Orbit Housing Association Limited (202313975)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313975

Orbit Housing Association Limited

11 April 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 resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the communal roof.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association. She has lived in the property for approximately 19 years. The property is a 2-bedroom, first–floor flat in a low-rise residential building. The landlord confirmed it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
The resident complained to the landlord on 30 March 2023. She said that:
1. On 19 December 2022 she had reported a communal roofing repair. Despite chasing updates on several occasions, the works remained outstanding and posed a safety risk.
2. She had reported issues with fly tipping in the communal bin area “over the years”. To prevent the issue from recurring, she had asked the landlord to install lockable doors to the bin area. However, she alleged that it had not taken any action.
3. The landlord had ignored her previous requests to make a formal complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 24 April 2023. It said:
1. It had assessed the timeline of events. It found that the repair contractor attended all roofing appointments, and the works were completed on 23 February 2023. It therefore did not uphold this element of the resident’s complaint.
2. As it could not identify that the resident had previously raised any concerns regarding the communal bin area, it did not uphold this element of her complaint. However, it had organised for its property manager to arrange for the requested works to be carried out.
3. It was unable to locate the resident’s complaints that she had raised online. However, it apologised for failing to respond to a complaint that she raised on 20 February 2023. It upheld this element of her complaint and offered £35 compensation.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 24 April 2023. She said that when she reported the repair in December 2022, she told the landlord that roof tiles were missing at the top of the building and above the entrance to the front door of the building. She noted that it had fixed the roof tiles at the top of the building (though this was delayed). However, she said the tile repair above the entrance door was outstanding and required priority action. She also stated that the landlord’s stage 1 response did not acknowledge the amount of phone calls she had made in relation to the roof repair.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 June 2023. It said:
1. The roof tile issue was first reported to it in December 2022. A 24-hour emergency repair was raised to make safe and assess the area. The works were then completed in February 2023.
2. It had since raised further repairs on 4 May 2023. However, it had incorrectly raised the repairs on a different block of flats, so when the repair contractor attended on 18 May 2023, no works were undertaken. It had raised the repair correctly on 22 May 2023 and all roof repairs were completed on 9 June 2023.
3. It was sorry for the inconvenience the delays had caused the resident, and it upheld her complaint.
4. It offered the resident a £100 in compensation (bringing its total offer to £135). The additional offer was in recognition of its delays in responding to her stage 2 complaint.

Events after the end of the complaints process

The resident contacted the landlord on 3 occasions between 24 June 2023 and 13 August 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response and asked for further clarification on some issues she had raised.
The landlord responded to the resident’s emails on 15 August 2023 and advised her that it would review the issues and send a “post stage 2 review”.
On 11 October 2023, the landlord wrote a “stage 2 review” letter. It said:
1. It apologised to the resident for its poor communication in relation to the roof repairs. Her concerns had highlighted areas for improvement, and it was committed to enhancing its provision to provide a more seamless service.
2. The resident’s repair that she raised on 19 December 2022 was logged on a 24-hour work ticket. This was cancelled and raised again on a 4-hour emergency timescale.
3. It acknowledged the delays in completing the roof repairs and the resident’s frustration that the tiles above the entrance were not repaired until 9 June 2023.
4. It increased its offer of compensation from £135 to £235. The additional £100 was calculated as follows:
  1. £50 for failing to keep the resident informed of “any progress”.
  2. £50 for failing to address issues in its complaint responses.
The resident later told us that she did not receive the landlord’s stage 2 review. The landlord has not provided any documentary evidence to show that it sent the resident the letter.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it investigated and responded to an issue regarding the communal bin area. The resident did not raise the issue within her stage 2 escalation request and has told us that she was specifically dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof repairs and the associated complaint handing. As a result, our investigation has focused on those issues only.
The landlord’s subsequent compensation award in October 2023 is both welcome and significant. However, as it was made 4 months after it had issued its stage 2 response, it cannot be fairly considered part of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure (ICP). This means we cannot use its offer to reach a reasonable redress finding. We will, however, assess this within the complaint handling section of this report.

Handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal roof

The lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it categorises repairs as either ‘emergency’ or ‘routine’ priority. It carries out emergency repairs (including making safe temporarily) within 4 or 24 hours. Routine repairs are undertaken within 28 calendar days. The landlord uses contractors to deliver repair services to leasehold and shared ownership properties.
