundary fence on 18 February 2022. They also show that the repair was completed on 9 May 2023. This means it took the landlord around 15 months to attend to what the landlord had classified as a major repair. The timescale for completing major repairs, according to its policy, is 90 calendar days. This represents an excessive delay and a significant departure from the landlord’s responsive repairs policy. The landlord has appropriately acknowledged that there were severe delays in its handling of the matter.
- One of the reasons the landlord gave for the delay, in its stage 2 response, was that it had made an administrative error. It told the resident that it had initially raised the repair as a routine, 28-day repair by mistake. It said that it should have raised it as a major repair from the start. Given the landlord would have been alerted to the fact it needed to complete the repair within 28 days, it is unclear why this error had not been picked up sooner. It could then have amended the repair categorisation and alerted the resident that it had made a mistake. This would have been a reasonable attempt as managing her expectations. However, the landlord’s failure to note the error at an early stage reveals that the repair had been inadequately tracked and monitored.
- Furthermore, the landlord’s explanation for the delay did not explain why it had significantly exceeded the 90-day timescale for completing major repairs. If the landlord was suggesting that the delay was because it was waiting in a routine repair “queue” and then subsequently joined the major repair “queue”, it should have explained this more clearly to the resident. However, it remains that this does not account for the delays that occurred in this case.
- It is evident the landlord’s communication was consistently poor. There is no indication it made reasonable efforts to provide the resident with regular updates, provide accurate completion dates or to keep her reasonably informed. The evidence shows the resident was given no choice but to repeatedly contact the landlord herself for up-to-date information. It is evident she took considerable time and trouble to try and progress the outstanding repair, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations.
- The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs published in March 2019 states that landlords need to ensure they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services. Furthermore, landlord should monitor progress of repairs and have accessible records of appointments, inspection reports, work orders and completion dates. The landlord’s stage 1 response states that the landlord made several attempts to chase its contractor about the repair but that it was unable to establish the reason for the delay. This suggests poor coordination and information sharing between the landlord and its contractor.
- Landlords should ensure they are appropriately resourced and that service agreements with contractors enable it to complete repairs in line with their policies. The repeated postponement of the works would have caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience. Together with its poor communication, the landlord’s failure to adopt a customer focussed approach and lack of contract monitoring would have added to the resident’s uncertainty that any works would take place. That the landlord failed to demonstrate sufficient and effective contract monitoring and repair management was a failure.
- The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
- The landlord acknowledged the excessive delays in repairing the fence and the inconvenience this caused. It offered total compensation of £492 at stage 1, which it increased to £812 at stage 2. From this amount, £612 was offered in recognition of the delay in repairing the fence and the distress and inconvenience caused. The remaining amount was in recognition of poor complaint handling. This was in line with its compensation guidance. Although the landlord’s attempts to put things right are noted, it failed to provide a proper apology for its failings or to give details on how it would learn lessons from the complaint. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the matter. We have ordered it to apologise to the resident and to take action with the aim of preventing a recurrence of the issues highlighted in this case. We have not made an order for further redress, and the amount offered by the landlord was proportionate in the circumstances.
Complaint
- The landlord took 37 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, and 39 working days to respond at stage 2. In both cases, it responded beyond the timescales as set out in its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
- Although it sent the resident a holding letter prior to issuing its stage 1 response, it sent this 19 days after she raised her complaint. Given its timescale for responding to stage 1 complaints is 10 working days, it should have advised the resident of the delay before this period had elapsed. Furthermore, the holding response did not a provide clear timeframe for when it would issue its response, and the landlord did not contact the resident to agree a revised response date. This was a departure from its policy.
- There is no evidence the landlord sent any holding replies following the resident’s stage 2 request. This means it had failed to properly notify her of a delay in its response, to give an explanation or to agree any new timescales. Again, this was a departure from its complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code.
- The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that it had taken longer than expected to provide complaint responses due to a “backlog of cases”. The Service acknowledges there can sometimes be challenges in responding within timescales, particularly during busy periods. However, landlords should always maintain reasonable contact with residents when delays are expected, in order to update them and agree revised timescales. That the landlord’s communication was substantially lacking would have caused the resident additional and avoidable frustration.
- It is noted that, in its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it had not upheld the resident’s complaint. As it went on to say that its decision was based on its findings that there had been “severe delays in reaching a completion date for the works” it is evident it should have stated that it had upheld the complaint. The landlord should always ensure it thoroughly checks complaint responses for any errors before issuing them as this will avoid causing residents unnecessary confusion.
- As part of her stage 1 complaint, the resident stated that she was told by the contractor that the repair “exceeded their remit” and that it would therefore subcontract it out. Although we do not doubt that this conversation took place, there is no evidence the contractor had told the landlord that the work was outside its remit. However, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. The landlord failed to address this part of the resident’s complaint and to explain why the contractor was unable to complete the works. It is accepted that contractors might not be able to attend appointments due to capacity issues, or periods where they are busy and their services are stretched. The landlord told her on 24 February 2023 that it had passed the work to its responsive repairs team. Given this was over a year after she had reported the repair, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for it to provide a proper explanation as to why the contractor could not complete the repair and clarify whether the reason was because it was not part of its remit. That the landlord failed to address this part of the resident’s complaint was a departure from the Code.
- In its response, the landlord acknowledged its poor complaint handling and that its delays in issuing responses were significant. It apologised for these failings and offered the resident £200 compensation (£50 compensation at stage 1, and an additional £150 at stage 2). This was in line with its compensation guidance. However, it failed to properly follow the Code and fully address the resident’s complaint. For this reason, although the Ombudsman will not order further redress, it has made a finding of service failure.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a damaged fence.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
- Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failures identified in this report, in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
- If it has not done so already, the landlord is to pay the resident the total compensation amount of £812 that was offered during the complaints process.
- In accordance with paragraph 54g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its policies and practices with regard to repairs management and contract monitoring. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks of the date of this report, and be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
- Formulation an action plan on how it will address the issues identified.
The landlord must provide a copy of the report to this Service and its Board within 12 weeks of the date of this report.
Recommendations
- Within 12 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord to review its training to complaint handling staff, with emphasis on updating residents if there are delays in responding to complaints. The training should also emphasise the importance of being fully conversant with and following the landlord’s own complaints process. The landlord to confirm it has carried out the review and provide details of any changes it has made in its training as a result.