Orbit Group Limited (202230007)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230007

Orbit Group Limited

19 February 2025

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. the resident’s request for repairs to the kitchen drawers.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident and her husband occupy a 3-bedroom house under an assured tenancy agreement.
The resident told us on 1 March 2023 that she had made a complaint to the landlord on 23 December 2022 about its handling of repairs, following a kitchen replacement in May 2022. She said it had fitted incorrect drawers to the kitchen unit and not replaced these. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 15 March 2023 and asked it to respond to this complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 March 2023. In this it said:
1. it had inspected the drawers on 4 July 2022 and told the resident it would not replace these as the drawer depth met the landlord’s standards.
2. it had reviewed this after the resident complained to her local authority in September 2022. It stated that on 3 October 2022 it confirmed its decision was that it would not replace the drawers.
3. it had found no failings in its handling of the request and would not be taking further action.
The resident contacted us again on 3 May 2023. She said she had escalated her complaint with the landlord but had not received a response. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 13 July 2023 and asked it to respond.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 July 2023. In this it said:
1. it had discussed the complaint with the staff member who had previously inspected the condition of the drawers. It considered from this that the drawers which were fitted met its standards and were suitable for use.
2. its repair operatives, and other staff who had also assessed the drawers, supported its decision not to replace them. It reiterated it would not replace the drawers.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 25 October 2023 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision. The Ombudsman is aware that since the stage 2 response the landlord reviewed its decision on 15 May 2024 and carried out repairs to the kitchen drawers on 27 November 2024. However, the resident said this has not resolved the issue. She wants the landlord to complete the repairs and provide compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused by its actions.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The resident has told us that although the landlord carried out works to the drawers in 2024 she was unhappy with some of the work. However, we have seen no evidence that the resident has raised a complaint with the landlord concerning this. This investigation therefore considers the resident’s complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaint process on 17 July 2023. Events that occurred after the complaints process have been referred to where they provide context to the outcome of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen drawers

The terms of the tenancy agreement between the resident and landlord state:
1. under clause 6(a)(iii) the landlord is responsible for repairs to maintain kitchen and bathroom fixtures.
2. under clause 11 the resident is responsible for carrying out minor repairs to the property. The tenancy agreement does not specifically define “minor repairs” but gives examples of these including repairs relating to the resident’s fitting of appliances and small plaster cracks.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that:
1. its repair responsibilities will be set out to residents in its “Repair Responsibilities document”. This document states that the repair and replacement of kitchen cupboards is typically the landlord’s responsibility.
2. for any non-emergency repair it will complete this within 28 calendar days.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.
The landlord recorded it completed the kitchen replacement at the resident’s property on 12 May 2022. The resident wrote to the landlord’s contractor on 25 May 2022 and raised concerns about the works:
1. a pan drawer unit that the landlord had agreed in the kitchen plan for the replacement had not been supplied.
2. there was a faulty door on another cupboard unit.
3. she had raised this with the landlord previously and it advised she needed to contact the contractor directly to arrange a replacement.
From the available records the landlord next contacted the resident on 4 July 2022, 40 calendar days after the resident made the repair request. It informed the resident that it had investigated her concerns about the fitted kitchen and it considered its installation of the drawers met its standards, even if the drawers were not to the specification the resident requested. It told her it was closing the repair works and she could make a formal complaint if she remained unhappy.
This was inappropriate as the landlord exceeded the 28 calendar day timescale for responding to non-emergency repairs. Also there is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident to understand her concerns about the kitchen replacement. This was a failing by the landlord.
On 19 July 2022 the resident contacted her local authority’s housing standards team. She told it:
1. the landlord had fitted a new kitchen in May 2022 but was refusing to put right the issues she had raised about it. She provided photographs of her concerns with this.
2. in the kitchen plan there was supposed to be a pan drawer unit due to limited storage space. However, the landlord had ordered the wrong unit and put a standard drawer set in its place, damaging the fascia of the drawer in the process. She said the landlord originally said it would reorder the drawer unit but had not done so.
