Orbit Group Limited (202011022)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011022

Orbit Group Limited

17 May 2022

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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the windows at the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof at the property.
3. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is the assured tenant of a property owned and managed by the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the second storey of a two-storey building.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairing the roof and window frames at the property.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it will prioritise responsive repairs within the following categories: emergency repair (four & 24 hour), routine repair (within 28 calendar days).
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will accept complaints made in any way, including by phone.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider paying compensation if its service fails. It will take the following into account when considering compensation: whether the event has caused the customer financial loss or significant distress or inconvenience, whether the customer has lived in poor conditions longer than is reasonable due to its failure to deal satisfactorily with repairs. The policy also says that the landlord will award compensation in a fair, consistent and transparent way.
The landlord’s compensation procedure says that compensation should be awarded in line with the compensation calculator. In determining the level of compensation, the landlord will also consider whether the resident contributed to any delay in dealing with the matter.
On 22 January 2018 the resident telephoned the landlord concerning water leaking into the property through the windows. The landlord’s call log says, “Resident would like to discuss an issue with the windows with you that you apparently are aware of and [the resident] believes you were sorting.”
On 25 January 2018 the landlord raised a work order to its contractor about the windows at the property letting in water around the glazing. However, the job was closed without the contractor attending the property.
On 16 February 2018 the resident called the landlord chasing the repair to the windows and the landlord raised a job with its contractor. On 26 March 2018 the landlord spoke to the contractor who advised it was speaking to a manager at the landlord concerning whether the windows were to be replaced or repaired.
The resident asked the landlord for updates in April 2018 and on 1 September 2018 he called the landlord to say that he was still waiting for the windows to be repaired. The resident telephoned the landlord on 17 September 2018 and sent an email on 18 September 2018 asking for an update.
The landlord attended the property on 25 September 2018 but logged that it had been unable to access the property and the work order was marked as complete. Following further contact from the resident the landlord raised another work order on 3 October 2018.
On 5 October 2018 the landlord sent emails to the resident apologising that the repair had not be carried out and for the length of time the repair had been outstanding and said that its contactors would be attending the property on 16 October 2018.
The contractors attended the property on 26 October 2018 and inspected the windows and the sealant around the windows. No faults were found with the windows or sealant and so no works were required. This job was closed down as complete.
On 21 January 2019 the resident spoke to the landlord and said he was unhappy about the window repairs and that the contractors had told him they would be sending a report to the landlord advising that the windows needed to be replaced. He asked to speak to the landlord’s resolutions team.
On 25 January 2019 the resident sent the landlord an email saying that he had made a complaint but had had no response from the resolution team.
On 27 February 2019 the resident telephoned the landlord to say that he was unhappy at how his complaint was being dealt with. The landlord called the resident back the same day. The resident said he did not want to talk to the landlord but would be discussing his case with the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer.
On 29 August 2019 the resident telephoned the landlord saying that he had been told that the windows in the property hadn’t been fitted properly and although the landlord had attended the property previously the problem hadn’t been addressed. The landlord attended the property on 2 September 2019 and carried out works to the windows.
On 23 October 2019 the resident reported that water was leaking through the roof at the property. The landlord attended the property the same day and recorded that a roofer needed to carry out the repair.
On 7 November 2019 the resident telephoned the landlord wanting an update on the roof repair and was told that follow on work was needed.
The landlord carried out a site inspection on 11 November 2019. The notes of the inspection say, “fixed glazing 2nd floor, job raised to fix beading and check if any leaks.” On 21 November 2019 the landlord refixed the glazing beading and the landlord’s notes say that no leak was found, and the work was complete.
On 21 November 2019 the landlord raised a job for the pipework in the loft space at the property to be checked for leaks. The landlord’s repair records say this was completed on 6 January 2020.
The landlord attended the property on 25 November 2019 and on 26 November 2019 the resident telephoned the landlord saying that he was unhappy that the leak had not been identified and at the amount of time the roof repair was taking. An appointment was made for the landlord to attend the property on 3 December 2019 but was cancelled by the landlord.
The resident made further telephone calls to the landlord on 3,6 and 10 December 2019 asking for updates on the roof repair. On 12 December 2019 the resident again telephoned the landlord. The landlord’s notes of the telephone conversation say that the resident had been waiting for the leak in the roof to be repaired since September and contractors had attended the property five times but nothing had been done. The resident said that he was drained from having to call the landlord without getting anywhere and the appointment that had been provisionally booked in for the 19th December was the landlord’s “last chance”.
