Orbit Group Limited (202004283)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004283

Orbit Group Limited

28 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports that there were no bins at the outset of her tenancy.
2. reports of anti-social behaviour
3. subsequent requests to move property.
4. reports of the lack of heating and hot water at the outset of her tenancy.
5. associated complaints.

Background

The resident occupies a three-bedroom property under an assured shorthold tenancy agreement. The agreement commenced on 13 June 2019. The resident’s two children live with her. The resident told the Ombudsman that she suffers from anxiety and depression.
On or around 8 August 2019, the resident reported that she did not have any bins since moving to the property and the landlord responded by explaining this was something the local authority was responsible for. The resident told the Ombudsman she felt that this was the origin of the tension between her and her neighbours. The resident explained that she tried to make a formal complaint about this on or around 29 May 2019, but that her landlord did not respond to this.
On 1 June 2020, the resident explained that she had used her neighbour’s bin because she did not have one at her property. The rubbish was subsequently thrown into the resident’s garden. Since this time, the resident says her neighbours have been throwing food into her garden, that her child’s toy had been stolen and she had been verbally abused when she asked for the toy back. The landlord responded by opening an antisocial behaviour case.
Between 1 June 2020 and 15 September 2022 there were various reports made by the resident against her neighbours and the community at large for:
1. Targeted damage to her car and house.
2. Verbal abuse often being racist in nature to both her and her children.
3. Rubbish being thrown into her garden.
4. Her children’s possessions were stolen and damaged.
5. During the same period there were counter-allegations made by the resident’s neighbours.
The resident explained the incidents occurring were racist in nature and that they had impacted her mental health to the extent that she left the property on several occasions between 2020 and 2021. On 24 June 2021, the resident explained that she wanted to transfer properties to prevent the incidents from re-occurring. The landlord responded by explaining that she did not meet the criteria for a management move and told her to approach the local authority for further advice and assistance.
On 24 November 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint about:
1. The lack of bins at the outset of her tenancy.
2. The lack of heating and hot water in her property in July 2019 because her boiler was condemned before moving into the property.
3. The way her reports of anti-social behaviour had been handled.
4. The way her formal complaints about these matters had been handled.
In its stage 1 response on 9 December 2020, the landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint. This is because it said it did receive a complaint from her on 8 July 2020, but it had failed to respond to her. However, it said that:
1. She had been given appropriate advice about the landlord’s responsibilities towards the bins.
2. The heating and hot water were dealt with appropriately once the resident made a report. However, it gave her compensation of £76 for the 12 days she was without this amenity.
3. The reports of anti-social behaviour had been dealt with fairly and appropriately based on the reports and the level of evidence.
The resident escalated her complaint on 10 December 2020 because she felt:
1. Her reports had not been taken seriously and that was evident because the landlord had issued her with a breach of tenancy letter but had not done anything to the other neighbours.
2. The delay in responding to her reports between May and June 2020; and that some of her allegations were left responded to.
3. The level of compensation did not address the distress and inconvenience as well as the length of time the issues had been ongoing.
There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s escalation request at that time. The resident made a further complaint on 7 September 2022. Following intervention from the Ombudsman, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 November 2022. It said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint because she did not meet the criteria for a management move.
It then re-issued an amended response on 2 December 2022 and said it did not uphold her complaint. In this response, it re-iterated its conclusions from the stage 1 response regarding anti-social behaviour, the bins, and offered her an additional £45 for the lack of heating and hot water. Later it issued a further stage 2 response on 13 December 2022, which said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. However, the response only addressed the anti-social behaviour reports and the resident’s request to move property.
The resident told the Ombudsman that she felt the landlord had not:
1. Handled her concerns about harassment and anti-social behaviour appropriately and that the landlord had discriminated against her by acting in a heavy-handed manner. This meant that it did not consider her request to move property fairly.
2. Taken into consideration that it knew her boiler was condemned before her moving into the property and did not resolve this before her reports.
3. Given her new bins despite her explaining that she thought the landlord’s operatives had taken them before the outset of her tenancy.
4. Handled its communications with her fairly and ignored her reports and complaints.

