Orbit Housing Association Limited (202422207)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422207

Orbit Housing Association Limited

29 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the drainage system.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since August 2019. The property is a 3 bedroom house, and the landlord is a housing association. The landlord said the property was under the NHBC warranty, but it did not say when the property was built. The resident has a 7 year old daughter, who has autism.
Between January 2020 and May 2022, the resident made several reports about blocked drains, an unsecured manhole and blocked toilets. She made 3 further reports between March 2023 and June 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord completed remedial repairs to resolve the problems.
On 7 January 2024 the resident reported a blocked toilet. The landlord rectified the problem on the same day and recommended further investigations. It said that it should use a camera to investigate the blockage and understand the root cause of the problem. It also had to return the following day to make the manhole safe.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 21 January 2024. Her complaint was about not having a functional toilet for 10 hours because of issues with the drainage system.
On 12 February 2024 the landlord raised a job for surveying the drains, which it completed on 1 March 2024. The surveyor said that there was a water level holding within the pipe. The landlord said he recommended remedial repairs, but it did not share the details of his recommendations with this service.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 15 February 2024 and said:
1. On 7 January 2024 the resident reported an issue with the toilet and drainage, and it attended to the emergency repair within 24 hours.
2. Following this repair, the resident reported the manhole cover was damaged, and it repaired it within 24 hours.
3. Its contractor advised that a camera investigation was needed to establish the cause of the blockage. It explained that because of an admin error it failed to raise the repair. It confirmed that it would complete the job by 4 March 2024.
4. It partially upheld her complaint. It explained that it completed the initial repairs within its published timeframe. However, it acknowledged that it failed to raise the follow up works and offered to pay £35 compensation to the resident to reflect the inconvenience this caused her.
On 26 February 2024 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said that the landlord had failed to resolve the issue of blocked toilets in her property for several years. She described that dark water was coming up through the pipes into the sinks and the bath. She explained the inconvenience caused to the family, especially her young daughter who had autism. She also described how she spent considerable time unblocking the drains and toilets.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 March 2024, and said:
1. On 29 February 2024 its contractor identified the issue and explained there was a water level holding within the pipework, which redirected dark water back into the property.
2. It acknowledged that the resident first reported the problem on 24 January 2020. Although its contractor attended several times, it had not investigated the root cause of the problem. It apologised that it had taken so long to identify this.
3. It explained that the original groundworks teams were not responsible for rectifying the problem because the issue raised was outside the defects period of the property. Instead, it said it would make a claim via the National House Building Council (NHBC) and keep the resident updated.
4. It upheld the resident’s complaint and increased its compensation offer to £528. It said this was equivalent to:
  1. £35 offered at stage 1.
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  3. £70 for failing to investigate the root cause of the problem sooner.
  4. £23 for delays out of timeframe.
On 28 March 2024 it raised a NHBC claim. In July 2024, the landlord explained that NHBC were unable to follow up the claim because it did not have sufficient evidence that the landlord had tried to resolve the problems with the drains.
On 9 July 2024, the resident made a new formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of the repairs to the drainage. She said that although the landlord’s contractor had tried to unblock the drains, the drains were still blocking up. She explained this impacted on both her toilets, her washing machine and sinks. She described the smell as “disgusting”.
In July 2024 following further reports from the resident, the landlord unblocked the drains twice. It inspected the property on 11 July 2024, and recommended excavating and replacing the pipework. It also said it would reinstate the kitchen flooring once it had completed the repairs. On 22 August 2024 it recommended replacing the eco toilet to see if this could resolve the drainage problem. It completed the work on 2 December 2024, but the resident said it did not replace the toilet and replaced the toilet valve instead.
On 31 July 2024 the landlord informed the resident it needed more time to respond to her complaint and would respond by 14 August 2024. On 2 September 2024 it issued its stage 1 response to her complaint. It advised that it would dig up the kitchen floor to access and repair the drains. It upheld her complaint and offered to pay £725 compensation to the resident. This was equivalent to £75 for its poor complaint handling and £650 for the time and trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in resolving the drainage problem.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 4 September 2024. Her complaint was about the landlord’s contractor informing her that it could not complete the repair to the drainage because of the lay out of the property. She said the landlord had failed to resolve the issue for 5 years and because of her daughter’s vulnerability, she had to manually clear the blockage regularly. As a resolution to her complaint, she asked for the landlord to permanently rehouse her.
In September 2024 the landlord was discussing the best course of action to resolve the drainage problem with its experts and the resident. On 2 October 2024, it raised the repairs recommended by its surveyor in July 2024. She said that although the landlord repaired the drains and relayed her kitchen flooring by November 2024, it did so to poor standards.
