Orbit Housing Association Limited (202324589)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324589

Orbit Housing Association Limited

12 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Repairs and replacement of windows.
2. Kitchen repairs.
3. Reports of concerns about contractor conduct.
4. Reports of loss of heating and hot water and the repair of the boiler.
5. Reports of a personal injury.
6. Reports of a data breach.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Repairs and replacement of windows.

Paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme says that “the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”.
As part of his complaint to this Service, the resident raised concerns about repairs and replacement to windows in his property. A previous report issued by this Service under reference 202213427 provided a determination on this matter.
On this basis, this investigation will not consider this element of the complaint. The resident may wish to consider raising a new complaint if other matters have arisen in the interim. The landlord is recommended to review the current situation with windows repairs and replacements and provide the resident with an update on any outstanding repairs or replacements.

Reports of loss of heating and hot water and the repair of the boiler.

Paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme says that “the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”.
As part of his complaint to this Service, the resident raised concerns about a loss of heating and hot water, along with the conduct of a repair to his boiler. A previous report issued by this Service under reference 202213427 provided a determination on this matter. The resident also told this Service at the time of investigation that he had received an adequate complaint response and offer of compensation, which he had accepted.
As the Ombudsman has previously issued a determination on this element of the case, this investigation will not consider this element of the complaint. The resident may wish to consider raising a new complaint if other matters have arisen in the interim.

Reports of a data breach

Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme says that “the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
As part of his complaint to this Service, the resident raised concerns about a breach of his personal data. In particular, he said that he had been sent a complaint response which was related to another complainant on 31 August 2023.
This Service is unable to assess breaches of data protection legislation as this is within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider. It is noted from the landlord’s complaint responses that it has already reported the matter to its information governance team at the time the complaint was raised and that this may have resulted in a self-referral to the ICO already.
The Ombudsman understands that any breach of personal data can be invasive and damaging and therefore the resident may wish to seek independent advice on raising a complaint with the ICO if he considers that the landlord has breached his data protection rights.

