Orbit Group Limited (202316906)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316906

Orbit Group Limited

22 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

This complaint is about:
1. Delays in repairs to the resident’s property following a fire, and the length of time the resident and her family had been in temporary accommodation.
2. The resident’s request for compensation for her belongings which were damaged due to the fire.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 6 December 2004. The property is a 2-bed end of terrace house. The landlord has advised this Service that the resident had previously had no vulnerabilities listed but had now advised that she had mental health problems as a result of the matters considered in this complaint.
On 24 October 2022, there was a fire at the resident’s property. The landlord arranged for the resident and her family, including her 2 children who were 17 and 20 years old at the time, to be decanted to a hotel on 25 October 2022. The landlord’s internal records note that the resident and her family stayed with friends on the night of the fire.
On 26 January 2023, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord, in which she said:
1. It had been 3 months since the fire at her home, and the works had not started yet. The resident said that caused her family a considerable amount of stress and worries, which was causing mental health issues.
2. She did not understand why everything was thrown away, saying that she was told the kitchen was not going to be touched. The resident said that there was ‘‘nothing left in there not even a spoon’’.
3. The fire was due to ‘‘the negligence of (the landlord) and (its) contractors’’. The resident said that she had reported the fault and ‘‘if they fixed it the first time (she) reported it this situation would never have happened’’.
4. She and her children ‘‘had to run under the fire to get out of the house and if it would have happened two hours later (they) would not be here today’’.
5. She needed to start getting answers and help with rebuilding their lives. The resident said she expected to have a fully furnished house ‘‘to walk back into as our home. As this negligence has made us lose everything’’.
6. She was not willing to move again as it was causing more stress that she and her family did not need. The resident said that ‘the next time we move I want to be going into my house.’
7. She wanted a weekly breakdown on what was happening in her house and that whilst she understood timeframes were hard to stand by, if changes occurred, she would like to know.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 June 2023, apologising for the delay in it providing its response, for which it offered the resident £150 compensation. The landlord did not uphold the complaint saying that:
1. The fire report said that the ignition point of the fire was an electric storage heater, although the resident disputed this and felt it was in connection with an immersion tank fault. The landlord said that it was unable to find any repair reports made about any storage heater or recent immersion tank issues.
2. Based on the information received from its Project Manager; that items had been disposed of at the request of the resident’s husband, that regular updates had been provided, and that there had been no conversation as to where the resident should live, it found there to be no service failings with regards to these issues.
3. With regard to the resident’s request that her home be fully furnished once she was able to move back home, as there had been no service failings identified, the resident would need to contact her contents insurance company who may be able to assist her further.
On 14 July 2023, the landlord noted that it had had a conversation with the resident who said she had not received its stage 1 response. The landlord noted that this was sent to the resident, who responded the same day to say that:
1. The information in the landlord’s response was incorrect as the fire started from an immersion tank, and not a storage heater as reported in the fire report. She said she did not have storage heaters and the airing cupboard, where the fire started, had an immersion tank. The resident said that there was a fault with the switch and the tank would not ‘click off’ when reaching temperature. The landlord noted that the resident felt this was what caused the fire and that she had reported the issue a couple of weeks before the fire.
2. She was frustrated that the works to her property had not yet been started and that she was still decanted, and had been since October 2022.
The landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint on 6 November 2023. The landlord said that it ‘sincerely apologised’ for the ‘considerable length of time’ the resident had had to spend in temporary accommodation while waiting for repairs to begin. The landlord noted that it had spoken with the resident on 26 October 2023 and confirmed that the works were ‘now finally underway’. It then went on to say that:
1. As outlined in the report of the investigation conducted by the Fire Brigade, the origin of the fire was determined to be an electric storage heater within the airing/drying cupboard. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had mentioned having reported an issue with this previously, but it had been unable to find any record of a corresponding report on its system. It also noted that the resident had said that the fire started from an immersion tank and not a storage heater as said on the fire report produced by the Fire Brigade. The landlord suggested that she contact the Fire Brigade if the information on the report was incorrect.
2. It upheld the resident’s complaint about the delays she had experienced and, ‘to reflect the distress and inconvenience this matter has caused,’ offered her £3,059, made up of:
  1. £2,409 for the delays in completing the works and the length of time she and her family had been in temporary accommodation. This was made up of:

(1) £400 for distress and inconvenience.

(2) £1,651 in recognition of ‘not just distress and inconvenience but also taking into account the time and trouble it has caused’.

(3) £288 for the repairs outside timeframe by 288 days.

(4) £70 for service failure.

£650 for its failures with regards to its handling of the associated complaint, this being made up of:

(1) The £150 offered at stage 1 for the ‘long delay’ in it providing her with an outcome.

(2) £100 for the failure of its stage 1 response to fully address her concerns or to compensate her for its acknowledged delays.

