Orbit Group Limited (202229374)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229374

Orbit Group Limited

20 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of bathroom works and subsequent complaint.
2. The landlord’s handling of a bathroom door replacement.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord for a bungalow. The landlord’s records reflect that the resident has a physical disability and mobility issues.
On 7 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to raise a stage 1 complaint. The resident explained that when he came out of hospital on 4 April 2022 he saw a number of unknown people coming in and out of his property and when he asked them what they were doing, they explained that they were carrying out some works within his bathroom. He said that he allowed the work to continue, as he needed a bathroom, but never gave permission for the work to happen whilst he was not there and should have been informed first.
On 7 November 2022 the landlord also raised a repair for the resident’s bathroom door, as it had been left off the hinges following works in April 2022.
On 8 December 2022 the landlord provided a stage 1 response which said that as the matter had happened more than 6 months ago, and in line with its complaints policy, it would not investigate the issue raised.
On 29 December 2022 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 as he did not agree with the stage 1 outcome. The resident was also unhappy that his bathroom door had not been put back on the hinges.
On 8 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response which said:
1. In relation to the refusal to investigate the work carried out in April 2022, as the matter had not been raised before, it would not investigate due to the time that elapsed.
2. It acknowledged that the bathroom door had been missing since April 2022 and that:
  1. In November 2022, the contractor attended and found that the door had been stolen from outside the property and it was waiting for the resident to provide a crime reference number.
  2. In December 2022, the contractor attended and took measurements for a new door. The contractor said that a specific door was required due to fire and safety risk and the resident’s needs.
  3. In February 2023, the landlord arranged for a further inspection to discuss a suitable door. It was decided that a concertina door was most appropriate and this had now been ordered.
3. In recognition of the delays experienced, it offered the resident a total of £250 compensation, made up of £100 for delay and £150 for distress and inconvenience.
On 8 June 2023 the landlord attended the resident’s property but the resident refused to allow access as he was unaware of the appointment being booked.
On 12 June 2023 the landlord spoke with the resident as he remained dissatisfied that he had been without a suitable door on the bathroom for 14 months. The landlord confirmed that it had spoken with relevant departments and that a fire door was not necessary.
On 13 June 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that it would increase its compensation offer to £450 in recognition of further poor communication and that as per the resident’s request, it would pay this to him before an appointment was booked.
On 3 August 2023 the landlord reattended the resident’s property, however the work was not completed as the resident told the contractor he wanted to await contact from the Ombudsman. The job was suspended.
In August 2023 the landlord and contractor made arrangements to rebook an appointment to fit the concertina door. It was agreed that an appointment would be booked and that the contractor must call before they arrive as it can take him a while to get to the door.
On 14 September 2022 the landlord attended the resident’s property and fitted a concertina door. The contractor notes reflect the door was too wide for the door frame, but they made it work. It was further noted that the door was of poor quality.
In May 2024 the resident provided the Ombudsman with an update. The resident said that the time in question was a very stressful time for him. He had given a key to a friend while he was in hospital, who was at the property when the contractor arrived to carry out the works within his bathroom, and that his friend had given them the key without knowing what was happening. The resident said that he tried to call the landlord while he was in hospital to say that it could not carry out the works without him there but could not get through.
He also said that when the bathroom works were completed, it was inspected but no one did anything about the fact that he did not have a functional door. He said he called the landlord multiple times prior to his complaint, but no one responded. He said it was an incredibly stressful time as when people came to visit, they could not use the bathroom as there was no door.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s approach.

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right, and
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

The landlord’s handling of bathroom works and subsequent complaint handling.

