Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Orbit Housing Association Limited (202420907)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420907

Orbit Housing Association Limited

13 August 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 repairs to the communal washing machines.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. On 23 March 2024 the resident reported the 3 communal washing machines were faulty. The landlord’s contractor completed a repair on 5 April 2024.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 8 April 2024. He said the machines were still faulty. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 June 2024. It apologised for the delays in completing the repairs and the issue had been resolved.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 18 June 2024. In its stage 2 response, dated 5 August 2024, the landlord again apologised for the time it had taken to complete the repairs successfully and offered the resident £50 compensation.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In his correspondence with us, the resident has raised other matters that have not yet been through the landlord’s complaint process or were brought to the landlord’s attention following its stage 2 response. This includes repairs to a tumble dryer and the landlord’s methods of communication. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which were raised as complaints to the landlord and completed its internal complaints procedure on 5 August 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before we become involved.

Repairs to communal washing machines

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of communal areas. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident pays the landlord a service charge. The charge includes the use of communal laundry facilities within the block.
  2. On 24 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and reported the 3 communal washing machines were faulty. The landlord replied to him the following day and told him a repair had already been raised, and the contractor would attend on 26 March 2024. The resident contacted the landlord for an update on 1 and 5 April 2024 but received no reply. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 5 April 2024 and completed the repair. The contractor noted the problem was caused by the water pressure to the machines.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete routine repairs within 28 days. It also states it will keep residents updated about repairs that affect them. The evidence shows while the landlord completed the repairs within 12 days in line with its policy, it failed to update the resident the repair had been completed.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 8 April 2024 and said the 3 washing machines were still faulty. He said he was unable to wash his laundry, which caused him frustration and inconvenience. The landlord did not receive the complaint until 10 April 2024 due to the resident initially making it through a third-party complaint service.
  5. The landlord emailed the resident the same day and told him its contractor had repaired the machines by addressing an issue with the water pressure. The resident replied and confirmed the machines were still faulty. The resident made a further report of the washing machines not working on 12 April 2024.
  6. The landlord raised 2 repairs on 20 April 2024. The landlord’s notes state 1 repair was raised incorrectly and cancelled. This resulted in only 2 of the machines being repaired. The date of the repair is unclear from the documentation provided. However, the evidence shows it was completed within the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord again on 4 May 2024 to report 1 machine was still not working. He contacted the landlord again on 17 May 2024 to report “the machines” were faulty and there was a puddle of water surrounding them. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day to complete the repair. The landlord attended the property following the repair and confirmed the issues had been resolved.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 June 2024. It apologised for the time taken in resolving the issue and the difficulties faced by the resident. The landlord said it was unable to compensate the resident for “communal issues”.
  9. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the circumstances in which it will not consider compensation. The circumstances where compensation will not apply, does not include issues within communal areas. Therefore, the landlord’s response was unreasonable.
  10. The resident escalated his complaint on 25 June 2024. He said the landlord’s timeline of events did not align with his own and the complaint had not been successfully resolved.
  11. On 5 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It said:
    1. Its stage 1 response contained a typo with regards to the date a repair was first raised.
    2. It acknowledged the timeline presented by the resident in his escalation request, matched its own records in the main. However, there were some points raised that it had no record of which were stated by the resident, such as communication directly between the contractor and the resident.
    3. The stage 1 complaint response did not address more recent reports which had been made by the resident, such as the taps not working in the laundry room. This was because these matters did not form part of the resident’s original complaint.
    4. It was satisfied the outcome of the stage 1 response was correct.
    5. It offered the resident £50 compensation due to the inconvenience caused in having to chase the repairs.
  12. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for awards of up to £250 for distress and inconvenience caused by failures in its service where the impact to the resident is low. While the landlord’s offer was within the range set out in its policy, it would have been reasonable to award the compensation at stage 1 when the repairs had been resolved. The landlord’s failure to do this caused the resident further time and trouble to progress the matter to stage 2. The delay in making an offer of compensation in these circumstances was unreasonable.
  13. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord attended each repair within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It was entitled to rely on its contractor’s advice as to the nature of the repairs required. However, its communication with the resident at times was unreasonable as it failed to provide updates in line with its repairs policy. This caused the resident inconvenience, time, and trouble in pursuing the matter.
  14. In relation to the failures identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.
  15. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings within its complaint responses. It offered £50 compensation. Although its offer went some way to put things right, it failed to reflect the full extent of the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident. In addition, it did not reflect the following issues:
    1. The failure to update the resident in line with its repairs policy.
    2. The provision of incorrect information regarding an inability to compensate for issues in communal areas within its stage 1 response. In addition, the missed opportunity to resolve the matter at an earlier stage.
  16. The above failings lead to a determination of service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal washing machines. In order to address the impact to the resident, we have ordered an additional £100 compensation, bringing the total to £150. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings where the offer of compensation did not fully reflect the detriment caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal washing machines.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £150 compensation for its failings in handling repairs to the communal washing machines. The landlord is free to deduct its previous offer of £50 compensation if it can evidence this payment has already been made to the resident.