Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Orbit Group Limited (202302635)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302635

Orbit Group Limited

22 November 2024


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of floods at the property in 2022.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, and throughout our dispute resolution process, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident was a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord until he passed away in April 2020. The property was a 2 bedroom flat, in a retirement block. A Grant of Probate was issued on 27 September 2020, which named the resident’s sister as 1 of 2 executors of the estate (herein after referred to as the executor). The executor has appointed her daughter to act as her representative (herein after referred to as the representative).
  2. In October 2022, the representative reported that the property was flooded due to the shower being left on, as part of a legionella flushing carried out by the landlord. The following month, the representative made a complaint to the landlord and, in early December 2022, advised that a buyer had been found for the property. She asked the landlord to bring forward repair works that were scheduled for late January 2023, as the buyer could not wait that long.
  3. The landlord carried out some works to rectify the damage in December 2022, but later that month, a further flood occurred, caused by the toilet backing up. The representative told the landlord she was concerned about the sale falling through if the required works were not completed within a certain timeframe.
  4. On 19 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint and accepted responsibility for the damage caused. It said it had completed all the works during the week of 16 January 2023. It apologised and offered £295 compensation for expenses incurred and service failure.
  5. The representative asked to escalate the complaint in February 2023 as she was dissatisfied with the compensation offered. On 28 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response, which made an increased offer of £495 compensation for expenses incurred, service failure and distress and inconvenience. 

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 25.a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman can consider a complaint from a person who is or has been in a landlord/tenant relationship with a member landlord. It goes on to state that, if the complaint is made by an ex-occupier, they must have had a legal relationship with the member at the time that the matter complained of arose.
  2. Paragraph 25.e of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman can consider a complaint from a person with authority to make a complaint on behalf of [a person detailed at paragraph 25.a] who is deceased.
  3. It is accepted that the executor (and thereby the representative acting on her behalf) has the authority to make a complaint on behalf of the deceased resident, by way of the Grant of Probate. However, the complaint itself is about the landlord’s handling of floods and repairs which occurred more than 2 years after the resident had passed away. As the resident was not alive at the time the matter complained of arose, the requirements of paragraph 25.a are not met.
  4. Instead, the complaint is the executor’s own, rather than being made on behalf of the resident. The issues negatively impacted her, in terms of the delayed sale of the property and discharge of the estate, rather than impacting the resident. As a result, the complainant requirements are not met and the executor does not have the requisite standing to bring a complaint to this Service. Therefore, the matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and will not be considered further.