Assessment and findings

Lack of bins

Property owners are responsible for ensuring that refuse from their properties does not cause a statutory nuisance. Often, they will report to local authorities when tenants move in and out of properties and when they need new bins. Councils usually charge the property owner for replacement bins – save for where they have been damaged by refuse collectors.
The landlord’s lettable standards checklist denotes that before the commencement of a tenancy “all external bins will be emptied and cleared of any existing rubbish.” This implies that the landlord, as the property owner, would ensure there was a bin for the property at the start of the tenancy.
The resident told the Ombudsman that she reported to her landlord that she did not have external bins at her property on 8 August 2019. It ought to have ordered a new bin from the council promptly. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported the lack of external bins to it on or around 20 August 2020. It apologised that the bins were not returned by its operatives but that she would need to contact the local authority to get new bins because it was unable to replace them.
This was inappropriate because the landlord had an obligation to ensure the resident had bins for refuse collection by the local authority. This was maladministration because the landlord did not adhere to its own lettable standard, as well as its legal obligations to provide waste disposal facilities.
In addition, the landlord placed an onus on the resident to rectify this issue directly with the local authority. This caused the resident time, trouble, and delay in trying to resolve this, when it was an issue, the landlord was responsible for. This also had an impact on the subsequent neighbour dispute that arose from the lack of bins for the resident’s use. This is discussed in further detail below.

Antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’)

The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy involves a sliding scale of responses and enforcement options when tackling anti-social behaviour. The landlord is required to investigate, risk assess, gather evidence, and agree on an action plan.
It also states that “any action [it] may take will be proportionate to the type of allegation made and will be at [its] discretion. Any action taken will be one of, or a combination of the following: Preventative measures, other interventions, enforcement, and legal action using powers available under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.” The landlord operates:
1. 1 working day response after receiving an allegation of assault and threats of violence and hate incidents.
2. 3 working day response after receiving an allegation of criminal damage.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour and hate incidents procedure involves initial advice, signposting and places an onus on the complainant to resolve the matter, where it is safe to do so. It also includes risk assessments, information gathering and the use of non-legal action such as verbal/written warning, acceptable behaviour contracts, mediation, and community protection notices. In addition to this if it believes the case is “at the point of completion” it will actively contact the complainant and, if appropriate, the perpetrator close the case unless new information is brought to light.
The resident told the Ombudsman that the initial tension between her neighbours was due to not having any external bins. As a result, she placed her rubbish in her neighbour’s bin and later her bin bag was brought back to her property by the neighbour. The resident said this resulted in a string of verbal abuse, her daughter’s toys being stolen, rubbish being thrown into her garden, eggs being thrown at her house and her car being damaged. She also explained that this impacted her to such an extent that she fled the property. During this time, the resident’s neighbours were making counter-allegations against her.
The resident also said she felt strongly that her landlord had racially discriminated against her because it did not take her reports seriously or act upon them. She also told this service she felt that the actions the landlord did take against her were discriminatory and based on her race.
On 1 June 2020, the landlord opened an ASB case. The evidence shows it advised the resident about the incident, but she did not wish to take it further. The case was closed on 9 June 2020. However, an additional case was opened on 12 June 2020 following reports about the resident’s behaviour from her neighbour. The resident also made reports during this time about her neighbours’ behaviour.
The case was open between 12 June 2020 and 17 January 2021. During this time, the landlord responded by:
1. Working in partnership with the police to request information and discuss the case at multi-agency meetings.
2. Conducting a risk assessment which resulted in a “low risk” but continuing to monitor the case until it was closed.
3. Offering the resident, a referral to victim support, which the resident declined at that time.
4. Assessing whether there was evidence of a hate crime that was actionable and concluded that there was not. It explained this to the resident.
5. Explaining to the resident it could not take legal action against her neighbours unless there was further evidence and told her to keep reporting any incidents.
6. Arranging appointments for a joint visit with police to engage with the resident. The resident stated she was not at the property during the visits because she had fled the property.
7. Explaining to the resident it could not take action for the damage to her car and referring her to the police due to it being viewed as criminal damage.
8. Referring the case to the community safety and anti-fraud team.
9. Issuing the resident with an acceptable behaviour contract, which the resident declined to sign. The landlord then went on to issue a breach of tenancy letter.
10. Closed the case because the incidents occurring between the neighbours stopped. The resident explained that during this time there had been a reconciliation between her and the neighbours.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord missed an opportunity to provide mediation on 1 June 2022. Had the landlord offered this, it could have mitigated the tension being experienced between the resident and her neighbours. It is noted that the landlord identified this as a learning opportunity in December 2020. However, it is unclear how the landlord took this forward. This is a service failure because the landlord did not use all the tools available to it; and has not demonstrated how it has taken its reflections forward to improve its future service provision.
Having considered all the evidence, the subsequent actions the landlord took were reasonable and proportionate based on the nature of the allegations and the evidence available to it. There was no evidence that the landlord acted in a discriminatory manner against the resident.
On 9 June 2022, the resident reported that the community was racially targeting her. She told this service that she was parking her car close to her property on a main road. However, she was abused for this through social media, where her address was released. As a result, an unidentified person came to her home, took her car keys, and damaged her car by breaking the windows.
The resident provided photographs of internal and external damage to the car, including a curry and rice being thrown at her driver’s seat. The resident told this service that she did not ask the landlord to take enforcement action but made clear that she wanted to be rehoused because of the impact it was having on her and her children.
The landlord responded by acknowledging the report and said it would contact her within 48 hours. There is evidence that the landlord arranged to change the locks to the property the next day. It also liaised with the police who advised the incident was a parking dispute as opposed to harassment. When the landlord tried to re-engage the resident about this incident it noted that she referred them back to the police. The landlord also reviewed the social media posts and concluded that the resident’s car was parked inappropriately.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances by gathering evidence from the social media posts, liaising with police agencies for further information and trying to engage further with the resident, which was declined. Therefore, the Ombudsman can find no fault in the way this element of the complaint was handled.
The records show the resident next contacted the landlord on 5 July 2022, and the landlord explained:
1. It could not provide an immediate move to the resident and signposted her to the local authority for assistance.
2. The resident should report the issues to the police however the resident had already taken this action.
3. Offered the resident target hardening, which she declined.
4. Offered further equipment referrals, which the resident explained she already had.
5. Explained that because the resident did not know who the perpetrators were, it was unable to take further action because it could only act against tenants.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord was clear in its expectation management with the resident about what it could reasonably achieve based on the evidence before it. Therefore, the Ombudsman can find no fault in the way this element of the complaint was handled.

