Orbit Group Limited (202210269)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210269

Orbit Group Limited

22 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repair issues in her property.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The resident resides in the property with her children.
The landlord has provided this service with its repair records, including the records of its repairs contractor. These records note that the resident reported issues with opening her windows in or around September 2018. A repair visit was attempted on 4 October 2018, but the operative was unable to gain access to the property. The records note that the repair needed to be rebooked; however, it is not evident that this occurred.
The resident made a further report about the windows in April 2019. The records further note that the repairs to the windows were completed on 25 March 2022. However, a further record dated 31 May 2022, noted that the window works still needed to be completed. It is not evident if this was following a further report from the resident.
The landlord’s records also note that storage heaters in the property were replaced in March 2020. The resident then made a report on 21 January 2022, that the heaters were releasing black dust onto the wall and ceiling. The records note that the resident was informed not to use the heater until a full repair was completed and included a recommendation to “upgrade” the repair job. A recommendation was also made to provide temporary heaters. On 24 February 2022, the records noted that a new repair job was needed for a new storage heater.
It is evident that an inspection of the heaters was completed in or around March 2022. The landlord’s records note that the power to the heaters was fine, but that the heaters were not working properly. The contractor who attended recommended that the original installation company should carry out an inspection. On 12 May 2022, a further inspection noted that the heaters were causing burning marks on the walls and that, as they were still under warranty, the original fitters should inspect.
Following the resident’s further reports, the landlord made internal inquiries about the outstanding repairs in June 2022. In its later communications, the landlord advised that it attended the property on 17 June 2022, to inspect the windows. The landlord advised that there was no access and that it left a missed appointment card. This visit is not noted on the landlord’s repair records.
On 27 June 2022, the landlord’s internal communications noted that “the heaters have been inspected and were reported as working with no sign of any components burning out inside. It is suspected the staining on the walls is due to contaminants in the air.” It is not evident that this was communicated to the resident at the time.
On 15 August 2022, the resident reported her concerns to her local MP. She noted that the issues with the heaters and windows were outstanding. She also reported that the lino around her toilet was mouldy following a leak and that the vents in the property were faulty. She further advised that the landlord had promised her compensation but that no compensation had been paid. The MP forwarded the complaint to the landlord on her behalf.
On the same date, the landlord conducted a further inspection. The contractor reported that the heaters were in good working order and repeated that the burn marks could be from circulation of smoke or soot from a candle. The repair record noted that all the heaters had been switched on.
It is evident that works to replace the bathroom floor took place on 18 August 2022.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 30 August 2022, which included the following:
1. It noted the outcome of its inspection of the heaters on 15 August 2022, and that it considered the smoke marks to be a lifestyle issue.
2. It noted that following the no access appointment for the windows in June 2022, it had raised a new job.
3. It advised that it did not have records of any reports about the bathroom floor or the vents, but that it had raised new jobs to address these issues.
4. Regarding the resident’s position that it had offered compensation, it advised that it did not have a record of this, and it requested further communication.
5. It concluded that it did not uphold her complaint.
The resident subsequently raised concerns about the quality of the landlord’s inspection of her heaters and advised that they had not been switched on when the inspection took place. She therefore queried how it had been determined that they were working. She also noted that the bathroom floor had already been replaced and that she was concerned that its complaint response had not identified this. She therefore requested an escalation of the complaint.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 30 September 2022, which included the following:
1. It noted that the bathroom floor and the window handles had now been repaired.
2. Regarding the storage heater, it repeated its position that the issue was caused by lifestyle, as per its contractor’s report.
3. It again concluded that it did not uphold her complaint.
Following the stage two response, it is evident that the landlord agreed to replace the heaters in October 2022. It is not evident why it determined that the heaters required replacement. In November 2022, the resident noted that only one heater had been replaced, as the contractor only had one in stock. It is not evident whether this has since been replaced.
Throughout 2023, the resident reported multiple other repair issues. These included repairs to her boiler, toilet, shower, window, kitchen floor, and extractor fan. As of April 2024, the landlord has advised that these repairs have now been completed, except for the replacement of a ‘MVHR’ unit, for which arrangements were being made.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues she reported and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted her and her family’s health.
The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her and her family’s health, she has the option to seek legal advice.
The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.
The Ombudsman also notes that after the landlord’s stage two response, the resident continued to report further repair issues. In its correspondence with this service, the landlord notes that there were some delays to these repairs, particularly those involving a ‘MVHR’ unit. However, given that these issues did not occur until after the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As such, these issues have not been through the landlord’s complaints procedure and are therefore outside of the scope of this investigation. This is in line with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
A recommendation has, however, been made below for the landlord to contact the resident and determine if she wishes to open a new formal complaint about these issues.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes that routine repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days. For appointments, the landlord will telephone the resident on the day of the appointment to inform them that the contractor is on their way. If there is no access, the contractor will leave a card inviting the resident to make a new appointment.

