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

Orbit Housing Association Limited (202315965)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315965

Orbit Housing Association Limited

20 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her kitchen floor tiles to be replaced following a leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives in the property with her partner and 6 children. The resident has confirmed that 3 of the children living in the property are adults and said that 1 has a disability. She said the 3 younger children have disabilities too. The resident said her 8 year old child has scarring on the lungs and therefore it is important to keep the home free from dust and mould.
  2. The landlord’s records show that on 16 March 2022 it responded to an earlier complaint from the resident and awarded compensation as a result. It said the resident had an ongoing leak in her kitchen which had caused a number of her floor tiles to become loose. It said its contractors had agreed to re-lay and re-grout the affected tiles. The notes stated that it had not completed the work and it had raised a new job for it.
  3. On 4 December 2022 the resident contacted her local MP to request assistance regarding the situation with her kitchen floor. She said the landlord had still not repaired the floor following the leak in 2020. She described her children as having special needs and said they had cut their toes where the tiles had raised. She said she was concerned that there was mould under the tiles and said that one of her children had asthma. The local MP contacted the landlord about the situation on 5 December 2022 and the landlord logged that as a formal complaint.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 December 2022. It said it was unable to uphold the complaint. It said its contractors advised that the works required were the resident’s responsibility which was in line with the tenancy handbook and agreement. The landlord said there was no approval or authorisation for the work and it had not received any evidence from the resident to suggest otherwise. It also confirmed that it would not be able to assess the situation due to the time which had lapsed since 2020 and it could only look at complaints within the last 6 months. The resident was not satisfied with the outcome and she escalated the complaint to stage 2 on the same day.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 July 2023. It confirmed that it had originally agreed to replace the damaged floor tiles. It said it had difficulties sourcing the original tiles. It said it agreed with the resident for her to obtain private quotes to replace the damaged floor tiles and once it received the quotes it would review them and award additional compensation. The landlord said there were clearly delays in resolving the issue and progressing her complaint. It said that the resident received incorrect information about what to expect as a resolution. It apologised for the poor level of service she had experienced and upheld the complaint.
  6. The landlord offered £500 in compensation. £200 was for the time taken to respond at stage 2 and for the contradicting information provided. £100 was for the service failings regarding the floor tiles, and £200 was for the distress and inconvenience caused due to the poor complaints process and different conversations.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the situation remained the same and the flooring had become worse due to the time which had passed. She said almost all the tiles were in poor condition and the landlord would need to replace all the flooring. She said she would like compensation for the time taken to resolve the matter and for the injuries caused to her family from the tiles which had lifted.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has referred to her household’s health and how the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to any likely distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of the situation.
  2. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has been reporting this issue since 2020. The resident made a previous complaint in relation to the ongoing leak and damage caused which the landlord responded to in March 2022, the resident did not bring this complaint to the Ombudsman at the time. As such, and in accordance with paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme, this investigation focuses on events which took place following the previous response in March 2022 up to the landlord’s stage 2 response in July 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her kitchen floor tiles to be replaced following a leak

