Orbit Group Limited (202211621)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211621

Orbit Group Limited

16 August 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:
1. Installation of a stopcock and separate water supply.
2. The formal complaints.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The landlord is a housing association.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, and installations supplying heating, hot water, sanitation, and the supply of water, gas and electricity. This is in line with its obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Under its repairs policy it categorised responsive repairs as either emergency (make safe within 24 hours), routine (repair within 28 days) or major (repair within 90 days).
The landlord had 2 complaints policies during the time of this complaint. Under both policies it defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The first policy, which was in use until 12 September 2022, says that it will try to resolve complaints informally if it can rather than as a formal complaint. However, under its second policy in use after 12 September 2022 it says it will investigate all complaints as formal complaints. Under both policies it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days or ask for an extension if it needs a further 10 working days. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The Code in use at the time sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).
The landlord has a compensation policy which says it will consider paying compensation for service failure where it has caused financial loss or significant distress or inconvenience. It also had a guidance document which lists factors it will consider for distress and inconvenience, and complaint handling failings, including the effect or impact of the failure and time or effort taken by the resident to resolve the issue.

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised as part of her complaint that she had not had a separate water supply, or stopcock (sometimes referred to as a stop tap) since she moved into the property in 2002. The Ombudsman is not able to carry out an investigation dating back to the start of the tenancy and has limited its investigation to up to one year before the resident made her first complaint.
This is because the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion. As time passes it becomes increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In addition, the resident has told this Service about a related complaint she has raised regarding other repairs in her bathroom. She has confirmed that she has raised a separate complaint with the landlord and those issues will not be considered in this report.

