Orbit Group Limited (202311304)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311304

Orbit Group Limited

29 April 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a loss of hot water in the resident’s property and associated compensation.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident holds an assured tenancy and has lived at the property since December 2019 following a mutual exchange. The property is a 2-bedroom mid-terrace. The property is served by a gas central heating boiler which was installed in the property on 20 June 2019. The resident has informed this Service that she has mobility issues which affect the methods she may use for bathing.
4. On 1 December 2021, the landlord attempted to fit a new wireless thermostat to the boiler however the part would not fit. A follow up appointment took place on 10 December 2021 where the part was installed. On 13 January 2022, the landlord confirmed that the part was “defective” and referred the repair to the manufacturer as it was still in warranty.
5. A job was raised for the shower not providing hot water on 13 October 2022, however it was discovered that this was a fault with the electric shower itself, not the boiler. This was attended and repaired the following day.
6. On 9 March 2023, the resident reported that she had no hot water. The landlord attended within 24 hours and noted that a new heat exchanger was required. A follow up appointment was made for 14 March 2023, with the aim of fitting the part. It was then determined that, as the boiler was under warranty, this repair should also be referred to the manufacturer. This referral was made on 16 March 2023 and the manufacturer called the resident the same day to attempt to book an appointment but was unsuccessful.
7. The resident made her complaint on the same day stating that she had no hot water for 18 months, and the landlord had failed to rectify the issue. She said she had contacted it repeatedly and had continuously been given mixed messages about attendances. While she acknowledged that the manufacturer must attend a warranty issue, she expressed her frustration with appointments being made by the landlord and engineers either not attending or attending without a part. She highlighted that she was disabled and wanted the hot water issue to be resolved. She also reported that a staff member had been “obnoxious.”
8. She contacted the landlord on 21, 24 and 27 March 2023 to find out when the manufacturer was going to attend and resolve the problem. The manufacturer confirmed to the landlord that the repair was completed on 29 March 2023 by replacing the plate heat exchanger, pressure gauge and auto air vent (AAV). A gas safety check was completed by the landlord on 7 April 2023 which highlighted no issues with any gas appliances including the boiler.
9. On 11 April 2023, the landlord issued a complaint update letter to the resident, but it was incomplete and did not give a timescale for a stage 1 response. The response was issued on 17 April 2023 and stated:
   1. It apologised that the resident “felt the need to raise a complaint” and for any inconvenience caused by doing so. It also apologised that she felt a staff member was “obnoxious.”
   2. It acknowledged the resident’s statement that she had been without hot water from 2020 but stated that the first record it had of repairs being required to the boiler was in December 2021.
   3. The resident had stated to them that a part was not fitted on 21 December 2022, however it insisted it was fitted but it was faulty. As the part was under warranty, it was passed to the manufacturer to resolve. No further issues were reported until 10 March 2023 when it was identified that a heat exchanger required replacement. Again, this was the responsibility of the manufacturer under the warranty, and so the repair was passed to them. It said the manufacturer attempted to book an appointment with the resident the same day but could not get hold of her.
   4. It did not uphold the complaint as all heating and hot water related repairs were addressed within the appropriate timescales and no service failures had been identified.
   5. Due to the delay with the complaint response, it offered £50 compensation.
10. The resident was unhappy with this outcome and escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 20 April 2023. She felt that the offer of £50 compensation was “an insult” given the length of time she had been without hot water.
11. The final complaint response was issued on 11 May 2023 and the complaint was upheld. The landlord stated that it was unable to see a full record of attendances or failed appointments, as the manufacturer logged these on a different system. It acknowledged that the loss of hot water had been ongoing and offered compensation of £688. This was made up of:
    1. £488 for repairs outside of the allocated timeframe
    2. £100 for distress and inconvenience
    3. £50 as offered at stage 1 for delays to the complaint response.
    4. £50 for the stage 1 response failing to offer appropriate compensation.
12. The resident felt that this amount was inappropriate and did not reflect the inconvenience and stress she experienced while awaiting repairs. She escalated her case to the Ombudsman in June 2023.
13. In December 2023, the landlord contacted the resident with an increased offer of compensation. The resident submitted proof of increased electricity usage, which the landlord accepted was likely caused by the hot water not being functional.
14. A further “full and final settlement offer” of compensation was made in the amount of £1,581.80 on 25 January 2024. This was comprised of:
    1. £488 for delays in completing the repair.
    2. £400 for the “distress and inconvenience caused by this service failing”.
    3. £50 as awarded at stage one of the complaints process.
    4. £50 for the stage 1 response failing to offer appropriate compensation.
    5. £593.50 additional electricity expenditure between December 2021 and June 2023.
15. This offer was accepted by the resident as appropriate compensation, however she has informed this Service that she would like the Ombudsman to proceed with an investigation. Although all issues are now resolved, she remains unhappy with the actions taken by the landlord and has concerns that there could be a recurrence of poor service in the future.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a loss of hot water in the resident’s property and the associated compensation.

