Orbit Group Limited (202226086)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226086

Orbit Group Limited

30 August 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repair works needed to the heating system in the property.

Background

  1. The resident held a tenancy for a two-bedroomed house. She lived there with her child and dogs. The resident advised the landlord that she has anxiety, and described herself as having a disability.
  2. The resident moved into the property in February 2022, through a mutual exchange.
  3. The landlord’s mutual exchange procedure specifies that it will assign a property manager prior to the exchange, who should identify whether there are outstanding repairs that are needed, and whether these are the responsibility of the landlord or the current resident. The procedure sets out that a gas safety check will be arranged by the landlord, once a date of exchange has been confirmed.
  4. The landlord says the resident was aware there were problems with the heating system before she agreed to go ahead with the exchange. The landlord’s records show that a “turn on and test” check of the heating system was carried out on the day the resident moved in, and that the heating system was found to be operating.
  5. On 5 April 2022, the resident reported that there was a problem with the heating system and explained to the landlord that she could not get hot water to run from the tap for more than ten seconds. She explained this meant, for example, that she could not run a bath.
  6. The landlord’s contractor attended on 21 April 2022 and identified that a new thermostatic mixing valve needed to be fitted. It ordered the part, and advised the resident it could attend to fit it on 30 April 2022. After speaking with the resident, it agreed to book an appointment in for 3 May 2022 instead.
  7. The contractor attended on 3 May 2022, fitted the part and confirmed there was hot water. It identified that a further part was needed to fully repair the heating system. The contractor told the landlord that the resident had refused the offer of a temporary heater.
  8. The contractor attended again on 9 May 2022 to fit the additional part, but was unable to gain access to the property. It left a card asking the resident to arrange a new appointment, and when it did not receive a response it closed the job.
  9. The landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident on 24 November 2022 to arrange the annual gas safety check. It attended on 1 December 2022 to carry out the annual check, and reported that the boiler was in good working order.
  10. On 12 December 2022 the resident reported a “total heating failure”. The landlord’s contractor was unable to complete a repair, and left temporary heaters with the resident on 13 December 2022. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 19 December 2022.
  11. The contractor ordered new parts, and attended to fit them on 23 December 2022. At this appointment, it identified that there was poor circulation through the system, and that it needed a “good clean”. The operative recorded that they managed to get a “few” radiators working, and that further repairs were needed. The contractor had to put back a follow-up appointment for the end of December 2022, due to emergency jobs at other properties coming through.
  12. The contractor attended again on 11 January 2023, but was not able to gain access. It reattended on 18 January 2023, and at this appointment, the contractor identified that further repairs were needed, which would require two operatives.
  13. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 25 January 2023, and explained that the operative had advised her that a survey of the pipework would need to be done.
  14. The contractor subsequently attended and took up some sections of flooring, at which point it identified that the pipework for the heating system needed replacement.
  15. On 30 January 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the contractor had damaged her toaster and laminate flooring while carrying out the investigations, and expressed her frustration with the length of time it was taking to get the repairs completed and the number of missed appointments there had been. She advised the landlord that the contractor had said it would replace the toaster. The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint.
  16. The landlord’s records show that the contractor paid the resident £40 for the toaster replacement on 10 February 2023.
  17. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 27 February 2023. It:
    1. Summarised its understanding that the resident had not had “consistent heating” since 12 December 2022, and had been “distressed and inconvenienced by the [associated] diagnosis and repair process”;
    2. Acknowledged that the resident had advised it that she had raised a complaint on 20 January 2023 and had not received a response;
    3. Apologised for the inconvenience the matter “may have” caused the resident, and said it would “make considerable efforts to ensure this issue does not reoccur again in the future”;
    4. Explained that its contractor had attended on 12 December 2022, and ordered replacement port valves. It was provisionally due to attend to fit the parts on 14 December 2022, but had to cancel when the part did not arrive. It had cancelled a further appointment for 21 December 2022 for the same reason;
    5. Explained that its contractor had attended on 23 December 2022, and found “there was no circulation in the system and [it] would therefore need a chemical clean”. It had managed to get some radiators working, but still needed the parts it had ordered on 12 December 2022 to complete the repairs;
