Orbit Group Limited (202213948)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213948

Orbit Group Limited

15 May 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 complaint concerning drainage, and sewage issues at her property.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy that began on 12 April 1999. The property is a 3 bedroom mid terrace house, and the landlord is a housing association.
The landlord had physical and mental health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, and 2 other members of her household. The resident suffers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
The resident’s complaint, and much of the contact with the landlord and this Service, was made on her behalf by her son. For the purposes of this report both the resident, and her son are referred to as ‘the resident’.
The resident said that they had been reporting drainage issues to the landlord for many years. From October 2021 the resident made reports related to sewage overflowing from the drains immediately outside their, and other properties in the row.
The resident’s reports referred to the poor practices, and service of the landlord’s contractor. It referred to issues being exasperated by the contractor’s rod getting stuck, and left in a drain. It also referred to the resident’s dissatisfaction at the contractor leaving a tool in their drain, being left to clean up sewage themselves, and the lack of consideration of their vulnerabilities. The landlord’s record said that all related works were successfully completed by February 2022, and that the resident’s previous associated complaint was concluded on 5 May 2022.

Complaint Policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage complaint process, with complaints acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt at both stages. It said that it would aim to issue written responses within 10 and 20 working days at stage 1 and 2 respectively. It explained that where this was not possible, it would let the resident know why, and advise an expected response date.
The policy said that issues that had previously been through the landlord’s complaint process, or that happened over six months ago, would not be considered as a complaint.

