Orbit Housing Association Limited (202327143)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327143

Orbit Housing Association Limited

26 September 2024

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:
1. the impact of repair issues on the resident’s family’s health.
2. the landlord’s handling of:
  1. flooring repairs.
  2. window repairs.
  3. the related complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom house, where the resident lives with her 3 children. The landlord has noted in correspondence that the resident suffers with chronic fatigue syndrome and anxiety.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days, and major repairs within 90 calendar days. It says that for routine repairs a contractor will attempt access 3 times. After the third no access appointment, the contractor should contact the landlord so it can make contact with the resident to discuss what happens next. The landlord’s compensation policy states it may consider claims for damage to items caused as a direct result of its action/inaction. It says such a claim may be dealt with by its complaint team if it is for less than £5,000.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2-stage process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
Records we have seen show the landlord raised flooring repairs in 2017 in the respect of bedrooms, the landing and the bathroom at the resident’s property. In July 2021 the landlord noted the work from 2017 was still outstanding, as the resident had been ill. Records note its contractor attended in early October 2021 but that more time was needed to complete work. We have seen no further records relating to flooring repairs until December 2022, when the landlord raised these repairs again. It noted then that there was movement in floorboards and “furniture is about to fall over”.
The landlord recorded its contractor attended to complete flooring repairs on 6 March 2023. The contractor attempted further attendance on 8 March 2023, but noted there was no answer by the resident. In early May 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of flooring repairs over a period of time. In the note of its discussion with her, the landlord recorded her specific dissatisfaction with the actions of an operative who had attended her property in October 2021. It noted the resident said that she had closed the flooring repair in October/November 2021 as she “got sick” from the upheaval of work. However, it recorded that she was now happy for contractors to return. It also noted that she said all her windows needed new hinges, and this work had been outstanding since October 2021. Around this time, the landlord raised flooring repair work again.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 May 2023. It noted the resident:
1. wanted to know when the required work would be completed to her flooring.
2. said her furniture had been damaged by uneven flooring and she wanted to claim for this from the landlord.
The landlord said it had found there had been delays in flooring work due to the resident’s health, no access for its contractor and contractor absence. It noted the resident was concerned about repairs being completed in multiple rooms and that this was a challenge due to her health condition. It said:
1. it had now booked for flooring work to start on 6 June 2023.
2. it “empathised” that flooring needed to be investigated for repair, but it said that furniture would have bowed over time. It said the resident should refer this to her insurer.
3. it had noted the resident’s concerns that the contractor in 2021 had been unprofessional and had fed this back to the contractor.
The landlord offered the resident £245 made up of:
1. £35 for failings in its service.
2. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
3. £100 for delays resolving the issue.
4. £10 for a missed appointment.
The resident responded to the landlord on 9 May 2023. She said that contractors always had access to her property. She raised concerns that the landlord’s handling of the flooring repairs in 2021 had taken a toll on her health. She rejected its offer of compensation.
In internal records from June 2023 the landlord noted that repairs to the main bedroom floorboards had been completed. Later that month its contractor recorded that it had been unable to progress further floor board repairs due to the close proximity of pipework, as the risk of damage was high. It noted another contractor needed to attend as pipework needed to be moved.
In early July 2023 the contractor told the landlord the extent of work needed would involve disruption, floorboards being lifted and likely relocation of pipework. At the end of July 2023 the landlord detailed a conversation with the resident, noting it had agreed to completing the work a room at a time. That day it recorded the work as a major repair.
Repair records show work was raised on 2 October 2023 for 2 contractors to attend to lift flooring and lower pipework at the resident’s property. This was recorded as completed on 17 October 2023. On 27 October 2023 the landlord raised work for flooring to be installed.
On 3 November 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. In this it detailed that flooring repairs had first been raised in February 2017. It also noted issues the resident had experienced with flooring repairs in October 2021. It said that:
1. it raised another appointment for the work in November 2021 but the resident had cancelled this and had stated her preference that a particular operative did not reattend.
2. it had not taken follow up action after this, and it apologised for this oversight.
3. work was raised again in December 2022, and contractor attended to complete some work in March 2023. However, it said the repair had been closed after it was unable to gain access on 8 March 2023.
4. work was raised again on 2 May 2023, but this was paused due to the proximity of pipework.
5. after another contractor attended it had confirmed that there was no issue with the pipework on 17 October 2023, so the floor work was assigned for completion.
6. it was due to attend to complete floor work on 6 November 2023.
The landlord said it was upholding the complaint and the length of time taken to resolve matters. It awarded compensation of £3,055, which included the amount awarded in its stage 1 complaint response. This was made up of:
1. £2,360 for repairs outside the timeframe (between February 2017 and November 2023).
2. £400 for distress and inconvenience.
3. £250 for complaint handling.
4. £35 for failings in its service.
5. £10 for a missed appointment.
On 4 November 2023 the resident responded to the landlord. She said she was disappointed and that key details were missing from its response. At the end of November 2023 she provided further information to the landlord. The focus of the concerns the resident outlined was around dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of flooring repairs in October 2021. She also said she was still waiting for new window hinges to be fitted.
In February 2024 the landlord provided the resident with a post stage 2 response. It outlined and apologised for instances in 2021 when the resident said she had been caused inconvenience and upset by its handling of flooring repairs. It noted her concerns about the replacement of window hinges. It apologised for the extended delay in addressing this, and said it would ensure the resident was contacted to book this work. The landlord also said it would reconsider its decision not to compensate her for damage to her furniture if she provided proof of purchases and images of the damage. It awarded additional compensation to the resident of:
1. £200 for complaint handling issues not addressed at stage 2.
2. £70 for poor conduct and failing to update on repairs.
3. £70 relating to her concern that it had not arranged a hotel for her in October/November 2021 during flooring work.
Later in February 2024 the resident reported to the landlord concerns that flooring laid in November 2023 was dipping. She also requested that it reconsider the level of compensation awarded. In early March 2024 the landlord told the resident it was happy to provide her with a further post stage 2 response as repair work had not been completed satisfactorily. Following this, the resident sent the landlord emails in April and May 2024 chasing flooring repair work. In this correspondence she also said that contractors had attended to inspect her windows in February and April 2024. However, she said she was still waiting for a date when this work would be completed.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. The resident said repairs at the property had a negative impact on her family’s health. Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This is a matter which is most appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer, and it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she can make such as claim. As such, we have recommended that it provide the resident with information on how she can make such a claim to its insurer.
It follows that the resident’s complaint about this matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in line with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme. However, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health and well-being when considering her complaint. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Scope of investigation

