Orbit Group Limited (202108657)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108657

Orbit Housing Association Limited

7 July 2023

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:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the heating at the property.
   2. Response to the resident’s concerns about its independent living team.
   3. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident was the assured tenant of a one-bedroom flat in a sheltered scheme with a communal heating system since 2005. The resident was recognised by the landlord as vulnerable. The resident died in 2022.
3. The resident’s main concern was that from 2019 she was unable to have the heating on at night. This was important for the resident as she was elderly and had medical conditions. This was resolved when the landlord’s contractors switched on a third boiler in the communal boiler room which had been switched off. However, the resident had ongoing concerns about controlling the temperature of the heating when it came on at night. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord’s stage one complaint response contained mis-leading information.
4. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint about heating, noting that it had taken too long to resolve the issue. The landlord apologised and offered compensation of £1442.50 (£902.50 for loss of heating; £400 for distress and inconvenience and £140 for service failure.)
5. The landlord also offered to pay for an independent contractor to inspect the heating system regarding the resident’s concerns about controlling the temperature.
6. The resident also complained about the landlord’s response to concerns about its independent living team. It appears that the resident had been unhappy with this team for a number of years, naming one staff member in particular. However, the resident’s concerns appear to have been general in nature rather than about specific recent incidents.
7. The landlord’s position was that without recent, specific incidents, it was not possible to investigate. The landlord agreed with the resident how to report incidents in the future and explained the importance of reporting any issues promptly.
8. The landlord also offered the resident £250 for poor complaint handling.

Scope

9. The correspondence on file indicates that the resident raised a number of concerns with the landlord, some of which dated back many years. The focus of this investigation is the complaints that were considered by the landlord in the stage one and two complaint responses. This is because the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints where the landlord had an opportunity to consider these via its internal complaints procedure.
10. All the information provided has been taken into consideration whether or not it is specifically referred to in this report. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but rather it will outline the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

