The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Orbit Group Limited (202226680)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226680

Orbit Group Limited

27 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint about delays repairing the communal roof in his block of flats.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. He owns a flat in a block of similar properties. The landlord is the freeholder.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident experienced a leak into his home in January 2022, thought to be because of faulty windows. Operatives attended and identified no problems with the windows, and the leak was thought to be from the communal roof. Follow up inspections of the communal areas were arranged for March.
  3. The resident chased the landlord for updates in March 2022 as he had not been informed about what was happening. He made a formal complaint to the landlord on 21 March. He complained about poor communication regarding the roof repairs, design faults in the roof, and the length of time the matter had gone unresolved. He asked when the work would be completed, sought compensation for the distress caused to him and his family, and, once the roof problems had been resolved, repairs to his window frames damaged by leaks from the roof.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint in May 2022. It acknowledged the roof work had been ongoing for a “prolonged period of time”. It explained that the large scale and complex nature of the work meant that it was being treated as major works, and the time needed to complete it was correspondingly long. It said it was not currently able to provide a work start date, but that it was scheduled for the 2022/2023 financial year, and the resident would be updated with details when they became available. The landlord acknowledged the frustration and inconvenience being experienced by the resident and apologised for not being able to provide all the details he wanted. It offered him compensation of £300 for the inconvenience, and £120 for what it said were its failings (it did not make clear what these failings were).
  5. The resident asked to escalate his complaint in December 2022 because he had still not been given a start date for the roof works. He said leaks continued from the roof when it rained, and the landlord had not explained any interim or temporary solutions while the roof work remained incomplete. He explained he was aware part of the delay was being caused by a dispute about responsibility between the landlord and the original builders, but said it was unfair for him and other owners to be caught in the middle. He sought a firm start date and various commitments from the landlord about the quality and timeliness of the work to his section of roof. He said he was unable to sell the property while the roof work remained unresolved.
  6. The landlord sent detailed updates to leaseholders affected by the roof issue in December 2022 and January 2021.
  7. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 27 February 2023. It explained in detail the actions it had been taking to resolve the roof problems, and why delays had occurred. The final resolution for the roof had still not been decided, but the landlord was in ongoing discussions with the different stakeholders. It acknowledged the resident’s further inconvenience and frustration, apologised, and offered a further £150 compensation. It referred the resident to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
  8. In an update to the resident in November 2023 the landlord explained that replacement of the roof over the resident’s flat was complete. It said he should no longer experience leaks, it was about to start discussions with him about remedial repairs in his home and further compensation once that work was complete.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. Following the end of the complaints process in February 2023 the resident made a new complaint to the landlord, on the same issue, at the end of 2023. The landlord responded in January 2024.
  2. This investigation centres on the events leading up to and including the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaints in 2022 and early 2023. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his subsequent complaint at the end of 2023 he has the option to bring it back to the Ombudsman once he has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Such a complaint would be treated as new, with a new investigation. However, consideration would also be given to the findings made in this report.

The landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint about delays repairing the communal roof in his block of flats

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that major roof repairs or replacements are considered “non-responsive repairs”, with no specific timescales for resolution. It says such repairs are usually part of stock investment programmes in order to deliver value for money.
  2. The resident’s lease states the resident pays service charges to the landlord. These charges are comprised of “all expenditure reasonably incurred by the landlord in connection with the repair, management, maintenance and provision of services for the building.”
  3. The facts of this case make clear that the overarching issue was the condition of the communal roofs over multiple properties. Through the period covered by the complaint the resident reported that he had experienced leaks into his home, but the focus of his complaint was on the time being taken by the landlord to resolve what had been determined to be the source of the leaks,  the roof. In line with the landlord’s repairs policy and general industry practice, a large scale roof repair or replacement is usually considered to be a major work, for which there is not usually a specified timescale for resolution because.
  4. As there was no relevant timescale on which to assess the landlord’s roof actions, there is no basis for this investigation to make a determination about whether the time taken was appropriate or not. In such situations the measure of reasonableness is not generally the time taken, but the way in which a landlord communicated with its tenants, provided updates, managed their expectations, and took reasonable steps to resolve the matter speedily.
  5. In response to the resident’s complaint about the time the roof repair was taking, the landlord explained why the scale and nature of the work meant the time taken had been lengthy, initially gave a broad time period for when work was planned, but acknowledged it could not give a more specific date. It apologised for that, and offered £420 compensation for the frustration and inconvenience that was causing to the resident. Good practice would have been for the landlord to have given the same information to the resident without the need for him to raise a complaint. It may be that the landlord had in fact done that, but no clear evidence of it has been provided. Accordingly, it was appropriate for the landlord to provide the relevant information in its first complaint response, acknowledge the understandable frustration the long-running issue was causing, and offer compensation.
  6. The evidence shows that part of the reason for the slowness of the roof repair was a dispute between several of the involved parties about responsibility for the problems with it, and the warranty. These parties included the landlord, the original building developers, and the roof manufacturers. This had clearly been explained to the resident because in his escalated complaint, in early December 2022, he acknowledged the situation, complaining that he and the other affected leaseholders should not be impacted by delays because of it. However, the resident was a leaseholder, meaning that a percentage of the costs for the roof work would be borne by him and the other leaseholders. It was fundamentally in his interest that the landlord take steps to ensure wherever possible such costs were reduced or eliminated. The scale of the roof work was very large, and the costs were potentially high. It was appropriate for the landlord to work with the other parties to encourage or insist that they bore their share of responsibility. The fact that those other parties disputed their responsibility meant a delay in resolving the problem, but one that was in many ways outside the landlord’s control. Accordingly, the landlord’s actions in resolving responsibility between the relevant parties were appropriate and necessary.
  7. Still not receiving firm dates for the roof work the resident escalated his complaint at the end of 2022. The landlord provided further updates and detailed information about its progress with the dispute, acknowledged and apologised for the ongoing impact on the resident, and confirmed the actions it had been taking to address interim leaks into leaseholder’s homes. It explained why the discussions with the different stakeholders was necessary in order to avoid unnecessary costs, and committed to keeping all leaseholders informed and updated. The landlord recognised the lack of clear timescales was frustrating for the resident, and that its earlier communication had not been as good as it should have been. Because of that it offered him a further £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience being caused.
  8. Based on the evidence seen for this investigation, the landlord had been taking reasonable steps to resolve the roof issue, and was clearly aware of the scale of the problem and impact it was having. It provided clear and detailed explanations, managed the resident’s expectations, and used its discretion to offer compensation for the frustration the situation was causing the resident and for shortcomings in its communications with him. Nothing in the evidence suggests the landlord missed steps or opportunities to resolve the issue sooner, or that its responses to the complaint were unreasonable.

Determination (decision)

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

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about delays resolving the roof problems clearly and explained the actions it was taking, the scale of the work, and the reasons for the delays. It appropriately acknowledged the impact the delays were having on the resident and its sometimes poor communication, and provided reasonable compensation in light of it.