Orbit Group Limited (202448140)

Background

1. Following the completion of works to resolve damp and mould in the property, the property required some remedial works. In particular the bathroom required work, including replastering, to restore it to full use. The resident complained about the time taken to complete the outstanding works.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlords handling of:
   1. The repairs needed in the property.
   2. The complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the handling of the repairs.
   2. Maladministration in the handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs

4. The landlord did not complete the repairs in line with its policy leaving the resident without a fully functioning bathroom for a prolonged period. While it offered compensation, it did not show that it put things right within a reasonable time leading to a further complaint. Following the second complaint, the landlord did not complete the repairs within its published timescale meaning the resident lived with the outstanding repairs for 16 months.

Complaint Handling

5. The landlord did not respond to either complaint in line with its policy or the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

What we have not considered

6. The resident told us that the delays in completing the works and the lack of heating in his bathroom affected his mental and physical health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

What we have looked at

7. Following completion of damp and mould works in the property, the resident contacted the landlord in February 2024 as the remedial works were outstanding. The landlord appropriately arranged an inspection of the property to understand the outstanding works needed. However, while it completed the inspection, it arranged no follow on works which caused the resident to contact the landlord on 16 April 2024. This was not appropriate and highlights a lack of effective system to track and monitor repairs.
8. On 23 April 2024, the landlord raised a works order to complete the plastering in the bathroom. It raised this with a 28 day repair timescale, however it did not attend until 29 June 2024. It is unclear why there was such a delay, but it was not appropriate that the landlord left the resident living with a bathroom which he could not fully utilise.
9. While the contractor attended in June to complete the replastering, the work was not done to a good standard and required further appointments to complete the works to a good standard. The landlord needs to ensure its contractors are qualified to complete works to a good standard. Not doing so here caused further delays for the resident.
10. The landlord attended on 29 June 2024 to scrape off the plaster, and it noted the need to raise follow on works. While it did attend multiple times in July 2024, it did not always attend with the right contractor, which caused further delays. It is also important to note that during an appointment on 15 July 2024, the contractor removed the radiator in the bathroom.
11. An email from the contractor on 22 July 2024 to the landlord noted it was closing the job down until the landlord attended due to the resident adding further jobs on at each appointment. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to show that it acted upon that email. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have discussed the issues with the contractor, arranged to visit the property and ensure that it arranged the further follow-on works at the earliest opportunity. While it had attended to complete some works, the resident had been without a functioning bathroom for over 3 months. The time taken to complete the work was outside of the landlords 28 day repair timescale.
12. If the contractor was having issues with the resident, it would also have been useful for the landlord to have discussed the concerns with the resident to help manage expectations. Yet the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it did.
13. The contractor attended on 2 September 2024 but noted the need for further follow on works. The landlord and its contractor tried to book an appointment several times to complete the works but due to the resident’s availability it could not attend until 21 November 2024.
14. It is important to note that on 18 October 2024, when trying to reschedule the appointment the resident said the lack of radiator in his bathroom meant he was very cold and it was affecting him. We cannot see that the landlord considered if it needed to provide any temporary solutions while awaiting the reinstallation of the radiator. This was not appropriate and showed a lack of regard for the issues faced by the resident, especially given that by this stage he’d had no radiator for 3 months.
15. It is unclear from the evidence if the appointment went ahead on 21 November 2024, which indicates a record keeping issue. However, the landlord logged a further complaint on 17 December 2024 due to the number of outstanding works, including the plastering and other issues in the bathroom, which indicates the contractor either did not attend or did not resolve the issue during the appointment. This is unsatisfactory. By this point the resident had been living without a functional bathroom for over 8 months without a clear indication of when it would be resolved.
16. The landlord attended to complete the replastering works on 3 January 2025, however there was a disagreement between the contractor and the resident about the works needed. This caused the appointment to not go ahead as planned. While we understand the resident wanted the wall completely replastered, the landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified contractors when they decide the most appropriate repair.
17. Due to the further complaint and the issues following the appointment on 3 January 2025, the landlord appropriately arranged to complete a further inspection and its surveyor attended on 21 January 2025. Due to the number of outstanding works, the landlord raised the works under its major works timescale on 30 January 2025. It was appropriate the landlord was taking action but given that it had already been 9 months and it had already been aware of the works needed back in April 2024, it is unclear why there had been such a delay in it taking ownership of the works needed in the property.
18. It is clear from the evidence that in February and March 2025 there were some difficulties in arranging access to the complete the works with some appointments attended without the resident being aware and others agreed but then the contractor was unable to gain access. Landlords need to ensure where it makes appointments these are communicated properly and effectively to a resident. Doing so would ensure appointments go ahead and therefore repairs completed promptly.
19. The contractor attended to complete some works on 27 March 2025. Due to issues that occurred during the appointment, dealt with in a separate complaint, the works did not ahead. It arranged a further appointment for 14 April 2025. Evidence provided shows the landlord had agreed that appointment with the resident, but the resident said he had not confirmed it and so he was not in. While we cannot determine either way whether the resident had been properly informed about the appointment, it suggests that the landlord had not learnt from the earlier issues with lack of communication around appointments.
20. It is also important to note that on 10 June 2025, the contractor confirmed it had recorded 11 no access or cancelled appointments in the previous 5 months. While the resident disputes that he had cancelled any or was aware of the appointments, it highlights the landlord’s lack of effective communication with both its contractor and the resident.
21. The landlord accepted that it made no contact with the resident between April and May 2025 to arrange to complete the works. It reraised the outstanding repairs as major works on 16 May 2025 following a joint visit to the property on 14 May 2025. While we understand the landlord needed to ensure it raised the correct repairs, the significant delays in resolving the issues, particularly within the bathroom were not appropriate. Especially given that by this point the resident had been living with the issues for over a year.
22. Following the landlord raising the outstanding, it attended multiple times between May and August 2025 to complete the final works. While this was within its target time of 90 working days, in the context of this investigation and considering the issues had been raised as repairs multiple times before since April 2024, it was not appropriate that it took the landlord so long to complete the necessary repairs.
23. While we acknowledge that the landlord had access issues at times, the evidence indicates that the primary cause of delay was ineffective communication between the landlord and its contractor and a lack of oversight with the repairs. There were disagreements about the works needed, and instances of poor workmanship further contributed to delays. Despite completing 2 complaint processes, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had embedded any learning from the issues found in the first complaint. The absence of effective and robust systems resulted in significant delays to the repairs, during which time the resident was unable to fully use the bathroom. Overall, these delays highlight a lack of effective oversight in managing repairs, particularly where multiple works were needed.
24. In the first complaint response, the landlord offered compensation for the loss of use of the bathroom from when it had first been reported in April 2024, until it attended to repair the plaster in January 2025. Given the significant delays and impact on the resident’s ability to use his home, it was reasonable of the landlord to offer this. It then offered further compensation of £275 in its second complaint response for the further delays in relation to the repairs. In total the landlord offered £2432.03 for the failings identified over the 2 complaints. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
25. However, the landlord did not demonstrate any learning and neither did it put things right for the resident within a reasonable timeframe following the complaint process. For that reason, we have made an adverse finding. Due to the landlord’s compensation offer, further compensation has not been ordered in this case.

