Orbit Housing Association Limited (202413924)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413924

Orbit Housing Association Limited

20 May 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:
1. Repairs and adaptations to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom.
2. The replacement of a fire door.
3. Communal maintenance.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat and he has lived there since May 2023. He has a physical disability and uses a wheelchair.
An Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment was carried out in January 2023, before the resident moved into the property. The report made some recommendations about required adaptations. After the resident moved in May 2023, some repairs to the bathroom were also identified as necessary.
Between June 2023 and June 2024 the landlord attempted to carry out repairs and alterations to the bathroom. The resident did not agree with the proposed adaptation works and would not agree to some repairs, so some repairs and adaptations remained outstanding. The landlord also faced difficulty installing a new fire door in June 2024 as the resident did not believe the new door had been measured correctly.
On 5 July 2024 the resident contacted this Service and asked us to raise a complaint with the landlord on his behalf, which we sent to the landlord the same day. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 July and sent its stage 1 response on 23 July, in which it said:
1. the bathroom was not due to be upgraded and it would only be carrying out the work recommended in the OT report
2. adaptations costing over £1,000 are arranged by the local authority using a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) – it said he should contact the local authority to discuss this
3. the kitchen had a life expectancy of 20 years and had only been installed in 2015 so would not be changed
4. a new fire door needed to be fitted as a matter of urgency as the existing door did not meet the required standard
5. it would look at the communal grounds and undertake any work required – it said this was the first request the resident had made about this
6. it confirmed it spoke to the resident about the outcome on 19 July and he had confirmed he was not happy so it would escalate the complaint
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 20 August 2024, in which it said:
1. work had been recommended on 14 June 2023 following an OT referral – it had approved the work but the resident had cancelled it
2. the resident should contact the local authority if he wanted to reconsider applying for DFG funding
3. it had no record of any issues with the drains being reported
4. it would not be replacing the bathroom
5. its contractors had attended to replace the fire door but the resident had refused the work – it would have to follow its access policy if he did not agree a date for the work to be carried out
On 10 February 2025 the resident asked us to investigate the complaint. He was unhappy the landlord would not liaise with the local authority and refurbish the bathroom at the same time as adaptation work.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the local authority’s actions in relation to his adaptation work. The local authority’s actions in this respect do not come under the jurisdiction of this Service. This investigation has only considered the responsibilities of the landlord and its actions in line with these.
The resident would need to raise any outstanding concerns about the local authority with it directly. If he remains unhappy with the local authority he can speak to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
The landlord has now approved a refurbishment of his bathroom. However, the resident has told us he remains unhappy that the landlord is not liaising with the local authority to carry out all work at the same time. In accordance with the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
As the landlord’s decision to refurbish the bathroom was made after it had concluded its internal complaints process, it has not had the opportunity to consider the resident’s concerns about how proposed bathroom works will be carried out. If he remains unhappy with this, he should raise this directly with the landlord to allow it the opportunity to investigate this.

