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

Orbit Group Limited (201906190)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201906190

Orbit Group Limited

30 March 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 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 resident complains about:

  1. How the landlord handled her reports of repairs required at the property, including dampness, a leak, and concerns about the water tank.
  2. How the landlord handled her formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

1.     The resident is an assured tenant of a two-bedroom bungalow (the property).

 

2.     In August 2017, the landlord identified that the property was affected by dampness, including possible rising dampness and condensation. The landlord was advised to let the walls dry out and then monitor the building visually before carrying out further investigate works. In approximately March 2018, the landlord carried out remedial works for dampness in the lounge and kitchen. The resident was decanted during these works.

 

3.     In approximately June 2018, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about how it had handled repairs at the property. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of this complaint.

 

4.     On 13 August 2018, the landlord wrote to the resident referring to an enclosed complaint response (the Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the complaint response). It noted that works were complete but the resident had raised a few outstanding issues, such as the flooring and kitchen tiles. The landlord said it had raised these issues and that if it did not hear from her by 7 September 2018, it would close the complaint.

 

5.     On 31 August 2018, the resident reported that the patio windows were draughty. The repair is marked as complete on 28 September 2018 in the landlord’s repair records but there is no evidence in the records to confirm the works completed. On 14 September 2018, the landlord raised a repair order including to treat and clean mould in a corner base unit and repoint an area of the damp proof course. This order is marked as “deleted” in the landlord’s records.

 

6.     The landlord’s repair records evidence that on 4 April 2019, the landlord received a report of a leak in the kitchen at the back of a cupboard and the notes state that someone would need to cut through to access the leaking pipe. A works order was raised and marked as complete on 8 April 2019.

 

7.     On 7 May 2019, the resident requested an inspection of the water tank and water pipes in the property and she was concerned the water was contaminated. On 15 May 2019, the resident contacted the landlord informing it that a plumber had attended and hacked out the back of a cupboard to find the source of the damp. She asked what would happen next as the issue was outstanding from October 2018. She said that damp had returned immediately after the 2018 works and two cupboards were covered in mould. She said she had emptied her cupboards and therefore had items all over the lounge and on the work tops. It is understood that the landlord treated this communication as a formal complaint.

 

8.     On 24 May 2019, the resident chased up an appointment for the water tank and water pipes to be inspected and said she was free from 10 June 2019 except for 13 June 2019.

 

9.     On 28 May 2019, the landlord responded to the complaint. The landlord said that works had taken place the previous year and they took many months to complete. It said works were complete as of August 2018 and the resident had also confirmed that a few ongoing issues were resolved. The landlord apologised for the service she had received. It upheld the complaint stating it expected its contractors to complete a repair within its timescales of 28 days and they did not do so. The letter advised that the resident had 20 days from the date of this letter to request a review of the decision.

 

10. On 9 June 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord. The resident complained that while a contractor attended on 5 April 2019 and said he had stopped the leak, a further visit took place on 8 May 2019, but no works were done on this occasion and a damp expert did not turn up. She said that an appointment for a plumber was made for 22 May 2019, but nobody turned up. A further appointment was made for 28 May 2019, but she was not informed and was not available that day. She said that the leak was ongoing and she requested compensation for how the leak had been handled and the increased water bills. She said this had started the previous year and someone had attended in September due to mould in the kitchen cupboard and it had gotten worse ever since. She said she was living in the bedroom as the sitting room was so cold. She also said that no snagging works had been done since she had returned to the property in May 2018.

 

11. On 12 June 2019, the landlord attended to check the water tank. The notes of this appointment state “Adjusted the water temperature in the cylinder from 40° to 65°”. On 14 June 2019, the landlord raised an order to trace a water leak in the property.

 

12. On 16 June 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord again. She referred to a missed appointment of 10 June 2019. She said that a plumber had since attended and looked at the tank and said it looked “ok”, but the thermostat was set to 40 degrees, which was dangerous. She referred to health problems she had experienced. The resident asked when the work to address the leak would be completed. On 30 June 2019, the resident wrote further stating that the leak repair and the snagging works from 2018 were outstanding. She said the damp had been an ongoing issue since she moved back in June 2018. She requested someone visit the property to assess the conditions.