Summary of events

On 20, 21, and 22 June 2022, the resident made several reports to the landlord that external drains were overflowing with raw sewage, including 1 near to their front door. The resident highlighted that she suffered with COPD, and how unhappy they were with the actions of the landlord’s contractor. They said that their garden was covered in sewage, and that it was also inside their property. They said that the contractor had put sewage directly into the communal bins, and that they were otherwise being left to clean up themselves.
On 22 June 2022 the resident made their associated complaint to the landlord. The resident said that during their previous complaint, the landlord had incorrectly advised them that the drainage and sewage issues had been resolved.
On 6 July 2022 the landlord and resident discussed the drainage survey due to take place that day, and the actions of the landlord’s contractor. The resident expressed their dissatisfaction that the drainage issues had reoccurred, and provided receipts for garden items that had been damaged by sewage.
On 14 and 15 July 2022 the landlord further discussed the sewage issues with the resident. The resident expressed their dissatisfaction that the issue would not be addressed until the following month.
On 25 July 2022 the landlord sent a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement to the resident. It stated that the cause of the sewage issues had been identified, but that the works had not been completed. It acknowledged that the resident wanted their complaint to be resolved with the completion of the works, and by issuing them with an apology and compensation.
On 29 July 2022 the landlord issued the resident its stage 1 response, which confirmed that it had upheld their complaint. It stated that it had assessed matters that had occurred since the closure of the resident’s previous complaint on 5 May 2022. It detailed the drainage jobs it had undertaken in June and July 2022, and accepted its administrative errors that had delayed some of those works. It advised that further works were booked for 5 August 2022, and that it would complete a post inspection. It offered the resident £108 compensation, which was based on £38 for damaged garden items, and £70 for service failure, distress, and inconvenience.
On 16 September 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of its process, as the works it had proposed at stage 1 had been cancelled without any communications to them. The landlord’s internal emails stated that it would handle the matter as a new stage 1 complaint.
On 6 October 2022 the landlord issued the resident a further stage 1 complaint response that referred to its conversation with the resident earlier the same day. It apologised that the drainage works arranged for 5 August 2022, and a subsequent appointment in September 2022, had been rearranged for October 2022. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the missed appointments, and inconvenience. It acknowledged that the resident remained dissatisfied with this, and said that it had escalated their complaint to stage 2 of its process.
From 12 October 2022 the landlord’s contractor undertook various repairs, and cleaning works to the drains. On 17 October 2022 the resident chased the landlord for a works progress update. On 25 October 2022 the contractor’s job report said that it had completed a camera survey and descale of the drain, and confirmed that all was flowing freely. On 28 October 2022 the landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement of their stage 2 complaint, which detailed its understanding of it.
On 4 November 2022 the landlord told the resident, that it was extending the deadline to respond to their stage 2 complaint by 10 working days while it finalised its investigation. It said that it was aiming to issue its response by 18 November 2022. The landlord’s contractor completed a camera drainage survey the same day, and recorded that the resident’s drain was free flowing.
On 18 November 2022 the landlord’s internal emails discussed the resident’s complaint, and the related contact it had received from their Member of Parliament. The landlord’s emails acknowledged the high number of drainage attendances already made, the works that were still outstanding, that it was chasing its contractor, and that the resident had requested an inspection at stage 1. The landlord told the resident that it was still unable to issue its stage 2 response, but would now aim to do so by 2 December 2022. It advised that the resident could refer the matter to this Service if they were dissatisfied with the extension. It agreed to meet the resident to complete an inspection on 21 November 2022.
On 24 November 2022 the resident told the landlord that it had not attended its inspection on 21 November 2022, nor contacted them about it. The landlord’s internal emails stated that this had occurred due to the intended visiting officer being absent with sickness.
During December 2022 the landlord’s internal emails referred to its backlog of works due to its contractor’s staff sickness. Its record stated that it had inspected the resident’s drain on 19 December 2022, and identified issues with the gradient that would need to be addressed.
Throughout January 2023 the landlord’s internal emails referred to the resident regularly chasing it for an update of their complaint. On 15 February 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident that it was still not in a position to respond to their stage 2 complaint. It said that it would aim to do so by 15 March 2023.