Jurisdiction conclusion

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 of the Scheme, the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs and replacement of windows.
2. The landlord’s handling of reports of a loss of heating and hot water and repairs to the boiler.
3. The landlord’s handling of reports of a data breach
These complaints will not be considered within this investigation and any reference to these elements in the report below are for context only.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bed flat under an assured shorthold tenancy which began on 2 November 2020.
The resident has disclosed to the landlord and this Service that he has a range of physical and mental health conditions including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), personality disorder, anxiety, sleep disorder, tinnitus and hearing issues.
The complaint in this case is multifaceted and includes a range of repair and major works issues, with associated contractor conduct, data concerns and reports of a personal injury. The resident raised 2 complaints related to these issues which are summarised below. The scope of investigation section below sets out what elements of these two complaints this investigation will include which it will not.
The resident’s first complaint was raised on 18 November 2022. He said that a contractor had failed to attend an appointment to conduct a repair to his bathroom.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s first complaint on 30 November 2022 and said it apologised for the missed appointment by its contractor. It offered £30 compensation for this, comprised of £10 for the cancelled appointment and £20 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated his first complaint to stage 2 on 23 December 2022 as repairs were outstanding and missed contractor appointments had contributed to this.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response to the resident’s first complaint on 26 April 2023 and said:
1. It acknowledged that the contractor had missed further appointments.
2. It offered increased compensation of £20 for the missed appointments.
The resident’s second complaint was raised on 28 June 2023. He said:
1. There were various repairs outstanding in his kitchen including works to the kickboards, kitchen wall and gaps around an electricity meter leaving wiring exposed, following the kitchen installation.
2. He had slipped on water in his bathroom and sustained an injury. He attributed this to the landlord as works to the bathroom were outstanding at the time of the accident.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s second complaint on 1 September 2023 and said:
1. In relation to the kitchen repairs, it had “reviewed [its] internal systems and identified that [the resident] had been reporting these issues for an extended period of time”. It said that “numerous works orders [had] been merged”.
2. The resident had not permitted its contractors access to complete works in the kitchen on 5 December 2022 and had cancelled appointments on 12 May 2023, 11 July 2023 and 12 July 2023 as he had requested evidence of the contractor’s qualifications and accreditations. The landlord said that its contractors were approved internally and that it was not required to supply the resident with this information or evidence.
3. It had requested that the contractor’s supervisor attend the property to inspect all outstanding repairs. The contractor said it was unable to do this due to “past instances of threatening behaviour from [the resident] and safety concerns for their operatives”.
4. It was offering £50 in “acknowledgement of the failed appointments”.
5. It had received the report of a personal injury from the resident on 28 June 2023. It had requested a letter of claim from the resident and, when this was received on 9 August 2023, it had passed the claim to its insurer to progress. The landlord apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused by the resident’s injury.
The resident escalated his second complaint to stage 2 on 4 September 2023 as the works to his kitchen remained outstanding. He said that the landlord was “completely incorrect and unfair” to suggest that he had requested the contractor’s credentials for kitchen works. He said that he had requested these for other types of works (for example window replacements) but never for kitchen works.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response to the resident’s second complaint on 30 November 2023 and said:
1. It was not upholding the resident’s complaint regarding repairs to his kitchen as:
  1. Its contractors had attended an appointment to repair the kickboards and gaps around the electricity meter on 26 September 2022, however the resident refused access for the works to be completed.
  2. Works to the kitchen wall had been attended to on 1 September 2022 and marked as completed.
2. It had referred the resident’s report of personal injury to its insurer, and this would be dealt with outside of its complaint procedure.
The landlord issued a further complaint review letter on 14 December 2023 and said:
1. The resident had raised concerns about the contractor who attended to assess the outstanding works in his property. The landlord had raised this as a new complaint.
2. The works were outstanding because the resident had not permitted access for the works to be completed.
3. It had noted that the resident had arranged for “some works” to be completed himself, although it did not specify what works.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 18 October 2023 seeking additional compensation and reviews of the landlord’s complaint handling and repairs processes.
This complaint has been difficult to scope due to multiple open complaints addressing some mutual elements. In some cases, additional complaints have been accepted by the landlord on escalation to stage 2, which were not present in the initial complaint. In addition, the Ombudsman issued determination 202213427 on 28 June 2024 which addressed some of the complaint elements shown above, which were the subject of other complaints from the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As part of the complaint, the resident sought compensation from the landlord for the impact of his living situation on his health and welfare, this is known as a personal injury claim. In particular, the resident reported on 28 June 2023 that he had suffered an injury caused from slipping on water in his bathroom. The resident felt that this was the landlord’s responsibility as bathroom repairs were outstanding at the time.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, tribunal or other procedure.”
This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, personal injury, therefore we will not consider this element of the resident’s complaint. This Service can give an opinion as to whether the landlord responded in a reasonable manner to the resident’s reports of illness, however, claims of personal injury must be decided by a court of law who can assess specialist medical evidence and make a judgement on the merits of the case. The Ombudsman understands that this situation has been very stressful for the resident and therefore she may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
Additionally, the resident raised a third complaint in April 2024, which raised a number of new issues and a further complaint related to contractor conduct. Specifically, this related to an allegation made by the contractors regarding the resident’s behaviour. This complaint received a stage 1 complaint response from the landlord on 17 April 2024 and a stage 2 response on 20 June 2024. This complaint has not been assessed as part of this determination as it has not been escalated to our Service for consideration at the time of investigation.
It is noted that several of the issues raised in the resident’s complaints have been subject to previous or subsequent complaint processes. This investigation will only consider the matters raised as part of the complaints highlighted in the background section of this report. Subsequent complaints made by the resident will be considered by the landlord and this Service if they are escalated or submitted for consideration.

