The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Orbit Housing Association Limited (202333329)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333329

Orbit Housing Association Limited

9 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Request for replastering and repairs to walls and ceilings.
    3. Reports of damage to internal door frames.
    4. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, a house owned by the landlord. She is disabled and resides with her teenage child.
  2. Between 20 August 2021 and 23 May 2023, the resident raised issues to the landlord including broken door frames, loose plasterwork which had caused the stair banister to come away from the wall and damp and mould following a leak. The landlord, or its contractors, attended the property on 11 separate occasions during this time to conduct repairs or inspections.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 19 December 2023 about the ongoing issues with damp and mould, plastering and door frame repairs.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process on 31 January 2024. It acknowledged that there had been setbacks and challenges in getting repairs and works completed, due to the need for additional work, which had caused delays in resolving the problems. It apologised for any inconvenience it had caused and provided dates for works it had scheduled. It offered compensation of £400, broken down as follows:
    1. £310 for distress and inconvenience.
    2. £20 for missing appointments.
    3. £70 for an administrative error which resulted in cancelled works.
  5. On 31 January and 2 and 3 April 2024, the resident called the landlord to advise that she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process as it had not completed works and she did not agree with the amount of compensation offered.
  6. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process on 9 May 2024. It said that its contractors attended in June 2023 following a leak and recommended the installation of bathroom extractor fans. Around the same time, she submitted an online damp and mould form saying the leak was the cause of the issues. Due to this, it sent the report to its repairs team instead of its damp and mould team. Following her complaint, it arranged for an inspector to visit her property. It confirmed that it had raised a major works order in January 2024 following her reports of cracks throughout the property and it started these on 4 March 2024. Its contractors attended the property to inspect the door frames and found no issues. It apologised for the poor service she had received in relation to damp and mould repairs and offered an additional £320 compensation for this, taking its total offer to £720 across both complaint responses.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s approach to ongoing works and brought her complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint the resident has reported the effect these delays have had on her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman is not able to make a determination about any links between the issues and the resident’s health concerns. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to her physical and mental health is more appropriate for the courts and she may wish to seek appropriate advice if she wishes to consider that option.

Polices and procedures

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days of acknowledgment. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days of receiving the complaint. At both stages, if it requires more time to provide is response it will discuss this with a resident and provide an updated response time.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy outlines its approach to awarding compensation to residents. It can make payments of up to £400 in recognition of time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience for any service failures. In relation to complaint handling, it may make payments of up to £150 for the same reasons.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy provides the timescales it uses to respond to repairs. Emergency repairs have a 4 or 24-hour (classed as essential) response time, depending on the level of risk. Routine repairs are any repairs that do not meet the emergency threshold and have a response time of within 28 calendar days. Non-responsive repairs are major non-emergency repairs and do not have a response time in the policy. Following reports of damp and mould, it will conduct a risk assessment with them before determining whether a repair is required in line with its damp, mould, and condensation policy.
  4. In its damp, mould and condensation procedure, the landlord states that it will review new cases within 5 working days followed by raising a mould treatment and allocating a surveyor to the case. It should raise mould treatments with a 7-calendar day repair priority. The surveyor should contact the resident to arrange an appointment and this inspection should take place within 20 working days or 28 calendar days. It can bring this forward in the event of specific vulnerabilities, such as age or an illness that may be exacerbated by damp and mould. If works are identified, the surveyor should raise them at the earliest opportunity and prioritise them according to policy.

