Orbit Group Limited (202215496)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215496

Orbit Group Limited

17 April 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Asbestos removal, follow on roof repair works and the replacement of a garage door.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 3 March 2008. The landlord has no vulnerabilities listed for the resident.
On 8 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to say that it had planned to carry out refurbishment works to the outside of her property the previous year but there was asbestos in the fascia boards. The resident said she was told this would be addressed so that her house could be painted but that this was over 9 months ago and she was still waiting.
On 4 April 2022, the landlord raised a repair regarding the resident’s garage door. On 13 April 2022 it was noted that the garage door would be replaced and that the works had been forwarded to the landlord’s contractor.
On 10 June 2022, a formal complaint was raised with the landlord by the resident’s councillor. The councillor said that they had been contacted by the resident who was concerned that she was told in June 2021 that the external painting works to her property could not go ahead due to asbestos. The councillor said that the resident had reported a concerns about this as she was unsure what the risk was, that she had made many phone calls, someone had been out and taken samples, but she had heard nothing more from the landlord. The councillor also said that there was also a ‘very long’ repair to the resident’s garage door which she was still waiting to be completed.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 August 2022 in which it upheld the resident’s complaint saying:
1. That it was sorry for the delay and apparent misinformation that had been provided regarding the asbestos works and confirmed that there was no immediate health and safety risk to the resident and her husband. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had been sent a notification that there was no asbestos present but that during its call with its contractor on 10 August 2022, it was confirmed that there were signs of asbestos. The landlord said that works had been raised to remove the asbestos in question, and that its contractor would contact the resident to arrange a suitable date to begin the required works.
2. That an inspection was arranged for its contractors to reassess the works required for the garage door on 12 July 2022. This had been sub-contracted out and neither it or its contractor had received any updates. A new garage door had now been ordered but this was being imported from abroad, for which there was 6 to 8 week lead-time. The landlord said that ‘‘unfortunately’’ there was nothing it could do to expedite the manufacturers build time, but its contractors were aware that this needed to be completed as soon as possible. It went on to say that it had requested an appointment be made with the resident, prior to the door arrival if possible, to begin the works required.
On 17 October 2022, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 January 2023. In its response the landlord again upheld the resident complaint and:
1. Acknowledged that the asbestos was first identified following planned cyclical decoration works in June 2021.
2. Said that the asbestos works had now been completed and the garage door had been replaced.
3. ‘‘Sincerely’’ apologised for any delays, failed, or missed appointments and the subsequent upset and inconvenience the resident faced in the process of getting the works arranged.
4. Said that, following an inspection and the removal of the asbestos, it had been agreed that the works to repair the roof would be completed by its planned works team, who had confirmed that these would commence in January 2023. The landlord said that the resident would be kept updated throughout the process.
5. Said that once the roofing works had been completed, it had agreed for 5 decking boards, that had been damaged by the scaffolding, to be replaced.
6. Offered the resident a total of £1,189.58, made up of:
  1. £592 for repairs out of timeframe.
  2. £70 for failed appointments.
  3. £50 goodwill payment for its admin error.
  4. £150 for upset and inconvenience.
  5. £100 for poor complaint handling.
  6. A £227.58 satellite TV Bill reimbursement, made up of 2 bills for £99.82 and £127.76.
The landlord said that it had been assured the roof repairs would commence in January 2023 and so had compensated up to the end of the February 2023. If for any reason the repair exceeded the 90-day timeframe for the works, the landlord said that it would be happy to re-review the compensation offered.
In her contact with this Service the resident said that asbestos was found by painters in May 2021 who then refused to paint all the properties in her street. The other properties were repaired straight away but hers was left. On 21 September 2022 the landlord erected scaffolding and the asbestos was removed. However, they were still waiting for the landlord to repair fascia boards, soffits, gable ends and roof tiles (following the removal of the asbestos)and the scaffolding had impacted the installation of the new garage door, blocked their satellite TV and meant they could not access their rear garden. The resident said that the landlord had told her the works would be finished on 8 February 2023 but this had not happened, and that the removal of the scaffolding, which should have been taken down that day, had been rescheduled for 17 February 2023. The resident said that this was ‘‘not good enough’’ and that she was ‘‘fed up’’ with the lack of communication from the landlord.
The landlord confirmed to this Service that the roof works were completed on 13 February 2023.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes’.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.

Asbestos removal and follow on roof repair works, and the replacement of a garage door.