In considering the resident’s complaint about flooring the landlord noted that flooring repairs had initially been raised in February 2017. While we have seen evidence of floor repairs being raised in 2017 and again in July 2021, records we have seen are limited. We also note that the resident first raised a formal complaint with the landlord about this issue in May 2023. There is no evidence she made contact prior to this date to raised concerns or a formal complaint about the matter.
It is acknowledged that flooring has clearly been longstanding issue for the resident. It is also apparent that she is particularly concerned about the actions of the landlord’s contractor around October 2021. However, the Ombudsman expects residents to raise complaints in a timely manner so that the issues can be investigated when evidence is available, and when recollections of events are clear. We note that the landlord has awarded compensation to the resident for the period between February 2017 and November 2023. However with consideration to the timing of the resident’s complaint, and the absence of clear evidence and records of events prior to December 2022, we cannot meaningfully assess the landlord’s/its contractor’s actions in October 2021. This investigation has therefore focused on the landlord’s handling of flooring repairs since December 2022. We have, however, considered the appropriateness of its actions since that date in the context of its awareness that this was a longstanding repair.

Flooring repairs

Flooring repair work was raised in December 2022 and began in March 2023. Records from around this are limited. However, there is no evidence the landlord had established this work as complex, or anything other than a routine repair. In line with its repairs policy such repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. But we have been provided with no evidence that the landlord or its contractor made any attempt to contact the resident to arrange for timely completion of this work. Work did not start until nearly 3 months after the repair had been raised. The landlord had recorded in December 2022 that flooring in the resident’s bathroom had been removed by a previous contractor. In these circumstances, it would have been reasonable for it to take appropriate steps to ensure timely completion of work. While this work was being completed by a contractor, the landlord should reasonably have maintained oversight of progress. That there is no evidence it did so was failing.
The flooring work was closed after the contractor attended and was unable to access the property on 8 March 2023. But there is no evidence of any efforts made by the landlord or its contractor to follow up on this work. The landlord’s repairs policy states that its contractor will attempt access 3 times before notifying the landlord so it can make contact with the resident. But there is no evidence this procedure was followed. Instead the repair was closed after the no access appointment on 8 March 2023. The landlord was aware of a number of issues with the flooring and that the resident was without flooring in her bathroom. In these circumstances, and in line with its repairs policy, it should reasonably have followed up on what was being done to resolve the repair issues. That it did not was a failing. We have made an order that the landlord remind staff and contractors of the appropriate processes to follow after a no access appointment.
After the resident complained, the landlord took appropriate steps to re-raise flooring repairs in early May 2023. It noted when responding to her complaint that it would ensure repair work was raised in stages so it was a less “obstructive” process for her. We have seen evidence it was took some positive steps to attempt to minimise the disruption for the resident. The landlord arranged for repair work to begin initially in the main bedroom. It was appropriate for it to account of what the resident said about finding repairs to multiple rooms challenging due to her heath condition. It also provided her with clear information about when work would begin. Work to the main bedroom floor was completed on 6 June 2023, as scheduled.
The landlord’s contractor reported difficulty progressing further floor repairs later in June 2023 due to concerns about the proximity of pipework. Later, in July 2023, the landlord recorded that this was major work. It anticipated it would now also need to lower pipework. The landlord concluded in October 2023 that this work was not necessary. However, it is acknowledged that unavoidable delays may occur when such issues need to be appropriately investigated prior to proceeding with work. We have seen records showing the landlord communicated with 2 different contractors during this time to arrange an inspection of potential work needed to the pipework. But it is unclear why it took until 17 October 2023 for the issue to be inspected. Records show that a plumbing contractor was initially scheduled to attend on 19 September 2023. But the landlord was later told the appointment could not go ahead due to staff sickness.
The landlord was aware this was a longstanding repair. It should reasonably have been more proactive in ensuring the work progressed appropriately. It had been told on 23 June 2023 that work could not proceed due to the proximity of pipes. But an inspection of pipework did not happen for nearly 4 months. That was evidence of a failure by the landlord to effectively co-ordinate the work. While it noted that some flooring work was completed in September 2023, delays in inspecting pipework prolonged completion of all flooring work. That would have caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience.
The landlord recorded that all flooring work was completed on 9 November 2023. In its stage 2 complaint response that month it awarded the resident £2,360 for completing repairs outside the timeframe, and £445 for distress and inconvenience, failings in service and missed appointments. We acknowledge this amount was intended to compensate the resident for failings going back to February 2017. However, as noted earlier, our investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of issues since December 2022. However, with consideration of all the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have found that the landlord has offered proportionate redress in respect of failings in its handling of flooring repairs since December 2022. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.

