Orbit Group Limited (202217427)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217427

Orbit Group Limited

4 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:
1. Reports of a leak from the bathroom and requests for associated repairs.
2. Reports about the conduct of an operative who attended the property.
3. Request for compensation for damage caused.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has occupied the property, a 2-bedroom house on an assured shorthold tenancy, since 2020. The landlord is a housing association. Its records note the resident has vulnerabilities in relation to mental health.

Summary of events

A repair to damaged kitchen flooring was carried out on 6 October 2022. At this appointment, the operative disconnected the cooker.
On 29 October 2022, the resident reported a “sudden and unexpected” leak from the bathroom upstairs through the ceiling which could not be contained. It was a leaking waste pipe which was attended to, and stopped, within 4 hours, having been recorded as an emergency job. On the same day, the resident reported a further leak from the bathroom. An internal email sent by landlord staff on 1 November 2022 states an operative returned in the evening of 29 October 2022 and there was very minor staining on the ceiling and the bath waste that had been repaired “had also been entirely removed and placed in the bath which the tenant then accused the operative of doing. The operative again tightened the waste and isolated the water to prevent any further leaks.”
The leak left the resident without electricity. An electrician was scheduled to visit within 4 hours the same day, but their car broke down. They did ultimately attend that day at 11:45pm.
The resident complained to the landlord on 30 October 2022. She said she had reported a leak in the morning of 29 October 2022 and a plumber arrived around 1pm to fix the leak. However, she later noticed a pipe was not attached so the plumber had to come back later in the evening. The electrician arrived at nearly midnight so she had been left with no electricity and the leak for about 16 hours. She wanted the matter looked in to as she had wet carpets, a broken oven, marks on the ceiling and had lost food. She also complained about the language used by the operative at the visit and that they arrived with a lollipop.
A contractor attended on 31 October 2022 to do follow up work and replace a rubber seal on the waste pipe. The landlord was also contacted by the resident and her mental health worker the same day as she was distressed, and an internal landlord email questioned whether a decant was required.
A routine repair job was created on 31 October 2022 (to be completed by 28 November 2022) to repair the kitchen, lounge and hallway ceilings, and paint. The landlord also arranged for 2 dehumidifiers to be delivered on 1 November 2022, at the resident’s request, after she had borrowed 2 dehumidifiers from family members following the leak. On the same day, the landlord noted the resident had complained about the service received and the property being left in a poor state, particularly as she was struggling with her mental health.
The landlord’s internal records show that, having considered the resident’s claim, the operative did not think the damage she reported, could have been caused by the leak. It reviewed videos of the leak from the ceiling provided by the resident and noted she had taken no precautions, such as using a bucket to collect the water. It also reviewed a video she sent showing the reverse of a sink with the waste pipe disconnected; there was a small trickle, then what appeared to be the sound of a tap turning on and the water coming out of the waste pipe increased.
The landlord noted the resident had raised an issue about her oven being disconnected by an operative, but its records said she would reconnect the oven after the visit and that it was going to be replaced within 2 weeks anyway. In terms of the resident saying an operative swore in front of her children, it was unable to verify what had happened and it felt the lollipop had no bearing on the work done.
The landlord noted the operative felt there were inconsistencies in what had been reported as they could not see how 5 rooms had been affected by the leak, particularly rooms adjacent to the bathroom when the leak was going through the ceiling light below. It felt there was no reason to decant the resident as the property was safe to live in and any claim for damages would need to be made through the insurer.
On 3 November 2022 the landlord renewed the waste trap to the basin in the bathroom and refitted the kitchen light (having been affected by the leak). On the same day, the resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint, reiterated her concerns about the operative’s conduct and said they had damaged her bath panel.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 November 2022. It noted the complaint was about: a contractor attending to replace flooring, but leaving the oven not working; the contractor’s conduct; out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the leak; and not being decanted after the leak. It responded as follows:
1. Its records showed the resident had said she would reconnect the oven and a relative had confirmed the issue was resolved.
2. It saw no reason for the resident to have been moved as the property was not unsafe and it had provided dehumidifiers on 1 November 2022.
3. The resident was seeking repayment of £250 paid to a tradesperson to extract water but it was unable to find any record of the company.
4. It did not accept the resident’s claim for damage caused by the leak.
5. It would escalate the complaint to stage 2 that day (although this did not happen until 17 November 2022).
An internal landlord email of 4 November 2022 acknowledged that the resident had been told incorrectly when she had the leak, to report it to her property manager, when it should have been reported to repairs.
On 6 December 2022 the hallway and lounge ceilings were redecorated and the bath seal and skirting were repaired, but no damage to the bath panel could be seen. An operative attended on 14 December 2022 as the downstairs toilet was overflowing and treated a blocked drain.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 26 January 2023 and she confirmed she would provide evidence to show the increased electricity usage as a result of using dehumidifiers after the leak for the landlord to consider reimbursing these costs. The landlord noted that the resident understood it could not reimburse her for the tradesperson she used as there was no evidence of it being a company that was trading.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 13 February 2023, it noted the resident’s concerns and said it was sorry she was made to feel uncomfortable when the operative attended on 31 October 2022. It partially upheld the complaint as its communication had fallen short and offered £50 compensation.
On 15 May 2023 an operative carried out an overhaul of the toilet. The resident reported another leak from the toilet (going into the hallway) on 15 August 2023, but she later cancelled the job.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 May 2024 while this investigation was ongoing and acknowledged she had sent it evidence of her increased electricity cost from using dehumidifiers, on 30 January 2023. It had since overlooked this, so it apologised for the time things had taken and offered compensation of £403.06 (£123.06 to reimburse her additional energy costs; £250 for the delay in response and poor complaint handling at stage 2; and £30 for the costs of decoration).

