Orbit Group Limited (202201828)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201828

Orbit Group Limited

28 March 2024

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:
1. The conduct of a staff member.
2. The landlord’s decision to place an unacceptable behaviour marker on the resident’s record.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the property.
The Ombudsman has decided to consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house. He holds an assured tenancy with the landlord.
On 11 August 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint about a staff member’s conduct. Due to multiple complaints, this will be referred to as complaint 1.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to complaint 1 on 17 August 2022. It said the landlord found that the resident had displayed unacceptable behaviour when communicating with the staff member.
On 1 September 2022 the landlord applied an unreasonable behaviour account marker on the resident’s record and informed the resident of the decision in writing.
On 9 September 2022 the resident raised a new complaint (complaint 2). He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to implement an account marker and felt discriminated against.
The landlord responded to complaint 2 on 16 September 2022. It said the letter had been issued in response to the resident’s behaviour towards a staff member. It did not uphold the complaint.
On 30 November 2022 the resident requested to raise a stage 1 complaint relating to the landlord’s repairs process (complaint 3). He advised that contractors had missed appointments and there were outstanding repairs.
On 21 June 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response to complaints 1 and 2. It reiterated why an account marker was put on the resident’s account and apologised that the letter had incorrectly referenced multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA). It advised this was an admin error. It partially upheld the complaint and offered £100 compensation. It offered a further £50 for poor complaint handling.
On 21 June 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response (for complaint 3). In summary it said:
1. On 11 May 2023, the landlord visited the resident’s property and discussed all outstanding repairs. Works were raised for windows, doors, and gutters.
2. A drainage leak from the guttering was raised on 4 October 2022. This was delayed and eventually completed on 2 June 2023.
3. Repairs to blown glazed windows were raised on 20 April 2023 and had since been completed.
4. The resident’s new kitchen had been installed in May 2022. The works were post inspected and snagging issues were completed.
5. Works raised following a damp, mould and condensation inspection on 11 January 2023 had since been completed.
6. The landlord offered the resident £290 compensation. This was comprised of £80 for failed appointments, £70 for delays in works being raised and completed, £40 for distress and inconvenience caused, and £100 for delays responding to the complaint.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response (for complaint 3) on 15 November 2023. In summary it said:
1. Issues with the damp, door and windows had been completed. No further action would be taken regarding the resident’s cooker as it did not appear to be a fault with the appliance.
2. The uneven kitchen flooring was not a matter of concern, but it would address this in 2024-2025.
3. It apologised for delays to complete drainage works and acknowledged that repairs were significantly outside of the expected timeframe.
4. It upheld the complaint and increased the compensation offer to £569. This included an additional £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, £50 for delays to resolve the complaint, and a further £79 for delays in works being raised and completed.
The landlord issued 3 further complaint responses (for complaint 3) on 20 December 2023, 12 January 2024, and 1 February 2024. The landlord confirmed it would address the uneven flooring within the next financial year and agreed to replace the resident’s hob as a gesture of good will. It confirmed that no further compensation would be offered.
The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. He remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs and the conduct of a staff member. To resolve the complaint, he is seeking a higher offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Within correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to issues with his boiler and with kitchen cupboard doors. These matters have already been investigated by the Ombudsman under report reference 202106623 and will therefore not form part of this investigation.
The resident advised that he has a new complaint with the landlord about the quality of workmanship within his kitchen. As this was raised to the landlord after the stage 2 final response, the Ombudsman will not consider this as part of this investigation. However, as repairs to the kitchen flooring and hob were addressed in the landlord’s complaint responses, the landlord’s handling of these repairs will be considered in the assessment up to the landlord’s final response.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that he felt discriminated against by the landlord. As per section 114 (1) of the Equality Act 2010, it is for a county court to decide if there has been ‘discrimination’ or other prohibited conduct. The Ombudsman cannot make a binding decision on whether discrimination and/or victimisation has occurred – this would be a matter for the courts.

The conduct of a staff member

The resident raised concerns about the conduct of a staff member, particularly that they had been rude towards him. In response to the complaint, it was appropriate that the landlord completed internal investigations into the report. Records show that the staff member’s manager advised there were no concerns about the staff member. The landlord advised the resident that it could not uphold this part of the resident’s complaint. Based on the evidence available, this was a fair decision.
The Ombudsman has not seen any records evidencing inappropriate behaviour from landlord staff. A call note recorded by the staff member 2 days before the complaint was logged showed they informed the resident that they had arranged a survey of windows and doors in the property. The call note suggests that the resident became dissatisfied with the landlord’s approach to the repairs and hung up the call.
Overall, the landlord sufficiently investigated the reports and confirmed its findings to the resident. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord could have been more detailed in its complaint response by summarising the investigations it had carried out. However, the landlord’s overall response was fair and there was no maladministration in its handling of the matter.

