Orbit Group Limited (202409924)

Decision
Case ID	202409924
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Orbit Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 May 2026

Background

1. The resident moved into the property via a mutual exchange in October 2023. Shortly after moving in, she reported that the front door had large gaps around it and the garden was flooded and boggy. The resident told the landlord that the household included people with physical disabilities and mental health conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports about the condition of the front door.
   2. Reports of issues with drainage in the garden.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports about the condition of the front door.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of issues with drainage in the garden.
   3. There was a reasonable offer of redress made by the landlord before our investigation for its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Front door

4. The landlord acknowledged its failure to replace the door within its policy timeframe for a routine repair, and that it had not communicated clearly with the resident. However, there were further delays and poor communication after it issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord also did not demonstrate that it had adequately considered the resident’s concerns about heat loss and security.

Drainage

5. Whilst the landlord acknowledged some delays and apologised for not arranging a specialist survey sooner, it did not effectively monitor and progress repairs after it issued its stage 2 response which resulted in further delays. The landlord’s communication with its contractor and the resident was poor.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 response in line with its policy timeframe. It extended the complaint twice at both stages which delayed its responses unreasonably. However, it offered the resident an appropriate amount of compensation.

 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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 June 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1050 compensation made up as follows: £525 for its response to reports about the condition of the front door £525 for its response to reports of issues with drainage This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct the £600 compensation it offered at stage 2 of the complaint process from the total figure if it has already paid this to the resident.	No later than 26 June 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord reviews its record keeping procedures and practices.
We recommend the landlord reviews its engagement with the contractor in this case to identify how it could improve the way it monitors and progresses repairs to completion.
We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £100 compensation it offered for poor complaint handling, if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
On or around 18 December 2023	The resident emailed the landlord to raise concerns about its repairs service. She said: over 4 weeks earlier the landlord had measured the front door and she was told it would be replaced within 3 weeks she was later told the landlord had decided not to replace the door and would need to carry out another inspection the door was broken and there were times when her disabled husband was in the house alone with the door left open because they could not close it she wanted to escalate the matter to ensure there were no further delays.
22 December 2023	The resident contacted the landlord again. She said: it was unacceptable that the landlord had agreed to replace the front door then changed its mind it had not provided any updates about an inspection of the garden and if it would install aqua drains.
4 January 2024	The landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
18 January 2024	The landlord said it needed extra time to provide its complaint response. It said it was collating information and expected to provide its response by 1 February 2024.
1 February 2024	The landlord said it needed extra time to provide its complaint response. It said it was collating information and expected to provide its response by 15 February 2024.
6 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: following reports that the door had large gaps around it, it attended on 3 November 2023 and found that the door needed to be replaced it had taken longer than expected to progress the repair but would attend by 1 March 2024 to take new measurements and order the door following reports of problems with flooding in the garden, its contractor attended on 4 December 2023 and recommended the installation of a soakaway it acknowledged a delay completing the work, which it said should have been completed by 25 January 2024 it would install the soakaway by 8 February 2024 its aftercare team would contact the resident on 9 February and 4 March 2024 to check that the drainage repairs had been completed and the measurements taken for the new door it offered the resident £150 compensation. This was broken down as £80 for upset and inconvenience, and £70 for delays.
26 February 2024	The resident escalated the complaint. She said: the landlord’s contractor attended and refused to install a soakaway because it was not a suitable solution to the drainage problems she was frustrated and disappointed because the landlord had inspected the garden multiple times and should have known that a soakaway was not appropriate. the landlord’s communication was poor there had been missed or rescheduled visits with no explanation she did not want any further visits from staff who do not have specialist knowledge about drainage.
29 February 2024	The landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
26 March 2024	The landlord said it needed extra time to provide its complaint response. It said this was to ensure it provided a thorough response. It expected to provide its response by 9 April 2024.
10 April 2024	The landlord said it needed extra time to provide its complaint response because it was waiting for a plan in relation to the flooding in the garden. It expected to provide its response by 24 April 2024.
24 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and: apologised for poor communication, mixed messages and delays installing a new front door confirmed its contractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment for the door to be replaced said it would carry out a survey and percolation test in the garden on 24 April 2024, following this it would decide the best solution for the drainage problems apologised for not carrying out a survey and percolation test sooner said its aftercare team would contact the resident to ensure that all works were completed to her satisfaction increased the compensation it offered in its stage 1 response to £700. This included an additional £150 for delays resolving problems with the door, £100 for complaint handling, £100 for poor communication and £200 for upset and inconvenience.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. She said: the front door was not replaced until 6 September 2024, after she spent 11 months chasing the landlord about it there had been multiple inspections of the garden, and she had spent considerable effort chasing the landlord, but no progress had been made resolving the drainage problems the landlord’s communication was poor – she had not received updates or contact from the aftercare team as promised and it did not return her calls the landlord missed appointments and turned up without notice she has agoraphobia and depression which means she rarely leaves the property and not being able to use the garden has affected her wellbeing; she said she felt exhausted, overwhelmed, tearful and had experienced panic attacks due to the situation.

 

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.

