Orbit Housing Association Limited (202227400)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227400

Orbit Housing Association Limited

5 June 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of works to the resident’s windows and door.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, which is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 26 July 2022, the landlord raised a works order to inspect ill-fitting windows in the resident’s kitchen and living room because they were causing a howling noise during windy weather. On or around 21 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord, as she had not heard back after it attended and said it was unable to repair the windows at that visit. The landlord said an inspector would attend to review what could be done.
  3. On 7 February 2023, the resident contacted us about the landlord’s delay in completing repairs to her windows and door. She complained to the landlord on 8 February 2023, saying that she was still waiting for a supervisor to inspect. We wrote to the landlord on 14 March 2023 to ask it to respond at stage 1 of its complaints process by 4 April 2023. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 31 March 2023. It said that:
    1. It was sorry that the resident had not received a response to her complaint of 8 February 2023 and that she had needed to escalate her concerns to its CEO. The landlord had acknowledged the complaint on 16 March 2023 and called to apologise for the delay.
    2. The landlord’s records showed that it had identified in October 2023 that further investigations were required. The request had been sent to its contractor, but this had not been followed up.
    3. The area inspector had attended on 28 March 2023. The inspection had not identified anything wrong with the windows, but the landlord agreed that the noise evidenced in recordings the resident had provided was excessively loud. It had ordered works to apply silicone to 3 windows and to replace a door. It would monitor the job, and it had arranged an appointment for 4 April 2023 to clarify the works required.
    4. The landlord apologised for the poor service and the delay in dealing with the complaint. It offered the resident £390 compensation.
  4. On 5 June 2023, the resident told the landlord that she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She said that she had not heard from the landlord about the works to her windows and doors.
  5. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 July 2023, 7 August 2023, 29 August 2023, 15 September 2023 and 4 October 2023 informing her that it was extending time for responding to her stage 2 complaint. We wrote to the landlord on 12 October 2023, following a request from the resident, asking it to provide her with a final complaint response by 20 October 2023.
  6. The landlord provided its final complaint response to the resident on 20 October 2023. It said that it had spoken to the resident about her complaint on 19 October 2023. The landlord noted that it had completed works to replace the resident’s door on 17 October 2023 and it had scheduled window repairs for 16 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in completing the works and increased its offer of compensation to £600.
  7. The resident wrote to us on 12 January 2023. She said that despite further inspections, the landlord had not yet completed any works to the windows. She said an inspection had revealed missing foam between the frame and glazing, which should have been included when the windows were installed. The resident had not heard from the landlord since 29 December 2023. The resident then updated us on 24 January 2023. She said that the landlord had completed works to 3 windows on 23 January 2023. The works to the bathroom window had not resolved the noise and she believed this window needed replacing. The resident has since told us that works have now been completed that have resolved the issue and she is no longer experiencing noise.

