Orbit Group Limited (202014537)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014537

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. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the concerns raised by the resident about being left without a gas supply for several weeks.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that started in late 2003.
  2. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for, among other things, installations for the supply of gas and the heating and water heating equipment.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repair policy says that it prioritises responsive repairs within the following categories:

Emergency repair (4 and 24 hours) – any repair that is required in order to sustain the immediate health, safety or security of the customer at risk, or that affects the structure of the building adversely.

Routine repair (within 28 calendar days) – any responsive repair that is not an emergency.

Non–responsive repair – major repairs (non-emergency) that are grouped together and included within stock investment programmes in order to deliver value for money, for example roof replacements or (non-boundary) fencing replacements.

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedures say that it tries to resolve complaints at the first point of contact, if possible. If matters are not resolved then, the complaint moves to a two–stage formal complaints procedure. It aims to respond to the complaint within ten working days at both stages of the process.
  2. The landlord’s compensation procedure says that it may award compensation if the standard of service it provides is considerably below the standard customers could reasonably expect. It will only pay compensation if the customer has experienced financial loss or significant distress or inconvenience.

Summary of events

  1. The evidence provided by the landlord was mainly in the form of its complaints correspondence and it this evidence that has been relied upon in this report. It is not disputed that on 8 July 2020 a gas safety check was carried out and established that the boiler was safe to use.
  2. When the resident brought his complaint about the lack of heating and hot water in the property to the landlord, it initially offered him £100 as a goodwill gesture and said it would reimburse the £157.86 charged by the utility company for the new gas meter. The landlord escalated this matter to stage one of its formal complaints procedure as the resident was not satisfied with this response.
  3. On 4 November 2020 the landlord issued a stage one response under its formal complaints procedures. It gave the background to the complaint which was that the gas meter needed to be changed in order to replace the existing boiler with a new combi boiler. The main points were:
    1. On 17 September 2020 it had raised a repair with its contractor to reinstate the gas supply and noted this would take place after 6 October 2020, as this was the date of the meter change.
    2. On 7 October 2020 the contractor visited the property to carry out a “turn on and test” but was unable to reconnect the gas supply, as this had not been mentioned on the required works list. The gas supply was subsequently reconnected on 22 October 2020.
    3. It would reimburse the resident with the sum of £157.86 which the utility provider had charged the resident to change the gas meter.
  4. The landlord upheld the complaint and offered compensation of £200. It explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
  5. On 5 November 2020 the resident told the landlord that its stage one response was not correct and asked for a review. In brief, he said he had been without heating and hot water from 6 to 30 October, not 22 October 2020. He said the landlord had not reimbursed the amount he had paid the utility provider and queried the compensation amount offered. 
  6. On 19 November 2020 the landlord issued its final response to the resident under its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
    1. It had erroneously said in its stage one response that the boiler work had been completed on 22 October 2020; however, it now recognised that the contractor did not attend on that day as arranged.
    2. A call to the resident was logged on its system on 4 November 2020; the landlord apologised if he did not receive that call.
    3. It apologised that the stage one complaint did not identify that his complaint concerned misleading information and this should have been addressed. It said that it would provide training on this issue.
    4. It explained that it referred to all work as “repairs” but explained that the work was the installation of a new gas line to connect the gas meter to the pipes of the boiler. It apologised for any confusion this had caused and agreed this could have been explained further in its earlier response.
    5. There was an error in booking the required works in which meant it was assigned to the wrong engineer. It added it had referred this issue back to the relevant managers to ensure the correct training is provided and it apologised for that error.
    6. It acknowledged that it had not provided the level of service it would expect and would be feeding this back to the business areas in question to allow them to learn from this and improve the service provided to customers.
    7. It clarified the compensation previously offered and said it was now aware that the heating and hot water was not reinstated until 30 October 2020 and that the complaint was not about the lack of communication but rather misleading information.
    8. In light of the multiple failings failings in the handling of the initial issues and during the complaint investigations, the landlord offered compensation of £742.86 made up of:
      1. £110 previously awarded as a gesture of goodwill (paragraph 8).
      2. £200 previously awarded for the time the resident had spent without heating and hot water and the communication issues he had faced (paragraph 10).
      3. £200 for the poor complaint handling – its misunderstanding of the complaint issue, for all points not being addressed in the stage one response and for incorrect dates.
      4. £25 for the incorrect repair being booked by its contact centre.
      5. £157.86 reimbursement – the amount the resident had paid to the utility provider.
      6. £50 for the delay in that reimbursement.
  7. The landlord apologised for the issues the resident had faced and the inconvenience and distress this had caused. It signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
  8. On 29 November 2020 the resident made a further formal complaint to the landlord about the repairs to his boiler over the past 16 years. On 9 January 2021 the landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its formal complaint procedures. On 13 January 2021 the resident requested that the landlord escalate his complaint and have seen evidence that the landlord received that request. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the final complaint response.
  9. When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he said he was left without a without heating for a second time for several weeks because the boiler was condemned unsafe. He said he wanted the landlord to answer questions he had raised about the boiler and investigate what went wrong and why.

Assessment and findings

The concerns raised by the resident about being left without a gas supply for several weeks

  1. The resident made a later complaint to the landlord about the boiler that it had to replace (paragraph 14). However, the Ombudsman is unable to look into that this matter at this time as evidence has not been received that it has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  2.  This report has therefore focussed on the formal complaint made to the landlord in October 2020 to which the landlord issued its final complaint response on 19 November 2020 (paragraph 12) as that was the complaint brought to this Service in February 2021.
  3. The landlord did give an explanation of why the resident had been responsible for paying the utility provider for the change in the gas meter. However, it was appropriate that it offered to refund that sum as soon as this was brought to its attention (paragraph 8). It was also appropriate that it later offered a further £50 for the delay in paying that sum (paragraph 12.h.vi).
  4. The landlord has acknowledged there were service failings in its handling of the reconnection of gas following the gas meter change, namely:
    1. It had not reconnected the gas as arranged on 7 October 2020 as the wrong contractor had been sent out (paragraph 9.b).
    2. It had not reconnected the gas on 22 October 2020 as it claimed in the stage one complaint response (paragraph 9) but on 30 October 2020 (paragraph 12.g).
  5. In relation to this issue, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £335 made up of
    1. £110 previously awarded as a gesture of goodwill (paragraph 8)
    2. £200 previously awarded at stage one for the time without heating and hot water and the communication issues the resident had faced (paragraph 10)
    3. £25 for the incorrect repair being booked by its contact centre
  6. 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.
  7. The delays in reconnecting the gas caused evident frustration and distress to the resident. The sum awarded adequately reflects the impact on the resident. This sum is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there have been delays and poor communication.

Complaint handling

  1. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the stage one complaint had not correctly identified that his complaint concerned misleading information; that it also contained wrong information (that the boiler work was completed on 22 October 2020); and an explanation of why it had referred to the work as “repairs”.
  2. These oversights evidently caused the resident additional inconvenience and frustration. The landlord offered compensation of £200. That was proportionate redress and is again in line with the range of amounts the Ombudsman can order where he has found that there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but where it was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant such as poor complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to:
    1. The landlord’s response to the concerns raised by the resident about being left without a gas supply for several weeks.
    2. Complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord immediately offered to refund the resident with the sum he had paid the utility provider. It also acknowledged its errors in relation to the reinstatement of the gas supply and offered appropriate redress.
  2. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling errors and miscommunication and offered appropriate redress.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall within four weeks of the date of this report, pay the resident the compensation previously offered of £742.86 (if it has not done so already) and provide evidence of that payment to the Ombudsman.