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

Orbit Housing Association Limited (202322643)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322643

Orbit Housing Association Limited

31 May 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to various reports of repairs within the property, including damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 14 January 2021 and was later assigned to the resident by way of mutual exchange. The assignment took place on 27 February 2023. The property is a 4 bedroom house, the resident occupies the property with her partner and 3 children. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The resident has stated in communications with the landlord that she has a disability.
  2. The resident moved into the property and started to decorate, when stripping the walls of wallpaper issues with the plaster underneath were found. The resident reported high levels of damp to be the underlying issue. She also experienced high water usage and emailed the landlord on 23 March 2023 to advise the water company had told her the water bills for the property had been “off for over a year” and suggested a possible internal leak.
  3. The landlord recorded a members enquiry on 24 August 2023 and treated it as a complaint. It responded on 6 September 2023 and advised:
    1. An inspection was carried out on 19 January 2023 prior to the exchange taking place. The inspection noted the outgoing tenant was to clean the mould around the windows due to condensation.
    2. A further inspection took place on 29 August 2023 and the resident felt that the landlord lacked “urgency and concern” at this inspection. The landlord apologised for this.
    3. Following the inspection a 3 stage mould treatment was raised and was booked in for 11 September 2023 and an overhaul of the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom had also been raised and was booked for 13 September 2023.
    4. It upheld the complaint and offered £315 to the resident for:
      1. £20.00 to address failed appointments.
      2. £70.00 in recognition of the delay caused by the works not being completed following an inspection.
      3. £300.00 as a gesture of goodwill for distress and inconvenience caused.
  4. The resident approached the Ombudsman on 2 October 2023 and said she wanted the below repairs to be completed and to be moved out whilst they took place:
    1. Bathroom, room replastering, new bathroom
    2. Hallway and Landing, room replastering, new skirting.
    3. Flooring – Replacement in kitchen, hallway, and bathrooms
    4. Bedrooms – Replastering
    5. Kitchen – Replastering, new kitchen
    6. Utilities – Cooker hood installation, move plug in main bedroom, fix radiator, fix non-working extractor fan, replace taps and move piping.
  5. The resident advised she also wanted adequate compensation with the “emotional stress and degradation in quality of life” and “countless hours spent in communication with no resolution” taken into consideration. She advised “compensation is not merely a financial matter but a necessary acknowledgment of the failure to provide a safe and habitable living environment”.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint directly to the landlord on 3 October 2023. Within this the resident advised:
    1. She had not received the response letter until nearly a month after it was sent.
    2. She had not received a response to the multiple emails she had sent into the landlord and suggested it read them to see the “escalated seriousness” of the issue.
    3. The resident highlighted that the compensation offered was £315 but the breakdown given did not add up to this amount.
    4. Her most recent emails remained unanswered which added to the distress and inconvenience.
  7. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 27 November 2023 and requested it respond to the resident’s complaint by 4 December 2023.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 4 December 2023. Within its response, the landlord:
    1. Said the outstanding works to the bathroom would be finalised once the bathroom walls had adequately dried. This was booked in for 11 December 2023.
    2. Said it was “committed” to completing the plastering works to the bathroom, hallway, landing and a bedroom within the stated deadline.
    3. Said it was pleased the flooring had been completed throughout the property.
    4. Said the possible leak and the issue with the boiler pressure had been satisfactorily addressed.
    5. Acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with the workmanship on the cooker hood replacement and said it would arrange for a follow-up visit.
    6. Plastering in the kitchen, hall, landing, and bedroom has been approved following our visit on 28 November 2023.
    7. Asked the resident to provide photos of rubbish left and provide more information on the items which were broken during repairs.
    8. Upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £1570, including the offer made at stage 1 of £390. Its breakdown consisted of:
      1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused due to the length of time taken for the works to be completed.
      2. £100 as a gesture of goodwill in recognition of the leak causing anxiety about the health and safety of the property.
      3. £100 for poor complaint handling at stage 1 due to no response to emails or calls.
      4. £500 for a reimbursement of a flooring invoice.
      5. £78.75 for having no hot water between 16 October 2023 and 5 November 2023.
      6. £11.25 for having no heating or hot water between 29 November 2023 and 1 December 2023.
      7. £70 for 7 missed appointments.
      8. £20 for a toilet seat replacement.
  9. The resident advised the Ombudsman on 19 December 2023 that she remained unhappy with her landlord’s response and still had “many repairs outstanding”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. Evidence has been seen which suggests the situation has directly impacted the household’s wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.
  2. Evidence has also been seen which suggests the resident experienced a loss of earnings due to the actions of the landlord. The Ombudsman will not consider claims for financial loss. This is because the Ombudsman does not have the jurisdiction to award damages, nor does it have the necessary expertise to assess liability and determine loss. These are matters within the jurisdiction of the court and the Ombudsman cannot provide a legal determination. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent legal advice on this matter.

