Orbit Group Limited (202012937)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012937

Orbit Group Limited

31 May 2023

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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s report of a leak from the communal roof.
2. The associated complaint.

Background & Summary

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 18 May 2017. The property is a two bedroom flat, within a block of flats. The number of flats within the block is not specified in the information provided. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord’s records note that the resident has mobility difficulties.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman has seen historical reports of concerns raised by the resident, with his landlord, about the condition of the communal roof of his property dating back to 2017. There is evidence of some interaction between the landlord and resident regarding these issues which were addressed through the landlord’s internal complaints process. There is also evidence of some engagement with this Service and intervention due to the resident’s contact in 2017, but it was not formally investigated at the time.
This investigation will focus on events that occurred from 25 January 2021, which is the date the resident raised a new complaint with his landlord, till 13 July 2021 when the final complaint response was issued. Although the resident informed this Service that he had since raised a new complaint in August 2021, about the same issue with the landlord after he had received its final response, this would not be included in the investigation report.

Policies and procedural information

Section 11(a) of the landlord and tenant act states that landlords have a duty to keep in repair the structure and exterior of its properties, including drains, gutters and external pipes. Additionally, the housing health and safety rating system 2006 (HHSRS) confirms that landlord’s should keep the external fabric of its properties in good repair to avoid rain penetration in order to prevent damp and mould growth. The HHSRS also references preventative measures such as properly installed and maintained rainwater goods to reduce the presence of damp and mould within properties.
Under its repairs policy, the landlord is committed to repairing the common parts of the building and will ensure that the structure and exterior of the building including the walls, windows and roof are maintained to a good standard. It will attend:
1. Emergency repairs within 4 to 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s repairs policy notes that:
1. It will adhere to the home standard of the regulatory framework for social housing in England (from April 2012), which requires registered providers to provide a cost effective repairs and maintenance service to homes and communal areas that responds to the needs of, and offers choices to, customers, and has the objective of completing repairs and improvements right first time.
2. It is committed to a clear and transparent approach to its repair responsibilities.
3. It will procure works that achieve best value for money taking account of service quality and speed of response.
It aims to acknowledge complaints within three working days and respond to stage one and two complaints within 10 working days. Where a more detailed investigation is required it may extend the timescales initially by a further 10 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for financial payments of up to and over £1000 as redress where it has determined service failure.