Damp and mould

  1. The resident first reported issues with damp and mould to the landlord on 23 May 2023 due to a roof leak coming through the bathroom ceiling and into the kitchen. It noted at the time that this needed investigating, and it completed works to rectify a hole in the roof on 9 June 2023. The report of water passing from the roof to the bottom floor of the property indicates that the leak was sizeable, and as such, the landlord was required to attend within 24 hours as per its essential repair timescale to make the leak safe and prevent further issues. To wait over 2 weeks to investigate and complete repairs was not reasonable nor in line with its repairs policy.
  2. After it completed works, the landlord’s damp and mould team spoke to the resident in July 2023. As she advised that the mould had been cleaned and another department had booked works for plastering on 16 August 2023, it stated that the matter was in hand but that it would arrange a damp and mould inspection if she reported further issues. This was a reasonable response at the time as the damp and mould she had experienced appeared to be related directly to the previously repaired leak.
  3. The resident reported further concerns about damp coming through cracks in the walls to the landlord on 25 September 2023 in relation to other issues with plasterwork in the property. While it raised works for these issues on 3 October 2023, there is no evidence that it shared these concerns with its damp and mould team to enable it to follow its previous offer of arranging an inspection if she reported further issues. Its lack of response was not reasonable, and it did not demonstrate compliance with its own damp and mould policy by failing to arrange an inspection.
  4. The resident included damp and mould issue in her complaint to the landlord in December 2023, in this she advised that its contractors had installed a damp and mould seal, but the issue had returned. In an internal email on 9 January 2024, it said that works remained incomplete because its contractors required its authorisation to proceed. They attended the property to inspect the roof on 19 January 2023 and found no further leak. It chased the remaining works internally without success throughout January 2023. Its action to check for a further leak was positive. However, she had reported her concerns on 25 September 2023, and by the time it provided its stage 1 complaint response 4 months later, on 31 January 2024, it had not arranged any action with its damp and mould team as per its policy.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response on 31 January 2024, the landlord advised the resident that it had found no evidence of a leak but that it had reached out to the appropriate department to arrange addressing the damp and mould. It offered no timescale for this. It apologised for her feeling the need to complain and acknowledged that there had been setbacks and challenges in completing works. It offered compensation of £400 as previously described for all issues. Its response in relation to damp and mould offered little information or reassurance that it would deal with the matter in a timely manner. However, the compensation offer was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy.
  6. On 13 February 2024, the landlord chased its damp and mould team for an update but there is no evidence that it received a response. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 April 2024 as it had not completed any of the works listed in its stage 1 response. On 15 April 2024, she requested it provide her with a clear picture of the plan for outstanding damp and mould works. It chased the damp and mould team on 29 April 2024, stating it could not find an original appointment or any works orders raised and requested an update. On 8 May 2024, it called her to arrange a damp and mould inspection for 10 May 2024. This was over 7 months since she reported recurring issues and far exceeded its damp and mould policy timescales. However, arranging an inspection was a positive step forward.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 9 May 2024. It explained that it had sent her original report of damp and mould in 2023 to the repairs team and as such, the damp and mould team left it for the repairs team to resolve. It confirmed that an inspection would take place for the ongoing issues. It acknowledged that there had been delays in the damp, mould and condensation repairs being actioned and offered an additional £320 compensation for this specific issue. It apologised for the poor service she had experienced. Its response was fair, and the remedies offered were appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
  8. In conclusion, while its initial response was fair and appropriate the landlord’s eventual handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould was poor. Its repairs team was expected to fix the leak and follow-up with its damp and mould team if issues resurfaced, but it did not do this and left the resident waiting for over 7 months for an inspection. However, it took steps to remedy its failings in this regard.
  9. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles set out the approach to providing remedies. The three principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s stage 2 response addressed the damp and mould issues issues appropriately, offering a fair compensation amount and apologising for delays. As such, a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate for this element of the complaint.

