Orbit Housing Association Limited (202315983)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315983

Orbit Housing Association Limited

12 June 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:
1. Concerns raised about the condition of the property on let and the associated repairs.
2. Concerns raised about its communication with the resident.
3. Concerns raised about the service of an eviction notice.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom house. She has lived at the address since June 2023. The resident has vulnerabilities with her physical and mental health that the landlord was aware of. Her vulnerabilities impact her ability to call the landlord or spend a long time on the phone. She has a support worker who has helped her with calls and reporting issues to the landlord during the timeline below.
When signing for the tenancy, the landlord recorded the resident’s vulnerabilities. It provided her with a housing coach to help set up her tenancy. Shortly after receiving the keys, the resident arranged carpet fitters to measure the property. They found the flooring throughout (other than the kitchen and bathroom) was uneven and she was unable to lay a floor covering. She also found problems with the condition of the kitchen and bathroom.
The resident reported issues with the flooring, kitchen, bathroom, carbon monoxide alarm, and a leak to the landlord in June 2023. She also had difficulty accessing her online account that she reported to the housing coach. The housing coach resolved her online account problem in July 2023.
The resident complained to the landlord on 18 July 2023. She was unhappy with the condition of the property and the time taken to complete repairs. She highlighted the impact this had on her health and asked the landlord to resolve the issues promptly.
The landlord repaired the plumbing, extractor fans, toilet, and drains in August 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 September 2023. It said the delays to complete repairs were the result of an internal dispute over responsibility for the repairs. It apologised for failing to log the resident’s complaint in July 2023. It upheld her complaint and offered her £583 compensation. This was comprised of:
1. £168 for repair handling failures.
2. £65 for complaint handling failures.
3. £350 for distress and inconvenience.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and sought to escalate her complaint on 21 September 2023. She said:
1. The landlord had not fully responded to her complaints.
2. The landlord had not communicated with its contractor about the repairs or an incident that occurred in August 2023.
3. She felt the landlord had not fully considered her vulnerabilities or made reasonable adjustments.
4. She disagreed with the landlord’s timeline of the repairs.
5. She was unhappy with an eviction notice she received on 28 July 2023 for rent arrears caused by issues with her online account.
6. She felt the landlord treated her unfairly and this severely impacted her mental health.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 November 2023. It said:
1. There had been an overlap between its voids and repairs services that caused delays. It planned a review of the roles and responsibilities of repairs required in void properties to identify any improvements to prevent this from re-occurring.
2. It arranged for an inspector to visit the property and decide if it needed to replace the kitchen and bathroom.
3. It offered to discuss temporary accommodation to complete the repairs if they were too disruptive.
4. It upheld her complaint and offered her an additional £425 compensation. This was comprised of £185 for complaint handling failures and £230 for distress and inconvenience.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 1 December 2023. She said the landlord had not resolved the repairs or acknowledged her complaints about communication. She disagreed with the amount of compensation offered.
The landlord inspected the property on 7 December 2023. It recorded repairs for the guttering, kitchen cupboard, kitchen tiles, and bathroom sink. It noted that the property overall was not in a good condition. The landlord replaced the flooring on 19 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Concerns raised about the condition of the property on let and the associated repairs

