Orbit Group Limited (202216362)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216362

Orbit Group Limited

8 February 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:
1. Response to the works required in the resident’s bathroom.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a five year fixed term assured shorthold tenancy at the property which is a 1 bedroom flat. He has lived there since May 2019. He stated to this Service that he has Asperger’s. The landlord advised this Service that it had no vulnerabilities recorded on its system for the resident.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to baths, toilet flushing systems and waste pipes. It will carry out repairs within a reasonable time dependant on the urgency of the repair.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy categorises repairs as follows:
1. Emergency repair (4 & 24 hour). Any repair that is required in order to sustain the immediate health, safety or security of the resident or that affects the structure of the building adversely.
2. Routine repair within 28 calendar days. Any responsive repair that is not an emergency.
3. Non responsive repair – Major repairs that are grouped together and included within stock investment programmes in order to deliver value for money.
The landlord’s compensation policy states as follows:
1. It will consider whether the event caused the resident financial loss or significant distress or inconvenience.
2. It will consider whether the resident had to live in poor conditions longer than was reasonable due to the landlord’s failure to deal satisfactorily with repairs.
3. It will not pay compensation for cancelled appointments.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 it aims to respond within 20 working days. If more time is required at either stage, it will keep the resident informed.
It will keep residents updated regularly during a complaint investigation and review.

Summary of events

In June 2022 the tenant in the property below the resident reported to the landlord that a leak was coming from the resident’s property. A contractor attended the resident’s property on 11 June 2022 and removed wooden boxing in the bathroom. The contractor noted that an isolation valve had been slowly leaking for a long period of time. The leak was resolved during this visit.
On 12 August 2022 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord stated that in June 2022 the contractor had taken apart some of his bathroom to locate the leak. The resident had logged the subsequent repairs required via the landlord’s website in July 2022 but had not had a response. He had subsequently checked his online account which showed there were no open jobs at his property. He requested that the outstanding repairs be completed.
On 16 August 2022 the landlord advised that it would raise the issue with its online portal internally. It advised that it had booked in the outstanding jobs as follows:
1. Replacement floor. It advised that a contractor would contact the resident within 72 hours to book the appointment.
2. Boxing in repair on 2 September 2022.
A contractor attended to complete the boxing in repair on 2 September 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 September 2022 and stated that he had not heard further about the replacement flooring. He reiterated that his repairs had not been logged on the landlord’s system. The landlord advised that it would call him the following day to discuss the complaint. It is not clear if this took place.
On 14 September 2022 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. A contractor had fixed some of the boxing in of the pipes and had advised him that the landlord should order a new bath panel. He asked if he needed to raise a job with the landlord for the bath panel.
2. He advised that the flooring contractor had not called him.
3. He asked if the landlord had investigated why his repairs had not shown on its portal.
The resident contacted the landlord the following day (15 September 2022) and stated he had not heard from the landlord in respect of the outstanding issues in his bathroom which he outlined as follows:
1. The bath panel needed to be ordered and fitted.
2. The bathroom lino needed to be replaced.
3. The wooden boxing had been damaged and needed repairing.
4. Holes in the replacement wood needed to be filled.
5. The new wooden boxing needed to be sealed against the wall.
