Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Orbit Group Limited (202008586)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008586

Orbit Group Limited

22 December 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. This complaint is about the level of redress the landlord awarded it respect of its acknowledged delays and failures whilst handling repairs and the resident’s subsequent complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant, and the tenancy began on 23 May 2019. The property is a two-bedroom flat.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy and procedure documents set out its processes for awarding compensation. They confirm the landlord must use its internal calculator when making an offer of compensation. The documents do not reference any standard daily rates to be used when calculating redress.
  3. The landlord’s calculations show that a key aspect of its overall compensation offer was based on a period of 161 days where the resident had no hot water. The landlord awarded £3.75 per day, amounting to £603.75, to acknowledge this element of the complaint.
  4. Following an information request from the Ombudsman, the landlord confirmed the period of 161 days ran from 31 May 2019 to 8 November 2019. It said compensation for loss of hot water was not offered following this date because the resident had intermittent access to the facility.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy shows it operates a two stage formal complaints procedure. It also details a separate informal process which can be used where it is deemed the quickest and most effective way to resolve a complaint is outside of the formal procedure.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s call history shows the resident contacted the landlord on 31 May 2019 to report the property had no hot water. The notes show she reported a light flashing on a water heater and the fault was raised as a 24-hour repair. Its repair records show the fault was inspected on 11 June 2019, but no further information was given.
  2. On 19 June 2019 the resident reported there was no heating or hot water at the property. The call history notes said the resident had been left without adequate facilities for almost two weeks because the heating and hot water only worked for around four minutes each day. They also said the landlord’s general contractor had attended to inspect the fault and it advised a specialist heating contractor was required. However, no works order had been raised for the specialist contractor to attend.
  3. A further conversation between the parties took place around 28 June 2019. The call history shows the resident confirmed her circumstances were unchanged because the issue had not been fixed. She was encouraged to continue chasing the landlord’s repairs department or to raise a formal complaint.
  4. A call record from 24 September 2019 shows the landlord had spoken to the resident and was aware that neither of its contractors had accepted responsibility for the repair. It said the repair needed chasing and the reason for the lack of action needed to be identified.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 November 2019. The call notes said the immersion tank cut out every four minutes and the resident had been given incorrect information on several occasions. They specified that the landlord should call the resident in advance of any scheduled appointment because the property’s intercom was not working. A further note from the same day shows the landlord’s general contractor attended but was unable to complete the repair given the type of heating system at the property.
  6. The resident reported the issue again during a call on 11 November 2019.
  7. A call note from 15 November 2019 shows the resident was unaware an appointment had been made and she wanted to reschedule it for 18 November 2019. It said the landlord should call in advance of any appointment or the resident may be unable to facilitate access for the repair. The landlord’s repair records show it attended on 19 November 2019, but no further information was given.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 November 2019. She was told another 24-hour emergency repair would be raised and its general contractor would attend to inspect the problem. The landlord’s repairs records show it attended the following day, but it was unable to complete repairs.
  9. A call note from 2 December 2019 shows the resident contacted the landlord chasing the repair.  It said her previous works order had been closed as the general contractor was unable to gain access to the property. Further, the resident was unhappy because it had not called her before attending the appointment contrary to her request. It also said the situation was causing her problems at work due to the amount of the time she had spent, away from her role, facilitating access for the repair.
  10. A call record from 29 January 2020 confirmed the issue was unresolved because the landlord had not authorised an outstanding works order. Further, that both contractors had closed previous orders, due to the confusion, and the property’s intercom was not working. It said the resident had been advised that, during an inspection in December 2019, the boiler could be used for a few minutes at a time, but it was unsafe to be left permanently switched on.
  11. The landlord’s repairs records show it completed works to the property’s immersion heater on 14 February 2020. Its later correspondence confirms the repair was completed because the outstanding works order had been approved.
  12. Call notes from 25 February 2020 show the resident contacted the landlord again about the problem. They record she said the landlord’s contractor had previously advised her the boiler would need to be condemned if the issue reoccurred following completion of the immersion heater works.
  13. The repair records confirm the landlord attended the problem on 13 March 2020. No further information was given.
  14. A call note from 30 June 2020 shows works orders were repeatedly being marked as complete without the repairs being actioned.
  15. On 7 July 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint. The main points were:

a.     She previously complained during the first week of January 2020 but had never received a response and the issue was ongoing.

