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

Orbit Group Limited (201912974)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912974

Orbit Group Limited

  1 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

1. The complaint concerns:

  1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the entry system of the communal front door and installation of a plug socket in the resident’s kitchen.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling and communication regarding these matters.
  3. The landlord’s handling of communication issues raised by the resident prior to the start of her tenancy.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

3. After carefully considering all the evidence and in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, This Service will not take in to consideration any matters or points mentioned that did not exhaust the Landlord’s Complaints Procedure first such as the communication issues raised prior to the start of the resident’s tenancy, when making a determination.

4. Should the Resident wish for the above mentioned matters to be investigated as well then a new complaint needs to be logged with the Landlord and if the resident remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to these matters, she can refer a new complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation.

 

Background and summary of events

Background

5. The property is a flat, situated in a building with similar properties.

Summary of events

6. The resident moved into the property on 7 October 2019 and at that time she identified that the communal door intercom system did not work, and there was no electrical socket in the kitchen for the refrigerator to be plugged in. The resident advised that due to the issue to the communal door intercom system, she had to leave her children alone to allow visitors in.

7. As per the landlord’s records, the resident contacted it via telephone on 30 October 2019, to report the repair issues she identified in her property and she was informed that a repair appointment was arranged for 18 November 2019; however, the resident could not attend this due to work commitments. The resident has advised that a further appointment was booked in at a date that was three weeks after the first visit.

8. Based on the information provided by the landlord, an engineer attended the property and repaired the communal door entry system on 3 January 2020.

9. On 8 January 2020, the resident wrote to this Service to advise that she had lodged a formal complaint with her landlord on 13 December 2019 but it was yet to issue an acknowledgement. The resident also advised that since moving in she had reported six repairs for which the landlord arranged appointments; however, it did not inform her of the dates and times, which led to the operatives visiting when the resident was not at the property and therefore she was unable provide access.

10. On 16 January 2020, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response addressing the following:

a. The resident first contacted it on 30 October 2019 to flag a repair issue and its contractor failed to carry this out within 28 days.

b. Considering the above, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint as its contractors did not adhere to its set timescales.

c. As a resolution the landlord apologised, offered compensation of £50, and advised that the outstanding works would be completed within 28 days.

11. The resident has reported that she did not receive the stage one complaint response.

12. Also, on 31 January 2020, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord regarding the repairs outstanding at her property. The MP mentioned that the resident did not receive any response from the landlord beside the fact that repairs would be carried out by 13 February 2020. Moving forward, the landlord discussed the matter internally on 5 and 6 February 2020 and, in this communication, the landlord mentioned that, based on its records, there were four appointments raised for the communal door intercom system to be repaired on 23 and 29 October 2019, 9 December 2019 and 15 January 2020. The landlord confirmed that it attended the previously mentioned appointments, that the repair was completed on 3 January 2020, and that it could arrange a new visit to take place on 10 February 2020 for this issue to be investigated again.

13. As per the landlord’s records, a repair order was issued on 12 February 2020 to fit an electrical socket for the fridge and the landlord was to contact the resident to agree a time and date.

14. On 13 February 2020, the landlord issued a response to the MP’s enquiry, dated 31 January 2020, and addressed the following points:

a. The repair issue to the communal door entry system, raised on 9 December 2019, was carried out on 3 January 2020 when it replaced the resident’s handset and rewired the necessary cables.

b. On 15 January 2020 the resident reported that the issue reoccurred and “the work was put on a 28 day turn around”. A new appointment was agreed for 10 February 2020 when an engineer visited the property at 4:40pm but could not gain access to the property.

c. The landlord advised it had taken the resident’s personal circumstances into account when arranging visits for repairs to be carried out.

d. With regard to the electrical socket, the landlord advised this was considered an improvement and therefore it had to follow a different process from repairs. The landlord advised this improvement was authorised and that its contractors would contact the resident to arrange an appointment.

e. As a conclusion, the landlord decided to partly uphold the resident’s complaint and apply a gesture of goodwill of £50 for the delays caused to the intercom repair.

15. Moving forward the resident continued to contact both the landlord and this Service between February and August 2020 because she did not receive the complaint responses issued by the landlord to her MP. The resident advised that when she contacted the landlord, it refused to discuss her complaint as it said it had been in contact with her MP. This Service obtained the complaint responses from the landlord and forwarded these on to the resident on 11 June 2020. However, the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication and handling of her complaints and outstanding repairs. More so, the resident advised she had reported further repairs to the landlord but was yet to receive a response.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement

16.The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for all kitchen and bathroom fixtures and the upkeep of controlled access equipment.