For context, during the relevant period, repairs to the communal roof were also reported by neighbours of the resident who reside in the building. While we are specifically assessing the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports, the other reports also provide important context in this case, as there were health and safety risks associated with it.
When a resident reports a communal repair, the landlord raises the work order on its system for the “block”, rather than on the account of the person or property that reported it. The repair history supplied by the landlord does not always show who reported a repair. This is a record keeping failure in its handling of the repair and has made it difficult for us to assess certain aspects of the case. We would expect the landlord to have processes in place to appropriately capture the details of who has reported communal repairs. Additionally, while we acknowledge that the landlord may not be able to inform residents of repairs to communal areas in its usual way (via text message or email), it should be able to provide residents with updates on repairs to their building upon request.
The resident first reported an issue with the communal roof at 10am on 19 December 2022. The landlord’s internal records show she reported that some tiles from the main roof of the block had fallen off and landed over the main entrance to the building. She was concerned that more tiles were going to fall and cause an injury. The landlord raised a repair on a 24-hour priority. A neighbour, who also resided in the building, reported the same repair later in the day (approximately 1pm). They confirmed that the tiles had fallen off the main roof onto the smaller roof above the main entrance. This was raised on a 4-hour priority response and the resident’s initial repair was closed as a duplicate. This was appropriate and showed that the landlord was taking the health and safety concerns seriously.
The landlord’s repair contractor attended the building around midnight on the evening of 19 December 2022. The repair was therefore not attended to within the allocated 4-hour priority. Given the concerns raised by the resident and her neighbour about the area being unsafe, the delay was unreasonable.
The date stamped records show that the operative was on site for approximately 15 minutes. Records from the following day stated that the operative “could not do anything” as it was dark. They said that the contractor needed to reattend as soon as possible with a specialist ladder as the tiles were “falling randomly and could kill [someone]”.
On 20 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to request an update on what action it was taking. From the evidence provided, it is unclear what the landlord informed the resident at this time, which is a further record keeping failure.
The evidence suggests that the repair contractor reattended the building between 8pm and 10pm on the evening of 20 December 2022. Given that the operative had been unable to undertake any repairs the previous evening because it was dark, we find it inappropriate that a follow–up appointment was not arranged during daylight hours. Also, as there was a serious health and safety issue raised, we find that failing to attend for almost a further 24 hours was inadequate. We would expect the landlord to have processes in place to swiftly identify urgent issues raised during call-out the previous day.
The operative’s photographs from 20 December 2022 showed a large quantity of smashed tiles on the entrance roof above the building and on the ground. The operative’s notes stated that the “roof is bad” and that it had deteriorated from the previous day. The operative “made safe as best [they] could”, erected a wooden fixture beneath where the tiles were falling, and stated that roofers were needed “as soon as possible”. This was appropriate and showed that the repair contractor had attempted to make the area safe.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 January 2023 to request an update on the repair. The landlord informed her that the repair contractor was due to attend that day between 8am and 5pm. From the records provided, it is not clear if this appointment went ahead.
The resident contacted the landlord via telephone on 24 January 2023 to advise that the roofing repair above the front door was outstanding and to request an update on the action it was taking to resolve the issue. We have not had sight of any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident, which was inappropriate. The importance of effective communication is highlighted, particularly in relation to safety-related matters.
A further repair was reported at approximately 2.30pm on 30 January 2023, and a 24-hour emergency response was raised by the landlord. The notes stated that the repairs to the main roof and entrance roof were “loose and dangerous”. The landlord could not confirm who raised this repair, which is a further record keeping failure in its handling of the repairs.
The repair contractor attended to the repair at approximately 6am on 31 January 2023. This was appropriate, as it was within the timescales outlined in the landlord’s repair policy. The date stamped photographs showed that the tiles were still broken on the roof above the entrance and the coving stones were still missing at the top of the building. The contractor’s operative noted that scaffolding was required as soon as possible to relay the coving stones at the top of the building “that could fall at any time”, and stated that once that work was completed, the contractor could repair the porch roof. Given that 6 weeks had passed since the resident had first reported the repair, we find it unreasonable and at odds with the landlord’s repairs policy that, at this point, the repairs were no closer to being resolved.
