Orbit Group Limited (202310281)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310281

Orbit Group Limited

09 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that carpets and flooring were contaminated and the smelt of urine.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, who is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom end terrace bungalow. The landlord has a note that she has a disability.
  2. The resident moved into the property in February 2022. She reported urine smelling carpets on 11 February 2022 which she replaced with new carpets and linoleum. The landlord advised her the carpets were her responsibility but still attended and took them away that day. The resident reported urine smells from the floor under the new carpets from October 2022, which the landlord attended to on several occasions.
  3. On 26 January 2023 the resident raised a complaint with her landlord because it had not resolved the problem. She stated a contractor had told her in November 2022 that the floors all needed screeded, skirting replaced, and the flooring put in by tenants would need ripped up and replaced. She stated a contractor had told her in December 2022 that it was trying to get a sub-contractor to do the work. She requested immediate completion of the repair.
  4. The landlord advised the resident on 15 March 2023 that it was unable to provide a response to her complaint as it was still conducting its investigation.
  5. On 2 June 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response, acknowledging that several contractors had attended but failed to complete the work within 28 days. It stated that its contractor reported not being given access by the resident to complete the repair. It advised the area inspector would attend on 6 June 2023 to determine what works need to be completed. It offered compensation of £835, comprising £400 for the distress and inconvenience of the overall repair delay and £435 towards the costs relating to replacing the carpet and linoleum.
  6. The resident unhappy with the amount of compensation escalated her complaint on the same day. She stated she was expecting at least £1000 to £1500 and was unhappy the landlord was blaming her for cancelling the work when the contractor had raised the wrong jobs. She said she had been told the landlord would dig up the concrete on 6 June 2023, but the contractor informed her the floor required screeding.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 7 June 2023 stating following the inspector’s visit, a damp test was to take place, drains cleaned and any work identified to rectify the issues to take place related to screed floors and replace skirtings. It upheld the complaint, apologised and increased the compensation with additional £294 for repairs outside timeframe to a total of £1129.
  8. The resident brought her complaint to the Service and we accepted it for investigation on 9 July 2024. She was unhappy the landlord had not completed the work as promised. To resolve the complaint the resident wanted it to complete the repair, offer more compensation for its failure to complete the repair and the effect it was having on her health and wellbeing. She informed the landlord in July and August 2024 that she had completed the works herself and requested reimbursement of costs for works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated that the urine smell in her property had negatively affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding the health of those who live on the property. However, the Service cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed by 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 caused distress and inconvenience.
  2. The resident since emailed the landlord (initially on 11 July 2024) that she had had completed the repair work herself. She requested to be compensated for materials and labour. To ensure fairness, this investigation only addresses the issues in the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint such as the resident’s reimbursement request can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Legal and policy framework

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. At stage 1 it will respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. It states at either stage it may extend the response by 10 working days. If it takes longer, it will consult with the resident and advise them in writing. If the resident does not agree to extend the investigation, it will respond with the information it has. The policy is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which also states the landlords should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
  2. The landlord’s gifting policy contains a form which states that the items listed on the page are the responsibility of the resident. The carpet when the resident moved in was included in the gifting list.
  3. The tenancy agreement states the landlord will keep in order floors and skirting boards. It also explains the gifting procedure above.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend to a routine repair within 28 days and defines it as any responsive repair that is not an emergency.

