Orbit Housing Association Limited (202322199)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322199

Orbit Housing Association 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s toilet, including asbestos related works.
The Ombudsman has also investigated how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint about this.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
On 2 August 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that his toilet was leaking. It is not clear what action the landlord took following the report, however the resident said that contractors had attended twice.
The resident complained to the landlord on 31 August 2023. He said:
1. A contractor attended twice without completing works. On the second visit the contractor said an asbestos test was needed. He was unhappy this had not been identified sooner.
2. He had been chasing the contractor and was told the job had been closed.
3. He had sewage coming from his toilet.
The landlord completed an asbestos test on 29 September 2023.
On 12 October 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It:
1. Said the repair to the toilet was delayed due to an asbestos test being required.
2. Said the asbestos test was completed on 29 September 2023. The results were made available to the contractor on 5 October 2023.
3. Apologised for the inconvenience.
4. Offered £370 compensation. This was broken down as follows (we note that the amounts below total £400 rather than £370) :
  1. £20 for two failed appointments from contractor.
  2. £30 for poor complaint handling.
  3. £350 as a goodwill gesture for the upset and inconvenience.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 November 2023. It:
1. Apologised for the delays the resident faced.
2. Confirmed asbestos would be removed on 7 December 2023 and renewal of the soil stack would take place on 8 December 2023.
3. Stated it was essential for the resident to be decanted before works began on 7 December. The resident would be contacted by the landlord’s reactive and planned move team.
4. Said it understood the inconvenience caused.
5. Increased its compensation offer to £680, set out as:
  1. £400 issued at stage 1.
  2. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by repair works not being completed.
  3. £100 for poor complaint handling and communication issues.
  4. £30 for 3 missed appointments.
On 22 December 2023 the landlord issued a further stage 2 response. This response:
1. Apologised for distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to repair a burst wastewater pipe. It also apologised that this resulted in the resident having a serious infection.
2. Stated the time to repair the wastewater pipe did not meet the landlord’s standards.
3. Acknowledged there had been a breakdown of communication between the landlord and contractors.
4. Confirmed further works were needed to replace the stopcock. These would take place on 28 December 2023.
5. Stated the resident was awarded £680 compensation for a duplicate complaint and confirmed the amount offered at stage 1.
6. Offered an additional compensation of £104 for the delays in resolving the issues with the wastewater pipe.
7. Confirmed the total compensation offer as being £1,184.
On 22 January 2024 the resident advised the Ombudsman he was unhappy with the compensation offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

The resident considers that the landlord’s handling of the toilet repair impacted his health. The resident has told us and the landlord that he feels the reason he got an infection was because of leaking sewage coming from his toilet. We understand the resident’s concerns. This must have been a distressing experience for him. However we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not, as we do not have the medical expertise to decide this. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Repairs to the resident’s toilet, including asbestos related works.