The resident made further calls to the landlord about the roof repairs on 19 and 20 December 2019. The landlord’s notes on its call log for 20 December 2019 say “Emegency [sic] – Leak from roof, causing build up and ceiling in property ready to collapse. Please attend on emergency and perform temporary fix to leak to prevent damage from continuing. Do not leave without sorting a temp solution for the resident. Multiple appointments already and nothing has been done.” The landlord’s repair records say that this job was deleted on 20 December 2019.
On 6 February 2020 the landlord sent an internal email saying that the renewal of the windows was required in the property and that the contractors had attended the property in April 2018 but for various reasons the work had not been followed up. The email concluded by saying “This needs to be treated as a priority as it is currently a complaint case…Windows should be replaced like for like or as close as possible.”
The landlord’s call log for 6 February 2020 says the windows were getting replaced and that the order was being raised that day or the next. It is unclear form the landlord’s notes when the windows were replaced.
On 19 February 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord saying that scaffolding had been erected at the property three weeks previously, but no operatives had attended to carry out any work and he wanted to know when the works to the roof would be carried out. The landlord sent an email the same day to its contractors saying “Tenant unhappy with the service with [contractor’s] subcontractors who are to complete the roofing job. When tenant has spoken to [contractor] themselves they have told them that the roofing company which is being used are not the most reliable and tenant is also getting that impression. Can you please chase with [contractor] and enquire as to what is happening with the repair and why such things are being said by [contractor] about their own subcontractors.” The resident was advised the same day that operatives would be attending the property on 22 February 2020.
On 25 June 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord about unrelated repairs and said that windows that had been fitted at the property four months ago and the sealant was coming away from all of them and the window in the bathroom could not be closed.
The resident called the landlord three times during July 2020 asking for updates on repairs and asked that the landlord go through all his files to explain what has happened about his reported repairs. The landlord directed the resident to its complaints team.
On 25 September 2020 resident called to say water was leaking through the roof onto the electrics in the property.
On 26 September 2020 the resident again called the landlord about the leak as the landlord had not attended the property and he had had to turn the electrics off. He wanted to make a complaint. He was also not happy that the roof had been repaired by the landlord but was still leaking.
On 6 October 2020 the resident again reported water leaking into the property and asked that the landlord inspect the roof space. The resident telephoned the landlord again on 7 and 8 October 2020.
The landlord’s repair log has the following entry for 9 October 2020 “As advised previously, this is not an emergency – a team has attended and advised this is condensation, not a leak. They returned this morning to try and fit a vent to resolve the issue.” The contractor informed the landlord later that day that it had dismantled the scaffolding on the front of the property and was moving it to the rear of the property for inspection. However, the resident wouldn’t tell the contractors where the affected area was, and the contractors would return to erect scaffolding with a manager.
During October and November 2020, the landlord liaised with the contractors who were unhappy about attending the property due to the resident’s behaviour.
On 16 November 2020 the landlord sent an internal email saying that it had spoken to the resident who was happy for the landlord to attend the following day and he would allow access to the loft area for the job to be inspected fully before repairs commence. The landlord said that the resident had been in contact with the local authority home standards who had called the landlord to ask what its position was with the repair.”
On 17 November 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord saying he was writing to make a complaint about rainwater leaking through the roof at the property as he had reported the issue as an emergency a number of times. He said that the issue hadn’t been fixed and he had had to chase up the landlord numerous times. He said that the situation had left him and his wife stressed and had made his health worse.
The resident reported a further leak following rain fall on 24 December 2020. The landlord’s call log says that it had carried out a plastic roofing repair but as the roof was leaking again it raised a new works order.
On 15 January 2021 the landlord’s contractor sent the landlord an email updating it about the repairs to the roof saying that it had identified the point of entry for the water, under a panel on the roof. The contractor said that it had added silicone, pushed the flashing back into place, and then added silicon to the top to prevent further ingress of water. The contractor also said, “The resident has admitted today, there was no penetration of water over the last couple of days since we executed this repair.”
On 29 January 2021, 5 February 2021 and 18 February 2021 the resident contacted the landlord saying that the window at the property had been leaking for nearly two years.
On 17 March 2021 and 1 June 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord saying he believed the window should have been replaced and asking whether the scaffolding on the building had been left up for this repair or had been left up in error.
On 23 June 2021 the resident spoke to the landlord saying that the roof had been leaking for a year. The same day the resident made a complaint to the landlord, via this Service about its response to his reports of repairs required to the windows and roof at the property.
On 30 June 2021 the landlord telephoned the resident to inform him that it had logged a formal complaint which it would be investigating. The resident said that there had been a leak in the roof for over a year, but this had now been fixed, although there was still damage to the ceiling of the property which he wanted fixed, and the window was still leaking. He was also waiting for the scaffolding to be taken down.
On 6 July 2021 the landlord sent the resident its stage one complaint response. In its response the landlord:
1. Provided a summary of the repairs history concerning the windows. It said that the last work carried out on the windows was on 2 September 2019.
