Orbit Group Limited (202012257)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012257

Orbit Group Limited

5 February 2023

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 request for an increase in her disturbance payment and reimbursement of decorating costs.
2. The condition of the property when it was let to the resident and outstanding repairs.

Background

2. The resident, who is an assured tenant, moved into her current property at the beginning of 2022 as part of the landlord’s quality improvement programme (QIP). Upon moving into the property, the resident found that several works were needed, such as plastering, re-decorating and the need for flooring to be laid. The landlord offered a home disturbance payment of £3,900. This was to cover re-decoration and flooring costs. Additionally, the landlord paid for the cost of removals, the first week of rent on the new property, and also cleared the resident’s arrears from the previous property. This amounted to a total of £6,079.
3. The resident’s complaint outlined that she was unhappy with the disturbance payment that she had been offered. She felt it was not enough given the amount of work that was needed at the property. On 7 March 2022, the resident advised that there were cracks in the walls of the property and she was waiting for these to be repaired. She also informed the landlord on 17 May 2022 that the intercom needed to be fixed.
4. In its stage one response of 24 May 2022, the landlord explained that the disturbance payment was based on quotes that the resident had provided for items such as the carpet, blinds and re-decoration costs. It also explained that the resident had signed a disturbance payment disclaimer that agreed to the sum offered by the landlord. The landlord also advised that the intercom repair was still within the 28-day timeframe, and that at the beginning of May 2022, the resident had informed it that the cracks in the walls were no longer outstanding. This is because the resident had hired her own contractor to complete the work, and wanted the landlord to reimburse the cost.
5. The landlord’s final response of 14 July 2022 acknowledged that the resident had reported repair issues since moving in, and that at that time, there was one still outstanding, to fix the external door to the meter cupboard. The landlord also noted that the resident had also highlighted issues with a smell in the bathroom, a broken intercom, and a bucket in the attic that needed removing. In recognition of this, the landlord offered £300 compensation and arranged for inspectors to attend to resolve the outstanding issues. However, regarding the increase in disturbance payment that the resident was seeking, the landlord maintained that the amount was appropriate and had been agreed upon. Additionally, it advised that a date had initially been agreed for the re-plastering to be completed on 6 April, 2022 yet the resident took it upon herself to hire her own contractor. The resident asked to be reimbursed for this, but the landlord denied her request. It did ask for receipts in order to support her claim for reimbursement, but the resident could not provide them.
6. The resident advised this Service that she wanted the landlord to compensate for stress, inconvenience and costs incurred through decorating the property. Additionally, the resident wanted the landlord to ensure that all outstanding works were completed to a satisfactory standard and in a timely manner.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

7. Section 2.15 of the landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that “any responsive repair that is not an emergency” would be classed as a routine repair and should be completed within 28 days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for an increase in her disturbance payment and reimbursement of decorating costs

