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

Orbit Group Limited (202306179)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306179

Orbit Group Limited

12 July 2024


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 handling of repairs following a leak, including reports of damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the housing association landlord since 2018 and the property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. The resident’s household have multiple health vulnerabilities: the resident has mobility issues, her children have learning difficulties, breathing difficulties and allergies, autism and sensory processing disorder, and they are registered as disabled.

Summary of events

  1. The resident reported damage to the floor in the hallway, kitchen and living room to the landlord on 9 November 2022, stating that this happened as a result of a contractor’s action in respect of another repair. She repeated her report to an out of hours contractor that attended a repair for an uncontainable leak on 16 November 2022. The contractor that had attended that day reattached a mains pipe which resolved the leak and set out urgent remedial work to the floor. A dehumidifier was arranged on 18 November 2022 to manage the moisture levels due to the leak.
  2. Make safe works were carried out, but full repairs to the floor remained outstanding. The landlord repeated the work order on 23 November 2022, at the same time as the resident’s initial complaint about the delays. The resident repeated her complaint on 15 December 2022 stating that she was given a timescale of 3 months for major works but this should have been an emergency repair due to the vulnerabilities of the household. She also complained about the cost of running the dehumidifier over a 2 week period.
  3. Work was subsequently arranged by the landlord for 23 December 2022. This was initially postponed and ultimately not completed, though the landlord chased this with its contractors. The landlord issued the resident with several holding responses following her chasers about the complaint and delays during this period, stating that it could not conclude the stage 1 complaint investigation yet as works were not completed.
  4. The landlord’s contractor attended on 10 January 2023 but did not complete the works as the scope of the work was greater than initially thought. This was in relation to the floor in the living room, hallway, and kitchen, as well as mould in the kitchen cupboards. The landlord was unable to immediately confirm the scope of works but agreed to provide regular communication with the resident in January 2023. 
  5. On 13 January 2023 the resident escalated her complaint about the delays. She stated that there should have been an emergency repair in November 2022 but it had been outstanding for 2 months and she had found the ordeal traumatic and distressing. They were left with uneven floor surfaces and had to wear shoes indoors and generally could not enjoy the property fully. Further, her son had allergies to dust and mould and they were all asthmatic. She repeated her concern about the costs of running the dehumidifiers and asked about decant options.
  6. The landlord spoke to the resident on 30 January 2023 and noted the recent visits and inspections that had taken place but that no permanent repairs had been done. It noted further reports by the resident of missed appointments, missed communication, unsuccessful chasers for repairs and updates, and a new report of a leak on 27 January 2023.
  7. The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 15 February 2023. In addition to confirming the ongoing leak beneath the kitchen sink area, it found high levels of damp and mould and outlined remedial work to the floors and kitchen units.
  8. On 3 March 2023 the resident called the landlord to escalate her complaint, stating that she was unhappy with the level of communication. The landlord noted that it had not completed the original floor repairs within its target timescale of 3 months as this was first raised on 9 November 2022. It also noted the delayed complaint response since this was first raised on 23 November 2022. Some works were carried out to the floor in early March 2023 but not to the kitchen area.
  9. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 7 March 2023, stating that:
    1. The original repairs had a target timescale of 3 months, following the resident’s report on 9 November 2022. However, there were delays due to additional inspections and additional work orders needing to be authorised.
    2. The work to the floor was completed on 6 March 2023; a work order for the kitchen replacement was approved on 3 March 2023 and it would be in contact about when this would commence.
    3. Due to the repairs not being within service levels and poor contact the landlord upheld the complaint and offered £995 compensation (£555 for the duration of repairs and delays; £50 for the cost of a dehumidifier; £150 for the delay in the complaint and communication; and £200 for distress and inconvenience).
  10. On 7 March 2023 the resident repeated her complaint and reported that the kitchen work was incomplete. The landlord raised orders on 28 March 2023 for major works to the kitchen.
  11. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 June 2023 and repeated her original concerns. An inspection took place on 13 June 2023 and the landlord decanted the resident from 14 to 26 June 2023. Work was carried out between 23 June and 13 July 2023.
  12. The landlord issued several holding responses in response to the resident’s escalations in March 2023, before issuing a final complaint response on 6 July 2023, as follows:
    1. It had raised major works on 28 March 2023 but there were still some delays and the next appointment to complete work was 10 July 2023.
    2. It upheld the complaint and revised its offer of compensation to £1,245 (£555 as offered in the stage 1; £50 as offered in the stage 1 for the dehumidifier; £200 for complaint handling at stage 2; £300 for distress and inconvenience; and £140 for service failure).
  13. In escalating her complaint to this Service, the resident confirmed that the repairs have been completed but she remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation. This is due to the overall impact and distress from the delays, the household’s health and wellbeing, living with repairs for 6 months before being decanted, and the landlord’s failure to take everything into account.
  14. In December 2023 there was a new report of a leak, which appears to have been addressed in January 2024. The landlord issued a second stage 2 response in December 2023 but this related to new issues and have not therefore been taken into account.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord’s repair service from November 2022 to July 2023 has been assessed in this investigation as this reflects the period associated with the formal complaint which has been brought to this Service. New repair concerns should be raised with the landlord first as a new complaint so that it has the opportunity to investigate and resolve matters internally in the first instance (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme).

