From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Orbit Housing Association Limited (202316043)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316043

Orbit Housing Association Limited

28 May 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:
    1. handling of reports about drainage and sewage issues in the property.
    2. complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom house. She has severe osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 28 March 2022 the resident reported a ‘strong’ smell in her bathroom to the landlord. It attended to this on 10 April 2022 and found water was leaking from the downstairs toilet. Between April and June 2022, the resident reported on several occasions that raw sewage was entering the property. On 23 June 2022 a CCTV survey of the drains was carried out. Multiple runs were found to be ‘bellied’, not allowing the wastewater to flow. It was recommended that either a tanker attend to clear the run and perform monthly maintenance, or an intrusive excavation be performed to set the pipe work to the correct gradient.
  3. On 25 April 2023 the resident formally complained to the landlord. She said that since April 2022 she had drainage issues and sewage smells in the property. She said a tanker was supposed to come every month, but she had only seen it once. And felt the landlord was ignoring the issue. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 28 September 2023. It said its contractor was unaware of any arrangements for them to attend regularly. It apologised for the delays and confirmed it would raise a claim with the National House Building Council (NHBC). It offered £370 compensation, comprised of £150 for upset and inconvenience, £150 for poor complaint handling and £70 for delays. The same day, the resident told the landlord that the compensation offered did not cover what she had been through. She added that she was registered disabled, and the stress made her condition worse.
  4. The resident complained again on 19 February 2024. She said contractors had not attended an appointment, and the issue had been going on for 2 years. She said an inspection had been carried out previously, but no works were raised after. On 23 July 2024 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. It acknowledged the issues had been ongoing since 29 March 2022. And its subcontractor attended on 1 May 2024 to resolve the issue. It offered £870 compensation, comprised of £100 for unsuccessful appointments, £20 for repair completed outside of its timeframes, £650 for the impact caused and £100 for poor complaint handling.
  5. In September and August 2024, the resident reported continued drainage issues. She explained that there was still a sewage smell in the property and felt the landlord’s previous work was inadequate. On 5 September 2024 following contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the complaint at stage 2 by 11 October 2024.
  6. On 9 October 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. In summary, it said:
    1. It would visit the property on 24 October 2024 with a specialist contractor to investigate and ensure a permanent solution.
    2. It would keep the resident updated on the progress of repairs until they were completed.
    3. Its subcontractor attended on 29 August 2024 and jetted through the pipework.
    4. It may need to move the resident temporarily to complete any works.
    5. It apologised for the lack of aftercare and communication following its July 2024 stage 1 response.
    6. It offered an additional £360 compensation comprised of £10 for a failed appointment, £100 for the lack of communication from its after-care team and £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
  7. The resident asked us to investigate the complaint. She said the situation had been ongoing for over 2 years, causing her stress and anxiety, and she felt the landlord was ignoring her. She said it had been like living in a sewer, and she did not feel the compensation awarded reflected the severity and time she had been dealing with this issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advised that the landlord’s handling of this matter led to a deterioration in her health. We cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and well-being. This is outside our jurisdiction, but we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Handling of reports about drainage and sewage issues in the property

