Orbit Housing Association Limited (202405060)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property with her 4 children. She told her landlord she has mental health conditions. She reported a bathroom leak in July 2023 and later raised ongoing concerns about delays, missed appointments, and loss of safe bathing facilities. She also reported a boiler repair on 23 April 2024. Throughout the complaint period, she explained the impact on her family, including the need to use alternative bathing facilities and the distress this caused.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a bathroom leak and associated remedial works.
3. The landlord’s handling of the boiler repair.
4. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of bathroom leak and associated remedial works.
6. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the boiler repair.
7. There was service failure in the complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of the resident’s report of bathroom leak and associated remedial works.

8. The landlord failed to complete major bathroom repairs within its 90-day timeframe and delayed raising follow-on works. It acknowledged these failings and awarded proportionate compensation, which we consider reasonable to reflect the impact on the resident.

The handling of the boiler repair.

9. The landlord attended within 24 hours in line with its policy and ordered the required part. It later considered replacing the boiler when the repair was not effective, which was reasonable under its policy to repair first and replace only when sensible or cost-effective. The works took 14 days beyond its target, but the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered proportionate redress, which we consider reasonable.

Complaint handling

10. The landlord’s complaint handling was delayed at both stages. It acknowledged these failings in its final response and offered appropriate redress. However, it did not recognise or acknowledge its failing with the resident’s initial complaint of October 2023.

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 investigated

11. The resident told us that the situation affected her and her son’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for an injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience.
12. We will only investigate the matters the resident brought to our attention and that the landlord addressed during the complaint process. Our assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions and decisions within those responses. We will not review new concerns raised after the final response, such as her recent report of a possible current leak in the bathroom, as the landlord did not have a reasonable opportunity to address this within the complaint.

What we investigated

13. The landlord’s repair policy states that emergency repairs should be completed within 4 to 24 hours, routine repairs within 28 days, and major repairs within 90 days. Major repairs include works that take longer than 4 hours, require multiple trades, or need specialist contractors. If there was a safety risk, the landlord should make the property safe temporarily until it completed full repairs.
14. The resident reported a bathroom leak on 26 July 2023. The landlord attended the same day, sealed around the bath and taps, and recommended ceiling repairs. While it met the emergency response timeframe, it did not raise follow-on works as required by its policy.
15. On 9 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord after a call earlier that day. She said her landlord had booked her repairs for 20 October, which she felt was too late. She reported an ongoing leak damaging the lounge ceiling and her son’s bedroom carpet. She said the contractor only checked under the bath, applied mastic, and damaged new vinyl.
16. On 11 October the landlord confirmed a repairs appointment for 20 October and told the resident not to use the bath or shower in the meantime. This left the resident without essential bathing facilities for over a week. The landlord should have considered bringing the appointment forward or considered temporary measures. Although the repairs policy does not require an emergency visit in this situation, the landlord still has a duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep key installations for water, drainage and sanitation in repair and in proper working order. These include baths, sinks, pipes and other facilities needed for basic hygiene. In line with this duty, the landlord needed to act in a way that protected the resident’s ability to maintain safe and usable bathroom facilities while repairs were pending.
17. The landlord attended on 20 October 2023 and confirmed water was leaking and tiles and grout were washed out. It visited on 23 October 2023 and told the resident that it needed to remove the bath and carry out major works. It booked on follow on works to replace the wall, which it completed on the 24 October.
18. On 31 October 2023 the landlord attended on an emergency due to the resident’s report of a leak from the bathroom going into the light fitting. It said there was no water in the light fitting but a leak into the living room which would require further works. However, the resident repeatedly chased, reporting missed appointments and poor bathroom conditions. By March 2024, works were still outstanding, which was not in line with its 90-day timeframe.
19. By May and June 2024, the resident said the situation was affecting her mental health. She said she could only use the bath which was shallow and could not use the shower. On 15 July 2024, the landlord issued a stage 1 response, acknowledging the job was not recorded, and offered £50 compensation. We do not consider the compensation reasonable, given the delay and impact.
20. It carried out major works between 21 and 28 August 2024 over a year after the initial report.
21. On 29 October 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response, it accepted delays and poor coordination, and awarded £507 for loss of bathroom enjoyment and £600 for frustration and inconvenience. It acknowledged failures in communication and record keeping.
22. The resident said the leak damaged the carpet in her son’s bedroom. Although the landlord did not address this within its complaint response, which was a missed opportunity, it replaced the carpet in November 2024. This was good practice, as the landlord chose to replace the carpet rather than ask the resident to pursue an insurance claim.
23. In summary, the landlord failed to diagnose and progress the repair within policy timescales and delayed raising the necessary follow‑on works. Although its stage 2 response explained that the delay was linked to referrals to the major works team, the total period from the reports in October 2023 to completion in September 2024 was 11 months, which was excessive. We accept that, given the scale of the bathroom works, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat this as major works rather than a day‑to‑day or routine repair. However, it should still have put in place clear timeframes, updates, and appropriate temporary measures to maintain essential bathing facilities.
24. The landlord acknowledged these failings and awarded £507 for loss of bathroom enjoyment and £600 for frustration and inconvenience, totalling £1,107. Spread over the 11‑month delay, this equates to approximately £100.64 per month, reflecting the prolonged impact on the resident and her family. We consider this to be reasonable in the circumstances.