Complaint	Reports about the condition of the front door
Finding	Maladministration

7. The landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property which includes external doors and door frames. Its repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
8. The landlord’s policy says it provides a high priority response to residents that have been identified as having acute physical or mental health vulnerabilities as defined in its safeguarding policy. This may include treating a routine repair as an emergency where the circumstances constitute a risk to the health or safety of the resident due to the nature of their vulnerability. The landlord’s safeguarding policy does not define what it considers an acute physical or mental health vulnerability. However, it says it considers an adult to be at risk if they have a physical disability or a mental health condition.
9. The resident reported that the door was draughty on 26 October 2023. She said she was concerned about keeping the property warm because her husband is disabled and not very mobile. The landlord raised a routine repair and attended promptly on 3 November 2023. It noted that the door had shrunk and bowed and there were large gaps. It said it needed to replace the door. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and in line with its policy. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord:
   1. considered whether the repair should be prioritised due to the household’s circumstances
   2. took any further action to progress the replacement of the door.
10. It is inappropriate that the landlord took no further action until the resident contacted it on or around 18 December 2023.Following this, the landlord raised a routine repair and attended 28 days later, on 15 January 2024. It again noted that the door needed to be replaced.
11. The landlord attended to measure for the new door on 22 February 2024. This was in line with its stage 1 commitment to measure the door by 1 March 2024.  On 27 February 2024, the landlord raised another routine repair for the door to be measured. The records do not clarify why it needed to be measured again or confirm what date it completed this, which is a record keeping failure.
12. The landlord knew the door was draughty and that the resident reported heat was being lost through the gaps. However, we have not seen any evidence it considered temporary repairs before it raised a routine repair on 7 March 2024 to fit draught excluders. This was unreasonable and would not have reassured the resident that the landlord was listening to her concerns. The landlord exceeded its 28 day policy target by 1 day when it fitted draught excluders on 5 April 2024.
13. The landlord’s internal communications during April 2024 reference confusion caused by the resident’s property appearing on its system twice, as separate properties. It also could not identify why a quote for a new door was declined in June 2023 (prior to the resident moving into the property). This is a record keeping failure and is likely to have contributed to delays.
14. The landlords internal communications say it raised a new repair on 19 April 2024. This is not reflected in its repair records which is a record keeping failure. However, the available evidence shows that after the landlord issued its stage 2 response:
    1. it received a quote from its contractor on 8 July 2024
    2. on 1 August 2024 it raised a work order for the door to be replaced
    3. the resident contacted the landlord multiple times to request an update and did not receive a reply until 3 June 2024 when the landlord asked her to confirm what issue she was contacting it about
    4. the aftercare team did not contact the resident for approximately 2 and a half months, until 10 July 2024
    5. the door was replaced on 6 September 2024.
15. Delays caused by poor record keeping and lack of oversight meant the landlord exceeded the 28 day timeframe its policy allows for a routine repair by over 9 months.
16. The resident told the landlord at least 3 times between November 2023 and January 2024 that her husband was disabled. She expressed concerns about safety because the door could not always be closed properly and said the property was losing heat. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord considered whether the repair should be prioritised due to the household’s circumstances. This was inappropriate and not in line with its policy.
17. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised for its poor communication and delays. It offered the resident £150 compensation specifically for delays replacing the door. It also offered general compensation of £450 for poor communication, inconvenience and delays. We have split this amount evenly between the points of the complaint the landlord upheld. This means that we have apportioned £375 of the landlord’s compensation offer to this element of the complaint. At the time the stage 2 complaint response was issued, this would have been a satisfactory way to resolve the complaint. In recognition of the further delay of approximately 4 and a half months we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation.

 

Complaint	Reports of issues with drainage in the garden
Finding	Maladministration