The landlord’s handling of repairs following a leak, including reports of damp and mould

  1. The Tenancy Agreement states that the landlord will repair and make good drains, gutters, external pipes, internal floors and skirting boards, and water pipes inside the premises, within a reasonable time, based on the urgency of the repair. The landlord has not disputed its repairing responsibilities.
  2. The landlord’s Responsive Repair Policy sets out its target timescale of 28 days for routine repairs which are non-emergency responsive repairs, 90 days for major works which are those requiring different trades, specialists, or contractors, and 24 hours for emergency works which are those that pose an immediate risk to health and safety.
  3. From the outset of the complaint the resident disagreed with the timeframe the landlord set for the repairs which was 3 months for major works. The resident cited her household’s vulnerabilities as the ground for work to be expedited. The original contractor’s assessment in November 2022 set out that the remedial work to the floor was urgent, and while evidence suggests that make safe works were duly completed, the dispute remained over the overall timeframe for floor replacement and kitchen works.
  4. The landlord failed to adequately address the resident’s request for work to be completed sooner than 3 months. It would have been resolution focused for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations and engage with any opportunity to discuss how it could make adjustments for the household, or expedite the repairs if needed/possible, and any interim support it could provide.
  5. There was no such discussion and the resident ultimately chased the repairs without much success from November 2022 onwards. The landlord failed to address the resident’s report about the decant which she raised in January 2023, until June 2023. The resident experienced unreasonable delays in the landlord’s communication and prioritisation of repairs, despite clearly communicating her concerns about the timeframe and her household’s vulnerabilities. This was unreasonable. The landlord should have provided her with an action plan, after carrying out a risk assessment as per its Responsive Repair Policy terms for repairs involving damp and mould as soon as it became aware of the repair and the vulnerabilities.
  6. In respect of the reports of damp and mould, the repair records identified the risk of mould resulting from water ingress. While the landlord promptly provided a dehumidifier to manage the moisture levels in November 2022, it did not inspect the property until February 2023, 3 months after the reports of the leak. This was not reasonable as the household vulnerabilities were known to the landlord, particularly reports of asthma, allergies and breathing difficulties.
  7. In the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould: It’s Not Lifestyle it is recommended that landlords respond to damp and mould reports in a timely manner to reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord did not do that in this case. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that, following a report of damp and mould, it will carry out a risk assessment and determine repairs in line with its Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy, which it failed to evidence. Therefore, the landlord failed to respond reasonably and in line with its repairing obligations. 
  8. The landlord ultimately repaired the floor in the hallway and living room 2 months after the target timescale (completed in March 2023) and the kitchen floor and units 4 to 5 months after the target timescale (completed in June to July 2023). It included combined remedial works to the additional leaks identified in its inspection during the period with the original scope of works that it carried out in June and July 2023, but failed to clearly communicate its action plan to the resident. Therefore, there were service failures by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of repairs, including damp and mould, which it did not dispute. 
  9. The Ombudsman has considered the level of compensation offered by the landlord with reference to its Compensation Policy, and this Service’s Remedies Guidance. In calculating compensation the landlord took into account: the failings in its repair service; its poor communication; a contribution to the cost of running the dehumidifier; and the distress and inconvenience caused. This was in line with its Compensation Policy which states that it will award compensation, on a discretionary basis, where there has been a service failure and taking into account distress and inconvenience and the standard of living conditions due to delays in repair services.
  10. The 8 month period between November 2022 and July 2023 (when the works were ultimately completed) constitutes an unreasonable delay of 5 months beyond the target repair timescales. The Ombudsman would award £500 for the overall service failures (approximately £100 per month) plus £250 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble due to the family’s vulnerabilities.
  11. This is within the amount the landlord has awarded (£1,045) which it has calculated as redress for the service failures and their impact. It also openly acknowledged and recognised its failure in both the repair service and its communication about the issues. Therefore, it offered financial redress which was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
  12. The landlord’s contribution to the dehumidifier was appropriate given the resident’s complaint about this, and in recognition of the failure to complete the repairs as promptly as it should have done. The resident did not provide a specific breakdown or evidence of the running costs during the complaint period, so in all the circumstances of the case, the landlord’s contribution was reasonable as it recognised its part in the delays. Therefore, overall the landlord awarded reasonable redress for the identified service failures. 

Complaint handling

  1. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that landlords must respond to complaints within a reasonable timescale, specifically within 10 working days at stage 1 after acknowledging the complaint within 5 working days, and 20 working days at stage 2. The Code also sets out the principles of good practice in complaint handling, including that access to the complaint process should be easy, and that landlords should resolve complaints at the earliest possible opportunity.
  2. The stage 1 response was issued in March 2023, 4 months after it was first raised in November 2022. The stage 2 response was provided in July 2023, 3 months after it was escalated in March 2023 and one month after the resident escalated it for the second time in June 2023. While the landlord took some steps to manage expectations by providing holding responses, these timeframes were unreasonable. The landlord should have focused on issuing substantive responses within target timescales and it has not explained why it failed to do this.
  3. Where the landlord is unable to confirm a completion date for repair works, it should nonetheless offer an action plan in respect of outstanding work, rather than delay its response as it did at stage 1. This is so that the resident has clarity and understanding of what to expect, while allowing the landlord to identify and remedy any issues in its service without unnecessary delays. In this case, the resident experienced time and trouble in chasing open ended complaints, which was unreasonable.
  4. Accordingly, there was service failure, which the landlord recognised. The Ombudsman would award £250 for the time and trouble for the service failures in the complaint handling. This is within the overall compensation that the landlord has awarded in £200 for the complaint handling failure specifically and  £300 overall for the impact. Therefore, the landlord has awarded sufficient financial redress in response to its service failure and detriment caused in respect of the complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress for its handling of:
    1. Repairs following a leak, including reports of damp and mould.
    2. The formal complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged the service failures and the resulting impact, and offered proportionate redress in respect of both the repair delays and its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to, if it has not done so already:
    1. Pay the resident the £1,245 compensation offered during the complaints process.
    2. Carry out training with its complaint staff in respect of the Code which is available on the Ombudsman’s website: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/the-code-2024/