Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Orbit Group Limited (202200204)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200204

Orbit Group Limited

22 August 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about its responsibility for repairs and maintenance in the grounds of his estate under the terms of his lease.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal repairs to his building.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about its responsibility for repairs and maintenance in the grounds of his estate under the terms of his lease.
  3. The resident has disputed the landlord’s interpretation of its responsibility under his lease for repairing and maintaining the grounds of his estate through its use of a managing agent to do so, which he seeks to be acknowledged and corrected. However, paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate 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, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
  4. It is more reasonable and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy to the landlord’s responsibility for grounds repairs and maintenance under his lease through the courts or other tribunal than via the Ombudsman. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to determine or enforce the interpretation of leases in the way that a court or tribunal might, and so a determination will not be made on this aspect of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord of a flat in a communal building owned by it.
  2. On 1 September 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord to request a repair to the communal door entry system at the front of his building. He was advised by it that it did not manage the building, however, and to contact its managing agent about this instead. The resident then contacted the managing agent, which told him that this was not their responsibility either.
  3. Subsequently, after the resident re-approached the landlord and it reiterated its original position to him on 10 September 2021, he was contacted by it and it admitted that it had been mistaken, and that repairs of the communal areas of the building were its responsibility. On 19 September 2021, he confirmed that the repairs to the building’s communal door entry system had been carried out by it.
  4. The resident made a stage one complaint on 19 September 2021 about the fact that requesting repairs to the communal areas via the landlord’s website was not possible at the moment. He reported that, when he tried to do so, he would receive the message “You are responsible for all repairs within your home. [The landlord] is only responsible for repairs to the communal areas where applicable. This script will now cancel. If you are trying to order a communal repair please select the communal area concerned to raise the repair.” This message appeared regardless of what communal issue the resident selected.
  5. The resident therefore complained that, since around the beginning of September 2021, both of the fast and efficient ways to report communal repairs via the landlord’s call centre and website were unavailable to the residents of his building. As a result, the outcomes that he sought for his complaint included for it to correct its website, and for it to ensure that it knew which buildings it managed, so that he did not experience the same problems again in the event of another communal repair.
  6. On 12 November 2021, in the stage one complaint response, the landlord advised that the resident’s complaint had been upheld, as it accepted that there had been shortcomings in its website and call centre that had affected residents’ attempts to register faults relating to communal areas of the building. It apologised that he had felt the need to complain and advised that it had corrected this by adding an additional status for its call centre and website. The landlord also confirmed that it was responsible for the block and core, and that its managing agent was responsible for the estate.
  7. With regard to the landlord’s delay in contacting the resident to acknowledge his complaint, it accepted that this was an oversight on its behalf and it apologised to him for this. In recognition of this service failing, it awarded him £50 compensation for poor complaint handling on its part.
  8. On 21 November 2021, the resident made a final stage complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of his case. He wanted it to cover the following points in its final stage complaint response:
    1. He sought clarification on who was responsible for the communal areas of the estate, and he wanted it to make both telephone and online channels available for reporting repairs necessary to the estate, as well as for it to take responsibility for timely repairs to the grounds.
    2. He stated that it had breached its complaints policy by acknowledging his stage one complaint six weeks after receiving this, rather than within five days as per its complaints policy. This had resulted in an overall duration of eight weeks for the resident to obtain the landlord’s stage one complaint response.
    3. He also wanted it to increase its compensation offer, and for it to address all of its complaint handling delays in its final stage complaint response. The resident additionally believed that the landlord’s behaviour was interfering with his right to quiet enjoyment of his property.
  9. On 26 November 2021, while acknowledging the resident’s final stage complaint, the landlord advised that it would have to contact this Service to find out what aspects of his complaint it had to respond to. On 10 January 2022, it issued its review response to the complaint, deciding not to review this at the final stage of its complaints procedure because it had provided a full outcome at stage one. The landlord also believed that the resident had raised issues that had previously been through its complaints procedure.
  10. On 14 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to dispute its reasoning for not reviewing his complaint, as this was primarily in respect of the failure of its repair reporting systems and its complaint management. On 17 and 18 January 2022, it again refused to escalate the complaint to its complaints procedure’s final stage. The landlord believed that it had responded to the points that the resident had raised and that it had exhausted its complaints process, and that it would not be appropriate for it to continue or re-investigate the issues that he had raised. It advised that it would make no further comments on the complaint until requested by this Service.
  11. The resident then complained to this Service that he wanted the landlord to improve its complaint handling, its specified member of staff to give him an apology and an admission of a “lack of fairness and honesty” for this, and for it to take measures to ensure the personal responsibility of specified members of its staff. He also sought the acknowledgement and correction of any misunderstandings about its obligations in relation to communal repairs, and for it to make sure that the means that it had given to residents to communicate repair issues to it worked as intended. This was because the resident reported that the landlord’s telephone and website channels had only permitted them to do so from late October and late November 2021, respectively.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has asked for an apology and an admission of a “lack of fairness and honesty” from a specified member of the landlord’s staff, and for it to take measures to ensure the personal responsibility of specified members of its staff. However, under the terms of the Scheme, this is not something that this Service can consider because we can only investigate complaints about, and make orders and recommendations in relation to, landlords that are members of the Scheme and not individuals or involving landlords’ employment or personnel issues, which are outcomes that are not within our authority to provide. Therefore, the resident’s requests for remedies from and in relation to individual members of the landlord’s staff are outside the scope of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal repairs to his building

