Orbit Group Limited (201909990)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909990

Orbit Group Limited

17 June 2021

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of a defective boiler.
2. Complaint Handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the shared owner of a new build two-bedroomed flat with the landlord. She purchased a share of the property in early 2019.
The homeowners guide for shared owners says in respect of repair responsibilities that shared owners are responsible for repairs and maintenance within the property. However, for the first 12 months after the practical completion date (that is, the moving in date), the building contractor is responsible for repairs that arise because of defective work under the building contract. The guide says, during this period, the defects should be reported to the customer service team and will be dealt with by the building contractor.
The certificate of insurance shows that the defect liability period ran from 28 March 2019 to 28 March 2020.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. At both stages the landlord aims to respond within ten working days.
From January 2021 the new Housing Ombudsman Scheme allowed for Complaint Handling Failure Orders to be issued. The purpose of complaint handling failure orders is to ensure that a landlord’s complaint handling process is accessible, consistent and enables the timely progression of complaints for residents. From July 2020 to January 2021 the Ombudsman was alerting landlords to instances where a failure order would have been issued (a shadow complaint handling failure order), to allow the landlords to adjust policies and procedures prior to January 2021.

Summary of events

On 17 July 2019 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She said that she had expected some teething problems when moving into a new build and expressed concerns about the defects she had raised. In relation to the boiler, she said that:
1. On 24 June 2019 she reported to the building contractor that the boiler was still losing pressure after an engineer from the manufacturer had replaced the heat exchanger and checked that everything was in working order. They said she would be contacted within a week.
2. She called the landlord on 6 July 2019 and it said it would contact the building contractor and someone would be in touch within 24 hours.
3. She chased this up on 10 July 2019 and the landlord sent someone round from the site who looked and said it was a problem with the boiler.
4. The boiler manufacturer arranged a visit for one of its engineers to attend on 17 July 2019.
5. On 17 July 2019 the engineer could not find a leak with the boiler and stated it must be a problem within the heating system itself. The resident said she reported this problem to the landlord that day. She said she had had to take several days off to accommodate visits to repair the various defects, which included the boiler.
On 18 October 2019 the building contractor told the landlord that the defects had been repaired and all internal decorations and making good had been completed in August 2019.
On 23 November 2019 the resident told the Ombudsman that she had been left with no heating or hot water from 7 June to 5 August 2019. She said that the wall had to be taken down to get to the leak and then fix it. The resident added that she lived 45 minutes away from her family and had to travel there to shower.
On 12 December 2019, following contact from this Service, the landlord wrote to the resident saying it had raised a formal complaint from her.
On 10 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one response under its formal complaints procedure. It said the resident had contacted it shortly after moving into the property to make it aware of several issues. It said it understood these matters had been resolved. It said, if this was not the case, then to contact it in order to raise the necessary repairs for her. (The landlord added that a subsequent repair to the boiler was raised on 22 January 2020 and had since been resolved.)
The landlord explained that it could not consider compensation as the repairs were the responsibility of the building contractor and advised her to complain to them. The landlord apologised for service she had received during this time. They explained that the time between snagging and completion and then re-inspection, was called the “defects liability period” and this would have been specified in the building contract. It said that the way building contracts were drafted was intended to be beneficial to both sides; the defects period on the property was two years. The landlord did not uphold the complaint as all repairs/defects were covered by the building contractor whilst the property was still in its defects period. The landlord explained how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
On 15 May 2020 the resident complained to the building contractor saying that the landlord had identified that the repairs she reported were their responsibility. She said she was left without a working boiler for eight weeks from June to August 2019. She said it took two weeks for the building contractor to contact her despite her chasing this up with the landlord twice during that time. The resident said that she did not have hot water and had to take unpaid leave so that she was available for a total of five appointments with them and the gas engineer.
On 18 May 2020 the building contractor told the resident that they were sorry that she had had a problem with her boiler and that there had been delays resolving it. They apologised also for the distress this had caused her but said it could not offer compensation as its obligation was to rectify any valid defects that arose within the two-year warranty period.
On 19 May 2020 the resident told the building contractor that she agreed the problem with the boiler was rectified, but not in a timely manner. She said she felt that eight weeks without heating and hot water was not acceptable.
On 20 May 2020 the building contractor told the resident that the paperwork the landlord provided in the home-owners pack should had provided all details relating to the warranties relating to any defects at the property. They said they were sorry that the resident had been dissatisfied and agreed that the time it took to repair the boiler was unacceptable. However, they could not agree to compensate the resident as it was not their company policy to do so. They apologised for the frustration caused to her.
On 23 July 2020, following contact with the landlord, this Service asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint.
On 14 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident at the final stage of its complaints procedure. It apologised for the time taken to review her complaint. The landlord said that, while the repairs raised occurred in the defect period and therefore were the responsibility of the building contractor, it apologised and offered £150 for the delay in the repairs being completed as a goodwill gesture. The landlord also apologised that the compensation form that it had sent the resident had contained an incorrect name. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
The resident did not receive that complaint response. On 19 November 2020 the Ombudsman issued a shadow complaint handling failure order to the landlord. It said that, despite chasing the landlord, the resident had not received a copy of that final response. The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to provide a copy of that response the resident and it did so the same day by email.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said that she wanted the landlord to take responsibility for its actions. She said the boiler kept breaking down but the problem was with the heating system, not the boiler itself.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of a defective boiler

