Orbit Group Limited (202209334)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209334

Orbit Group Limited

28 March 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to a broken fence panel.
2. A reported mouse infestation and associated proofing works.
3. Concerns over the standard of grounds maintenance.
4. Reports of fly tipping.
5. The resident’s complaint.

Scope of investigation

In correspondence with the landlord and this service, the resident asked the Ombudsman to consider issues reportedly affecting other residents in the area, including the fact tenants of other leaseholders have been unable to raise concerns with the landlord themselves. As there is no evidence the resident is acting as the lead complainant on a group complaint, or that she has had authorisation to act on behalf of any other leaseholders or residents during the complaint process, in this case the Ombudsman will not investigate issues which have not been brought to his attention by other residents. The complaint under investigation here has been brought by the resident alone and as such our findings will be based on how the landlord responded to those.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has held the lease of a 1-bedroom, ground floor flat since 2017. The landlord is a housing association.

Summary of events

On 1 July 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She stated this was related to a previous complaint, to which it had issued a final response on 3 December 2021. However, she advised was no longer satisfied with its response and raised the following concerns:
1. A broken fence in a communal garden area had been reported on 24 January 2022 but was yet to be repaired. She acknowledged an appointment had been booked for 29 July 2022 but stated that appointments had been cancelled 3 or 4 times previously. The resident also referred to previous instances of delayed repairs which had been addressed in her previous complaint, but these will not be considered here.
2. The resident felt stated there had been a “serious problem with mice infestation” since 2018. She believed that a month’s delay in repairing/replacing wire mesh (which the landlord stated it would do by Christmas 2021 within its previous complaint response) had meant mice had regained access to her property and she had found mouse droppings in her bathroom on 26 June 2022. She understood pest controllers had carried out an inspection 2 days later but did not believe the landlord had instructed them to begin any treatment and the landlord was “refusing” to share the pest controllers “report and/or findings”, despite her requesting his on 29 June and 1 July 2022. She asked this service to “direct” the landlord to share any report with her.
3. She believed the landlord had shown poor customer service and some of the “relations with residents” had been “unprofessional”. She stated the landlord’s Property Manager had not offered to meet her regarding any concerns she raised, and she referred to comments made by other residents, which as noted above, will not be considered here. She also believed the delayed fence repair meant the landlord had “failed to keep to (its) word” following its previous complaint response.
4. The maintenance of communal areas was “inadequate”, with staff not attending to provide services. She stated the landlord had not responded to her report regarding a fly tipped sofa on 26 June 2022, the gardens had not been mowed for months” and windows had not been cleaned.
Following contact from the resident, this service contacted the landlord on 3 August 2022 and asked it to provide a stage 1 complaint response. This service chased the landlord for a response on 31 August and 11 September 2022, giving a final response deadline of 16 September 2022.
On 21 September 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It advised the resident her complaint had been “partially upheld” and then went on to summarise its understanding of the complaint as follows:
1. She was unhappy with its handling of a recurring pest control issue.
2. Fly tipped items on her estate were not cleared in a reasonable timeframe.
3. She considered the landlord should clear bulky household items that other residents were leaving in the bin stores, as this was resulting in “non-collection of rubbish” by the local authority.
4. A broken fence on the estate had not been repaired in a reasonable timeframe.
5. Grounds maintenance was not being carried out and she had been given conflicting information regarding how often grounds should be maintained.
6. “Professional buffing” of communal floors was not being carried out every 6 months, which a cleaner had advised her should be done.
7. The landlord had not acknowledged her complaint(s) until it was contacted by the Ombudsman.
It went on to address each aspect of the complaint in turn and made the following comments and findings:
1. Pest control – it noted the resident had reported issues with mice on 27 June 2022 and following this a referral was made to pest controllers the same day. It advised the pest controllers carried out an inspection before undertaking treatment between 22 August and 2 September 2022 and understood this had already been discussed with the resident. It considered it had taken “reasonable measures to eradicate the problem” and works had been completed. It noted that, as a leaseholder, the resident would usually be responsible for pest-control issues, but the landlord had taken responsibility in this instance as it was an estate-wide issue. It also acknowledged the resident considered this was a “recurring problem”, but it advised that, as per its Complaints Policy, it would not investigate issues which took place over 6 months ago. It concluded that it had not found evidence of service failure.
2. Fly tipping – it noted the “approximate timescale for clearances” was 5 working days. It had also reviewed all logged clearances from the past 6 months, noting that a report received from the resident on 27 June 2022 had been responded to after 6 working days and a further report received on 3 August 2022 was responded to in 4 working days. Although it did not state when the reports were received, it also noted that clearances had taken place on 3 other occasions between 1 April and 19 August 2022. Having identified only one instance of it exceeding the 5 working day target for removing items, it advised it did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
3. Communal bin stores – the landlord clarified it did not own the bin store and that this belonged instead to the freeholder. It was therefore “limited as to what actions (it) could take” regarding large items being left in the bins. It would however contact relevant leaseholders if it received information regarding who was leaving items in the bin room.
4. Broken fence – having consulted with its contractor, it noted an order had been raised to repair a fence on the estate on 26 January 2022, after receiving the resident’s report. However, it noted the works were not completed until 27 July 2022, which it accepted “exceeded significantly” the repair timescale of 90 days. Due to the “substantial delay” it offered an apology for any inconvenience caused and confirmed it upheld this aspect of the complaint.