Requests to move property

The landlord operates a management move procedure which is designed to allow residents to move quickly to another property in an emergency.
The procedure states that a management move may be considered in the following circumstances:
1. A resident is believed to be at real and proven risk of harm or violence that is supported by partner agencies involved in managing that situation such as local authority, support services, GP, or police.
2. A resident’s property is uninhabitable, and this is supported by its property management team.
The resident told this service that she felt in fear living at her property. She also explained that she had spent multiple times away from her property staying with family because of this which impacted her children’s schooling. She also described that the incidents had impacted her mental health and had affected her ability to work.
The earliest evidence of the resident requesting a management move was on 5 August 2020. This was because of an allegation made by the neighbour involving a physical assault on a child. The resident felt that the neighbour was concerned about the misinformation from her neighbour about the incident. She said that she needed to move “before something serious happened.” There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this request to move.
On 5 February 2021, the resident’s social worker provided a supporting statement to the landlord in favour of an out-of-area move because of the impact of the neighbour’s behaviour and racial targeting. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this request to move.
On 24 June 2021, the landlord noted a call to the resident where she said she wanted to be rehoused. The landlord explained it would not look to move her and signposted her to the local authority if she wanted to seek a move. There is no evidence that the landlord explained why it would not look to move her.
On 13 June 2022, the landlord noted a call from the resident where she requested an urgent move because her car was being targeted and her address had been posted on social media. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this request to move.
On 5 July 2022, the landlord noted a call from the resident where she asked if the landlord would move her to another property. It explained that it did not provide immediate moves and that this would need to go through the local authority bidding system. There is no evidence that the landlord explained why it would not look to move her.
On 15 September 2022, the landlord provided written confirmation to the resident that she did not meet the criteria for a management move and that although it did not condone the behaviour being experienced, without evidence of the perpetrator being a tenant, it could not take further action. There is no evidence that the landlord explained why it would not look to move her through its management move procedure as an alternative to being unable to employ enforcement through its ASB policy.
In her formal complaint the resident requested a management move because of her experiences both with her neighbours and the community at large. In its final response to her on 13 December 2022, the landlord explained that its decision not to offer a management move because her situation was not “high risk.”
The Ombudsman considers that the resident consistently requested to move to another property between 5 August 2020 and 8 September 2022, because she felt unsafe in her property. The landlord consistently failed to respond to all the resident’s requests for a move, and at times when it did respond to her requests, it did not offer the reasons why it would not offer her a management move until December 2022.
The Ombudsman considers this to be maladministration because the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations. This was because the reasons behind the landlord’s decision was not communicated to the resident. As a result, the resident felt that her requests had not been considered properly and that if certain situations occurred, she may then meet the threshold for a move. This resulted in repeated requests for a management move because the resident was unaware of how her situation matched up to the landlord’s management move threshold.
The Ombudsman considers that it would have been reasonable to have explained to the resident why her situation did not meet the criteria for a management move and the reasons behind this at an earlier stage. In addition to this, it should have worked with the resident’s social worker and responded with the same reasoning.