 

13. The landlord looked into whether an appointment made for 10 July 2019 could be brought forward.

 

14. On 8 July 2019, the landlord responded to the complaint. The landlord said that an appointment of 12 June 2019 to check the water tank was made on 24 May 2019 following a plumber attending the property. The landlord said that the issue with the water tank was rectified on 12 June 2019.  It said that the water temperature was nine degrees below the recommended minimum temperature, however, over a short period of time this would not cause health issues as she had indicated. It said it was unfortunate that this had happened, but it could have been the thermostat was set too low, which could happen for many reasons. The landlord concluded that the water tank issue was dealt with within the timescale she had been given during a call of 24 May 2019

 

15. The landlord said that an appointment was made for 10 July 2019 to locate the leak and replace pipework and the resident had rearranged this for 22 July 2019. The possible water leak issue had been addressed and she had received an appointment for the repair to be completed on 22 July 2019. It advised that if she was unsatisfied with the decision, she could contact it within 20 days and request the case be reviewed.

 

16. On 14 July 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord. She complained about the work from the previous year. She asked why she had moved out last year only for the damp to return and asked why the work was not checked at the time. She said she was told that tiles would be redone but this had not happened, and the snagging works were not finished, including issues with the carpet. She also referred to issues with the flooring in the kitchen and lounge. She said she had been living in the bedroom since September 2018.

 

17. In relation to the leak, the resident said someone had attended on 3 July 2019 to look at the leak under the sink and told her she needed a new water meter. However, the water company had since found a leak in the toilet bowl. She requested the work be completed. The resident also said she had received a letter saying that the water tank was nine degrees below the right level when in fact she had been told it was 25 degrees below the right level. She said the landlord had not mentioned the times the contractors had missed appointments. She requested reimbursement for excess water that had leaked.

 

18. The repair for the leak is marked as completed on 22 July 2019 in the landlord’s records.

 

19. On 14 and 15 January 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting to make a formal complaint about a particular member of the landlord’s staff. She referred to various issues, including some new complaints, but also that:
 

  1. There were delays in the repair to the pipes in the kitchen cupboard, which was raised in October 2019. She asked why she had to wait five weeks for somebody to attend. She asked why it took the water company attending to identify a leak in the toilet bowl.
  2. There were delays in snagging works being completed following her return to the property in June 2018. Tiles behind the cooker should have been matched with the existing ones but instead were replaced with plain white tiles.
  3. The damp issue was not resolved and the property was cold. The window in the living room had not been addressed.
  4. She had reported previously that the plastic panel under the patio door had come loose and that the wall at the side of the window was damp but no works were done.

 

20. On 17 February 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it had attempted to contact her on 12, 13 and 17 February 2020, but was unable to reach her to discuss the complaint, therefore it would not be able to investigate further and would not open a complaint. It provided contact details for her to contact if she wished to discuss it.

 

21. On 20 Feb 2020, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord requesting it provide a Stage two response to the complaint previously responded to on 8 July 2019. On 9 March 2020, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord again. 

 

22. On 13 March 2020, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on behalf of the resident requesting it comment in response to her concerns, including:

 

  1. A request that the patio window was checked for heat loss, stating it runs with water, which was seeping up from underneath. She said that the wall next to the window was damp.
  2. A panel between the patio window and the floor had come “adrift”.
  3. She said she did not use the sitting room but used the bedroom as a lounge because of these repair issues.
  4. She had not received a response to her complaint of 14 January 2020.

 

23. On 28 May 2020, the landlord wrote to the MP. It said the resident’s letter of 14 January 2020 included issues that had been addressed previously by the complaints team. The landlord said it made the resident aware that following the closure of her complaint in 2019, she had not raised any further repairs via the correct channels to coincide with the claims she was making. The landlord also said that it had tried to contact her by telephone in January and February 2020, but she did not answer, so a non-contact letter was sent. It advised the resident to raise any repairs via the correct channels in accordance with the repairs policy.

 

24. On 5 June 2020, the landlord raised a repair order in relation to the plastic strip at the bottom of the patio door. This is marked as completed on 16 July 2020.  Following further communication from the Ombudsman, on 3 August 2020, the landlord stated that the resident had exhausted its complaints procedure.

 

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled her reports of repairs required at the property, including dampness, a leak, and concerns about the water tank.

25. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for various repairs, including maintaining and keeping in proper working order the structure and outside of the property, internal walls, floors and ceilings, kitchen and bathroom fixtures, and the installations for the supply of gas, electricity, water and sanitation.