b.     Works orders relating to the repair were being closed even though corresponding inspections were not taking place.

c.      The heating contractor had denied responsibility on the basis the repairs did not require gas related works.

d.     Replacement parts were ordered following an inspection in December 2019 and she was told the system would need to be condemned if these did not resolve the problem.

e.     She had relayed this information to the landlord but had never received a response.

f.        A booster heater was providing hot water but costing an additional £7 per day.

g.     The initial complaint call from January 2020 should be considered as part of the investigation

h.     Promised actions had not been completed and the resident had spent a significant amount of time trying to resolve the issue.

  1. A call history note from 4 August 2020 confirms the property’s unvented cylinder was beyond repair and needed replacing. It said the boost button was available.
  2. The landlord’s repair records confirm a replacement cylinder was successfully tested on 1 October 2020.
  3. On 3 November 2020 the resident advised the landlord the repair had been successfully completed on 30 September 2020. However, she was disappointed not to have received a response to her complaint. She said it had taken 71 weeks in total to resolve the issue, during which time her living conditions were unacceptable. Further, she had been asked to provide copies of her energy statements to assist with the landlord’s compensation calculations, but she had received advice from the Ombudsman that this was unnecessary.
  4. On 10 November 2020 the landlord notified the resident that her complaint had been closed because it was waiting for copies of her statements. This prompted the resident to reply the following day and confirm she would not be providing any statements or similar information.
  5. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 11 November 2020. She said, after moving to the property, she had been living in unfair conditions until the issue was resolved. This was because the water heater was unable to provide hot water for more than three minutes at a time. The situation had also affected her daughter and a three-minute supply was not sufficient for them to shower or wash up. She also said her energy bill had increased since she needed to use the emergency heating multiple times a day.
  6. The landlord’s internal correspondence from 10 December 2020 shows the resident had declined a goodwill gesture of £185 in respect of her complaint. It confirms the landlord had attempted to resolve her case informally, but the resident had asked for a formal investigation of her concerns.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 8 January 2021. It set out a timeline of events running from the resident’s initial report on 31 May 2019 to confirmation that facilities at the property had been fully restored, when the new cylinder was successfully tested, on 1 October 2020. Based on the timeline, which represented a period of around 73 weeks, the landlord concluded that the repairs had been competed outside of its published timescales. As a result, a total of £823.75 in compensation was awarded to redress what had happened. However, no breakdown of the landlord’s calculation was provided.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 January 2021. This was, broadly, on the basis a breakdown of the compensation award had not been provided and she was concerned various aspects of her complaint had been overlooked by the offer.
  9. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 14 January 2021. This was more than three months after the issue had been resolved. It said:

a.     Its award at stage one was comprised of: £603.75, for a loss of hot water for 161 days; £100, for distress and inconvenience; £70, for service failure in respect of the repair; £50, for failure to complete installation as scheduled.

b.     This breakdown should have been included at stage one and feedback had been provided internally.

c.      The landlord had located a call on 29 January 2020 that it identified as the resident’s initial complaint, but it had been escalated to the wrong department. It had therefore reviewed and increased its award accordingly.

d.     Its revised award of £1443.75 was comprised of: £603.75, for the time spent without hot water; £200, for distress and inconvenience; £140 for service failures linked to the repairs; £250, for poor complaint handling due to the response time and level of communication received; £50, initial complaint sent to wrong team; £50, failure to complete installation as scheduled; £50, breakdown of award not provided; £50, no confirmation that complaint was being handled informally; £50, for five appointments missed by contractors.

e.     Feedback would be provided to the landlord’s contractors given the resident’s poor experience.