  1. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, we consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord is responsible for repairs to drains and sewers linked to the property. It aims to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days and major repairs within 90 calendar days. It says that it will prioritise residents who have an acute physical or mental health vulnerability.
  3. The evidence showed that the landlord attended to the resident’s initial reports in March and April 2022 within a reasonable timescale and took appropriate action to try and resolve the issue. This included replacing the toilet pan outlet on 11 April 2022 and clearing the blockage on 25 April 2022.
  4. Following further reports from the resident of a sewage smell throughout the property, the landlord instructed a CCTV survey of the drains, which was carried out on 23 June 2022. The survey found that most runs were ‘bellied’ and recommended that a tanker clear them and perform monthly maintenance thereafter. The other option was an intrusive excavation to set the pipework to the correct gradient. While it was appropriate for the landlord to survey the drains, it failed to carry out either of these recommendations within a reasonable timeframe. This led to the resident having to chase the landlord.
  5. The evidence indicated that it was not until 22 August 2022, almost 2 months later, that the landlord decided to use a tanker to clear the runs. This was an unreasonable delay, particularly given the resident’s health concerns. There was also no evidence that the landlord performed monthly maintenance as recommended. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who felt the landlord was not taking the situation seriously.
  6. The resident again reported ongoing drainage issues at the property on 12 October 2022. However, the landlord’s records showed that it did not raise a repair for this until 21 November 2022 over a month later. A tanker jetted and cleared the drains on 20 December 2022, over 2 months after the resident’s October 2022 report. Again, these were unreasonable delays and contrary to its policy timescales.
  7. Following the resident’s April 2023 complaint, the landlord decided to treat the matter as a ‘major’ repair and flush the drains regularly. However, it should have made this decision much earlier, following the original CCTV survey in June 2022. Furthermore, there was no evidence that it had considered whether it was appropriate to excavate the pipework at that stage. Given the ongoing concerns, the landlord should have considered this option.
  8. The landlord’s repair logs showed that it attended to the property again on 22 June and 26 July 2023, but no work took place. Its internal notes said that the repair was with major works and that ‘sewage’ needed to be looked into. However, nothing happened, and the landlord put the onus on the resident to report the matter when she got a blockage. This was inappropriate. The landlord failed to regularly flush the drain or take a proactive approach to resolve the matter. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident, who described it as living in a sewer.
  9. It was not until 4 December 2023 that the landlord finally requested a quote to excavate the drainage. This was around 18 months after the June 2022 survey, and multiple reports from the resident during this period. Moreover, the landlord decided that, as the property was only a few years old, the original developers should resolve this issue, and it subsequently claimed through the NHBC. Again, this should have happened sooner, and there was also evidence of avoidable delays on the landlord’s part while pursuing this claim.
  10. The landlord’s records suggested some ‘invasive’ drain work took place on 1 May 2024. However, it is unclear what this work entailed. And in June and July 2024 the resident reported that she was still getting blocked toilets and sewage smells in the property. Yet it was not until another report from her in August 2024 that the landlord jetted the pipework. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who had to report the same issue repeatedly.
  11. The landlord’s final response said it would visit the property on 24 October 2024 and raise any recommended works after this visit to ‘fully’ resolve the drainage issue. It added that it would keep her updated on progress until the works were completed and explained it may need to move the resident temporarily. The landlord visited the property as agreed. It subsequently carried out work on the shower trap and loft pipe in November 2024. However, it did not raise the required major excavation work until 31 December 2024, over 2 months after its 24 October 2024 visit. And the evidence indicated that the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates.
  12. Furthermore, the landlord did not agree upon a decant for the resident until 27 March 2025. This was another unreasonable delay. It had raised this as a major repair some 3 months beforehand. Indeed, it acknowledged in its submissions to this Service that a decant had been previously suggested but not followed through with. Although we recognise that the work is now taking place and the landlord has recently decanted the resident, this was another failing on the landlord’s part, which delayed getting matters resolved.
  13. Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports about drainage and sewage issues in the property was poor. It did not communicate effectively with the resident and consistently failed to keep to its repair timescales. There were also considerable delays in resolving the root cause and acting on recommendations. Its actions demonstrated a lack of urgency. And it failed to prioritise the situation, considering the resident’s circumstances.
  14. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for its failings and awarding compensation. The amount offered was broadly in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests compensation of over £1,000 should be considered where there are failings that had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. However, there were further delays in completing the works, with these still outstanding to date, around 7 months after the landlord’s final response. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident, who had already experienced considerable delays in resolving the situation.
  15. The landlord failed to learn from its errors, and the resident has lived with intermittent sewage smells and drain blockages for around 3 years. This amounts to maladministration, and we have made orders below for remedy.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days from acknowledgement. It adds that some complaints require more detailed investigation, and it may not be able to respond within 10 working days. If this is the case, it may extend the timescales initially by a further 10 working days. If more time is needed beyond this to investigate a complaint, it will contact the resident to discuss this and explain the reasons why. It says that if a resident is unhappy with an extension, it will close the complaint and issue its findings in writing.
  2. At stage 2 the landlord’s policy says residents have the right to request a review if all or any part of the complaint is not resolved to their satisfaction at stage 1. It aims to respond to all requests for a complaint review within 20 working days.
  3. It took the landlord over 5 months to formally respond to the resident’s 25 April 2023 complaint. This was a considerable delay and outside of its policy timescales. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who likely felt the landlord was ignoring her concerns. Nevertheless, the landlord apologised and offered £100 compensation for its poor complaint handling. This was appropriate and satisfactory in putting things right for this delay.
  4. Following the landlord’s 28 September 2023 stage 1 response, the resident told the landlord that she did not accept the compensation offer. In response, the landlord advised that it had escalated the complaint to stage 2. However, at the same time, it also said that if she was happy with what it had done, it could arrange for her complaint not to be escalated. It added that the outcome would remain the same at stage 2. This was confusing and unnecessary. Nevertheless, the resident responded immediately, saying that it had taken a year and a half to get any response and that she did not think the compensation covered what she had been through.
  5. As the resident clearly felt the landlord had not resolved the complaint to her satisfaction, the landlord should have escalated the complaint as per its policy. Yet it did not. This was inappropriate. Additionally, having clarified that she was unhappy with its response, the landlord missed an opportunity to escalate the complaint. This would have frustrated the resident who raised another complaint on 19 February 2024 about the same issues.
  6. The landlord again failed to respond within its policy timescales, issuing a new stage 1 response on 23 July 2024, over 5 months later. While we recognise that the landlord wrote to the resident to request extensions, this happened on multiple occasions and caused further frustration to the resident. Indeed, she felt the complaint should have already been at stage 2. And despite the resident repeatedly saying that she was unhappy that the landlord continued to extend the complaint deadlines, it failed to issue its stage 1 findings within a reasonable timescale. This was contrary to its policy.
  7. Although this stage 1 response acknowledged its poor complaint handling and offered £100 compensation for this delay, it is concerning that it did not learn from its previous errors. It also failed to recognise that it should have escalated the complaint to stage 2, instead of issuing a new stage 1 response.
  8. On at least 3 occasions in August 2024, the resident expressed unhappiness with the landlord’s handling of this matter. However, it failed to escalate the complaint. This caused time and trouble for the resident who approached us for assistance.
  9. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was unsatisfactory. There were unreasonable delays throughout, and the landlord missed opportunities to escalate the resident’s complaint. Had it done so, the resident could have brought this complaint to us sooner. While it offered compensation for its poor complaint handling in both its stage 1 responses, it failed to learn from its mistakes. As such, the landlord has not fully put right the adverse effect caused to the resident by its complaint handling. This amounts to maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports about drainage and sewage issues in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £2,175 comprised of:
      1. £1,600 as offered across its formal responses, if it has not already done so.
      2. A further £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports about drainage and sewage issues in the property.
      3. A further £75 or the frustration caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Review the failings identified in this report to determine what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence. The landlord must confirm to the Ombudsman the outcome of this review. As part of this review the landlord must update the resident and this Service about the progress of the ongoing works and provide anticipated timescales for completion.
  2. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.