The landlord’s decision to place an unacceptable behaviour marker on the resident’s account.

This investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of events, whether it complied with its policies and good practice and whether its approach and actions were reasonable in the circumstances. The role of the Ombudsman is not to determine whether the resident’s behaviour was unreasonable.
The landlord’s account marker procedure outlines that markers can be applied in circumstances where a resident is verbally aggressive. This may include verbal assault, threats, or abusive language. To apply an account marker, the reason needs to be rationalised to ensure they are added in the correct circumstances.
When an account marker is requested, it should initially be reviewed by a manager. Following this, it will be passed to the tenancy management team to consider. Account markers do not encompass communication adjustments as these fall outside of the policy.
Records suggest that staff members had been subject to abuse by the resident on occasions, predominantly by phone but also in person. A call note on 1 June 2022 said that staff had received a high number of contacts from the resident and had been “aggressively challenged” during these.
When the account marker was initially requested, the landlord referenced an incident on 9 August 2022 where a staff member was subjected to abuse during a phone call. It added that the behaviour had been ongoing over a prolonged period and the resident was frequently verbally aggressive.
A manager reviewed records in relation to the resident’s contact with staff and an account marker was requested with the tenancy management team on 30 August 2022. This was approved on 1 September 2022. The landlord followed its correct escalation procedure before approval.
Based on the evidence available to the Ombudsman, the landlord’s decision to apply an account marker was in line with its policy. The reported behaviour met the landlord’s criteria to apply an account marker and it followed the appropriate steps to approve this.
It was appropriate that the landlord sent the resident a notification of this decision on the following day. However, the landlord identified that it had incorrectly referred to MAPPA. It confirmed in its complaint response that the reference to MAPPA was an admin error and it apologised for this mistake. This error likely caused distress to the resident.
To put things right, the landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £100 compensation. The Ombudsman considers this a proportionate response.
Since the final response, the landlord advised that the marker has remained on the resident’s account due to further unacceptable behaviour. It referred to an incident in May 2023 when the resident used highly offensive language towards staff. The decision to extend the marker on this basis was in line with its policy and is considered reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the property.

The landlord’s repairs policy outlines that it will attend to an emergency repair between 4 to 24 hours and a routine repair within 28 days.
In accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairs to the exterior to the property (including the roof, walls, doors, windows, drains and gutters). Internally, it is responsible for the ceiling, doors, walls, floors, and doorframes of the building.
The resident initially reported a damp patch in the corner of his bedroom on 7 October 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to attend to the matter on 2 November 2022, within its 28-day timeframe. The contractor recorded that it hacked off plaster, raked out and set the walls.
Following the initial works, damp patches in the property returned. The landlord prioritised investigating the cause of this and completed a damp and mould inspection on 11 January 2023. This was a positive action. It identified corroded piping next to the air vent in the living room and in the far corner of a bedroom. It also noted the need for new seals for bathroom windows. The landlord raised work orders to address this on the same day and the repairs were completed on 8 and 16 February 2023. Although one of the repairs was over the 28-day timeframe, the delay was not significant.
After the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, a small area of mould was present in the corner of the resident’s bedroom. As damp and mould recurred here previously, best practice would have been for the landlord to complete a survey. The landlord completed a further inspection and identified that the likely cause of the damp was old lead flashings from a rainwater drainpipe given the location. The resident informed the Ombudsman that the matter has now been resolved.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that delays for the landlord to resolve the recurring damp and mould would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that after each recurrence, the landlord took appropriate action and acted upon recommendations.
The resident raised concerns about the hob in his kitchen not working correctly. The landlord noted that 3 out of the 4 rings worked. It advised the resident on 20 September 2023 that it had enquired with contractors for an update. However, the landlord did not address the hob repair within its complaint responses. It is evident that there were delays for the landlord to respond to this matter. This would have caused frustration to the resident.
The landlord eventually responded to the hob disrepair within its further stage 2 responses. It offered to replace the resident’s hob as a gesture of good will and informed the resident this would not usually be its responsibility to replace. Given the delays the resident experienced, it was appropriate for the landlord to use its discretion to replace the hob. The landlord later identified that the replacement had not been like for like. It apologised for this error and replaced the hob for a second time. The hob was replaced on 24 January 2024 and noted as fully functioning following this.
To address the reported uneven kitchen floor, the landlord’s contractors completed a survey on 13 October 2023. They identified that the flooring was affected by sulphate attack from ash fill. The survey concluded that the level of the kitchen floor was acceptable, but the matter was progressive. The floor would need to be removed and replace to resolve the issue. It was appropriate for the landlord to act on the recommendations and schedule the floor replacement as a major work to be addressed in the following financial year (2024-2025). As the condition of the flooring was acceptable and the works were considerable, the landlord’s proposed timeframe to respond is considered reasonable.
The resident reported issues with his roof on 7 August 2023 and said that it required replacing. The Ombudsman has not seen confirmation of what the disrepair was. However, there is no evidence that the roof was causing any further problems or issues with the resident’s property. The landlord advised the resident in November 2023 that it had submitted a roof renewal to the planning team to be completed in 2024. This was a reasonable response based on the information available to the Ombudsman. However, records suggest there were delays for the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns about the roof. It should have addressed this earlier in the complaints process.
The Ombudsman identified some good practice in the landlord’s communication. For example, it set the resident’s expectations by informing him that major works, including replacing the kitchen floor and roof would take some time in planning and application. In addition, it informed the resident when inspections would take place. However, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it had missed appointments and failed to respond on occasions to the resident. This affected the resident’s confidence in the landlord. The landlord should ensure it has a consistent approach when communicating with residents about repairs.
The resident advised the Ombudsman that issues with blown glazed windows and drainage had been resolved satisfactorily. However, he was dissatisfied at the time taken for the landlord to resolve these matters.
Whilst records show there were delays for the repairs to be raised and completed (8 months for the drainage leak and 2 months for the window repairs), the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord identified each failing, including the time taken to raise and address each of these in its complaint responses. It informed the resident what caused the delay for both repairs and apologised for this.
When considering how the landlord responded to the complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming, as well as any compensation offered.
The landlord’s compensation policy outlines that it may award compensation if the standard of service provided is considerably below the standard customers could reasonably expect. The landlord will only pay it if the customer has experienced financial loss or significant distress or inconvenience.
Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it clearly outlined where it had got things wrong, acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and apologised. The landlord offered a total of £419 compensation to account for the delays in its repair service, missed appointments, and to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. In addition, it replaced the resident’s hob as a gesture of good will. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s response, including its offer of compensation proportionate to the identified failings and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. As such, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints process outlines a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord aims to issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The policy states that some complaint reviews require a more in-depth investigation and if the landlord is unable to respond within 20 working days, it will contact the resident to advise when they can expect a response.

