Orbit Group Limited (202345114)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord in November 2023. She said she was unhappy that the landlord had not responded to a leak as an emergency. She said the leak increased her water costs, damaged her carpet, and caused her inconvenience.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of a leak and damaged carpet.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak and damaged carpet.
4. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak and damaged carpet

5. The landlord acknowledged its repair delays and offered redress. However, its unclear decision‑making caused the resident further time and trouble. It also missed the opportunity to provide the resident with its insurance details regarding the damage to the carpet.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

6. The landlord provided its complaint responses within its policy timescales and their quality was appropriate.

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.

Our investigation

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. The resident reported a blocked toilet on 25 September 2023, which the landlord responded to within 24 hours in line with its repairs policy for emergency repairs. Repair notes from the landlord’s attendance on 26 September 2023 stated the toilet was now working but a new cistern was needed. As the toilet was working, it was appropriate that the landlord raised this as a routine repair with a 28-day response timescale.
8. The landlord’s repair log shows the resident reported a leak on 17 November 2023, which the landlord also raised as a routine repair. In her complaint the resident said the landlord should have responded to the leak as an emergency. However, the landlord’s repairs policy states that it will provide an emergency response to issues that pose a risk to health, safety, or the structure of the building. As there was no indication that this applied in this case, the landlord’s actions were in line with its repairs policy. The landlord later resolved the leak 4 days outside its 28-day repair timescale. This delay understandably caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
9. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord did not dispute that a leak had occurred, but said there was no evidence the leak was related to the toilet repair. It is unclear how the landlord made this assessment and it did not provide evidence of efforts to identify alternative sources of the leak, which would have been an appropriate.
10. Furthermore, the repair records for a contractor attendance on 11 December 2023 indicated the leak was linked to the toilet overflow. This suggests the landlord did not reflect on its own repair records before providing its complaint response, which was a failing.
11. The landlord also stated that because there was no evidence the leak was linked to the toilet repair, it was not liable for the additional water charges. This approach was unreasonable. As the landlord had accepted that a leak existed, it should have reasonably assessed where this was and whether its actions or inaction contributed to the increased water costs. Given there is no evidence it did so, we cannot see that it fairly considered whether it was responsible for the costs or not.
12. The landlord’s approach was understandably disappointing for the resident. It also caused her avoidable time and trouble. This is because she had to escalate her complaint to seek reimbursement for the additional water costs. However, the landlord put this right in its stage 2 complaint response where it offered to reimburse the resident for the additional water charges. This shows it appropriately reviewed its consideration of this issue, which was good practice.
13. The resident has since provided confirmation that on 24 January 2024 the water company reimbursed her £36 for the additional water usage caused by the leak. As this cost has now been covered, it is no longer necessary for the landlord to consider it further.
14. The landlord refused the resident’s request for compensation for leak damage to the piece of carpet in a small cupboard. It said residents are responsible for flooring. While this was in line with its repairs policy, it failed to consider how its repair delays had contributed to the carpet damage. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for it to provide the resident with details of its insurance policy or to consider compensation, but it failed to do so.
15. The resident said the compensation the landlord offered did not reflect the inconvenience and distress caused by the lack of water, or her anxiety about potential water costs. The resident did not provide evidence to show she had been instructed to turn off the water and there is no evidence she could not use water as needed.
16. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This was appropriate given her worries about the increased water charges and the impact caused by the delayed repairs. The landlord accepted the delays and provided additional compensation for this, the missed appointments and water costs. These were appropriate steps towards putting things right for her.
17. While the landlord’s offer was appropriate, we have identified further failings which it missed the opportunity to reflect on. The landlord did not evidence that it considered its own records when deciding the leak did not relate to the delayed toilet repairs. It also failed to signpost the resident to its insurers, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances.
18. Considering this, the landlord must pay a further £50 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the further failings we have identified. The total amount of £236 is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which impacted the resident.

19. At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process, which was in line with the timescales set out in our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
20. The landlord requested a 10-working-day stage 1 complaint extension on 13 December 2023, in line with its policy and the Code. It then provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 December 2023 within its extension timeframe.
21. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request dated 20 December 2023 within its 5-working-day timescale on 21 December 2023. It provided its stage 2 complaint response on 26 January 2023 within its 20-working-day response timescale.
22. The landlord’s complaint responses were therefore timely and in line with its policy requirements. They were also appropriately detailed and empathetic in tone.

Learning

23. The landlord acknowledged the contractor did not provide reasons for its missed repair appointments, but it failed to identify learning in relation to this. It should reflect on its monitoring of its contractor’s performance to help prevent future occurrences.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

24. Overall, the landlord’s records were sufficient to enable a thorough assessment of the complaint.

Communication

25. The landlord appropriately acknowledged communication failings related to its repair appointments.