The following day (1 February 2023), a follow-on repair was raised to undertake the works. The evidence suggests that the roof repair to the main building was completed on 23 February 2023. As the landlord was aware that the entrance roof tiles were also damaged, we find it inappropriate that it failed to repair this area also. Its actions are indicative of a lack of oversight and poor communication with its repair contractors.
On 24 April 2023, in reply to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the resident informed it that the repairs above the entrance door were outstanding. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, the landlord said that it raised the outstanding repairs on 4 May 2023. This was a further delay of 7 working days to raise the repairs, which we find unreasonable. While we have not seen any documentary evidence, the landlord informed the resident that it raised the outstanding repairs incorrectly on its systems. This caused additional unnecessary delays for the resident and is a further failure in relation to its management of information.
The communal roof repairs were completed on 9 June 2023. This was 25 weeks (nearly 6 months) from the date that the resident first reported the repair. This was an excessive delay, and significantly at odds with the timescales outlined the landlord’s repairs policy.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said that it upheld the resident’s complaint and “agreed” that the length of time taken to resolve the matter was unacceptable. However, it did not offer her any compensation in recognition of its failures. This was again at odds with its compensation policy, which says it will consider compensation if the duration of an issue has caused avoidable distress or inconvenience to a resident.
Overall, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal roof. This is because:
1. It failed to comply with its repair timescales on several occasions and took 25 weeks to fully complete the repairs to the communal roof.
2. Its communication with the resident was lacking.
3. Its record keeping was poor.
4. It failed to put things right by offering an appropriate amount of compensation.
An order of compensation has been calculated in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our own remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are also to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), states that landlords must make it easy for residents to complain. The resident informed the landlord that she had made a complaint via its website on 7 and 8 February 2023. She said that her complaints had gone “missing” and that the landlord’s webpage was “dire when it came to making complaints and finding contact details”. Within the landlord’s complaint responses it said that it had no record of the resident’s complaint forms. While we do not dispute the resident’s claims, we have been unable to make an assessment of this aspect. This is because we must base our findings on documentary evidence. However, given the resident’s comments, we find that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate the potential technical issues further. It could reasonably have assured the resident that it had taken her feedback on board and that its website was working correctly (if this was the case).
On 20 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again to make a complaint. The evidence shows that the landlord closed the resident’s request on its internal systems the following day (21 February 2023) without contacting her first. This was inappropriate and at odds with the Code, which states that landlords must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. The landlord acknowledged this failing within its stage 1 complaint response and awarded the resident £35 compensation. For this failure alone, we find that this was a reasonable offer and was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
The resident made a further complaint on 30 March 2023. As she did not receive a response from the landlord, she contacted it again on 9 and 20 April 2023. We find the landlord’s lack of response inappropriate, and the importance of effective communication during the complaints process is highlighted.
The evidence suggests that the landlord contacted the resident via telephone on 20 April 2023 with regard to her complaint. The Code stipulates that records of all correspondence with the resident regarding the complaint must be kept. However, we have not had sight of any documentary evidence of this call, which is a record keeping failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint via email on 24 April 2023. Taking the bank holidays into account, this was 15 working days after the resident had complained. This was unreasonable and at odds with the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.
The landlord then issued its stage 1 complaint response the same day (24 April 2023). This was appropriate and in line with the timescales outlined in the Code.