The resident reported several problems with the condition of the property to the landlord within 2 weeks of signing her tenancy. She showed evidence of leaks, damaged kitchen units, uneven flooring, faulty extractor fans, and damaged gutters present from the time she moved into the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will conduct all routine repairs within 28 calendar days. Its records show that it conducted the initial inspection of the leak below the sink on 27 June 2023, which was within these timescales. However, its inspection of the remaining issues was not until 25 July 2023, which was around 33 calendar days later. Although this delay was not exceptional, it contributed to the further delays experienced by the resident.
The landlord’s records show that it did not complete any plumbing or electrical repairs until 10 August 2023. This was around 7 weeks after the resident’s initial reports. It did not schedule any repairs to the flooring until 5 October 2023. This was around 15 weeks after the resident’s initial reports. It is unclear from the records available if the landlord ever repaired/replaced the damaged kitchen unit, kitchen tiles, bathroom sink, or damaged guttering. These delays combined are unacceptable and a considerable failing by the landlord.
Prior to the resident moving into the property, the landlord completed void maintenance works. Its void maintenance records show that it raised orders to renew the sink waste and refix loose floorboards on the landing and bedrooms. It is unclear from the landlord’s records exactly what works it completed during the void period. However, it is clear these same issues were present when she moved into the property and the landlord would have been aware of them.
The landlord should have inspected the property and ensured that it had completed the repairs before signing off the property for let. The evidence shows that it either did not, or its inspection was poor. This failure caused the resident undue distress and inconvenience reporting and chasing repairs.
In addition to the above, the landlord’s internal dispute over responsibility for the repairs increased the detriment caused to the resident. Its records show that it logged and cancelled many of reports made in July and August 2023. This was because it was unable to decide if its voids team or repairs team were responsible for the repairs. During this period, the landlord’s internal dispute prevented it from conducting routine repairs within a reasonable timeframe. Its response was not customer or resolution focused. It did not provide the resident with any clear, or timely, communications relating to the repairs. Its failures caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
The records show the resident frequently pursued the landlord for updates on the repairs. She raised the issues with the condition of the property at each point of contact between June and August 2023. She highlighted repairs to her coach on 22 June, 5 July, and 19 July 2023. She emailed lists of repairs on 23 June, 6 July, and 21 July 2023. Her support worker called and emailed the landlord on her behalf on 12 July and 5 August 2023. In each report she highlighted her vulnerabilities and the impact the repairs had on her. It is important for the landlord to maintain the commitments set out in its policy and procedures. Its failures to conduct the repairs early in the timeline caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing those repairs and related complaints.
During the first 6 months of the tenancy, the resident was unable to lay a suitable floor covering in the living room or bedrooms of the property. In her communication to the landlord, she reported spending most of her time in one room as a result. The landlord did not reflect on these concerns in either of its complaint responses. It did not treat the resident fairly or put things right in the circumstances.
In her reports to the landlord, the resident said it told her that it would replace the kitchen and bathroom before she moved into the property. There was no record of this discussion in the landlord’s records. The landlord’s void maintenance records show it installed the kitchen and bathroom in January 2008. It also showed that it expected the kitchen to be suitable until a review in January 2033 and the bathroom until January 2039. The UK Decent Homes guidance assumes that kitchens require replacing on grounds of repair every 30 years, and bathrooms every 40 years. The landlord’s decision to review the condition of the kitchen in 2033 and bathroom in 2039 were within these timescales and was therefore reasonable.
During its inspection of the property on 25 July 2023, the landlord noted that it would not replace the kitchen until 2033. It is unclear how the landlord communicated this decision to the resident. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to clarify its position when it issued its stage 1 response in September 2023. It did not say why it was unable to replace the kitchen and bathroom, or how it had made this decision. It could have reflected on the Decent Homes standard or detailed the findings from any of its inspections. It did not and this was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord generally improved its response at stage 2. It said that it would conduct a more detailed inspection of the property with the appropriate service areas and provide a full scope of works. Its response reflected some of the serious concerns raised by the resident about managing major works. Its offer to discuss alternative housing arrangements during the repairs was reasonable. It appropriately agreed to review its decision about whether it needed to replace the kitchen or bathroom.
The landlord reflected on its internal communication failures in its stage 2 response. It appropriately showed how it had learned from the case and how it would improve its service by reviewing the roles and responsibilities of its void and repairs teams. This was a positive recognition of one of the key failures in this case.
The landlord’s compensation policy does not prescribe any set amount of compensation for its failings. Therefore, we have assessed the landlord’s offer against the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. Where a failure by the landlord has had a significant impact on the resident we consider compensation between £600-£1,000 is proportionate. Throughout its complaint responses, the landlord made a combined offer of £748 compensation for its handling of repairs to the property. This offer incorporated £168 for repair handling failures and £580 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord’s records show that it followed through with some of the commitments of its stage 2 response. It inspected the property on 7 December 2023 and recorded repairs for the guttering and kitchen units. It decided that the bathroom and kitchen were in a reasonable condition and did not require replacement. However, it is unclear how it communicated the outcome of this assessment to the resident.
Additionally, during this inspection, it told the resident that the flooring was in a reasonable condition. This contradicted the findings of 2 previous inspections from July and September 2023. The resident described this visit as “extremely upsetting and frustrating”, especially as she had been unable to lay floor coverings for 6 months. It is unclear if/when it changed this decision, but its records show that it repaired the upstairs flooring on 19 January 2024. This further demonstrates the conflicting answers given to the resident, causing her distress and inconvenience.
Although the landlord’s compensation offer was reasonable, its response did not fully address the detriment caused to the resident. It did not consider if there had been a failure to thoroughly inspect the property while void, before signing off the property as ready to let. It did not fully consider the resident’s time and trouble and that of her additional support services. It did not address the inaccuracies within the timeline set out in its stage 1 response.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns raised about the condition of the property on let and the associated repairs. In its stage 2 response, the landlord reflected on some of the failures that caused repairs delays. Its offer of compensation was within the expected range for the failures identified. However, it did not follow through with each of the commitments in its response. It gave conflicting advice to the resident about the condition of the flooring. It took several more months to repair the damaged flooring throughout the property and replace the kitchen unit. The resident became increasingly frustrated by the landlord’s missed appointments and unnecessary additional inspections. She took considerable time and effort reporting and chasing repairs, as well as seeking help from third parties.
It is unclear from the landlord’s records if it fully assessed the condition of the kitchen or the flooring. They do show that the landlord found the property to be in a generally poor condition throughout. The resident reports that the kitchen and living room floor remain in a poor condition. The landlord should arrange for a suitably qualified surveyor to inspect the condition of the kitchen, flooring, and guttering. It should provide a copy of the report to the resident and Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman has made no additional orders for compensation for the landlord’s handling of concerns raised about the condition of the property on let and the associated repairs. The landlord’s offer of £748 compensation broadly reflected the detriment caused up to the issuing of its stage 2 response.