The landlord’s response to various reports of repairs within the property, including damp and mould.

  1. It is important to note, due to the age of the majority of social housing stock, some issues with plaster can be expected when stripping wallpaper. This investigation has considered the landlord’s overall response to the issues raised by the resident, whether it acted appropriately and in accordance with its own policies and statutory obligations, and its communication with the resident.
  2. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property and any fixtures and fittings originally provided. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  3. From the evidence provided the landlord was first made aware of issues with the plaster shortly after the resident moved in. Due to the mutual exchange, the property did not go through the usual void process prior to a new resident moving in. The landlord did carry out an inspection prior to the mutual exchange, in January 2023, however this was a non-invasive inspection and therefore the landlord could not be expected to have been aware of any issues prior to the resident reporting them on 15 March 2023. The works order it raised following this, was recorded as completed on 11 April 2023. The works order however, does not detail what work was carried out to rectify the issue. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines routine repairs are to be carried out within 28 calendar days. Its repair logs indicate that it did carry out the majority of the repairs raised within this timeframe, which is appropriate and seen as a reasonable amount of time.
  4. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 amended the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, with the aim of ensuring that all rented accommodation is fit for human habitation. It required landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. Section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act states that when considering whether a property is fit for human habitation, regard should be given to various matters including repair and freedom from damp.
  5. Section 2.16 of the landlord’s repair policy states that it will conduct a risk assessment with a resident who reports damp and mould before determining whether a repair is required. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy also details it will “ensure accurate records are kept when reports of damp and mould are made” and a risk rating will be determined in line with current regulations. No evidence has been seen of any risk assessment despite the resident reporting damp and mould on numerous occasions which is not appropriate and not in line with its policy.
  6. The landlord inspected the property on 29 August 2023, which was appropriate as its system notes states “further reports of mould” were made. No detail has been seen of this inspection, however the landlord raised works for a “mould treatment throughout” which suggests the residents reports were justified.
  7. From the landlords records it took 4 months to rectify the leak and remedy the damaged surfaces following its inspection, with numerous works being raised, especially in the bathroom where a suspected leak occurred. The landlord acknowledged in its final response on 4 December 2023 that this was an “extended duration” and upheld the residents complaint which was appropriate, however the lack of detail held by the landlord on booked appointments and what works were carried out is not appropriate. Its final response compensated the resident for 7 missed appointments, the Ombudsman has seen no record of these appointments or the reasons for why they were not attended to, which is not appropriate.
  8. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents.
  9. There was evidence during the investigation of the lack of communication by the landlord in dealing with the resident’s reports of repairs. The landlord’s records show a number of calls and emails made by the resident which had not been responded to by the landlord. In addition to this the landlords call records detail just 2 conversations with the resident about the repairs, 1 in September and another in October 2023. A landlord is expected to acknowledge and record the contact it has with a customer. In particular it should detail what had been discussed and any agreed action. This lack of detailed records results in the landlord being unable to adequately demonstrate it met its repair obligations effectively or acted appropriately.
