Orbit Group Limited (202227459)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227459

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

1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding defects to the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident holds a shared ownership lease with the landlord in a 2-bedroom flat. The lease commenced on 31 March 2021.
4. On 13 August 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that 2 steps on the stairs in the property had broken. This repair was marked as completed on 25 February 2022. On 27 June 2022 the landlord told the developer that the resident had reported cracking skirting boards in the property. In response the developer stated that it had not received any previous reports of this and asked the landlord to provide photos. They added that the ‘plot was now out of warranty’. On 29 June 2022 the landlord cleaned the external brickwork of the property.
5. On 7 July 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. In summary, he said that there was a large quantity of mortar that had dried on the external brickwork near his front door. He stated that this was raised as an issue and placed on the defects list when he purchased the property. He said that the landlord’s previous attempt to get rid of the mortar had failed and that it was unsightly. He added that there were still some outstanding internal defects.
6. On 14 November 2022 the landlord responded to his complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said that it found a number of hanging baskets and flower troughs mounted on the external walls and these would need to be removed before it would attend. In response, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said that he was unwilling to remove the hanging baskets. In addition, he reiterated that there were outstanding internal defects that had not been addressed including the skirting boards.
7. On 23 December 2022 the landlord issued its final response. In summary, it said:
   1. It inspected the property on 21 December 2022 where it confirmed that the hanging baskets were installed without its permission and would need to be removed.
   2. That the ‘builders’ dust’ appeared to be a white salt that came from the bricks and mortar and that it would continue to leach from the bricks even if it was washed off.
   3. There were some minor mortar splashes on the brickwork, but this was predominately on the neighbour’s wall.
   4. As it was not excessive it would not necessarily ask the developer to re-attend, and it would not take any further action in respect of this issue.
   5. It had asked for an appointment to be made in the new year concerning the outstanding internal defects.
8. The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 21 April 2023. He said that there were outstanding defects that had not been fixed: the mortar on the exterior of the property, a broken staircase, and broken skirting boards. He said that the landlord had promised that it would contact him in January 2023 to inspect the internal defects, but this had not happened. He added that the landlord had failed to respond to emails he sent to it in April 2022 about the broken staircase.

Assessment and findings

9. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
   1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
   2. Put things right.
   3. Learn from outcomes.
10. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

The resident’s reports of outstanding defects to the property

11. A defects liability period is a set period of time after a construction project has been completed during which the landlord’s contractor has the right to return to the site to remedy defects. While the Ombudsman is unclear how long the labiality period was in this case, a typical defects liability period lasts for 12 months. Furthermore, the length of the liability period is not in dispute in this case.  Rather the resident states that the issues being investigated in this report were brought to the attention of the landlord during these 12 months.
12. The landlord’s defect and warranty procedure states that defects identified after the defect warranty period (liability period) has expired will be managed by the landlord who will raise new claims to the warranty provider as required. It adds that regular communication with residents is essential.

Brickwork

13. In the resident’s complaint he stated that the issues with the external brickwork were reported when he purchased the property, however, this Service has not seen any evidence to reconcile this. Furthermore, the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its handover sheet dated 28 March 2021, which was subsequently signed by the resident on 4 April 2021. This showed that only 1 defect, regarding the windows, was raised at this stage. In addition, this Service has seen no evidence that the brickwork was raised with the landlord during the defect liability period.
14. However, in response to our information request the landlord informed this Service, that the issue with the brickwork was brought to its attention by the resident on 25 April 2022, yet it has not provided the Ombudsman with any evidence to support this. This may indicate issues with its record keeping and a recommendation has been made below in respect of this.
15. Its records showed that it attended the property on 29 June 2022 and attempted to clean the brickwork with water, and brick acid. It stated that there were ‘splashes of concrete and mortar embedded in the brick’. It is unclear why it took the landlord over 2 months to respond to this issue and it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s April 2022 report within an appropriate timescale. While it appeared that this matter was reported to it after the defects liability period it is unclear why the landlord did not assess whether it needed to raise this as a new claim with its warranty provider as outlined in its policy. The landlord failed to act fairly in this respect, particularly given the resident had stated in his complaint that this was brought to its attention when he purchased the property.
16. The landlord’s records indicated that it called the resident on 5 August 2022 to update him on the actions it was taking to “tackle the cement and mortar issue”. However, this Service has seen no evidence of any action regarding this matter from the brick wash of 29 June 2022 up to 21 December 2022. This again may indicate issues with the landlord’s record keeping.
17. On 21 October 2022 the landlord’s acknowledgment of the complaint stated that it was waiting for the resident to remove the hanging baskets and other garden furniture before it would re-attend to the brickwork. The same day the resident challenged this request stating that at no point was he asked to remove the hanging baskets. Indeed, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord had requested this previously. Moreover, photographs provided to the Ombudsman showed that there was at least one hanging basket present when the landlord attended to clean the brickwork in June 2022. This would have caused frustration to the resident who would have understandably been confused as to why the baskets now needed removing.
18. The landlord’s records suggested that it was not until 21 December 2022 that its senior contracts manager inspected the brickwork, where it found that the resident had mounted baskets without permission on the wall belonging to his neighbour. In addition, it identified that there was a white salt coming from the bricks and mortar and found that this would continue to leach regardless of whether it was washed. It added that it did not feel the leaching was excessive and that it would not take any further action to remedy it. While it was appropriate for the landlord to confirm its findings in its final response, it failed to properly inspect the brickwork within a reasonable timescale. Had it done so the landlord could have managed the resident’s expectations at an early stage.
19. Overall, it took over 2 months to respond to the resident’s initial report and while some brief notes suggested that it kept in contact with the resident during August and September 2022 it is unclear if the landlord took any action to investigate his concerns during this period. In addition, there were failures in communication with the resident which led to delays in the landlord assessing this matter. These failures would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Stairs and skirting boards

