Orbit Group Limited (202336916)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336916

Orbit Group Limited

7 March 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 the resident’s:
   1. Reports of issues with doors in the property.
   2. Associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom house, owned by the landlord.
3. Since moving to the property in 2015, the resident raised numerous repairs due to faults with external and internal doors. Frequent repair work has been necessary for the doors to function correctly.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 24 August 2023. She was unhappy that the doors were regularly failing. The number of repair visits were inconvenient for her, and she was concerned about the security of the property.
5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 7 September 2023. It provided a history of repair work to the doors and did not find any service failings. It explained that all repair issues had been responded to within expected timescales It had corrected faults at each repair visit and left the doors working correctly.
6. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 7 September 2023. She felt the response did not address the inconvenience that she was experiencing. She was unhappy with the amount of repair work that had to be carried out on the doors and believed they required replacement.
7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 17 October 2023. It explained that an inspection had found the doors were currently in working order and no further action was needed. It apologised for an administrative error with a recent but unrelated door repair but offered no compensation for the current matter.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She wanted a long-lasting fix to the doors so that her property was secure and further compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused over the duration of the door faults.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. The evidence shows that the resident has been reporting ongoing issues with door repairs since 2015. Given the time that has elapsed, it is difficult to now rely on the landlord having retained sufficient evidence. It is essential that residents raise matters with landlords within a reasonable timeframe, normally within 12 months of the matter arising. They could then progress these issues to us in a reasonable timeframe thereafter if they are unhappy with how a landlord responds. This has limited the extent to which we can investigate.
10. Our role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, to see if it took reasonable steps to resolve complaints within its internal process. Our investigation has focussed on events leading up to its final response on 17 October 2023. Any mention of historical matters prior to this is for context purposes only.

Issues with the doors

11. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it has 2 categories of responsive repair: ‘emergency’ and ‘routine’. It states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 days.
12. The evidence shows that the landlord visited on 17 occasions between 10 August 2022 and 24 August 2023 to repair the doors. The landlord attended within its repairs policy timescales on each occasion. A significant number were attended on the same day, and it is evident that the landlord’s response to individual repair requests was timely and appropriate.
13. In her complaint to the landlord the resident expressed the disruption that the repeated repairs were causing. She said she had to take unpaid leave from work so that she could be present for repairs to be carried out and this was affecting her financially. She was worried about the security of her property, and unhappy with the number of repairs the doors required in order to function correctly.
14. In its stage 1 response the landlord outlined repair work that had been completed to the doors in the property dating back to 2015. It noted that all repair requests were responded to within timescale and there had been no service failure.
15. It is reasonable for the landlord to have the opportunity to repair installations rather than to replace where possible. However, it had received repeated requests for door repairs from the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to adopt a proactive approach to ensure the works it had undertaken had fixed the problem. It did not do this. Its response was instead reactive and dependent on the resident’s repeat reports. This approach is likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
16. In its investigation of the stage 1 complaint, it was clear that there were reoccurring problems with the doors. Problems such as locks failing and the doors needing to be adjusted to open and close were repeated. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to recognise and address this in its complaint response. Having not done so, it missed an opportunity to find a resolution to the issues the resident was experiencing.
17. After receiving the resident’s complaint escalation request the landlord arranged for the doors to be inspected. This was appropriate and a positive step to seek a resolution. Records from the inspection show it was noted that the way the doors were glazed may be a contributing factor to them dropping and requiring frequent repair work. The notes recommended that the doors were reglazed as a possible solution. As the doors were functioning correctly at the time of the inspection no further action was taken to address this. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to follow the recommendations set out by the inspection, but it took no further action.
18. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 17 October 2023, it acknowledged that the doors had been assessed, and no additional action was required as they were in working order. It apologised and offered compensation for a service failure encountered whilst arranging a door repair in the property. This repair was raised because of an order made by this Service in a previous determination. It was appropriate that the landlord addressed the further failing and offered suitable redress. As the redress related to a previous determination, this should have been discussed separately with the resident and not included in its stage 2 response.
19. In summary, while the landlord attended and completed repairs within its repair policy timescales, it failed to recognise the inconvenience and distress likely caused to the resident by its handling of repeated issues with the doors. It would have been appropriate for it to follow the recommendations made in its inspection and arrange the further work suggested. This would have demonstrated a proactive approach to solving the ongoing issue. The fact that it did not do so has led to a finding of service failure in its handling of the resident’s report of issues with the doors.
20. The resident has explained to this Service that problems with the doors have not been resolved and she is concerned over the security of her home. As such we have made appropriate orders below. As we do not order compensation to reimburse a resident for loss of earnings, our orders below have not taken into account the resident’s assertions in this regard.

Associated complaint

21. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. At stage 2, if the response cannot be completed in full by the twentieth working day, the resident will be notified to inform them of the progress of their complaint and when they will expect a full response. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) timescales.
22. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1. This is not in line with its policy and led to her having to chase it as she was unsure the complaint had been recorded correctly.
23. Although it sent the resident an extension letter prior to issuing its stage 2 response, the landlord sent this 21 days after she raised her escalation request. Given its timescale for responding to stage 2 complaints is 20 working days, it should have advised the resident of the delay before this period had elapsed.
24. The landlord took 13 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, and 29 working days to respond at stage 2. In both cases, it responded beyond the timescales as set out in its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
25. Both complaint responses lacked understanding of the substantive issue. They did not address the inconvenience faced by the resident continually having to report repeated failures of the doors which was her main frustration.
26. Considering the above failings, we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. With consideration of our remedies guidance, we have determined £50 would put right things right for the resident in this case.                                                                                    

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with doors in the property.
    2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

28. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must take the following actions and provide evidence of its compliance to this Service:
    1. Pay the resident total compensation of £200 broken down as follows:
       1. £150 for its failures in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the doors in the property.
       2. £50 for its failures in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.
       3. These payments must be paid directly to the resident and not to her rent account.
    2. Arrange an inspection of the external doors at the property and produce an inspection report which must:
       1. Confirm if there are any outstanding works required to the doors.
       2. Provide a schedule of required repairs and include a timeline for the completion of these works.
       3. Undertake the glazing adjustments to the doors recommended in its prior inspection.