    6. Acknowledged there was a further cancelled appointment on 28 December 2022, due to no operatives being available because of “winter emergency repairs”. It explained the contractor had received the necessary parts by 18 January 2023, and looked to set up a new appointment. When it attended on 26 January 2023, it had identified that repairs to the pipework were needed, and a ‘technical field officer’ that specialised in pipework would be required. This had caused a delay, and an appointment had been booked for 1 March 2023 to complete the repairs;
    7. Apologised that the resident’s toaster was damaged, and acknowledged that the contractor had offered the resident £40 for this;
    8. Apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint which had been logged on 20 January 2023, and explained this had been due to “high volumes” and a “backlog” of complaints that it was handling;
    9. Advised that it upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised for the service she had received, and offered her a total of £785 compensation, made up of:
      1. £315 for the loss of heating between 12 December 2022 and 1 March 2023;
      2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of the repair process and damage caused to her toaster;
      3. £70 for the delay in parts being received;
      4. £30 for three missed appointments;
      5. £150 for poor complaint handling due to the complaint being delayed.
  18. The resident requested that the complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 3 March 2023, and the landlord acknowledged this on 7 March 2023.
  19. On 3 April 2023, the resident asked the landlord to move her permanently from the property. She explained that she had a “mental disability”, and would not let operatives in to do “major building works” while she was there, due to her anxiety. She explained she could not go to a hotel while repairs were carried out, and told the landlord that she had dogs to consider too. The landlord has also explained to us that the resident was concerned that her belongings could be stolen, and therefore wanted them all put into storage for the duration of the works, which were expected to take two full days.
  20. During April 2023, the landlord offered to do the repairs a room at a time so that the resident could stay in the property. Its internal notes set out that its heating team recognised that it needed to refer the matter to its tenancy management team, in order to follow the process to gain access to the property so it could carry out the works.
  21. The landlord’s records show its tenancy management team was in contact with the resident regarding access during June 2023. On 8 June 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, in which it:
    1. Summarised her complaint as concerning her wish to move permanently rather than moving into temporary accommodation while major repairs were carried out;
    2. Advised that it was “crucial that the property [was] vacant” for the works to take place “safely and efficiently”, and acknowledged this was an inconvenience to the resident;
    3. Confirmed that it would not offer the resident a permanent move, because her situation did not “meet [its] strict criteria”;
    4. Advised that it was “not a feasible option” to use a private apartment or holiday home for a short term move, due to the cost and “limited availability” of these;
    5. Advised that it had referred the matter of access to the resident’s property to its tenancy team, because it was causing a delay to the repairs, and that it wanted to find “an amicable solution to the problem”. It explained that it wanted to arrange for a “response officer” to visit and discuss the resident’s needs in person, and asked her to confirm her availability for this;
    6. Confirmed it did not uphold her complaint, and signposted her to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  22. The landlord’s records show it had also considered whether it would be possible for the resident to mutually exchange out of the property during June 2023. On 12 June 2023 it confirmed to the resident that it would agree to this, and the resident told it that she had found someone to swap with. On 20 June 2023 the resident returned mutual exchange application forms to the landlord, and the landlord confirmed to her on 23 June 2023 that it had received these and had started processing them.
  23. The landlord’s internal records show that it identified that it would need to advise the incoming resident regarding the outstanding works, and on 26 July 2023 the incoming resident confirmed to the landlord that they were ok to go ahead with the swap before the repairs were carried out. The mutual exchange was completed and the resident moved to a new property on 28 August 2023.
  24. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation, and the landlord decided to register a new stage 1 complaint in November 2023. At the start of December 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 because she remained dissatisfied. The landlord explained to the resident that it would only look into the period of time not covered by the previous complaint. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint acknowledgement to the resident on 29 December 2023, and on 15 January 2024 it advised her it would need more time to investigate the complaint. It issued a new stage 2 complaint response on 25 January 2024, and increased the offer of compensation to £1,619.
  25. The resident has explained to us that she does not think this amount is sufficient. She said she felt her disability was ignored, and expressed dissatisfaction with having paid rent for one and a half years “for a home that was not adequate for living”. She said she had to pay “huge” heating bills, and also incurred costs while moving out of the property. The resident pointed to the cost incurred when the operatives who attended “left the heating on full”, while knowing it would not heat up due to the pipework, as an example of the costs she felt it was unreasonable for her to cover.