Assessment and findings

Reports of a leak from the bathroom and requests for associated repairs

The Tenancy Agreement and Repairs Policy say the landlord is responsible for repairing water pipes and basins, sinks, baths, toilet flushing systems and waste pipes. It will carry out repairs within a reasonable time of being notified of them. The time taken will depend upon the urgency of the repair as it will categorise each repair according to its urgency. It also says it will ensure its “contractors adhere to a code of good working practice by identifying themselves, being courteous and making prior appointments where possible”.
The Repairs policy says the landlord aims to attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours. It aims to deal with essential repairs such as partial loss of power within 24 hours and routine repairs should be carried out within 28 calendar days.
In this case, the landlord ensured the leak was recorded as an emergency repair and an operative attended within 4 hours, so it complied with its obligations. There was a further leak later which was also attended but led to a loss of power which was not restored until late evening as a result of the electrician breaking down. While this was clearly an unforeseen event, which the landlord cannot be criticised for, it would have inevitably meant some inconvenience to the resident. However, the leak and electrics were made safe within 24 hours which is in accordance with the Repairs policy.
Although the resident complained about the cooker being disconnected, this happened prior to the leak and, had this been an issue, we would expect to see evidence of this being raised sooner than it was. It is not known whether the operative was told not to reconnect it and this, along with the issue not being raised promptly, means it would not be fair to find that there was an oversight on the landlord’s part in relation to this point.
There was a slight delay in the landlord carrying out repairs to the hallway and lounge ceilings and skirting, as the job created on 31 October 2022 should have been completed by 28 November 2022, but was not done until 6 December 2022. This was only a slight delay which in itself was not significant, but the resident’s main concern was that the property was damp as the leak had affected several rooms and she was having difficulties obtaining information from the landlord.
The landlord’s internal emails show the resident was incorrectly referred to her property manager as opposed to the repairs team but the initial repair was still carried out in a reasonable amount of time. However, this Service’s Spotlight report on: Damp and mould, It’s not lifestyle (October 2021) says landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. The evidence shows the landlord considered whether a decant was required and it consulted with the operative, who said the property was habitable and safe. However, there is no evidence a Damp and Mould Report Form was completed as per its Damp, Mould and Condensation Procedure or that this conclusion was reached by way of a formal inspection.
The Ombudsman notes the landlord had concerns over the extent of the leak and the damage it may have caused, and it was entitled to challenge any claim for damage made by the resident as a result. However, whether the resident was claiming the property was damp solely because of the leak or not, the landlord still had an obligation to investigate the matter. There is no evidence it did that. Instead, it relied solely on the operative’s view on whether the leak could have caused such extensive damp, rather than the damp itself, irrespective of how it was caused.
The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s initial response to the leak was reasonable by offering assistance to the resident and making the property safe within 24 hours, as per its Repairs policy. However, shortly after, both the resident and her mental health worker contacted the landlord to highlight how stressful she was finding the living situation. She had provided videos of the damage caused by the leak, so it was important the matter was thoroughly investigated. In the event, the landlord failed to adequately: explore the resident’s reports of damp; assess whether the property was habitable; and consider whether a decant was necessary. It did not follow its Damp, Mould and Condensation Procedure which amounts to maladministration
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord acted promptly by providing dehumidifiers but it is not clear how long it took for the property to dry out, or whether, had an assessment using a Damp and Mould Report form been carried out, the outcome would have been any different. However, the resident’s report of damp was not dealt with as it should have been and this left her and her family living in difficult conditions and wondering whether she should have been moved in order to let the house dry out.
The landlord’s Compensation Guidance says it will pay up to £400 in recognition of time, distress and inconvenience, dependent upon the effort the complainant went to, and the impact. The poor service identified was not long term or permanent, and compensation of £400 is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for cases like this. Therefore, this would have been an appropriate level of compensation to remedy this part of the complaint, and an order is made to that effect below.

Conduct of an operative who attended the property

It is clear the resident was upset that an operative attended the property and apparently swore in front of her children and had a lollipop. The landlord explained in its response to the complaint that it was sorry if the resident was made to feel uncomfortable when the contractor attended. It had raised this matter with a supervisor at the operative’s company but it did not accept that inappropriate language had been used.
The landlord has an internal Disciplinary Procedure which says where there is a concern, a manager will initially talk to the member of staff informally to identify and resolve the issue. If it cannot be resolved, a formal disciplinary process will follow. The operative was representing the landlord and the landlord took appropriate action to raise the complaint with the operative’s manager to address the issue informally.
There is no way of this Service knowing for certain what was said at the visit, but it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the resident was upset by what happened and apologised for any upset caused. In terms of whether the operative had a lollipop, this is again not something that can be verified. However, even if this did happen, while it may have not given a good impression, there is no evidence of it having negatively affected the work carried out.
Overall, there is a lack of evidence to support this part of the complaint, but nevertheless, based upon the landlord’s response to the complaint, it is clear it took reasonable and proportionate steps to investigate, in line with its Disciplinary Procedure. Therefore, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to this part of the complaint.