Summary of events

The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 25 January 2021 about the state of the communal roof of the property. He said:
1. He had been complaining about a leak from the communal roof since he moved into the property. He had had to paint his ceilings, kitchen, hallway and bedrooms on various occasions as a result of the constant leaks.
2. Scaffolding had been put up several times, but the landlord failed to use a professional roofer.
3. Pictures of the roof attached to the complaint show that:
  1. The fitting of the tiles around the solar flashing kits were very poor.
  2. The tiles were sticking up and not interlocking with the adjoining tiles.
  3. The tiles were riding too high over the flashings and also dropping too low due to poor application, resulting in driving wind forcing rain into the gaps, creating an influx of water onto the secondary barrier underneath the tiles which is a breathable membrane (felt).
4. The roofer who carried out the repairs told him that the state of the roof was quite bad for a new building and that there were broken tiles everywhere.
5. The repairs carried out to the roof were not good enough, as one of the pictures show a broken tile which had not been repaired properly.
6. The landlord had tried to repair the flashing for the solar panels in the past but it could be seen from the pictures provided that the flashing kits for the solar panels needed replacing.
7. Instead of engaging the services of a professional roofer to replace the flashing for the solar panels, a substitute lead flashing had been stuck over the top of the old flashing. The old flashing should have been taken off before the new flashing was installed, which was made from poor material, peeling up and had detached itself leaving the roof compromised.
8. Pictures of the windows from the outside show that they were not sealed correctly, leading to water leaks, causing damp and black mould on the plasterboard around the windows. The plasterboard would need replacing and the windows needed to be fitted or sealed correctly. He had used a dehumidifier every winter for four years to stop the damp and mould, (the dehumidifier was £160) which cost him £20 a month to run for five out of 12 months.
9. He had no ventilation in the kitchen and therefore needed an extraction fan/hood fitted above his cooker.
10. After seeing the state of the roof, he would be getting in touch with the Housing Ombudsman, as he had not seen evidence of any works completed since the Ombudsman got involved at the end of 2017 and the start of 2018.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 January 2021, and informed him that it had forwarded his correspondence over to its resolutions team to open a case. It said that they would contact him directly within 48 hours.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 February 2021 and advised him that it would investigate the matter and respond to him.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 10 February 2021 noted that:
1. It was looking into the resident’s complaint about the roof and the other issues raised about ventilation in the kitchen.
2. It noted that there was currently scaffolding erected at the block to resolve roof issues and that it was waiting for the contractor to start.
3. It said the works had been delayed because of the weather and some other issues (details of the other issues referred to were not provided to this Service).
4. It said that internal remedial works would be arranged once the roof repairs had been completed.
5. It’s customer relations team noted that there were no live jobs raised for the communal roof, but its property management team clarified that this was in hand.
6. It also noted that the resident’s complaint about ventilation and the effectiveness of the mvhr (mechanical ventilation with heat recovery) was a new matter and that a repair needed to be raised.
On 12 February 2021, the landlord’s external works supervisor wrote to the landlord and advised that following a site meeting on the day, works were due to continue in the following week for a duration of two weeks weather permitting. They said that there had been several issues holding up the works.
The landlord issued its stage one response on the 30 March 2021 and said:
1. It had investigated the history of the repairs raised to the communal roof since 2017 and found that its contractors had completed the repairs in line with what was reported and that the evidence provided substantiated the works completed.
2. It said there had been long periods where no contact was received from the resident regarding the repairs to the roof.
3. Following their conversation on 10 February 2021, it liaised with the property management team and was advised that the roofing repairs were in hand and due to be carried out by the end of February 2021. It said that it found that the repairs had taken place with no further issues noted.
4. Works orders for the mvhr, and windows were raised to be inspected, as these were new issues.
5. The resident’s complaint was partially upheld but it could not uphold the roofing repair to be a continuous issue since 2017, due to long period where no contact was received and its contractor’s reports substantiating the completed works over the period. It acknowledged that there had been multiple issues with the roof and it apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.
6. It was sorry for not keeping in contact with the resident on a regular basis regarding his complaint.
7. In light of its decision, a total amount of £377 was awarded broken down as:
  1. £127 for the delays in completing the recent repair to the communal roof which was 127 days out of time.
  2. £150 for the delays in contacting the resident regarding his complaint.
  3. £100 goodwill gesture for the inconvenience and distressed caused to the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 May 2021 and requested the escalation of his complaint about the communal roof to stage two . He complained that:
1. The repairs were not done to a good standard and that it started leaking straight after the works were completed.
2. The landlord attempted to fix the roof but the repairs had failed.
3. The damp patches on his kitchen ceiling had tripled in size and were getting worse than they were before.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 5 May 2021 and said:
1. He had attached pictures to his email that showed the roof works were not completed to the right standard.
2. The picture of the solar panel above his kitchen ceiling showed yellow substance that should not be there. Instead of the flashing being fixed and replaced it had been filled with expanding foam and this had again left the roof compromised.
3. He had been told that scaffolding would be put up to enable repairs to the roof and he would like this done correctly this time.
4. He would like his own roofer to verify that the works were done properly before the landlord takes down the scaffolding down.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 June 2021 and assured him that the matter would be thoroughly investigated.
It also sent an acknowledgement letter to the resident on 18 June 2021.
On 13th July 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint. Below is a summary of its response:
1. It understood that he was unhappy that the repairs had not been completed in a timely and efficient manner and that it took repeated contact to come to a resolution.
2. Following receipt of his request for a review, it arranged for an area inspector to attend his property to agree all works that were required.
3. It was pleased to hear the works to the roof had been completed and that the solar panels and extraction system were being inspected.
4. The resident had requested that it did not attend to repair his ceiling at this point, but if he changed his mind he should contact them so they could attend to this.
5. It had taken too much of the resident’s time and it did not provide the service that he would have expected.
6. Based on this it was offering an award of £918.00 in compensation broken down as:
  1. £300 for goodwill in recognition of the service failure for the works needing multiple visits to rectify.
  2. £70 gesture of goodwill in recognition of the delayed works to windows being carried out compounding the damp issue.
  3. £180 gesture of goodwill in recognition of the service failure in poor communication and administration of the works.
  4. £150 gesture of goodwill in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused by the service that the resident had received
  5. £118 for the time and trouble to the resident.
  6. £100 for decoration needed within the property.
7. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the inconvenience caused and for the service failures.

