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

Orbit Group Limited (202202980)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202980

Orbit Group Limited

9 August 2024

 

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of repairs to the communal areas of the property.
    2. Concerns about its management of the communal areas of the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and lives in a 1 bedroom fifth floor flat in a block that contains multiple communal spaces for residents. The resident’s tenancy started in November 2011, and the landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for him.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 December 2021, and reported that the storage heaters in 3 of the communal living spaces were not working. The landlord attended on 4 occasions in January and February 2022, and the heaters were fixed by 18 February 2022.
  3. Around 1 March 2022 (the exact date is unclear) the resident wrote to the landlord to make a complaint. He said he had tried to raise a complaint in January 2022, but the landlord had not responded. He said he was unhappy about the time taken to fix the storage heaters, and after he complained they were fixed within a week. He also raised several concerns about the landlord’s management of the communal areas, including the presence of trip hazards, antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the block, and “violence” against residents.
  4. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 31 March 2022, and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It explained that it was aware about the storage heater issue from 2020. But, the communal rooms were closed in 2020 until August 2021 due to Covid-19 restrictions. It explained it planned to replace the doors to the refuse store. It explained it had closed the complaint before as it has “not receive[d] the information] it had asked for. It set out its position on the various concerns the resident raised about its management of the communal areas.
  5. On 4 April 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord saying he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. He said that he was unhappy the landlord “blame[d] Covid” for the heating issue, and it could have provided temporary heaters. He expressed a concern about its management of the building and that trip hazards had been a “problem for years”.
  6. The landlord completed repairs to windows in the communal areas in April, May June, July, and September 2022. It replaced some windows and completed repairs to others.
  7. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 29 September 2022. It said “many” of the repairs issues were addressed in its stage 1 response, and “no new information” was provided by the resident. It said it had since replaced windows at the block. It apologised it had not kept the stage 1 complaint open while the resident was in hospital and “should have handled the situation differently.” It said it had received no reports of ASB, and encouraged the resident to report any concerns he had. It said it had written to all residents to remind them about not leaving rubbish outside the refuse room. It offered the resident £100 in compensation for its complaint handling.
  8. The resident contacted this Service on 24 December 2023, and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he was unhappy the landlord had not responded to the complaint when he first complained in “January 2022”. He said the repairs were now resolved, but he was unhappy with the time taken to complete them and the compensation the landlord had offered.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the communal areas of the property

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply for heating.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it has 2 types of responsive repair. Emergency repairs which it will attend to within 4, or 24, hours depending on risk. Routine repairs which it will respond to within 28 calendar days.
  3. The first Covid-19 lockdown started on 23 March 2020 and between this date and 31 May 2020, most landlords were only carrying out emergency repairs. However, on 1 June 2020, the Government had issued guidance to social landlords to say that they could resume wider repairs if they were carried out in line with public health advice. The second lockdown was from 5 November 2020 to 2 December 2020. However, the national guidance at the time stated that landlords could still carry out repairs and safety inspections, if in line with public health advice. This advice did not change during the third lockdown, which started on 6 January 2021.

