Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Orbit Group Limited (202419704)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419704

Orbit Group Limited

18 July 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 request for re-imbursement of rent and utilities following a temporary move.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner leaseholder. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a flat in a block of flats.
  2. Between September 2022 and May 2023, the resident was moved into temporary accommodation while insurers carried out a refurbishment of the resident’s property following a leak.   
  3. On 22 May 2024, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He was unhappy that he had to pay for rent, service charges, and utilities throughout the period when he was not able to live in the property. He noted that the buildings insurer paid for the temporary accommodation, not the landlord. He said that the landlord had referred to a decant policy which he had not seen when it refused to re-imburse him. As a resolution, he wanted the landlord to reimburse the rent, service charges, and utilities for the period.
  4. On 11 June 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It noted that the resident had been decanted at the expense of its insurer. It said that the resident would be liable to pay the rent, service charges, and utilities in line with its decants policy.
  5. On 11 July 2024, the resident escalated his complaint. He did not agree with the outcome of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint investigation and requested an escalation to stage 2.
  6. On 13 August 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It referred to its decant policy and confirmed that the correct process was followed. It said that because the resident was a shared owner he was expected to continue to pay his mortgage, rent, service charges, and utilities. It noted that he was only ever paying for 1 form of accommodation as he did not incur the fees for the temporary accommodation.
  7. On 19 August 2024, the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said that it felt unjust that he had continued to pay rent, service charges, and utilities when he could not live in the property. He said that there was a clause in his lease that a “Rent Suspension” should be in place when a property becomes uninhabitable. He said that the landlord quoted a decant policy that he was not aware of and the landlord did not provide. As a resolution to the complaint, he wanted the landlord to re-imburse him £2776 representing the rent and utilities paid during the period of his decant.     

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for re-imbursement of rent and utilities following a decant

  1. The landlord’s decant policy sets out that the resident is responsible for paying rent and any other charges on their own home when in temporary accommodation. It further says that the resident is responsible for paying utility bills when in temporary accommodation.
  2. Section 6.6 of the lease is titled “Suspension of rent in case of insured damage”. It states: “If the whole or any part of the Premises (or the Common Parts of the Building and/or the Common Parts of the Estate necessary for access to it) are destroyed or damaged by fire or any other risks covered by the Landlord’s insurance so as to be rendered unfit for use then (unless the insurance money is irrecoverable by reason of any act or default of the Leaseholder) the Specified Rent and the Ground Rent or a fair proportion of them shall be suspended until the Premises (and the Common Parts of the Building and/or the Common Parts of the Estate necessary for access) are again fit for use.”
  3. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to interpret leases and case law and make definitive decisions on these as a court or the Fixed Tier Tribunal might. It is open for the resident to seek legal advice on this point. This investigation has focussed on the landlord’s communication about its responsibilities to the resident.
  4. When the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman, he was unhappy that the landlord failed to apply this clause in the lease, rather it relied on its decant policy which set out that he would be expected to continue paying his rent, service charges, and utilities. He was also unhappy that the landlord failed to provide him with a copy of the decant policy and said that because the landlord’s insurer arranged the decant, its decant policy should not apply.  
  5. When the resident raised a complaint with the landlord, he did not specifically raise the terms of the lease as an issue. As such, the landlord focussed on its decant policy. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider its obligations under the lease when considering a leaseholder’s complaint. The landlord’s failure to reference the terms of the lease was an oversight, especially considering the “suspension of rent” term which was relevant to the resident’s complaint.
  6. The insurer arranged the temporary move and was acting as an agent of the landlord. As such, it would have been appropriate to apply the landlord’s decant policy. The Ombudsman has not seen correspondence with the resident when the decant was arranged. When the resident raised a complaint, he said he had not seen or signed the decant policy. The landlord should have provided the resident with a copy of the policy at that point. Its failure to do so was a service failing.
  7. The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for re-imbursement of rent and utilities following a decant. This is because it failed to provide the resident with its decant policy which it relied upon in its complaint response and it failed to reference the relevant terms of lease agreement in response to the complaint. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for re-imbursement of rent and utilities following a temporary move.

Orders

  1. It is ordered for the landlord, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, to consider its lease agreement and write to the resident providing its position in respect of the suspension of rent as stated in paragraph 10.
  2. If the landlord finds any re-imbursement is due, it should provide the resident with its calculation and provide re-imbursement within 8 weeks of the date of this report.