Requests for compensation for damage caused

The resident says she lost a lot of food due to having no power. Guidance issued by the Food Standards Agency estimates that a fridge should stay cold for up to 4 hours and food in a freezer should stay frozen for up to 48 hours in a full freezer (or 24 hours if it’s half full). It goes on to say if the fridge temperature has reached 8°C or above, foods should be discarded after 4 hours (unless the power is restored within 4 hours).
There is no evidence to show what food the resident had to replace as a result of having no power for several hours; but some of it could have been salvageable. If she had out of pocket expenses as a result of what happened, she could have made an insurance claim, which the landlord explained in both its stage 1 and 2 responses. However, no evidence has been provided to indicate that this advice was followed.
The resident has provided evidence that on 30 January 2023, she sent the landlord evidence that her electricity costs jumped significantly while using the dehumidifiers. Her usual monthly electric cost £30 a month, but in the 2 months that followed the leak, she was charged about £80 a month and £104 a month respectively. It took 18 months, and for this Service to become involved, for the landlord to agree to reimburse the resident for this additional cost, which is unacceptable.
Based on the information provided, it is fair and reasonable to conclude that the landlord should reimburse the resident for the additional electric costs she incurred using dehumidifiers to dry out the property, as it was responsible for repairing water pipes. The resident has shown she incurred additional costs in the amount of £123.06 which the landlord should reimburse her for and has finally agreed to. In addition, it has agreed to pay a further £30 towards redecoration costs which is reasonable. However, to recognise that nearly 18 months has gone by with the landlord failing to act on this evidence, despite asking for it, it should acknowledge that delay by paying an additional £100 compensation.
The landlord has now made an offer in May 2024 to pay the resident an additional £250, but it comes late and is offered towards resolving not only this issue but also poor complaint handling. It does not alter the fact there has been maladministration but the Ombudsman is attributing £100 of the £250 now offered, towards remedying this part of the complaint.

Complaint handling

The landlord has provided a brochure entitled, “Unhappy with our services? Tell us about your complaint”. This explains that if a complaint is made a response should be issued within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. If it needs more time, it will contact a complainant to discuss it.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was sent within 5 working days of the resident making it clear she was unhappy. The response addressed the issues raised within the timescales expected.
However, there were then several delays at stage 2. Firstly, on 4 November 2022 in its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would escalate the complaint that day, but this was not done until 17 November 2022. Secondly, its stage 2 response was not sent until 13 February 2023, 60 working days after it was escalated. Therefore, there the landlord failed to respond to the stage 2 complaint within a reasonable period of time.
While the stage 2 response partially upheld the complaint and said the landlord’s communication had fallen short, it did not make it clear specifically what this observation related to. It also failed to recognise the delays in its complaint handling, and what remedy if any was appropriate to address that.
The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for poor communication, but it is not clear from its response whether this related to the time taken to address the complaint. The landlord’s Compensation Guidance says it will pay up to £150 for failures with its complaint handling, dependent upon the significance of delays and difficulties. This is not in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which suggests compensation of £100 to £600 where there has been maladministration with limited detriment.
In this case there was a significant delay at stage 2 but the landlord did not consider that in its response. Having said that, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of the resident being inconvenienced by having to chase for a response to her escalated complaint, so the impact was somewhat limited. Taking all that in to account, it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation, incorporating the £50 already offered at stage 2 and now the additional £150 offered in May 2024 as part of the landlord’s recent offer to resolve matters.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
  1. Reports of a leak from the bathroom and requests for associated repairs.
  2. Request for compensation for damage caused.
  3. Associated formal complaint.
2. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of an operative who attended the property.

Reasons

Although the landlord responded to the leak promptly, it did not fully assess how damp the property was and whether it was habitable, in line with its own procedure.
Reasonable steps were taken to investigate the resident’s concerns over the operative’s behaviour at a visit.
The landlord failed to reimburse the resident for out of pocket expenses for nearly 18 months.
There was a significant delay at stage 2 of the complaints process and the landlord failed to recognise that in its response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next 4 weeks the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £853.06 broken down as follows:
  1. £400 compensation for its failure to follow its Damp, Mould and Condensation Procedure.
  2. £123.06 as reimbursement for the additional electricity costs incurred.
  3. £30 towards the costs of decoration.
  4. £100 to recognise the delay in processing the resident’s claim to be reimbursed her out of pocket expenses (as offered on 29 May 2024).
  5. £200 for delays in its complaints handling (incorporating the £50 already offered at stage 2 and £150 offered on 29 May 2024).
Any amount already paid to the resident in respect of this complaint may be deducted from the above total.