Post complaint actions.

The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 August 2021 and raised another complaint about the communal roof. He said that the repair completed by the contractor was not effective.
The resident wrote to this Service on 12 January 2022 and reported that the roof was still leaking from the previous repair.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Report of a leak from the communal roof

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will maintain and keep the structure of the property in proper working order. It is unclear from the evidence if this is achieved purely through reports from its residents or through scheduled periodic inspections or planned maintenance works.
While this report does not focus on incidents going back to 2017, when the resident first took up the tenancy, what cannot be overlooked is the landlord’s knowledge of his concerns about the condition of the roof which he had persistently complained about since the start of his tenancy. The repairs log and call records provided to this Service by the landlord, show a record of repairs and phone calls from the resident since February 2017 to October 2021. The repairs records indicated that the resident did not request any repairs to the roof in 2019 & 2020 until January 2021. This appears to be the earliest entry within the 12 months period of the formal complaint being raised with the landlord.
Its call records however show evidence that the resident reported repairs to his roof in 2017, 2018, 2019 (which noted that there was an outstanding structural survey), and a severe roof leak on 14 January 2021. Its entry of 10 February 2021 also indicated that scaffolding had been at the property for four months to address the roof leak, which suggests that previous repairs about the communal roof may have been reported by the resident in 2020 contrary to the information held on the repairs log.
In the stage one complaint raised with the landlord on 25 January 2021, the resident questioned the quality of works carried out to the communal roof, if at all it had, because the leak had been recurrent since he took up the tenancy in 2017.
The landlord’s internal records on 29 March 2021, noted that although the resident complained about poor quality works carried out by its contractors, to the communal roof over a four year period, it found that the works raised during this period were on average 10 months apart. It said its repair records show that there were multiple visits and evidence of works completed. It reiterated this in its response to the complaint on 30 March 2021. It confirmed that the works had been completed at the end of February 2021, but it apologised that there had been multiple issues with the roof and for the delays in completing the works.
In addition to the apology offered to the resident and its assurance that the roof works had been completed, it offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. It did not however provide a full breakdown of works completed, a detailed narrative or report in response to the points by the resident. This would have provided some assurance to the resident as he appeared to have lost confidence in the landlord’s ability or willingness to get the works completed correctly.
The resident raised fresh concerns about the communal roof, through his stage two complaint submitted to the landlord, on 4 May 2021 and 5 May 2021. He contended the previous works completed by the landlord and said they were not satisfactory or to a good standard, as the leak resumed straight after the repairs. The resident also followed this up with an email on 9 June 2021 and said the landlord came out to see him and that it had arranged for roofing works to be done on the day, but that the works done were not satisfactory. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 13 July 2021 and assured him that the roof works had been completed. It apologised and acknowledged that it had taken too long to complete the works and offered compensation in the amount of £918.
In response to our request to the landlord for evidence of inspections, reports and surveys conducted to investigate the roof leaks, it provided a copy of an email dated 19 March 2021, from its sub-contractors regarding the costing of works for the roof. The email indicated that works were proposed to clean the roof area of moss and replace the broken tiles. It further suggests that works were proposed to replace or repair the solar thermals to stop water ingress from the roof. It also provided a copy of an email from its contractors dated 1 April 2021 referencing completion photos and specification for its approval.
While these steps were appropriate and show that the landlord took measures to investigate the resident’s concerns, it has not provided a copy of its inspection report, along with its findings on the condition of the roof and a clear description of works proposed to address the issues. It is also unclear if any feedback from any surveys or inspections were shared with the resident along with any recommendations. This does not demonstrate that it had learned from the resident’s previous experience, given that he had asked for a full and enduring repair. The resident also asked the landlord to allow his own roofer to inspect the property before the scaffolding was taken down but he informed this Service that the landlord ignored his request. Although the landlord explained in its complaint responses that it had completed the repairs, it has not provided evidence that substantiates the repairs completed were to the expected standards.
The landlord has not shown that it took all of the resident’s concerns onboard, in providing assurance that the repairs were completed right first time and that it remained clear and transparent in its approach. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered a total amount of £1145 as compensation, in recognition of the delays, poor communication and administration of works, time and trouble to the resident. The offer is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which offers up to and over £1000, in cases where there is evidence of a service failure in its handling of a matter.