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, dated 2022, stated that a complaints policy must clearly set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered. The circumstances should be fair and reasonable to residents and says that it may exclude a complaint where issues occurred over 6 months ago.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a 2-stage complaints process and that it will not consider issues that happened over 6 months ago unless there are valid reasons as to why the issue was not raised sooner.
The resident raised a formal complaint in November 2022 about the landlord entering his property in April 2022. The resident said that the contractor entered his home and completed works without his permission.
The landlord provided the resident with a formal complaint response in December 2022, stating that as the issue occurred more than 6 months ago, in line with its complaint policy, it would not investigate.
While the landlord’s complaint policy does state this, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have spoken with the resident about his complaint in further detail before it came to a decision to not investigate. Had the landlord contacted the resident, he would have had the opportunity to provide additional information. The landlord would also have had the opportunity to discuss any mitigating factors that may have impacted his ability to raise the complaint earlier. There is no record that the landlord did this and was a failing by the landlord.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the formal complaint was registered more than 6 months after the event occurred, however it was only by a couple of weeks. The landlord was aware the resident had been in hospital and had been recovering at home following the events, but there is no evidence to show that it took this into consideration when making its decision. It now falls to Ombudsman to decide whether the landlord acted reasonably and fairly in the circumstances.
When the Ombudsman is investigating a complaint of any category, the Service asks the landlord to provide full and comprehensive records to evidence what has happened. The Ombudsman asks the landlord to provide information such as copies of repair logs, contractor worksheets, copies of phone logs and any other relevant correspondence.
It is of great concern that the landlord acknowledges that it carried out works within the resident’s property in April 2022, but is unable to provide any records to evidence this. It is of further concern that the landlord is not aware when the works were completed, or to what standard.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission.
Section 11, sub section 6 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that the landlord must give residents at least 24 hours prior to attending the property. However, in this case the landlord has not been able to evidence that it gave the resident reasonable notice about its plan to start the works. This was a failing.
It is acknowledged that the contractor was given permission to enter the property and start works by the resident’s friend and that the contractor would not have reasonably known that the resident did not give consent for the works to continue. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord is obliged to keep the property in a good state of repair and the landlord is entitled to decide what repairs are necessary to achieve this. However, the landlord’s failure to notify the resident meant that he lost the opportunity to reschedule or make alterative arrangements. It also caused him unnecessary distress and inconvenience, at what was already stressful time for the resident.
The Ombudsman draws the landlord’s attention to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which sets out what the Ombudsman considers are the best practice principles of “putting things right” where there have been failings. This includes the principle that any remedy offered by a landlord “must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result”.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort spent pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. We consider whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident, taking into account the evidence that has been provided.
Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive, but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident.
The Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident as a result of the landlord failing to notify him that the works were due to commence. As detailed, the resident was in hospital receiving treatment from a fall at the time of the events. The resident was unaware of who was in his home and what they were doing and furthermore had additional inconvenience of trying to get hold of the landlord and ask it to stop the works until he returned.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, which can be found on our website, states that where there have been failures which have adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge them, payments of above £100 are recommended.
The landlord should have identified its failures sooner and while it is positive that it offered compensation in June 2023, this was after its final complaint response. Furthermore, the amount offered does not fairly reflect the level of distress and inconvenience experienced and in line with the Ombudsman guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250.
Next the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s complaint handling and failure to apply reasonableness after it received the resident’s complaint.
As detailed, the landlord’s decision to not investigate the resident’s complaint due to the time elapsed was unreasonable. The landlord should have identified that the resident may not have brought his complaint to the attention of the landlord sooner due to his individual circumstances.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord did provide the resident with a post stage 2 complaint response in June 2023, where it increased its compensation offer by £200 to include poor communication and complaint handling. But it did not specifically state what failures it had identified.
The Ombudsman is clear that the any offers of compensation should be made as part of the landlord’s internal complaints process, and its decision to increase the offer after the final complaint response was not in line with this. However, the offer of £200 was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and fairly reflects the level of inconvenience caused to the resident.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping and recommends that it take steps to learn from the outcome of the resident’s case by reviewing its record keeping practices in light of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management. It is also ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation in view of any avoidable distress and inconvenience he experienced as a result of the landlord’s poor record keeping and the impact this had on the handling of the repairs.
In summary, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of bathroom work and subsequent complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £550, which includes the £200 offered in June 2023.

The landlord’s handling of a door replacement.

The landlord’s responsive repair policy, dated 2021, states that it is responsible for maintaining or repairing the internal doors within a property. It also states that it prioritises repairs as either:
1. Emergency repairs, which will be completed within 4 or 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs, which will be completed within 28 calendar days.
The repairs policy also confirms that when a second visit is required, the appointment will be made before the contractor leaves the property.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may award compensation if the standard of service it provides was considerably below the standard residents could reasonably expect. It would also only pay compensation if a resident has experienced financial loss or significant distress or inconvenience, although it does not give any guidance with regards to amounts.
The resident says that his bathroom door was removed following the works in April 2022. He says that the bathroom door had to be removed as it could not be opened correctly as it would hit the toilet. He says that the landlord post inspected the works but did not raise any repairs in relation to the door.
The landlord acknowledges within its final complaint response that the door was removed in April 2022, but did not provide any further insight into why it removed the door.
The Ombudsman has been unable to determine what works were carried out in April 2022 and whether these were part a planned works program or responsive repairs. If the works were carried out as part of a planned program, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence of a post inspection and what steps the landlord was going to take to ensure all works were completed within the resident’s property. If the works had been completed in line with its responsive repairs policy, the Ombudsman would expect to see a further repair raised for the door to be rehung and completed in line with its published timescales.
Based on the repair records, following the resident’s complaint the landlord raised a routine repair for the bathroom door to be rehung, however when the contractor attended, the bathroom door was not at the property. The contractor should have made an appointment with the resident to reattend. However, there is no evidence to show that it did this.
As part of its final complaint response, the landlord identified that it had visited on multiple occasions and identified that a specialist folding door was required and said that it would arrange a convenient time to fit it. The door was subsequently fitted on 14 September 2023, which was over 17 months from when the door was originally taken off.
It is acknowledged that following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, there were times where the resident informed the landlord that he did not wish for the repair to be completed until he had heard from the Ombudsman, but these did not significantly contribute to the overall failure by the landlord because there had already been 11 months of delay prior to the stage 2 response.
In an effort to put things right for the resident, the landlord offered £100 compensation. While this may have been reasonable at the time of the final response, it took the landlord a further 6 months to complete the repair. Therefore, it is reasonable for this amount to be increased to reflect the full delay.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says that where there has been a failure which the landlord has acknowledged and made some attempt to put things right, but failed to address the detriment, payments of between £100 and £600 are recommended. Therefore, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £500, which includes the £150 which the landlord offered through its complaints process, in recognition of the distress and experience caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of bathroom works and subsequent complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a door replacement.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified in this investigation, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1050 within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. This includes the £450 previously offered and is made up of:
1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience associated with the handling of bathroom works.
2. £200 for the failures associated with the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. £100 for the impact of its failures associated with record keeping
4. £500 for the full delay associated with replacing the bathroom door.
The landlord is ordered to arrange an inspection and post inspect the resident’s bathroom within 4 weeks of the date of this determination and record exactly what works have been completed. The landlord must also inspect the concertina door to ensure it is of good quality and functions effectively.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review its record keeping practices in relation to inspections, repairs and residents’ vulnerabilities, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management. This includes its current retention period.
2. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to record keeping, complaint handling and remedies, including in light of the findings of this report, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and our remedies guidance.