5. Grounds maintenance – addressing the resident’s query regarding the maintenance that should be carried out, it advised its contractor should “attend to grass cutting each visit between 1 April 2022 and 30 November 2022” and that grass should not be allowed to grow above 35mm (approximately). It stated grass cuttings should be removed and lawn edges should be maintained, while hedge maintenance may be impacted by nesting season. It had identified “some issues” with grounds maintenance to the rear of the resident’s block and stated this had been addressed with its contractor. As a result, the contractor was now required to provide photographs following each visit to show that maintenance had taken place. It therefore also upheld this part of the resident’s complaint.
6. Communal floor cleaning – it clarified there was “currently no requirement or agreement” for communal floors to be buffed twice a year. It advised it would feed this back to its cleaning contractors to ensure they did not provide incorrect information in future but did not uphold the complaint.
7. Lack of response to the resident’s complaint – it had reviewed emails received from the resident and noted she had raised a formal complaint on 28 April 2022 regarding the fence repair. It quoted the reference number the complaint had been given and advised a formal response had been provided on 30 May 2022. It acknowledged the resident had expressed she was “dissatisfied in other emails”, it was “unable to substantiate” that she had asked for other complaints to be raised.
The resident provided a lengthy response and complaint escalation request on 22 September 2022 which will not be exhaustively detailed here. However, in summary she raised the following concerns:
1. Despite the landlord upholding some aspects of the complaint, it had “failed to offer a satisfactory resolution and/or remedy”.
2. Regarding the broken fence, she stated this was a “pattern of excessive delay(s)” and while it had “promised to do better” in its previous complaint response, this was evidence it had not done so. It had not offered a “satisfactory explanation” for the repair delay or compensation. She stated the landlord should review and amend its repair policy to reduce the target time for non-urgent repairs, offer compensation for the inconvenience the delayed repair caused, stating ASB had occurred as a result.
3. Regarding the mouse infestation, she stated the landlord had still not shared copies of reports made by its pest controller which she believed would show that an apparent delay in repairing wire mesh covering airbricks may have led to an infestation recurring and it had also not addressed. She also considered the landlord had provided misleading information, both within its complaint response when it stated the pest controller had first attended on 19 August rather than on 16 August 2022 and in an email dated 3 August 2022 when it advised the pest controller would contact her within 48 hours. It had also failed to recognise the inconvenience she had been caused.
4. Regarding poor customer service/unprofessional management, the resident again referred to her previous complaint from July 2021, following which the landlord “promised to do better”. However, she considered the landlord was “failing to deliver” in this respect and its complaint process was therefore “ineffective”. She also considered that her “numerous” emails, including one dated 31 May 2022, should have been treated as complaints.
5. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s resolution regarding her concerns over communal maintenance and stated relying on photographs taken by the contractors was “inadequate” and evidence the landlord was failing to “supervise (its) contractors effectively”. There had also been no improvement in how communal maintenance was carried out since the landlord’s previous complaint response in December 2021.
6. The resident also raised a number of concerns about reports made after her complaint and queried the landlord’s position regarding the bin store, suggesting it did in fact have a legal right to access and manage the area.
7. She proposed the landlord amend its cleaning schedule so cleaners attended on Wednesday mornings before the local authority came to collect the bins, carried out monthly site inspections and notified her when these would be and to offer compensation.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 October 2022 to advise it would require a further 10 working days to respond to her complaint and now aimed to provide its final response by 7 November 2022.
On 21 November 2022, the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. It said it understood the complaint to be about how it had dealt with a broken fence, a reported mouse infestation, poor customer service and unprofessional behaviour by staff, and the inadequate maintenance of communal areas. It made the following comments and findings:
1. It said that “at the time the fence repairs were raised” its contractor was still “working to a 90-day turnaround”. However, it advised the contractor then experienced delays in obtaining fence panels which caused the works to “take longer than expected”. It acknowledged the delay would have been frustrating but stated “these matters are beyond (its) control”.
2. It advised it had obtained quotes from 2 pest control contractors, both of which were “over our threshold and would have required…a full consultation process” it said “may have further delayed works”. It stated that after further discussion, a contractor “was able to reduce the cost” and it therefore instructed straight away, with an annual contract now in place on a rolling basis. It said it understood “the situation has improved”.
3. Regarding the installing of mesh over air bricks, it stated that its contractor was again “working to a 90-day turnaround” when works were instructed but then “works were delayed…and not carried out for a further 6 months”. It did not advise why the works were delayed but acknowledged this was “not the level of service” it wanted to provide and advised the matter had been “raised” with the contractor.
4. It apologised if the resident “felt…communication was poor” and said this was something its Customer Relations Operations team was working on. It advised that, since the resident’s complaint, “many…processes, policies and standards have been improved”.
5. Regarding the maintenance of communal areas, it said it had “now become clear” that its grounds maintenance contractor had not been “attending as required”. It said it was “in the process of taking action against the contractor” and a refund was being obtained. It clarified that the resident “would not be charged for scheduled visits that were not attended” and advised this would be reflected in that year’s accounts. On the subject of reported fly-tipping it reiterated there “as not much (it) can do” as it did not own the bin store. However, it also said it would “take appropriate action” if the resident knew of anyone “who may be disposing of non-household waste in the bins”.
6. In conclusion it acknowledged there were delays in carrying out works but it believed its original complaint response, which had made an offer of compensation, had addressed all the issues appropriately. It therefore did not uphold the resident’s complaint and signposted her to this service if she remained unhappy with the final outcome.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to a broken fence panel