2. Said that its contractors had attended the property that day (6 July 2021) and had reported that there were no issues with the windows and advised that no works were required.
3. Provided a summary of the repairs history for the roof.
4. Said that as the resident had advised that the leak to the roof was still outstanding, the landlord had arranged for its contractors to inspect the roof on 13 July 2021.
5. Said that it was clear that the resident had had multiple contractors out to work on both issues.
6. Said that as the inspection on 6 July 2021 showed that there were no further faults with the windows it was unable to uphold that aspect of the complaint.
7. Said that the roof repair had been looked into and works carried out a number of times, and as the resident reported the issue as still outstanding the landlord was partially upholding this part of the complaint and offered the resident £100 compensation.
The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 6 July 2021 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 4 August 2021. In its stage two response the landlord:
1. Upheld the resident’s complaint as there had been clear delays and service failures and apologised for this.
2. Said that the case would be used to improve its service and that of its contractors.
3. The landlord offered the resident total compensation of £1577 made up as follows:
  1. £100 goodwill payment for failure of service relating to the length of time taken for the windows to be repaired.
  2. £100 goodwill payment for failure of service relating to the length of time is has taken for the roof leak to be repaired.
  3. £200 goodwill payment for failure of service relating to the poor complaint handling at stage one.
  4. £185 goodwill payment for the upset and inconvenience caused.
  5. £566 payment for the number of days over standard length of repair for works to windows.
  6. £426 payment for the number of days over standard length of repair for works to the roof.
The landlord’s stage two response dated 4 August 2021 was its final response to the complaint, confirming that its internal complaints procedure had been exhausted.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the windows at the property

There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the windows at the property as:
1. There is evidence that the resident reported repairs required to the windows at the property on 22 January 2018. Whilst the landlord carried out some works on 2 September 2019 the windows were not replaced, and the problem remedied until 6 February 2020. This was 745 calendar days after the resident reported that repairs were required to the windows and 717 calendar days later than the 28 calendar day timescale for responding to repairs set out in the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
2. The landlord raised a job on 25 January 2018 but closed it without attending the property.
3. The landlord attempted to attend the property on 25 September 2018 and marked the job as complete, even though it had not been able to access the property.
4. The resident had to continually chase the landlord for updates about the repairs.
In its final response to the complaint the landlord:
1. Acknowledged that there were delays in completing the works to the windows and apologised for this.
2. Offered £100 goodwill payment for failure of service relating to the length of time taken for the windows to be repaired.
3. Offered £185 goodwill payment for the upset and inconvenience caused (as a result of this and the landlord’s response to the reports of repairs required to the roof).
4. £566 payment for the number of days over standard length of repair for works to windows.
5. Said that the case would be used to improve its service and that of its contractors.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (acknowledgment of failings, an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings and apologising.
The landlord’s compensation procedure says that compensation should be awarded in line with the landlord’s compensation calculator. However, the landlord has not provided the resident or this Service with a copy of its compensation calculator. Neither is the compensation calculator available to view on the landlord’s website. The landlord has therefore not acted in accordance with the provisions of its compensation policy that it will award compensation in a “fair, consistent and transparent way” and the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the level of compensation awarded was in accordance with the landlord’s policy obligations.
However, we have assessed whether the compensation awarded was proportionate to the impact that the landlord’s failures had on the resident.
The level of compensation awarded by the landlord was not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident as:
1. It offered £566 for the number of days over the standard length of repair for works to windows. The landlord’s complaint responses did not refer to the windows being replaced in February 2020, just that repair works were carried out on 2 September 2019. It appears therefore that the sum of £566 was calculated on the basis that the works to the windows were completed on 2 September 2019, rather than on 6 February 2020, some 157 calendar days later.
2. It offered goodwill payments of £100 for the length of time the repair had taken and £185 for the upset and inconvenience caused as a result of this and the landlord’s response to the reports of repairs required to the roof. However, the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures was considerable as the resident had to chase the landlord for responses and updates on multiple occasions by telephone and email over a considerable amount of time.
3. The sum of £285 is at the lower end of the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies which may be for cases where the Ombudsman has found maladministration where there has been failure over a considerable period of time, as here, to act in accordance with policy, for example to address repairs.
Whilst the landlord said that the case would be used to improve its service and that of its contractors, it did not demonstrate that it had learnt from outcomes by identifying any steps that could be taken to enable its service and that of his contractors to improve.