Summary of events

On 11 May 2017 the resident called the landlord to report that she did not have a main cold-water stopcock in the property. She explained that the stopcock was inside her neighbour’s house, and this also controlled her water flow. She reported this to it again on 14 August 2019. On 11 June 2021 she called the landlord and reported that she did not have any running water. It confirmed that during void, or empty property, work to the neighbouring house the stopcock had been turned off. This meant that she was without any running water for a period of time.
On a date not known to this Service the landlord decided that it needed to replace the resident’s boiler. The resident has told this Service that it opened up holes in her bathroom wall to locate a stopcock but could not find one. On 19 August 2022, during a call with the resident, it said it needed to install a stopcock so that it could replace her boiler.
The resident called the landlord on 31 August 2022 to make a complaint (the first complaint), which was about:
1. Not having had a stopcock for 20 years, and that this now meant her new boiler could not be installed.
2. Her neighbour kept turning her water off by turning off her stopcock, which stopped the supply of water to the property.
3. She had reported the problem several times to the landlord, but it had not done anything.
On 2 September 2022 the landlord logged the complaint at its informal stage. It called the resident to acknowledge her complaint that day. It called her again on 7 September 2022 and said it was waiting for an internal update about the works needed. It sent an internal email on 12 September 2022 to chase for an update on fitting a stopcock, so that the boiler could be installed. It asked its contractors to look into the matter.
The landlord’s records say it emailed the resident with an update on 15 September 2022, however, it has not provided a copy of its email to this Service. The landlord’s contractor emailed it and said it would visit the resident on 16 September 2022. However, they reported back that no adults were home. It spoke to the resident and replied to the contractor that it may have visited the wrong property. The contractor replied on 21 September 2022 and said it had arranged to visit on 26 September 2022.
On 27 September 2022 the contractor emailed the landlord with the outcome of its visit. They said the property did not have its own main cold-water supply pipe but received its water via the neighbouring property. This explained why she did not have a stopcock and why she lost water when they turned theirs off. They recommended the landlord contact the water company for the area.
The following day, the landlord emailed the resident to provide its informal complaint response in which it said:
1. It had arranged for its contractor to attend who found that the property did not have its own water supply.
2. It was not able to resolve the issue, as “the main water pipes belong to your water supplier”, and so she would need to contact the water company.
3. It partially upheld the complaint due to its delay in identifying the issue from 16 August 2022 until it inspected on 26 September 2022 and offered £100 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused.
On 3 October 2022 the resident called the landlord and said she was not satisfied with its response and wanted to escalate her complaint. She said as the landlord it was responsible for her water supply. It raised a stage 1 complaint and responded on 11 October 2022 in which it:
1. Repeated the findings from its informal response and confirmed that the water company was responsible for her water supply and not it, and she would need to contact the water company. Once they had installed a new supply it would fit a stopcock for her.
2. Repeated its conclusion and said it would be “honouring” its £100 compensation offer.
3. Said that it would escalate the complaint to stage 2 following its conversation with the resident the previous day.
The landlord provided it stage 2 response to the first complaint on 6 January 2023. It repeated its stage 1 response. It also said, in relation to contacting the water company, “We would contact them on your behalf but as we’re not their customer, GDPR prevents us from doing so.” It again offered its original £100 compensation offer and gave details on how the resident could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord and contractor exchanged emails between 5 and 9 May 2023 regarding the works required to install a separate water supply. The contractor said it had attended but did not get access to the neighbour’s property which it needed. The landlord said it would arrange access. The contractor emailed the landlord on 6 June 2023 and provided its job sheet. It said it had installed a main water pipe within the boundary of the property ready to be connected to the mains by the water company.
On 25 August 2023 the resident called the landlord to make a new stage 1 complaint (the second complaint). She said it had installed pipework, but she was still waiting for it to be connected to the water mains. She was due to have works done in her bathroom which were dependant on having a stopcock.
The contractor emailed the landlord on 19 September 2023 and said it had not heard from it about the pipe being connected to the mains and asked if it had applied to the water company for a new connection. The same day the resident called the landlord and said it had fitted a stopcock, but it was still not connected to the new water mains pipe and so was useless. She called it again on 22 September 2023 and said the planned bath replacement had been cancelled, as her neighbour had refused to allow it to turn the water off.
On 6 October 2023 the landlord called the resident to acknowledge the second complaint. Its notes say the resident told it she had spoken to the water company which had told her she could not arrange the works to connect the pipework to the water mains as she was a tenant, but the landlord had told her she had to. She said the situation was affecting her boiler replacement and repairs. She also said when her neighbour used water it affected her water pressure and that the neighbour would occasionally turn the water off.
The landlord exchanged internal emails between 6 and 10 October 2023. It said it could not fit the boiler before the new pipework was completed, and this needed to be connected by the water company. It was completing a form for the water company to apply for the new connection, but this was a slow process. The water company wanted detailed information and drawings or plans, and it did not know how to properly complete the form.
On 13 October 2023 the landlord and water company visited the property. In an internal email it said the water company will install the pipe for free if the current pipes are lead and its contractors should confirm this. It also said the new pipe had been in place since June 2023 but had not been connected due to its delays in completing the paperwork. On 24 October 2023 it said it had asked the contractor to complete the form, but the water company said it had to be the landlord. It concluded it needed to complete the form again.
The landlord called the resident on 27 October 2023 and asked for an extension of time for its complaint response. It confirmed, in an internal email on 30 October 2023, that it had submitted the application form and was now waiting for the water company to approve it. It wrote to the resident on 31 October 2023 to ask for a further extension. It said it was not able to provide a complaint outcome until it had a timeframe for the works from the water company. It wrote to her again the following day to offer £300 compensation for its delay in responding to her stage 1 complaint.
On 6 November 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the second complaint, in which it:
1. Stated the outcome of the first complaint.
2. Said it had completed a form for the water company after speaking to them. They could not provide a timeframe for connection and there was not anything further it could do.
3. Upheld the complaint due to the conflicting information it had given, and delays caused. It accepted its failing and apologised for this.
4. Apologised for its complaint handling failings for its delay in response.
5. Offered compensation of £520 made up of:
  1. £50 for its delay in response.
  2. £70 for service failure.
  3. £400 for stress and inconvenience.
6. Explained how the resident could request escalation if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident requested escalation on 27 November 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this the same day. She said she still did not have a solution, its response did not include her damaged bathroom, and the compensation offered was inadequate.
On 15 December 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the second complaint, in which it:
1. Said it had issued a purchase order to pay the water company for the works needed.
2. Apologised for the inconvenience caused.
3. Upheld the complaint and offered a further £50 compensation for the additional delays.
4. Said how the resident could contact this Service.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The landlord completed a post complaint review on 23 January 2024 and wrote to the resident with its findings. It said the quality of its complaint responses where not up to its standard and it had not addressed all her issues including her damaged bathroom and need for a new boiler. However, it said it did not change the complaint outcome. It asked her to inform it once the water company had carried out its works. It also offered £150 additional compensation for its complaint handling.
The resident has told this Service that the water company connected the pipework to the mains in April 2024, but the pipework was not connected in the property. The landlord told the Ombudsman on 21 May 2024 that it had raised a job to connect the pipework internally to the new stopcock for the following week.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of installation of a stopcock and separate water supply