  1. In its stage one complaint response of 12 November 2021, the landlord apologised to the resident, confirmed that it was responsible for the block and core of his building, and added an additional status to its call centre and website to enable faults with the building’s communal areas to be registered. This was appropriate, and it also followed the timescale in its responsive repairs policy for responding to his report of a communal repair there.
  2. This is because the resident reported the faulty communal door entry system at his building to the landlord on 1 September 2021, and he confirmed that it had fixed this 18 calendars days later on 19 September 2021. The repair was classed as a routine non-emergency repair, and so the timeframe for this under the responsive repairs policy was 28 calendar days and was therefore complied with by it.
  3. The resident nevertheless stated that he was unable to report repair issues for the communal areas of the building to the landlord from around the beginning of September 2021 via telephone until late October 2021, and via its website until late November 2021. Although its responsive repairs policy noted that the other methods available to residents to report repairs included emailing it, visiting its office, face to face contact with its staff, and writing letters to it.
  4. However, the resident explained that telephoning the landlord and/or leaving a message via its website were the fastest and most efficient methods to report communal repairs at his building to it. It therefore ought to have had a fast and efficient method of contact available for residents to use to contact it to report such repairs to it at all times, especially in case an emergency repair was needed. The landlord should also have communicated the alternative contact methods still available to residents in the meantime, when calling it and using its website were unavailable.
  5. The resident confirmed that the landlord did correct the issues with reporting communal repairs to it via telephone and its website, although he complained that it should have done so earlier than it did, which he said was within approximately one and two months, respectively. It nevertheless gave no indication as to its response to this, whether it could have communicated alternative contact methods to residents during this period, or how it proposed to prevent this from occurring again in the future. This is because the landlord declined to respond to the resident about its reporting methods for communal repairs after its stage one complaint response, which was inappropriate.
  6. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident £70 compensation, which is in line with its compensation calculator’s recommendation for failures of its service as a result of delays, quality or administrative errors. This is to reflect the seriousness of its failure to respond to his reports that it had left residents of his building unable to report repairs to communal areas to it, including emergency repairs, via the quickest and most efficient methods for up to two months. This is particularly because the landlord did so without demonstrating that it had made or communicated suitable alternative arrangements to residents for these, or that it would do so in the future.
  7. The landlord has therefore also been recommended below to review its processes for monitoring the availability of its telephone and online repair reporting channels, communicating when these are not available to residents, and providing them with alternative reporting channels. This is in light of its above failings in the resident’s communal repairs case.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident made his stage one complaint on 19 September 2021, and the landlord responded to this on 12 November 2021, which was 39 working days later and so outside of the ten–working–day response timeframe for this in its complaints policy. It therefore ought to have extended its response timescale, contacted him to discuss this and explained the reasons why, as required by the policy.
  2. The resident also stated that the landlord delayed acknowledging his complaint, and its stage one response accepted this, apologised to him and awarded him £50 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling. This was appropriate, as the delay was not very excessive and the compensation was within its compensation calculator’s recommendations for poor complaint handling of £0 to £150 compensation based on the impact on him.
  3. Once the landlord received the resident’s final stage complaint of 21 November 2021, it advised him that it would have to contact this Service to find out what aspects of his complaint it would have to respond to. However, there is no evidence that it obtained our guidance before it declined to respond to the complaint from 10 January 2022 onwards. This was unreasonable and took place 12 working days later than the landlord’s complaints policy’s 20-working-day response timescale for final stage complaints.
  4. The landlord’s subsequent final stage complaint escalation refusals to the resident on 17 and 18 January 2022 also declined to respond due to the fullness of its stage one complaint response and him complaining to it again about previous issues. However, there is no evidence that his complaints about its repair reporting systems and complaint management had previously exhausted its complaints procedure.
  5. Moreover, the complaints policy did not permit the landlord to decline final stage complaints due to the fullness of its stage one responses. It could instead only do so if the resident could not provide or explain a reason for the complaint, if this had already completed its complaints procedure, or if his escalation request was made late without valid reasons, but there was no evidence of this either.
  6. This is was inappropriate because the landlord acted contrary to its complaints policy to deny the resident the opportunity to try and resolve his complaint with it at the final stage of its complaints procedure, and so he had to incur additional unnecessary time and trouble to progress this by complaining to this Service. In accordance with its compensation calculator, it has therefore been ordered below to pay him the maximum amount available to it for poor complaint handling of £150, as well as to review its staff’s relevant training needs to try and prevent this from occurring again in the future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of communal repairs to his building.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Order and Recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £270 compensation within four weeks, including the £50 compensation that it previously awarded him, if he has not been paid this already. This is also broken down into £70 for the failure of its service as a result of delays, quality or administrative errors in handling his communal repair reports, and £150 for its poor complaint handling.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy to ensure their full and timely responses to all eligible complaints at both stages of its complaints procedure in every case.
    2. Review its processes for monitoring the availability of its telephone and online communal repair reporting channels, communicating when these are not available to residents, and providing them with alternative reporting channels.
  3. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order and whether it will follow the above recommendations.