20. The resident first reported that 2 steps on his stairs had broken in August 2021. The landlord’s records indicated that these were repaired on 25 February 2022. However, it appeared that the resident reported further issues with ‘creaking’ stairs and broken skirting boards at the end of June 2022. The landlord subsequently raised these issues directly with the developer who responded by stating that they had dealt with the stair issue previously and had never received reports regarding the skirting boards. It asked for photos of the issues and explained that the ‘plot’ was now out of warranty.
21. Following this the landlord should have inspected the property and assessed whether it needed to raise a new claim with the warranty provider as per its policy. While the landlord informed this Service that it requested photos of the skirting boards from the resident, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to support this. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the landlord took any meaningful action to investigate these issues.
22. The landlord’s records showed that it was made aware again of the skirting boards ‘coming away’ at the beginning of August 2022. The resident repeated these concerns in December 2022. These were further opportunities for the landlord to investigate and respond, yet it failed to do so. Further, there was no evidence that the landlord kept in regular communication with the resident about these matters. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that his concerns were being ignored.
23. The landlord’s final response stated that it would contact him to arrange an appointment to inspect the internal defects and indicated that it would do so in January 2023. However, the evidence suggested that this did not happen. Its records showed that the resident chased the landlord for an update about his stairs on 24 March 2023 and again in September 2023.While there was evidence that the landlord raised his concerns internally following his March 2023 report, this Service has seen no evidence of any follow-up action from the landlord, and it is unclear if the landlord inspected the property as promised.
24. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and it failed to keep to the commitment made in its final response. This led to the resident having to chase the landlord for updates. While it is acknowledged that the evidence suggests that these defects were reported after the liability period, the landlord should have taken steps to investigate and respond to these matters within a reasonable timescale. This would have provided it an opportunity to identify whether it needed to make a new claim to the warranty provider at the earliest stage. Overall, it is considered that the failures identified in this report amount to maladministration, and orders are made below for remedy.

Complaint handling

25. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will aim to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. It adds that where it is not possible to respond within these timescales it will explain when it will respond. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The ‘Code’) states that responses should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
26. It took the landlord over 4 months to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. This was unacceptable. Furthermore, this Service has seen no good reason for this delay. Overall, the landlord failed to act in line with its own policy and the ‘Code’. This would have caused distress and frustration to the resident who would have felt that the landlord was not dealing with his concerns properly.
27. The landlord’s records showed that it contacted the resident in July 2022 to discuss his complaint. It noted that he had concerns with the external brickwork as well as internal defects. Moreover, the internal defects were consistently raised between August and November 2022. Yet, the landlord failed to respond to all the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 response despite several opportunities for it to do so. This would have likely left the resident feeling unheard. Furthermore, the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for its complaint handling failures in its final response. This demonstrated that it had failed to adequately review his complaint and subsequently identify any learning.
28. Overall, it is considered that the complaint handling failures identified in the report amounts to maladministration. The Ombudsman remedies guidance suggests compensation of over £100 should be considered when there have been failings that have had an adverse effect on the resident. In addition, the landlord’s own compensation guidance suggests payment of up £150 may be made where there is evidence that a complaint has not been handled in accordance with its policy. In view of this, orders have been made below for remedy.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of outstanding defects to the property.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

31. The landlord must do the following within the next four weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £350 comprised of:
       1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to his reports of outstanding defects to the property.
       2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its complaint handling.
    3. Review the complaint handling in this case, with reference to the failings identified in this report, to determine what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.
    4. Must investigate the stairs and skirting boards and assess whether it is appropriate for it to raise a new claim with the warranty provider. The landlord must provide a written response with its findings to the resident and this Service.

Recommendation

32. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).