The building contractor was responsible to fix any defects for the first 12 months after the resident had moved into the property (paragraph 4). The landlord’s responsibility during this time was to tell the building contractor about any defects and provide a customer service to residents by chasing any issues up with them.
The resident’s account shows that she contacted the building contractor on 24 June 2019 when an earlier problem with the boiler remained unresolved (paragraph 7.a). She contacted the landlord about this matter on 6 July 2019 who acted appropriately by saying it would contact the building contractor. We have not seen evidence of what action it then took; however, when the resident contacted it again four days later it acted appropriately by getting the building contractor to visit her the same day (paragraph 7.c).
In its stage one response, the landlord suggested the resident complain to the building contractor themselves in respect of the compensation she had requested for the inconvenience and frustration caused by the delay in rectifying the problem with the heating system. This was a reasonable suggestion, given that the repair and subsequent delay was the responsibility of the building contractor. In responding to the resident’s complaint, the building contractor apologised for the delay and acknowledged the time it had taken to resolve matters was unacceptable; however, they refused to pay compensation as it was not company policy to do so (paragraph 14).
In the landlord’s final complaint response, it recognised that inconvenience and frustration had been caused to the resident that had not been remedied by the building contractor. It apologised and offered £150 as a goodwill gesture in recognition of the impact caused to the resident (paragraph 18). While the landlord was not obliged to offer this sum; doing so demonstrated its willingness to achieve a resolution in this instance. This was also in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: to be fair and put things right.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made reasonable efforts to resolve the complaint by the offer of this goodwill gesture.
The Ombudsman notes that, in its stage one complaint response, the landlord gave conflicting information about the length of the defect period saying it was two years, rather than 12 months (paragraph 11). We have recommended that it write to the resident to clarify this, below.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate as there was a delay in responding to the resident at both stages of its formal complaints procedure. At stage one the response took over eight weeks; at stage two, while the response was written in over three weeks, it was not shared with the complainant for another three months and only after the Ombudsman had issued a shadow complaint handling failure order (paragraph 19).
The time taken was outside the timescales stated in the landlord’s complaints procedures and caused evident frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. While the landlord apologised for the initial delay in writing in the final complaint response, it did not later consider if financial compensation was appropriate. In this case this Service considers that the sum of £125 would be appropriate for the inconvenience and frustration caused by the total delay of five months. The impact of this delay meant that an apology alone was not a proportionate way to put the failures right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its handling of reports of a defective boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

Whilst the repair was the responsibility of the building contractor, the landlord recognised that inconvenience and frustration had been caused to the resident by the delay in repairing the boiler, apologised and offered a goodwill gesture to remedy this. That was a proportionate way to put things right.
There were lengthy delays in issuing the complaint responses to the resident. While the landlord apologised for the delay, it did not consider if financial redress was appropriate to put matters right. The final complaint response was issued only after a shadow complaint handling failure order was issued to the landlord by the Ombudsman.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £275 made up of:
  1. The goodwill gesture previously offered of £150 (if this has not been paid previously).
  2. £125 for the inconvenience and frustration caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord take the following action:
1. Write to the resident to clarify if the defect period was one or two years as there was conflicting information in the information provided to her.
2. Look into what caused the delays in issuing the complaint responses in this case. Then consider if staff training or a change in process would be appropriate to ensure that complaint responses are issued to residents within the timescales set out in the complaint procedures.