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

Orbit Group Limited (202304297)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304297

Orbit Group Limited

6 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of repairs to air vents and ducts in the property;
    2. The resident’s associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident occupies a 1-bedroom flat on an assured tenancy with the landlord. He first reported an issue with the extractor fans in the property on 21 June 2022. A contractor attended and identified that follow-on works were required, but this was not raised via a works order by the landlord until the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
  2. On 30 November 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about the time it was taking to resolve the issue with the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. Works to the extractor fans and ducts were completed on 11 February 2023, and the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 February 2023. It accepted delays in raising the follow-on works and in communicating with the resident about his complaint. However, it noted that, during the course of the complaint, its contractor had accommodated the resident’s request for weekend appointments, which was outside the terms of their contract with the landlord. In light of its findings, it awarded compensation of £150 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 May 2023 expressing dissatisfaction as he said that dust was still accumulating in the property, which was what had previously led him to report issues relating to the extractor fans. It was noted that he was also unhappy with the lack of communication from the landlord.
  4. The landlord issued a further stage 1 response on 23 May 2023 in which it acknowledged and apologised for delays in communication and the lack of contact during the course of the issue. It offered £265 compensation for failed appointments, the delay in resolving works, its poor communication during previous complaints, and the stress and inconvenience caused. Referring to its conversation with the resident on 4 May 2023, it noted that he was not happy with the outcome of its investigation and so it confirmed that it would escalate his complaint to stage 2.
  5. The stage 2 response, issued on 14 July 2023, apologised for the inconvenience and stress the resident had experienced during the repairs, acknowledging that the delay in addressing the follow-on works was unacceptable. It also apologised for the delay in dealing with his complaint at stage 2. It assured him that it was taking steps to improve its internal communication processes to prevent such instances in the future. To reflect these failings, it awarded him compensation totalling £608, broken down as follows:
    1. £200 for the service failure and delay in responding to his stage 2 complaint and the contradictory information he was given;
    2. £70 as a goodwill payment for the service failings it had identified;
    3. £138 for the delay in completing the repairs;
    4. £200 for the inconvenience and distress caused due to the poor complaints experience he had.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he wanted to know if the compensation offered was reasonable, although he has since confirmed that he accepted this and it was paid by the landlord. The resident has told this Service that the accumulation of dust is still a problem in the property and the ongoing issue with the extractor fans has resulted in damp and mould developing in the bathroom.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of repairs to air vents and ducts in the property

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy provides for the completion of routine repairs within 28 calendar days. In this case, the initial report of dust in the property and an issue with the vents was made by the resident to the landlord on 21 June 2022. Despite him contacting the landlord on 13 September 2022 to chase the outstanding repairs, the follow-on works were not raised until his complaint on 30 November 2022. Works were completed on 11 February 2023, over 7 months after the repair was first reported, which was an excessive delay and a significant failing on the landlord’s part.
  2. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good recordkeeping practices. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
  3. Accordingly, the landlord should have appropriate systems in place to keep records of repairs and monitor the outcome of contractor appointments so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. In this instance, there is no evidence of the actions taken by the landlord to address the resident’s initial report. In his complaint to the landlord, the resident said that he had been waiting for the repairs since the survey was first carried out in July, but there is no evidence of that survey or the follow-on works identified. This failure by the landlord caused the delay in raising the works order for the repairs.
  4. Thereafter, there were delays in completing the follow-on works due to difficulties in arranging mutually convenient appointments and numerous ineffective appointments during which the repairs were not progressed, for example, on 22 December 2022 and 9 January 2023. The landlord’s records show that it estimated that the works would potentially take a full day to complete. Despite this, on 9 January 2023, the contractor allocated a 1-hour appointment for the job, which then had to be re-booked for 4 February 2023. This demonstrates a failure by the landlord to properly manage and progress the repairs in this case.
  5. This Service acknowledges that part of the delay in arranging appointments was due to the landlord accommodating the resident’s lack of availability during the working week due to work commitments. This was outside its agreement with its contractor and demonstrates the landlord’s commitment to resolving the outstanding repair for the resident.
  6. At the appointment on 4 February 2023, the contractor identified that there was no ducting to fit the extractor fans to and, therefore, a further attendance was required on 11 February to complete the works. However, this information was initially provided by the resident to the landlord in his telephone call of 13 September 2022, saying this was established by the contractor who had attended and inspected the loft space. This prolonged the completion of the follow-on works and further highlights the impact of the landlord’s record keeping failure.
  7. There were also omissions and delays in the landlord’s communications with the resident regarding the repairs. For example, there is no evidence of any communication by the landlord to arrange the follow-on works between June and November 2022. Following his complaint, the landlord updated the resident that it was trying to arrange a weekend appointment but could not guarantee this. No meaningful updates were provided by the landlord to the resident between 7 December 2022 and 20 February 2023 which was unreasonable and caused the resident frustration and inconvenience.
  8. Records show that multiple works orders were raised by the landlord, but these were subsequently cancelled or closed as completed when the works had not in fact been done. For example, on 4 May 2023, the resident reported that dust was accumulating again around the extractor fans, which suggested that the problem had not been resolved. Although a works order was promptly raised for an inspection, this was marked as ‘complete’ on 23 May 2023. The works order was raised again on 6 June 2023, noting that it related to a live complaint and asking that it not be cancelled, but this was marked as ‘complete’ on 26 October 2023. However, the evidence shows that an inspection did not take place until 23 February 2024. This further delay of over 9- months further compounded the concern and frustration experienced by the resident.
  9. The works order dated 23 February 2024 recorded that it looked as though the new extractor fans had been pushed over the existing fans, but the contractor could not complete the works required to rectify this as the resident needed to leave. This works order was also marked ‘complete’ on 7 March 2024, but there is no evidence the necessary works were carried out.
  10. Throughout its internal complaints procedure and in its final response, the landlord acknowledged its failings in the handling of the repairs and it awarded compensation totalling £208 for this element of the complaint. Whilst this was proportionate at the time offered, there were further delays, which compounded the concern, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. Given the cumulative impact of the excessive delays, multiple ineffective appointments and poor communication – and that the works to rectify the improperly fitted extractor fans remain outstanding – it is appropriate to find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to air vents and ducts in the property.
  11. The landlord should identify and carry out any works needed to resolve the issue with the air vents, extractor fans and ducts in the property. It should also pay the resident an additional sum of compensation to reflect the avoidable distress, concern, inconvenience, time and trouble he was put to while the repairs have been outstanding. Referring to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an award at the higher end for maladministration is appropriate to reflect the longstanding impact its service failings have had on the resident. Accordingly, the landlord has been ordered to pay an additional £400 in compensation to the resident.
  12. Overall, the landlord’s handling of repairs to air vents and ducts in the property amounts to maladministration because:
    1. It took over 7-and-a-half months from the initial report to complete works to the extractor fans and ducts.
    2. Following the resident’s reports that dust was continuing to accumulate in the property, it did not carry out an inspection, as it said it would do, until over 9-and-a-half months later.
    3. Works to rectify the improperly fitted extractor fans are still outstanding.
    4. It failed to keep accurate records of contractor attendances and the works carried out to address the resident’s concerns, which contributed to the delays.
    5. Its communication with the resident in relation to the repairs was intermittent and untimely.