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy

17. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it “is responsible for repairing and maintaining buildings and any fixtures and fittings originally provided, as per individual tenancy agreements”.

The landlord divides repairs into three categories, based on priority:

  1. Emergency repairs represent any repairs required to avoid immediate danger to health and safety or the structure of the building and have a response time of four to 24 hours.
  2. Routine repairs represent any responsive repair that is not an emergency and have a response time of up to 28 calendar days.
  3. Nonresponsive repairs represent major works and do not have a set completion time frame.

The landlord’s compensation policy

     18. The landlord’s compensation policy, concerning delays to complete repairs, states that delays will be compensated with a standard rate of £10 plus an additional £2 per day until the repair is completed but up to a maximum of £50.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the intercom system of the front communal door and installation of an electrical socket in the kitchen

19. Among other repair issues, the resident identified that the communal door intercom system did not function upon moving into the property on 7 October 2019. The resident did not confirm the date she reported this to the landlord; however, the landlord advised that this issue was flagged to it on 30 October 2019. The landlord deemed this to be a routine repair. An initial appointment was booked in for 18 November 2019, which was in line with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy and turnaround of 28 calendar days.

20. This appointment did not go ahead because the resident could not attend due to work commitments. The resident has advised that a new appointment was arranged for a date that was three weeks after the initial one (the exact date was not confirmed to this Service). As per the information provided by the landlord, the appointment did not go ahead and the matter was not discussed any further until 9 December 2019, when the landlord arranged for another appointment to take place on 3 January 2020 (when the repair was carried out). This Service appreciates that the landlord booked an initial appointment within its indicated timeframe; however, by taking the above events into account, along with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy that commits to carrying out routine repairs within 28 calendar days, it is evident that the landlord subsequently failed to comply with its procedure and set timeframes.

21. In this instance, it would have been beneficial for the landlord to agree an appointment time and date with the resident when informed that the resident could not provide access on 18 November 2019. This would have ensured that unnecessary delays were avoided, and the inconvenience caused to the resident would have been reduced.

22. Moving forward, the resident informed this Service, on 31 January 2020, that the communal door intercom system was faulty again and that she had reported this to the landlord two weeks prior to the email but she was yet to receive a response from it. On 13 February 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP and advised that the repair issue was reported to them on 15 January 2020 and it attended an appointment on 10 February 2020 at 4:40pm; however, it could not complete the works due to a lack of access to the property. It was not confirmed to this Service whether this appointment was jointly agreed with the resident or if she was informed of when it would take place. Furthermore, it was not confirmed to this Service whether the repair was subsequently carried out at a later date.

23. This Service appreciates that certain appointments could not go ahead due to the lack of access to the property; however, based on the information provided, it is clear that the landlord failed to adhere to its responsive repairs policy and set a turnaround of 28 calendar days to deal with this repair on two different occasions.  Also, the resident has advised that she could not provide access because she was not informed of the appointments in advance. Therefore, it is determined that the access issues were caused, to some extent, by the landlord’s miscommunication with the resident.

24. In respect of the reoccurrence of the issue with the intercom system, it has been taken into account that the landlord was within its rights to rely on its contractor’s opinion concerning the work needed to repair the intercom system in the first instance. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence to show that the fault reoccurred because of an error by the contractor in carrying out the first repair. However, considering that the initial repair was unsuccessful and the issue reoccurred, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to prioritise the follow up repair, in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident due to having to report the same repair issue multiple times.

25. Furthermore, it has been taken into account that the landlord apologised for the delays caused and offered compensation of £50 for the inconvenience caused which was in line with its compensation policy. However, considering the number of appointments arranged for this repair to be carried out, the amount of time taken to complete the repair and the inconvenience caused to the resident by the above factors along with the fact that she has had to leave her children unattended to allow visitors into the property and the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not sufficient to put things right for the resident.

26. Similarly, with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install an electrical socket in proximity to her refrigerator, it is noted that the resident identified and reported this when moving in, in October 2019. The landlord addressed this matter on 13 February 2020 and it confirmed that:

  1. this was considered an improvement
  2. due to the nature of the work it had to follow a different process
  3. the work was authorised and its contractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment

27. It is noted that the landlord’s repairs policy does not state a specific timeframe for improvements to be completed; however, by taking into account the events detailed in this report and nature of the work it is clear that the improvement was rather straightforward and could have been dealt with in a more timely manner. In this instance, it would have been beneficial for the landlord to provide the resident with a timeframe as to when it would carry out the work, in order to manage the resident’s expectations and diminish the inconvenience caused by having to chase this matter up. This has been taken into consideration when looking at compensation for the overall inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s complaints and feedback procedure and policy