Window repairs

When complaining to the landlord in May 2023, the resident said she was still waiting for window hinges to be replaced. Despite noting this, there is no evidence it took any appropriate steps to check what was happening about this repair. Nor did it address this point in either its stage 1 or stage 2 complaint responses. Subsequently, after the resident again raised her concerns about this, the landlord addressed this point in its post stage 2 response. It apologised for the extended delay addressing the issue and said it would ensure its contractor took steps to book this work. But it would have been reasonable for the landlord to maintain adequate oversight to ensure work was progressed and that the resident was kept appropriately updated. That it did not do so was a failing. The resident had said the work had been outstanding since October 2021. The landlord has not monitored and ensured action was being taken in respect of this repair. Instead, we have seen evidence that the resident has had to contact it about this issue, without any appropriate response.
The resident told the landlord, in May 2024, that a contractor had attended since February 2024 to inspect her windows. But she said she was yet to hear when the work would be completed. In September 2024 the resident informed the landlord she was still waiting to hear about this work. She said she had now been told windows were to be replaced, but had been given no clear date for the work. She said in her correspondence to the landlord in May 2024 that her windows had been “inoperable” for 3 years and she considered them to be a fire hazard. The resident expressed her frustration that no one from the landlord was checking what was happening about window repairs, or responding to her. Its failure to do so, or take appropriate steps to monitor progress of this repair, has caused her frustration and meant she spent time and trouble chasing the matter. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window repairs.
The landlord awarded the resident £70 in its post stage 2 response for failure to keep her updated about repairs. But it is unclear what part of this, if any, relates to its failings around window repairs. However, this amount does not appropriately compensate the resident for the impact of the landlord’s failings. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a further award has been ordered aimed at fully recognising the impact of the landlord’s failings. We have also ordered that it make contact with the resident to:
1. inspect her concerns about her windows and consider if any temporary repairs are appropriate prior to any planned window replacement.
2. provide her with a point of contact through to completion of window repairs.
3. agree a process for providing her with regular updates about this work.