Assessment and findings

Works to the windows and door

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy says that it will respond to routine repairs within 28 calendar days. Repairs classed as major works, that take longer than 4 hours, will be finished within 90 calendar days. Its Repairs Policy also says that where a landlord needs to inspect before beginning a repair, time will start to run once it has completed the inspection and ordered the works.
  2. The landlord raised a request for an inspection of ill-fitting windows on 26 July 2022. The evidence provided to us does not show when the resident first reported the issue, or when the landlord first attended. On 21 September 2022, the resident chased the repair, saying that the landlord’s operative had attended but could not repair the windows. She had been told that an inspector needed to attend but had not heard anything further. The landlord later said that this job had been closed in error. It has brought this to its contractor’s attention, which demonstrates a willingness to learn from the complaint and prevent similar issues from arising in the future.
  3. The landlord acted appropriately by sending its contractor to repair the windows after the first report, but it then failed to follow-up to arrange the inspection, or to monitor progress of the job with its contractor. Because of this, the resident had to contact the landlord to chase the repair. There is no evidence that the job was re-raised at that point, or that the landlord contacted the contractor to find out what was happening, or that it contacted the resident to provide an update. The landlord missed an opportunity to resolve things for the resident before she made a complaint.
  4. After the resident complained, the landlord’s internal emails from 8 February 2023 note that the resident’s concerns needed to be addressed by the repairs team. No action was taken in response to the complaint and the inspection was not followed up. The job was finally recalled on 16 March 2023, and an inspection arranged for 28 March 2023, after we wrote to the landlord to ask it to respond.
  5. It was unreasonable that the resident had to make a complaint and raise her concerns with us before the landlord took action to progress the repair. There was a delay of 8 months between the landlord identifying that an inspection was needed and the inspector attending. The landlord failed to communicate with the resident appropriately during this time.
  6. The landlord’s internal emails from 29 March 2023 show that the Area Inspector witnessed loud wind noises on recordings provided by the resident, although they could not identify the cause. They said that following the inspection they had requested the application of silicone to 3 windows and replacement of the door. They had also arranged another visit for 4 April 2023. The stage 1 complaint response confirmed that the door would be replaced, and silicone applied to 3 problematic windows.
  7. The landlord’s repairs records show that an order was raised for the windows and door to be resealed following the visit on 28 March 2023. The works raised for the door appear to be inconsistent with the Area Surveyor’s advice that the door should be replaced, and with the stage 1 response. If a further inspection was required before determining the scope of works, the landlord should not have communicated to the resident that it planned to replace the door. By doing so, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations about the works and its actions did not match the promises made in its complaint response.
  8. Another works order was raised on 5 April 2023 to rake out, reseal and repoint the window frames and door frame. This was presumably following the visit on 4 April 2023, although the landlord has not provided any evidence confirming that the visit took place, or any notes from those who attended. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident after the visit to confirm the action it would take and provide an estimated timescale for completing the works. In general, the landlord’s records keeping has been poor, and this has hindered our ability to fully investigate the resident’s complaint. The landlord is expected to keep full and accurate records of all inspections, works orders and communications with its contractors and residents.
  9. As the resident had heard nothing further from the landlord, and no works had been completed, she escalated her complaint on 5 June 2023. The resident was understandably frustrated that after 3 visits to the property over an 11-month period, no action had been taken to resolve the issue. There was poor internal communication within the landlord’s organisation that created unnecessary delay.
  10. The landlord’s internal emails refer to another investigatory appointment booked for 13 June 2023. The resident said that a specialist contractor attended on 28 June 2023 and advised that a new door and frame were needed, and that some windows needed re-glazing. Again, neither appointment is recorded in the evidence provided to us and we have not seen a report from the specialist contractor. The landlord’s records are incomplete and without this information we cannot conclude that the actions it took were reasonable or in line with the contractor’s recommendations.
  11. If the specialist contractor did recommend replacing the door, this suggestion was made 3 months after the Area Surveyor had first made the same observation. It is possible that these works could have been progressed months earlier and without the need for 2 additional inspections. The door was eventually replaced on 17 October 2023, almost 7 months after the Area Surveyor’s visit. This was far outside the landlord’s timescales for both routine and major works. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated, or to provide an adequate explanation for the delay, which was unacceptable.
  12. The landlord’s internal emails from 12 and 13 July 2023 confirm that the job had been removed from its contractor on the basis that it was not cost-effective. It had decided instead to reseal the doors and windows. It is often reasonable for a landlord to first attempt a repair before replacement, as confirmed in the landlord’s Repairs Policy. It should, however, be able to explain its actions based on advice from its repairs operatives and specialists. The landlord chose not to follow advice provided, after multiple inspections, to save money. This was not a reasonable decision. It further increased an already unreasonable delay and caused the resident additional, avoidable, frustration, stress and inconvenience.
  13. More invasive investigations were needed before the landlord discovered that there was foam missing from the window frames. The resident referred to a missed window appointment in July 2023 but there is no record of this being raised or attended/missed on the landlord’s systems. As the landlord’s repairs records are incomplete, it is not possible to determine exactly what action the landlord took to investigate and progress the window repairs between the stage 1 response of 31 March 2023 and the stage 2 response of 20 October 2023.
  14. The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed that window repairs were scheduled for 16 November 2023, but the resident said she had been told it was attending on that date to measure up for replacement windows. The landlord’s repairs records from 20 November 2023 and 28 December 2023 show that it was still in the process of organising the repairs. Works were finally completed to the windows on 23 January 2024, although these did not fully resolve the issue.
  15. It took a total of 18 months to investigate and complete repairs to the property’s windows, which in the Ombudsman’s view was wholly unacceptable. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout this period was inadequate, as was its record keeping. The landlord has not provided an explanation for the delay, which based on the evidence was unreasonable in all the circumstances.
  16. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged that there had been failings in its handling of repairs to the window and door. It offered £240 compensation in respect of this aspect of the complaint, to recognise the effect of the service failure and stress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This was increased to £600 at stage 2, £450 of which appears to relate to its repairs handling failings.
  17. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s windows and door, including a further, unexplained delay after the landlord’s final complaint response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of £450 compensation did not adequately reflect the effect on the resident of its failure to complete the repairs within a reasonable time.
  18. The landlord is ordered to apologise and to pay the resident £750 compensation to recognise the effect of the failings in its handling of the repairs. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests such sums are appropriate where maladministration has affected the resident over a significant period, and where the landlord’s attempts to put things right were not proportionate to the failings identified. This order replaces the offer of compensation made in the landlord’s stage 2 response. Any amount already paid to the resident may be deducted from the total amount due because of the orders made in this report.