Repairs to heating

  1. The evidence shows that the landlord was on notice about issues with the heaters in the communal areas from October 2020. It sought to complete repairs at the time, but its contractor advised the issue would need to be addressed by the manufacturer/original installer. It is noted that the communal living spaces were closed during this time. That the landlord did not prioritise the repair while the spaces were closed was reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The evidence shows that the communal living spaces were reopened in August 2021. The landlord was evidently aware that a repair for the heaters remained outstanding. That the landlord was not proactive in addressing the repairs when the spaces reopened was a failing. This caused the resident an inconvenience. The evidence shows the repairs to the heaters were not completed until February 2022. This was well outside of the 28 day timeframe (from when the spaces reopened) set out in its repairs procedure. This was an unreasonable delay and a failing in its handling of the matter.
  3. It is noted that the detriment experienced by the landlord’s lack of proactive action on the repairs was mitigated by the fact the spaces reopened during the summer months. However, there is no evidence the landlord had addressed the repair by the time it was raised again in December 2021. By this time, it was winter and the resident was inconvenienced by the lack of heating in the communal spaces during the winter months. The resident was also cost time and trouble by needing to raise the repair again in December 2021.
  4. In relation to the heating repair, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of March 2022, was inappropriate. It was reasonable to set out why did not complete the repair while the spaces were closed. However, it failed to acknowledge that that it was not proactive in attending to the repair after to the spaces reopened. The tone of its complaint response was dismissive of the resident’s concerns, and lacked learning. This was inappropriate and the resident was inconvenience by the landlord not showing the appropriate consideration of his concerns.
  5. In relation to the repairs, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of September 2022, was also dismissive. It did not address the resident’s concerns about the repairs in any detail, advised him to review its earlier response, and said he had provided “no new information”. This was inappropriate and a failing in its handling of the matter, as well as its complaint handling. In relation to the resident’s concerns about the heater repair he had queried why the landlord had not provided temporary heaters, or why it had only repaired the heating after he had complained. That it did not address the further concerns raised in it stage 2 complaint response was unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by not receiving answers to specific queries he had raised.

Repair to the refuse store

  1. The evidence shows that the landlord had identified it needed to replace the doors to the refuse store on 31 December 2021. The notes from a repairs visit state that the doors were “old and rotten” and needed to be replaced. There is no evidence to indicate that the repair went ahead at the time. This was a failing in its handling of the matter.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of March 2022, set out that it planned to replace the doors. While reasonable to explain its position, it offered no assessment of its handling of the matter up to that point, or an acknowledgement it had been on notice for 3 months. This was inappropriate, and the resident was inconvenienced by it not addressing his concerns about the refuse store.
  3. The evidence shows that the works to the replacement doors were fitted in May 2022, and were painted in June 2022. The evidence shows that part of the delay was outside of the landlord’s control as there were stock issues with its supplier, in February 2022. However, we have seen no evidence that the delays were explained to the resident. This would have helped manage his expectations and reassure him it was taking his concerns seriously.
  4. That the landlord did not offer any assessment of its handling of this repair in its stage 2 response was inappropriate. As set out above, its response in relation to the repairs was dismissive. Given that it had offered no meaningful assessment of its handling of this specific repair in its stage 1 response, that it offered no further detail at stage 2 was unreasonable. This caused the resident an inconvenience of not having his concerns appropriately addressed, and the landlord missed an opportunity to show learning and build trust.

Repairs to windows in communal areas

  1. The evidence shows that the landlord was on notice about repairs to various windows in the communal areas of the property from April 2022, and it attended to repairs to windows on 7 occasions prior to issuing its stage 2 complaint response.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord responded promptly to reports of the repairs to the windows, and inspected within the timeframes set out in its repairs procedure. It is noted that not all the repairs were completed within its 28 day target timeframe. However, given the nature of window repairs and the need to measure and order windows, the delays were not unreasonable.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of September 2022, offered no meaningful assessment of its handling of the window repairs. While it is noted its approach to the window repairs was reasonable, that it did not address the resident’s concern in any detail, or set out its position, was a shortcoming in its response.
  4. The landlord was not proactive in following up on the heater repairs after the communal spaces reopened in August 2021. The resident was cost time and trouble of needing to raise the repair again. It is noted the landlord promptly fixed the heaters after the repair was reraised. There was a delay in completed the repair to the refuse store, and the landlord offered no explanation of the delay. Its complaint responses about the communal repairs were dismissive and lacked learning. Considering these failings, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal areas of the property.