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it is committed to a clear and transparent approach to repair responsibilities. It states that central to that is providing customers with clear and consistent information. It states it will respond to emergency repairs within 4 and 24 hours. It says routine repairs will be within 28 calendar days.
  2. The policy also states that it will provide a high priority response to customers who it identifies as having acute physical or mental health vulnerabilities. It says this may include treating what is generally categorised as a routine repair as an emergency. It states that this would be where the circumstances constitute a risk to the health or safety of that customer due to the nature of their vulnerability.
  3. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted, and the Ombudsman agrees that there were failures in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The delays in resolving the issue for the resident and the conflicting information provided to her was not appropriate. As these failings have already been identified by the landlord, this assessment will consider whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings. This will be in accordance with our dispute resolution principles which are, to be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes.
  4. While the landlord acknowledged that it had made service failures and offered compensation to the resident, it did not show how it would learn from its outcomes. It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure it provides residents with a cohesive service which is not adversely affected by the different opinions provided. In this case, it was clear that there was a lack of effective communication with the contractor which resulted in an adverse effect on the resident. While the landlord acknowledged this, it did not outline how both itself and its contractor would learn from the failings to ensure it would not happen again in future.
  5. On 4 December 2022 the resident said that she was concerned about mould gathering under the tiles. In line with its repairs policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to conduct a risk assessment and follow its damp, mould, and condensation policy if repairs were required. It does not appear that the landlord carried out those actions and therefore it remains unclear as to whether there is mould underneath the flooring. It was not appropriate for the landlord to not provide a position on this matter which likely caused the resident further distress due to the reported health concerns for her daughter.
  6. As well as a risk assessment for the reported mould, the landlord should have considered the risk to the household from the tiles. The resident informed the landlord that there were multiple vulnerabilities in the household and she was concerned for their safety. While the landlord did inspect the tiles on more than one occasion there was no evidence of a risk assessment or consideration to interim repairs which could take place. This was not in line with its repairs policy which suggests that the landlord would prioritise and consider the health and safety of households with vulnerabilities.
  7. While the landlord apologised for its failings and the distress and inconvenience caused due to the poor complaints experience. It would have been reasonable for it to acknowledge the likely distress and inconvenience caused as a result of the risk posed by the tiles and the delays in repairing them. The resident said that her children had obtained injuries and said this was due to the tiles lifting as a result of the landlord’s delay in fixing the leak in 2020. As per its complaints policy, the landlord should have provided its insurance details should the resident want to submit a personal injury claim for the reported injuries. It is a failing that it did not do so.
  8. It is a further failing that following the stage 2 response, the situation remains the same, if not worse. The resident said she provided 2 quotes for replacing the damaged tiles and the landlord did not provide a position on the quotes. It is unclear why the landlord therefore informed the Ombudsman on 8 January 2025 that it had carried out all the works in the property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided evidence of how it had satisfied itself that all works were completed. The Ombudsman finds it concerning that the landlord has had multiple opportunities to resolve the issue for the resident and has still failed to do so.
  9. Overall, the landlord made some attempt to put things right by acknowledging its failings and offering compensation. However, the situation is ongoing for the resident, a further 18 months later, which is not appropriate. The landlord failed to appropriately consider the risks to the household and its overall approach appears to be dismissive to the resident’s concerns. The compensation offered may have been reasonable if the landlord was then able to resolve the complaint within a reasonable timeframe, however, it has not sufficiently evidenced that it did. This suggests that the landlord did not learn from its outcomes.
  10. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her kitchen floor tiles to be repaired following a leak. Orders will be made for the landlord with the intention of putting things right.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy provided for a 2 stage complaints procedure in which it responds to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 7 months after the stage 2 escalation, which was not appropriate and outside of the timescales outlined in its policy. The landlord did acknowledge the delays and offered £200 compensation for the time taken and contradicting information which was reasonable. However, it would have also been reasonable for the landlord to have explained the reasons for the significant delay and what steps it would take to ensure it would not happen again. This would have shown learning on the landlord’s behalf.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code became statutory from 1 April 2024, meaning that landlords are obliged by law to follow its requirements. Therefore, no order in relation to the above has been made. The Code aims to achieve best practice in complaint handling and ultimately to provide a better service to residents.
  4. As already acknowledged, the landlord’s stage 1 response was not accurate and placed the responsibility back on to the resident. The Ombudsman finds that the response was dismissive and lacked empathy for the concerns raised. It also suggests that the landlord did not sufficiently investigate the complaint as it should have known about the previous commitments made to the resident. This was a failing and caused the resident time and trouble in having to escalate the complaint. The landlord did acknowledge that it provided conflicting information to the resident. It should consider whether there was a record keeping issue at the time which caused these failings.
  5. The stage 2 response was more detailed and acknowledged the failings in the case so far. It acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor complaints procedure. However, the response failed to acknowledge the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the household in living with potentially hazardous floor tiles for an unreasonable length of time. As already stated, the landlord should have considered the risks further and it would have been reasonable to have provided its insurance details on receipt of the reports of injury.
  6. The landlord offered a total of £500 in compensation. As stated, the initial compensation would have been appropriate if the landlord had resolved the issue within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord had the opportunity to provide evidence to show it had resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily, and it did not do so. As such, the Ombudsman considers further compensation should be awarded for its failure to put things right, learn from its outcomes, and for the likely impact on the resident.
  7. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £900 which accounts for the following:
    1. £300 it previously offered for the service failings regarding the floor tiles and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result.
    2. A further £300 should be awarded to reflect the further failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the floor tiles and the likely distress and inconvenience to the resident as a result. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures to put things right for the resident.
    3. £100 for the landlord’s failure to apply its policy when considering the vulnerability and safety of the household. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident.
    4. £200 it previously offered for the complaint handling failures.
  8. Overall, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for her kitchen floor tiles to be replaced following a leak.
    2. The complaint and level of compensation offered.

 

 

Orders

  1. The landlord must apologise to the resident for the additional failures highlighted in this report.
  2. Due to the time which has passed, the landlord must inspect the kitchen flooring to determine the extent of the damage to the tiles. It must also confirm if there is any damp, mould, or water damage underneath the tiles which would require repair. If this requires removal of the tiles, then it must do so. Once the inspection has taken place the landlord must provide its findings in writing to both the resident and the Ombudsman.
  3. If repairs are identified, it must complete a risk assessment and provide an action plan, with defined timescales for how it will address the issue. The action plan must set out what it intends to do to resolve the complaint. This should include whether it will remove any or all of the existing tiles. It should also include whether it will compensate the resident for any tiles which need to be replaced, subject to receiving quotes, as initially agreed in its stage 2 response.  
  4. The landlord must pay a total of £900 in compensation. This is inclusive of the £500 previously offered. Therefore, if that amount has already been paid, the landlord must pay a further £400 directly to the resident.
  5. The landlord must provide its insurance details to the resident for if she should wish to submit any personal injury claims.
  6. The landlord is to provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks from the date of this report.