Kitchen repairs

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have a statutory duty to maintain the structure and exterior of its properties, which includes the roof, walls, windows, doors and external fixtures. Landlords are also responsible for the installations for sanitation within the property. Once notified of a defect, landlords must make a lasting and effective repair in a reasonable time.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy says that it will complete repairs in the following timescales:
1. Emergency repairs will be attended in 4 hours and made safe within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days.
3. Major repairs will be grouped together as part of programmed major works and are subject to their own timescales.
The landlord’s policy also says that it will “provide a high priority response to customers that have been identified as having acute physical or mental health vulnerabilities”. Throughout the complaint process the resident has explained that the ongoing issues have worsened his conditions, caused his significant distress and contributed to him self harming on some occasions.
Within his second complaint, the resident said that works to the kitchen were outstanding since the kitchen underwent a refit in 2019. This included works to the kickboards, plastering on the kitchen wall, and exposed wiring around the electricity meter. The landlord’s complaint response did not dispute that the repairs had been outstanding for an “extended period of time” and attributed this to previous works orders having been merged.
There is evidence of the resident chasing the completion of these repairs throughout the complaint process. Ultimately the resident arranged for a private repair for the kickboards and exposed wiring on 20 November 2023 at a cost to himself of £80. He said that he did this because the matters had been outstanding for over 18 months at this time.
The evidence shows that the landlord completed plastering works to the resident’s kitchen wall on 1 September 2022. Following completion of the second complaint process, the landlord repaid the resident £80 in respect of the costs he had incurred from paying a private contractor to complete the works.
While the landlord’s complaint responses include payments for “overall distress and inconvenience”, this appears to relate to outstanding bathroom repairs and issues with the installation of windows, rather than the outstanding repairs to the kitchen. This was a missed opportunity to provide financial redress to the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble he incurred from repeatedly raising the repairs and then sourcing his own contractor to complete the works.
The landlord noted that several elements of work could not be completed due to the resident not permitting access. In particular, it said that the resident denied access or cancelled appointments on at least four occasions, as he had requested the contractor’s credentials prior to the works going ahead. The evidence shows that this was not correct, as the resident had not permitted a single contractor access to his property due to previous concerns and questions regarding its professional registrations to complete window and gas safety works. There is no evidence seen that the resident denied access for works related to the kitchen repairs.
Throughout the course of these repairs, there is repeated evidence of the resident chasing for the repairs to be completed and to escalate his complaint to the relevant teams. The resident said that many of these communications went unanswered and this is supported by the evidence. By acting in this dismissive way, the landlord protracted and delayed simple repairs and caused further damage to the landlord and tenant relationship.
Overall, there is evidence of longstanding reports of the issues within the resident’s kitchen. This was not attended to within the landlord’s repair policy timescales regardless of whether or not the resident permitted access, as the first reported attempt was on 5 December 2022, almost 3 years after the kitchen refit. Additionally, after a protracted period of poor communication from the landlord, the works were eventually completed by the resident’s private contractor. This was further compounded by poor complaint handling processes and a delay in refunding and compensating the resident for these works.
It is the landlord’s responsibility under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, its tenancy agreement with the resident and its own responsive repair policy to complete repairs that are reported within a reasonable time. In this case the landlord failed to do this.
Taking these factors together, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the kitchen. It must now provide additional redress to the resident and review its repairs practices to prevent a reoccurrence in the future and orders have been made in respect of this below.