On 18 October 2024 the landlord informed the resident it needed longer to respond to her complaint and would issue its stage 2 response by 15 November 2024. It issued its stage 2 response on 22 October 2024, and said:
1. It acknowledged that in its stage 1 response it said that it would need to dig her kitchen floor to repair the drains. However, after discussing the matter with its contractor, it thought it found an alternative solution. It attended on 2 September 2024 but realised that the proposed solution would not work.
2. On 13 September 2024 it visited the property to discuss the best way forward with the resident and then liaised with its contractor to find the best solution for her.
3. It agreed to excavate and replace 5 meters of pipework leading from the manhole and reinstate the surface once completed. It would start the works on 30 October 2024 and estimate that it would take 2 days. It would then replace her kitchen flooring.
4. While it understood the situation had caused distress to the resident, it could not assist her with rehousing because it had a permanent solution in place. It provided the resident with information about her housing options.
5. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint and not providing her with regular updates.
6. It partially updated her complaint and offered £1075 compensation to the resident. This was equivalent to:
  1. £725 offered at stage 1 to reflect its poor complaint handling and the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay in resolving the issues with the drainage.
  2. £350 to reflect its complaint handling failings at stage 2, the delays in addressing the problem and the inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident informed this service that although the landlord had replaced the pipework and relayed her kitchen floor, the drains are still causing an issue and the work carried out had caused further problems. She reported that the landlord’s contractor arrived 2 days prior to the agreed appointment to repair her kitchen floor, which caused her inconvenience as she had to go to work. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident would like the landlord to prioritise the repairs to the manhole so that her daughter can use the garden this summer. She would also like compensation for her damaged belongings and to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused to her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We understand the resident has reported issues with the drainage since 2020. Between 2020 and 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of blocked drains and toilets and carried out remedial work at the property. We saw no evidence that prior to January 2024, the resident had raised a formal complaint with the landlord about its handling of the drainage repairs. In keeping with our scheme, we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical reports of the problem offer context to the current complaint, this investigation will focus on events from January 2023 onwards.
We recognise that the resident reported and repeated that the situation caused significant distress to the family, especially her young daughter who has autism. The resident raised concerns about the impact of the situation on her family’s health and wellbeing. Although we can consider the impact that the issues raised have had on the family, and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions may have contributed to or exacerbated any physical and/or mental health issues. These are legal aspects better suited to an insurance claim or court.
The resident has informed this service that as a resolution to her complaint she would like the landlord to move her to another property. However, it is not within our remit to determine whether the landlord should rehouse a resident. Whilst we can consider how a landlord has handled the resident’s complaint and whether it has followed fair process in considering the resident’s concerns relating to their complaint, we do not have the powers to instruct a landlord to allocate housing as a resolution to a complaint.

Repairs to the drainage system

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will complete emergency repairs within 4 to 24 hours, depending on the nature of the emergency. It will complete routine repairs within 28 days. It explains that major repairs are routine repairs which are more complex for example when multiple trades are needed. It says it will complete such repairs within 90 days. It elaborates that it will prioritise repairs where residents are vulnerable in keeping with its safeguarding policy.
The landlord’s repairs policy explains that when the required major repairs are included within its planned maintenance programme of works, the resident might have to wait for it to do the repairs as part of that. Unless there is a risk to the resident’s safety. In such cases, it would make the problem safe temporarily until it could complete the repairs through its planned maintenance programme of works.
Between January 2023 and October 2024, the resident made several reports of blocked drains, blocked toilets and the subsequent impact on the family. The landlord showed that it promptly responded to the resident’s reports of blocked drains. We understand the resident said that in January 2024, she reported blocked drains and explained that she could not use her toilets. She said the landlord informed her it would attend within 4 hours and did not. However, we are an impartial service, which can only base our decisions on the evidence provided. In this case, we saw no evidence that the landlord promised it would attend within 4 hours of her report. Therefore, we cannot find there was a service failure by the landlord to attend within this timeframe.
The evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a blocked drains in keeping with its published timeframe for handling emergency repairs. While we understand the nature of the problem significantly impacted on the resident, the landlord showed it acted with a sense of urgency when receiving the resident’s reports that the drains were blocked. This was reasonable by the landlord.
In its stage 2 response to the resident’s first complaint, it acknowledged its failings in investigating the root cause of the problem with the drainage. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate the reoccurring element of the problem. Those were missed opportunities to resolve the matter sooner. The landlord should have been more proactive in looking for a permanent solution to the problem. Its failings to do this were unreasonable and caused significant inconvenience and distress to the resident. She reported having to take her daughter to use the toilets in a local restaurant because she could not use the toilets in her property.
