Orbit Group Limited (202001893)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001893

Orbit Group Limited

30 April 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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s claim to replace the carpets at the property, following an acknowledged delay in completing a repair to a leak in the roof.
2. The level of compensation for the acknowledged delay in responding to reports of damp and mould caused by a roof leak.
3. The complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and the tenancy commenced in July 2011. The property is a flat on the top (second) floor of the building.
The resident’s representative has said the resident is a vulnerable adult who is under medication that means his blood is tested regularly to check for white blood cells. The representative highlighted this to the landlord due to the possibility of the mould affecting him.
The representative’s actions are referred to as the resident’s in this report.
Under the tenancy agreement:
1. Section 1.4 (ii) the landlord’s obligations include that “the property is furnished in accordance with the inventory at Appendix B” (not provided).
2. Section 1.8 (a) the landlord will maintain and keep in proper working order the structure of the outside of the property including the roof, internal walls, floors and ceilings, kitchen fixtures, installation for supply of water including sinks and appliances for the making use of the supply of water, heating and heating equipment and electrical equipment and installation.
3. Section 1.8(c) the landlord is not responsible for matters including internal decoration, cleaning, damage caused by (tenant) misuse or neglect.
4. Section 2.8 (e) it will carry out all repairs “within such reasonable timescales as may be determined by (the landlord) from time to time”.
5. Section 2.15 the resident’s obligation is to “promptly report” any disrepair for which the landlord is responsible for either in the property or common parts.
6. Section 2.23 the resident is responsible “to insure your possessions, the content of the property and decorations including cover against accidental damage to our fixtures, fittings, furniture and effects”.
7. Section 3.8 the resident “may be entitled to compensation” if the landlord “does not complete certain repairs” when it says it will.
8. Section 3.12 it will address complaints in accordance with its complaint policy.
The repair policy sets out the repair priorities:
1. Emergency repairs (4 and 24 hours) are repairs required to sustain the immediate health, safety and security of the customer at risk or that which affects the structure of the building adversely.
2. Routine repairs (within 28 calendar days) are those responsive repairs which are not an emergency.
3. Non responsive repairs are major (non emergency) works included within stock investment programmes to deliver value for money, such as replacements.
4. The landlord has a “high priority” response to customers identified as having acute physical or mental health vulnerabilities (as defined by its safeguarding policy) which may include circumstances that are a risk to the resident’s safety.
5. The policy also sets out the standards for attending appointments, such as the expectation that the contractor updates the resident if they are unable to attend and that they will leave the property safe at the end of the appointment. The corresponding compensation policy states compensation is not payable for first failure to attend an appointment for qualifying repairs.
The compensation policy and procedure outline the landlord’s approach to compensation in relation to service failure to customers. It does not consider insurance claims as service failures, instead these are considered in line with insurance procedures. It excludes payment where there has been a failure to carry out repairs in a set timescale where extra work is needed and customers have been advised. It also excludes where damage has been incurred and where it is the customer’s responsibility to have home contents insurance. Payments are otherwise either mandatory (compensation under the right to repair) or discretionary (additional payments for errors, mistakes or actions resulting in disadvantage or loss). The policy sets this out in more detail.
Under the payment guidance for damage to property it states this may be paid, on the condition that the insurance team advises if the matter should be locally resolved or referred to the landlord’s insurers. The landlord and resident must agree on the extent of the damage to be made good. If settlement is agreed, then consideration should be given to the age of the item and its depreciation, and the landlord will arrange for the contractor to make good the damage. The amount will depend on there being a reasonably receipted claim, so long as the property could not be cleaned/repaired/made good.