Repairs and adaptations

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that upgrades to homes such as replacing kitchens and bathrooms are classed as planned maintenance. It decides what planned maintenance it will be doing each year, usually based on the results of home inspections it carries out.
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy says it will:
1. maximise the funding for major adaptations from external statutory sources by working in conjunction with local authorities and other agencies
2. contribute up to a maximum of £2,500 for agreed aids and adaptations
3. aim to work closely with local authority partners, health professionals and other relevant agencies to make sure there is a coordinated approach
4. advise residents who fit the criteria to apply for a DFG
An OT assessment was carried out on 2023, which made the following recommendations:
1. the toilet to be moved and some coving and tiles to be removed to allow for a wall-mounted ceiling hoist
2. a smaller hand basin to be installed in the bathroom
3. an automatic door opener to be installed on the front door of the flat
4. a rise and fall kitchen worktop to be installed
5. an extra button or remote key fob for the external door as the button to open the door was too close for the resident’s wheelchair
On 16 May 2023 the landlord’s records show the resident reported a problem with the grouting in the bathroom. He said water was getting between the tiles and flooring and the toilet was leaking. On 1 June the landlord emailed the resident and said it had raised jobs for a faulty flush as well as to move the toilet and repair the tiling. He asked the landlord to consider refitting the bathroom at the same time as the work was to be carried out under the DFG. On 14 June it spoke with him and explained that it would not be refitting the bathroom, which he was not happy about.
On 20 June 2023 the landlord contacted the resident’s OT to say the resident had told it that the DFG work had been upgraded. It asked whether this was now a full bathroom adaptation and asked for a copy of the proposal. It told the OT that its repairs team had tried several times to move the toilet but the resident had turned contractors away. The landlord’s internal records said that the resident refused the work as he wanted the whole bathroom changed, but it had seen no evidence from the OT that this was necessary. The OT report did not state that a full bathroom refit was needed, so the landlord’s attempts to continue with moving the toilet in line with the report were reasonable.
On 27 June 2023 the OT emailed the landlord with an up to date list of required adaptations, including flooring in the bathroom, moving the toilet and the addition of drop down rails. On 14 July the landlord emailed the OT as the resident had implied during a conversation that he was considering moving. It asked the OT if this was a possibility as it would affect his eligibility for a DFG. The OT confirmed to the landlord that the resident had said this in the heat of the moment and would not be moving.
The landlord’s internal records of 14 August 2023 show that it had met onsite with the OT, although it is not clear when this meeting took place. It had agreed to move the toilet as proposed as well as some other minor repairs in the bathroom. It said the flooring could remain as it was and the exposed screw holes could be sealed with colour matched mastic. Its contractors tried to book in the work but the resident declined, as he said he may need to be moved. The landlord said that it should continue with the work regardless of the resident’s objections. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord.
The landlord has provided no evidence that it made any further attempts to carry out any work between August and December 2023, or that it communicated with the local authority during this period. While we appreciate the landlord was having difficulties arranging access, it could have followed its no access policy as it said it was going to do this.
On 6 December 2023 the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection. This found that the extractor fan in the kitchen was turned off. The resident said that the extractor fans were very noisy and the report recommended they be looked at by an expert. We have seen no evidence that a further inspection of the fans was carried out at this time, which was not appropriate.
On 24 January 2024 the landlord spoke to the resident, who said he had turned down a DFG for his bathroom. The landlord emailed the local authority on 30 January to ask for an update. It responded to say that its case had been closed on 19 October 2023. The application for a DFG was not continued after a survey at the property found that it could not meet an OT recommendation. This was because ramp access could not be completed due to current regulations and the gradient. The local authority said that the resident would be looking at a move but had to be in the property for a year before he could be considered for this.
On 15 April 2024 the landlord installed a new flush coupler to the toilet in the resident’s bathroom. It is not clear from its records when this issue was reported. On 3 May a contractor visited to carry out repairs to the bathroom tiles, however the resident did not want the tiles regrouted as he wanted a complete upgrade of the bathroom.
A further damp and mould inspection was carried out on 24 June 2024 which found that the extractor fans were turned on and operational and trickle vents were open. It found a small damp patch on the bedroom wall, with no leak from the other side. It was recommended that stain block was used to treat the area. A contractor attended to apply this on 1 July, however the resident refused access as he said he was concerned about fumes.
On 5 July 2024 the resident contacted us and asked us to raise a complaint to the landlord on his behalf, which we did the same day. He said he was unhappy with various repairs issues in the bathroom and kitchen, including the workmanship of repairs that had been carried out.
In its stage 1 response of 23 July 2024 the landlord explained that the kitchen had a life expectance of 20 years and had been installed in 2015. It said it would not be due for refurbishment for a further 11-15 years. The bathroom had a life expectancy of around 30 years and was installed in 1999 so also was not due for refurbishment at that time. This response was reasonable in line with its repairs policy for planned maintenance. It said it had provided feedback to its contractor and said he could arrange his own repair agent if he was unhappy with its contractor.
In its stage 2 response of 20 August 2024 the landlord reiterated its position in its stage 1 response that the kitchen and bathroom were not due to be refurbished. It said he should contact the local authority to discuss continuing an application for DFG funding if he had changed his mind on this, which was reasonable.
The landlord’s internal records of 11 September 2024 show that the resident’s bathroom had now been added to its planned maintenance programme. It was due for replacement within the next 24-28 months, but no date had yet been confirmed. It said that the outstanding work should still be completed in the meantime. It was reasonable for the landlord to want to carry out repairs and not leave them until the bathroom was replaced, given that it could not be confirmed when this would be.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs and adaptations to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. Overall, the landlord made many attempts to carry out repairs, and on many occasions was unable to gain access. The adaptations were the responsibility of the local authority and there is no evidence the landlord did not engage with it to try to move things forward. It was not unreasonable for it to not agree to refurbish the bathroom until it was due under its planned maintenance programme.
However, there was a period between August and December 2023 where there is no evidence the landlord continued to engage with the resident to try to get repairs carried out. There is also no evidence it reinspected the extractor fans as recommended in December 2023 until it carried out a further inspection in June 2024, which was an unreasonable delay.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100. This award is made with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in mind. It is to recognise the inconvenience caused by its lack of communication with him between August and December 2023, and the delay in reinspecting the extractor fans.
A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to continue to liaise with the local authority to ensure that all work can be completed with as little disruption to the resident as possible.