On 22 September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. Despite the landlord advising (in August 2022) that the flooring contractor would call him within 72 hours, it had taken 2 weeks for the contractor to call him. During that call the resident had advised the contractor that the landlord had said that the boxing work needed to be done and he had not heard from him since.
2. He had been trying to have the issues resolved since July 2022. The landlord had only arranged one appointment, namely for the boxing to be repaired on 2 September 2022. He stated that this work had not been done well and had not been completed.
3. He advised that the situation had caused him “stress”.
The landlord advised the resident that same day that it would investigate his complaint as outlined within his phone call of 15 September 2022. That same day the landlord raised a job to repair the bath panel.
On 28 September 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 and stated as follows:
1. It had looked at the quality of the works shown in photographs provided by the resident and acknowledged that the boxing work was of “poor quality” and had asked for this to be re-done.
2. The front bath panel needed to be replaced. This would be cut to fit around the boxing.
3. The wooden panel needed to be replaced with a thicker panel to cover pre-existing damage to the wall.
4. These works would be completed on 6 October 2022. Following this, the flooring contractor would attend on 7 October 2022.
5. It concluded that the complaint was upheld but offered no further redress beyond the agreed works.
On 6 October 2022 the resident advised the landlord that the contractor had cancelled the appointment for that day. He stated that the matter was causing him “immense stress” and requested compensation.
On 11 October 2022 the resident queried which stage his compliant was at as he was considering involving this Service. The landlord confirmed that the response had been at stage 1 and that he could escalate his complaint. The resident escalated his complaint on 12 October 2022.
On 26 October 2022 the resident contacted this Service and reiterated the basis of his complaint. He advised that he had not had a response to his escalation request from the landlord.
On 27 October 2022 the landlord acknowledged the escalation request.
A contractor attended on 14 November 2022 to re-do the boxing in work (originally completed on 2 September 2022) due to its poor quality.
On 2 December 2022 the landlord advised the resident that, due to the number of enquiries it was receiving, the stage 2 response would be delayed. It apologised for this and advised that it should be provided by 9 December 2022.
On 14 December 2022 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. It reiterated that the boxing in work completed on 2 September 2022 had been of poor quality. It had fed this back to the operatives manager to consider additional training and monitoring of workmanship.
2. It apologised for the non-attendance and failed appointments that occurred with the contractors. It acknowledged that this caused “upset, inconvenience and distress” to the resident in light of the fact that he had raised multiple work orders and the length of time it had taken for the repairs to be completed.
3. The appointment had not gone ahead on 6 October 2022 as the job (bath panel) had required further materials. It had rearranged this for 14 November 2022 but again this had been cancelled as the materials were not available. It had re-booked this for 24 November 2022.
4. In respect of the IT issue, it had raised this with its IT team for investigation.
5. It confirmed that the complaint was upheld and offered £152 compensation as follows:
  1. £72 for delays.
  2. £50 for upset and inconvenience.
  3. £30 for failed appointments.
That same day, the resident advised the landlord that the issues were still outstanding. He stated that around 2 weeks prior, a supervisor had inspected the bath panel and the sealant. He had advised the resident that it was “an extremely poorly done job” and that it would be re-done. He had heard nothing since.
On 19 December 2022 the resident referred his case to this Service. He stated that the landlord had informed him that it had closed the job so would not send a contractor to remedy the job as promised.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

