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

Orbit Group Limited (201905931)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201905931

Orbit Group Limited

29 January 2021


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 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 handling of works to the resident’s fence and gate.
    2. the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it to request a new fence and gate on 27 November 2018. There is a note on the landlord’s file that the resident had raised this issue with his Property Manager previously and that it needed to establish if the fence and gate were communal and therefore its responsibility to repair.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord again on 4 December 2018 to chase an inspection of the fence and gate. The landlord’s contractor informed it that it had attempted to call the resident to arrange a visit but the resident disputed this.
  3. A note on the landlord’s file from 14 January 2019 states that the resident had again called for an update and that the landlord had followed up with its contractor, which had stated that it was awaiting an instruction from the landlord’s repairs team. On 28 January 2019 the landlord’s repairs team stated that it was awaiting information from the contractor.
  4. The resident telephoned the landlord on 15 February 2019 to complain about the lack of progress with the works. He stated that the landlord had previously confirmed that it would replace the fence and gate and had attended to take pictures and measure up. He stated that he had been waiting 5 months for the works to commence. The landlord followed up with its repairs team, who confirmed that no repair or replacement of the fence was required. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, as he stated that the works had previously been authorised by his Property Manager.
  5. On 18 February 2019 the Property Manager confirmed that the landlord would not be replacing the fence and gate and the resident was informed that he may request permission to install a fence and gate at his own expense. The landlord’s records note that this decision was final. The resident telephoned the landlord on 21 February 2019 and asked to discuss the matter with the Property Manager, as he was unhappy with the decision.
  6. The landlord’s records from 24 February 2019 note that the contractor had attended ‘a few time and closed this job down’. However, the landlord would now instruct its contractor to ‘please take down the old fence and replace with new panels and gate to match next door’s’.
  7. The resident telephoned the landlord on 5 March 2019 as he was expecting the contractor to attend to complete the works. The landlord investigated this with its contractor, as it could not see an appointment on its system, and was informed that the works were with the contractor’s planning team and that they would be in touch directly to arrange an appointment. This information was relayed to the resident. The resident chased on 11 March 2019 and 19 March 2019 and each time the landlord reported that its contractor would be in touch. The landlord noted that the resident was very unhappy as he stated that the job had been raised then cancelled then re-raised. The resident was advised that the job had been approved on 22 February 2019 but an appointment had not yet been made to complete the works.
  8. On 23 April 2019, following completion of the works, the landlord’s records show that the resident telephoned to complain about the quality of the fence and gate. He noted that the wood was very rough and had caused him to hurt his hand and that the lock was difficult to operate. On 1 May 2019 resident made a second request for the Property Manager to attend to complete a post-inspection. He stated that the gate was not of a good standard and that the contractor had not done a good job. The landlord followed up with its contractor and asked the Property Manager to return the resident’s call. The resident chased a post-inspection again on 13 May 2019 and 17 May 2019. On 24 May 2019 the resident telephoned again and the landlord contacted its contractor, who stated that it would contact the resident directly to arrange an appointment.
  9. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 May 2019 that the contractor wanted to send an operative to his property who he had previously requested did not attend as he felt he had been rude and disrespectful. The landlord referred the resident’s comments to its contractor, who confirmed that they were trying to make alternative arrangements. 
  10. The landlord’s records show that a request to replace the fence panels was logged on 7 June 2019 and an appointment arranged for 18 June 2019. The resident has stated that the landlord failed to attend a repairs appointment scheduled for 18 June 2019, despite confirming the appointment on 17 June 2019. The resident has provided a copy of an email he states he received on 7 June 2019 confirming the appointment to repair the fence and gate on 18 June 2019. The landlord apologised that the fence had still not been repaired. The resident has also provided a copy of a text message reminder about the appointment, received on 17 June 2019.
  11. On 18 June 2019, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the delay in arranging and carrying out works to his gate and fence, the standard of the works completed and the landlord’s communication with the resident and its contractor. The letter stated that the resident had raised his complaint previously but had received no acknowledgment. The resident asked that his complaint be escalated to stage 2, as he had not received an acknowledgment or response to his stage 1 complaint.
  12. The complaint stated that the fence and gate works had been arranged after a number of visits and telephone calls but had then been cancelled on a number of occasions without notice to the resident, who had arranged to wait in for appointments. The resident stated that the landlord’s contractors had behaved in a disrespectful and rude manner and that repairs appointments had been missed on at least 6 occasions with no prior communication. The landlord’s contractor had also attempted to attend to complete the works with no prior warning. The resident stated that the Property Manager had visited to post-inspect and agreed that the works had not been completed to the required standard.
  13. The resident reported that the fence was not secure and was making a disturbing knocking sound, and that the fence and gate panels had been left untreated. The resident also complained that the contractor had sent an operative to an appointment, when it had previously been agreed that he would not attend at the resident’s request. The complaint also outlined the details of the missed appointment on 18 June 2019.
  14. The landlord provided a response at stage 1 of its complaints process on 23 July 2019. It acknowledged that the resident had initially been advised that it was his responsibility to repair the fence, ‘however, the decision was made by your Property Manager that we would attend to fix the fence for you as a good will gesture’. The landlord stated that when the Property Manager attended to post-inspect he was ‘satisfied with the works that were carried out and felt like this was a massive improvement on the fence’. It stated that the resident had been advised that it would not be carrying out further works when he had raised concerns previously. The landlord confirmed that the complaint was not upheld.