Lack of heating and hot water at the outset of the tenancy

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on landlords to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the property that supply heating and hot water. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord “will maintain and where appropriate keep in property working order the heating and water heating equipment and electrical equipment and installation.”
The landlord’s repair policy states:
1. For emergency repairs, which include “burst to water supply/loss of supply” it will aim to attend within 4 hours to make safe within 24 hours.
2. For routine repairs, which include “total or partial loss of heating or hot water (1 May to 31 October)” it will aim to complete repairs within 28 calendar days.
The resident told this service that her boiler was not fit for purpose when she moved in. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was aware that the boiler was not working prior to the commencement of the resident’s tenancy.
The evidence showed the boiler was reported by the resident on 31 July 2019. The landlord’s repair logs evidence that it inspected the property on 1 August 2019, and it was noted that a new boiler was required. It then carried out an essential survey to continue with the works on 6 August 2019. The boiler was subsequently replaced on 12 August 2019. Therefore, the resident was without heating and hot water for 12 calendar days.
In total the landlord offered the resident £121 for the loss of heating and hot water between 31 July 2019 and 12 August 2019.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances by attending the property within 24 hours and for completing the boiler replacement within 12 calendar days. In addition, it offered the resident compensation for the period of loss, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was proportionate. Therefore, no fault is found in the way the landlord handled this element of the resident’s complaint.