Although the landlord has offered apologies, and provided an adequate amount as financial redress, which is also in compliance with this Service’s remedies guidance, it has not shown that it had learned from its previous errors. While it said it was satisfied that previous records and evidence showed that it had adequately dealt with the repairs to the communal roof, it should have provided additional information to the resident in form of reports from surveys conducted, feedback or findings, recommendations and dates works were carried out including pictures of the completed works and a post inspection report.
Based on the above, the landlord has not demonstrated that it fully adhered to the home standard of the regulatory framework for social housing in England, as noted in its repairs policy, in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal roof. This is not appropriate and its failure to comply with its own policy would have caused the resident further distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in pursuing the matter.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint within two working days, but it did not respond within 10 working days as stated in its complaints policy. Its complaints handling policy states that it will initially extend a complaint by 10 working days if required, and contact the resident if more time is required beyond this to investigate a complaint. It took 44 working days to respond to the complaint, despite this Service’s letter to it on 23 February 2021, advising it to respond to the complaint by 9 March 2021. The landlord acknowledged its error and offered apologies to the resident. It also offered £150 in compensation for the delays and the inconvenience caused to the resident. It failed to meet its policy and best practice, set out in this Services complaint handling code, but it took reasonable steps to put things right.
Following the resident’s stage two complaint to the landlord on 4 May 2021, he contacted this Service on 25 May 2021 and said that the landlord had not acknowledged the complaint nor responded to it. It did not in fact acknowledge the resident’s complaint until direct contact from this Service on 26 May 2021 advising it to do so by 2 June 2021, and for it to respond to the complaint by 23 June 2021. The landlord’s response, as was the initial complaint response, was also delayed in that it took 50 working days as opposed to the 20 working days stated in this Service’s complaints handling policy. This demonstrates that it had not learnt from its previous error.
It is noted that the landlord acknowledged the delay in responding to the stage one complaint, and sought redress in offering apologies and compensation to the resident. It did not however acknowledge these failings in the stage two response, or recognise the impact the delay would have caused the resident, meaning that the resident continued to receive a poor service and delayed resolution . The landlord did not comply with the stated timeframe in its complaints policy causing the resident frustration and inconvenience. It has therefore not demonstrated that it had learned from its previous errors as it took further intervention from this Service to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s complaint, causing further distress and inconvenience and delaying access to this Service. Therefore this Service finds maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak to the communal roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of maladministration in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged that it took an unreasonable amount of time to address the resident’s reports of a leak to the communal roof. While it apologised for the delays, offered compensation and completed the repairs, it failed to demonstrate transparency in how it responded to their report, leaving the resident in doubt of the works done.
It has not evidenced that it had followed the correct procedures in identifying the source of the leak, taken steps to address it first time and in responding to the resident’s assessment of what they thought was causing the leak to the communal roof. This would have caused him frustration, disappointment, time and trouble in pursuing the matter with this Service.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s stage one and two complaints were unreasonably delayed and not in compliance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy and this Service’s complaint handling code. Whilst its offer of offer of £150 is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for maladministration, for failures which have adversely affected the resident, it did not acknowledge that it had made the same mistake nor take steps to put things right.

Orders

The landlord should within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the amount of £250 for time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident for the failings identified in its handling of the complaint.
2. Contact the resident to discuss any ongoing or concerns with the roof and agree any further remedial works if required and timescales for the such work to be completed.
3. Share this report with the relevant staff who deal with complaints and ensure that they are advised to familiarise themselves with this Service’s complaint handling code. The importance of adhering to timescales specified in the scheme should be emphasised.
4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider investigating if any other residents have been impacted by the roof leak and contact them accordingly to address any concerns they may have.