Complaints 1 and 2

When responding to complaints 1 and 2, the landlord initially issued 2 separate stage 1 complaints. Following this, the landlord refused one of the escalation requests due to it being outside of the landlord’s 20 working day timeframe. However, the landlord later noted that the escalation request had been refused incorrectly. As such both complaints were merged and responded to within one stage 2 complaint response. The landlord’s handling of the complaints was confusing and not in line with its complaints policy.
It is not clear when the resident escalated his complaints to stage 2. However, the landlord issued a complaint extension letter to the resident on 8 June 2023. This confirms that the landlord was outside of its timescales to provide a stage 2 response. The landlord issued its final response on 21 June 2023. Within this, it apologised that the resident had found the stage 1 response unsympathetic but did not refer to its other failings.
The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for its complaint handling. This is insufficient to address the landlord’s incorrect refusal of complaint 1 and its decision to merge both cases at stage 2 without informing the resident. As such, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident an additional £50.

Complaint 3

There were significant delays in the landlord’s complaint responses. The resident received his stage 1 complaint response 7 months after he originally logged his complaint. At stage 2, the resident received his response after 4 months.
The landlord issued 7 extension letters to the resident throughout its complaints process. Although its policy allows it to extend its deadline in some circumstances, these delays were excessive and unreasonable. Further, in some of the letters, the landlord informed the resident that it had extended the stage 2 response whilst waiting for property inspection outcomes. The Ombudsman considers this reason for delay unacceptable.
The landlord issued a total of 5 complaint responses when addressing its handling of repairs. The landlord’s complaints policy only allows for 2 complaint responses. Although some matters within the further responses related to existing repairs, some new complaints were addressed in the responses. The landlord should have opened a new, separate complaint to address the issues. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was unacceptable and not in line with its policy.
Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it apologised for delays responding to the resident’s complaints. However, it did not acknowledge the full extent of its failings. The landlord’s £150 offer for its complaint handling was not reflective of the significant delays, or of the multiple complaint responses. As such, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident a further £50. In addition, the landlord should complete a review of its complaint handling.
Due to the above the Ombudsman identified maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration regarding the conduct of a staff member.
2. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress regarding:
1. The landlord’s decision to place an unacceptable behaviour marker on the resident’s record.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the property.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £300 for its poor complaint handling in this case. This amount is inclusive of the £200 already offered across all complaints.
The landlord is ordered to complete a review of its complaint handling for this case. It should identify where things went wrong and reflect on improvements it can make for its handling of future complaints. The landlord should share its findings with the Ombudsman.
The landlord should share evidence of compliance with the Ombudsman regarding the above orders within the next 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to re-offer the resident £419 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of repairs (if it has not already paid this).
The landlord is recommended to re-offer the resident £100 for incorrectly referring to the MAPPA process in its unacceptable behaviour marker letter to the resident (if it has not already paid this).