Orbit Group Limited (202332065)

Background

1. The resident’s property is a ground floor flat within a 4-storey block of similar properties. The resident has a physical disability and uses a wheelchair. He is also partially sighted.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a leak and damage to the property.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and damage to the property.
4. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord acted reasonably by admitting that it failed to identify the cause of the leak or resolve this within a reasonable timeframe despite multiple appointments. It offered compensation that was proportionate, alongside payment toward the cost of replacing the resident’s damaged flooring.
6. The landlord offered compensation that was proportionate to put right the impact of the complaint handling delays between February 2022 and September 2023. However, it did not identify what its failings were, demonstrate it had fully considered the impact on the resident, or show it had learned from the complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. It is evident that the resident experienced a number of different leaks into the property from 7 December 2021. It can take more than one attempt to resolve leaks from above as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset and different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. However, the landlord should take all reasonable steps to diagnose the cause of the leak from the outset, and keep a resident regularly updated on the progress of its investigations.
8. Following the resident’s initial report of a leak from above entering his living room on 7 December 2021, the landlord did not suitably identify the cause of the leak until 21 July 2022, over 7 months later. It subsequently completed work in September 2022. Given the nature of work, and the need to arrange access with the neighbour, the timeframe between July and September 2022 was not excessive. We have seen evidence to show that it completed some work to the neighbouring property on 3 occasions in this timeframe. However, there were multiple other visits and evidence to show that contractors left without identifying the cause of the leak, despite this affecting the resident’s property.
9. In its stage 1 complaint response in September 2022, the landlord acted reasonably by recognising that its contractors did not correctly identify the cause of the leak or resolve this within a reasonable timeframe despite multiple visits. While it had demonstrated attempts to resolve the problem, it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the inconvenience caused by the delay in identifying the cause of the problem over 9 months.
10. It was reasonable that the landlord could not share the specific action it was taking to resolve the leak from the neighbouring property due to data protection regulations. However, we have not seen evidence to show that it was regularly communicating with the resident during this period, or that it provided any reassurance as to when it would resolve the problem which would have been appropriate.
11. We note that there was initially a dispute between the resident and the landlord about the scope of work required in his property following damage to his living room ceiling and flooring after the initial leak, and the communal leak in February 2022. While this took some time, the landlord acted reasonably by agreeing in April 2022 to redecorate the entire ceiling rather than the section affected by the leak.
12. Following the ongoing leak, we note that the landlord needed to remove a section of the ceiling in July 2022 due to the damage. It was reasonable that it could not reinstate the ceiling until it confirmed that the leak was resolved. It acted appropriately by completing the work on 31 October and 15 November 2022. This was within a suitable timeframe once it completed work to the upstairs property in October 2022.
13. We note that the resident reported a further leak on 14 December 2022. The evidence provided shows that this was unrelated to the initial leak and coming from a property 2 floors above the resident’s flat. The landlord completed the work to resolve this on 21 December 2022 which was within its routine repair timescale of 28 days. It would have been appropriate for it to have handled this under its emergency timescale of 24 hours. However, there is evidence to show that it had difficulty gaining access to the relevant property despite its attempts, which was outside of its control.
14. We note that there were some further concerns about a possible ongoing leak in July 2023 from a flat roof above part of the resident’s flat. However, it is unclear whether this was an ongoing issue following the complaint and we will not investigate matters that have not been considered through a landlord’s complaints process. The landlord acted reasonably by arranging to touch up the previous paintwork in August 2023 to put right any staining caused by the December 2022 leak.
15. The resident would be expected to have home contents insurance to protect personal items, including floor coverings, from damage such as unforeseen leaks. However, the landlord’s compensation policy states that it would consider compensating residents for damage to belongings where this is a direct result of something it had, or had not, done or where the damage is the result of an incident, that it was responsible for, in another property it owned.
16. The landlord acted reasonably by agreeing to compensate the resident for damage to his flooring within its initial response in September 2022 given its delay in identifying the cause, and resolving, the leak. It was reasonable for the landlord to initially offer £300 toward the cost of the flooring as this was based on a quote it had received for a like-for-like replacement. Given the lack of clear evidence to show that his carpet runner was damaged, it was positive for the landlord to offer £30 as a gesture of goodwill toward this.
17. It was resolution focused for the landlord to amend this offer in September 2023 based on a quote the resident later provided for the replacement flooring. It would only be obliged to provide a like-for-like replacement but it was reasonable for it to consider the quote provided by the resident. It initially said it would not contribute toward the workmanship cost for fitting the flooring. However, it was reasonable for it to do so as part of its final response given that the resident could not do the work himself due to his disability. Its position that it could not accept a quote written on a piece of paper, and request for him to provide a formal quote, was reasonable to ensure the quote was authentic.
18. Where there have been failings, we expect a landlord to take steps to put the resident back into the position they would have been in had the failings not occurred. In line with our remedies guidance, compensation figures between £100 and £600 can be proportionate to put right failings that adversely affected a resident, but where there may be no permanent impact.
19. The landlord’s offer of £400 toward the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident is within this range and goes some way to recognise the impact of the landlord’s failure to identify and resolve the leaks between December 2021 and October 2022, and his inability to use this room in full during this time. This, alongside its apologies, revised offer toward the cost of replacing the damaged flooring and commitment to consider workmanship costs, put right the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing a resolution.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint confirms that it aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it aimed to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days.
21. There were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint at both stages of its complaints process. It raised the resident’s complaint on 16 February 2022 but did not respond at stage 1 until 13 September 2022. This was 145 working days later and significantly outside of its policy timescale of 15 working days at stage 1. We have not seen evidence to support that it kept the resident updated on the progress of the complaint and did not suitably recognise the delay in providing a response or put things right at the time of its stage 1 complaint response.
22. Within its stage 1 complaint response on 13 September 2022, the landlord said it would escalate the complaint as it was aware he was unhappy with the resolution offered following a phone call. Despite committing to do this, it did not acknowledge the complaint at stage 2 until 8 December 2022 following his further communication and did not respond at a stage 2 until 11 September 2023, around a year after the stage 1 complaint response.
23. While it did take some steps to explain that there would be a delay on 8 December 2022, it did not send a holding email until 12 June 2023, saying it aimed to respond by 30 May 2023 (which had already passed). It sent a further holding response on 4 July 2023, saying it aimed to respond by 18 July 2023, but then failed to meet this deadline. We have not seen evidence to show it provided any further updates or explanations.
24. The landlord recognised poor complaint handling and offered £300 compensation to the resident within its final complaint response. The landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to put right the impact of its complaint handling delays on the resident in line with our remedies guidance. However, we have found maladministration in its handling of the complaint as it did not explain what its specific failings were for the main aspect of the complaint or for its complaint handling. The lack of detail in the response did not justify the extensive timeframe. It did not explain the reasons for the delays, actions taken since its initial response, recognise the specific impact of its failings on the resident, or explain how it would learn from the complaint to prevent similar failings in future.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping), communication, and complaint handling.

25. At times, a lack of records meant it was unclear what action the landlord had taken in response to the resident’s reports of a leak. There is also reference to phone calls with the resident regarding the complaint but no records confirming what said on the call. The landlord should take steps to ensure it is recording any actions and conversations in relation to a resident’s complaint to provide an audit trail.
26. The landlord should ensure that it is fully explaining the reasons for any failings and compensation offers within its complaint responses at each stage to demonstrate it has fully considered a resident’s complaint and learnt from the outcome.