  10. The landlord agreed that the full range of works took an unduly long time to complete, alongside the poor record keeping and the lack of communication evidenced in this investigation a finding of maladministration has been made. The landlord has not been able to demonstrate it acted in a reasonable manner or had an effective oversight of its repairs. The repairs to the property were not clearly communicated, leading to the resident unnecessarily having to chase this up on several occasions, causing her distress along with the time and inconvenience involved.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord defines a complaint in its policy as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action”. The resident’s email on 23 March 2023 was clearly stating her dissatisfaction with how the repairs had been booked and the service she had received from the landlord, yet the landlord did not recognise this as a complaint. Its response did not acknowledge most of the points the resident made which was not appropriate. Its complaint policy does allow for times when the quickest and most effective way to resolve issues informally outside of its formal complaints procedure, however in these cases it says it will discuss it with the customer and will only ever resolve an issue informally with full and explicit agreement with the customer. The landlord did not follow its own policy and recognise the resident’s complaint which was not reasonable.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. At stage 1 it will respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement of a complaint and at stage 2 it aims to respond within 20 working days. The landlord recorded a stage 1 complaint on 24 August 2023, when it received a members enquiry on behalf of the resident. It then issued a response within its policy timeframe on 6 September 2023. The landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s email on 14 August 2023 where she expressed “growing concern and frustration” regarding the issues at her property. This email again clearly states her dissatisfaction with the service she received yet was not recorded as a complaint which was not appropriate.
  3. The stage 1 response contained inaccuracies, it offered the resident £315 compensation but the breakdown of this amounted to £390. Not providing a clear response is not appropriate and led to further chasing up by the resident, resulting in avoidable time and inconvenience. Furthermore, this went unacknowledged by the landlord, the resident highlighted this in an escalation request dated 3 October 2023 but the landlord failed to respond to this within its final response. This lack of acknowledgement shows a lack of adequate investigation into the resident’s complaint which is not appropriate.
  4. It is essential for landlords to tackle the root causes of complaints to drive service improvements. In order to do this a certain level of investigation is required, when a landlord finds a failure, it is expected to acknowledge this, detail how it can put things right and offer a reasonable amount of redress. Although the landlord offered the resident an increased sum of £1570 at stage 2, it did not provide evidence that it had looked into what had gone wrong and therefore was unable to confidently say it would not happen again. An example of this is the missed appointments, it offered £70 for 7 missed appointments but has not provided an explanation into why these appointments were missed in its response.
  5. The Ombudsman had to contact the landlord and request it respond to the resident’s complaint in order for the resident to receive a response. This is not appropriate, the resident should not have to approach the Ombudsman to receive a response from her landlord. This clear lack of communication was not reasonable and the amount of time the resident had to spend in chasing a response was also not reasonable. The landlord failed to acknowledge this and made no mention of the delay in its response, nor made any apology to the resident which was not appropriate.
  6. In summary, there were avoidable and unreasonable delays in the landlord providing its responses to the resident’s complaint at both stages of the complaints process, which the landlord failed to either acknowledge or apologise for in those responses. It failed to demonstrate it investigated the residents concerns to learn what could be done to ensure it did not happen again. It showed a lack of empathy towards the resident and failed to recognise the impact of the situation was having on her. Taking the above into consideration, a finding of maladministration has been made.
  7. The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving damp and mould. As a result of these an independent review in accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme was ordered by the Ombudsman into how the landlord has handled damp and mould. The review has made 15 recommendations to the landlord. Given some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases in the review, we have not made additional orders or recommendations, which would duplicate those already made to landlord. However, the learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider learning.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to the landlord’s response to various reports of repairs within the property, including damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange for a senior officer to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this determination.
    2. Directly pay the resident in total £600, to include:
      1. £200 for the failures identified in its response to various reports of repairs within the property, including damp and mould.
      2. £400 for its poor complaint handling.
  2. This amount is in addition to the £1570 already offered by the landlord. The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 6 weeks of this determination.