Complaint handling

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states that both stage 1 and stage responses should confirm in clear, plain language:
1. The complaint stages.
2. The complaint definition.
3. The decision on the complaint.
4. The reasons for any decisions made.
5. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
6. Details of any outstanding actions.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that:
1. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint. This is not compliant with the Code which states that complaints will be responded to “10 working days from the complaint being logged.”
2. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to in 20 working days from receipt of a complaint.
3. It would not investigate complaints that are subject of civil or criminal court proceedings. Any decision to exclude a complaint from the formal complaint procedure must be explained clearly to customers.
The landlord referred to a formal complaint from the resident on 8 July 2020 about the heating and hot water. It acknowledged to the resident in both its formal complaint responses that it did not progress this complaint and offered the resident a total sum of £121. This sum was to reflect both the lack of heating and hot water as well as the failure to progress the resident’s complaint.
On 24 August 2020, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on behalf of the resident to clarify that a formal complaint had been raised. Following this, the landlord was contacted by the Ombudsman on several occasions to provide the resident with a formal response. This was inappropriate because the Ombudsman expects landlords to accept and progress complaints without our intervention.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and said that it would contact the resident with an update every 3-5 working days. There is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with a cyclical update every 3-5 working days. This was a service failure because the landlord had set up an expectation that it would do something that it failed to do.
On 9 December 2020 it issued its stage 1 response. The landlord should have issued its response no later than 7 September 2020. The records show that the landlord wrote to the resident on 9 December 2020 to explain it would write to her no later than 10 December 2020. The response was provided the same day and was 67 working days outside of the policy timeframe.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord unreasonably delayed providing the resident with a formal response to her complaint. In addition, the Ombudsman would expect that when a landlord intends to extend the timeframe a formal response would be due, it would be reasonable to explain this before the initial date elapsing with the reasons why this was required.
Notwithstanding this, the body of the email that the complaint response was attached to stated, “Please see final response letter to your complaint.” The response itself did not indicate which stage the resident’s complaint was at. This was misleading. It caused the resident time and trouble contacting the Ombudsman because she thought that her complaint had exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. The Ombudsman considers this to be maladministration because the landlord did not adhere to the requirements for complaint responses as set out in the Code.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 10 December 2020. On 15 December 2020, the resident explained that a solicitor had taken over her complaint and the landlord responded by explaining it would have to close the complaint if this were the case. The landlord did not issue a stage 2 response to this complaint.
The Ombudsman is unclear as to why the landlord did not issue a final response following escalation. There is nothing in the landlord’s complaint policy that precludes complaints from being actively managed through the complaint procedure, should a solicitor act on behalf of a resident.
There is no evidence that legal proceedings had been issued, therefore the Ombudsman can see no justification for this action by the landlord. This was maladministration because the landlord acted unreasonably and outside of its complaints policy. This caused confusion and distress for the resident and delayed her seeking redress through the Ombudsman.
The resident raised a further complaint on 7 September 2022, because she had not been offered a property transfer and the negative impact of this on her mental health. She also requested compensation for the landlord’s negligence in dealing with the ASB, having a condemned boiler at the outset of the tenancy, and failing to provide bins.
The resident re-issued this on two more occasions in September 2022 and the Ombudsman wrote the landlord on two further occasions to urge it to respond to the resident formally. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have responded promptly to acknowledge the resident’s complaint and to respond to it without the intervention of the Ombudsman
The landlord responded on 16 September 2022 by email stating it would not uphold the resident’s complaint because she did not meet the management criteria and the operational team did not consider there was evidence to take action against her neighbours. This was inappropriate as it did not meet the criteria for a formal response as set out in the Code because it was unclear that this was a formal response and that the complaints process had been exhausted.
Later the landlord accepted the complaint as a review request of the previous complaint response issued on 9 December 2020. It issued its final response on 18 November 2022 and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord should have issued its final response no later than 21 September 2022. It issued its final response 42 working days outside of the complaint policy timeframe.
For the cumulative reasons detailed above, the Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration with the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman has identified a trend of poor communication with the resident about her complaint, consistent delays in issuing complaint responses and a repeated failure to follow the prescribed information set out in the Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
1. there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that there were no bins at the outset of her tenancy
2. there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the subsequent requests to move property
3. there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.
4. there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
5. there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the lack of heating and hot water at the outset of her tenancy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures found as part of this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £850 comprised of:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures related to the resident’s reports about her lack of bins.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures related to the resident’s requests to move.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures related to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  4. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures related to the complaint handling.
3. Conduct a lesson learned review of this case to address how it intends to ensure the complaint procedure will be followed in the future to:
  1. Ensure complaints are being logged and progressed.
  2. That cases requiring further time to respond are identified and communicated to residents, where possible, in advance of the elapse of the response target date.
  3. Ensure that the colleagues are aware of the exemptions within the policy so that complaints are not unreasonably denied the opportunity to exhaust the complaint procedure.
4. Provide refresher training to relevant colleagues to ensure mediation is considered at an early stage, where appropriate, in ASB cases.
5. To provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this service.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Write to the resident to explain in detail her options about rehousing to ensure she is aware of all the avenues open to her to enable her to move to another property.
2. Provides refresher training to complaint handlers to ensure they have the most up-to-date knowledge to equip them to deal with complaints in accordance with the Code. It may be appropriate to do this with the new Code which will be applicable from April 2024.
3. Review its complaint response templates to include the stage the response relates to. This is to ensure residents are aware of which stage in the complaint process they are at.