From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Orbit Group Limited (202226531)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226531

Orbit Group Limited

30 July 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;
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a property transfer
    3. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. On 21 March 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that their neighbour had smashed their car window, which had been reported to the police. She also reported verbal abuse by her neighbour, as well as drug use. The resident expressed that she either wished to be moved out of the property, or for the neighbour to be evicted.
  2. The landlord asked that the resident keep them updated on the status of the police investigation. However, it advised that it was unable to move the resident out of the property and it could not evict the neighbour without sufficient evidence. The landlord also confirmed that the resident did not wish for it to speak to her neighbour about the allegations. However, the landlord issued the neighbour with a warning letter due to reports of drug use.
  3. On 16 December 2022, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She was dissatisfied that they were not classed as high risk, despite ASB being ongoing since 2017 and had caused the resident and her family to temporarily move out. The resident advised that the ASB included acts of arson, drug use, threats of violence, harassment, criminal damage and intimidation.
  4. The landlord and police conducted home visits with the resident and the neighbour where various allegations were discussed. The landlord suggested mediation, which the neighbour agreed to. However, due to previous failed attempts to resolve their issues, the resident refused to participate in mediation.
  5. On 31 March 2023, the landlord issued its stage one response. The landlord confirmed that it had engaged with her neighbour and offered mediation, which the resident refused. It also confirmed that it had engaged with the police, who agreed that mediation was the appropriate approach. Therefore, there was no failure in how the landlord had handled the resident’s reports of ASB.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 April 2023 as ASB was ongoing and she did not agree that they were not at high risk of harm. The resident reiterated that she had been forced to move out of the property due to the issued with the neighbour, which she believed may be linked to racial discrimination.
  7. On 24 May 2023, the landlord issued its stage two response. The landlord reiterated its findings in its stage one response, as well as confirming that the police had investigated the resident’s allegation that the neighbour had smashed their car window. However, they took no further steps due to insufficient evidence. The landlord also explained that evicting the neighbour was not proportionate action, and alternative resolutions such as mediation would be pursued first. With regards to moving the resident, the landlord confirmed that there was not enough evidence to support a managed move, which also required the support of the police.
  8. Overall, the landlord confirmed that it had investigated the resident’s allegations and liaised with the police. It asked that the resident reconsider its offer of mediation, but the ASB case remained open to further reports. With regards to racial discrimination, the landlord confirmed that it took allegations of racial abuse seriously and advised that tenancy services would contact the resident to discuss further.
  9. The resident remains dissatisfied as she is not happy with how the landlord handled her reports of ASB and is also unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her complaint; she believes that its communication was unclear. As a result of her complaint, she wants to either move properties or for the landlord to evict her neighbour.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident has advised that as a result of her complaint, she wants the landlord to evict her neighbour. While this Service has a wide range of discretion to suggest remedies, there are some remedies we would not order. This includes telling the landlord that it should evict a resident.
  2. This report will nevertheless consider whether or not the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the concerns raised by the resident about ASB and whether or not it took appropriate action based on the evidence available.

Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

  1. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
  2. Following ASB reports, it is necessary for the landlord to respond in accordance with its ASB policies, such as assess risks; discuss cases with those involved; use available tools to encourage parties against ASB; discuss and monitor the situation with other agencies; and deal with reports in a proportionate and evidence-led manner.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy also outlines that it expects that ASB is reported to the landlord within 3 working days of an incident occurring. The landlord expects allegations to be factual and detailed enough for it to take action if necessary. The policy states that the landlord may refuse to accept an allegation if it is not given sufficient information.
  4. This Service is aware that the resident made general allegations of ASB as part of her complaint. However, there is little evidence of the resident reporting specific incidents, outlining dates, times and details surrounding each incident. Therefore, the landlord cannot be criticised for not investigating each specific allegation given the lack of detail and evidence supplied.
  5. In this case, where the resident had reported specific incidents, it is evident that the landlord fulfilled its obligations to consider and respond to ASB reports. It discussed issues with the resident and her neighbour; liaised with the police and provided explanations to the resident to try to manage her expectations.
  6. The landlord has offered mediation, but the resident declined to participate. The resident’s reasons for refusing mediation are noted, and not disputed. However, given that there was an absence of evidence for the landlord to take enforcement action against her neighbour, it was appropriate for it to consider what else could be done to try and resolve the behaviour that the resident had reported.
  7. The landlord was reasonable to consider that there was limited evidence to take further action such as evict the resident’s neighbour. In order for a landlord to take action against a tenant for ASB, a landlord has to be sure that it would be a proportionate and justified response to the allegations and the evidence available. In order to evict a tenant, a landlord also has to be satisfied that it has the necessary evidence to convince a court that it is reasonable to do this. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord or parties such as the police considered that the information available warranted further action than was taken.
  8. Overall, while the Ombudsman understands how difficult events must be for the resident, and understands how she is affected, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in the timeframe of the complaint was reasonable. It responded to the reports, investigated the issues, took reasonable action on the evidence available, liaised with other agencies, and provided reasonable explanations for its decision making.

Response to the resident’s request for a property transfer.

  1. The landlord operates a managed move procedure. It outlines that if a tenant was believed to be at real and proven risk of harm or violence, and it is supported by partner agencies such as the police, a managed move may be considered.
  2. Although it is acknowledged that the ASB was causing distress to the resident and his family, there was no evidence that there was an immediate risk to the resident’s safety. It was reasonable for the landlord not to consider a managed move on this basis. 
  3. However, the landlord did not signpost the resident to alternative, more appropriate ways in which she may be able to move properties. While this does not necessarily constitute a service failure, we recommend that the landlord provides the resident with more information on mutual exchange, joining the local authority’s housing list and any other options available to the resident.
  4. There was no evidence of the landlord’s failure to follow its policy or acting unreasonably in response to the resident’s request for a transfer of property. However, we recommend that the landlord continues engaging with the resident to record and investigate her reports of ASB appropriately. If this results in evidence that she is severely impacted by ASB, and the police agree that more action is needed, then it should consider a managed move if appropriate.

Complaint handling.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to resident’s and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage one response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage two response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. At stage two, should the landlord need more time to investigate, it can extend its response timescales to 30 working days.
  3. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 31 March 2023; 73 days after the resident raised her complaint. This is significantly outside the 10 working day response timescale outlined within the CHC and the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord did not provide an explanation for the delay, nor did it compensate the resident for its complaint handling failures which is unreasonable.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 April 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 May 2023 and explained that it was unable to meet the 20 working day timescale outlined within policy. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord communicating the delay to the resident was appropriate and managed her expectations appropriately.
  5. The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 24 May 2023; 22 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This was reasonable.
  6. The landlord failed to follow its complaint process causing distress and frustration for the resident and unnecessarily prolonging the complaints process. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and as such, this Service has reached a finding of service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a property transfer.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £100 compensation for the failings identified with the associated complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Engage with the resident and any other agencies to investigate any further reports of ASB appropriately going forward.
    2. Consider a managed move if warranted based on any subsequent ASB investigation.
    3. Inform the resident of alternative ways in which she can pursue a move from her current property.