On 2 and 3 March 2023 the landlord discussed the resident’s complaint at length with them. The landlord’s internal email asked that it hold back from issuing its drafted stage 2 response following its discussion with the resident. The resident’s key points from their discussion with the landlord were as follows:
1. They had wanted an update of their complaint, and complained about the amount of chasing that had been necessary, and the landlord’s lack of contact and poor complaint handling.
2. They said that the drainage issues had been present since the start of their tenancy, but particularly the last 4 to 5 years, and that they wanted their complaint to cover this full period.
3. They questioned the positioning of an air brick, which they said allowed sewage to enter their property when drainage issues occurred.
4. They said that, despite their health vulnerabilities, they had been left with ankle deep raw sewage, which they had had to clean up themselves after not being offered an environmental clean.
On 10 March 2023 the landlord told the resident that, further to its discussion the previous week, it had arranged a meeting with its contractor regarding its staff conduct. It said that once this, and any outstanding repairs issues had been addressed, it would issue its final complaint response.
On 24 March 2023 this Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint by 31 March 2023.
On 31 March 2023 the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response. The key points were as follows:
1. It said that it was undertaking a review of the history of drainage issues affecting all properties in the resident’s row. It said it would communicate to the resident any findings that were specific to their property once the review was complete.
2. It said that on 16 March 2023 it had confirmed that the resident’s air brick was appropriately positioned.
3. It stated that it was reviewing its contractor’s conduct, and would share its conclusions and learning with the resident once complete.
4. It assured the resident that their vulnerabilities were recorded, and apologised that they were not actively considered during the works. It stated its learning from this.
5. It apologised that it had not completed the actions it had committed to at stage 1 of the resident’s complaints, and stated its learning from this.
6. It explained its complaint handling learning and intended service improvements, and apologised for its poor communications at stage 2 of the resident’s complaint.
7. It said that while some of its reviews were still ongoing, it acknowledged that the resident had experienced poor service throughout their repair journey. It said it had awarded compensation additional to the £50 offered at stage 1, as follows:
  1. £30 – failed appointments;
  2. £210 – contractor service failures;
  3. £70 – failure to consider its vulnerability records;
  4. £100 – poor stage 1 complaint handling;
  5. £100 – delays and poor communications at stage 2;
  6. £300 – distress and inconvenience of overall complaint experience;
  7. £810 – total (£860 including stage 1).
8. It detailed the previous compensation overpayments that it said it had made to the resident, and how it would deduct this from its new award.
9. It referred the resident to this Service if they remained dissatisfied.
On 31 March 2023 the resident expressed their intense dissatisfaction to the landlord regarding its stage 2 response. They said it had failed to address all of the points discussed, and incorrectly identified compensation overpayments.
On 4 April 2023 the landlord sent a “post stage 2 response” to the resident. The landlord apologised to resident that it had incorrectly identified compensation overpayments, and offered them an additional £70 compensation for this failing. It accepted that its wider reviews associated with the resident’s complaint were ongoing, but committed to write to the resident once they were concluded. The resident responded the following day, and expressed their continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 2 response.
On 11 April 2023 the landlord’s records stated that the final works to the resident’s drain, and gully surround were successfully completed.
On 9 June 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident that it had not yet relayed the outcomes of its reviews. On 16 June 2023 the landlord sent the resident a further “post stage 2” response, which was a summary of the outcome of its drainage issue review. The summary detailed the landlord, or its contractor’s actions from July 2019 to April 2023. It noted the section of broken drainage rod found in the drain in November 2021. It stated that its contractor had said that they were not responsible for this, but that it was still under review, and would provide the resident with a further update once known. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding its contractor’s conduct, and that it would take internal measures to address this once its investigation was complete. It said that once it was in a position to fully respond it would review the resident’s compensation award.
On 14 July 2023 the landlord sent the resident a “post stage 2 review” letter. It said that its contractor had continued to deny that it had left tools in the resident’s drain, and that it did not have the evidence to confirm or refute this. It said that as such it had, “decided to prioritise your satisfaction and side with you in this matter”. It offered the resident £250 for the inconvenience the matter had caused to them. It acknowledged the delay in responding to the resident’s concerns following stage 2 of its complaint process, and offered a further £100, which it said brought its total compensation offer to £1230.