  15. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the resident’s request for escalation, however, the landlord provided a response at the final stage of its complaints process on 25 July 2019. The response noted that it had met with the resident on 10 July 2019 to discuss his complaint, and the resident had expressed that he was unhappy with the standard of works and the stage 1 decision. The landlord confirmed that the repair scheduled for 18 June 2019 was cancelled as the landlord had decided that works had been completed to a satisfactory standard. It stated that it had reviewed the photographs provided by the resident, which confirmed its decision. The landlord apologised that the resident had received contradictory information. The landlord noted that although the fencing was different to that in the communal areas, it was satisfied that “the work had been completed to a satisfactory standard”. The landlord also noted that the repair had been completed as a gesture of goodwill, as “fences usually fall under the customer’s responsibility, unless they are communal or boundary fences, which this is not”. The landlord upheld the decision at stage 1 of its complaints process.
  16. The resident has informed this Service that he considers the quality of the fence and standard of workmanship to be inadequate and wants the fence replacing. He also wants to be compensated for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to carry out the works to an adequate standard. The resident also noted that the landlord’s complaint response did not take into account the multiple missed appointments and indicated that he felt the job was cancelled as he asked the contractor’s supervisor to leave his property when he attended unannounced. The resident has complained about the landlord’s communication, stating that he was verbally informed by the Property Manager that further works would be completed, but that he later changed his mind without informing the resident. The resident has highlighted that the issues have caused his family a considerable amount of stress and inconvenience, particularly as his wife was recovering from a serious illness and was disturbed by the fence banging in the night.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has stated that the fence and gate is the resident’s responsibility to repair and maintain under the conditions of his Tenancy Agreement. A copy of the resident’s Tenancy Agreement has not been provided to this investigation, however, the landlord’s website lists the repair and maintenance of dividing fences as the customer’s responsibility, unless it is a boundary fence next to a public right of way, in which case the landlord will be responsible for repairs.
  2. The landlord attended the property to inspect the fence and gate at some point after 4 December 2018, following contact from the resident. It therefore took reasonable action to establish whether the issue fell within its repairing obligations. However, no notes from the inspection are detailed in the records provided to this investigation and it appears that the resident was not informed of the outcome until 15 February 2019. Prior to this, the resident had called for an update and been told that further information was required from the repairs team or contractor.
  3. The landlord failed to communicate the outcome of its inspection within a reasonable time and to follow-up on the resident’s requests for an update. The resident contacted the landlord 3 times before being informed that the landlord would not complete the works. The landlord’s records also indicate that the resident was informed that no repair was required, when in fact the landlord had concluded that the works did not fall within its repairing obligations. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations and to provide a clear explanation of the obligations of the parties. This increased the resident’s frustration, as he stated he had previously been led to believe that the works would be approved.
  4. Following further discussions, the landlord agreed to complete the works to replace the fence and gate. The landlord’s records show that an order was raised on 24 February 2019, although there is no record of the reason the landlord changed its decision. There are also no records of the resident’s discussions with the Property Manager or of the information communicated to him. This was despite the complaint response stating that the resident had been informed that the works were his responsibility but would be completed as a goodwill gesture. The Ombudsman advises that the landlord review its record keeping policies to ensure that all information about repair requests and responses is accurately recorded on its systems.
  5. The resident chased completion of the works on 3 occasions between 5 March 2019 and 19 March 2019. He stated that he had been expecting the landlord’s contractor to attend. According to the landlord’s records, on each occasion that the resident called to chase, the landlord had no record of appointments on its system but made enquiries with its contractor and agreed a plan of action to respond to the resident. Whilst the landlord did make appropriate efforts to liaise with its contractor, it did not communicate proactively with the resident or its contractor about the repair and its information sharing and record keeping was poor.
  6. The resident’s complaint referred to several missed appointments prior to completion of the works, however there is no documentary evidence of missed appointments in the information provided to this Service by either party. It is clear, however, that the landlord’s communication with its contractor and the resident in relation to the works could have been better.
  7. On completion of the works the resident requested a post-inspection as he was not happy with the quality of the fencing installed. The resident had to make several requests, as detailed at paragraph 9 above, before this was arranged. Again, there is no record of the landlord’s observations from the post-inspection or its conclusions about the resident’s request for further works. It is noted that following the post-inspection, a job to replace the fence and gate was re-raised, generating an appointment with the landlord’s contractor for 18 June 2019, which it then missed. The landlord has apologised that this was raised in error and confirmed that no further works are required.
  8. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s communication with the resident about the works to his fence and gate was poor. Whilst the works were undertaken on a voluntary basis and the landlord was under no obligation to complete them, its should still have upheld its service standards when communicating with the resident, arranging the repair, and following up on his request for further works.
  9. The Ombudsman considers that there was service failure due to the landlord’s poor communication, which the landlord should acknowledge and apologise for. The resident has benefitted from the offer to install the fence and gate at the landlord’s cost and the landlord’s Compensation Policy does not make express provision for compensation for missed appointments. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that an award of financial compensation is not necessary in the circumstances. The Ombudsman is not in a position to comment on the standard of the works carried out to the fence, however, as the Property Manager has attended and confirmed that the works have been completed to a satisfactory standard, the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to complete additional works.