Replacement of fire door

The landlord carried out an assessment of the suitability of the resident’s fire door on 12 February 2024. This found that the plastic spy hole fitted could be pushed out in a fire due to a build up of pressure. It also noted that as the resident is a wheelchair user he requires help getting out of bed. It said that while a sprinkler system was in place, the door was not suitably fire resistant.
The landlord attempted to fit a new door on 21 June 2024, however the resident declined the installation. He said that the new door had not been measured correctly and would not fit. He was also concerned the automatic door closer due to be fitted would affect the integrity of the door. The landlord confirmed to him that the door had been measured, but that it would be reordered if there were any issues upon installation, which was reasonable.
When the resident contacted us on 5 July 2024 he said the landlord was trying to replace his fire door when there were no defects with the current door. In its stage 1 response of 23 July the landlord explained that the current door did not meet the required standard and could not be repaired to bring it in line with regulations. This was a fair explanation of why it needed to replace the door. It said it was awaiting new kick plates and would be in touch to book in the installation when these were received.
On 1 August 2024 the landlord’s fire safety contractor tried to visit the resident to discuss his concerns about the replacement fire door. This was a proactive step for the landlord to take. The contractor called him to advise they would be with him in around 30 minutes, however the resident declined to speak with them. The contractor spoke with the landlord who said the installation was booked for 16 August. They let the resident know this was booked in, however he said he would not allow it to go ahead. The landlord’s internal communications said it would look to follow its no access policy if necessary.
In its stage 2 response of 20 August 2024, the landlord reiterated that the current door did not meet required standards and needed replacing. It said that contractors had attended to replace the door but he had declined to let them carry out the work. A contractor attended on 23 August but was unable to gain access to the property.
The new fire door was installed on 22 November 2024. The landlord has provided a copy of the completion report which includes a certificate to show that it conforms to the required standard. In a recent telephone call with us the resident said the door does not fit snuggly, however we have seen no evidence he has reported any post installation issues to the landlord.
The Ombudsman does not consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the replacement of the fire door. The landlord explained the need for the new door to the resident and was proactive in arranging for a contractor to visit to discuss any concerns he had. The delay in installing the door was out of its control as it made a number of unsuccessful attempts to visit to carry out the work.
Given the resident’s concerns about the fit of the door, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to inspect the door to ensure it fits correctly.

Communal maintenance

When the resident contacted us on 5 July 2024 he said he was unhappy with the landlord’s maintenance of the communal grounds. However, he did not provide any further detail about what maintenance he felt was not being carried out. We have not seen any record of him raising issues with communal maintenance with the landlord prior to this.
In its stage 1 response of 23 July 2024 the landlord said that it had not previously received any requests from the resident in relation to communal maintenance. It agreed to inspect the communal grounds and carry out any necessary work, which was a reasonable step for it to take.
The landlord tried to contact the resident on 31 July 2024 to clarify what he remained unhappy with, however it was unable to speak with him about this. As it had no further information from him on this issue it did not comment further on this in its stage 2 response, which was reasonable.
The Ombudsman does not consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of communal maintenance. We have seen no evidence that the resident raised communal maintenance issues with the landlord before raising the complaint. The landlord’s maintenance records show that the communal area is cleaned fortnightly and all reported repairs have been completed.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs and adaptations to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom
2. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the replacement of a fire door
3. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of communal maintenance

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs.
The landlord to apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
The landlord to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to continue to liaise with the local authority to ensure that all work can be completed with as little disruption to the resident as possible.
The landlord to carry out an inspection of the resident’s fire door to ensure it fits correctly.