Concerns raised about its communication with the resident

Throughout the resident’s early contact with the landlord in June and July 2023, she highlighted her vulnerabilities. In particular, she frequently told the landlord she was unable to use its telephone system. She said that she was unable to spend a long time using the phone because of the impact this had on her pre-existing mental health condition. Despite this knowledge, the landlord told the resident to call it to report repairs and discuss her rent account during visits in June and July 2023. This was inappropriate and showed a failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities.
During her meeting with the landlord’s housing coach on 22 June 2023, she said that she was unable to access the landlord’s online reporting system. The landlord’s records from 23 June 2023 show that it was aware of this issue. It also noted her vulnerabilities and had her agreement to update its records to reflect them. The resident emailed the landlord on the 23 June 2023 to report again that she was unable to use the online portal. Despite these reports, the landlord made no efforts to resolve her online account issues until 5 July 2023. This delay was not excessive but would have impacted the resident given her vulnerabilities that she informed it of.
Despite the resident’s frequent attempts to contact the landlord, there were no records showing the landlord’s calls or emails in response. In her complaint to the landlord on 18 July 2023, she said her family members had helped and tried calling the landlord “on several occasions”. Her emails refer to the impact the lack of acknowledgement or response had on her mental health. The landlord’s poor communication throughout the timeline caused her considerable difficulties chasing repairs and discussing her rent.
The landlord appropriately apologised for its poor service and the resident’s repeat reports that were unresolved in its stage 1 response. Its offer of £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience in part addressed this in its relation to her repairs. However, it did not fully address the lack of response to her emails, or her need for third parties to contact the landlord.
In her request to escalate her complaint on 21 September 2023, the resident said one of the landlord’s contractors made her uncomfortable. During a repair on 20 September 2023, they allegedly acted inappropriately in her home. She said that they left rubbish strewn about her bathroom and windows open in rooms they should not have been in. She asked that it did not send the same operative to her home as a result. However, the same operative came to do more work on 25 September 2023. It is evident that the landlord had not shared the resident’s concerns with the relevant contractor. This failure caused an unnecessary confrontation for the resident and additional distress and inconvenience.
The resident’s notes from 26 September 2023 refer to a call she received from the landlord to discuss her complaint. She says that she highlighted the poor communication and lack of assessment of her needs. She describes being frustrated by having to repeat the specifics of her complaint, despite her detailed emails to the landlord. She also highlighted the incident with the contractor and the landlord’s lack of response to her emails.
The landlord did not fully address the communications failure in its stage 2 response. It did not consider its failure to contact the contractor and ask for it to send a different operative following the incident in September 2023. It also unfairly said the resident did not allow access on 5 October 2023. The resident had told the landlord that she would be unavailable for the appointment due to her ill health and asked it to reschedule. It did not and the contractor showed up anyway. This breakdown in communication between the landlord and its contractors was evident throughout and contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of concerns raised about its communication with the resident. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the timeline was poor. It did not respond to many of her emails or provide her with other means of contact despite her highlighting her vulnerabilities. It failed to address the incident in September 2023 after the resident had asked the landlord to stop a particular operative visiting the property. It did not update its records or contact its contractor once the resident asked for it to cancel the flooring appointment in October 2023. The failures to effectively manage its contractors or respond to the resident caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord should pay the resident £300 for its communication failures. This reflects the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies for a failure which adversely affected the resident. It considers the landlord’s failure to acknowledge its failings or put things right in the circumstances.