3. the landlord had inspected the drawer unit and another damaged cupboard door but had told her the work met its standards and would not replace them. She said that she did not have adequate storage space as a result.
The local authority raised the resident’s concerns to the landlord on 29 September 2022 and stated it considered, from the photographs, the landlord had completed the work to a poor standard. It asked the landlord to comment on the concerns the resident had raised.
On 3 October 2022 the landlord sent an internal email. It stated:
1. the holes in the fascia were due to needing to adjust the drawer during fitting. It noted a small dent to an internal corner of another cupboard door.
2. compared to the completion photographs the photographs provided by the resident looked worse as she had “zoomed in to exaggerate” the issues which were not visible when the drawers were closed.
3. the resident had been “problematic throughout the fitting” due to the disturbance caused by the kitchen replacement works. It said after the completion of the kitchen replacement the resident had “become fixated on the [drawer] depth” and insisted the landlord change it.
4. it had previously advised the resident it would not be replacing the drawer as it met the landlord’s standards, even if it was not the drawer depth the resident preferred.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s statement that it had not delivered what it agreed in the plan for the kitchen replacement when it decided it would not take further action. There is also no evidence that a response was provided to the resident or the local authority at the time to explain why it was taking no further action. This was a failing by the landlord.
The tone of the landlord’s email of 3 October 2022 was unsympathetic towards the resident personally and dismissive towards the issues raised by her and the local authority. If the landlord believed that the resident was making excessive or unreasonably persistent demands of it, then it could have informed the resident of this in line with its unreasonable behaviour policy and asked her to change her behaviour. Instead, it appears to have used its unsympathetic view of the resident as a reason not to address her concerns about the work. This was unreasonable.
From the available records there is no evidence the landlord reinspected the property or reassessed its decision during the resident’s formal complaint and in its complaint responses it referred back to its decisions on 4 July 2022 and 3 October 2022. The next record of the landlord’s consideration was following an email the local authority’s housing standards team sent it on 14 May 2024. In this the local authority said it had spoken further to the resident and considered that the landlord was refusing to take responsibility for its poor workmanship.
As set out above on 15 May 2024 the landlord reviewed the resident’s photographs and the local authority’s emails. It stated in its internal emails that it considered that its contractor should have recalled and replaced the drawer fascia that its contractor damaged due to mis drilling but was unsure how to proceed due to the time that had elapsed since the installation. It arranged a re-inspection of the property to consider if a replacement was suitable and later completed works in November 2024. While this was welcome it is evidence of the landlord’s failings in adequately assessing what works were required during the internal complaints process. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not investigate the issues and carry out repairs to the drawers until 16 months after its final response to the complaint and over 2 years since the resident reported her concerns about the drawers.
The resident told us the landlord’s failings in acting on her repair request meant that she had less storage space in her kitchen for over 2 years. Though the landlord did not offer the resident any remedy in its stage 2 response it has since carried out repairs to put this right on 29 November 2024. As set out above, although we recognise the resident considers the repair has not been resolved, we have not investigated this. The resident would need to make another formal complaint to the landlord so it has an opportunity to respond to this. As such, our assessment of the remedy needed to put right the complaint will be limited to the resident’s other desired outcome of compensation.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for repairs to the kitchen drawers, as it:
1. did not respond to the resident’s original repair request from 25 May 2022 in line with the timescales of its responsive repairs policy.
2. refused to take action to replace the kitchen drawer with a pan drawer for around 2 years of the resident’s first request. This was despite the resident explaining at the start of the process about how what the landlord installed differed from the agreed kitchen plan.
3. displayed a heavy-handed, unsympathetic and inappropriate manner in its internal communication about the resident.
We have made an order that the landlord pay the resident £150 compensation. This amount is within the range set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints.