Complaint handling

While the landlord’s initial complaint response was timely, it failed to address all the issues the resident had raised. As outlined above it did not address or take action in respect of her concerns about window repairs. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response on 9 May 2023, but it took it almost 6 months to provide a stage 2 complaint response. The reasons for this delay are unclear. It wrote to the resident in September and October 2023 explaining that it was not in a position to provide its complaint response. But it did not explain why it could not do so. Repairs were still outstanding at this time, but that was not a reason to delay the complaint response. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) the landlord could still respond to the complaint and, set out steps it would take to address the repair issue.
When the landlord offered compensation to the resident in November 2023, it awarded £2,360 for delays to floor repairs. It said this was for repairs completed outside the timeframe, between February 2017 and November 2023. While the landlord explained the period it was compensating for, it should reasonably have set out clearly how this amount had been calculated. Without doing so, it was not being clear or transparent about how it had decided on this figure of compensation. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have concluded that the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of this. However, we have ordered that the landlord remind staff of the importance of being clear about how awards of compensation have been calculated.
In its stage 2 response and post stage 2 response the landlord also awarded the resident a total of £450 in respect of poor complaint handling and failure to address all issued raised. That sum appropriately recognised the landlord’s delay in providing the stage 2 response and its failure to address the window repair during its earlier complaint responses. However, it would have been appropriate for it to have explicitly apologised for the significant delay in it providing its stage 2 response. We have seen other failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. In February 2024 the resident raised concerns about the standard of flooring repairs completed in November 2023. The landlord told her in March 2024 that it would address her concerns about flooring, and about the level of compensation, in a further post stage 2 response. However, despite the resident chasing it for a response to her ongoing concerns about flooring, it has failed to respond or fully address the issue.
Records show the landlord arranged for its contractor to attend to inspect the resident’s concern about the floor repair in March 2024. The contractor told the landlord at this time that it had found a damaged section of flooring. It also noted the resident wanted all the flooring taken up, whereas the contractor considered only the dipped section of the floor needed to be repaired. In its email to the landlord of 14 March 2024 the contractor questioned whether it should tell the resident the repair would only be to the dipped section of floor. But there is no evidence the landlord responded to the question from the contractor. If there was a dispute about the amount of work needed, the landlord should reasonably have arranged to inspect the issue. That there is no evidence it did so was a failing.
In April 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord. She said her bedrooms had not been returned to normal as she could not order carpets or wardrobes while waiting for flooring repairs. She wrote again in May 2024 outlining the disruption to the household’s sleeping arrangements as furniture remained displaced. She said her daughter had been unable to stay in her room as furniture had been moved to her sons’ room. The resident said, as a result, her younger son was having to share her own bedroom.
After receiving the resident’s correspondence in May 2024 the landlord noted the case had been placed in its aftercare process in March 2024. Despite noting the resident was waiting for a further post stage 2 response, the landlord took no apparent steps to check what work was outstanding. Nor did it take appropriate steps to arrange for it to be completed. In September 2024 after we contacted the landlord to query the position of work, it said the case “sat” within the aftercare process and that further inspections were to be completed. It is unclear what has led to this case remaining in the aftercare process for 6 months without progress on outstanding actions. That it did, despite the resident repeatedly chasing work, was a failing in the landlord’s monitoring. The resident should not have had to wait so long, or have spent so much time and trouble chasing issues since February 2024. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a further award has been ordered aimed at recognising the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident. In ordering this award we have taken into account what the resident has said about the disruption to her family’s life over 7 months while she waited for the landlord to respond appropriately to her flooring concerns.