(3) £400 for its poor complaint handling at stage 2.

With regards to the resident’s claim for compensation of £15,000, it had liaised with its insurance and legal teams, who said that its insurers would need a formal letter from the resident specifying the reasons why she held the landlord responsible for the fire. The landlord said it had written to the resident on 26 October 2023 requesting this letter, and also tried to call her on 3 November and 6 November 2023, however it had been unable to reach her. The landlord asked that the resident be assured that once it had received the formal letter, it would ‘promptly’ review this aspect of her complaint.

The landlord’s records indicate that the works to the resident’s property were completed on 1 March 2024 and that it was confirmed that the resident could move home on 2 March 2024. The resident confirmed to this Service on 22 April 2024 that she was back at home.
On 8 July 2024, the landlord confirmed that the resident’s claim had been sent to its insurers and on 11 July 2024, its insurers confirmed that they had contacted the resident’s solicitors to obtain further information.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes.’
When considering how a landlord has responded to a 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 the steps the landlord has taken to address any shortcomings or failures, and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
Whilst the Ombudsman recognises what a distressing situation this was for the resident and her family, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action caused the fire or had a detrimental impact on a resident’s, or any other member of their family’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the liability for damage or personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via an insurance claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Delays in repairs to the resident’s property following a fire, and the length of time the resident and her family had been in temporary accommodation.

The fire took place at the residents property on 24 October 2022. The landlord acted appropriately, immediately following the fire, arranging for the resident to be decanted the following day, 25 October 2022. The resident and her family having stayed with friends on the night of the fire itself.
The Ombudsman expects the landlord to have handled the repairs, for which it was responsible, appropriately by completing them in a reasonable time and providing regular communication and updates to the resident about the works. In this case, and given the extent and complexity of the works, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to complete the works within the timescale set out in its repairs policy for major repairs. The landlord’s policy says that it will finish major repairs within 90 calendar days.
It is noted that in her stage 1 complaint the resident raised concerns about the landlord not providing regular communication and updates with regards to the repairs. In response the landlord said that its Project Manager had assured it that regular updates had been provided. There is no evidence of the resident disputing this nor of her seeking to escalate this element of her complaint to stage 2.
Given that the landlord became aware of the fire and the need to carry out repairs on 24 October 2022, in accordance with its repairs policy it would have been expected to complete the repairs by January 2023. However, it did not do so until 1 March 2024, some 14 months (402 calendar days) later.
A delay in repairs is not always considered a failure, particularly if the issue is complex. However, in this case, as acknowledged by the landlord in its final response, the delay was excessive and resulted in unnecessary distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident, for which it was appropriate for it to apologise and to offer compensation.
Further, in an internal landlord email of 19 May 2023, the landlord said that it had had to employ structural engineers to design the replacement roof, which it said took some time to complete. However, in the same email the landlord also said that the specification had been finalised and was with its contractor ‘to advise on costs/timescales etc to complete the works.’
Given that was the case, for the landlord to fail to complete the repairs until a further 10 months later was a significant failure on its part, particularly given that the property had been empty, and as the resident and her family had been living in temporary accommodation since October 2022.
In its final response on 6 November 2023, the landlord said that the delay at that time amounted to 288 calendar days. It is noted that the repairs had still not been completed at this point.
In total the landlord offered £2,409 for the delays in completing the works and the length of time the resident and her family had been in temporary accommodation following the fire. This was made up of:
1. £400 for distress and inconvenience.
2. £1,651 in recognition of ‘not just distress and inconvenience but also taking into account the time and trouble it had caused’.
3. £288 for the repairs outside timeframe by 288 days.
4. £70 for service failure.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, it is this Service’s view that the compensation offered for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble and service failure was sufficient to provide the resident with redress for these elements of her complaint, up until the point of the landlord’s final response.
However, the offer of £1 per day for each of the 288 days delay to that point falls short of what this Service would consider proportionate given the level of failure.
In addition, whilst it is welcome that the landlord acknowledged its failure in respect of the delays in completing the repairs in its final response, it did not provide the resident with a reasonable explanation for these delays. It also did not show that it had considered what learning it could take from the resident’s complaint to look to avoid a similar situation occurring in the future.
Given these failures, a finding of maladministration has been made with respect to this element of the resident’s complaint and the landlord ordered to pay an additional £1,729 compensation to the resident, bringing the total payable to £4,138. This includes:
1. The £2,409 offered in its stage 2 response, if this has not already been paid.
2. An additional £576 for the 288 days delay up until the point of the landlord’s final response, representing an increase from £1 to £3 per day.
3. An additional £342 for the 114 calendar days between the landlord’s final response and the completion of the works, based on a daily rate of £3 per day.
4. An additional £158 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident between the landlord’s final response and the completion of the works. (This is based on 114 times the daily rate, represented by the £400 offered by the landlord for 288 calendar days).
5. An additional £653 for the time and trouble caused between the landlord’s final response and the completion of the works. (This is based on 114 times the daily rate, represented by the £1,651 offered by the landlord for 288 calendar days).
An order has also been made for the landlord to review its handling of this case and to provide this Service with a summary of what learning it has taken and what actions, if any, it intends to take as a result.