16. The landlord’s repairs policy states that for a total or partial loss of hot water between 1 November and 30 April, it will attend within 24 hours to make safe. Between 1 May and 31 October, it will complete the repair within 28 calendar days. Based on the evidence provided to the Ombudsman, the landlord attended within the appropriate response times for all boiler related matters in this case.
17. When a boiler is under warranty, it is appropriate that the landlord would involve the manufacturer upon report of boiler failure, and request the manufacturer complete any repairs. However the repair obligation is the landlord’s, and it should remain in communication with both the resident and the manufacturer to ensure repairs are completed in a timely manner. On 16 March 2023, the manufacturer informed the landlord that it was unable to contact the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord attempted to contact the resident to facilitate an appointment being made. The resident chased attendance from the manufacturer on 3 further occasions, which implied there was a communication breakdown between the resident and manufacturer. The landlord should have supported both parties to confirm a suitable appointment time, and contacted the resident once the repair was completed to ensure she was happy with the works.
18. The resident was offered compensation at stage 2 of the complaints process to reflect service delays and associated distress and inconvenience. It is not clear how the £488 compensation offer for delays in repairs was calculated, particularly given the assertion at stage 1 that there had been no service failure. We would expect to see a clear explanation of how the landlord came to the compensation amount, for instance, did it compensate for each day without hot water and how many days were being compensated for. This would ensure that the same calculations were used in all cases of required compensation and ensure fairness for all residents.
19. This offer of compensation was increased in January 2024 following another discussion with the resident in December 2023, and after she submitted evidence that she had used more electricity during periods of hot water failure. The landlord has confirmed that its additional review of the complaint was completed following communication from the Ombudsman regarding high complaint numbers and following the receipt of further evidence for consideration. In most cases we would be concerned about additional complaint contact so long after the conclusion of the complaints procedure as this could be an attempt to avoid an investigation by the Ombudsman. It is clear in this case however, that the landlord has followed a wider request from the Ombudsman and has reviewed a number of its complaint cases.
20. It was inappropriate to refer to the offer made in January 2024 as “full and final settlement”. That is a legal phrase indicating that, if it were accepted, the resident would not be able to take her complaint further. That was misleading, given the resident was entitled to refer her complaint to this Service. The use of this phrase may have led the resident to understand there was no further negotiation open to her.
21. Furthermore, it is inappropriate to use such a term to a lay person without explaining the implications of such a phrase. The landlord should avoid the use of the term in the context of a complaint altogether. It should only be used where the parties were explicitly seeking a final settlement in the context of a legal claim, in which case, the landlord should explain itself. An order will be made at the end of the report for this to be addressed.
22. The Ombudsman finds that while there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler and the associated compensation, a subsequent offer was made following receipt of additional information which in the Ombudsman’s view was reasonable redress. However, it did not consider the impact that the loss of hot water would have on her vulnerability and did not maintain regular communication with the resident once the repair was referred to the manufacturer. Recommendations will therefore be made at the end of this report for the landlord to review its practices.