28. The landlord operates a two-stage (investigation and review) complaints procedure in which it:

  1. Commits to provide the resident with a written acknowledgement within three working days of receipt “outlining when a full response will be received, naming the member of staff dealing with the complaint and a contact number”.
  2. Aims “to respond as quickly and as comprehensively as possible in order to achieve a local resolution”.
  3. Commits to knowing what the resident expects as an outcome, manage expectations, keep the resident informed, record communication with the resident and inform the resident if the complaint “cannot be resolved within timescales”.
  4. States that if the complaint relates to repairs this should be referred to the designated department for an investigation to be carried out. Furthermore, the procedure states that a response is to be provided to the complaint handler within five working days and if the repairs are still outstanding then the complaint is to be kept open.
  5. Once the works are completed the complaint can be closed and a final response sent.
  6. Should the resident be unhappy with the outcome offered at the investigation stage then this could be escalated for a review unless the desired outcome is to obtain more compensation.
  7. When a complaint is escalated for review the landlord commits to issuing a written acknowledgement within three working days and aims to provide a response within ten working days.
  8. Furthermore, the landlord commits to contacting the resident either via telephone or by conducting a home visit to ensure that both parties agree on the cause and outcome for the complaint.

29. Additionally, the landlord’s complaints procedure states that it accepts complaints made by an advocate if permission was granted by the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling and communication

30. In the resident’s email of 8 January 2020 to this Service, she advised that she raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 13 December 2019 and she was yet to receive a response or acknowledgement from it. As per the landlord’s records, it issued a stage one complaint response on 16 January 2020. At this time, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, advised that works would be completed within 28 calendar days, and offered £50 compensation. In this instance the landlord failed to adhere to its complaints and feedback procedure because:

  1. It did not provide the resident with a written acknowledgement within three working days.
  2. As the complaint concerned outstanding repairs, the landlord did not carry out an investigation at the property.
  3. It did not keep the resident informed throughout the process.
  4. It closed the complaint prior to completing the works.

31. In respect of the above, it is noted that the resident was provided with the stage one complaint response, issued by the landlord on 16 January 2020, on 11 June 2020 by this Service. The landlord ought reasonably to have resent her the stage one response sooner as she had not received it and had contacted the landlord numerous times to chase a response to complaint.

32. Also, the landlord refused to provide any updates on the basis that the resident had escalated the matter to her MP and, due to this, it could no longer discuss the complaint with her. The resident’s MP confirmed this was not the case and the landlord could have contacted the resident directly to discuss her concerns. In this instance, the landlord was both unreasonable and uncompliant with its complaints and feedback procedure because it failed to keep the resident informed of the progress on her complaint. Additionally, the lack of communication between the landlord and the resident or her MP impacted its ability to provide a satisfactory outcome.

33. It is also taken into account that this Service contacted the landlord February and August 2020 to request for it to contact the resident to discuss the complaints she raised, investigate these, and provide responses. However, as per the information provided to this Service, the landlord did not do as requested.

34. To conclude, based on the information provided to this Service, it is evident that the landlord failed to: adhere to its complaints and feedback procedure, investigate the resident’s complaints in a timely manner, and communicate effectively with the resident or her MP. It is this Service’s opinion that these factors led to avoidable delays and unnecessary inconvenience caused to the resident. In order to put things right for the resident, in respect of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling and communication the landlord should issue a written apology and pay compensation as detailed below.

Determination (decision) 

35. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of:

  1. Repairs to the entry system of the communal front door and installation of a plug socket in the resident’s kitchen.
  2. Complaint handling and communication regarding these matters.

Reasons

36. The landlord failed to remedy the issue to the resident’s intercom system and adhere to the response timeframe of 28 days, set in its repairs guide.

37. The landlord failed to adhere to its complaints and feedback procedure; to deal with the resident’s complaint in a timely manner; to keep the resident informed of the progress made on her complaint; and communicate with the resident effectively.

38. It is noted that the landlord apologised and offered compensation of £50 to the resident however, this was not sufficient to compensate for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in respect of the above issues.

Orders

39. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:

  1. Pay compensation of £150 for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs. (this award takes into account the landlord’s earlier offer of £50 compensation which can be deducted from the total, if it has already been paid)
  2. Pay compensation of £150 for the inconvenience caused by errors in the landlord’s complaint handling and communication.

40. Complete the repair works to the resident’s intercom system and install an electrical socket in proximity to the resident’s refrigerator, if it has not done this yet.

41. The compensation is to be paid in full to the resident within four weeks and the repair works are to be arranged within 8 weeks of this determination.

 

 

Recommendation

42. The landlord is recommended to provide further training to its staff regarding its complaints procedures to ensure complaints are dealt with in a timely and effective manner going forward.