The evidence shows that in January 2024, the landlord’s operative recommended carrying out further investigations to understand the issue. The evidence shows that the landlord completed the drainage survey on 1 March 2024. While it was appropriate for the landlord to take that step, this was 3 months after its operative recommended this. We recognise the landlord acknowledged it failed to raise the repairs in January 2024, apologised and promptly organise for the survey once it realised it was outstanding. Nevertheless, taking 3 months to raise the repair was unreasonable by the landlord and contributed to the delays in finding a resolution.
Additionally, the resident reported the situation had a significant impact on her daily life. She described how she must unblock the drains herself twice a week. She also described the impact on her daughter’s wellbeing who could not manage the smell or sight of sewage water throughout the property and in the garden. The landlord’s failings in completing the drains survey sooner were unreasonable and had a significant impact on the family.
We understand that the issue was complex and amounted to a major repair. However, the landlord’s repairs policy says that it will complete such repairs within 90 days. In this case, although the landlord made several visits, it failed to complete the repair within its published timeframe. Additionally, we saw no evidence that it kept the resident updated during that time or considered whether it latest repairs in January 2024, had resolved the problem. Its actions were not in keeping with its repairs policy.
The landlord informed the resident in March 2024, that the property was covered by a home warranty provided by the National House Building Council (NHBC). During the span of the warranty, NHBC guarantees the obligations of the builder under the warranty. It will either settle or arrange to put right damage resulting from defects caused by the builder where it has failed to meet the warranty provider’s requirements when building specific parts of the property. We cannot determine that the landlord should have considered making a claim to the NHBC sooner. However, the evidence shows that once the landlord identified this as a course of action, it promptly made the claim, which was reasonable.
However, in its stage 2 response to the resident’s first complaint, it also said that it would keep her informed on the outcome of the claim. We understand that in July 2024, it acknowledged internally that it could not proceed with the claim. However, we saw no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed on the progress of the claim or informed her of its decision not to pursue it. This was unreasonable by the landlord. Landlords keeping the promises they make during the complaint process is key in rebuilding trust with a resident. The landlord’s failings here further impacted on its relationship with the resident, who reported “having no faith” in the landlord.
Between March 2024 and July 2024, we recognise the landlord responded to further reports of blocked drains from the resident. However, it did not show that it raised any remedial repairs or offered a permanent solution to the problem. It did not show that following its surveyor recommending remedial repairs on 6 March 2024, it had considered those. This was unreasonable from the landlord. It should have raised the repairs recommended by its surveyor or explained why it would not. Its failings to act on the recommendations, further delayed resolving the problem. This also caused additional inconvenience to the resident, who had to raise the issue as a formal complaint.
We recognise that in July 2024, the landlord carried out a detailed inspection of the property and recommended remedial repairs. It advised to excavate and replace the pipework and reinstate the kitchen flooring once completed. While this was appropriate by the landlord, it did not start the works for another 3 months. We understand the landlord discussed the best course of action with the resident and its contractors. We also recognise this was a complex issue, However, 3 months to start the repairs once it received its surveyor’s recommendations, was unreasonable. While we understand the landlord was discussing how to best approach the problem, the delay in making the decisions to start the repairs was unreasonable. The landlord did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. This was not in keeping with its repair policy to complete major repairs within 90 days. Especially as it knew the problem had been ongoing for several years.
The resident informed this service that the landlord’s appointed contractor reported to the landlord that the remedial repairs would not resolve the problem with the drains. We cannot determine whether the recommended remedial repairs would resolve the problem or not, as it is not in our remit to do so. Our role is to consider the landlord’s response to the resident concerns. In this case, the landlord showed that it considered the feedback and then decided to proceed with the repairs. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord.
The evidence shows that in August 2024, the landlord suspected that the resident’s toilet, which was an eco-toilet, may have contributed to the drainage issues. It raised a job to replace it. The landlord said that in December 2024, it replaced a valve but not the toilet. We cannot comment on whether it was necessary to replace the toilet or why the landlord changed its mind. However, the evidence did not show that it discussed the change of plan with the resident or the delay of 3 months in completing the repair. This was unreasonable by the landlord and not in keeping with its repair policy to complete such repairs in 28 days.
We understand that by November 2024, the landlord had completed the recommended major repairs. This was 10 months after the resident reported having an issue with blocked drains in January 2024. This was an unreasonable timeframe to complete the repairs, and not in keeping with its repairs policy of completing such repairs within 90 days. Additionally, this caused significant inconvenience to the resident who described having to take time off work for the repairs.
