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 (202318854)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318854

Orbit Group Limited

21 March 2025


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 the resident’s concerns about the safety of the glass panels on the balconies of the flats at her development.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on a development built around 2014. The resident says she has young children.
  2. The balconies at many flats have glass panels. In 2021, the landlord replaced glass at a flat after it shattered. In 2022, the landlord replaced shattered glass at another flat. In June and July 2023, the landlord received reports of shattered glass at 2 other flats and progressed repairs.
  3. On 28 July 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She raised concerns that glass had shattered unexpectedly on 4 occasions at other flats. She raised concerns about the quality, durability and safety of the glass. She said the landlord should arrange specialist investigation of the glass, replace it at all the balconies, and regularly inspect it. She said she believed that the landlord was responsible for the cost to maintain the glass.
  4. In late August 2023, structural engineers reportedly checked the balcony glass on the development and found no problems or need for emergency works and mitigations. The landlord informed residents of this, but said the original installers would do further checks, and advised them not to use balconies as a precaution. It apologised for the inconvenience this caused and said it would keep them updated.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 19 September 2023. It said the balcony glass complied with regulations and it could not conclude there were defects. It confirmed the issue would be investigated further and it would act if faults were found. It said it was responsible for repairs, but these were rechargeable through the service charge, as would be regular inspection and maintenance of the glazing if residents wanted this. It assured the resident that it took her concerns seriously and offered for senior safety staff to discuss these with her. It awarded £150 for its delayed response to the complaint.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint. She was not satisfied the landlord had done thorough risk assessments of the balconies. She was unhappy with the landlord’s delay in arranging a specialist survey. She asked it to consider additional safety measures to prevent glass shattering.
  7. In November 2023, the landlord updated residents that it had arranged for a glazing specialist to inspect that month.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 13 November 2023. It assured the resident that a correct process was being followed. It said that after its specialist provided their report, it would decide what to do and update her. It awarded a further £100 for its delayed stage 2 response.
  9. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman the same month. She said insufficient information about risk assessments had been provided. She raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication, the uncertainty about how long the issue would take to resolve, and the uncertainty about how long balcony usage would be restricted. She said that she sought replacement of the balcony glass, confirmation that safety regulations were complied with, and a proactive maintenance plan for the glass. She sought compensation for the stress, disruption, inconvenience and potential safety risk.
  10. In January 2024, the landlord received a draft report from its specialist and discussed this with the developer. The same month, it updated residents that it was reviewing the report.
  11. In March 2024, the landlord updated residents that it had received the final report and would share a summary of the findings in coming weeks. It explained that it was working with the developer who had commissioned their own report. It restated advice for residents not to use their balconies, as its specialist’s report had confirmed that if glazing shattered, this risked falls from a great height and harm to people below. It detailed meetings it was holding the same month to answer questions about the issue.
  12. In May 2024, the landlord informed residents of a meeting in June 2024 to answer their concerns about balcony safety.
  13. In August 2024, the landlord updated residents after the June 2024 meeting. It acknowledged it had not yet shared a summary of its specialist’s findings. It explained it was taking time to go through the reports to understand the findings, risks and responsibilities. It confirmed its independent experts were happy for residents to use their balconies but provided advice and said what to do if they noticed damage. It said it had not established who was responsible to pay to put the issue right or compensate for the loss of use of the balconies, but it was working towards solutions for these.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes more recent events after the landlord’s final response to the complaint. While these are referenced for contextual purposes, the main focus of our investigation is from July 2023, when the resident complained, to November 2023, when the landlord provided its final response to her.
  2. The Ombudsman also notes that in this case, we are unable to make definitive decisions about liability, whether there are defects and all balcony glass should be replaced, and whether the resident should be compensated for her inability to use the balcony. We can assess if the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably – which our investigation goes on to do.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the safety of the glass panels on the balconies of the flats at her development

