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

Orbit Group Limited (202109503)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109503

Orbit Group Limited

6 January 2023


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.

Complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to a request to replace the flooring due to damage caused by a leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident reported to the landlord on 18 December 2020 that she had dampness in the property from “floor to ceiling”. This was identified on 17 February 2021 as being due to a leak from the roof, which had caused a crack in the ceiling. The leak had damaged the laminate flooring in the property. Following the repair to the ceiling, the resident received inconsistent information about whether the landlord would replace her flooring.
  2. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord which it responded to on 20 May 2021. It acknowledged that it had delayed in completing work to the ceiling and that it had not provided accurate information to her about replacement of the flooring. The landlord said that the flooring was the resident’s responsibility and suggested that she claim on her home contents insurance for this. It offered her £390 compensation for the delay to the repair, miscommunication, and distress and inconvenience.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord as she believed it was responsible for replacing her flooring, as this resulted from the roof leak. It responded on 20 August 2021 to repeat its previous offer of compensation but agreed to “re-evaluate” its decision to replace the flooring on receipt of quotes for replacement.
  4. Two quotes were obtained by the resident in September 2021, and the landlord confirmed on 22 October 2021 that it had decided to replace the flooring in-house instead.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint as the landlord failed to replace the flooring as agreed. She later confirmed to the Ombudsman that the flooring repair had been completed around October 2022. She seeks additional compensation for the delay in the landlord carrying out the actions agreed in its complaint response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to a request to replace the flooring due to damage caused by a leak

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. This includes the walls, ceilings and floors of the property. As such, the landlord was responsible for resolving the leak.
  2. Its repairs responsibilities document confirms that it is only responsible for the floor coverings in the bathrooms, and the floor coverings in kitchens if these were supplied by the landlord.
  3. A landlord is obliged to respond to a report of a leak within a ‘reasonable timeframe’. A landlord may become responsible for any damage caused by a leak if it fails to carry out its repairing obligation within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s stage one response to the complaint recognised that there had been delays in the handing of the leak, and it is not disputed that the leak damaged the resident’s flooring. As such, and regardless of the repairs responsibilities document, the landlord should have considered putting right any damage caused by the leak from the point at which its failure to comply with its repair obligation started. It therefore was unreasonable that the landlord initially said that the flooring was the resident’s responsibility and suggested that she claim on her home contents insurance for this.
  4. However, it did then agree to reconsider the replacement of the flooring in its final stage complaint response on 20 August 2021, which was appropriate. It confirmed on 22 October 2021 that it would carry out the replacement of the flooring in-house, and at this point the landlord assumed responsibility for this work and for delivering the outcomes promised via its complaint process.
  5. As the landlord had taken responsibility for the replacement of the flooring, it would then be expected fulfil this commitment within a reasonable timeframe. Given that this was not an emergency repair, as there was no evidence that it was posing an immediate hazard, the Ombudsman would expect the repair to treated as a routine repair with a completion timeframe of 28 calendar days. This timeframe is in line with best practice across the industry.
  6. After the resident reported a non-attendance on 11 November 2021 in relation to the flooring, the landlord’s records the following day noted that two appointments to measure up for this had not been kept. It informed the resident that it would seek an update, of which there was no evidence of it providing to her, necessitating her chasing it on 24 November 2021. The landlord informed the resident the following day that it had arranged for an inspection by its surveyor which went ahead on 3 December 2021. It attended again on 8 December 2021 to measure another room, which she did not expect, leading her to seek clarification from the landlord.
  7. The resident sought intervention from the Ombudsman on 24 January 2022 and the landlord booked an appointment for the work on 26 May 2022, which was also not kept by its contractors. The resident also sought intervention from her MP who contacted the landlord on 1 June 2022. The landlord then attended on 8 June 2022 to provide flooring samples and measure the floor. The resident then chased the landlord for updates on 23 June and 5 August 2022. She requested involvement from the Ombudsman again on 1 September 2022 before confirming to this Service on 10 October 2022 that the flooring replacement was complete.
  8. If a landlord commits to an action, whether it was originally outside its obligation or not, it would be expected to keep to its agreement. From the date of the landlord’s final stage complaint response on 20 August 2021, and the resident confirming to this Service that the flooring had been replaced, a period of 14 months elapsed. This was an excessive and unreasonable delay in the landlord providing the outcome that had been agreed via its complaint process. The above events illustrate that excess effort was required of the resident before the landlord carried out the actions agreed via its complaint process, which would have caused her time and trouble, inconvenience, and frustration.
  9. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for awards of £100 to £600 compensation where there has been a failure which had an adverse effect on the resident, but no permanent impact. In light of the adverse effect experienced by the resident over the course of a year compensation of £300 should be paid to her. This is in addition to the £390 compensation the landlord already offered in its final stage complaint response (which should also be paid, if this has not already been done).

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage one of this procedure, it should respond to a complaint within ten working days; at the final stage it should acknowledge the complaint within three working days and respond within 20 working days. If it is unable to meet these timeframes, it should contact the resident to explain why and provide an updated timeframe.
  2. The resident made her stage one complaint on 27 April 2021, and the landlord provided its response on 20 May 2021, after 16 working days, which was outside the timeframe specified in its policy. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 June 2021, which the landlord acknowledged on 27 July 2021 and responded to on 20 August 2021. This was 56 working days later. There was no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident during either stage to explain why its responses would be late. This was a failing, which necessitated her first seeking intervention from the Ombudsman on 20 July 2021.
  3. Furthermore, when the landlord was contacted by this Service, on 1 November 2021, to request the final response to the complaint, it advised that its response would not be due until 15 November 2021. The Ombudsman requested on 15 and 23 February 2022 that it provide its final response. Further requests were made to the landlord before it provided the final complaint response on 26 August 2022. It confirmed on 13 September 2022 that the final response was correctly dated 20 August 2021.
  4. The above events were a further failure by the landlord in the handling of the complaint. It was unreasonable for the landlord to provide the final stage complaint response after a year, despite multiple requests from the Ombudsman. Its delay in producing the final complaint response delayed the consideration of the resident’s complaint by this Service and therefore hindered the resolution of the complaint sooner.
  5. For its failures in the handling of the complaint, the landlord should pay compensation of £150 to the resident. This is to recognise the inconvenience caused to her by its excessive delay in facilitating the consideration of the complaint, and its delays in responding at both stages of the complaints process in accordance with its policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in:
    1. Its response to a request to replace the flooring due to damage caused by a leak.
    2. Its handling of the associated complaint.

 

 

Orders

  1. With one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay £890 compensation to the resident, comprised of the £390 offered in the landlord’s response to the complaint, £350 in relation to the delay in replacing the flooring as agreed, and £150 for the failings in the complaint handling (the £390 can be deducted from this total if it has already been paid).
    2. Review its processes for the management of repairs and confirm to the Ombudsman what changes it has/will put in place to prevent excessive delays occurring in future.
    3. Review its complaints handling processes and confirm to the Ombudsman what steps it will take to ensure that timely responses are provided to residents and this Service in respect of complaints.