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance states that when the presence of asbestos is suspected, arrangements should be made for a sample to be taken by a competent person and analysed or, alternatively, should be presumed that any material that needed to be disturbed contains the most hazardous types of asbestos. The HSE guidance also states that when the presence of asbestos is suspected, consideration needs to be given as to whether there may be low fibre release when the material is disturbed and if the material is in good condition.
In June 2021, the resident was due to have the exterior of her property painted, however this did not go ahead due to the possibility of there being asbestos in the fascia boards.
Having been made aware of the possibility of the presence of asbestos to the exterior of the resident’s property, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for an asbestos survey of the property to be conducted. This took place on 30 July 2021. The report noted that ‘the material was seen to be in fair condition at the time of the initial inspection’ and recommended that the ‘condition of the material should be managed by a competent person/company and its presence made aware to those at risk’.
Between 30 July 2021, when the asbestos report was completed and 8 March 2022, when the resident chased this up on the landlord, there is no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with any updates regarding the asbestos or when it would be removed. It is therefore understandable that the resident would have been concerned about whether the asbestos was a health risk, given that she had not been given any advice about this or when the works would be carried out.
It is evident that no action was taken by the landlord to remove the asbestos and progress the painting works prior to the resident contacting it on 8 March 2022. There was then a delay in the asbestos removal job, raised on 4 May 2022, being allocated. The landlord’s records noted that on 22 June 2022 and 4 July 2022 that this still needed to be sent to its asbestos contractor. The asbestos was not then removed until September 2022.
The landlord noted in September 2022 that, once the asbestos had been removed, follow on works were needed, the roof tiles and facia needing to be replaced. However, by the time of the landlord’s final response, in January 2023 a further 4 months later, this work had still not been completed. The roofing works were then not completed until 13 February 2023.
That these works took a further 5 months to complete, following the removal of the asbestos, was a significant failure by the landlord. It is also understandable that this further delay, would have caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Further, in the 11 months between the residents initial contact in March 2022 and the completion of the works on 13 February 2023:
1. Despite the works to remove the asbestos being completed in September 2022 the scaffolding was not removed until 3 November 2022, some 6 weeks later. In contact with the landlord on 14 October 2022 the resident explained the impact of the scaffolding remaining in place, including that:
  1. It had blocked their satellite TV signal.
  2. Their decking had been ‘ripped up’ for the scaffolding to be installed.
  3. Their house was really dark which meant that they needed to keep their lights on.
  4. It had caused difficulties with their neighbours as some of the scaffolding was blocking their property.
2. There were also failed and missed appointments, including, but not limited to:
  1. The resident being given a date of 13 October 2022 for the tiles and facias to be completed, which was cancelled and the resident not told this until she rang up.
  2. A note on the 26 October 2022 from the landlord’s contactor which said that it had planned the attendance a roofer that day, but the system had removed the appointment. The contractor said that it had replanned for a further appointment 28 November 2022, which had been confirmed with the resident, however the works were not completed on that day either.
With regards to the garage door. This repair was reported on 4 April 2022. On 13 April 2022, the landlord’s repair records noted that this would be replaced, with the works being forwarded to its contractor. However, by 4 July 2022, some 3 months later, the job had still not been actioned. There was then a further delay of over a month before the door was ordered, the landlord’s repair records noting that this took place on 15 August 2022.
Whilst it is understandable that a lead in time, in this case 6-8 weeks, would need to be taken into account, that the landlord took over 4 months to get to the point where the door was ordered added an unnecessary and unreasonable delay for the resident.
The resident was advised on 13 October 2022 that the garage door was to be completed but this was cancelled, the resident only this finding out when she called the landlord. Further, on 18 and 21 October 2022, the landlord’s contractor reported that they had attended to fit the garage door but could not do so as the scaffolding was in the way.
The scaffolding was removed on 3 November 2022. However, despite the length of time the resident had already been waiting, the garage door was still not replaced until 23 November 2022, almost 3 weeks later and some 8 months after the repair was originally raised. Even when the 6-8 week lead in time for the garage door is taken into account, this is an unreasonably long time for the resident to have to wait for this repair to be completed.
That there had been significant delays regards to the asbestos removal, roof works and garage door replacement was acknowledged by the landlord in its final response, in which it apologised for the upset and inconvenience the resident experienced in getting these works completed.
Given the extent of its failures, it was also appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation in line with the amounts suggested in this Service’s Remedies guidance where there have been multiple failures by the landlord that had a significant impact on the resident. In this case the landlord offered the resident a total of £1,089.58, made up of:
1. £592 for repairs out of timeframe.
2. £70 for failed appointments.
3. £50 goodwill payment for admin error.
4. £150 for upset and inconvenience.
5. A £227.58 satellite TV Bill reimbursement, made up of 2 bills for £99.82 and £127.76.
In its final response, the landlord also offered to increase the level of compensation offered if the follow on works to the roof were not completed within 90-days, it having compensated the resident up to the end of the February 2023. As the works were completed on 13 February 2023, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer no further compensation.
Overall, whilst there were significant failings by the landlord in respect the removal of the asbestos, the following on works to the roof and the replacement of the garage door, these were all acknowledged by the landlord who apologised and offered the resident a reasonable and proportionate level of compensation for those failures. It also agreed to replace the decking boards that had been damaged by the scaffolding. As a result a finding of reasonable redress has been made.
It is noted that in its records on 4 July 2022, the landlord identified that ‘‘better communication between contractors was advisable as there were 3 parties involved, none of which had been providing the resident with updates’’. Whilst this Service acknowledges and welcomes the landlord’s recognition of learning it might take from this case, there appears not to have been an improvement following this, as there continued to be ongoing issues with both the coordination of the works and communication with the resident. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to revisit this and to advise both this Service and the resident of any actions it intends to take to improve its service in such situations going forward.

