Orbit Group Limited (202310217)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310217

Orbit Group Limited

31 January 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following damage to her electric bike.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident has a shared ownership lease agreement with the landlord and moved into the property in March 2020. The property is a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat, with carparking facilities provided in the basement. Provision is also made by the landlord for bicycles in a bike shed. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the housing records.
3. The resident told the landlord on 27 March 2023 that she made a complaint in February 2023 after her electric bike was damaged whilst stored in the car park. She said she did not receive a response to her complaint and turned down the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation. The resident was advised to make a claim on her home contents insurance and the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This offer was rejected by the resident as she wanted the landlord to cover the cost of repairing her electric bike.
4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 31 March 2023 (incorrectly dated 31 March 2024) and said:
   1. The resident first reported her electric bike was damaged on 10 March 2023 whilst parked in the communal garage
   2. It received a report on 23 March 2023 that the lock on the communal garage door was insecure. An emergency repair was raised on the same day
   3. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as the cost of repairs for the damage would be covered under her home contents insurance
   4. The offer of £100 compensation for the stress and inconvenience had been rejected by the resident
5. The resident told the landlord on 6 April 2023 that its complaint response was incorrect and the offer of £100 compensation did not cover the cost of the damage or the stress she had experienced. She also said the damage to her electric bike was due to the lack of security in the car park, which the landlord knew about.
6. The resident told this Service on 1 May 2023 that she had received no response from her landlord and she did not want to make a claim on her home contents insurance as this would affect her no claims discount. She also said she rejected the offer of £100 compensation as it would not cover the cost of the damage or the stress she experienced.
7. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 5 June 2023 and said:
   1. It was not liable for any damage caused to a resident’s possessions which were stored in common areas such as a communal garage, as outlined in her lease agreement
   2. Residents were advised to have adequate contents insurance
   3. The offer of £100 compensation was made to address the inconvenience experience by the resident. This was in line with its compensation guidelines

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following damage to her electric bike

8. It is not this Service’s role to determine liability for the damaged caused to the resident’s electric bike, as this would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. We have, however, investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation and whether it acted fairly, reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
9. The resident’s lease agreement states the landlord is responsible for maintaining common parts, including the basement car park. It is also responsible for insuring the building, for which a service charge is paid. Facilities for storing bicycles are provided by the landlord in a separate bike shed, but do not feature within the terms of the resident’s lease agreement.
10. The landlord’s shared ownership buyers’ guide confirms residents are responsible for insuring the contents of their home. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will only pay compensation if a resident experiences financial losses or significant distress or inconvenience. Residents are expected to make a claim under their own policy for any damages that are caused to their possessions.
11. It is not disputed the resident told the landlord her electric bike had been damaged whilst stored in the car park and she wanted compensation for this, although it is unclear from the housing records when she did this. The resident said she told the landlord on 27 February 2023. The landlord said the resident told it on 10 March 2023.
12. The resident told the landlord on 27 March 2023 that she had received no response to her request for compensation, despite previously notifying the landlord that her electric bike had been damaged. She also said the landlord had failed to respond to her follow up emails, but the landlord said it had no record of her reports.
13. Whilst the landlord said it had no record of these contacts, it did acknowledge that it had previously offered the resident £50 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused when triaging her complaint. This was confusing and demonstrated poor record keeping on the part of the landlord. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their obligations. The offer of compensation was turned down by the resident.
14. The landlord advised the resident that she needed to make a claim on her home contents insurance policy. This was reasonable, because her home contents insurance would cover any damage to her personal belongings and given it is generally accepted that residents leave any personal belongings in communal areas at their own risk. The landlord did not, however, provide the resident with details of its liability insurers. Whilst there was no guarantee her claim would have been successful, this would have been appropriate given the damage occurred on the landlord’s communal property.
15. It was reasonable for the landlord to increase its offer of compensation to £100 for the stress and inconvenience caused. This demonstrated it was sensitive to the resident’s circumstances and wanted to put things right for her. There is no evidence that it was obliged to make this offer. The offer was rejected by the resident.
16. Whilst the landlord noted in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident first reported the damage on 10 March 2023, it did not share a copy of her e-mail with this Service. Neither did it share a copy of her subsequent e-mail, which it said she sent on 23 March 2023. Again, this demonstrated poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
17. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm it was not responsible for the damage caused and she would need to make a claim on her home contents insurance. The landlord again failed to provide details of its insurance provider.
18. The resident told the landlord on 15 April 2023 that her electric bike was damaged because the landlord had failed to repair the garage security gate. She noted the landlord was aware of this at the time.
19. The landlord reiterated its position in its final complaint response on 5 June 2023. It said it was not liable for damage caused to residents’ possessions which were stored in communal areas such as the communal garage. It advised the resident to make a claim on her home contents insurance, but again failed to provide details of its insurance provider. This was a further failure. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm the offer of £100 compensation was made in line with its compensation policy and to address the inconvenience she experienced.
20. In summary, the landlord advised the resident to make a claim on her home contents insurance. The offer of £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused was reasonable in the circumstances. In this case, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation following damage to her electric bike.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

21. The landlord’s complaints policy comprises of 2 stages. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and a reply at stage 1 issued within 10 working days. The landlord responds to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is needed, the landlord says it will contact the resident to advise them. It also says it will contact residents prior to issuing a response to discuss the outcome of the investigation with them.
22. It is unclear from the housing records when the resident made a complaint. She told the landlord on 27 March 2023 that she had previously submitted a complaint but received no response. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm it would raise a complaint. This demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously and wanted to put things right for her.
23. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This meant the resident was not clear when she would receive a reply. Neither is there any evidence the landlord sought to understand her complaint or the outcomes she was seeking. This was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code).
24. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 31 March 2023, but this was incorrectly dated 31 March 2024.
25. It is unclear from the housing records when the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. This demonstrated poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
26. The landlord told the resident on 5 April 2023 that it had escalated her complaint, but noted there would be a delay in responding due to the volume of enquiries it had received. Whilst this ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations, it would have been reasonable for it to have confirmed when a response would be sent. The landlord’s failure to do this meant the resident was unclear when she would receive a reply.
27. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint meant she had to chase the landlord up and ask for an update. She did this on 3 occasions in April 2023 but received no response. This was a failure and caused the resident inconvenience. Further requests for an update were made in May 2023 but again the landlord failed to respond.  This demonstrates poor communication on the part of the landlord.
28. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 5June 2023, which was 39 working days after the landlord acknowledged the escalation. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with its policy.
29. No apology or other remedy was offered for the delay in responding or for the lack of communication. The landlord also did not identify any learning from the complaint. This was a further failure.
30. In summary, the landlord failed to follow its complaints policy and there were delays in issuing its final complaint response. Its communication with the resident was also poor at times. Moreover, the landlord failed to identify any learning from the complaint and did not offer compensation for its poor complaints handling.
31. The resident had to chase up the landlord on numerous occasions, which should not have been necessary. Despite doing this, she received no response. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, for which it is ordered to pay £100 compensation.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation following damage to her electric bike.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

34. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident.

Recommendations.

35. The landlord pays the resident the £100 compensation previously offered, if not already paid.
36. The landlord provides the resident with details of its insurance provider so that she can make a claim, should she wish to.