We have ordered that the landlord contact the resident to arrange to inspect the concerns she has about the flooring repairs. It should provide her with a point of contact and a clear plan of action to address these concerns. We have also ordered that the landlord to review failings identified, to establish what has led to the case remaining within its aftercare process with no apparent action to resolve outstanding repairs. It should do so in order to ensure these failings are not repeated.
We have noted the resident’s concern about damage to her furniture, which she considered was caused by flooring issues. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, it would have been appropriate for it to consider whether this damage had been caused by its action or inaction. But instead it directed the resident to claim under her own insurance, stating this matter was not the landlord’s responsibility. At that time it had not requested/seen any information from the resident that would have allowed it to reasonably conclude this. Later, the landlord appropriately offered to review the issue. It asked that the resident provide further information, such as photos of damage/proof of purchase of the furniture. But it should reasonably have done so earlier when responding to her complaint at stage 1.The resident subsequently said she has photos of the damaged furniture. We have ordered that the landlord repeat its offer to reconsider this issue. On receipt of further information from the resident, it should take appropriate steps to review the matter in line with its compensation policy. We have also ordered that the landlord remind staff of the importance of obtaining appropriate information when considering claims relating to damaged possessions.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s concerns about the impact of repair issues on her family’s health falls outside the Ombudsman jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident in respect of its handling of the flooring repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 2 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should contact the resident in order to arrange to inspect her flooring and window concerns. It should:
1. consider if any temporary repairs are appropriate in respect of her windows.
2. provide her with a point of contact through to completion of flooring and window repairs.
3. agree a process for providing her with regular updates about this work.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This apology should be made with reference to apologies guidance contained within the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. pay the resident compensation of £1,400, made up of:
  1. £250 in respect of failings identified in the landlord’s handling of window repairs. This is in addition the £70 previously awarded for failure to update about repairs.
  2. £700 for further complaint handing failings identified, specifically its failure to take appropriate action to resolve flooring issues since February 2024.
  3. £450 already awarded by the landlord in respect of complaint handling failings.
3. remind staff and contractors of the appropriate processes to follow after a no access appointment.
4. remind staff of the importance of being clear about how awards of compensation have been calculated.
5. repeat its offer to reconsider damage to the resident’s furniture. On receipt of further information from her, it should take appropriate steps to review the matter in line with its compensation policy.
6. remind staff of the importance of obtaining appropriate information when considering claims relating to damaged possessions.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. review failings identified in this report and consider whether appropriate processes are in place to monitor the progress of work completed by contractors. It should do so with the aim of taking steps to ensure these failings are not repeated.
2. review failings identified in this report to establish what led to the case remaining within its aftercare process with no apparent action to resolve outstanding repair concerns. It should do so with the aim of taking steps to ensure these failings are not repeated.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report, if it has not done so already, the landlord should pay compensation it previously awarded in respect of its handling of flooring repairs, as set out below:
1. £2,360 for repairs outside the timeframe (between February 2017 and November 2023).
2. £400 for distress and inconvenience.
3. £35 for failings in its service.
4. £10 for a missed appointment.
5. £70 relating to the resident’s concern that it had not arranged a hotel for her in October/November 2021 during flooring work.
6. £70 relating to poor conduct and failure to update on repairs.
Also within 4 weeks of the report the landlord should provide the resident with information on how she can make a personal injury claim to its insurer.