Orbit Group Limited (202322144)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322144

Orbit Group Limited

12 June 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 response to the resident’s reports of a latent defect, which caused a leak in the bathroom.

Background

2. The resident has been a shared owner with the landlord since 31 May 2019. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association, and it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
3. A property developer built the property in 2019, before handing it over to the landlord. The property was subject to a 2 year defects liability period, which ended in March 2021. The National House Building Council (NHBC) insurance remains in place until March 2031. The landlord is the policy holder.
4. On 28 March 2023 the resident reported a leak in his bathroom to the landlord. He said that he had just discovered the leak. He explained that he removed the bath to investigate the problem and concluded he was not responsible for the repairs. He said this was because the property developer had not adequately fitted the bath and the associated plumbing when it installed the bathroom.
5. On 31 March 2023 the landlord informed the resident that his property was out of the defects liability period, and it could not help him. It advised the resident to contact NHBC for advice, which he did 5 days later. NHBC explained that it could only give the resident an overview of the policy because the landlord was the policy holder. It said that without the landlord’s authorisation, it could not act on his report. It did however explain that based on the information he provided, the NHBC insurance would not apply. It explained that the insurance did not cover internal plumbing issues, and it was not able to assist the resident.
6. The resident requested the contact details of the developer from the landlord. He said he wanted to make a complaint to the property developer about its installation of the bathroom. The landlord provided him with the contact details 5 days later. The resident made a complaint to the property developer, who advised him to complaint to his landlord instead.
7. In May 2023 the landlord reiterated to the resident to raise the issue with NHBC, who would then contact the landlord if it assessed the problem was due to a defect. It also advised the resident to discuss his complaint with the developer.
8. NHBC contacted the landlord on 5 June 2023, and explained the resident had contacted them about the bath leak. It reminded the landlord that, as the policy holder, it was its responsibility for contacting NHBC about any potential claim, and not the resident. It explained that the resident discovered the leak in March 2023, and because of this he had not reported the issue prior to the defect liability period ending. It elaborated that the NHBC insurance did not cover internal plumbing issues.
9. The resident raised the issue with this service on 27 September 2023. His complaint was about the landlord handling of his reports of a leak in his bathroom. He said he was seeking for the landlord to acknowledge that poor workmanship when the property was built the problem. He also asked for the landlord to redecorate the affected areas, replace the damaged flooring and compensate him for the distress and inconvenience caused to him.
10. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord, it is unclear from the evidence when he raised it. The complaint was about the landlord’s handling of his report of a leak in his bathroom.
11. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 7 November 2023, and said:
    1. During the warranty period, NHBC would refer any defects to the original contractor to rectify.
    2. The resident did not report the defects in his property prior to the defects warranty expiring. It said that because of this, neither NHBC, the landlord or the contractor were liable for the repairs.
    3. It would need instruction from NHBC to complete the repairs. It advised the resident to either make his own arrangements to complete the repairs or consider making a claim with his insurance provider.
    4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
12. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 4 December 2023. He reiterated that he was not responsible for the repairs because the property developer had not installed the bath correctly in 2019. He asked the landlord to review the photos it had sent as evidence.
13. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 5 January 2024, and said:
    1. It provided an explanation of what the NHBC warranty covered. It clarified that although the resident discussed the matter with NHBC, they did not contact the landlord about the problem. It explained that because of this it was unable to intervene or provide further assistance.
    2. After reviewing the photos provided by the resident, it explained that the warranty of any defects would have been void due the alterations, he made when he removed the bath.
    3. It reiterated the findings of its stage 1 response and did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
14. On 2 February 2024 the resident asked the landlord whether the NHBC insurance would cover the damage to his flooring. He informed this service that the landlord did not respond to his query.
15. The resident informed this service that he completed the repairs to his bath. He said that he had not replaced the damaged carpets or repaired his living room ceiling, which the leak damaged. As a resolution to his complaint, he is seeking compensation to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused to him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

16. We understand that the resident discussed the repairs with NHBC. He was disappointed that the NHBC insurance did not cover the repairs he reported. We cannot draw conclusions on the decisions, actions or lack of actions of an insurer. Complaints concerning insurance claims are not within our jurisdiction. This is because the insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s actions.
17. Additionally, it is not within our remit to determine whether poor workmanship was the root cause of the leak and amounted to a latent defect. Our role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a latent defect, which cause a leak in the bathroom.