Replastering and repairs

  1. The resident reported issues with the stairway wall to the landlord on 6 December 2021. She said that the handrail had come away from the wall, which seemed to be rotting, leading to her falling down the stairs. It raised works on the same day, but records show that it cancelled these. She chased it on 16 December 2021, and it raised the works again, prioritising them due to her disabilities. It completed works on 13 January 2022, 38-calendar days later. However, it is unclear what these works were from the records provided. This length of time was not reasonable when considering her circumstances and that she had already reported a fall. It was not in line with its repairs policy in which it should have completed works within 24 hours due to a risk to her health and safety.
  2. After it had completed works, the landlord raised a further works request on 11 February 2022 for its contractor to inspect the plasterwork on the stairway wall and all other walls in the property. However, its records show that the inspection was still outstanding on 25 July 2022. A further report in October 2022 described multiple cracks to wall and ceilings throughout the house. It inspected the property on 15 November 2022, 9 months after it raised the works. While these would have been non-responsive repairs and therefore, have no timeframe in its policy, it did not endeavour to keep the resident updated throughout this period which was not appropriate.
  3. During the inspection on 15 November 2022, the landlord identified and raised works to repair a crack between the kitchen and dining room ceilings that it had previously repaired. Its contractors completed these works on 20 December 2022, then finished and painted over the works on 19 January 2023. This was a good response and demonstrated a commitment to completing these works despite the initial time it had taken to inspect.
  4. The landlord booked further plastering works to the kitchen ceiling, bathroom, and stairway walls on 12 July 2023. Its contractor completed works to the lounge, bedroom, and bathroom ceilings on 21 and 22 September 2023. On 25 September 2023, it noted that the stairway walls still needed repairs. It raised these again on 3 October 2023 and an inspection took place on 7 November 2023. The inspector reported that the job would need referring to its major works team as most rooms needed decorating, along with extensive plasterworks to the stairway and hallway, and further works to the bathroom ceiling, bedroom ceilings and lounge walls. In her complaint, the resident stated she was unhappy with the quality of works completed by the contractor as they never completed them properly. This appears to be supported by the raising of works in November 2023 that it had previously completed in September 2023.
  5. The landlord raised plaster works to the stairway walls again on 10 January 2024. In its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 31 January 2024, it stated that its contractors would contact her directly to arrange appointments but offered no projected time for this. It offered an overall compensation payment of £400 for all the issues she had reported as previously described. Its response was thorough, and it apologised for missing appointments and administrative errors causing the cancellation of works. When combined with its offer to complete works, its compensation offer was fair and in line with its policy.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord as it had not completed works. Its repair logs showed that its contractor completed works to the stairway walls, hallway, and all other required rooms between 15 and 20 April 2024. On 2 May 2024, she stated that the contractor had not completed works. It chased this with its contractor who confirmed that they had completed the works it had raised. It advised her of this in its stage 2 complaint response on 9 May 2024. Its response was fair as it had completed the works included as part of its stage 1 complaint response prior to providing a stage 2 response.
  7. In conclusion, while the landlord does not offer a time for major works in its repairs policy, taking over 2 years to complete plastering works was excessive. Its records, and repair logs provided by its contractors, were not always clear in providing definitive dates and outcomes of works which may have contributed to delays in completing them. Its apologies for missed appointments and cancelled works, offer of compensation, and commitment to complete works at stage 1 demonstrated adherence with the Dispute Resolution Principles. After its stage 1 response, it completed works within 3 months which was reasonable. When combining this with its offer of compensation at stage 1 for all issues, a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Internal door frames