Therefore, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 55 and 56 the landlord’s response to the complaint was not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident, and the landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order below for further compensation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof at the property

There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof at the property as:
1. There is evidence that the resident reported repairs required to the roof at the property on 23 October 2019. Whilst the landlord carried out some works to the roof in September and December 2020, the roof was not repaired until 15 January 2021. This was 449 calendar days after the resident reported that repairs were required to the windows and 421 calendar days later than the 28 calendar day timescale for responding to repairs set out in the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
2. An appointment for the landlord to attend the property on 3 December 2019 was cancelled without a reason.
3. The resident had to continually chase the landlord for updates about the repairs.
In its final response to the complaint the landlord:
1. Acknowledged that there were delays in completing the works to the roof and apologised for this.
2. Offered £100 goodwill payment for failure of service relating to the length of time is had taken for the roof leak to be repaired.
3. Offered £185 goodwill payment for the upset and inconvenience caused (as a result of this and the landlord’s response to the reports of repairs required to the windows).
4. Offered £426 payment for the number of days over the standard length of repair for works to the roof.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings and apologising.
The upset and inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident was considerable as:
1. He continually had to chase the landlord for updates over a considerable length of time. The resident informed the landlord that this was leaving him “drained”, and that the situation had left him and his wife “stressed” and had made his health worse.
2. He was informed by the landlord’s contractors that the roofing company which was being used was not reliable.
3. He wasn’t informed when the landlord cancelled the appointment to attend the property on 3 December 2019.
As set out in paragraph 55 above the sum of £285 is at the lower end of the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies which may be for cases where the Ombudsman has found maladministration where there has been failure over a considerable period of time, as here, to act in accordance with policy, for example to address repairs. Therefore, as the upset and inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident was considerable the level of compensation awarded by the landlord was not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
However, the sum of £426 for the number of days over the standard length of repair for works to the roof was reasonable as:
1. Whilst the resident’s frustration at the time taken for the repairs is understandable further delay was caused by the resident’s interaction with the contractors in October 2020.
2. The compensation works out at £1 per day for each day over the 28 days timescale set out in the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
Whilst the landlord said that the case would be used to improve its service and that of its contractors, it did not demonstrate that it had learnt from outcomes by identifying any steps that could be taken to enable its service and that of his contractors to improve.
Therefore, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 62 and 64 the landlord’s response to the complaint was not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident, and the landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s complaints handling

There was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling as:
1. There is evidence that the resident informed the landlord that he wanted to make a complaint on 25 January 2019 and 26 September 2020 by telephone and on 17 November 2020 by email. However, there is no evidence that the landlord logged a formal complaint from the resident until it was contacted by this Service on 23 June 2021.
2. At stage one the landlord said that it was not upholding the resident’s complaint about the windows as its inspection on 6 July 2021 showed that there were no further faults with the windows. This response was unreasonable as the landlord had identified in its stage one complaint response that that there were delays and cancelled appointments in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the windows.
In its final response to the complaint the landlord offered £200 goodwill payment for failure of service relating to the poor complaint handling at stage one.
The landlord’s response was not proportionate to the impact that its complaint handling failures had on the resident, and the landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily as:
1. The landlord did not act fairly as it did not detail what its complaint handling failures at stage one were.
2. The landlord did not acknowledge that it had failed to log complaints from the resident in January 2019, September 2020 and November 2020.
3. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaints over a considerable length of time caused the resident to incur time and trouble in contacting this Service.
4. The amount of £200 is below the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for cases such as this where there has been repeated failure by the landlord to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address all relevant aspects of complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving complaint.
5. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had learnt from outcomes by detailing how it could improve its logging and handling of formal complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the windows at the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof at the property.
3. Complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s delays in carrying out the works to the windows were inappropriate. The landlord’s response to the complaint was not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident and it did not demonstrate that it had learnt from the outcome of the complaint.
The landlord’s delays in carrying out works to the roof were inappropriate. The landlord’s response to the complaint was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by its failures and it did not demonstrate that it had learnt from the outcome of the complaint.
The landlord’s response to its complaints handling failures was not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident, and the landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident £432 in addition to the £1577 compensation already paid to the resident. This is comprised of:
1. A further £157 for the delay in carrying out the works to the windows.
2. A further £100 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the windows at the property.
3. A further £100 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof at the property.
4. A further £75 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.
The landlord is ordered within six weeks of the date of this report to carry out a management review of the case to identify specific changes/service improvements that it will be making to ensure that:
1. Similar failings in delaying carrying out repairs do not occur in the future.
2. Similar failings in its communications procedures when dealing with contractors do not occur in the future.
3. Similar failings in logging complaints do not occur in the future.
4. Its compensation calculator is published in order to comply with its policy obligation that it will award compensation in a fair, consistent and transparent way.
The landlord is to provide this Service with a copy of the management review within two weeks of it being completed.
The landlord is to provide the resident with a summary of the management review within two weeks of it being completed.