26. The tenancy agreement states that it will carry out repairs within such reasonable timescales as it determines.

27. The landlord’s Repair policy states that it has three priority categories:

  1. Emergency repair (4 and 24 hours) – any repair that is required in order to sustain the immediate health, safety or security of the customer, or that affects the structure of the building adversely.
  2. Routine repair (within 28 calendar days) – any responsive repair that is not an emergency.
  3. Non-responsive repair – major repairs that are grouped together and included within stock investment programmes in order to deliver value for money, for example, roof replacements.

28. The policy also states that where a contractor is unable to attend an appointment, they will contact the customer, at least two hours in advance of the prearranged appointment, to reschedule.

29. The evidence confirms that the landlord was made aware of a leak in the kitchen on 4 April 2019. The landlord attended the property on 5 April 2019 and again on 8 April 2019. On 7 and 24 May 2019, the resident requested an inspection of the water tank and water pipes in the property as she was concerned the water was contaminated. She said she was free from 10 June 2019 except for 13 June 2019.

30. There is evidence that the landlord inspected the water tank on 12 June 2019, which was appropriate. However, given that this was raised on 7 May 2019 and the resident was concerned that the water might be contaminated, it is of concern that it took the landlord from 7 May 2019 to 10 June 2019 to check the water tank. This should have been treated with more urgency given the resident’s health concerns. When responding to the complaint, the landlord concluded that the water tank issue was resolved on 12 June 2019 and there was no risk to the resident’s health.  However, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide the evidence it relied on when concluding that there was no health risk identified and the only evidence provided confirms that the temperature was adjusted from 40° to 65°.

31. This evidence supports the resident’s position that the tank was 25° lower than it should have been rather than 9° as the landlord set out its complaint response. Therefore, it is of concern that the landlord’s complaint response was not accurate in relation to this issue. In addition, the landlord has not provided an explanation to either the resident or the Ombudsman as to how it reached the conclusion that there were no health concerns. The landlord should have carried out appropriate investigations into this issue to satisfy itself that this was the case and there is no evidence to confirm that it did this. The resident also complained of missed appointments on 22 May and 10 June 2019 and the landlord did not address this aspect of the complaint.

32. In response to the report of a leak, the landlord acted appropriately in attending the property within 24 hours in accordance with its repairs policy and a follow up appointment took place three days later. The landlord acted promptly at this stage. The landlord’s repair records note the repair was complete on 8 April 2019, however from 7 May 2019 the resident continued to raise concerns about this issue. The landlord raised further repair requests and these were marked as complete on 22 July 2019. The landlord acted appropriately in resolving the leak, however, there was a delay in it doing so between 7 May and 22 July 2019 and it did not do so within the 28-day timescale in its policy.

 

33. However, it is also noted that on 24 May 2019 the resident requested an appointment from 10 June 2019 onwards, and that the landlord referred to the resident rearranging the appointment of 10 July 2019 which was rebooked for 22 July 2019. The resident’s correspondence refers to not having been made aware of the 10 July 2019 appointment and that when she said she was unavailable, the plumber said he was going on holiday. Therefore, the cause of the delay between 10 and 22 July 2019 is disputed by the parties and there is not sufficient evidence for the Ombudsman to conclude as to the cause of the delay. In conclusion, taking into account that the delay in these two time periods may not have been within the landlord’s control, there is only evidence of a short delay in the landlord repairing the leak, approximately three weeks outside the 28-day timescale.

 

34. It is also noted that the resident referred to the leak being outstanding from the previous September (2018) and there is evidence that the landlord was made aware of dampness in the kitchen cupboards at this time. There is not sufficient evidence for the Ombudsman to conclude whether the landlord acted appropriately at this time as the resident refers to someone attending but the landlord’s records contain no details of this. Nevertheless, when responding to the complaint, the landlord should have investigated as to whether the issue had been ongoing from prior to April 2019 as the resident had asserted this.

 

35. In the resident’s letter of 14 July 2019, the resident requested reimbursement for excess charges for water that had leaked. The landlord did not respond in relation to this issue. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to give the resident an opportunity to evidence that she had incurred extra water charges due to the leak and the landlord did not do so.

 

36. The resident also referred to outstanding snagging works from the 2018 works and that she was unable to use the living room due to dampness and heat loss through the patio window. It was reasonable for the landlord not to re-visit the complaints the resident had made in 2018 since there is no evidence of her requesting escalation of that complaint at the time. However, the resident was complaining that there were outstanding repairs and snagging works it had agreed to do, therefore it would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange an inspection to consider if there were any further repairs for which it was responsible. There is no evidence of it doing this other than a repair order in relation to the plastic strip at the bottom of the patio door, which was completed in July 2020.