18. The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify a timescale within which it will complete major repairs. However, its repair records provide a target date of 90 days for a major repair.
19. On 10 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord. She said she emailed it the previous week about the garden, but it had not replied. She said the garden was flooding making it boggy and unusable. She explained that her husband is disabled and does not leave the house often so access to the garden is important to him. We have not seen any record of the email the resident said she sent the landlord. Therefore, we cannot assess its response to the email. However, it was appropriate that the landlord raised a routine repair on 10 November 2023.
20. The landlord’s records are unclear but suggest that it initially arranged for its repairs contractor to inspect the garden on 15 November 2023. It later rescheduled the appointment to 4 December 2023. It attended on this date which was within the 28 day timeframe allowed in its policy. However, the landlord should have a clear record of appointments including details of any missed, cancelled or rescheduled. The lack of clarity in its records is a record keeping failure. Its inspection notes say that the garden was waterlogged and the contractor recommended that it needed to install a soakaway.
21. The landlord subsequently instructed a specialist drainage contractor to investigate the matter. It attended on 10 January 2024 and recommended that the landlord install and connect channel drains to the existing drains. On 2 February 2024 the same contractor attended and provided a quote to install channel drains connected to a soakaway. We have not seen any evidence to explain why the quoted works differ from the drainage contractor’s initial recommendation.
22. The landlord’s repairs contractor attended on 26 February 2024. The records are unclear and do not clarify why the landlord did not attend on 8 February 2024 as per its stage 1 complaint response. The resident said the contractor told her that a soakaway was not a suitable solution for the drainage issues. The landlord’s repair records show that the contractor reported that the garden was under 3 inches of water and it could not complete any digging. We have not seen any evidence that the contractor told the landlord at this time that a soakaway was unsuitable.
23. Between 27 March and 18 April 2024, the landlord liaised with its repair’s contractor. The contractor attended the property again on 12 April 2024 and told the landlord it “thinks a soakaway will be ok”, but its sub-contractor will also “take a look”. There is no evidence the contractor told the resident it was going to visit on 12 April 2024, which the resident later expressed dissatisfaction about. This was unreasonable and does not show consideration or respect for the resident’s time and privacy.
24. Ultimately, the landlord arranged for the drainage contractor to inspect the garden again. This was a reasonable decision because of the confusion and lack of confidence in the proposed works.
25. The landlord’s records are unclear, but it appears the specialist contractor may have attended up to 3 times between 18 and 30 April 2024. The resident told the landlord the contractor had attended without prior notice on 30 April 2024 and would have gone into the garden without asking if she had not seen them. We have not seen any evidence the landlord provided advance notice of the appointment which was unreasonable. The drainage contractor provided a quote for channel drainage with a pump, carried out a percolation test on the ground and carried out a further assessment of the route for surface water drainage. The records say that the contractor provided a drainage report to the landlord. We have not seen evidence of the report which is a record keeping failure and has impacted our ability to thoroughly assess the landlord’s actions.
26. On 2 August 2024 the landlord raised a major works order. The description said it should track the rainwater pipe to its end to determine if the size and location of a soakaway is adequate before it agrees other works. Its repairs contractor attended on 15 August 2024.  However, the job was closed with comments noting that the problem “had nothing to do with down pipe drainage” and that the garden “needed to be dug up”. The contractor appears not to have understood the task required. However, the landlord is ultimately responsible for the actions and service provided by a contractor on its behalf, and it is inappropriate that it did not complete the requested investigations.
27. Between 19 September and 1 October 2024, the landlord discussed the situation internally. It said it had not identified where the underwater pipes ended and it lacked suitable options to resolve the problem. It noted it had asked its contractor for more options but had forgotten to chase this up. This indicates a lack of oversight of the repair.
28. On 29 October 2024, the landlord raised a major works order to install a land drain. It completed the work on 6 December 2024. We have not seen any evidence to confirm on what basis the landlord decided that this was the most appropriate solution. This is a record keeping failure.
29. Throughout the complaint process, and beyond, the resident frequently contacted the landlord to ask for updates. The landlord did not consistently respond. It also twice addressed the resident by an incorrect name in its emails. The landlord’s aftercare team did not contact the resident until 10 July 2024. The resident told the landlord multiple times that the situation was affecting her mental health. She said she suffered panic attacks, was taking medication to help her sleep and receiving support from the community mental health team. Bearing this in mind, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to agree a schedule of contact. This could have reassured the resident, reduced her frustration, and her time and effort chasing the landlord about the progress of the repairs.
30. Problems with drainage can be complex to resolve. It was reasonable for the landlord to seek further specialist advice when it received conflicting recommendations. However, the landlord did not:
    1. effectively monitor and progress the repair within a reasonable time
    2. maintain complete and accurate records of its actions and decision making
    3. communicate effectively with its contractor
    4. provide reasonable updates to the resident.
31. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord apologised for not carrying out a survey and ground test sooner. It offered the resident a total of £225 compensation. However, there is no evidence it considered the increased detriment to the resident’s household due to disabilities. It also took an additional 7 months to complete an effective repair. Therefore, its offer was not proportionate the findings of our investigation. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £300 compensation.

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

32. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint says it will:
    1. acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages
    2. issue its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of acknowledgement, this may be extended by up to a further 10 working days
    3. issue its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of acknowledgement, this may be extended and it will inform the resident when it expects to issue its response
    4. contact the resident if it needs to extend its response timeframe at either stage.
33. The landlord did not recognise the resident’s email (sent on or around 18 December 2023) as a complaint. This was inappropriate as the resident clearly expressed dissatisfaction with its service.
34. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days at both stages. This was in line with its policy. However, it did not act in line with its policy when it extended its stage 1 response timeframe twice and exceeded the maximum timeframe allowed by its policy by 3 days.
35. The landlord also extended its response timeframe twice at stage 2. It did not tell the resident it needed a second extension until 1 day after it said it expected to respond. Whilst the landlord’s policy did not specify the maximum amount of time it could extend its response by, it was unreasonable that it took 38 working days to provide its stage 2 complaint response.
36. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for its complaint handling failures. However, in its stage 2 complaint response it offered £100 compensation for poor complaint handling. This was reasonable to remedy the impact of its failing and was in line with our compensation guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the issues raised, the actions agreed and/or taken and any remaining issues. Good record keeping will help the landlord monitor agreed actions and inform further actions.

Communication

38. Proactive communication with residents, particularly when repairs are complex and/or delayed builds trust and shows that the resident is being listened to.