  1. The evidence shows that after balcony glass shattered in June and July 2023 at 2 other flats, the landlord made the areas safe and progressed repairs. In July 2023, the resident then complained and raised safety concerns about the glass. The landlord discussed the issue with the developer. It arranged for structural engineers to inspect in August 2023. It found no issues but it committed to investigate further. It advised against use of balconies in September 2023. It arranged for the resident to discuss her concerns with senior staff in October 2023. It arranged a specialist survey in November 2023.
  2. The landlord’s complaint responses said the glass met regulations and that no defects were reported during repairs or at the August 2023 survey. However, it confirmed it was investigating further and would update the resident after the November 2023 survey. It set out a position that repairs were rechargeable. It awarded £250 for response delays. It provided 5 updates to residents, including after it received the November 2023 survey findings in January and March 2024, and held public meetings with residents. In August 2024, it confirmed that residents could use their balconies again.
  3. The landlord shows that it was sympathetic to the resident’s concerns about safety and reasonably responded to these. It reassured the resident that the glass met standards. It appropriately involved its safety team. It arranged for senior safety staff to speak to her. It discussed the issue with parties such as the developer. It arranged inspections. It reviewed causes for breakages. The landlord seems reasonable to say that it could not conclude there were defects. This is supported by evidence such as repairs logs which refer to external factors being potentially involved. We note that the landlord’s August 2024 correspondence to residents gave advice but this did not cover all potential causes it has referred to in internal correspondence. The Ombudsman therefore recommends that the landlord considers if there is any further advice it can provide to residents in line with any best practice for balconies of the type installed.
  4. The resident had her own views on the actions she thought the landlord should take. In our view, while the landlord should consider its customers’ views, it is ultimately entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff and contractors. We would not expect it to take further action, such as replace the glass, unless someone suitably qualified identified this to be necessary. The landlord shows it sought to obtain expert views on whether further action was necessary from around September or October 2023, which is reasonably timely. It is understandable multiple breakages around the same time would cause concern to residents and this shows the landlord took this seriously.
  5. The landlord found no clear defects in the timeframe of the complaint and the August 2023 inspection found no additional safety measures were necessary. However, the landlord told residents in September 2023 not to use their balcony as a precaution. This was prudent and matched later advice from its specialist. The landlord then said residents could use their balconies again when its specialist was satisfied they could. This shows that the landlord had a reasonably cautious and evidence-based approach. The landlord’s approach to risk seems overall proportionate given the evidence and ongoing investigation. The further investigation has taken a long time, but this was reasonably impacted by issues such as specialist availability and the technical complexity.
  6. The landlord shows that it reasonably addressed the resident’s concerns about repairs costs and compensation for loss of balcony use. Under the lease, the landlord is responsible for balcony maintenance, while leaseholders are obligated to contribute towards the costs of this. The landlord later said it is reviewing reports to understand the findings, risks and responsibilities for putting right any issues and paying compensation. This shows it has provided reasonable reassurance that it will address such aspects when it is able to.
  7. The landlord shows that it generally kept commitments to keep the resident updated. It provided at least 5 updates to residents between November 2023 and August 2024 and held 2 meetings. These equate to an update every 2 months, which is reasonably frequent. The landlord said residents could use their balconies from August 2024 and provided its details for residents to contact it with queries. However, we do note that it does not seem to have updated residents for 7 months about the status of the wider issue, which is a long time. The Ombudsman therefore recommends that the landlord provides an update to residents about the current status of the issue.
  8. The landlord did not contemporaneously record the August 2023 survey outcome and supplied recent recollections of verbal reports. This is not entirely satisfactory, as it should keep adequate records, but from the evidence there is no reason to doubt the occurrence of the visit and the reported findings. The landlord also raised concerns with providing the August 2023 report, when it seems apparent this was before it had confirmed it had this. This is also not entirely satisfactory and it is not entirely reasonable for it to pre-judge evidence we request before it has seen it. We would note that landlords are obligated to provide information we consider relevant to the complaint under paragraph 10 of our Scheme. The Ombudsman makes a recommendation to the landlord about the above.
  9. The landlord seemed to take a month to contact the resident about the complaint and its stage 1 response was delayed by over a month. Its stage 2 response was then delayed by 2 weeks. This is not satisfactory and it is understandable if this delayed communication caused some distress and anxiety to the resident. The landlord was therefore appropriate to acknowledge issues. The £250 it offered is in line with what our remedies guidance says may be applicable where there has been maladministration and a failure that adversely affected the resident, but no permanent impact. The compensation the landlord offered was therefore in line with what we would award for the service issues and impact evident.
  10. Overall, the resident was reasonable to have safety concerns and we understand these, particularly as she has young children. We understand the distress, inconvenience and frustration she may have been caused by how long things have taken and by not being able to use the balcony from September 2023 to August 2024. However, the landlord shows it responded reasonably to her concerns and reasonably met commitments it gave in the complaint timeframe to follow up the issue. There is no evidence of significant issues with the landlord’s response that would lead us to find a failing. This leads the Ombudsman to find reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the safety of the glass panels on the balconies of the flats at her development.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £250 it originally offered, if it has not paid this, as our finding is on the basis of this being paid.
  2. The landlord is recommended to provide an update to residents about the current status of the balcony glass issue.
  3. The landlord is recommended to consider if there is any further advice it can provide to residents in line with any best practice for balconies of the type installed.
  4. The landlord is recommended to ensure that it maintains adequate records, particularly of information relied on in its complaint responses.
  5. The landlord is recommended to consider paragraph 45 of our Scheme, and to ensure that it provides information to the Ombudsman in line with its obligations as a member of our Scheme under paragraph 10.