Under the tenancy agreement, and legislation, the landlord is responsible for the installations for the supply of water. It is accepted practice that a water company is responsible for pipework up to a property boundary and a freeholder for pipework within the property boundary. If a property is let, the tenant is responsible for paying for utilities including water.
The resident made the landlord aware of the unusual situation with her water supply from at least May 2017. She told it on several occasions that she did not have her own stopcock but was reliant on the neighbour’s and so had no control over her water supply. The effects of this were clear in 2021 when void works caused her water to be turned off, yet the landlord did not take any action to remedy the situation regarding the stopcock.
When the landlord decided to replace the resident’s boiler it decided it could not do so until she had her own stopcock. This was reasonable, as the water would need to be turned off to allow for the works. It confirmed this on 16 August 2022. However, it failed to take any actions to resolve this which led to the first complaint. It then sent contractors who reported that there was no independent water supply, and recommended it, the landlord, contact the water company but it failed to do this. Instead, it issued a complaint response in which it said the resident needed to contact the water company about a new supply because the water company owned the water main pipes.
It is correct that the water company own the mains pipes. However, it is not clear what caused the landlord to believe this meant the resident had to contact it. It would have been reasonable for it to have researched this before it gave its response. If it did not know the answer, which seems likely from its later internal emails, it should have asked the water company. In addition, the landlord is also a housebuilder and so should have been familiar with requesting new utility supplies to new properties.
When the resident said she was not happy with its response, the landlord raised a stage 1 complaint and responded in identical terms to its informal response. There is no evidence it considered her comment that it would be responsible for contacting the water company or did anything to establish whether its position was correct which was a substantial failing. Within its stage 2 response to the first complaint, it again maintained its position without checking it was correct. It also said it could not contact the water company due to GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations), which was simply not correct and a misunderstanding of the situation and the regulations.
At a date not known, as the landlord has not provided evidence, it realised that it needed to install pipework within the property boundary for the new water supply which was correct. Its contractor did this in June 2023, which was 9 months after the first complaint, and advised it to contact the water company for connection. Although this was not a responsive repair and so its policy timeframes did not apply, this was still an unreasonable delay.
The landlord took no further action which led to the second complaint, nearly a year after the resident made her first one. Its contractor also chased it as it had told it to contact the water company. While the landlord did install a stopcock, this was of no purpose, as it was not connected to the new pipework and just caused more frustration for the resident.
By October 2023 the landlord had accepted it was responsible and had started to complete the paperwork needed by the water company which was positive, even if after an unreasonable and inexcusable delay. However, it admitted it did not know what it was doing, which is surprising for a landlord of its size with a development department. It erroneously asked its contractor to complete the paperwork, which was not accepted by the water company, and caused further delay as it had to complete this again. It finally completed its application for a new supply connection on 30 October 2023, one year and 2 months after the first complaint, which was a substantial failing.
In its stage 1 and 2 responses to the second complaint the landlord correctly accepted its failings and apologised for these. It said it had provided conflicting information which had led to delays. It offered a total of £520 compensation for this element of the complaint plus £100 offered for the first complaint. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The issue of not having a stopcock was due to not having an independent mains water supply pipe. The solution was to contact the water company to apply for a new connection to the mains. This was the responsibility of the landlord, which failed to realise this until the second complaint. It failed to establish for itself whether or not it was responsible before it provided its 3 complaint responses to the first complaint. It failed to follow its contractor’s advice to contact the water company, which it first received in August 2022. Its delays meant the resident was not able to have her new boiler installed or repairs to her bathroom completed for around 2 years. There was severe maladministration.
The resident suffered substantial inconvenience by not having control over her water supply and being at the whim of her neighbour deciding to turn the water off without notice. She had to endure the distress and frustration of not knowing when the situation was going to be resolved, or when she was going to have the work she needed completed. She had to raise a second complaint to try to finally get things put right. To reflect the distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £2,000 compensation, inclusive of the £620 offered within its responses for the first and second complaint. This amount is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaints

When the resident raised the first complaint, the landlord treated this as an informal complaint. Its policy in use at the time allowed for this when it was the “quickest and most effective way” to resolve the complaint. As the subject of the complaint required the landlord to investigate, this was not a situation where it could be resolved quickly or more effectively through informality. The landlord failed to follow its policy and should have raised a stage 1 complaint from the start. It took 19 days to provide its informal response, and a further 9 days to provide its stage 1 response in identical terms. This was a failing.
The landlord escalated the complaint and responded at stage 2, but 63 working days after escalation, in breach of its complaints policy timeframe and paragraph 5.13 of the Code.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the second complaint within its policy timeframe and in breach of the Code. It provided its stage 1 response after requesting 2 extensions of time, 51 working days after the complaint was made. Even allowing for an extension of time, this was an unreasonable delay. However, it did offer £300 compensation for this before, and although it did this in an unconventional manner, it did show it recognised its failings and wanted to put things right. It also offered a further £50 in its stage 1 response for its delay.
When the resident escalated the second complaint the landlord acknowledged this the same day in line with its policy. It provided its response within its policy timeframe and in compliance with the Code. However, it failed to address all elements of the complaint, which it recognised in its own post complaint review.
Overall, there was maladministration. The landlord inappropriately handled the first complaint informally, which led to an additional stage of its process, which delayed the complaint. In both complaints it failed to meet policy timescales and those under the Code. Its responses also failed to fully address the complaint and the impact its failings had had on the resident. To reflect the additional inconvenience, time and trouble caused in having to pursue 2 complaints, an order has been made that the landlord pay £500 compensation. This amount is inclusive of the £350 it offered during the complaint process but is in addition to the £150 offered after the end of its internal complaints procedure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of installation of a stopcock and separate water supply.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the formal complaints.

Reasons

There was severe maladministration as the landlord failed to establish who was responsible for contacting the water company about a new supply. It maintained its incorrect position throughout the first complaint. It delayed in resolving the issue when it realised it was responsible following 2 formal complaints.
There was maladministration as the landlord inappropriately initially treated the first complaint informally. It failed to comply with policy timeframes for responses and those set out under the Code and failed to fully address the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident, from the chief executive, for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £2,650 made up of:
  1. £2,000 (inclusive of £620 previously offered) for the impact of its severe maladministration on the resident.
  2. £500 (inclusive of £350 previously offered) for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaints handling failings.
  3. £150 it previously offered after the end of its complaints process.
3. Confirm that the new mains water supply is connected to the property and that the stopcock works.
4. Provide a date for installation of the new boiler and bath or confirm if these works have already been completed.
5. Carry out any repairs needed to the resident’s walls previously damaged when looking for a stopcock or confirm if this has already been completed.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, under paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a case review and provide a report to this Service. This review is to include, but not be limited to:
1. An account of why it did not properly research how to install a new water supply and what steps it should have taken prior to issuing a complaint response.
2. Consideration of creating a new policy detailing how it is to respond to requests for the installation of a new or separate water supply to a property.
3. How it will learn from this complaint and how it will ensure it keeps to complaint response timeframes.
Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within the stated deadlines.