It is not disputed that the resident reported that the fence was broken on 24 January 2022. However, landlord records show this was not repaired until the end of July 2022, 6 months later, while its repairs policy gives a target timeframe of 90 days for “major” repairs.
From the information seen, the landlord’s communication with the resident could have been better and it should have done more to keep her updated on the progress of the repair. Its complaint response advised the delays were partly due to the contractor being unable to source the necessary fence panels, but its repair records appear to show at least one appointment was cancelled as the contractor had not booked enough operatives or a long enough repair slot. While it was appropriate it acknowledged the delay would have been “frustrating” and that there was a “substantial delay”, there is insufficient evidence it properly liaised with the contractor to progress the repairs or that the delay was therefore entirely due to “matters beyond (its) control”.
While the resident stated the delayed repair enabled ASB to take place, this service has not seen evidence that determines a link between these two issues. Although the resident considered that the landlord should have considered awarding compensation, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the service failure and in the circumstances the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of an apology constituted reasonable redress.

A reported mouse infestation and associated proofing works

In her complaint and correspondence with the landlord, the resident inferred that a delay in completing proofing works (in her previous complaint she noted issues had been reported in April 2021, but these were not completed until January 2022) had led to a recurrence of a mouse infestation. While the delay was addressed by the landlord in its previous response, it did not address the resident’s concerns within its responses to the resident’s later complaint and it would have been preferable had it done so.
However, from the records seen by this service, there is no evidence the resident made any further reports regarding mice in her property until June 2022, some 5 months after the repairs were finally carried out. As such, it is not possible to determine any causal link between any delay in proofing works being completed in January 2022 and the later reports of further infestation. As such there is no identified failure by the landlord in this regard.
Once the resident reported the issue, records show the landlord responded appropriately, promptly arranging for a pest controller to attend 2 days later. Following receipt of its inspection report, the landlord engaged the pest controller. The evidence available suggests it initially responded to the resident’s reports reasonably. However, treatment works did not begin until the end of August 2022, almost 2 months later, meaning the landlord may have missed an opportunity to address the situation sooner. In her complaint correspondence the resident queried this apparent delay, but the landlord did not provide an explanation. This was not appropriate and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was a failing.
It is noted the pest controllers report highlighted “how bad the waste issues are” on the estate, providing photos of the bin areas. From the evidence seen, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, as this echoed concerns raised by the resident within her complaint, there is insufficient evidence the landlord took further steps to address this aspect of the reports, such as arranging a deep clean or improving its monitoring of the area(s) given this would have undoubtedly had an impact on the ability of the pest controllers to resolve the issue and increased the likelihood of further infestations. This was also a failure.
It is noted that, in correspondence with this service and the landlord, the resident has raised further concerns about the treatment carried out by the pest controller and has reported further, more recent instances of mice being present in her home. However, the Ombudsman is aware that these issues have been raised within a subsequent complaint made in April 2023 so they will not be addressed here as they are outside of the scope of this investigation.
Overall, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of reports of a mouse infestation and an order has been made to pay the resident an appropriate amount of compensation.