On 26 Janaury 2023 the resident confirmed to this Service that the flooring work had been completed. He stated that the work to fix the bath panel sealant was still outstanding.
On 23 February 2023 the landlord asked the resident to confirm if he was satisfied with the bath sealant works which had been completed that day. The resident responded as follows:
1. The sealant had been re-done but was not water tight.
2. The contractor had not re-sealed the right side edge of the bath as he had told the resident that it would take him too long to remove the existing sealant and he did not have a sealant removal tool with him.
3. A decorator would be required to make good in the bathroom.
On 8 March 2023 the resident advised the landlord that he had not heard anything further about the bath seal or a decorator.
On 27 March 2023 the resident advised the landlord that he had called it on 2 occasions that month to try to find out about the sealant. On both occasions he had been promised a call back but these had not happened. He advised that he was “angry” that he had wasted time chasing the landlord.
On 21 April 2023 a contractor attended and completed the outstanding works. The resident advised the landlord that the works had been completed and asked if it would reconsider its offer of compensation. This Service has not seen any evidence that it did so.

Assessment and findings

Response to the works required in the resident’s bathroom

The landlord’s completion of the outstanding repair issues in the resident’s bathroom were significantly delayed and outside of the landlord’s repairs timeframe.
This Service has not seen the exact completion dates that the repairs were completed however the bathroom flooring was resolved by January 2023 and the bath panel was resolved on 21 April 2023. It is not clear when the boxing in works were completed to a satisfactory standard, however this had been completed by 21 April 2023. With the repairs being raised by the resident in June 2022, it was not reasonable that the completion of the outstanding bathroom repairs took a total of 10 months to be fully resolved (June 2022 to April 2023). It is noted that although the bathroom remained usable, the resident spent a significant amount of time and effort chasing the landlord to have the repairs actioned. This included at least 3 occasions where contractor appointments could not go ahead due to not having the required materials or tools. Although the landlord went some way to keeping the resident informed about the delays, most of its correspondence was as a result of the resident chasing it, rather than the landlord being proactive in trying to resolve the issues.
Under the dispute resolution principles, this Service expects landlord’s to take action to put things right when things have gone wrong. It was encouraging to see that that the landlord acknowledged its failings in actioning the repairs. It was also appropriate for it to offer its apologies and to advise that it would be feeding back the issues identified to the relevant teams. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation to the resident. It is for this Service to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord was reasonable.
The landlord’s offer of compensation at stage 2 was a total of £152 (consisting of £72 for delays, £50 for upset and inconvenience and £30 for failed appointments.) This offer was not clear in respect of which delays it had offered the £72 compensation for, namely for the repairs or its complaints process (addressed below), nor was it clear how many failed appointments the £30 was offered in respect of. This is something which the landlord should have made clear in its offer in order to be transparent with the resident.
The offer of £152 compensation was not commensurate with the delays experienced by the resident, the distress or inconvenience these caused him of the condition of the bathroom, nor the time he spent chasing the landlord to have the matters resolved. It is of concern that the landlord does not have a record of the resident’s vulnerability and that consideration was not given to this during the internal complaints process. In considering the delays in the repairs being resolved and the lack of reasonable redress, this amounts to a service failure by the landlord. To acknowledge the impact of the failings on the resident, this Service had ordered an additional £150 compensation. The landlord has also been ordered to re-offer the £152 compensation. The order of compensation is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guide where a resident has been adversely impacted by the failings of the landlord.

Complaint handling

The resident initially expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the bathroom repairs from 6 to 15 September 2022. It is not clear why the landlord determined the resident’s correspondence from 15 September 2022 to be a complaint when it had not considered his earlier communications as complaints. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 28 September 2022, this was within its complaints timeframe when considering the communication of 15 September 2022, however it was outside of this timeframe when considering the resident’s earlier expression of dissatisfaction from 6 September 2022. This response did not make it clear that it was a stage 1 response and this led the resident to question which stage of the complaints process he was at. This should have been made clear to the resident within the response. Despite acknowledging the poor quality of the work, detailing how these would be rectified and upholding the complaint at stage 1, the landlord offered no redress to the resident. This was not appropriate.
Following the resident’s escalation, it took the landlord 45 working days to respond at stage 2. This was more than double it’s timeframe outlined in its complaints procedure. It is noted that the landlord went some way to keep the resident informed that the response was delayed, however it was delayed beyond the extended timeframe and this Service has not seen evidence that it informed the resident of this further delay. The landlord’s delay in providing the stage 2 response was not acknowledged within the response and no apology or redress was offered to acknowledge this. The landlord’s delay in its stage 2 response was not reasonable and impacted on the resident being able to refer his case to this Service
The significant delay in the landlord responding to the complaint at stage 2 ad its lack of an acknowledgement of the impact of this on the resident, amounts to maladministration. To acknowledge the impact, distress and time spent chasing the complaint by the resident, compensation of £150 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where residents have been adversely impacted by delays as a result of the landlord’s actions.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s Response to the works required in the resident’s bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately in trying to put things right for the resident, it offered redress by way of compensation, an apology and advised of the learning it would take form the case. The landlord’s offer of compensation was however not commensurate with the delays in the repairs being carried out or the impact these had on the resident.
The resident had expressed earlier dissatisfaction however the landlord did not consider these earlier expressions of dissatisfaction as complaints. The landlord significantly delayed responding at stage 2 and did not keep the resident sufficiently informed as to the progress of his complaint. Although the landlord went some way to offer redress to the resident at stage 2, its offer of compensation was not clear in respect of what it was for, nor did it go far enough to acknowledge the impact its failings had on the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay a total of £300 additional compensation to the resident made up as follows:
3. £150 to acknowledge the impact the repair delays had on the resident. The landlord is also ordered to re-offer its offer of £152 compensation made during its complaints process.
4. £150 to acknowledge the impact the complaint handling failures had on the resident.
5. Ensure that its system accurately reflects the residents vulnerability and confirm this in writing to the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord provide staff training on complaint handling, with a focus on ensuring complaint responses are clear and that complaint handling failures are acknowledged an addressed.