Although not obligated to do so, it is good practice for landlords to provide a timeline of events for the substantive issue within formal complaint responses. This allows them to demonstrate that they have undertaken a comprehensive investigation and considered all the facts within the case. As explained earlier in the report, we found numerous failings in the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs. We find that the landlord’s failure to undertake a thorough investigation in this case meant it missed an opportunity to award the resident compensation that she was due. It also shows that the landlord was failing to learn adequately from its complaints.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 24 April 2023. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident on 27 April 2023 and advised her that it would escalate her complaint to its stage 2 review team. The landlord then formally acknowledged the complaint on 11 May 2023. Taking into account the bank holidays, this was 12 working days later. Similarly to the stage 1 acknowledgement, we find this unreasonable and at odds with the landlord’s complaints policy. However, it is noted that within the landlord’s acknowledgement, it apologised for the delay and explained that it was “receiving a high number of enquiries”. It was appropriate for it to provide an explanation.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it may need to extend its response time if further investigation is needed, and this would be done in agreement with the resident. The Code (2022) allowed for a stage 2 extension of 10 working days, and if a longer extension was required, it should be agreed by both parties. On 12 June 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it would need to extend the deadline to answer her complaint. Given that 32 working days had already passed since the date the resident requested to escalate her complaint (and therefore had exceeded the landlord’s policy timescales), we find that the landlord should have informed her sooner that it required further time to investigate her complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 June 2023. Taking into account the bank holidays, this was 39 working days from the date the resident requested to escalate her complaint, which exceeded the timescales permitted in the applicable Code. The landlord offered the resident £100 at stage 2 (a combined offer of £135) for its complaint handling. This was in recognition of the delays in issuing the stage 2 complaint. For this failure alone, we find this was a reasonable offer from the landlord.
As part of the stage 2 complaint investigation, the resident asked the landlord to consider how many times she had contacted it about the roofing repairs and to provide her with copies of the calls she had made to it. As the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns within its stage 2 response or advise her to submit a subject access request (SAR) if deemed appropriate, we find that the landlord acted unreasonably. Its omission may have undermined the resident’s confidence in its complaints process.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, we find it unreasonable that it failed to respond to the resident’s emails on 24 June 2023 and 16 July 2023. The importance of effective communication is again highlighted.
As mentioned earlier, as part of the landlord’s evidence submission, it provided us with a “stage 2 review” letter addressed to the resident on 11 October 2023. We find the landlord’s 8-week delay in responding to the resident was unreasonable. However, it is our opinion that the letter was comprehensive and provided answers to the resident that were lacking in the previous complaint responses. Nevertheless, as the resident informed us that she had not received the letter, we asked the landlord to provide us with documentary evidence that it had sent it to her. As it was unable to do so, this is a failure in its record keeping processes, and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the resident did not receive the letter. Following our instruction, the landlord provided a copy to the resident on 10 April 2025.
Within the stage 2 review response, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £235 (from £135). It said £50 was in recognition of its failure to address the issues appropriately in its previous complaint responses. The other £50 was in recognition of its failure to keep the resident informed of “any progress”. While not obliged to do so, it is good practice for landlords to explain to its residents how much they have awarded for each investigated complaint point. As it did not clarify if the £50 offer was in relation to the roof repair or complaint, we find its communication confusing. However, as it did not reference the repairs, it is reasonable to assume that the offer was also for its complaint handling.
While the additional offer of compensation is welcomed, it amounts to a further complaint handling failure, as we expect landlords to aim to put things right for their residents during their formal complaint process. It is appropriate for landlords to review their actions in light of new information or to reflect the growing impact of a continued issue over time. However, when a landlord increases its offer with the apparent aim of avoiding investigation by us and/or a more serious finding of failure, this cannot be considered reasonable redress even if the increased award is proportionate.
Overall, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint because:
1. It repeatedly failed to adhere to its complaint handling timescales.
2. Its communication with the resident was poor.
3. Its record keeping was poor.
4. The amount of compensation offered during the ICP was low and failed to account for all the failings identified within this report.
The landlord’s post stage 2 compensation offer is considered sufficient, and payment of this amount has been ordered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £585 compensation. This must be paid directly to her and is made up as follows:
  1. £350 for its handling of her reports of repairs to the communal roof.
  2. £235 for its handling of her complaint. This includes the £135 previously offered by the landlord during its ICP, and the additional £100 it offered post stage 2.
  3. If any of the £235 has been paid, it can be deducted from the total of £585. For the avoidance of doubt, this would mean £350 is due to the resident.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Familiarises itself with the Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge Information Management (KIM), if it has not already done so. It should use the recommendations in the report to inform its future record keeping practices and aid service delivery.
2. Arranges training for relevant staff involved in complaint handling via the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution e-learning. This should be done with the aim of ensuring that:
  1. Complaints are acknowledged and responded to within the timescales outlined in the Code.
  2. Complaint investigations include a comprehensive review of all relevant records.
  3. Compensation is offered to residents in accordance with its own policy and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.