The resident’s associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s notes of a telephone call with the resident on 13 September 2022 reflect his dissatisfaction with its handling of and communications relating to repairs. It is noted that someone would call the resident to discuss his concerns within 5 working days. However, there is no evidence that a complaint was registered or any return call made as promised. This caused the resident evident concern and inconvenience, as reflected in his formal complaint.
  2. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint of 30 November 2022 within the 5-working day timeframe set out in its complaints policy. Its acknowledgement of 19 December 2022 was 14 working days after the complaint was raised. It apologised as it stated it was not yet in a position to provide its response to the complaint. However, it failed to provide a timeframe for its response, which was unreasonable and demonstrates a failure to adhere to this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) applicable at the time.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy stated that it would respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days with provision for an extension of up to a further 10 working days. In this case, the stage 1 response was issued 43 working days after the landlord’s late acknowledgement. The delay compounded its failures in progressing the repairs and led to the resident feeling that it had not taken his concern seriously. However, the response provided a fair assessment of the complaint up to that point.
  4. It is clear from the landlord’s records dated 4 May 2023 that the resident did not accept its stage 1 response as he believed the issue with the extractor fans had not been resolved. The landlord provided conflicting and confusing information to the resident at this time. It emailed the resident advising that it had asked to have his complaint escalated to stage 2, while a letter of the same date appears to acknowledge a new stage 1 complaint about the outstanding repair and the lack of communication from the landlord. It was inappropriate for the landlord to issue a further stage 1 response. Instead, in accordance with its own policy and the Code, it should have treated the resident’s communications on 4 May 2023 as grounds to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
  5. To compound matters further, the landlord’s additional stage 1 letter stated that it would escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 as he was not happy with the outcome of its investigation, but it was slow to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint. It did not respond to the resident until 9 June 2023 to confirm escalation of the complaint. The acknowledgement was issued 13 working days after the second stage 1 response and 25 working days after it ought reasonably to have escalated the complaint on 4 May 2023. This was inappropriate and contrary to the expected timescales set out in its complaints policy. This further delayed a resolution of the resident’s complaint and added to his concern and frustration.
  6. Thereafter, in line with its policy and the Code, the landlord wrote to the resident on 6 July 2023 to extend its time to respond to 28 July 2023. It then provided its stage 2 response on 14 July 2023. The final response was a better reflection of this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles. It accepted responsibility for its service failings and sought to remedy this by way of its compensation offer. This included £400 for its complaint handling failures. Whilst the compensation awarded was fair and reasonable to reflect its failings, its response did not demonstrate that it took away sufficient learning to improve its service to residents. Therefore, a finding of service failure is appropriate and a learning order has been made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to air vents and ducts in the property.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its failings in this case, in accordance with this Service’s Apologies guidance | Housing Ombudsman Service (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £400 for the frustration, distress, concern and inconvenience caused to him as a result of its maladministration in the handling of repairs to the extractor fans in his property. This is in addition to the £208 it has already paid at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. It should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
    3. Carry out the works identified by its contractor on 23 February 2024 in order to resolve the issue with the extractor fans in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Scheme, the Ombudsman orders that, within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must carry out a review of its handling of repairs and the complaint in this case in order to:
    1. Identify improvements it can make to its processes and practices for raising, tracking and monitoring works orders to ensure accurate recordkeeping, appropriate oversight and to avoid delays in its handling of repairs.
    2. Identify any staff training needs and/or changes to its procedures to avoid unnecessary delays in logging and escalating complaints.
    3. Provide a report to this Service setting out its findings and improvements identified.