  1. The resident reported issues with internal woodwork to the landlord on 20 August 2021. She said the wooden lounge door frame was brittle and was not holding the door as it should. It raised works on the same day, but its contractor did not complete these until 23 September 2021, 34 calendar days after the report. This exceeded the 28-calendar day routine repair response time in its repairs policy. While this delay was not excessive, she reported further problems with the same door frame on 16 December 2021 which required further repairs.
  2. The resident reported more issues with the same door frame to the landlord 3 times between February and July 2022. It required a repair on each occasion including replacement of hinges, adjustment and refitting of the door. While its responses were within the repair timescale set it its policy, the door had, at this stage, required 4 repairs within 11 months. She had told it on each occasion that the frame was brittle or rotting. It would have been good practice for the landlord to consider investigation into why the issues continued to arise to avoid repeated repair visits.
  3. There were no further reports of issues with any of the internal woodwork until 23 May 2023, when the resident reported to the landlord that the lounge door frame was falling apart. Its contractor attended on 14 June 2023 and repaired the cracked door frame. It completed this repair in accordance with its repairs policy and addressed the issues with the frame.
  4. As part of her complaint to the landlord on 19 and 22 December 2023, the resident said that the wood on all door frames in the property was damaged. It did not respond to this until it provided its stage 1 complaint response on 31 January 2024. It said it had scheduled a job to have all the doors in the property repaired by 28 February 2024. This was an appropriate response without knowing the extent of the damage and the time given adhered with its repairs policy.
  5. The landlord’s contractor inspected the internal doors on 11 March 2024. During this inspection it found no problems with any of the frames or doors. As such, it arranged no further works. It was reasonable of the landlord to rely on the opinion of its inspector as the expert in this matter.
  6. The resident raised the issue again as part of her stage 2 complaint escalation. She said its contractor kept repairing the door frame instead of replacing it and it was making her home look “untidy and cheap.” In its stage 2 complaint response on 9 May 2024, the landlord noted previous works and confirmed that there were no issues with the doorframes or doors following its visit on 11 March 2024. Its response was reasonable based upon the information provided by its inspector.
  7. In conclusion, while there were minor delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with internal door frames, it completed necessary repairs and undertook a full inspection in March 2024. It found no issues with the door frames demonstrating that its previous repairs had been successful. As such, a finding of no maladministration is appropriate regarding its handling of reports of damage to internal door frames.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident complained to the landlord on 19 December 2023. It acknowledged this on 22 December 2023, in line with its complaints policy. However, it did not take any further action on the complaint until 9 January 2024 when it advised her that it was waiting for an internal update and was not able to provide its response. It provided a new response deadline of 6 February 2024. It updated her again on 23 January 2024 to explain that it was still not able to provide a response and maintained the new deadline in agreement with her. While it had exceeded its response time ahead of extending the deadline, it did follow its policy in advising her of this and keeping her updated.
  2. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 31 January 2024, 28 working days after receiving her complaint. While it kept her updated with response times, it did not apologise for this or offer any redress for the delays. It would have been good practice for it to acknowledge this and offer compensation in line with its policy in addition to the £400 it offered for other matters.
  3. The resident responded to the landlord on 31 January 2024, expressing her dissatisfaction with its complaint response. She described inaccuracies in the dates it had provided and felt that its compensation offer was inadequate. It did not respond to this or acknowledge it as a complaint escalation request as it should have in line with its complaints policy. This left her needing to request escalation of her complaint again on 2 April 2024 which was not reasonable.
  4. The landlord provided the resident with a complaint response on 9 May 2024, 26 working days after her second escalation request and 68 working days after her initial escalation request on 31 January 2024. This demonstrates that it exceeded its 20-working day response time as outlined in its complaints policy. It did not acknowledge this delay in its response and did not offer any remedy for this. In line with the dispute resolution principles, it would have been good practice for it to apologise and make efforts to put things right for the delays.
  5. In conclusion, the landlord provided both complaint responses outside of the timescales in its policy. While it communicated about the delays with the resident at stage 1, it did not offer any form of apology for this or the stage 2 delays in either of its responses and therefore demonstrated no awareness of the further impact this may have had on her. As such, a finding of service failure is appropriate, and orders will be made for appropriate remedies in the orders and recommendations section of this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Requests for replastering and repairs to walls and ceilings.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to internal door frames.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £150 for the failures identified in its complaint handling and provide proof of compliance to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, this Service recommends that the landlord pays the resident compensation of £720 as previously offered (mentioned above) as part of its complaint responses, as this amount recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.
  2. Considering the lack of clarity across the records held by the landlord, this Service recommends that its repairs team visit the Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report published by the Ombudsman and consider ways to make its record keeping easier for staff to track and manage.