Orbit Group Limited (202509095)

Background

1. The resident reported issues with her front door to the landlord over several years and at times, was unable to lock it. She was concerned about the security of her home.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of issues with the resident’s front door.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the resident’s front door.
   2. Reasonable redress was offered in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the resident’s front door

4. The landlord failed to remedy the issues within a reasonable timeframe and did not communicate effectively with the resident, resulting in unmet expectations. Although it acknowledged its failings and offered compensation, this did not adequately reflect the cumulative impact of its shortcomings, particularly as issues continued following the final complaint response.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

5. The landlord recognised its shortcomings in its complaint handling and offered fair redress.

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.

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 said she had been reporting issues with her door for since 2018. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlord when problems happen or within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months. Based on this and the evidence available, we have focused our investigation on the period leading up to the formal complaint in December 2024 and the related responses.
7. The resident told the landlord she was concerned about the impact the matter had on her health. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have considered

8. Social landlords have limited budgets and must use their resources responsibly to benefit all residents. So, when the resident reported problems with the door, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider repairing it before replacing it. Door replacements are usually major works that landlords plan and schedule in advance as part of their annual budget. This planned approach helps landlords manage their funds effectively and prioritise work based on need across their properties.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that emergency repairs are carried out within 4 or 24 hours depending on the urgency of the issue. Routine repairs are completed within 28 calendar days.
10. The landlord’s repair records show that operatives attended the property multiple times between January 2024 and April 2025. Some records indicate that the door was adjusted and secured, while others note that it was poorly installed and required replacement. This inconsistency led to the resident receiving mixed messages about the nature and severity of the issue and the next steps. It also did not demonstrate that it resolved the issues within the timescales set out in its policy.
11. The landlord said it installed the door during the resident’s tenancy, and it had over 20 years of expected life left. Without evidence of structural or security issues, it was reasonable to start with adjustments. However, given the conflicting contractor reports and the resident’s repeated concerns about being unable to lock the door, it would have been appropriate for it to arrange an inspection by a surveyor or independent professional to provide a definitive assessment, which it did not do.
12. On 24 April 2025, a contractor attended the property to remove, adjust, and reinstall the front door. They reported refitting the frame, adjusting the hinges, and confirmed the door locked properly, with photographic evidence and records showing over 3 hours spent on site. While this demonstrated a thorough attempt to resolve the issue, the resident disputed that the door locked and raised concerns about the contractor’s conduct. She stated that a liaison officer witnessed the behaviour, but there is no evidence the landlord followed up with this individual. This was a shortcoming in its investigation. However, it was appropriate that it raised the matter with the contractor’s supervisor, which showed some effort to address her concerns.
13. The resident contacted the landlord several times after the appointment to report that the door remained insecure. However, at stage 2 of the complaint process, the landlord did not acknowledge these reports or respond to her concerns that the issue was unresolved. It is likely this made her feel unheard and frustrated.
14. Following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the resident continued to report that the front door did not lock and that her home was not secure. Her communications expressed serious concerns for her safety, particularly as she lived alone. Despite this, the landlord did not carry out a post-works inspection within a reasonable timeframe.
15. Although the landlord eventually authorised a replacement door on 22 July 2025, the installation did not take place until 12 September 2025. During this period, the resident repeatedly chased for updates, but its communication was poor. This delay and lack of engagement caused avoidable distress and uncertainty for her.
16. When there are failings by a landlord, we consider whether the compensation offered put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In assessing this, we consider whether its offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles – be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
17. The landlord acknowledged service failings during the complaint process and offered the resident £430 compensation for this element of the complaint. We note that its record keeping was satisfactory throughout despite the conflicting opinions from contractors; however, further issues arose after its final response. This included poor communication, unannounced contractor visits, and additional repair appointments. These caused further inconvenience and distress to the resident.
18. We would have made a finding of maladministration had the landlord not accepted responsibility for some of its shortcomings and made an offer of compensation to the resident.
19. Considering the cumulative impact and the landlord’s failure to learn from earlier outcomes, we consider a total compensation award of £530 to be more appropriate in this case. This replaces the landlord’s offer of £430.

20. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint, with a possible 10-day extension. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days, extendable by another 20 working days. A landlord should not exceed these timeframes without good reason. It must explain the reason for any extension to the resident. The landlord’s complaint policy is in line with the Code.
21. The landlord took over 15 weeks to respond at stage 1 of the complaint process and a further 5 weeks to issue its final complaint response. Although it requested extensions, the cumulative delay was excessive and fell short of the expected standards. These delays likely caused frustration and uncertainty for the resident and undermined her confidence in the complaints process.
22. At stage 1 of the complaint process, the landlord offered the resident £20 in compensation, with an additional £50 at stage 2. It appears that the reference to a failure to meet service level agreements at stage 1 related to its handling of the complaint. It was appropriate for it to acknowledge the impact of the delays. The compensation offered was reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with our guidance

Learning

General learning

23. The landlord can improve its service by:
    1. Being more proactive by appointing an expert and arranging follow up inspections if several contractors dispute repairs.
    2. Responding to complaints within expected timeframes.
    3. Providing a more detailed breakdown of compensation offers.