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

Orbit Group Limited (202339756)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339756

Orbit Group Limited

11 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 antisocial behaviour (ASB) and concerns of domestic abuse.
    2. Request for a managed move.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, owned by the landlord, and lives with her 2 dependent children.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 November 2022 to report ASB and racial abuse from her neighbours, which she said had been ongoing for 11 years. She also reported intimidation from an abusive ex-partner and asked it to move her to another property. It asked her to provide details of the incidents, but declined to offer a managed move due to a lack of supporting evidence
  3. The resident continued to contact the landlord throughout 2023, to report persistent abuse from her neighbours. It repeated its request that she provide more details, but she declined as she said this was a historical issue and it should already have her previous reports.
  4. The resident complained on 24 May 2023 however the landlord did not respond under its complaints procedure. She complained again on 13 November 2023, saying it had done nothing to help and left her and her children at risk. It issued its stage 1 response on 10 January 2024. It stated that she had not responded to its contact and request for information, and had done all that it could.
  5. The resident had already asked the landlord to escalate her complaint due to delays with its stage 1 response, and it responded at stage 2 on 8 March 2024. It stated that it had tried to contact her throughout the case without success, but it had asked its Community Safety and Anti-Fraud team (its ASB team) to contact her again.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that the problems with her neighbours had been ongoing for many years. The passage of time makes it difficult to investigate historical issues, due to the availability and reliability of evidence. This investigation will consider the events between 11 November 2022, when the resident made a new report to the landlord, and its final response of 8 March 2024.

ASB and concerns of domestic abuse

  1. The landlord has adopted the Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB, which is conduct which has caused, or is likely to cause:
    1. Harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
    2. Annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
    3. Housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  2. A landlord has 2 main duties when it receives a report of ASB. The first is to gather evidence and undertake a proportionate investigation. The second is to balance that evidence and decide what action it should take. Our role is to determine if it investigated fairly and took all the action it could.
  3. The landlord’s records state that it contacted the resident on 20 December 2022 to discuss her report of the previous month. She said that 2 different neighbours had been persistently abusive and had made racist comments to her children. She also said that an abusive ex-partner had broken bail conditions by stalking her. This is the first evidence that it contacted her following the report she had made over 5 weeks earlier. Its ASB policy does not give a timescale, but it should have contacted her sooner, particularly considering the nature of her reports.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident again on 28 December 2022, when it assessed her as ‘high risk’. It created an action plan to show that it had posted diary sheets and obtained her consent to contact the police, which it did that same day. This was in line with its ASB policy and demonstrates that it was taking her report seriously. The police responded the next day to state that her ex-partner had allegedly breached a restraining order at her daughter’s school 6 months previously, however legal proceedings were ongoing. They did not disclose any other reports regarding her ex-partner or her neighbours.
  5. When the landlord called the resident to update her on 4 January 2023, she told it that her ex-partner had also breached the restraining order on other occasions. It advised her to follow this up with the police and said it would reassess the risk of harm when it received evidence of her reports. It contacted the police again on 20 January 2023, who said they will call it back the following week. It also emailed her that day to request a chronological order of the incidents and police references where relevant.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 occasions between 23 January and 20 February 2023 to request an update. It responded each time to explain that it was still waiting to hear from the police but had chased them up. She contacted it again on 28 February 2023 to report that her ex-partner had stalked her that weekend. The police responded to the landlord that same day to say she had also reported this to them, but they did not have sufficient information to investigate. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up on its information request of 20 January 2023, however it had also asked her for references and other evidence which she had not provided.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord 4 times between 28 February and 20 April 2023, to report that her neighbours continued to harass, intimidate and racially abuse her and her children. However, she did not give any specific details. It responded to each of her calls to reiterate its previous requests for evidence. It also explained that its historical records showed that she had made previous reports about her neighbours, but she had never provided the requested evidence. It said it would review the case when it received the exact details. It emailed her again on 4 May 2023 to ask whether she wanted to keep her case open, as it had not heard from her.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord a further 9 times between 5 May and 17 July 2023. She said it had “done nothing” since December 2022. The evidence shows that it made concerted efforts to respond. It made 2 further information requests to the police, and its customer service staff raised at least 2 safeguarding alerts to its ASB team following her calls. It also said it could visit her at home and speak to her neighbours, but she declined these offers. She repeated that it should already have the detail it needed and requested email communication only.
  9. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 July 2023. It explained that it could not manage her case effectively without speaking to her either over the phone or face to face, and it offered to meet her away from home if she preferred. It asked her to respond within 10 days and said it would close her case if it did not hear from her. This was appropriate and shows that it was making all attempts to investigate her reports sensitively. It was reasonable for it to give a clear deadline, as the case had been open for around 8 months and she had not provided the evidence it needed.
  10. The resident did not respond, and the landlord closed her case on 1 August 2023. In its stage 2 response of 8 March 2024, it said she had only given limited information, and it had no evidence to support the issues she had raised. However, it confirmed it had opened a new case as she had repeated her reports when making her complaint.
  11. The landlord kept clear and detailed records and sent follow-up emails each time it spoke with the resident over the phone, however there is no evidence that it updated her action plan. Doing so may have helped it to manage the volume of contact and make quick reference to what it had asked her to provide. This report will make a recommendation about this, however the lack of an updated plan did not prevent it from responding appropriately in this case.
  12. The landlord was ultimately unable to investigate the resident’s reports as it did not have the evidence that it needed, and she was not happy for it to speak to her neighbours. She was understandably wary of repercussions, however this significantly limited what it could do to address the situation. It also did not have supporting evidence from the police to warrant any further action. Its overall approach was fair, and this investigation has not identified any failings in its handling of the case.