Concerns over the standard of grounds maintenance

It was appropriate that the landlord’s complaint response acknowledged its grounds maintenance contractor had not been attending as it should and that it explained it would be seeking a refund. It was also reasonable that it sought to assure the resident she would not be charged for “scheduled visits that were not attended”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a reasonable step for the landlord to take and sought to “put things right” by ensuring the resident was not left worse off. It was also reasonable that, as a solution going forward, it advised it would now require contractors to take photographs of the site following each attendance. However, it is unclear why the landlord had not identified sooner that visits were not being attended and it is indicative of poor oversight that it took the resident’s complaint for it to recognise this.
Further, it is noted within internal correspondence from April 2023, gathering information for this investigation, that the landlord identified the contractor has not attended between 1 January 2022 and June 2022 (save for one attendance in April 2022). It would have been preferable for the landlord to provide this level of detail within its complaint response, so as to ensure greater transparency but also so it could perhaps have provided some explanation why the grounds were not being attended to.
Overall, there was service failure by the landlord, regarding the resident’s concerns over the standard of grounds maintenance. However, the landlord’s commitment to refund the relevant service change payments is considered reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord is therefore ordered to clarify how much this amounts to (considering the period January to June 2022) and either provide proof that the relevant year end accounts have been adjusted or confirm to the resident in writing the amount she is due.

Reports of fly tipping

From the information seen by this service, the landlord reasonably addressed the resident’s concerns regarding fly tipping and appeared to respond appropriately when it received her reports. As part of its complaint investigation, it reviewed its records and acknowledged an occasion when items had not been removed within its 5 working day target. Although it is acknowledged the resident has suggested this is not the case, this investigation has not seen evidence to contradict the landlord’s position.
While the landlord said it would take action regarding bulky items being left in the bin store if it was aware of specific residents being responsible, it could have been more proactive and considered writing to residents to remind them of what can and cannot be left in the bin room or signpost them to the local authority who can arrange collection of bulky items. While it was also entitled to state it did not manage the bin room itself – and again, this investigation has not seen evidence to the contrary – given the reported issues with bin collections were affecting its residents, it could have been more proactive in liaising with the freeholder, or the managing agent operating on their behalf, to try and find a solution. This would have shown the resident it was taking her concerns seriously, rather than stating it was unable to do anything.
While the resident’s frustration at the situation and repeated instances of fly tipping is understandable, from the information seen by this investigation, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports.

The resident’s complaint

Records show the resident contacted the landlord on 1 July 2022 to raise a new complaint. However, it did not provide a response until 21 September 2022, following several interventions from this service on behalf of the resident. This was not appropriate and amounted to an unreasonable delay which the landlord did not acknowledge within its subsequent responses. However, while the resident considered that the complaint should have been raised prior to July 2022, as previous emails should have been considered as complaints, from the information seen by this service the landlord did raise complaints where appropriate. An email from the resident in April 2022, which clearly asked to be treated as a formal complaint, was logged as such and responded to the following month. The landlord’s response, while brief, also appeared to respond to the specific issue the resident had raised as a complaint, namely the length of the landlord’s repair targets, while her concerns about the time taken to repair the fence appeared to be requests for updates on progress. As such, there was no evidence of failure by the landlord in this regard.
However, its stage 2 response was also delayed. While it was reasonable that it contacted the resident to advise it needed more time to compile its response, showing proactive communication and an attempt to manage expectations, it then missed its revised target and there is no evidence it provided further updates or acknowledged this within its final complaint response. This was not appropriate and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to service failure.
Following the resident’s request for additional compensation, the landlord advised that it would not be offering additional compensation as it considered the amount it had previously offered (£650) to be reasonable. However, this was compensation was offered in its stage 2 response to the resident’s previous complaint, which did not address the exact same issues or incidents which clearly post-dated its previous response. Given the landlord had upheld aspects of the resident’s more recent complaint, it was not reasonable that it cited compensation offered during a previous complaint procedure as having been relevant or as a justification for not considering further redress.
Overall, the Ombudsman considers there was service failure by the landlord regarding its complaint handling and an order for it to compensate the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord regarding repairs to a broken fence panel.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service regarding a reported mouse infestation and associated proofing works.
2. Service failure regarding concerns over the standard of grounds maintenance.
3. No maladministration regarding reports of fly tipping.
4. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, pay the resident £400 compensation, consisting of:
1. £200 to reflect its handling of the reported mouse infestation and associated proofing works.
2. £200 to reflect its poor complaint handling.
It is also ordered to confirm whether the resident has been refunded for service charge associated with grounds maintenance for the period January to June 2022, or otherwise confirm in writing the amount she will be reimbursed.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to, if it has not done so already, contact all other leaseholders in the resident’s block to ensure they are also reimbursed for the service charges relating to grounds maintenance for the period mentioned above.