Complaints handling

  1. The resident has told us that she made 2 complaints to the landlord about its failure to repair the windows before her complaint of 8 February 2023. We have not been provided with copies of these earlier complaints, although we do note that the landlord’s records show the resident contacted it on 21 September 2022 about its failure to complete the repairs.
  2. The landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s complaint of 8 February 2023. Its internal emails from that date show that it did discuss the resident’s concerns, noting that the issue needed to be progressed with its repairs team. However, it did not contact the resident to discuss her complaint. The landlord failed to follow its published complaints policy, which requires it to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and to respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgment.
  3. It was only when we contacted the landlord on 14 March 2023, asking it to provide a response by 4 April 2023, that it took action in relation to the complaint. The landlord then acted appropriately by telephoning the resident to apologise for the delay, which was a sensible approach to repair the relationship and to ensure it had understood her complaint. There was a poor standard of service from the landlord following the initial complaint. A resident should not have to contact us to request that we ask a landlord to acknowledge a complaint.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 31 March 2023, which was within the deadline set by us. The landlord acknowledged that the original job had been closed in error and apologised. This showed it had investigated what went wrong and taken responsibility for its failings.
  5. The landlord had sought to put things right for the resident by arranging an inspection, identifying works, and organising a second site visit. It had also contacted its contractor to discuss the fact that the previous job had been closed. The actions the landlord took to resolve the complaint were appropriate. In addition, the landlord offered the resident £150 to recognise the effect of its complaints handling failures. This was an appropriate sum, in line with our remedies guidance, where a resident has been adversely affected by a landlord’s failure to progress their complaint.
  6. As no works were completed, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 5 June 2023. The escalation request was acknowledged on 16 June 2023, which was 4 working days after the 5 working day timeframe in the landlord’s complaints policy. This was no doubt disappointing to the resident, given the history of errors in the landlord’s complaints handling.
  7. Over the next 4 months, the landlord extended time for responding to the resident’s complaint 5 times. Each time, it wrote to her providing a new deadline, with an insufficiently detailed explanation for the delay. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that if a complaint will take longer than 20 working days to resolve, it will contact the customer to discuss this and explain why. The policy also says that if a resident is unhappy with an extension to the complaint response time, the landlord will issue its findings in writing and close the complaint.
  8. The landlord failed to follow its complaints policies and procedures. Although it may have been reasonable to extend time for providing a response, in line with its Complaints Policy, 5 extensions without explanation and with no opportunity for the resident to comment was wholly unreasonable and unjustifiable. Again, as at stage 1, it was only when the resident contacted us, and we wrote to the landlord on 12 October 2023 that it provided a final complaint response.
  9. Paragraph 5.9 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) says that where a response will fall outside a landlord’s published timescales it must agree with the resident suitable intervals for keeping them informed. This did not happen and the landlord’s approach to resolving the complaint at stage 2 was not collaborative.
  10. Having acknowledged and apologised for its failure to deal with the complaint appropriately at stage 1, the landlord went on to handle the resident’s complaint very poorly at stage 2. This further undermined her trust and confidence in the complaints process and caused her considerable frustration. The resident had to go to the time and trouble of contacting us to ask us to progress her complaint. The landlord’s repeated promises to provide a response, followed by further delays, meant that the resident was unable to refer her complaint to us for investigation.
  11. The Code says at paragraphs 6.6 and 6.17 that a complaint response must be provided to a resident when the answer to the complaint is known and not when all outstanding actions have been completed. In the Ombudsman’s view, a stage 2 response could have been provided earlier, informing the resident of the actions the landlord had taken to date and committing to monitor progress. When the landlord did provide its stage 2 response, it was very brief, and it did not evidence that detailed consideration had been given to the resident’s concerns.
  12. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s final complaint response did not adequately acknowledge or apologise for the considerable delays at stage 2. It is not clear whether the landlord’s increased offer of £600 compensation was in addition to, or inclusive of, the £390 already paid to the resident following the stage 1 complaint response. The £600 included £150 for poor complaints handling, which was the same amount offered at stage 1.
  13. Overall, the Ombudsman considers that compensation of £400 is appropriate, to reflect the effect of the landlord’s poor handling of the complaint, including the significant delay in providing a final complaint response, and the time and trouble the resident was put to in order to pursue her complaint. This order for compensation replaces the offer(s) of compensation made during the landlord’s internal complaints process. Any compensation already paid to the resident in respect of the complaint may be deducted from the total amount due under the orders made in this report. The Ombudsman also makes a recommendation that the landlord review its complaints handling processes, and that it provides training to staff, in relation to its use of extensions of time for responding to complaints.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property’s windows and door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and Recommendation

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £750 to recognise the effect of the landlord’s failure to complete works to the windows and door within a reasonable time.
    3. Pay the resident £400 to recognise the stress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of the landlord’s poor complaints handling, and the time and trouble she took to pursue her complaint.
  2. Any compensation already paid to the resident in respect of this complaint may be deducted from the total amount payable under the orders above.
  3. The landlord must confirm to us that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its complaints handling processes and provide training to staff on the use of extensions of time in complaints cases.