Assessment and findings

The landlord accepted, and apologised for the significant failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of drainage and sewage issues, and of its handling of their associated complaint. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether its subsequent actions and offer of redress were fair and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account our Remedies Guidance, and whether the landlord acted in line with its own policies, and the Dispute Resolution Principles; Be fair, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s protracted handling of the resident’s complaint not only increased the time, trouble, and distress experienced by the resident, but also impacted the effectiveness of elements of its investigation. This report is focused on the resident’s 2 most recent complaints from June 2022. Nevertheless, as is further considered below, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s investigation of those complaints, was negatively impacted by failings in its handling of the resident’s previous related 2021 complaint.
While there were significant delays to the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint, it did handle aspects of it in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. The landlord’s efforts to understand, and respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction, while belated, did demonstrate its attempts to be fair. The landlord also appropriately evidenced the range of learning, and service improvements that it had taken from the failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint, and the issues it related to.
The landlord offered the resident £108 compensation, and reimbursement for damaged garden items at stage 1 of their June 2022 complaint. The resident requested that their complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s process in September 2022. The landlord’s response to the resident’s escalation request is considered below, but the landlord decided to handle the matter as a new stage 1 complaint. The following month the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation at stage 1 of its process, and escalated their complaint to stage 2 the same day.
The landlord’s final ‘post stage 2’ response in July 2023, stated that its total compensation award for the resident’s September 2022 complaint was £1230, but this omitted the £50 awarded at stage 1. The landlord appropriately broke down its compensation calculation, with £670 attributed to matters that related to its complaint handling failures, and £610 to the failings in its handling of the drainage issues. The landlord’s total offer of £1280 demonstrated its efforts to put things right, and was in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. As such, it is the view of the Ombudsman that there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s complaint concerning drainage, and sewage issues at their property
From 20 June 2022 the resident experienced a reoccurrence of the drainage issues, which the landlord had believed it had resolved at the beginning of the year. The Ombudsman readily acknowledges how unpleasant, and distressing the resultant sewage issues would have been for the resident.
The resident made their associated complaint to the landlord on 22 June 2022. While it was appropriate for the landlord to discuss the complaint with the resident in the intervening period, it took 19 working days longer than the timeframe stated in its policy to formally acknowledge it.
Similarly, the landlord took 28 working days to issue the resident its stage 1 response, which it did on 29 July 2022. It is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord explained its delay to the resident, nor advised them an expected response date, in line with its own policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed that it had upheld the resident’s complaint. It was appropriate for the landlord to accept the errors that had caused delays to its works, offer the resident compensation, and advise that further works would be undertaken the following week. This demonstrated the landlord’s resolution focused approach.
However, the landlord’s failure to monitor its contractor attendance of the works on the day advised to the resident, nor communicate their postponement to them, would have added to their already significant frustration and distress. As the landlord later acknowledged, it then further compounded this when its contractor also failed to attend the rearranged works in September 2022
The resident asked the landlord to escalate their complaint on 16 September 2022, and specifically cited the uncommunicated postponements of the works advised at stage 1. The landlord decided to handle the matter as a new complaint, rather than as an escalation of the resident’s existing one. The landlord’s decision may have been appropriate had it then handled the resident’s new complaint in a timely manner. However, the landlord again issued its stage 1 response outside of the timeframe of its policy, and significantly delayed its subsequent escalation, and stage 2 response. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 6 October 2022, and it was appropriate for it to again apologise for the works delays, and offer compensation. However, the resident had also raised significant concerns regarding the conduct, and work practices of the landlord’s contractor. Some of these concerns, including the broken rod being left in the drain, related to the previous 2021 drainage and sewage issues. As above, as the resident was still seeking the landlord’s response to these matters almost a year after they had occurred, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord had also failed to appropriately address this during the resident’s previous complaint, that concluded in May 2022.
The landlord was aware of how dissatisfied the resident was with the elements of their complaint relating to its contractor’s conduct, and its lack of consideration of their vulnerabilities. The landlord’s failure to address this in a timely manner would have caused significant frustration to the resident and, as above, also impacted the landlord’s ability to thoroughly investigate the matter.
The landlord did evidence its appropriate subsequent attempts to address these matters with its contractor. However, its efforts were hampered by the amount of time that had since passed, and it effectively ended up in a stalemate with its contractor. While the landlord’s later responses to the resident did somewhat address this, its failure to promptly investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint deprived them of a more conclusive outcome. It is also reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s earlier intervention may have prevented some of the subsequent contractor issues described by the resident. The landlord’s actions were therefore again unreasonable.
The landlord’s October 2022 stage 1 response to the resident acknowledged that they remained dissatisfied, and advised that their complaint had been escalated to stage 2. The landlord’s contractor undertook various drainage works during the same month, but the landlord failed to keep the resident appropriately informed, as evidenced by the resident’s chasing of it for updates. This again would have added to the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience.
On 4 November 2022 the landlord explained to the resident the reasons why it had not yet completed its complaint investigation. It also advised the resident of its revised target to issue them its stage 2 response, which was in line with its policy. The landlord failed to meet that target, and so repeated this on 18 November 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to this Service if they were dissatisfied with the complaint extension, and to arrange an inspection visit in the meantime.