Assessment and findings

  1. We acknowledge that the resident has found the experience upsetting. She has explained that her mental health conditions, as well as past bad experiences with repairs, mean that she found the prospect of repairs and repair operatives attending to be especially stressful.
  2. We also acknowledge that in its two complaint investigations, the landlord has recognised distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and apologised for service failures she experienced. It is clear from the landlord’s records that the heating system repairs took several appointments before the underlying cause was identified, some of which had to be rescheduled either because the contractor was unable to gain access to the property, or because of delays in obtaining the necessary parts and due to staff availability. It was right that the landlord recognised that there had been unreasonable delays to the repairs, with the initial investigations in April 2022 taking longer to be attended than we would expect for a heating fault.
  3. The landlord’s offer of £1,619 in compensation has recognised this disruption, as well as the impact of not having a working heating system, and in our opinion it was proportionate. It is important that we recognise that the landlord had made an attempt to resolve the complaint with a substantial offer of compensation at the end of its first stage 1 complaint investigation. It is welcome that it decided to increase this figure in its second stage 2 response, and we view this as a genuine attempt to find an agreeable resolution for the resident.
  4. Regarding the resident’s concern that she was not made sufficiently aware of the problems with the heating system before she moved in, the landlord has advised us that it did tell her about this before she moved in, but we have not seen evidence which would enable us to confirm the details of this. We have, however, seen that the landlord arranged for a “turn on and test” of the heating system when the resident moved in, which found the system to be working. This is in line with its mutual exchange policy, and demonstrates that the landlord did make reasonable efforts to check the heating was operational at the start of the resident’s occupation of the property.
  5. A month and a half after moving in, the resident reported a fault with the system, which meant that hot water was only produced for a few seconds. The landlord’s contractor attended later that month, identified that a new thermostatic mixing valve was needed, and once they had fitted that part, identified that further repairs were needed. In the Ombudsman’s experience of heating system faults, it can sometimes take more than one inspection and repair for the underlying problem to be identified and remedied. In this case, a further part was ordered by the contractor, but they were unable to complete the repair due to failing to gain access to the property, and the job was subsequently closed.
  6. There is learning here for the landlord, as this left a fault un-remedied. It should consider whether it could have taken additional steps to understand why access was not provided for the repair, which in this case may have helped prevent the subsequent delays. However, we acknowledge there were not further reports of issues from the resident over the next seven months, and the boiler was found to be in good working order at the annual gas safety check in December 2022.
  7. Later that month though, the resident reported a loss of heating and hot water. It was appropriate that the landlord’s contractor provided her with temporary heaters while she awaited the completion of the repairs. The resident has explained that the contractor’s tests of the system cost money, and on this point we consider the landlord’s offer of compensation to adequately address these costs.
  8. The resident reported that her toaster and flooring had been damaged during the repairs and investigations. She was compensated by the contractor for the toaster, however the landlord never specifically addressed the matter of the flooring. This is another learning point for the landlord, as the resident does not feel she was listened to and this was a missed opportunity to show her that her concerns were being taken on board. We recommend that the landlord advise the resident how she can submit a claim for this damage, so that she can be sure this matter has been given due consideration.
  9. During investigations for the repairs, the landlord’s contractor identified that the pipes needed replacement, which it was estimated would need two contractors working for two days to carry out. The resident has explained that she has mental health conditions, and was anxious about contractors carrying out work while she was in the property, and was also worried about the potential for her belongings to be stolen. The landlord explored various options, including for the resident to stay in a hotel for the two days of the repairs, or for it to carry out the works room by room so she could remain in the property.
  10. The landlord’s policy on temporary moves states that it will not accommodate pets, so the resident should be reassured she was not being treated differently, and it also specifies that it will take things like cost into account when deciding what accommodation it can offer. Whilst the landlord was not able to offer the resident temporary accommodation that she considered to be suitable, the Ombudsman considers that it made reasonable attempts to find a solution.
  11. It was reasonable that the landlord did not find the resident to meet the criteria for a permanent move in the circumstances, as the repairs were expected to be completed in a short time-frame. A permanent move would not have been a proportionate response in this situation.
  12. The landlord eventually advised the resident that it would need access for the works, and would need her to leave temporarily to facilitate this. The matter was referred to its tenancy management team, which was able to look into the legal routes it could take to gain access. However, the landlord took its time, and its records show it did take the resident’s circumstances and health conditions into account, and it generally avoided any actions which could have been perceived as heavy-handed.
  13. The discussions culminated in the resident mutually exchanging out of the property, no tenancy enforcement action was taken, and the new resident was made aware of the outstanding repairs before they moved in.
  14. It is reasonable that the landlord has not offered financial assistance for the resident’s move, as the landlord had not required that she leave the property permanently, and ultimately this was a choice exercised by the resident.
  15. In summary, the landlord has addressed the resident’s experience during the year and a half she spent in the property through two complaints. It acknowledged that there were delays to the repairs and to its complaint responses, and apologised for these, which was appropriate. It offered proportionate redress (compensation) for these delays. The resident should be reassured that the landlord has attempted to find reasonable solutions for her individual circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to our investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord provide the resident with details of how she can submit a claim, through its insurance process, for the damage she has reported to her flooring.