Managed move

  1. The landlord’s management moves procedure states that it may consider a managed move where “a customer or another permanent household member is believed to be at real and proven risk of harm or violence and this is supported by partner agencies involved in managing that situation e.g. the Local Authority, Support Services, GP or Police”.
  2. When the resident contacted the landlord in November 2022, she asked it for a managed move which she said the police supported. It asked the police to comment on this in its information request of 28 December 2022, however they did not corroborate her assertions that she was at risk at home, as her ex-partner’s alleged breach of their restraining order had not taken place at the property. In its call to her of 4 January 2023, it told her there was no evidence to support a managed move at that point, but it would look at this again if it received any further evidence. It contacted the police again in February and May 2023, who confirmed she was at ‘medium risk’ of domestic abuse due to previous incidents, but did not consider there was any risk at the property itself and did not disclose any recent issues.
  3. A lack of police evidence does not disprove domestic abuse as many people are afraid or unable to report incidents to the authorities. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the police in this case as it knew she had made at least 2 reports about her ex-partner. She said the police had failed to disclose other reports that she had made, however she did not provide the incident numbers or any other evidence, so it was unable to follow up on this. In February 2023 it noted that there was no involvement from any other organisations, so it could not request evidence from another agency.
  4. The landlord was aware that the resident had experienced domestic abuse in the past, as it originally placed her into the property when she fled from another area. It noted on 15 June 2023 that she had made a report in 2019 that a utility company had given her address to her ex-partner. However, it found that this was historical and did not indicate any current risk. Its conclusion was reasonable, and it was good practice to look over its records. Overall, it applied its procedure fairly.

The complaint

  1. In an email to the landlord of 24 May 2023, the resident asked to raise a complaint as she said it had repeatedly ignored her and left her and her children at risk. It updated its records on 14 June 2023 to note this, however there is no evidence that it responded, which was a failing.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord again on 13 November 2023 for the same reasons. It wrote to her on 4 and 18 December 2023 to extend its response deadline, which was in line with its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, the Code also requires a landlord to explain its reasons. It did not do so, and its first extension letter was an incomplete template which still included internal guidance notes. This understandably indicated to the resident that it was not taking her complaint seriously.
  3. The landlord sent a third extension letter to the resident on 8 January 2024, at which point she said she was frustrated at the time it had taken to respond and asked to escalate her complaint. In its stage 1 response of 10 January 2024, it acknowledged her escalation request and said it had progressed her complaint to stage 2. It should have explained that it could not escalate her complaint before it had issued its stage 1 response. Its complaints policy states that a stage 2 request is to conduct a review if the complaint “is not resolved to the customer’s satisfaction at stage 1”, which aligns with the Code. It would have been good customer service to explain that it could not accept her escalation request and explain the process.
  4. However, the landlord’s complaint responses were a fair reflection of the actions it had taken. Despite its mismanagement of her escalation request, it gave her opportunity to explain why she was unhappy with its stage 1 response. However, its communications lacked clarity, and it failed to respond to her initial complaint in May 2023. This report has made a failure finding regarding its overall handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and concerns of domestic abuse.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a managed move.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. We order the landlord to pay the resident £50 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report. It must pay this directly and not offset this against any arrears, unless there is another agreement with the resident.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its use of action plans, as this can be a vital tool when managing reports of ASB. It should update its plan at appropriate stages throughout its investigations and give the reporting person a copy. This will allow it to make quick reference to any previous agreements and actions. It should also ensure that its procedures around timescales and actions are clear and accessible, and that it responds to reports in a timely manner.
  2. The landlord should also review its complaints handling to ensure that it responds in line with its policy and the Code. Where it needs to extend its response deadline, it must explain its reasons in full and confirm when it will next be in touch. It should also make sure that it adequately tailors its responses to the complainant.