Orbit Group Limited (202310227)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310227

Orbit Group Limited

23 January 2025

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:
1. Request for repairs.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy agreement started on 6 March 2018. The property is a 2 bedroom house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 12 August 2022 the landlord raised a works order to make safe a “dangerous” wall which had been damaged when a van crashed into the resident’s living room. It noted there was a young child living in the property so it needed to be “assessed and made safe.”
The landlord’s records dated 15 August 2022 noted that the front façade had “moved” and that a structural survey was required. It also advised that the front door would not open and needed to be replaced.
An email from the landlord to its contractor confirmed that the door had been replaced by 7 September 2022. The landlord’s post inspection photos confirm that the additional works were carried out on 22 June 2023.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 30 November 2022, as follows:
1. She did not want to continue paying rent owing to the delays. She requested 6 months rent reimbursement.
2. Following an inspection of the property the landlord failed to provide a timescale regarding works.
3. She felt the member of staff she had liaised with lacked compassion and did not want to help her.
4. A contractor had expressed concern about the structural integrity of the wall and declined to carry out works he had been asked to complete.
On 13 January 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, the main points being:
1. It had fed back the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its member of staff which were being addressed accordingly.
2. It had asked its contractor to bring works forward however, the works were now with its major works team.
3. Major works team confirmed that due to the complex nature of the repair and need for a structural survey works had been delayed. It would book an appointment at the earliest opportunity.
4. It upheld the complaint in relation to her complaint about a member of staff and “sincerely” apologised for the delay in its communication.
5. It offered £250 compensation comprised of:
  1. £150 for poor complaint handling.
  2. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
On 13 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to set out her dissatisfaction with its response. She was not satisfied with its offer of compensation and wanted works to be completed as soon as possible.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 June 2023, the main points being:
1. Major works were initially raised on 17 August 2022 following a structural survey. It had chased its contractor and confirmed works were due to commence 21 June 2023, to be completed by the end of that week.
2. Works exceeded 90 day timescale for major works by 220 days. It “sincerely apologised” for delay.
3. It apologised for the delay in providing its complaint response.
4. It awarded £840 compensation comprised of:
  1. £250 as awarded at stage 1.
  2. £200 for “poor” complaint handling.
  3. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
  4. £220 for exceeding its 90 day target for major repairs.
  5. £70 for service failure.
The resident contacted this Service on 16 April 2024 and reported that she found the landlord “extremely difficult and very unhelpful.” The complaint became one we can investigate on 16 April.

Events post internal complaints process

An internal email dated 17 May 2024 set out that decorating was usually the responsibility of the resident. It said it was not aware that this was outstanding and queried if the complaints team had contacted the resident to confirm if this was an issue.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy in place at the time of the complaint says it will respond to:
1. Emergency repairs within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours. These are repairs where there is an immediate health or safety concern or it affects the structure of the building.
2. Routine repairs within 28 days. These are repairs that are not emergencies.
3. Non-responsive repairs including major repairs (non-emergency) are grouped together and included within stock investment programmes to deliver value for money, such as roof replacements.
Its responsive repairs policy dated March 2024, and published on its website, says that it will finish major repairs within 90 calendar days.
Its complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide its response within 10 working days. If necessary it will agree an extension with the resident. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If an extension is required the reasons should be discussed with the resident who should be advised when they can expect a response.
Its compensation procedure says it may award compensation if the standard of the service it provides is significantly below the standard residents could reasonably expect.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs.