Management of the communal areas of the property

  1. The landlord’s estate services procedure states that it will complete regular inspections of its properties to monitor the condition of communal area.
  2. The landlord’s fire safety procedure states that it will complete regular inspections of the property to identify any safety issues. This includes identifying trip hazards and issues with obstruction of escape routes.
  3. The evidence seen for this investigation shows the landlord conducted regular visual inspections of the property throughout the period covering the resident’s complaint. The landlord conducted fortnightly visual inspections of the block. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence the landlord took its responsibility of the management of the communal areas seriously. The evidence also shows that the landlord conducted 6 monthly ‘estate inspections’ in line with its fire safety procedure. For each inspection it produced a report that identified any repairs needed, and potential hazards that needed addressing. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence it appropriately applied its fire safety procedure.
  4. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the resident raised his concerns about the landlord’s management of the communal areas of the property before he raised his complaint in early 2022. As such, we have determined the landlord was on notice about his concerns from early 2022.
  5. The landlord appropriately used its stage 1 complaint response, of March 2022, to set out its position on each of the resident’s concerns, and explain the actions in had taken. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it gave the appropriate consideration of the concerns he had raised.
  6. In relation to the resident’s concerns about items in the storage cupboard the landlord explained that it had become aware of resident’s using a cupboard to store personal items “prior to lockdown”. It explained it had put a notice on the door and said it would remove the items within 2 weeks. The evidence provided for this investigation shows the landlord took the actions outlined in its complaint response.
  7. The landlord set out that once its staff were “able to return” it became aware the items were still present it took the appropriate action against the individual concerns, but that it could not share specifics with the resident, due to “GDPR”. Its response was reasonable in the circumstances. It sought to reassure the resident it was aware of the matter and was taking the appropriate action, and sought to manage his expectations that it could not share further details. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  8. In relation to the resident’s concerns about trip hazards, namely holes in a communal carpet, and residents leaving refuse bags out, the landlord’s response was appropriate. It set out the actions it had taken in relation to the resident’s concerns. It set out that it had taped down the holes in the carpet and covered them with a table to mitigate risk. It also set out that it had since replaced the carpet. The evidence provided supports its conclusions set out in the stage 1 response. While the resident was evidently disappointed with its approach, the landlord set out its position with clarity and explained the reasons for the delay in completing the carpet replaced.
  9. In relation to the concerns about the trip hazard posed by the refuse bags, the landlord response was also appropriate. It set out it had offered support to all resident’s about getting help taking the rubbish out, and it removed rubbish left out when made aware of it. It also said it reminded residents at the monthly meetings about their responsibilities in relation to refuse disposal. The evidence shows the landlord raised the issue at resident meetings, and offered the appropriate support to residents about this issue. Its actions were appropriate in the circumstances, given what was reported.
  10. In relation to the resident’s concerns about damaged chairs in the dining room at the property, the landlord set out its position with clarity. It explained that it was satisfied; while showing some “wear and tear”, they did not present a risk and were in “good working order”. It is noted the resident was unhappy with its position on the matter. However, it is not for this Service to determine whether the chairs needed to be replaced, only to consider the landlord’s response. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to set out the actions it had taken, and its position on the matter. Its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
  11. In relation to the resident’s concerns about ASB at the property the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was also appropriate. It set out that it was unable to install CCTV in the communal areas due to “GDPR”. It explained it had provided diary sheets for resident to record incidents of “knocking on doors” during night time hours. It also advised the resident to contact the police if he was concerned about criminal activity.
  12. It set out that it had received no reports of residents reporting they felt unsafe to leave their properties, as the resident had claimed. While we do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim, the landlord explained that it needed evidence in order to progress with an investigation into such concerns. It set out that it had “no information” about alleged incidents of violence in the block. We have seen no evidence that contradicts the landlord’s position on this matter. That the landlord set out, and encouraged, the resident to report any concerns he had to it, and the police, was appropriate in the circumstances.
  13. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response, of September 2022, to provide further clarity to the resident about its position on the trip hazards, and ASB. This was appropriate in the circumstances. It set out it had since written to all resident’s to remind them not to leave rubbish outside the refuse room, and it encouraged the resident to report any further concerns he had. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The evidence supports its claim that it took such actions, which were reasonable in the circumstances.