18. The resident’s property was built in 2019. NHBC provides protection to new homeowners where issues arise following construction. The landlord is the policy holder. The NHBC policy has 2 sections, the defects liability period and the NHBC home damage cover. During the defects liability period, which ended in March 2021, the property developer is liable to rectify any defects reported by the policy holder. After which, NHBC offers a direct insurance cover to its policy holder. In this case, this is ending in March 2031. If there are disputes between the policy holder and the property developer, NHBC offers assistance under its resolution service.
19. The landlord’s defect and warranty management procedure says that a latent defect is a defect which the resident identified after the defects liability period has ended. Once a resident reports a latent defect, the landlord will raise a claim with NHBC. The procedure says that while NHBC will assess the claim, the landlord will keep the resident updated on the progress of the claim.
20. In this case, the resident reported a latent defect to the landlord on 28 March 2023. He reported a slow leak in the bathroom, which he identified when water damage appeared on his living room ceiling. He explained that he removed the bath to investigate the problem. He concluded that the bathroom fitter had not installed the bath correctly when the property was built, which caused a slow leak.
21. The evidence shows that the landlord informed the resident 3 days later that his property was out of the defects liability period. It said it could not help and advised the resident to contact NHBC for advice. While we understand the resident reported the matter after the defects liability period ended, the landlord did not show that it considered the resident’s report was about a latent defect. Because of this, it did not raise a latent defect claim with NHBC. This was unreasonable from the landlord, especially as the resident explained that he believed poor workmanship during the build caused the leak. Its actions were not in keeping with its defect and warranty management procedure to raise claims for latent defects with NHBC.
22. On the landlord’s advice, the resident spoke to NHBC on 5 April 2023. While NHBC indicated it was unlikely the insurance would cover the issue he reported, it did not raise a claim or investigate the issues. It explained to the resident that it needed authorisation from the landlord to proceed with the claim because it was the policy holder. This was confusing for the resident as he was getting contradictory advice from the landlord and NHBC. This caused inconvenience to the resident who did not have a functioning bathroom and felt he had no other options but to proceed with repairing the bathroom himself.
23. In June 2023, NHBC contacted the landlord and reminded it of its obligations as the policy holder. It said that the landlord was responsible for contacting NHBC about a potential claim and not the resident. The landlord did not show that it responded to NHBC’s communication or discussed the potential claim with them. This was unreasonable from the landlord, it should have discussed the matter with NHBC in keeping with its responsibilities as the policy holder. Its failings in acknowledging and responding to NHBC’s communication was a missed opportunity to resolve the matter sooner.
24. Furthermore, the landlord incorrectly advised the resident to complaint directly to the property developer about the leak. It is unclear why the landlord took that step because the NHBC insurance says that when a landlord identifies a latent defect, it should contact them and raise a claim under its home damage cover section of the insurance. It does not say that residents should raise the issue directly with the property developer. The landlord’s advice caused frustration, time and effort to the resident, especially as the property developer redirected him to the landlord when he complained to them. The landlord’s actions were unreasonable and not in keeping with what was expected from it as the policy holder.
25. The evidence shows that the landlord did not take ownership of the matter, instead it was delegating the resolution of the problem to the resident. This led to the resident having unnecessary involvement in the process and caused him to have to take time and trouble because of the landlord’s ineffective handling of the matter. Additionally, it unfairly raised the resident’s expectations that he could resolve the matter directly with the property developer and NHBC. This was unreasonable by the landlord and not in keeping with its defect and warranty policy “to provide an excellent” and “pro-active service” to residents.
26. Additionally, the landlord’s internal communications raise concerns about its application of its defect and warranty policy and its understanding of its obligations under the NHBC insurance. The landlord’s internal communications show that it incorrectly believed that the resident was responsible for raising a claim with NHBC. This was unreasonable from the landlord, it should have unsure that it understood those documents before providing advice to the resident. Its failings to do so caused inconvenience, time and effort to the resident.
27. We recognise that the landlord investigated the matter during its complaint process and responded to the resident’s complaint. However, it failed to identify that it was responsible for raising a potential claim with NHBC and not the resident. The landlord did not show that it considered its handling of the resident’s report of a latent defect against its defect and warranty policy or the NHBC insurance process. This was unreasonable from the landlord and not in keeping with its complaint policy to establish whether it handled the issue raised in keeping with its responsibilities, obligations and policies. This was also a missed opportunity to acknowledge its failings, put things right and learn from the complaint.
28. In February 2024 the resident asked the landlord whether the NHBC insurance would cover the damage caused by the leak to the flooring. We understand this was after the landlord issues its stage 2 response to his complaint. The resident informed this service that the landlord did not respond to his query.
29. We are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of the matter beyond its stage 2 complaint response as it has not had the opportunity to do so itself, through its internal complaints procedure. This would normally require the resident to log a new complaint about these events for the landlord to consider. However, in this case we feel that this would unreasonably add to the time and trouble the resident has taken in pursuing the matter since March 2023. Therefore, we make an order for the landlord to respond to the resident’s query in relation to the damaged flooring.
30. After considering the evidence of the case, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a latent defect, which cause a leak in the bathroom. The landlord incorrectly advised the resident to raise the issue with NHBC. It did not show that it responded to NHBC’s communication or discussed the matter with them. It did not appropriately take ownership of the issue, instead it delegated the resolution of the problem to the resident.
31. We recognise that we saw no evidence that the landlord’s failings impacted on the overall outcome for the resident. This is because NHBC advised the resident in March 2023, that it would be unlikely that the insurance would cover the issues reported by the resident. It explained that the insurance does not apply to internal plumbing issues, and it would not be able to assist him. Nevertheless, we also recognise that the landlord’s failings caused inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident. Therefore, in keeping with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay £150 to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on him.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a latent defect, which cause a leak in the bathroom.

Orders

33. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written and detailed apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay £150 compensation to reflect the impact of its failings on the resident.
    3. To respond to the resident’s query in relation to the NHBC insurance covering his damaged flooring. The landlord must provide evidence to this service once it has done this.
    4. Evidence that it has provided suitable training to the relevant staff are on (or to confirm the date by which it will deliver the training):
       1. The NHBC insurance claim processes.
       2. Its defect and warranty policy.