Handling of the associated complaint.

A formal complaint was raised with the landlord on 10 June 2022. This was made on the resident’s behalf by her local councillor. In accordance with its complaints policy the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days and aimed to provide its response within 10 working days, no later than 24 June 2022.
This Service has seen no evidence of an acknowledgement being sent to the resident or the councillor.
It was not until 8 July 2022 that the landlord wrote to the resident, confirming it had received the complaint on 10 June 2022. The response provided by the landlord gave no indication of the date by which it aimed to provide its response. In addition, many of the other fields on the letter, such as ‘insert complaint address’ and ‘Summarise what investigation has been carried out so far and any documentation that has been viewed’ were also left uncompleted. This evidences a lack of attention to detail by the landlord and, as a result, would understandably have left the resident feeling that it was not taking her concerns seriously.
On 9 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident, confirming that it had received her complaint on 10 June 2022 but that it was not in a position to conclude its investigation at that time. Whilst its complaints policy allows for the landlord to extend the timescale for its response, if for example, it needs more information to complete its investigation, the policy also says that it will discuss this with the resident and explain when it would be able to provide its response. In this case there is no evidence of the landlord discussing this with the resident. Further, the keys fields that the landlord had failed to complete in its correspondence of 8 July 2022 had also not been completed on this correspondence. This meant that the resident was again left not knowing when she might expect a response.
The landlord then did not provide its stage 1 response until 16 August 2022, almost 2 months outside of the timescale it would have been expected to provide its response under its complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 17 October 2022. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy it should have contacted the resident within 5 working days of receipt of their review request to understand what they remain unhappy about. This it did the landlord noting that it had called the resident that day.
In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord would then be expected to provide stage 2 and final response within 20 working days, no later than 14 November 2022.
On 18 November 2022 the resident contacted this Service to say that she had escalated her complaint but had had no response. The escalation was confirmed to this Service by the landlord the same day and the resident advised by this Service on 24 November 2022 that she should receive the landlord’s response by 2 December 2022. However, the landlord did not provide its final response until 20 January 2023, a further 2 months outside of the timescale set out in its complaints policy.
In its final response the landlord acknowledged failures with regards to its complaint handling, including delays in contact and in its response and offered the resident £100 compensation for those failures.
However it is the view of this Service that the landlord’s acknowledgments and the £100 offered do not go far enough and do not provide the resident with sufficient redress for the failures identified in this report. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made. In order to make things right, the landlord has been ordered to pay an additional £300 compensation to the resident, bringing the total payable to her for its complaint handling failures to £400.
The landlord has also been ordered to carry out a review of the complaint handling failures identified in this report. It is then to confirm to this Service what steps it has taken to ensure that similar failings do not happen in the future, such as staff training and reviewing processes in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the asbestos removal and follow on roof repair works, and the replacement of a garage door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

That within 28 calendar days of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £400 for its complaint handling failures. This includes the £100 previously offered, if this has not already been paid.
2. Carry out a review of the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord is then to confirm to this Service what steps it has taken to ensure that similar failings do not happen in the future, such as staff training and reviewing processes in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord is to pay the resident the £1,089.58 offered in its final response for its failures in respect of its handling of the removal of the asbestos, roof repairs and replacement of the garage door. The finding of reasonable redress being dependent on it doing so.
It is recommended that the landlord revisit the issue it identified with regards to communication between contractors, where the 3 parties were involved, and the lack of updates to the resident. It is then to advise both this Service and the resident of any actions it intends to take to improve it service in such situations going forward.