Summary of events

The resident sent images of mould in the property to the landlord on 11 November 2019. A repair was reported in November 2019 (kitchen ceiling, water leak, damage due to leak). This was marked as complete on 25 November 2019 (a mould inspection carried out at the property).
On 1 December 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to ask why plasterwork was going to be undertaken when the root cause (“leaking roof/guttering”) had not been addressed. The resident explained the extent of the issue to the landlord, that water was seeping into the flat, that there was an “appalling” smell and “black mould”, and that the resident was a vulnerable adult and the issue may exacerbate his health condition.
The landlord met with the resident at the property on 3 December 2019 to inspect it. The landlord followed up with an email on 5 December 2019 outlining jobs raised to the roof (job number 3070495 to look at the block roof as this was believed to be where the water was entering the property), a mould treatment job and a job to check the roof insulation. This was marked as complete on 2 January 2020.
According to the resident there was another inspection on 11 December 2019 and 7 January 2020. The resident then contacted the landlord on 14 January 2020 to ask about the roof works and said this was outstanding.
A damp survey was raised on 15 January 2020 (started on 22/23 January 2020 and completed 5 February 2020), follow up works under the damp survey were raised on 27 January 2020 (started on 19 March 2020, completed August 2020) and the same order was raised on 9 April 2020.
On 1 March 2020 the landlord was told by the resident that the “mouldy, damp environment” was “especially damaging” to the resident’s weakened immune system and the resident had been sick in January 2020.
According to the resident, on 11 March 2020, he called the landlord to ensure a roof repair was logged so that this could be repaired before the interior repair works started. The landlord said a block job had been raised to repair the roof.
On 16 March 2020 the resident told the landlord of a puddle of water in the property after heavy rainfall and his concern about the lack of progress over the repair to the roof.
The resident asked why the roof had not been fixed as the internal jobs were starting on that day and the landlord informed him that there was no roofing job logged. The landlord said it forwarded the query to the relevant staff.
On 18 March 2020 the resident emailed the landlord and quoted its own summary of works from 5 December 2020 which included the roof repair. The resident explained that the roof repair was not completed and reported rainwater running down from the roof into the resident’s walls. The resident did not have complaints about the contractors on site, such as those operating the damp survey, or the works being undertaken inside the property, but expressed concern over the pace of the work due to the outstanding roof repair. The resident expressed concern over the cumulative impact of the landlord’s failure to repair the roof, highlighting the resident’s condition (his mental and physical health) as being especially impacted. For example, the resident said that the plasterer had stopped work, as they said the roof needed to be fixed first. There was also a delay in the kitchen facilities being back up, after they were disconnected due to the internal repairs. Two days later, on 20 March 2020, the resident once again pointed out the problem that the outstanding roof repair was causing, saying that the contractor had to “abandon their internal work until…the roof was repaired”.
On 23 March 2020 the resident said he emailed the landlord’s chief executive to ask that they intervene but there was no response by anyone. The records show that the landlord (property manager) and resident did exchange several emails throughout the day of 23 March:

a. The landlord’s property manager apologised for the delay in responding and said he was on annual leave; he said he would ask the operative to carry out the internal works and that the communal roof be repaired/looked into as soon as possible.

b. The resident said that the contractors had already started the internal works but the resident asked them to stop as there was rain water “pouring down the exposed roof felting” and reiterated that there were no kitchen facilities.

c. The landlord acknowledged the outstanding roof job and said it had spoken to the contractors who had ordered scaffolding; it agreed to chase this daily so that the works could be carried out as soon as possible.

d. The resident replied and raised the issue of the kitchen again (“ready meals for 8 days…wash dishes in the small bathroom wash basin, this is an unhealthy and expensive option”).

e. The landlord raised an emergency job to “make safe” the roofing job so when it rained this did not enter the resident’s flat, it also raised an emergency job to reconnect the (kitchen) water supply.

f. The resident said the operative attended but did not have enough time to do the emergency work, they also could not reconnect the kitchen water supply or fit the sink in.

g. The resident also reported a lack of heat in the lounge and bedroom due to the removal of the radiator by the plasterer and which was due be put back on 30 March 2020; in the meantime, the resident highlighted the cold weather (minus two degrees Celsius). The landlord agreed to arrange this as soon as possible.