The resident informed this service and the landlord that she was unhappy with the standards of the repairs completed in November 2024. We are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the drainage beyond its stage 2 complaint response as it has not had the opportunity to do so itself, through its internal complaints procedure. This would normally require the resident to log a new complaint about these events for the landlord to consider.
However, the resident has informed us that she continues to experience blocked drains, an unsecured manhole and damp and mould in her property. She explained that the landlord completed the repairs to poor standards and created new problems such as an uneven floor in her kitchen. She also said that the issues prevented her daughter from using the garden in the summer. Therefore, we are making an order for the landlord to address these matters.
The resident informed us and the landlord that she wishes to be rehoused permanently. While we cannot determine whether the landlord should rehouse the family, we can consider its response to her request. In its stage 2 response to her second complaint, it explained its reasons for not supporting rehousing the resident. It responded to her query, made its position clear and provided the resident with housing advice. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord.
A key aspect of dispute resolution is for landlords, through the complaint process, to take reasonable steps to put the residents back to the position they were in before the issue started. While we understand the landlord is currently completing remedial repairs, the resident also reported damage to her belongings because of the sewage water entering her property. She said the sewage water damaged her carpets, flooring and her washing machine. She said that she recalled a conversation with the landlord about compensating her for her damaged belongings, when it asked her for copies of receipts, but the landlord did not discuss it further with her.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that while residents are responsible to ensure the content of their home, in some cases, it might consider compensating a resident for damaged property or personal belongings. It elaborates that it might pay compensation to a resident for their damaged belongings if it assesses that the damage is a direct result of something it did or did not do. In such cases, it would be reasonable for the landlord to discuss the matter with the resident to determine if it should consider paying compensation.
In this case, the landlord did not show that it discussed the process of seeking compensation for her damaged belongings with the resident. We cannot determine the landlord should compensate the resident for her loss or how much the compensation should be. However, it would have been in keeping with its compensation policy for the landlord to consider the resident’s request for compensation or to explain why it would not consider her request. Its lack of actions in addressing the matter was unreasonable.
Additionally, the resident shared with the landlord how the situation impacted on her daughter who was vulnerable, young and had autism. The evidence did not show that the landlord considered whether it should make reasonable adjustments while addressing the repairs. It did not show that it discussed with the resident how it could help in managing the impact of the situation of her daughter. We cannot determine whether the landlord should have made reasonable adjustments in its handling of the repairs. However, we would have expected the landlord to discuss this with the resident, its failings to do this was unreasonable. Its actions were not in keeping with its repairs policy.
We recognise that during the complaint process, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for its failings. We also recognised that through the process of 2 complaints from the resident, its total offer of compensation in relation to the repairs was £1178. We understand the landlord offered an additional £350 compensation to the resident to reflects its poor complaint handling. The landlord provided a detailed explanation for the redress and compensation it offered. Additionally, it committed to complete the remedial works to standards.
However, we cannot determine the landlord’s compensation offer amounted to reasonable redress and resolved the resident’s complaint. This is because the landlord did not adequately consider the household vulnerabilities or the resident’s request for compensation in relation to her damaged belongings. Additionally, the resident informed us that although the landlord paid her compensation for its failings, it failed to resolve the problems as promised. She said she “had no faith in the landlord” resolving the drainage issues.
After considering the evidence of the case, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the drainage. We recognise that the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s emergency reports of blocked drains. We also recognise that it has taken steps to resolve the matter.
However, and from its own admission, the landlord failed to investigate the underlying cause of the problem and handle the repairs in keeping with its repairs policy. Its failings to do so, significantly impacted on the resident and her daughter. We also identified that the landlord failed to adequately consider the household vulnerabilities in its handling of the repairs or respond to the resident request for compensation for her damaged belongings.
In keeping with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £125 compensation to reflect the impact of the additional failings identified in this report on her.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the drainage system.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the additional failings identified in this report
2. Pay £125 to the resident to reflect the inconvenience caused to her by the landlord’s failings to consider the household vulnerabilities and respond to her request for compensation for her damaged belongings. Additionally, the landlord is ordered to meet with the resident and discuss her request for compensation for her damaged belongings. If appropriate, it should provide her with information on her options for raising a claim. The landlord must provide evidence to this service that it has done this.
3. Discuss with the resident the household’s vulnerabilities and consider whether it needs to adjust its handling of the repairs to reflect those. The landlord is to share with us and the resident any agreement made in relation to reasonable adjustments, if any.
4. To inspect the property’s drainage and the kitchen floor. Should the landlord identify any issues with either, then it should give a time specific action plan on how/when it will address this. A copy of its survey findings and work schedule (if appropriate) is to be shared with the resident and this service. The landlord should also consider prioritising the repairs to the manhole or explain to the resident why it cannot prioritise this and confirm when it will repair it.