Orbit Group Limited (202427590)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat. She complained the landlord replaced an external communal door in February 2024 without informing her first. She also said she was unhappy the door was defective and that it did not fully communicate with her during this time.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Installation of the communal door.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord offered:
   1. Reasonable redress in its handling of the installation of the communal door.
   2. Reasonable redress in its handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not follow its policy when installing the communal door. However, it acknowledged this failing and provided proportionate compensation in line with our policy to recognise the detriment caused to the resident.
5. The landlord did not respond to the complaint within the expected timeframe. Its offer was consistent with our compensation policy by apologising and providing compensation to reflect the detriment to the resident.

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.

6. The landlord’s repairs policy said it would make appointments to carry out work and send a text to the resident the day before. It said it would keep residents informed of the progress of the repairs.
7. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 February 2024 and said that it had fitted a new communal door a few days earlier. She said it did not tell her beforehand of the work and did not provide her with fobs for the new door. She said the new door did not have a letterbox and the trade button did not allow the postman access at his usual time. This shows the landlord did not follow its own repairs process to inform the resident of upcoming work.
8. In emails between February and June 2024, the landlord confirmed it would send new fobs to the resident. It apologised for the lack of communication about the new door and said it had asked for an extended trade time to allow the postman access. She told it during this time the door was still not working. In response, it said it would carry out further investigations and activate the new fobs to try and resolve the issues. During this time, it did investigate why the door did not work.
9. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged failures in not informing the resident about the work before it started and ongoing access issues which it was trying to resolve. It offered £150 for failing to follow its own process for the installation of the door. This is in line with its compensation policy for distress and inconvenience. She accepted this offer and asked it further questions about when it would fix the door.
10. As the landlord did not respond to the resident’s questions between July and September 2024, she escalated the complaint to stage 2. This shows it failed to learn as it did not provide updates about the door during this time. In its stage 2 response, it acknowledged the ongoing access issues with the communal door and lack of communication. It confirmed it would fix the door by 25 October 2024, and it would also provide updates.
11. In an email on 25 October 2024, the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response. She felt they did not fully respond to her complaint and the door was still not fixed. It responded on 15 April 2025. It upheld her complaint and provided a full explanation to the issues faced during the installation of the communal door. It provided a further £300 for time and trouble in communicating with her; £450 for time and trouble with fobs not working and £10 for further repairs on the door. In total, the landlord provided £910 compensation for its failures in the installation of the communal door.
12. The resident confirmed to us in May 2025 that the landlord had resolved the repair, and she had accepted the compensation. As the compensation has been paid, we have made no further recommendation of orders based on our findings of reasonable redress. In this case, the landlord accepted its communication was poor and there were delays in completing the repair. It took steps to investigate and resolve the access issue. It offered compensation that was proportionate and consistent with our compensation guidance for situations which had a significant impact on the resident. Therefore, we find the landlord offered reasonable redress in this matter.

13. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2022). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
14. The resident complained on 11 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 April 2024. It requested 3 extensions before issuing a response on 2 July 2024. It took 78 working days to provide a stage 1 response which fell outside the policy timeframe. It acknowledged delays in its complaint handling and offered £150 compensation which she accepted. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance for poor complaint handling.
15. The resident raised her complaint to stage 2 on 28 September 2024. The landlord responded on 17 October 2024 and offered a further £50 for the time and trouble it took her to escalate her complaint. This was 13 working days after the resident escalated her complaint and in line with its policy timeframe.
16. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint responses and explained her reasons why in an email to it on 25 October 2024. It responded on 15 April 2025, acknowledging its poor complaints handling. It offered a further £100 compensation for poor complaint handling and £250 for the poor communication during the complaint process. It also provided an in-depth explanation of the issue the resident had raised. While it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed this review as part of its formal complaints process, it appropriately acknowledged further failings and offered compensation in excess of our compensation guidance.
17. Overall, the landlord paid £550 in compensation to the resident for its complaint handling failures. It appropriately acknowledged the shortcomings in its complaint handling and made an offer that exceeded our compensation guidance for complaint handling failures. As the compensation has been paid, we have not made further recommendations or orders. Therefore, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

18. The landlord is required to follow the Code when requesting an extension from the resident during the complaints process. Further information is available on our Centre for Learning and within our Complaint Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. In this case, the landlord’s record keeping was a reasonable standard.

Communication

20. The landlord should follow its policy and inform residents work will be taking place within the communal areas before the work starts. It may wish to refer to our Centre of Learning and Spotlight Report on complaints about repairs.