On 25 March 2020 the resident and landlord exchanged further emails:

a. The resident said the operative did not turn up for the kitchen sink and washing machine, the landlord apologised and arranged for them to turn up shortly.

b. The resident iterated the lack of radiators/heating in the bedroom and lounge whilst waiting for the operative to attend on 30 March, total of 11 days without heating in those rooms (the radiators were put back on 8 April). Also, the washing machine was not refitted properly as the hot and cold water had not been put back correctly.

c. The landlord arranged for temporary heaters to be delivered until the radiators could be reattached and arranged for a plumber to attend.

d. The resident acknowledged receipt of the temporary heating and focused on the outstanding issues; the washing machine and the roof. The resident asked if the scaffolding had been raised and details about its schedule.

On 25 – 26 March 2020 the landlord and resident exchanged further emails. The landlord arranged for a plumber to rectify issues with the water and to board up the kitchen ceiling to stop water leaking. It also explained that the communal roof and scaffolding works were subject to the effect of the pandemic as emergency jobs were being prioritised.
According to the resident, the works were then completed in April – May 2020, with scaffolding erected in April then extended to access a second source of leak. There are limited records about the scaffolding, but it has not been disputed that this was raised in March, put up in April and the roof works were undertaken in April – May 2020. After the roof works had been completed, the internal repairs were restarted in June 2020.

Internal complaint process

The resident raised a formal complaint on 3 June 2020. The complaint was acknowledged on 4 June 2020 and responded to on 8 June 2020. The resident escalated the complaint on 13 June 2020, the landlord issued a final response on 16 June 2020.
As part of the resident’s complaint, he was unhappy about the landlord’s “failure to repair the leaking roof within a reasonable timescale” which “caused (the resident’s) carpet to be ruined”. The resident’s complaint outcome was for the landlord to “pay for the replacement carpets” and enclosed a quote of £849.
The landlord’s letter of 8 June 2020 set out the actions it took and upheld the complaint on the basis that it did not “complete works within our timescales of 28 days”. It offered £250 compensation for the repair delay. It did not break down the calculation to reflect which repair it was referring to, how long the work had been outstanding, or whether it considered the impact of its delay before offering this amount of compensation. It also declined to reimburse the resident for the cost of the carpet, stating that it would refer the resident to their content insurance as per the tenancy agreement.
The resident disputed the landlord’s recollection of the actions it had undertaken and was dissatisfied with the landlord’s suggestion to refer to a home contents insurance policy to recover the cost of the carpet. The resident explained that he did not consider the repair to be due to his own actions but instead due to the landlord’s delay in fixing the leak/roof, and he also did not have such insurance.
The landlord apologised for the inaccurate summary of actions it set out in its earlier response and noted the resident’s comments. However, it would not offer the requested compensation for the carpets and iterated that this was the resident’s responsibility.
The resident remained dissatisfied after the conclusion of the complaint procedure and escalated the matter to the Ombudsman. The resident disputed the priority of the repair which the landlord attributed to the resident’s circumstances, stating that the landlord said it should have done the repair in 28 days but did not. Instead, the resident argued that the landlord should have completed the repair in 24 hours.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s claim to replace the carpets at the property, following an acknowledged delay in completing a repair to a leak in the roof.

It is not disputed that there was a service failure by the landlord’s delay in repairing the leak in the roof. There was damp/roof leak reported in November 2019. An emergency repair was arranged in March 2020, before the scaffolding was put up and the roof work was completed in April/May 2020. Then, the internal works were completed in June 2020, seven months from when the mould was reported and one month after the roof works were completed. The delay was not in accordance with the landlord’s statutory obligations or policies and was not appropriate. The landlord acknowledged this as a service failure and in recognition of the inconvenience caused it offered the resident compensation of £250.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to address the impact that its identified service failure had on the resident and his belongings and to refer to its compensation policy for claims for belongings. This sets out the ways the cost can be recovered (either through the insurance provider’s assessment or a local resolution settlement). The landlord did not do this, instead it referred the resident to contents insurance which he told the landlord he did not have. Even if the resident is expected to have content insurance under the terms of the tenancy, it would not be fair in all the circumstances of this case for the landlord to have asked the resident to claim on this for the damage caused by the landlord’s failure. This is because the carpet was exposed to the leak for an extended period of time that was beyond a reasonable timescale for the repair (as per the policy). Therefore, there is a service failure by the landlord as it did not acknowledge the impact of its accepted failing on the resident’s carpet.