Reports the carpets and flooring were contaminated and the smelt of urine

  1. The landlord’s file shows that an inspection report, completed on 16 November 2021 (prior to the resident’s tenancy), identified the need to clean the property’s carpets. A recent email from the landlord’s void inspector advised the carpets had been cleaned prior to the residents moving in. It highlighted the photographs of the carpets in its file, showed no signs of staining. The landlord’s inspector also stated the property had been empty for a “few weeks” and there were no reports of smells from the tradesmen, cleaner or lettings officer prior to letting it. It is reasonable that the landlord took appropriate steps to ensure the vacant property was inhabitable.
  2. The resident, however, complained that the carpets within the 2 bedrooms, hall and living room were stained and smelt of urine when she moved in, in February 2022. She reported when collecting the keys a week earlier the windows and doors were all open so could smell nothing. The resident provided a picture of a pulled back carpet with what looks like a puddle of water on the floor. The lack of a timestamp and date on the picture prevents us from confirming its location and date. We are also not qualified to assess the flooring from the image. The resident made a service request on 11 February 2022 to have the carpets uplifted as she had “ripped them up”.
  3. The landlord advised the carpets were the resident’s responsibility, as she had signed an agreement (gifting policy) prior to moving in which we have seen. The agreement states that the carpets were the resident’s responsibility. As the landlord was not responsible for them, it was appropriate it communicated this to the resident. It also acted reasonably and beyond its responsibilities and collected the carpets on the same day. Furthermore the landlord’s file shows its contractor who collected them noted there was nothing wrong with the carpets and did not have a smell of urine from them. Although we do not dispute the resident’s statement, there is evidence the landlord had followed its void tenancy procedure and made its best efforts to have the property inhabitable.
  4. Within the landlord’s complaint procedure, the landlord appropriately offered the resident £435 compensation towards the replacement of the carpet and linoleum. The landlord used its discretion and acted beyond its obligations, which was an appropriate and customer focused approach. As such, it acknowledged the inconvenience and distress caused the household by the urine smell.
  5. The landlord’s file shows the resident advising it of smells of urine coming from the spare bedroom floor on 7 October 2022 despite the removal of carpets. The landlord’s note showed it was responsive and attended 3 days later, where it identified a faint smell of urine. The landlord’s response was reasonable and attended within its own repair policy of 28 days for a routine repair. However, it is unclear of what action it had taken.
  6. The landlord’s file shows the resident called on 16 November 2022 and stated the landlord’s contractor had attended on 4 November 2022 and had advised her the floor needed screeded and “it can’t be left like this”. Although the landlord’s note does not show it attending on that date, the resident’s statement suggests it attended within its own repair policy of 28 days, which was reasonable. However, the landlord did not maintain good record keeping; the missing information about appointments was inappropriate. This also affected its understanding of the issue and the works required.
  7. The landlord’s file shows it appropriately called the resident on 17 November 2022. It stated it was waiting on a contractor arranging an appointment to screed the floor. However, we have not seen evidence of such appointment. The resident chased the repair on 20 January 2023, and the landlord’s repair note shows on 25 January 2023 it booked in a job to environmentally clean the flooring rather than screed. Its notes state for the contractor to confirm with the resident she had uplifted the carpets before attending. The resident stated this was 1 of many appointments the landlord booked in incorrectly as she was expecting the floor to be screeded. Her statement was confirmed in the landlord’s file.
  8. The repair notes show the resident cancelled the January appointment the following day, stating that her disability prevented her from ripping up the carpet herself. There has been no evidence provided explaining why the job changed from screeding to cleaning the screed. The resident’s raised expectations meant the landlord should have communicated that it would clean instead of screed the floor if this was the right way forward. The lack of clear communication caused unnecessary delays, stress and inconvenience to the resident. It additionally caused uncertainty in the resident as to whether the landlord had a good understanding of the repair.
  9. The resident followed up with the landlord on 22 February 2023.The landlord contacted the resident on 15 March 2023 with regards to the formal complaint, but it did not provide any information about the repair or its plans to further investigate and understand the nature of the repair. We have seen no evidence that the resident was being kept well informed, which was unreasonable and caused the resident to continue to chase the repair on 16 and 31 March 2023.
  10. The resident called the landlord again on 17 April 2023 to reiterate she had not requested floor cleaning and wanted the floor screeded to trap the urine smell in. This likely was in response to a contractor visiting the property; however, the landlord has provided no evidence of this visit. Again, the landlord’s record keeping was poor.
  11. When a landlord identifies a possible solution, it should be permitted to carry out the repairs. Residents’ refusal to allow the landlord to attempt the repair normally delays it resolving the issue and lead to the jobs being re-raised. However, in these circumstances it was not unreasonable for the resident to refuse a job which was not correct and as expected. She was expecting a screeding of the floors rather than only cleaning. The landlord in this case should have provided clear communication to explain the change of course and robust file to evidence this was the right course. However, it could not demonstrate any of this.