When the resident first contacted us on 1 March 2023 she told us that she had complained to the landlord in December 2022 but had not received a response. The resident provided an automated email response from the landlord’s customer relations team dated 23 December 2022. However, we have not seen any evidence that she had made a formal written complaint to the landlord about its handling of the repairs to the kitchen drawers before the Ombudsman contacted it on 15 March 2023. As such, we have not found any failing in the landlord’s complaint handling here.
In the landlord’s internal emails on 22 March 2023 it stated the resident’s complaint had “already been escalated [and dealt with] from a stage 2 perspective” and the landlord should stick to its original position. We have seen no evidence that the landlord had responded formally to the resident’s complaint before March 2023. The landlord also confirmed it did not have a record of issuing a formal response before 21 March 2023.
Following the email of 22 March 2023 we have seen no further records in the landlord’s complaint file until it issued its stage 1 response on 28 March 2023. The landlord’s response stated that it had given the resident a response on 4 July 2022 about why it was not replacing the kitchen drawers and it had confirmed its position on 3 October 2022. It said it had spoken to the staff members who issued these responses who stood by the previous decision to not replace the drawers. Though this response was issued within the timescales of the landlord’s policy it was not appropriate in line with the expectations of the Code because:
1. there is no evidence that the landlord adequately considered what evidence it needed to respond fully to the resident’s concerns and solely relied on its previous responses.
2. the reasons for its decisions were limited to saying that the drawer had been fitted to the landlord’s standards and referring the resident back to its responses on 4 July 2022 and 3 October 2022. This was not a meaningful explanation for why the landlord considered there had not been a service failing.
3. the landlord recorded in its acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint that the resident wanted to know the reasons for why the drawers had not been replaced. However, the landlord did not attempt to explain the reasons for this any further than the responses it had already given before its formal complaint process.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 3 May 2023 and said she had escalated her complaint with the landlord following its stage 1 response but had not heard anything further. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 13 July 2023 to ask it to respond. The landlord does not have a record of receiving an escalation request from the resident during this time. From the available evidence we have not seen that the landlord was made aware of the resident’s desire to escalate the complaint until the Ombudsman contacted it on 13 July 2023. As such, we have not seen any failing in the landlord’s complaint handling here.
The landlord noted the Ombudsman’s request on 14 July 2023 and asked for a review of the decision to take place. However, the landlord decided on the same day that its decision would remain unchanged and it would not be taking any further action. It did not refer to any evidence to support this decision. Following this the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 July 2023. Though this response was issued within the timescales of the landlord’s policy it was not appropriate in line with the expectations of the Code because:
1. there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident before issuing its stage 2 response to understand why she was not satisfied with its stage 1 response and the outcome she was seeking.
2. as with the stage 1 response there was no evidence that the landlord adequately considered what evidence it needed to respond fully to the resident’s concerns.
3. the landlord did not clearly explain the actions it had taken to consider the resident’s complaint.
Therefore there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint, as it:
1. did not consider what evidence was required to respond to the resident’s complaint at both stages of the complaint and relied solely on its responses from before the formal complaint.
2. did not provide clear and meaningful explanations for its decision about why it was not upholding the resident’s complaint at both stages.
3. did not attempt to acknowledge or discuss the complaint with the resident at stage 2 of its complaint procedure before it issued its response.
We have made an order that the landlord pay the resident £100 compensation. This amount is within the range set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of request for repairs to the kitchen drawers.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
1. issue the resident with a written apology. The landlord must recognise its failings identified in this report and the impact these had on the resident.
2. pay the resident a total of £250 in compensation comprised of:
  1. £150 for the resident’s likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request to replace the kitchen drawer.
  2. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble the resident likely incurred as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. the compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies she may owe the landlord.
3. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord conduct a review of this case to identify learning and improve working practices. This should include consideration of:
1. how the delays in handling the repair request occurred and how it will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
2. how the complaint handling failings occurred and how the landlord will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of a reoccurrence.
3. any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.