The landlord’s complaint handling

23. The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy. It promises to respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. At both stages, acknowledgment should be sent to the resident within 5 working days. It directs residents to the Ombudsman should they be dissatisfied with the final complaint response.
24. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that an acknowledgement was sent to the resident at either stage of the complaints process. The stage 1 response was issued 21 working days after the complaint was made, and this is not in line with its complaints policy. At stage 2 however, the response was issued within 12 working days which is within the acceptable period. Compensation was offered for the delay in stage 1 response which was consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
25. The landlord must ensure that it is conscious of the quality of its complaint responses before sending them, to ensure that it fully acknowledges and responds to the resident’s concerns in a professional manner. The Ombudsman understands mistakes can be made owing to human error, however, the number of grammatical errors, poor wording and incomplete sentences in the stage 1 response indicate there was a lack of quality control. In addition, it stated that it was sorry the resident “felt the need to complain” and “felt that a staff member was obnoxious” but did not apologise for any failures, nor did it appear to have considered the resident’s concerns around the conduct of the staff member. A recommendation will be added to the end of this report regarding the standard of complaint responses.
26. There is a case note by the landlord during the original complaint investigation which indicated the resident had a physical disability. There is no evidence the landlord asked the resident about her circumstances or investigated how the loss of facility would affect her. While she had access to an electric shower for bathing, she has informed the Ombudsman that she cannot stand for enough time to use it, and therefore had always used the bath. During periods of hot water failure, she did not have access to bathing facilities appropriate for her physical needs. An order will be added to the end of this report for the landlord to, in agreement with the resident, record with all its services any household vulnerabilities to inform the appropriate standard of response in future.
27. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated the facts as the resident had relayed them, rather than reflecting the outcome of its own investigation. It offered additional compensation for the complaint handling at stage 1 as the resident was not compensated adequately. While in the revised offer from January 2024 there is a clear description of how it has calculated compensation for increased energy costs, there is no evidence of a compensation calculation for the “delays in repairs” element in any of the offers. It was positive that the landlord ordered compensation in recognition of its complaint handling failure at stage 1, however in the Ombudsman’s opinion this was not proportionate to the errors made. The protracted nature of the process and the suggestion that accepting the compensation would mean she would no longer be able to escalate her complaint were not acknowledged.
28. The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. While the delay in stage 1 response was compensated for appropriately, the responses did not adequately address the resident’s concerns. There was no formal acknowledgement in line with its policy, and there was also a lack of quality control prior to issuing the responses to the resident. The framing of the most recent compensation offer as a “full and final settlement” was inappropriate.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of a loss of hot water satisfactorily.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

31. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
    1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
       1. Contact the resident to discuss whether she requires any additional support due to her physical disability. It must also explain how she can request adaptations which would support her in being able to use all bathing facilities.
       2. Ensure it records any household vulnerabilities to inform the appropriate standard of response and tailor support to the resident.
       3. Pay the resident £200 for its complaint handling failures, less the £100 it had already paid to her following its complaint review.
       4. Update its compensation offer form, and either remove the term “full and final settlement” altogether or provide an explanation of residents’ options should they accept the payment.
       5. The landlord must provide proof of compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

32. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
    1. Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord should:
       1. Review its process for maintaining communication with residents where repairs have been passed to the manufacturer, and supporting communication between the parties if there is a breakdown.
       2. Review its process for quality checking complaint responses to ensure they are easy to read for residents and are grammatically correct.
       3. Consider completing refresher training with complaint handling staff to ensure that all complaint responses adequately address all issues raised by the complainant and that acknowledgement letters are issued.
       4. Review how records are kept of how compensation for delays in service are calculated, and ensure there is consistency between complaint handlers.
       5. The landlord must advise the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding the above recommendations within 8 weeks of this report.