Repairs

Where a landlord has repair responsibilities, it is reasonable and common practice to use a repairs contractor to complete certain repairs. It is also common practice for such contractors to keep their own records. However, to ensure that the landlord is aware of action being taken, it should have sufficiently robust systems in place to be kept aware of its contractor’s actions.
In this case, the resident raised in her reports and subsequent complaint that she had been told her heaters were unsafe and required replacement. The landlord’s contractor’s records show that in January 2022, she was advised not to use the heater. The records also show a recommendation for a new heater. These actions would have understandably led the resident to have concerns about the safety of her heater.
There was also an expectation raised that further action would take place. Such action should take place within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s repairs policy indicates that action should be taken within 28 calendar days. The Ombudsman understands that it can take longer where there is a need to arrange specialist staff, arrange access, and order parts. However, in such circumstances, the landlord should keep the resident informed of its intentions. In this case, it is not evident that there were any updates provided. This led the resident to have to expend time and effort chasing updates.
It is evident from the records provided that subsequent inspections of the heater determined that it was not working correctly and should be inspected by the manufacturer. Where an operative makes such recommendations, the landlord’s systems should be sufficiently robust to either arrange such further inspections or otherwise record why they are not necessary. However, in this case, despite the operative making such recommendations on two occasions, it is not evident that any further arrangements were made.
Despite the outcomes of previous inspections, in June and August 2022, the operatives recorded that the heaters were working correctly, and the smoke marks were the result of soot or smoke caused by the resident’s lifestyle. It was these reports that the landlord quoted in its stage one response dated 30 August 2022. However, no reference was made by the landlord to the outcomes of its earlier inspections, despite the resident having noted these as a concern. Based on the landlord’s internal communications surrounding the stage one response, it is not evident it considered these earlier inspection reports.
This demonstrates that the landlord’s complaint investigation was insufficient and did not address all of the issues raised by the resident. While it may have been reasonable to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff, given that there was a difference of opinion and that the resident was concerned about this difference, it should have explained why the earlier positions were incorrect. Additionally, given the resident’s reports of concerns about safety, it should have ensured there was a high level of information to ensure she was not further distressed. Instead, it did not provide any position on the earlier reports and simply copied and pasted its most recent inspection report, which concluded it was the resident’s fault. This would have been very unsatisfactory for the resident.
Additionally, while it may have been of the position that there were no issues with the heater, a reasonable stage one investigation should have noted earlier contradictory advice and a lack of meaningful updates, despite requests. This would have given it the opportunity to address this poor communication and provide a reasonable remedy. It did not make any mention of this, however.
The Ombudsman notes that the operatives report from the inspection in August 2022 stated that the heaters had been on during the inspection. However, in her escalation request, the resident expressed concern that they had not been on during the inspection. In such circumstances, a reasonable inspection by the landlord may have been to discuss the matter with the operative to ensure the heaters were on, or to even arrange a further inspection. Instead, the landlord merely repeated that it was a lifestyle issue. This did not address the resident’s concerns and would have been frustrating for her.
Following the period of the complaint, it is encouraging to note that the landlord chose to replace the heaters. However, it would have been helpful to have explained why it took this action, given its previous position. Additionally, given that there were delays to the replacements, it would also have been helpful to have improved its communication to explain what the expected timeframes for works were. However, once again, it was the resident who was left to chase updates.
In addition to the heater, the resident noted issues with the windows. The landlord’s repair records show a history of reports and attempted visits going over a number of years; however, it is not evident that a successful repair was ever completed. Given that the resident had expressed concerns about the length of time she had been reporting issues, it would have been helpful had the landlord clarified some of the history of the complaint to demonstrate that its most recent attempted visit had been made in line with the timeframes of its policy. Its failure to do so would have been frustrating.
In its stage one response, the landlord explained that there had been no access during its most recent visit in June 2022. While it noted it had left a card, given that the resident had disputed any visit had been attempted, it could have done more to show the visit took place, such as by noting the call records of the call announcing the visit which it is required to make under its policy. However, it was appropriate that it raised a new repair to address the issue, which it did within the timeframes of its policies.
Aside from the heater and window, the resident noted there were additional repair concerns, including the vents and bathroom floor. This service has not been provided with evidence to show these had been reported to the landlord prior to the complaint or that repairs had previously been recorded. It was nevertheless concerning to note that the landlord was unaware that a repair to the bathroom floor had already been completed at the time it issued its stage one response. This further demonstrates the deficiencies in its record keeping and its complaint investigations.
The resident also raised concerns that she had been promised compensation, but it had not been paid. In this instance, the landlord appropriately provided its position that it was unaware of any offer and that it sought more information. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
In summary, the landlord failed to address its previous position that the heaters were not working correctly, both at the time and in its formal responses. It also failed to adequately investigate the history of the complaint about the heaters and windows, which led to it providing an inadequate response. While it appropriately sought to address outstanding repairs, the fact that it was unaware of repairs that had already been completed further demonstrated these failings. Despite having the opportunity to provide further detail in its stage two response, it failed to address the resident’s concerns, which would have further damaged the landlord tenant relationship.
Given the above findings, there was maladministration. An order for £500 compensation has been made, being £300 for its failures in early 2022 to arrange inspections or otherwise communicate its position in relation to the heaters, and £200 for its record keeping and complaint investigation failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports concerning repair issues in her property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £500 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures relating to the repairs.
This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord is to contact the resident and determine if she wishes to open a new formal complaint about the repair issues that occurred following the period of this complaint.