  14. In relation to the ASB it set out that the resident had made no specific reports of ASB. it sought to reassure the resident that it took concerns about ASB “seriously” and encouraged him to report any concerns he had. The evidence provided does not indicate the resident made specific reports of ASB to the landlord. As set out above, the landlord needed evidence in order to progress with an ASB case, and encouraged the resident to provide evidence throughout. Its approach was reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its procedure states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The procedure states that if the landlord is not going to investigate a complaint, it will write to the resident and explain the reasons it is closing the complaint.
  2. When the resident raised his stage 1 complaint, in March 2022, he said he had tried to make a complaint in January 2022, and the landlord did not respond. The landlord did not dispute this and stated, in its stage 1 response of March 2022, that the resident had not provided the information it had asked for, so it closed the complaint. This was inappropriate, and evidence of poor complaint handling.
  3. The resident had expressed dissatisfaction with its handling of matters, that it did not formally respond was unreasonable. While it is noted the landlord explained it had tried to seek further information, and was unable to contact the resident. We have seen no evidence that it wrote to the resident and explained it was closing his complaint, as per its procedure. This was unreasonable and evidence the landlord operated a hard to access, and unfair, complaints procedure. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to raise his complaint again in March 2022.
  4. The resident received the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response 2 months after he first raised his complaint. That the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not acknowledge, or apologise, for its part in the delay was unreasonable.
  5. The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 April 2022 to express dissatisfaction with its stage 1 complaint response, and asked for it to expand on issues addressed in its response. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord opened a stage 2 complaint at that time. This was unreasonable, and a failing in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction “however made”. That the landlord did not progress the resident’s complaint to stage 2 when he was clearly dissatisfied with its response was unreasonable, and evidence it operated an obstructive complaints process.
  6. It is noted that the landlord was of the view the resident did not want his complaint to be taken to stage 2, as outlined in an email to this Service on 22 June 2022. While we do not seek to dispute its position, the resident was evidently dissatisfied with the landlord’s response throughout. He also expressed a concern to this Service, in July 2022, that the landlord refused to take his complaint to stage 2. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord refused outright to progress the complaint. However, that it was not proactive in progressing the complaint, despite the resident’s clear dissatisfaction, is evidence it operated a hard to access complaints procedure, which inconvenienced the resident. He was further inconvenienced by the need to seek assistance form this Service in order to get a response to the stage 2 complaint.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 5 months after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. This was an unreasonable delay, and well outside of the timeframes set out in its procedure, and the Code. This caused further inconvenience to the resident.
  8. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response, of September 2022, to acknowledge and apologise for the fact it closed the resident’s complaint when he first made it. This was appropriate in the circumstances. We welcome the fact the landlord offered £100 for its handling of the issue, to try and put things right. However, it offered no learning about its handling of the stage 1 complaint, and did not set out what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. This was inappropriate.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered no apology or acknowledgment of the delays the resident experienced at stage 2. This was inappropriate, and lacked learning. As such we have made an appropriate order below.
  10. The landlord operated a protracted and hard to access complaints procedure. It closed the resident’s complaint without explaining why, which went against the approach set out in its policy. It later apologised, and offered redress, for that failing which was appropriate. Both of its complaint responses lacked learning in relation to the substantive issues, and its complaint handling. That its stage 2 response offered no apology or acknowledgement for the delay at stage 2 was inappropriate. As such, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, and have made a series of orders below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal areas of the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its management of the communal areas of the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £450 in compensation. The landlord’s £100 compensation offer should be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £250 in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its handling of the communal repairs.
      2. £200 in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. Remind its staff responsible for investigating complaints of the complaint handling principles set out in the Code, and the importance of a meaningful complaint investigation that seeks to learn from outcomes.
  2. Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to conduct a review into its handling of the communal repairs. Considering the lack of learning shown in its complaint responses, it should identify points of learning to prevent similar failings happening again. The outcome of the review should be shared with the resident, and this Service, also within 8 weeks.