26. The landlord has a stage 2 complaints procedure. It will acknowledge a complaint and escalation request with 5 days. It will respond at stage 1 withing 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
27. The resident raised a formal complaint on 7 May 2024, which the landlord did not acknowledge in line with its policy. It responded at stage 1 on 21 October 2024 and while it did write to the resident to request an extension, in line with the Code, it requested multiple extensions and each request came after the timeframe previously given. Its last extension said it would respond by 30 August 2024, yet it did not provide its response for a further 36 working days. Its response came 109 days after the original acknowledgement, which was outside of the 10 day timeframe set out in its policy and the Code.
28. However, the landlord apologised for the delay and missed extensions and appropriately offered £100 compensation to reflect this.
29. The landlord confirmed it had escalated the complaint within the stage 1 response and provided formal acknowledgment on 28 October 2024, in line with the Code. It provided its stage 2 response within 20 working days.
30. The landlord completed a review of this complaint and provided further compensation on 31 December 2024. It amended its original offer of compensation for a partial room loss to a full room loss and offered a further amount of compensation. While it was appropriate of the landlord to reconsider its offer, it was not appropriate that it did not offer this amount in the stage 2 response. The landlord needs to ensure it considers its full compensation offer at the earliest opportunity.
31. The landlord logged a further complaint at stage 1 on 17 December 2024. It wrote to the resident on 1 February 2025 to request an extension. This was 21 days after the response was due and therefore not in line with the Code. The landlord has provided no evidence to show it requested any further extensions prior to issuing its stage 1 response on 9 May 2025. The response was therefore 62 working days after the date given in its extension request and outside the timeframes in its policy and the code.
32. However, it appropriately apologised and offered £100 compensation for the delay.
33. The landlord acknowledged the escalation to stage 2 in line with its policy. While it asked for extension to provide its response, it provided both the extension and further response in line with the timescales in its policy and the Code.
34. While the landlord apologised for its complaint handling failures and offered compensation to reflect the delays, the amount offered is not reflective of the failures found in its handling of the case and not enough to avoid an adverse finding. Particularly considering it failed to demonstrate any learning from its failures in the first response.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord’s record keeping in this case poor. It was at times difficult to understand what works had taken place due to the lack of clear records. The landlord needs to ensure it has an effective case management system to track and log repairs to ensure it completes repairs on time. The landlord could consider implementing the recommendations in our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

36. The landlord did not demonstrate effective communication in this case. There were shortcomings in its communication with the resident about appointments, as well as with its contractor, both of which contributed to delays. It was clear that the landlord experienced difficulties in ensuring the correct contractor attended the property. The landlord needs to consider implementing more effective systems to ensure work orders are clear and accurately assigned to the right trade. It also needs to consider putting systems in place to support regular and effective communication with both residents and contractors.