  12. In the landlord’s complaint responses the landlord advised it had investigated with its contractor (internal emails seen) why works were being closed down on its system without explanation which was a reasonable step to take to establish what went wrong. At stage 1 on 2 June 2023 it advised its contractor previously could not get access to the property, and the resident cancelled the repairs. It acknowledged it had not completed a repair within the 28 days as stated in its repairs policy, apologised and offered £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  13. In further attempt to put things right it carried out an inspection on 6 June 2023 to identify the works required. It made a plan to assess the subfloor which would have been reasonable had the landlord completed the repair. The inspection outcome confirmed further checks were required and screeding and skirting removal was to be considered.
  14. At stage 2 it committed to clean drains, damp test, screed the floor and replace the skirting boards as per the inspection report. It apologised and offered a total compensation of £1129 which comprised £400 for the stress and inconvenience because of the overall repair, £294 for repairs outside of time frame and £435 reimbursement for carpets and linoleum. The landlord’s actions and an offer of increased compensation would have been reasonable had the landlord carried through its plan to have a damp report conducted and any works identified completed. However, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had followed up on its final complaint response.
  15. We have seen no evidence of a damp report within the landlord’s file and the resident continued to have to chase the repair. The landlord’s file has a record dated 29 June 2023 that it measured up the house to screed and replace the skirting boards, but the landlord has provided no evidence of its decision making or a plan of works. The lack of information was inappropriate and made it difficult to assess how the landlord planned to deal with the repair. Additionally, its poor record keeping led to overall confusion as to the nature of the repair and further hindered our investigation.
  16. The resident reported she had the work completed herself and requested the landlord refund her for materials on 11 July 2024. We have seen no response to this request. As mentioned previously the landlord’s complaints procedure has to be exhausted before the Ombudsman can investigate the landlord’s response to the reimbursement request. As this has not yet been considered as part of the original complaint, we will make an order for the landlord to discuss what has happened after its stage 2 complaint response with the resident. This will provide the landlord an opportunity to advise the resident of its position. If the resident is dissatisfied, she can then complain to the landlord and if she remains unhappy with the response she can bring her complaint to the Ombudsman.
  17. The landlord acted responsively by taking the carpets away. Additionally, the level of compensation it offered was reflecting the high scale of maladministration and severe maladministration as per our remedies guidance. While these were proportionate steps, the landlord could not show that it had appropriately followed up on its stage 2 response and completed the damp report and any subsequent repairs. The Ombudsman also identified issues related to poor record keeping, which contributed to the overall failures. As such, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of urine smelling carpets and subfloor and has therefore ordered additional compensation of £200.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s file shows the resident made her complaint on 24 January 2023. We have seen no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days. This was inappropriate and not in line with the Code or its own complaints policy above.
  2. The file does, however, show it emailed her 36 working days (15 March 2023) later to advise it was still conducting its investigation and therefore could not provide a response. The landlord’s delay was unreasonable. Its own policy states it may request more time to investigate. However, we have seen no evidence it did this, which delayed a resolution to the resident’s complaint, causing unnecessary stress and inconvenience to the resident.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response was 69 working days after the complaint was made on 2 June 2023. This was 49 working days after the 20 days (including 10-day extension) allowed by the Code. This was inappropriate and caused delays in the landlord providing its stage 2 response and the resident’s ability to raise the complaint to the Service.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to make compensation if its service failures which caused significant distress or inconvenience. The landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures within its stage 1 response, which considering the length of the delay was inappropriate. There was therefore a missed opportunity for it to offer compensation in its stage 1 response.
  5. The landlord appropriately sent its stage 2 response on 6 June 2023 (3 working days) from the escalation, which shows that it had taken learning and improved its complaint handling. Furthermore, it acknowledged its failure at stage 1, apologised and offered £150 compensation for its poor complaint handing. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failure where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and fully put them right.
  6. The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s steps taken to improve its service, an apology and offer of £150 was a proportionate and reasonable offer of redress for the delay in replying to the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that the carpets in the property were stained with urine when she moved in causing the subfloor to be contaminated with urine.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress, which resolves the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £1329 compensation (including the £1129 already offered during its complaints process if it has not paid already) comprising:
    1. £1129 already offered during its internal process (if not paid already).
    2. Additional £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication, record keeping and its failure to attend to the repair as stated in its stage 2 response.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to contact the resident regarding her request to be compensated for materials relating to screeding the floor and its actions after its stage 2 response.
  3. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to confirm compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident and re-offers her £150 compensation (if not paid already) offered during its process for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.