Orbit Housing Association Limited (202318104)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318104

Orbit Housing Association Limited

28 March 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 the resident’s reports of poor cleanliness and pest infestations in the bin storage room.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2 bedroom flat within a purpose-built block.
  2. The resident first complained to the landlord about the condition of the bin storage room on 9 August 2021. The resident stated that there was a fly infestation and unpleasant smells. She also reported that the bins had not been cleaned properly which was causing maggots. Flys were getting into the properties in the block as a result.
  3. The resident reported her concerns again on 7 August 2022. She expressed frustration at the ongoing issues with the bins and that she was paying for the maintenance as part of her service fee. The resident noted it had been a year since she had first raised the matter, and it had still not been addressed.
  4. Estate inspection reports show that the block was inspected on 17 January 2023 and 28 March 2023. There were no reported issues with the bin storage room. The landlord wrote to all residents in its April 2023 newsletter. It asked residents to dispose of their waste correctly because the local authority would refuse to collect bins with the incorrect waste in them. It also outlined that it would be carrying out a jet wash of the bins and then weekly cleans after that. It was also hoping to arrange for a pest control contractor to attend monthly throughout the summer to address the flies.
  5. The landlord’s internal correspondence from April 2023 noted that the bins were being cleaned every 2 weeks. It acknowledged that the heat of summer made it difficult to manage the flies in the bin storage room, but it felt its cleaning contractors were acting appropriately. The landlord also stated that residents were not always disposing of waste correctly, including food waste being put in recycling bins, which meant the local authority were refusing collection of the bins.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord again on 4 May 2023 to report poor maintenance of the bin storage and the presence of flies, maggots, and unpleasant smells. The landlord acknowledged this as the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 12 May 2023. It noted that it considered 4 May 2023 to be the date the resident raised a complaint and advised that it did not have any records of the issues reported being raised before this date. It stated it had asked the property manager to arrange for the pest infestation to be cleared. It acknowledged that the cleaning of the bin area had not been completed to a high standard or on a regular basis.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 May 2023. She expressed frustration that the landlord did not have a record of her previous complaints about the bin storage area. The resident reiterated to the landlord that she had first complained in 2021 and that it had not been addressed, which she found very stressful.
  9. Estate inspection reports for June and July 2023 noted the presence of flies and maggots in the bin storage room. The landlord attended on 28 July 2023 to replace the wooden skirting board in the room with plastic bumpers. This was because the wood had rotted and was infested with maggots. The job was not finished on this date as the contractors required more time.
  10. The landlord wrote in its September 2023 newsletter that it was taking steps to resolve the pest issues and reminded residents of the importance of disposing of their waste correctly. The landlord reattended on 28 September 2023 to continue replacing the wooden skirting board. Further work to replace the skirting was carried out in November 2023.
  11. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 November 2023. It accepted that it had incorrectly noted the date of the resident’s first complaint and apologised for this. It offered the resident the following compensation:
    1. £50 for the administration error.
    2. £200 for upset and inconvenience caused.
    3. £100 for poor complaint handling at stage 1.
    4. £150 for poor complaint handling at stage 2.
  12. The resident escalated the matter to this Service because she remained unhappy at the length of time it took for the landlord to resolve the issue. She outlined that she had withheld maintenance payments, and the landlord stated she was now in arrears. The resident noted that she did not feel the compensation was sufficient because it did not match or exceed the maintenance costs charged for the block.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is understood that part of the resident’s complaint is that she does not feel she is receiving value for money for the service charge paid for communal cleaning and maintenance services. As a result, she withheld this payment for a period of 6 months.
  2. The Ombudsman cannot review complaints about or determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. It would be more appropriate for this to be considered by a First Tier Tribunal who can make a binding decision. The resident may wish to seek legal advice on this point.