The entry on the landlord’s repairs log dated 12 August 2022 set out the nature of the repair. It also noted concerns about the associated risk and need for an assessment. An entry on the repairs log dated 15 August noted that a structural survey was required. Its contractor attended the following day, 16 August, and provided a report which has not been seen by this investigation.
The landlord’s initial response to the report of damage is unclear. The evidence suggests that an inspection was carried out on 15 August which is when the need for a detailed structural survey was identified. However, this investigation has not seen a file note or report of the inspection which is a record keeping failure. Furthermore there is no evidence that the landlord inspected the property within 24 hours in line with its repairs policy. Given the concerns about the structural integrity of the building and the associated risks this was inappropriate.
On 17 August 2022 the repairs log noted that a referral was made to the major works team to carry out works including renewing the front door, plastering and decorative works. An internal email dated the same day noted that the referral related to minor works only and that further assessment was required once the plasterboard was removed. It noted that the work needed to be planned “correctly” because the brick work could not be assessed until the door and plasterwork was removed which needed to be done around the new door and frame. It requested the works be raised “urgently” to allow the new door to be ordered because the resident could not open her current door.
The email also advised that during a visit to the resident her means of escape had been appropriately assessed. In the event of a fire where the back door was not an option for escape, the resident could use the ground floor living room windows. This was appropriate because they were low to the ground and could be opened fully. It noted the resident was satisfied with this arrangement.
It is unclear when the door was replaced which is a record keeping failure. However, in the landlord’s email to its contractor of 7 September 2022 it said it had spoken to the resident who confirmed the door had been replaced. During the call the resident said she was concerned about the wall which “looked worse.” It requested that the contractor book in plaster and brick works.
There is no evidence that a structural survey had been carried out by this point. Therefore, the landlord could not fully understand what works were required to raise appropriate works orders and complete the repairs. This was 26 days after the matter was first logged. The reason for the delay is unclear and therefore unreasonable. Furthermore, it caused the resident distress because she could not be confident that the landlord was taking appropriate steps to resolve the repairs as soon as possible.
During October 2022 the landlord exchanged emails with its contractor around the extent of the damage, including the need for a “propping plan.” An internal email dated 4 October the landlord noted the damage was “more extensive” than first indicated and requested more information to inform its response. On 31 October the landlord emailed the developer to request structural plans for the property. On 17 November the landlord emailed its contractor to request an update having shared the structural plans with it.
There is no evidence that, 3 months after it first logged the repair, the landlord had carried out a structural survey. The lack of progress caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. A file note dated 30 November 2022 referred to her increasing frustration. She was concerned about the delay and felt the officer she had dealt with lacked compassion. She kept being told there was a timescale but was not given further information. She said she had also been told she would need to claim through the other party’s insurance. It is unclear what this was in relation to.
An internal email dated 7 December 2022 confirmed that the work was complex and that a propping plan was required to be submitted to a structural surveyor before works could commence. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration and expressed the need to “speed things up.”
The lack of progress caused continued distress, time and trouble to the resident. A file note shows the resident called on 15 December 2022 to seek an update.
On 30 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for any delays in communication. It said it had raised works with the major works team and had requested an update which it would relay to her.
An internal email dated 4 January 2023 noted that a works order raised on 15 December 2022 to fix cracks in the block work had not yet been assigned an appointment. It noted it had updated the resident and advised the delay was due to the structural survey that was required. It failed to provide the resident with an explanation as to why, almost 5 months on, it had not yet carried out the survey. This was inappropriate because it further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
On 2 February 2023 the resident was caused additional inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed the landlord to chase the repair. She advised she had also emailed her MP to try to reach a resolution.
In an internal email dated 6 February 2023 an officer said they were “taken a back” that works were outstanding and requested that it “drive forwards” to complete works. A further internal email dated 7 February said the landlord had been let down by its usual contractor and that the work had been assigned to a new one. They were due to inspect and provide a quote by the end of the following week. It noted that the propping plans were already designed and it was waiting for a date when props could be installed.
On 16 March 2023 the landlord emailed the contractor to query that the job was showing as completed. It replied on 17 April to advise that it had concerns about the quote supplied by its subcontractor which suggested they did not want to do the work.
Internal emails sent on 12 and 13 April 2023 shows there was a lack of clarity over which team was overseeing the works. Both the major repairs and property management teams confirmed they had had no recent involvement.
This is concerning because if the landlord did not know which team had ownership of the works it could not effectively monitor the situation. Therefore, it could not ensure that works were completed as soon as possible and that the resident was provided with updates as appropriate.
On 5 May 2023 a works order was raised to carry out works to the brick work and to replace damaged plasterboard. It noted that decoration works were “to be completed by others.” Its position with regards to internal decoration was therefore unclear which was a record keeping failure.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor completed works on 22 June 2023 and on 3 August the repairs were post inspected and signed off. It took the landlord 224 days from the date it raised the works order on 12 August 2022 to the date it completed works on 22 June. It failed to effectively manage the process and to provide updates to the resident. This caused her distress and inconvenience when she had to chase the landlord and then contact her MP to try to resolve the matter.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord offered the resident a total of £490 compensation to try to put right its failures. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. However, it failed to set out what had gone wrong and what it would do differently to prevent a reoccurrence. Therefore, it’s offer of compensation does not of prevent an adverse finding of maladministration.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 30 November 2022. The landlord appropriately issued a complaint acknowledgement letter the same day. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 January 2023. This was 29 working days later and 19 days out of time.
There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to update her regarding the delay and agree an extension in line with its complaints procedure.
The landlord’s response offered £150 for “poor” complaint handling as a means of putting things right. While this was positive, it failed to explain why the delay had occurred and identify its learning to prevent a recurrence.
The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 13 January 2023. The landlord appropriately issued a complaint acknowledgement letter the same day.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that landlords should issue a complaint response when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed.
In an internal email dated 24 March 2023 the landlord said that because its contractor could not confirm what works were required it was not able to issue its final response. It proposed to extend the complaint response deadline on the grounds that “major works” in the system. The landlord’s decision to delay its response was therefore inappropriate.
The landlord issued a complaint response extension letter on 12 June 2023. It apologised for the delay and said it would issue its response by 26 June. While this was a positive step, it was an apology for not doing something rather than proactively managing the resident’s expectations.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 June 2023. This was over 5 months later and 89 days out of time. The landlord appropriately offered an additional £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
The Code sets out the benefits of an effective and efficient complaints process, including allowing an issue to be resolved before it becomes worse. In this case the landlord failed to use the complaints process to expedite the resolution of the outstanding repairs which was inappropriate.
The landlord offered the resident £350 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. However, this does not prevent an adverse finding because the landlord failed to set out an explanation for the delay and failed to identify its learning from the complaint. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Previous determination

In response to the Ombudsman’s determination reference 202220757, on 20 March 2024 the landlord confirmed it had made strategic changes in its complaints service to reduce issues such as delays. It confirmed it had also implemented refresher training for its staff. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make a further order in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in the case.
2. Reoffer compensation if this has not already been paid as follows:
  1. £490 for its failures in its response to the resident’s request for repairs.
  2. £250 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Contact the resident to establish whether the issue of internal decoration remains outstanding and if so, set out its position to her in writing.
4. Evidence of compliance with the orders above should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the case to identify what went wrong and what it will do differently. A copy of the review should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.