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

Orbit Group Limited (202316893)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316893

Orbit Group Limited

20 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Roof repairs due to an intermittent leak.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property under a shared ownership lease. He moved into the property in May 2019. The property is a 2 bedroom, third floor flat.
  2. The resident first reported a leak through the roof to the landlord on 12 November 2019. He continued to report the leaking roof at times throughout 2020 and 2022.              
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 17 November 2022. He said he reported the leaking roof throughout 2020, but the landlord took no action. He said the leak had caused cracks along the outside of his property, and the nearby light switch had stopped working. He also said the leak had affected the inside of his property.
  4. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 25 January 2023. It said there had been a delay to the roofing repair due to the availability of qualified contractors. It said it had put scaffolding up on 6 December 2022, and the works were completed on 8 December 2022. However, it had not awarded any compensation as it was a communal issue that had affected all residents. Although it upheld the resident’s complaint due to the delay in completing repairs and the lack of communication received.
  5. Following the resident’s escalation of his complaint to stage 2, the landlord sent a stage 2 response on 1 June 2023. It confirmed that it would not offer any compensation for the delay in completing the roof repair. However, it offered £35 compensation for communication issues, £20 compensation for distress and inconvenience, and £100 for complaint handling failures.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Roof repairs

  1. It is clear from the evidence provided that the resident reported a roof leak to the landlord on 12 November 2019. He told the landlord that the water was affecting the communal area, and that it was dripping through his ceiling. It took the landlord until 4 May 2020 to fix the leak.
  2. Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the roof. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. It describes routine repairs as any repair “that is not an emergency”. As the landlord took almost 6 months to complete the repair to the roof, it did not act in line with the timeframes set within its repairs policy. This was inappropriate in the circumstances, particularly as the leak was affecting the resident’s own property.
  3. The resident reported a further roof leak on 14 December 2020 and 24 December 2020. He said the roof was leaking quite badly into the communal staircase area. He made further reports to the landlord on 20 January 2021 and 29 January 2021. He told the landlord that the leak was also causing damage inside his flat. He raised a further report on 2 February 2021 when the leak caused the communal lighting to trip.
  4. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the roof repair was completed on this occasion. Although it appears to be some time at the beginning of February 2021, as the resident raised no further reports after this time. As it took the landlord around 50 days to complete the repair, it did not act in line with the timeframes set within its repairs policy. The evidence provided shows no reason for the delay. This was inappropriate in the circumstances.
  5. The resident reported a further roof leak on 12 November 2021. He informed the landlord on 16 February 2022, that the leak was getting worse and affecting the communal lighting outside his flat. The landlord’s records show that there was no progress with the roof repair until the resident raised a formal complaint on 17 November 2022.
  6. In his formal complaint the resident told the landlord that he had been reporting the leaking roof since 2020, but it had taken no action to resolve the issue. He said the leak had caused cracks along the outside of his property, and the nearby light switch had stopped working. He said he had been without a light to his property entrance for over a year. He said the leak had also caused damage within his property.
  7. The landlord put scaffolding up on 6 December 2022. On inspection it discovered that the lead flashings had been incorrectly installed as there were no soakers for backup (soakers prevent water from entering the roof space). The landlord’s contractors attended the block on 8 December 2022. They installed new lead soakers and flashings on 15 December 2022. They also fixed other problems with the lead work and repaired 3 cracked tiles.
  8. As the landlord took over 12 months to complete the repairs on this occasion, it was significantly outside of the timeframe of 28 days set within its repairs policy for routine repairs. This was inappropriate in the circumstances and unfair to the resident. There is no evidence to suggest there was any valid reason for the delays. In addition to the length of time taken, the evidence shows that the landlord did not keep the resident updated as to the progress of the repair, which was unreasonable. This meant that the resident had to contact the landlord on a regular basis for updates on its progress.
  9. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 25 January 2023. It confirmed that there had been a delay to the roofing repair and that this was due to the availability of qualified contractors. It said it had put scaffolding up on 6 December 2022, and the works had been completed on 8 December 2022. It said it was pleased that the roof had been repaired and it acknowledged the lack of communication given to the resident while the repairs were carried out. Although it said it would not offer compensation as the issue was a communal issue that affected all residents. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response.
  10. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 1 June 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience and disruptions caused by the delays to the roof repair. It said it understood the impact on the resident and acknowledged that the delays were not ideal. It apologised and acknowledged that its communication fell short of expectations. It said the delays were due to unforeseen challenges during the repair process. It confirmed it had completed the roofing works in December 2022. It also repeated that it would not award compensation for the delays in the roof repairs, as it was a communal issue that affected all residents. It did offer compensation of £55, made up of £20 for distress and inconvenience, and £35 for communication issues.
  11. Although the landlord acknowledged the delay in repairing the roof, it is unclear why it could not compensate the resident for those delays and the subsequent damage caused to his property. A blanket refusal to pay compensation because the leak affected other residents is unreasonable. The persistent roof leaks caused staining to the resident’s paintwork in his kitchen and hallway. It also soaked his carpet.
  12. Under the terms of the lease, the resident is responsible for repairs to the inside of his flat. However, the landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider paying compensation if damage is caused to a resident’s property as a direct result of something it has done or failed to do. It is clear from the evidence provided, and the landlord’s complaint responses, that it did not meet the timeframes set within its repairs policy, and the delays to repairing the roof were significant. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that the circumstances likely met the basic requirements set out within the landlord’s compensation policy. As a result, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to at least consider paying compensation.
  13. In summary, the landlord did not complete the repairs to the roof within the timeframes set in the repairs policy. It did not keep the resident updated on the progress of the roof repair and it did not consider awarding compensation in line with its compensation policy. As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints in 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 17 November 2022. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 20 December 2022, to extend the timeframe for its complaint response, as it had been unable to conclude its investigations into the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy does allow for extensions to timeframes in certain circumstances. It says it may extend the stage 1 timescale by a further 10 working days, and if more time is needed, it will contact the resident to discuss this and explain the reasons why. However, the evidence shows that the landlord did not contact the resident to extend the timeframe until day 23. At this point the landlord’s response was already outside of its published timeframes, and it did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. This was inappropriate and unfair to the resident.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident again by telephone on 19 January 2023 to inform the resident of a further delay in its stage 1 response. Again, the evidence does not support a valid reason for a further extension to the timeframe for a stage 1 response.
  4. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 25 January 2023. This was over 2 months from the date of the complaint. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s timeframe set within its policy, even when the extension period of 10 working days is taken into account.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on the 25 January 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 1 June 2023. This was over 4 months from the date the resident escalated his complaint and was significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days for stage 2 complaints.
  6. Due to the delays at both stages of the complaints process, the landlord did not act in line with its complaints policy when responding to the resident’s complaints. This was inappropriate in the circumstances. This not only delayed a resolution to the resident’s complaint, but it also delayed his ability to escalate the matter to this Service. It did, however, acknowledge its delayed stage 2 decision within the stage 2 response. It also offered the resident £100 compensation.
  7. In summary, the landlord did not comply with the timeframes set within its complaints policy for both stage 1 and stage 2 responses. Although it acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 response, the compensation offered did not fully reflect the length of the delay and the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, caused to the resident. As a result of this failure and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of roof repairs due to an intermittent leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £375 (the landlord may deduct from the total any amount it has already paid). This must be paid directly to the resident. This is made up of:
      1. £225 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of roof repairs due to an intermittent leak.
      2. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.