25. The landlord’s repair policy says it will normally repair items rather than replace parts unless replacement is more cost-effective or sensible. It decides what to replace and when. The policy also sets timescales for routine repairs within 28 days and some heating repairs within 14 days.
26. The resident reported no hot water on 23 April 2024. The landlord attended within 24 hours and said a part was needed. It has not provided a full repair summary, but it installed a new boiler on 20 May 2024.
27. The landlord has a duty to repair and should first try to fix the existing system before replacing it. In this case, the landlord ordered parts straight after its visit and tried to repair the boiler. When the repair attempts did not work, it chose to replace the boiler. The full works took 27 days, which is 13 days beyond the 14‑day target for heating repairs. This delay was outside the expected timescale. However, the steps the landlord took to diagnose the fault, attempt repair, and then move to a full replacement were reasonable once it became clear that repair alone would not restore the hot water.
28. The delay had a serious impact on the resident and her family. She told her landlord that they had no hot water or heating and had to rely on a neighbour’s facilities to wash. The resident described this as embarrassing and degrading, which highlights the distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of essential services.
29. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered £135 compensation, equivalent to £5 per day. This offer reflects the impact and is reasonable in the circumstances.

30. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2022 edition (April 2022).
31. In line with the Code and the landlord’s policy, the landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint and 10 working days to issue a stage 1 response (up to 15 working days). For stage 2, the landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge and 20 working days to respond (up to 25 working days).
32. On 9 October 2023 the resident emailed about the 20 October appointment, which she felt was faraway, and raised concerns about the leak repair. The landlord said it would pass her complaint to the team to log within 48 hours, creating an expectation it would be treated formally. There is no evidence it logged or accepted the complaint. In line with the Code, if a landlord does not accept a complaint, it must explain why and confirm the resident’s right to escalate to the Ombudsman. The landlord’s actions were not in line with the Code and undermined its relationship with the resident.
33. The resident contacted her landlord again in February 2024 to say she would like to register another complaint. The landlord said it acknowledged the complaint on 8 April 2024, 43 working days later this was not in line with the Code or its policy.
34. The landlord extended the complaint response on 12 April 2024 and again on 14 May 2024, saying it would respond by 29 May 2024. It did not issue the stage 1 response until 15 July, 32 working days later than promised.
35. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged stage 2 on 10 September 2024, 12 working days later, which was not in line with the Code or its policy.
36. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 October 2024, 34 working days after acknowledging escalation. In line with the Code, in exceptional cases, the landlord may extend with a clear explanation and timeframe, and any extension should not exceed 10 extra working days without good reason. The landlord did not provide evidence of a clear explanation or good reason, so its stage 2 handling was not in line with the Code.
37. The landlord missed timescales at both stages and issued extensions without evidence of agreement. It admitted poor complaint handling, including delays in acknowledging and responding, and offered £300 compensation within its stage 2 response. However, it did not address the initial October 2023 complaint, which it should have logged or contacted the resident to explain its reasons for not logging.
38. The £300 compensation reflects the impact to the resident and aligns with our guidance. The landlord addressed most failings, but it did not recognise the missed October complaint. Given the amount offered, we do not award any additional compensation. We have ordered the landlord to apologise for this failing.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. This case highlights the need for clearer and more accurate record keeping to support effective complaint handling. The records did not show whether the landlord kept the resident regularly updated on the progress of repairs and instead suggested that the resident often had to chase for information before the landlord responded. The landlord could consider a more proactive approach. Better record keeping and communication could have reduced the resident’s frustration and dissatisfaction

Communication

40. The landlord may want to consider out spotlight report on repairs and maintenance- repairing trust to help ensure it has robust practices to provide regular updates to residents.
41. In this case, the records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord had more effective methods of proactive communication.