The resident’s request for compensation for her belongings which were damaged due to the fire.

The landlord’s compensation policy states that it is customers’ responsibility to have home contents insurance and that the landlord expects residents to claim on this insurance where it is appropriate to do so.
Its compensation policy goes on to state that Personal Injury Claims and Insurance Claims over £5,000 should be sent to its Insurance Team which would then submit the claim to the landlord’s insurers for consideration.
Given that the landlord had found no evidence that the damaged claimed for was caused by it, or those working on its behalf, it was reasonable, and in accordance with its compensation policy, for the landlord to refer the resident, in the first instance, to her own contents insurance with regards to the damage to her personal belongings.
The landlord again acted reasonably in advising the resident that if she did not have her own contents insurance, she could submit a claim against its insurance.
As such there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for compensation for her belongings which were damaged due to the fire. This is because its response was fair and reasonable, was in accordance with its compensation policy, and showed that it was committed to finding a resolution for the resident.

Handling of the associated complaint.

The resident raised her initial formal complaint with the landlord on 26 January 2023. In accordance with this Service’s Complaint handling code (the Code), the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days and provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged, a maximum of 15 working days. In this case, by 16 February 2023.
However, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until 1 June 2023. In its acknowledgement the landlord confirmed that it had received the complaint on 27 January 2023. The landlord apologised that it was not yet in a position to conclude its investigations, advising that once it had done so it would provide her with the conclusion of her complaint.
The Code recognises that, in situations such as these where the complaint is complex, the landlord may need to extend the timescale for its response if needed. However, in such circumstances any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident, which there is no evidence that it did in this case.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 June 2023, approximately 4 months after the resident submitted her complaint. This was an excessive period of time for the resident to have to wait for the landlord to provide its response and was not in accordance with either the landlord’s own complaints policy or this Service’s Code.
In addition to responding within required timescales, the Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. Again, the landlord failed to comply with the Code as its stage 1 response did not address all the points raised by the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 July 2023, having been resent its stage 1 response, which she told the landlord that she had not received. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 17 July 2023. In accordance with this Service’s Code, the landlord should have provided its stage 2 response within 20 working days, by 11 August 2023.
On 8 August 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to say that it was not currently in a position to respond to her complaint. The landlord said that it was now aiming to respond by 17 August 2023, which it did not do.
The landlord did not provide its response when it said it would and so, on 21 September 2023, the resident contacted this Service. The landlord was asked to provide its response by 6 November 2023, which it then did, some 4 months after the resident had escalated the complaint.
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that it had taken too long to investigate, and to provide an outcome for, the stage 1 complaint. It also acknowledged that its stage 1 response had failed to fully address the resident’s concerns and that its complaint handling at stage 2 had also been ‘poor’. To put this right the landlord offered the resident £650 compensation, this being increased from the £150 offered at stage 1.
Having considered all the evidence, whilst there were clearly significant failures by the landlord with regards to its complaint handling, overall it provided the resident with reasonable redress for those failures.
This is because the landlord recognised and apologised for the unreasonable delays in its responses at both stage 1 and stage 2, and for failing to address all the concerns raised by the resident in its stage 1 response. The landlord also offered the resident compensation for those failures that was both proportionate and in line with the amounts given in this Service’s remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but which did not have a permanent impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of delays in repairs to the resident’s property following a fire, and the length of time the resident and her family had been in temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s request for compensation for her belongings which were damaged due to the fire.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £4,138 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. The £2,409 offered in its stage 2 response, if this has not already been paid.
  2. An additional £576 for the 288 days delay up until the point of the landlord’s final response, representing an increase from £1 to £3 per day.
  3. An additional £342 for the 114 calendar days between the landlord’s final response and the completion of the works, based on a daily rate of £3 per day.
  4. An additional £158 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident between the landlord’s final response and the completion of the works. (This is based on 114 times the daily rate, represented by the £400 offered by the landlord for 288 calendar days).
  5. An additional £653 for the time and trouble caused between the landlord’s final response and the completion of the works. (This is based on 114 times the daily rate, represented by the £1,651 offered by the landlord for 288 calendar days).
2. To review its handling of this case and to provide this Service with a summary of what learning it has taken and what actions, if any, it intends to take as a result.
3. Confirm to this Service that it has complied with the above orders.
It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against any arrears.

Recommendation

If it has not done so already it is recommended that the landlord now pays the resident the £650 offered in its final response for its complaint handling failures. The finding on reasonable redress being dependent on the landlord doing so.