8. Disturbance payments are made to compensate a resident for reasonable expenses when moving from one property to another. As such, given the potential burden placed onto the resident through enforcing a move, it is reasonable for the landlord to cooperate with the resident to determine what sum would be reasonable.
9. The landlord maintained that it had done this, and that the disturbance payment was calculated in line with quotes provided by the resident. In its stage one response, the landlord explained that it had advised its transactional services manager to investigate the issue. In doing so, it was confirmed that copies of quotes provided by the resident, and a signed disturbance disclaimer had been reviewed. This confirmed that the total amount of expenses was determined in line with discussions and quotes provided by the resident. This was a sum of £3,900. Additionally, the landlord had agreed to cover the cost of removals, clear the resident’s previous rent arrears, and pay for a week of rent at the new property. This amounted to a total of £6,079.05.
10. It was not disputed by the resident that she had provided quotes or signed the disturbance payment disclaimer. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to proceed with this amount. The landlord would not be required to pay any more than what had been officially agreed between the two parties. However, the resident wanted an increase in the payment due to redecorating and re-plastering that she had undertaken after moving into the property. These issues were raised on 7 March 2022, and a date for repair was booked for 6 April 2022.
11. Given that the disturbance payment had already been agreed upon, it was appropriate for the landlord to organise the work to be completed by its own contractors, rather than add to the disturbance fund for the resident to undertake the work herself. The resident was made aware that the work had been booked, yet she felt that the wait was “too long” and decided to undertake the work herself by hiring her own contractor. She wanted a further £3,000 to cover these costs once completed.
12. The landlord would not be obliged to pay for this work as it did not instruct the resident to seek her own contractor. The work had already been booked within its repairs timeframe and the resident had been informed of this. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord gave any indication that it would not be carrying out the work, and therefore would not be obliged to cover the resident’s costs. Nonetheless, the landlord did advise that it would perhaps reimburse the resident if she could provide receipts confirming the amount to be paid. In doing so, the landlord would have gone above and beyond its obligations. However, the resident could not provide proof of cost as her labourer was not a registered contractor.
13. Without receipts or evidence of costs, it would not be reasonable for the landlord to be expected to reimburse the resident for the costs of re-plastering and re-decorating. This is because the landlord had already agreed to do the work itself and the resident who took it upon herself to use an unregistered contractor to carry out the work.
14. The resident also advised this Service that the disturbance payment should have been £6,000, but she was only given £3900. However, this was potentially the result of a misunderstanding. The landlord made clear that it had contributed roughly £6,000 to the costs relating to the move. £3,900 of this was the sole disturbance payment that was paid directly to the resident. The remaining £2,100 was money paid directly into accounts for previous arrears, and rent for the new property. Additionally, the removal costs of £796.80 were paid directly to the removals team.
15. Given that the amount had been previously agreed upon, and signed-off on by the resident, the landlord was acting in line with its responsibilities and obligations. Additional costs were due to work that the resident had undertaken herself, whilst knowing that the landlord had already booked the works. Nonetheless, the landlord still asked for receipts and evidence of costs in order to facilitate a potential reimbursement. In doing so, it demonstrated an open-minded approach to resolving the resident’s issues. Given the evidence provided, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for an increase to the disturbance payment and reimbursement of decorating costs.

The condition of the property when it was let to the resident and the remaining outstanding repairs.

16. During the voids process, it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the property meets a habitable standard, prior to the resident moving in. Additionally, if there were any issues discovered by the resident upon moving to the property, the landlord would be expected to address these issues within the relevant timeframes set out in its policies.
17. The landlord advised in its final response that its voids repairs team had assessed the property and spent £8,000 in order to ensure that it met health and safety standards, and that the house met the landlord’s minimum standard of habitability. However, the landlord did acknowledge that 14 issues had been raised since the resident had moved in, and that these should have been resolved prior to her move. At the time of the landlord’s final response, three of these issues remained outstanding, a smell in the bathroom, a broken intercom, and a bucket in the attic that needed removing.
18. Moving into a property that was not to the required standard had a detrimental effect on the resident, as she had been caused inconvenience in having to chase the repairs that should have been identified prior to her move.
19. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that “any responsive repair that is not an emergency” would be classed as a routine repair and should be completed within 28 days. Failure to do address these repairs within the given timeframe is a service failure.
20. The landlord’s final response acknowledged that there was one repair still outstanding, to fix the external door to the meter cupboard. The landlord also noted that the resident had also highlighted issues with a smell in the bathroom, a broken intercom, and a bucket in the attic that needed removing, and that this had caused stress and inconvenience to the resident. By this point, the work had been outstanding for roughly four months since the resident had moved into the property in March 2022, well outside the timeframes outlined in its repairs policy. As such, it offered £300 in recognition of this, and advised that an operative would attend to assess the repairs that were needed. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that a payment of £300 would be appropriate for instances in which there was maladministration that had adversely affected the resident.
21. Whilst there was a failure by the landlord in the first instance, it not ensuring all works were completed prior to the resident’s move and that they were outstanding for roughly four months, the landlord did acknowledge this, offer reasonable compensation, and attend to assess the repairs that were needed. As such, there was reasonable redress regarding the condition of the property when it was let to the resident and the remaining outstanding repairs.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an increase to her disturbance payment and reimbursement of decorating costs.
23. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the issue with the condition of the property when it was let to the resident and the remaining outstanding repairs, satisfactorily.

Recommendation

24. That the landlord re-offer the resident the £300 compensation offered during its formal complaints process, if it has not done so already. The finding of reasonable redress being conditional on this being paid to the resident.