Communication and Complaints Handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint response should address all aspects of a complaint and detail the investigations it has made and the conclusions it has reached. The landlord’s complaint responses did not consider the resident’s complaint about the behaviour of its contractor, including the reports of missed appointments, poor conduct by contractor staff and poor communication. There is no evidence that this aspect of the complaint was investigated with the contractor or discussed with the resident during the complaint investigation. The complaint response also failed to explain the parties’ responsibilities or the reason the landlord had concluded that the works completed to date were satisfactory. The landlord did not identify or apologise for its poor communication or address the length of time taken to provide information and arrange appointments in relation to the works. The Ombudsman therefore considers that there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. service failure by the landlord in relation to its communication with the resident about the works to his fence and gate; and
    2. service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. There was service failure due to the landlord’s poor communication with the resident about the works to his fence and gate and due to the length of time taken to respond to his requests for an update. The landlord failed to explain its repairs obligations, to confirm whether works would be completed and to arrange a post-inspection within a reasonable time and kept inadequate records of its discussions with the resident and its contractor.
  2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling due to its failure to investigate and respond to the complaint about its contractor’s conduct and communication.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the inconvenience caused to him by its poor communication about the works to his fence and gate and the missed appointment of 18 June 2019; and
    2. Pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of its poor complaints handling.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its processes for communicating with its contractors and recording information on its systems to ensure that all information relating to a repair or maintenance works is available and that this can be communicated to residents in a timely manner.