The landlord’s repair policy states repairs are classified as either emergency repairs or routine repairs. Emergency repairs, including making something safe are completed within 4 or 24 hours. Routine repairs are completed within 28 days.
The landlord’s compensation procedure says compensation should be awarded in line with the landlord’s compensation calculator.
The resident reported his toilet was leaking to the landlord on 2 August 2023. It is not clear from the evidence provided when the landlord first attended to repair the toilet. The resident states that he had 2 repair visits in August 2023 and during the second visit, the contractor identified an asbestos test was needed. It is not clear why this was not identified sooner.
On 31 August 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. In his complaint, he advised the landlord that sewage was now coming up from the toilet. The landlord raised an asbestos test on the same day, with attendance booked for 29 September 2023. This was an unreasonable delay, given the resident was reporting that the leak was getting worse and that he had told the landlord that sewage was coming from the toilet.
The landlord provided the contractor with the asbestos survey results on 5 October 2023. On 12 October 2023, the contractor told the landlord that a ”category b” operative was needed, and the contractor only had 2. The landlord completed a temporary repair on 18 October 2023 which stopped the toilet leaking and it was then working. It is unclear if the landlord considered a temporary fix before this time and, if so, why it was not completed sooner. This would have been a reasonable action for the landlord to take if it was safe to do so, particularly considering the resident was reporting sewage leaked onto his bathroom floor when he used the toilet.
The asbestos soil stack was removed on 7 December 2023 and a new soil stack installed on 8 December 2023. This was just over 2 months from the initial asbestos test results. This delay prolonged the distress and inconvenience for the resident.
The resident was decanted while the soil stack works were completed. The resident had to contact the landlord after this, as some repair works were still outstanding. The landlord attended the property on 28 December and boxed in pipes and replaced the stop tap. This would have caused the resident further inconvenience.
The resident had to chase the landlord on numerous occasions for repair updates. The resident also told the landlord he had suffered a serious infection which he felt was due to the leaking sewage. This added to what was already a distressing situation for the resident.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the repair delays, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It was positive for the landlord to apologise and provide an offer of compensation to the resident. However the landlord failed to provide an action plan of repairs needed and when they would be completed. This did not provide the resident with reassurance that the issues were going to be resolved.
The resident received two stage 2 responses. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 29 November 2023 and a further stage 2 response on 22 December 2023. It is not clear why the landlord did this. For ease of reference, the landlord’s complaint response on 22 December 2023 will be referred to as the landlord’s final stage 2 response.
In the landlord’s final stage 2 response, it acknowledged and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and that he had suffered an infection. The landlord also apologised for the time taken to repair the toilet, stating the repair “does not meet our standards”. It said there had been a “breakdown of communication”. It was positive for the landlord to take accountability for the delays and explain to the resident the reason delays occurred. However the landlord could have taken the opportunity to demonstrate service improvements that would be made, to prevent the same failings happening again.
The landlord offered further compensation in its final stage 2 response. It was positive for the landlord to acknowledge and increase its offer of compensation if further failings occurred. The landlord offered a total of £1,024 in respect of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, missed contractor appointments and delays to repairing the toilet. The landlord’s compensation calculation has been assessed in more detail later in this report.
Overall, the repairs to the resident’s toilet were delayed. This was despite the resident explaining sewage was leaking into his property and he felt his infection was because of this. The landlord provided the resident with a full apology and a total of £1,024 compensation. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in this case. Where a landlord accepts failings and takes steps to put matters right, we consider whether these actions reasonably resolve the matters complained about.
In this case, taking into account the extent of the failings, the impact on the resident and the time taken to resolve the repairs needed, the amount that the landlord offered is in the region of, or above, what the Ombudsman may have ordered in similar circumstances. We therefore consider this to have been an offer of reasonable redress which recognises the impact of the landlord’s failures and resolved the resident’s complaint. This is because the compensation was appropriate taking into account the failings in service in this case and resulting impact on the resident.
The resident has advised the Ombudsman that the compensation has been paid, therefore no recommendation has been made relating to this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. It specifies the landlord should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days from acknowledgment. Stage 2 responses should be dealt with within 20 working days.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 September 2023. There is no evidence that it provided any acknowledgement to the resident’s complaint prior to this. In the landlord’s letter, it said it was not in the position to update him on the progress of the complaint but would be able to do so by 3 September 2023. The date given was in the past and so was incorrect. This would have been confusing for the resident. The landlord should take care to ensure it is providing residents with accurate updates.
The resident waited 30 working days to receive the landlord’s stage 1 response. This was unacceptable and delayed the resident receiving a resolution. The landlord acknowledged there had been delays by offering £30 compensation for poor complaint handling.
The landlord’s compensation in its stage 1 response was calculated incorrectly. In the complaint response the resident was offered £370, although we note the individual amounts the landlord listed totalled £400. The landlord provided evidence of a compensation calculator to the Ombudsman which showed £420. Upon reviewing the landlord’s complaint response, it appears the offer of compensation should have been £400.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 29 November 2023. The landlord offered £100 compensation to the resident for poor complaint handling and communication issues.
It is unclear why the landlord issued a second stage 2 response as it is not in line with its policy. The landlord’s offer of compensation within it was also confused. The landlord said the previous offers of compensation were a ‘good reflection of errors made’ but that a further award of £104 would be made for delays in resolving the wastewater pipe. The landlord’s final compensation offer was for £1,184. From the breakdown provided by the landlord, it appears the landlord offered £680, which was the total compensation previously offered plus the additional £104. The landlord then added the compensation offered already at stage 1, which was already included in the £680, bringing the total offer to £1,184. While it is not clear if this was intentional, this meant that the landlord was therefore paying the stage 1 compensation twice.
The landlord should take care to ensure compensation offered has been calculated correctly and fairly. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to review how it calculates compensation.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was confused and not in line with its policy. The landlord’s attempt to give the resident an update at stage 1 was let down by the fact there were inaccuracies in the letter. The landlord also provided two stage 2 responses which would have been confusing for the resident. The compensation calculations at stage 1 and in the final stage 2 response were inaccurate.
The landlord’s complaint handling was confused and could have been improved. We have therefore made a recommendation to the landlord about the learning it can take from this case. However we do not consider that the issues we have identified in the landlord’s complaint handling had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord’s offer of £160 to recognise the poor complaint handling was proportionate to recognise the extent of the failings in complaint handling and resulting inconvenience to the resident. Therefore, we consider that this was an offer of reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint about its handling of repairs to the resident’s toilet, including asbestos related works.
In accordance with 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews the Ombudsman’s comments about its complaint handling in this report and uses these to improve its overall complaint service. This includes ensuring that one response is issued at each stage, being clear on compensation calculations and reviewing its use of a compensation calculator. This review should ensure that compensation offered to residents is accurate, proportionate and fair.