Cleanliness and pest infestations in the bin storage room

  1. The landlord’s pest control policy states that it will, within 2 working days of the report, raise a works order for a pest control contractor to carry out a survey and provide a report with recommendations. The pest control contractor will attend within 5 working days of the works order being raised. The policy states that the landlord will take responsibility for infestations in common and communal spaces. It will inform residents if it considers that their behaviour or lifestyle has contributed to the infestation.
  2. When the resident first reported the bin storage room to the landlord, there is no evidence it acknowledged the resident’s concerns or took action to appoint a pest control contractor to investigate. This was inappropriate because it was not in line with the landlord’s policy, and it caused distress to the resident who did not receive a resolution at the earliest opportunity.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again a year after her first report to raise the same concerns. As with her previous report, the landlord did not follow its policy because it did not appoint a pest control contractor to investigate. This was a failing by the landlord and caused further inconvenience to the resident who was distressed by the condition of the bin storage room. The resident had reported that the flies were getting into the rest of the building and the flats which was causing distress.
  4. The landlord’s estate inspection reports for January and March 2023 do not highlight any pest issues. It is important to note that this was winter rather than during the warmer months when the pests reported are more prevalent. In its April 2023 newsletter, the landlord outlined what steps it planned to take over the summer months to prevent an infestation. The landlord was evidently aware of the issues the resident had raised but did not respond to her directly to set out its position, this was inappropriate. The landlord missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations and show it was taking the matter seriously.
  5. It appears that the landlord did not correspond directly with the resident until its stage 1 response in May 2023. This was 21 months after the resident first reported the issues with the bin storage room. It is evident that the resident lost confidence in the landlord’s ability to address the matter because of its failure to engage with her concerns.
  6. It is understood that the landlord believed that residents in the block were not disposing of their waste correctly, for example food waste was being put in recycling bins which caused contamination. The landlord noted that the local authority would refuse to collect bins that were not filled correctly. This was outside of the control of the landlord. The landlord wrote to all residents in its April 2023 and September 2023 newsletter to remind residents of the importance of correctly disposing of waste and the impact that the incorrect bin usage was having. This was an appropriate step by the landlord.
  7. The landlord outlined several steps it planned to take such as jet washes and deep cleans of the bins, and arranging a pest controller to remove flies on a monthly basis. However, the evidence provided does not identify if this happened. Additionally, internal correspondence from the contractor states that it visited several times in 2022 to clear maggots and deep clean bins, but this is not reflected in any cleaning or attendance logs by the landlord. It would have been helpful to have these records in order to assess whether the landlord response was reasonable, the only evidence of a contractor’s attendance is this internal email.
  8. Repair records show that the landlord completed works on the skirting boards in the bin storage room in July and September 2023. This was because the skirting board had rotted and was infested with maggots. Internal correspondence from 13 October 2023 noted that the skirting had not been installed correctly, although there was conflicting information about what work had been completed. The landlord requested the skirting be replaced with plastic bumpers; however, repair logs suggest this had happened during the July and September repairs.The landlord confirmed in its complaint response that this work had been completed. The landlord took a positive step by carrying this work out, its repair logs could have been clearer on when this work was completed and what was done on each appointment.
  9. Estate inspection reports for January to July 2024 do not note any further issues with the cleanliness of the bin storage. It is unclear whether there were any further infestations over the summer of 2024 to determine if the work completed by the landlord has resolved the issues reported. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it apologised for the delay and stated it believed the matter had now been resolved. The landlord has outlined to this Service that it has continued to carry out regular deep cleans of the bins, and has installed fly zappers. These actions were appropriate and demonstrate it is taking the matter seriously.
  10. Overall, the landlord has made attempts to address the resident’s concerns. In particular, its actions in response to the resident’s 4 May 2023 complaint were positive. The resident’s initial complaint was made over 12 months prior to the landlord’s internal complaints process being completed. The landlord has accepted it should have responded sooner and acknowledged that it did not act while on notice in 2021 or 2022.
  11. Had the landlord not taken steps to rectify the matter following the 2023 complaint, the finding in this case would have been maladministration. The landlord has recognised it did not respond appropriately to the resident’s original complaint, and offered £200 compensation. In recognition of the landlord’s attempts to put things right, the finding in this case is service failure, rather than maladministration. To reflect the additional time the resident was without a solution, and the landlord’s failure to communicate with the resident directly up to the 2023 complaint, an additional £200 is awarded.
  12. The Ombudsman awards £400 compensation, this is inclusive of the £200 previously offered for upset and inconvenience. This award is in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance where a resident has been adversely affected by a landlord’s actions, and the landlord has made some attempt to rectify the matter but has not gone far enough.
  13. We encourage landlords to consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not always in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report, if it has not already done so.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
  3. The Code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.” The resident first expressed her dissatisfaction with the bin storage room on 9 August 2021, but the landlord did not recognise or respond to this as a complaint which was inappropriate. The resident made a further complaint on 7 August 2022 which was also not treated as a complaint and represents a further failing.
  4. The landlord recognised the resident’s correspondence on 4 May 2023 as a stage 1 complaint. It provided its stage 1 response on 12 May 2023 which was within its policy timeframes. In its complaint response, it stated that the resident had first complained on 4 May 2023 and later informed the resident it had no record of any reports from the resident prior to this date. This was incorrect because the evidence shows the resident had previously complained on 2 occasions. This amounted to a record keeping failure by the landlord which would have been frustrating for the resident.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 May 2023 because she was dissatisfied that the landlord had got her date of first complaint wrong, and that the issues were still ongoing. The escalation was acknowledged by the landlord on the same day; however, the landlord did not respond until 20 November 2023 which was inappropriate as it was outside of its policy timeframes by 109 working days.
  6. Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a failure of service. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. In these cases, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident to explain in detail the reasons for the delay. The landlord is also expected to provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response.
  7. While the landlord did reach out to the resident to explain it needed more time and when she could expect a response, it did this on at least 5 occasions and continued to miss the extended deadlines it had set. It is concerning to note that the landlord did not provide its complaint response until the intervention of this Service. The landlord failed to instil confidence in the resident that it was handling her complaint appropriately or taking the matter seriously.
  8. The landlord offered the resident £300, comprised of £50 for the administration error regarding the date of first complaint, £100 in relation to its stage 1 response, and £150 for the delay in its stage 2 response.
  9. While the errors identified would have been distressing for the resident, this Service considers this compensation officer to be a reasonable redress to the failures identified. The offer is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. The offer made falls within the scope of what is recommended when there is an adverse effect on the resident but where the landlord has acknowledged its failings. The determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £300 for its complaint handling, is paid to the resident, if it has not already been paid.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor cleanliness and pest infestations in the bin storage room.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total compensation of £400 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the bin storage room.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £200. The ordered amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report, if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord should pay the resident its previous compensation offer of £300 for complaint handling, if it has not already done so.