 

37. While it is acknowledged that new repairs should be reported to the landlord’s repairs team, the resident was communicating clearly through the complaints process that there were outstanding issues from the previous year and therefore the landlord should have investigated both the repairs and whether there had been any delays on its part.

 

38. In conclusion, at times the landlord made reasonable attempts to address the repairs reported, for example, it arranged investigations into the reported leak and water tank issue between April and July 2019. However, there were several shortcomings in how the landlord handled the repairs. It has not provided sufficient evidence to show it appropriately considered the resident’s concern about the water tank temperature. There was a delay (although not extensive) in relation to the resolution of the leak in 2019. In addition, the landlord has not evidenced that is has investigated the further concerns the resident raised about outstanding repairs and snagging issues, such as dampness and issues with the patio window.

 

Complaint handling

39. The landlord’s Complaints policy states that its complaints process has two steps:

  1. Investigation. It aims to resolve and respond to the complaint within ten working days. If it cannot do so, it will inform the complainant within ten working days when a full response will be sent.
  2. Review. Complaints which are not satisfactorily resolved at the investigation stage will be reviewed by a designated senior manager who has not been involved in the complaint investigation. It will respond within ten working days of the request to proceed to review or inform the complainant within ten working days when a full response will be sent.

 

40. The policy also states that it will close a complaint if no response is received from the complainant 20 working days after the final response letter has been sent.

 

41. The landlord’s Complaints procedure states that the following are not considered a complaint:

 

  1. Initial requests for a service such as a repair.
  2. Where the dissatisfaction relates to a previous issue which has already been reviewed via its complaints process and a conclusion reached either via an internal or external process.

 

42. The procedure also states that it will not normally investigate complaints that relate to matters that occurred over six months ago.

 

43. On 15 May 2019, the resident raised a concern about ongoing repairs and the landlord responded on 28 May 2019. The resident wrote to the landlord to complain on 9, 16 and 30 June 2019. It provided a complaint response on 8 July 2019. This was outside the ten-working-day timescale in its policy although it is acknowledged that this was not an extensive delay. This letter stated that the resident could request a review of the complaint. The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 July 2019 setting out her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response but there is no evidence of the landlord responding to this letter or escalating the complaint in accordance with its complaints policy. Therefore, there was a shortcoming in how the landlord handled the complaint at this stage.

 

44. The Ombudsman requested the landlord respond further to the complaint in February and March 2020. The landlord has said that it made attempts to contact the resident which was appropriate. Particularly given the number of issues she was raising and the fact that some of these related to previous complaints and some to ongoing repairs, it was reasonable for the landlord to want to discuss the resident’s concerns to clarify what issues it was responding to as a complaint. However, subsequently the resident raised further concerns through her MP that repairs were outstanding and despite further communication from the Ombudsman, the landlord did not provide a further complaint response addressing the outstanding issues.

 

45. It is acknowledged that new repairs requests, historic issues and previous complaints are not considered as complaints under the landlord’s complaints procedure, which may have applied to some of the issues raised in the resident’s letters of 14 and 15 January 2020. However, the resident was also complaining that works were outstanding and she had raised this in the original complaint of May 2019, therefore the landlord should have escalated the complaint and provided a further complaint response to address this.

Determination (decision)

46. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about how the landlord handled her reports of repairs required at the property.

47. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of how the landlord handled the formal complaint.

Reasons

At times the landlord made reasonable attempts to address the repairs reported. For example, it arranged investigations into the reported leak and water tank issue between April and July 2019. However, it has not provided evidence to show it appropriately considered the resident’s concern about the water tank temperature and its complaint response in relation to this issue is not supported by the evidence provided. There was a delay (although not extensive) in relation to the resolution of the leak in 2019. The landlord has also failed to evidence that is has investigated the further concerns the resident raised about outstanding repairs, which it should have done.

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request to escalate the complaint of 14 July 2014 in accordance with its complaints policy.

Orders

  1. The landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her a total of £450   compensation (within four weeks of the date of this Order), comprising:
    1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the repairs at the property.
    2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure in handling the formal complaint.
  2. The landlord to contact the resident to obtain an up-to-date list of repairs which she considers are outstanding to date and the landlord to arrange an inspection to determine whether further repairs are required to the property. The landlord should then write to the resident setting out the findings of its inspection and a list of repairs it intends to complete with timescales (within eight weeks of the date of this Order).
  3. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.