However, the landlord then failed to attend the agreed inspection on 21 November 2022, which its internal emails stated was due to the visiting officer being absent with sickness. While sickness is unavoidable, the landlord would be expected to have processes in place to check the appointments of absent staff, and contact affected residents accordingly. The landlord’s failure to do this would have further added to the resident’s time, trouble, and frustration.
The resident continued to regularly chase the landlord for a response to his stage 2 complaint through January 2023. It is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no formal contact from the landlord to advise the resident of the status of their complaint until 15 February 2023.
At the beginning of March 2023 the landlord took detailed notes of its lengthy complaint discussion with the resident. The landlord’s internal emails suggested that it had been ready to issue its stage 2 response, but took the decision to further delay it to allow for a fuller investigation of the points raised during its call with the resident.
In other circumstances this may have been an appropriate approach. However, in this instance it had been over 20 weeks since the resident’s complaint was escalated. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord would be expected to confirm its understanding of the resident’s complaint, and undertake its investigation within 20 working days of the escalation. The landlord ’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
Furthermore, many of the resident’s points concerned what they had said were the contractor’s unsanitary work practices, failures to offer environmental clean ups, nor otherwise consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. As above, by this time the resident had been raising these points to the landlord for a lengthy period, likely dating back to their former 2021 complaint. While it was appropriate for the landlord to fully investigate these matters with its contractor, the time it took to do so was unreasonable, and severely impacted the effectiveness of its own investigation and actions.
On 10 March 2023 the landlord told the resident it would issue its stage 2 response once it had met its contractor to discuss the resident’s concerns. The landlord had not completed its contractor conduct review when it issued the resident its stage 2 response on 31 March 2023. As such it is reasonable to conclude that it was only the intervention of this Service the week prior, that prompted it to do so. In either case, the landlord had taken 123 working days to issue its response, and therefore failed to act in line with either its own policy, or the Code.
The landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident was, in the main, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. As above, the landlord did not dispute the impact of its failings on the resident. It detailed the range of learning it had taken from the resident’s complaint, and the further reviews of specific matters that it was undertaking. It offered the resident compensation that brought its total offer at that time to £860, and committed to providing them with further information regarding its ongoing reviews.
However, the landlord severely undermined its own response by misidentifying previous compensation overpayments, and advising the resident of its intention to deduct them from their award. While the landlord’s subsequent records suggested that this was straightforward human error, it added to the resident’s time and trouble, and understandably left them dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response. It was appropriate for the landlord to increase its compensation offer by a further £70 in recognition of this, which demonstrated its efforts to be fair, and put things right.
The resident had stated during their discussion with the landlord that they wanted its complaint investigation to cover the previous 4 to 5 years of drainage issues. It would have been appropriate for the landlord, either at the time of the discussion, or within its stage 2 response, to explain to the resident why it would not do this, in line with its policy. It is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord offered any such explanation to the resident. This would have left the resident feeling that their complaint had not been fully addressed, and again made their dissatisfaction with the stage 2 response understandable.
Over the following months the landlord did provide the resident with further updates, and outcomes of its reviews of the matters relevant to their complaint. The landlord did this via its ‘post stage 2’ responses, but these were again unreasonably delayed. As above, the landlord’s failure to more promptly investigate the resident’s issues regarding the contractor’s conduct left it unable to reach a definitive conclusion that may have been satisfactory to the resident. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to decide to ‘side with’ the resident on this matter, and offer a further £250 compensation.
It was also appropriate for the landlord to further recognise the delays in its post stage 2 handling, and to increase its offer to the resident by a further £100, to a total of £1280. This amount recognised, and was proportionate to the significant impact on the resident of the landlord’s maladministration. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s complaint concerning drainage, and sewage issues at her property.

Reasons

The Ombudsman sympathises with how unpleasant the sewage issues would have been for the resident. It would have only added to the resident’s distress that they were a reoccurrence of issues that they had already experienced, and that they and the landlord believed to have been previously resolved.
The resident made their complaint to the landlord as soon as the drainage issues reoccurred, and raised serious concerns regarding its contractor’s work practices. The significant delay in the landlord thoroughly investigating this element of the resident’s complaint would have caused them severe frustration, and limited the effectiveness of its investigation. These delays persisted throughout the resident’s complaint, which the landlord failed to handle in line with either its own policy, or the Code.
While much delayed, the landlord did handle aspects of the resident’s complaint in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. It readily accepted, and apologised for the failings in its handling of both the drainage issue, and the resident’s associated complaint. The landlord further apologised for its failure to actively consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, despite having them recorded. It did, at times, demonstrate a resolution focused approach, and efforts to be fair and put things right. It evidenced a range of learning, and service improvements from the resident’s complaint, regarding its handling of the drainage issues, and the complaint itself.
It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s total offer of £1280 compensation was proportionate to the significant impact of its failings on the resident, and as such represented reasonable redress.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the landlord’s compensation offer to the resident of £1280. The landlord should make any part of this payment to the resident that it has not already done so.