  1. During a phone call on 13 December 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman that, following works to her immersion heater, there was a period where the property was left without any hot water for a period of up to several weeks. However, she could not remember the exact details. While she had no other specific concerns about the landlord’s offer of redress, she wanted an independent assessment of its final compensation award. This was due to the level of variation in the range of awards she was offered during its complaints process.

Assessment and findings

  1. The evidence confirms the problem was ongoing for around 73 weeks before a normal supply of hot water was restored at the property. It is recognised that during this time the situation had a considerable impact on both the resident and her daughter’s routine and lifestyle.
  2. In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  3. The above timeline shows the resident’s reports about the problem have been consistent since the issue first arose in May 2019. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that, overall, the resident’s complaint concerns an inadequate supply of hot water rather than a complete absence of the facility. Further, from December 2019 onwards the information explicitly confirms that the resident was able to access some hot water by using either the boiler or the booster switch (emergency supply).
  4. The resident’s comments about a complete absence of hot water facilities for an extended interval, around February 2020, were considered carefully in conjunction with the full timeline. However, the call history and repair records did not give any evidence to show there was a period where conditions in the property deteriorated further beyond the resident’s initial reports. On the other hand, the landlord’s calculations confirm it acted as though the property had no access hot water at all for 161 days.
  5. Though it is noted no evidence has been seen to show there was any change in the resident’s situation from 8 November 2019, which the landlord’s hot water calculation end point is based on, its compensation policy and procedure documents confirm the landlord did not have a compulsory daily rate that it was required to award. As a result, if the calculation were based on an incorrect number of days this would not necessarily represent a failure on its part. It is also noted the landlord used specific awards to address a number of additional failures that occurred after this date. These were offered in respect of its repairs and complaint handling, along with the overall level of distress and inconvenience the resident was caused.
  6. When considering this Service’s internal remedies guidance, in conjunction with the amount of compensation offered, it is noted that the landlord’s total award of £1443.75 is in line with our expectations for instances where a landlord’s maladministration or severe maladministration has had a serious long-term impact on a resident. For example, where a landlord is responsible for failures that lead to an Environmental Enforcement Order, or which resulted in a resident needing a long stay in temporary accommodation due to its mishandling of repairs.
  7. Given the circumstances of the complaint, the above represents a reasonable benchmark for comparison. Further, having considered the timeline along with the complaint correspondence. There is no information to show the landlord’s compensation award failed to address any aspects of the resident’s complaint which were highlighted in the evidence. This is supported by the landlord’s use of its calculator in accordance with its compensation procedure. As a result, this assessment found the landlord acted fairly by awarding a reasonable amount of compensation to remedy its multiple acknowledged failures throughout the timeline. The overall level of compensation therefore represents reasonable redress on the part of the landlord.
  8. It is recognised the landlord’s correspondence indicates its willingness to use complaints as an opportunity to learn from outcomes in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. For example, its stage two response confirms feedback was provided to the landlord’s contractors and complaints team to ensure they were aware of her experience.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of respect of its acknowledged delays and failures whilst handling repairs and the resident’s subsequent complaint.

Reasons

  1. While the basis of the landlord’s 161-day timescale is unclear, its offer of compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations where a landlord’s maladministration has had a serious long-term impact on a resident.
  2. The evidence seen shows the landlord has appropriately considered the circumstances of the resident’s complaint and awarded proportionate redress. It also shows the landlord has demonstrated it has learnt from the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review the process which allows its contractors to close work orders without completing required actions. This is to ensure the landlord has sufficient oversight of outstanding works.
  2. The landlord to review its use of the informal complaints process in conjunction with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This is to ensure complaints concerning complex or contentious issues, or where a resident has experienced severe distress or inconvenience, are being handled in the most appropriate manner at the point they are raised.
  3. The landlord to identify which contractor is responsible for completing comparable repairs at the property and ensure that a similar situation could not reoccur.
  4. The landlord should confirm its intentions regarding these recommendations to this service within four weeks of the date of this report.