Concerns raised about the service of an eviction notice

The landlord’s debt, service charge & other arrears recovery policy states:
1. It will be supportive where a resident falls into arrears and offer suitable repayment options.
2. Where a resident falls into arrears, it will establish contact and ask them to put the matter right.
3. It will use mandatory and discretionary grounds for possession where available. Where it considers a resident vulnerable, it will only consider mandatory and accelerated proceedings with approval from an Income Manager. It will undertake a case conference and consider all other options available.
There were no records available to the Ombudsman that show the landlord wrote to the resident about her rent arrears in June or July 2023. The resident kept her own contemporaneous records of her calls and contact with the landlord. Her notes show that she raised concerns about her access to the landlord’s online account system to the landlord in her meetings with the housing coach and in calls from it in June and July 2023. The landlord’s records from 23 June 2023 show that it was aware of this problem.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord took any reasonable action early in the timeline to resolve the resident’s access issues. The resident’s own records show that during a meeting with the housing coach on 5 July 2023, they did help her to gain access to the account system. However, in an email to the landlord on 6 July 2023, the resident said she was unable to use the call service and was still having issues with her rent payments as a result. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to or acknowledged this email.
Additionally, during a call with the housing coach on 19 July 2023, they told her to call its customer contact centre to set up a payment plan. It is unclear why they directed her to a system it was aware she was unable to use at the time, rather than help set up a payment plan during the call. These early failures would have contributed to the arrears that built up over the period.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and should have considered these before issuing any possession proceedings. It should have kept clear records of the resident’s vulnerabilities and made efforts to speak to her before issuing her with the eviction notice. It did not and this was a failing.
The resident highlighted these issues in her emails to the landlord in August 2023. In her request to escalate her complaint on 21 September 2023, the resident described the severe impact the notice had on her mental health. The landlord did not give any response to this part of her complaint in its stage 2 response. It did not treat the resident fairly or put things right in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord in its handling of concerns raised about the service of an eviction notice. It did not address or resolve her issues in its complaint responses. It did not keep clear records of its decision making or share these with the resident. It treated the resident in an unfair and heavy handed way. The landlord should pay the resident compensation of £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This reflects the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies for a failure that caused a significant emotional impact on the resident. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the complaint or any efforts to put things right.

The associated complaint

It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Its responses at both stages 1 and 2 were considerably outside those timeframes.
The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days. The resident complained to the landlord on 18 July 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 45 working days later, on 19 September 2023. This is an unreasonable delay of around 35 working days.
However, in its stage 1 response, the landlord appropriately apologised for its complaint handling failures. It recognised that it had failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint in July 2023. Its offer of £65 compensation was reasonable.
There were further delays in the landlord’s response times at stage 2. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 September 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 50 working days later, on 30 November 2023. This is an unreasonable delay of around 30 working days.
The landlord’s records show that it contacted the resident to request extensions in issuing its stage 2 response on 25 October and 8 November 2023. Although it appropriately informed the resident of the delay and gave her realistic expectations of when it would respond, its approach did not follow its procedures. Its complaint handling policy states that where it extends complaints beyond 10 working days, it should discuss this with the resident. If the resident refuses the extension, it should provide a final response detailing its investigation. It did not and this is evident in the resident’s emails to the landlord in December 2023.
The landlord did not address the additional extensions in its stage 2 response. However, it did reflect on its general complaint handling failures and offered additional compensation of £185. This increased its overall compensation offered to £250 for its complaint handling.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in its handling of the associated complaint which resolved the complaint satisfactorily. There were delays throughout the landlord’s complaint handling that it did not fully address in its complaint response. However, its offer of compensation was reasonable and within a range that we would recommend where a failure had an adverse impact on a resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns raised about the condition of the property on let and the associated repairs.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns raised about its communication with the resident.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns raised about the service of an eviction notice.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress for its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,348 compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £748 offered in its stage 2 response.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its poor communication with the resident.
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of an eviction notice.
3. Arrange for a suitably qualified surveyor to inspect the condition of the kitchen, bathroom, flooring, and guttering of the property. It should provide a copy of the inspection report to the resident and the Ombudsman within 2 weeks of the visit. It must include a timetable schedule of any works identified and a single point of contact to oversee progress and communications until complete.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must conduct a review of is handling of the repairs in this case. It should consider how it will improve its communication with its contractors to ensure that it addresses requests for reasonable adjustments. It should review how it assesses vulnerabilities and when it shares these with its contractors.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider if it should pay any additional compensation for delays in resolving the remaining repairs after the end of the complaints process. It should write to the resident to explain its decision.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £250 compensation it offered for complaint handling failings. Our reasonable redress decision is made on the basis that this amount is paid.