The level of compensation for the acknowledged delay in responding to reports of damp and mould caused by a roof leak.

Having acknowledged the resident’s dispute over the facts of the case as set out in its complaint response, the landlord did not take the opportunity to set out its assessment on the response to the individual repairs. Instead, it offered a sum of compensation for “all the works”. The full schedule of the works have not been seen, but the correspondence has referred to works set out following the damp survey. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess its service in responding to the report of mould more thoroughly and offer a breakdown of how its compensation addressed the detriment caused by its service failure (delays). In the absence of evidence to show that it responded appropriately, there is a service failure. The impact of the failure and detriment was that the resident was living with the mould and leaking roof over winter and whilst he reported vulnerabilities and health issues. The works to the rest of the property were also delayed as a result of the landlord’s delay to fix the roof. Accordingly, the redress that the landlord offered was not proportionate to its delays, failures and the evident detriment caused to the resident.

The complaint handling

The landlord did not provide a comprehensive response that addressed what the repairs were, how long it took to address them or how its offer of compensation aligned with any identified service failure (8 June 2020). It accepted a delay in responding to the repairs (“all the works”) and offered £250. Following the resident escalation on 13 June 2020 through a detailed letter setting out the outstanding issues and the impact these had, the landlord’s response was brief and did not address the issues or concerns raised by the resident about the overall impact of the repairs. This was not appropriate or in accordance with this Service’s complaint handling code which explains that ‘landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint’.
The landlord apologised that the resident felt that compensation was not adequate and highlighted the limiting factor within its decision not to offer more compensation (that this would have to be “clawed back” and would “result in increased rents and charges”) and cited the Ombudsman guideline. This was not appropriate or in accordance with any guidance provided by this Service. In particular, the landlord’s use of an arbitrary (and incorrect) explanation to justify it not considering an increase in compensation in response to the impact information provided in the escalation request was not reasonable. For the reasons set out above there was a service failure in regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure by the landlord in regard to:
1. Its response to the resident’s claim to replace the carpets at the property, following a delay in completing a repair to a leak in the roof.
2. The level of compensation it offered for its acknowledged delay in responding to reports of damp and mould caused by a roof leak.
3. Its complaint handling.

Reasons

The initial damage to the resident’s belongings due to the occurrence of the leaking roof may have been the resident’s responsibility, however, there was excessive exposure to source of the damage, due to the landlord’s failure to rectify this within a reasonable timeframe. It would be reasonable for the landlord to make good any damage caused to the property or belongings by the delay and its failure to comply with its repairing obligations.
The landlord’s offer of redress did not sufficiently show an assessment of the impact that the inconvenience that the delayed repairs had on the resident who had known vulnerabilities. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its complaint response.
The landlord’s complaint response was brief and did not offer an appropriate analysis of the resident’s dispute, it did not investigate its response to the internal repairs and it did not offer a fair response when discussing compensation. It explained how it would make back the compensation through charges and rents, however, the landlord has a duty to put right any service failure irrespective of its other financial obligations.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £450 comprising:
  1. £350 for the time, trouble and inconvenience in relation to its delays in completing the repairs (reduced to £100 if its original offer of £250 has already been paid)
  2. £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its highlighted complaint handling failures.
2. Either pay the resident £849 for the carpet replacement as quoted OR confirm that it will arrange the carpet replacement itself. If it chooses to do this itself, it should write to the resident to confirm this and make convenient arrangements.

Recommendation

Review the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code with reference to its own complaints handling practices.