Contractor conduct

As part of his related complaints around outstanding repairs, the resident said that he was dissatisfied with the conduct of the landlord’s contractors. He said that the contractors had repeatedly missed appointments and had not contacted him in advance to advise they were not attending. He also said that the quality of workmanship was poor.
Due to this, the resident said that he did not want the landlord’s primary contractor attending any further, as the missed appointments caused him considerable disruption, time and trouble particularly due to his physical and mental health issues.
In response to this, the evidence shows that the landlord arranged for a supervisor to attend with the contractors for each subsequent visit. Within its complaint responses, the landlord also apologised to the resident for the contractor’s missed appointments and offered £20 compensation for the missed appointments and £30 for any distress and inconvenience caused.
Additionally, when the landlord undertook a review of the resident’s second complaint in December 2023, it raised a new complaint for further issues that he had raised regarding contractor conduct when they attended his property in November 2023. This complaint is outside the scope of this investigation.
Overall, the apologised for the missed appointments and took reasonable steps to supervise the contractor’s workmanship and attendance going forward. It also paid reasonable compensation to acknowledge the missed appointments, along with the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Taking these factors together, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reports of a personal injury

The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will not consider “any claim or complaint to do with personal injury” as these are handled by its insurer.
As discussed within the scope of investigation section of this report, the Ombudsman cannot make a binding decision on whether personal injury has occurred, the severity of any injury or any negligence or other contributory factors which may have been present. This requires a binding court decision or decision by an insurer following a review of specialist evidence.
On this basis, the Ombudsman has only considered whether the landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s concern about personal injury. The evidence shows that the resident reported the injury on 28 June 2023. He said that he had suffered an injury from slipping on water in his bathroom. He said that he felt the landlord was responsible for this as it has not completed related repairs in the bathroom at the time the accident took place.
In response to this, the landlord requested a letter of claim from the resident, outlining the details of the incident and injury he said he had sustained. It received this on 9 August 2023 and referred the matter to its insurer for consideration. The landlord informed the resident that it had done this within its stage 1 complaint response issued on 1 September 2023 and reaffirmed this in its stage 2 response on 30 November 2023.
The landlord told this Service that this claim remains outstanding at the time of investigation as its insurer is awaiting medical evidence from the resident to progress the claim.
By the landlord seeking additional information from the resident and then passing the claim to its insurer in a timely way, this was a reasonable response to the resident’s concern. It also communicated with the resident and updated him about the action it had taken with his claim. On this basis, there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.
A recommendation has been made below that the landlord support the resident with progressing his insurance claim to completion where possible.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint policy in which it commits to responding to resident complaints in the following timescales:
1. Stage 1 – 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 – 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out a number of key principles that landlords are required to adhere to in the management of complaints. This includes the following:
1. Landlords must operate a two-stage process without any additional or informal stages as this causes confusion and delay.
2. Landlords must respond to complaints within the timescales in the Code. This is 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is to avoid extending the complaint process or delaying access to the Ombudsman.
3. Landlords must not extend the timescales for responding to complaint by more than 10 working days. In cases of extensions this must be clearly explained to the resident and the Ombudsman’s details must be provided.
4. Landlords must incorporate additional complaints raised by residents during the complaint process into its complaint responses unless the new complaints are unrelated to the issues being investigated or would delay the complaint response being issued. In these cases, the new matters must be logged as a new complaint.
The evidence shows that all of the landlord’s complaint responses within the resident’s two complaints were issued over the timescales shown in the landlord’s policy and the Code. This included delays of 2 and 37 working days in the landlord’s stage 1 responses and 64 and 43 working days in its stage 2 responses. Overall, the complaint responses were delayed by a combined total of 146 working days. Delays in the complaint process caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience in progressing the matters to completion and delayed him being able to progress his complaint to the Ombudsman.
While there was some evidence of the landlord extending its complaint deadlines, the Code only allows for a 10-day extension to the deadline an the landlord’s responses were issued in excess of this in all but one case. Additionally, there was evidence of the landlord holding the resident’s stage 2 complaint open while repairs were completed. The Code says that complaints should be responded to within timescale and then actions monitored to completion beyond this. The landlord must review its complaint handling processes to ensure that timely responses to complaints are given moving forward.
