Orbit Group Limited (202217852)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217852

Orbit Group Limited

4 April 2023

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 request to replace the pathway to the property.

Background

2. The resident, who is an assured tenant, notified the landlord in June 2022 that she had concerns regarding the safety of the path leading to the entrance of her property. On 15 June 2022, an inspection of the path was completed, and it was confirmed that a section of the tarmac needed patching. This was completed on 14 September 2022.
3. Immediately following the repair on 14 September 2022, the resident submitted a formal complaint. She felt that the whole area should have been re-tarmacked rather than only having parts of the tarmac repaired.
4. The landlord’s final response, of 20 October 2022, confirmed that it had re-inspected the pathway, and determined that the path was free from any potential trip hazards and health and safety risks. The landlord maintained that it preferred to repair rather than replace, and to only replace if absolutely necessary. The landlord maintained that a complete resurfacing of the pathway was unnecessary.
5. On 7 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to advise that parts of the path were crumbling, and that small bits of tarmac were sticking to her shoes. The landlord inspected the pathway on 10 February 2022. Again, the landlord confirmed that there was no health and safety risk to the resident and her husband. It did acknowledge that there was “slight cracking” by the handrail, but that the rail was safely secure and posed no risk to the resident.
6. The landlord confirmed that no work was needed and assured the resident that it would continue to monitor the pathway by conducting bi-monthly inspections of the path. It advised that if there were any changes in the cracks, it would raise the necessary works.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her requests to have the path resurfaced, and advised this Service that this was the outcome she sought.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

8. Section 2.15 of the landlord’s repairs policy states that “any responsive repair that is not an emergency” should be categorized as a routine repair.
9. Section 2.15 of the landlord’s repairs policy also states that routine repairs should be completed “within 28 calendar days”.
10. The landlord’s compensation guideline suggests that compensation may be offered where there has been inconvenience to the resident. This may include “failure to follow policy and procedure leading to a delay”.

Scope of Investigation

11. In a letter to this Service on 30 October 2022, the resident advised that she was concerned about the gradient of the tarmac pathway, and that it was very steep and dangerous for her husband. Whilst this is an understandable concern of the resident, there is no evidence that this concern was raised with the landlord during its internal complaints procedure (ICP). As such, this Service is unable to investigate this particular concern. This is in line with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the pathway to the property

12. Following the resident raising her concerns regarding the safety of the pathway, it was the landlord’s responsibility to determine whether there was a health and safety risk, and if so, resolve the issue within an appropriate time. The landlord’s responsibility was to ensure the pathway was in reasonable operational condition, and ensure that the repairs were lasting and to a satisfactory standard.
13. Although the exact date that the resident raised her concerns has not been made clear, there is no dispute that the landlord responded within a reasonable time. It inspected the pathway on 15 June 2022 and identified the necessary work. The landlord clearly acted within an appropriate time and demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
14. The repair was completed on 14 September 2022, however, the resident believed that a full resurfacing was needed rather than a repair. The landlord’s responsibility was to ensure that the path was not in disrepair and that there were no health and safety risks. If only a repair was needed to achieve this, it is the opinion of this Service that the landlord would have been going above and beyond its obligations in executing a full resurfacing of the pathway.
15. The landlord conducted inspections of the path following the work, and determined that any health and safety risks that were previously identified, had been eliminated by the repair work. Additionally, following the repair, the resident did not raise concerns that it remained a health and safety risk, and instead advised that she simply expected the pathway to be resurfaced.
16. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its professionals. Given that no qualified operative raised further safety concerns regarding the path, it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse to carry out any further work. As mentioned previously, its obligation was to ensure that the path was safe for the resident. Given that the repair work had achieved this, it was not necessary to further relay the tarmac.
17. Additionally, the landlord attempted to ease the resident’s concerns by confirming that it would inspect the pathway on a bi-monthly basis, to ensure that the path remained safe and operational. It also confirmed that should any necessary work be identified, it would raise this accordingly.
18. This was appropriate as it demonstrated to the resident that it had taken her concerns seriously, and was committed to ensuring that herself and her husband felt safe when entering and exiting their property. This commitment to visit the property every two months may have also had a positive effect on the landlord/tenant relationship, as it showed that the resident’s safety was at the forefront of its concerns.
19. Whilst the work itself was appropriate and reasonable, it was completed later than it should have been. Section 2.15 of the landlord’s repairs policy states that “any responsive repair that is not an emergency” should be categorized as a routine repair. Section 2.15 of the landlord’s repairs policy also states that routine repairs should be completed “within 28 calendar days”.
20. Given that the necessary repairs were identified on 15 June 2022, the work should have completed around mid-July 2022. However, the work was not completed until 14 September 2022. This was two months later than it should have been, as set out in the landlord’s policies and procedures.
21. Additionally, from the evidence provided, it was not clear that the landlord provided the resident with an estimated timeframe for repair. The resident had to chase the landlord on 22 August 2022 in order to find out when the work had been booked for.
22. It is important for the landlord to keep the resident informed regarding works to the property. Keeping the resident informed helps to manage expectations, which is an important part of the landlord’s service delivery. Failure to do so may have potentially caused the resident to feel uncertainty regarding the repair.
23. The delay in conducting the repair to the pathway was a service failure, especially when it is considered that health and safety risks were identified as the need for repair. The landlord’s compensation guideline suggests that compensation may be offered where there has been inconvenience to the resident. This may include “failure to follow policy and procedure leading to a delay”. As such, it would be appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation to the resident, in recognition of the delay in administering the repair.
24. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that for instances in which there was service failure that “may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident”, a payment of £100 would be appropriate. This payment is representative of £50 for each of the two months that the work was outstanding.
25. Therefore, whilst it is clear that the landlord acted appropriately in repairing and not resurfacing the pathway, there was service failure in how long it took the landlord to administer the repairs.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to replace the pathway to the property.

Orders

27. The landlord is ordered to pay a total of £100 in recognition of the delay in administering the repairs. This is to be paid within four weeks of the date of this investigation.
28. The landlord is to confirm to this service that it has complied with this order.