Orbit Housing Association Limited (202410111)

Background

1. In December 2022, the landlord awarded the resident compensation for a separate complaint. In 2024, the compensation was still outstanding and so the resident raised a complaint. The landlord reissued the payment and offered compensation, however the resident remains dissatisfied with the delay and compensation offer.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. An outstanding compensation payment from a previous complaint.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. An outstanding compensation payment from a previous complaint.
   2. The complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of an outstanding compensation payment from a previous complaint

4. The landlord acknowledged and apologised it had not made the payment. It reissued the payment and offered appropriate compensation.

Handling of the complaint

5. The landlord accepted its failings in handling the acknowledgement of the complaint. It apologised and offered appropriate compensation.

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.

6. The stage 1 complaint response of 2 December 2022 offered the resident £35 compensation for a missed contractor appointment. The landlord resolved the complaint on this basis, therefore it was reasonable for the resident to expect this payment.
7. The resident raised a complaint to inform the landlord that the payment was outstanding. There is no evidence the resident reported this before raising the complaint. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised in its complaints process that the compensation payment had not been paid in 2022. It offered to re-issue the payment, as well as compensation of £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay. The landlord acted responsibly and dealt with the matter.
8. Having considered our approach to remedies – as set out in our remedies guidance – the landlord’s award was proportionate to address the distress and inconvenience caused. This is because the landlord has acknowledged failings and tried to put things right. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord took steps to put things right prior to our investigation.

9. Our Complaint Handing Code (The Code) sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code requires landlords to have a 2 stage complaints process. It should acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords should issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint. It must issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation.
10. The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement and its stage 1 complaint response on time. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the escalation of the complaint on the 11 June 2024. This was inappropriate as it caused the resident to escalate the matter again in July 2024.
11. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response 5 days after the second escalation. At the end of its complaints procedure, the landlord offered £50 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. Given the evidence, we are satisfied that this was a proportionate amount in the circumstances and satisfactorily puts things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

12. We have identified that the record keeping is incorrect in respect of the total compensation calculated.

Communication

13. The landlord’s communication with the resident was clear and thorough throughout the complaint.