Within the complaint process, there was evidence of the landlord accepting numerous new issues within complaint escalations. While it is appreciated that the landlord was seeking to address issues at an earlier point, these should more appropriately have been raised as new complaints. This would have avoided complex and lengthy complaint responses and assisted with the landlord being able to issue its responses on time.
Conversely, the resident reported on numerous occasions that the complaints he had made had not been fully addressed by the landlord’s complaint responses. He said that the landlord had deliberately failed to respond to particular complaint points. There is some evidence that shows the landlord was not clear in its complaint responses, particularly in relation to the amounts of compensation awarded, when this was amended by a subsequent complaint response. This caused further avoidable distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident to chase responses and seek clarification.
Further compounding this, within the resident’s second complaint, there is evidence that the complaint was assigned to a complaint handler who was on sick leave. This introduced further delays and communication delays which caused the resident further, avoidable distress and inconvenience.
Within its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the delays in issuing its complaint responses and awarded the following compensation:
1. £220 in its first stage 2 complaint response, comprised of £150 for poor complaint handling at stage 1 and 2 and £70 for poor communication throughout the complaint process.
2. £150 in its second stage 1 complaint response in recognition of poor complaint handling.
3. £200 in its second Stage 2 complaint response, comprised of £150 for the time taken to issue complaint responses and repeated extensions and £50 for the delays caused by poor communication and the case being allocated to a handler that was on sick leave.
In the landlord’s second stage 2 complaint response it also identified that it was redesigning its quality assurance framework for complaint handling and including complaint-specific coding in its works orders.
Given that the resident has said that several issues remain outstanding at the time of this investigation, and that he had to arrange resolution of some repairs himself, there is little evidence that the landlord used its complaint process to effect and resolve the substantive issues. This was compounded by procedural delays and progressing complaints that should have been raised as new issues with separate responses. It is also not disputed by the landlord that each of the complaints included delays and elements of poor complaint handling as this was acknowledged in its complaint responses and compensation awarded.
It is recognised that the landlord apologised to the resident for these failings and paid the resident a total of £570 compensation for complaint handling and this was reasonable and proportionate in this case. While the landlord identified some limited learning from the complaints process it did not undertake any systemic investigation into the repeated and protracted complaint handling delays or its communication failures. All of these factors caused the resident considerable distress and should have been assessed and subject to further organisational learning.
Taking these factors together, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It must now undertake a case review and review what learning is required to improve its complaint handling processes. An order has been made in respect of this below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme the following complaint are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of repairs and replacements to windows.
2. The landlord’s response to reports of loss of heating and hot water and the repair of the boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme the complaint about the landlord’s response to reports of a data breach is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to reports of contractor conduct satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there has been:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to kitchen repairs.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of personal injury.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior officer to apologise to the resident in writing for the repairs and complaint handling failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £450 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble of pursuing the repairs to his kitchen to completion, including arranging his own contractor.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to conduct a case review to:
1. Identify the root causes for the repeated complaint handling delays and failings identified in this report. Of particular interest is the effectiveness of its management of multiple complaint factors, complaint factors which are surfaced as part of an escalation request and the cohesion of its responses.
2. Identify the root causes for the longstanding failure to complete the repairs in the resident’s kitchen.
3. Assess the impact of its redesigned quality assurance framework for complaints, as mentioned in its second stage 2 complaint response. In particular, the landlord should consider if the changes it has made would have designed out the failings that have been surfaced in this report.
4. Identify what learning is required within its complaint handling team, repairs team, contractor management or more widely within the organisation, to prevent a reoccurrence of these issues. The landlord must compile an action plan showing how this learning will be implemented within a period not exceeding a further 8 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Pay all compensation offered in its previous complaint responses if it has not already done so.
2. Review the current situation with window repair and replacement in the resident’s property and provide him with an action plan for any outstanding works.
3. Assist the resident with progressing his personal injury claim with its insurer.
4. Assist the resident with raising his data protection concerns to the ICO if he wishes to do this.