Assessment and findings

Heating

11. The landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the heating under the terms of the tenancy agreement. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it categorises repairs as emergency or routine. For vulnerable residents, the landlord may treat routine repairs as an emergency in order that the situation is resolved sooner.
12. During 2019 the landlord visited the property numerous times regarding the heating with the outstanding issue being the heating not being on at night. In October 2019 the landlord raised an emergency job to re-set the communal boiler to allow it to stay on for 24 hours a day. A job was also raised to provide the resident with temporary heaters. The landlord raised another job in January 2020 for oil heaters whilst the engineer waited for parts.
13. In August 2020 the landlord raised a job as the heating was not switching off. The landlord was to provide temporary heaters as soon as possible as the resident was elderly and vulnerable. A work ticket dated 10 November 2020 states that the heating system was fed from the communal boiler and was working.  However, the following day the landlord logged a complaint about oil heaters not having been provided.
14. A full chronology of visits to the property has not been set out here as it is not in dispute that the resident’s heating was not operational at night from 2019 until 2021.
15. Following the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one response to her complaint, the landlord’s staff member reviewing the complaint at stage 2 arranged to discuss the complaint with the resident on 15 March 2021. The landlord also arranged for a contractor to attend the property on 17 March 2021.
16. The landlord’s internal emails note that the communal boiler turned off at some point in the night which caused problems for the resident. The resident used temporary heaters at night as she needed heating available 24 hours a day due to her medical conditions. Until 2019 there was no issue with the heating.
17. On 23 March 2021 the resident confirmed that the heating was working 24 hours a day. She had been told by the contractor that the third communal boiler that had been turned off had now been turned on. The resident queried the temperature point at which radiators were coming on.
18. In response, the landlord arranged a time to talk about this and for a contractor to visit the property about the thermostat. During a telephone call with the resident, the landlord established that because it was too warm at night with the heating on, the resident was still using oil heaters. As a result, the landlord arranged a joint visit by two contractors for 15 April 2021. The contractors found all to be working. However, the resident was unhappy as she stated the temperature was still too hot at night.
19. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage two on 23 April 2021, apologising for the inconvenience caused by the heating issues. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns in detail, having listened to call recordings. What is set out below represents a summary of the stage two response. The landlord:
    1. Apologised that oil heaters were not delivered to the resident in a timely manner, and she had to chase this up.
    2. Apologised that work was not re-raised to resolve the heating issue and for any delay, noting this did not meet the landlord’s service standards.
20. Regarding ongoing issues with the heating, the landlord acknowledged that since early 2019 the resident had reported the heating not working effectively particularly at night and that this was never fully resolved. The landlord explained the boiler room inspection found that one of the three boilers running heating for the scheme was not turned on, but the landlord was unable to provide an answer as to why. The heating was then operational at night but the resident raised concerns about the temperature at which the heating was operational. The landlord arranged an inspection of the flow and return temperatures of the radiator which concluded the radiators and controls were working to the manufacturer’s recommendations. The resident remained concerned that there was an issue controlling the temperature in her flat. The landlord offered to cover the cost (as a goodwill gesture) of an inspection by an independent contractor. If this contractor identified something different from the landlord’s contractors, the landlord would consider this further.
21. The landlord offered total compensation of £1442.50 for poor service calculated on the basis of:£902.50 for loss of heating of 8 hours per day between 1 April 2019 and 23 March 2021; £400 for distress and inconvenience and £140 for service failure
22. The resident remained dissatisfied that the staff member who responded at stage one had not listened to audio files of phone calls, that there was incorrect information on the contractor’s portal, that the heating came on at a different temperature point and at the visits from contractors.
23. On 23 May 2021 an emergency priority job was raised because when the heating came on, it was too hot. Subsequently all the TRV valves were replaced in November 2021. There is no evidence whether an independent inspection of the heating system took place at the landlord’s expense, as offered in the stage two complaint response. Nonetheless, it was for the resident to have decided if she wished this to go ahead..
24. It must be noted that there were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the issue that the resident reported with her heating. It is not clear why, when switching the third communal boiler on allowed the heating to be on 24 hours a day, the landlord did not identify this issue at an earlier stage. However, it must also be noted that the Head of Customer Experience, who handled the complaint at stage two, took time to speak with the resident, understand the resident’s concerns and also took steps to investigate and put right what had gone wrong.
25. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may award compensation if the standard of service provided is considerably below the standard that customers could reasonably expect. The landlord will only pay compensation if the customer experienced financial loss or significant distress or inconvenience.
26. Given the failings of the landlord, it was appropriate these were recognised in its offer of compensation. Compensation was calculated on the basis of no heating overnight for 722 days at a rate of £1.25. The usual calculation would be for the period from November to April. The landlord calculated this for the whole year instead, which was appropriate in the circumstances as the resident needed the heating on due to her medical conditions. The landlord calculated the goodwill payment for service failure at £140 which was for circumstances where there was a high impact on the resident. The landlord also offered the maximum payment for inconvenience (£400).
27. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has identified and acknowledged its failings ahead of any investigation. The landlord has investigated, apologised and offered compensation. In this case the Ombudsman would have made a finding of some level of maladministration but for the remedy offered by the landlord. The landlord’s failings caused distress and inconvenience for the resident. However, the landlord did take steps to remedy this. The landlord offered a payment to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.  This was not a wholly quantifiable loss but rather the landlord recognised that being unable to have the heating on at night inconvenienced the resident, in particular because she was elderly and suffered from medical conditions. The landlord also recognised that the time taken to discover that a boiler should be switched on was unacceptable. The landlord therefore endeavored to be fair in offering a remedy which was proportionate to the failings it identified in its handling of the issue.
28. The Ombudsman does not offer definitive categories of compensation since a proportionate amount of compensation depends on the facts of the case. However, the Ombudsman’s guidance indicates that a compensation amount in the region of that offered by the landlord exceeds the amount considered appropriate in circumstances where the landlord’s failings have adversely affected the resident. Therefore, the compensation offered by the landlord, together with the apologies and actions taken was sufficient to resolve this part of the complaint. In addition, the substantive issue, which was the heating remaining operational at night, was resolved ahead of the stage two complaint response being issued.
29. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation below that if the compensation was not paid to the resident at the time of the complaint, the landlord checks if there is anyone authorised to receive this compensation payment now that the resident has unfortunately died.

Independent living team

30. Part of the resident’s concerns were about a staff member who was part of the independent living team. On 11 November 2020 the landlord asked the resident to think about specific examples from the last six months where she had experienced issues with the independent living team and what she would like as a resolution. The resident was to think about this before speaking with the complaint handler. This was appropriate advice from the landlord at this stage, as whilst understanding that the resident referred to her general dissatisfaction, it was at this point unclear if any specific incidents had occurred which it could investigate under its complaints procedure.
31. There is no evidence that the resident discussed this matter with the complaint handler as the telephone call on 20 November 2020 did not progress. This was because the staff member asking the resident for her date of birth when she stated it had previously been agreed she would give a password as an ID check. The matter of the independent living team was therefore not addressed in the stage one complaint response.
32. The resident’s email of 1 March 2021 stated that she had concerns about how the independent living team were treating her, they had mixed her complaint issues and did not answer her complaints.
33. The landlord spoke with the resident on 26 February 2021 and confirmed on 4 March 2021 that it was reviewing the complaint at stage two. The landlord noted the resident’s long-term concerns about how the independent living team had treated her and its understanding that there were no current issues, but rather the complaint related to previous issues. The notes of the landlord’s telephone call with the resident on 31 March 2021 record that the resident was happy with the current warden and relief warden but unhappy about other members of staff and would like all communication with one particular staff member to be in writing.
34. It was appropriate that the landlord made enquiries internally to establish the current situation, noting that the issues appeared to be historic and without specific examples, it could not investigate.
35. The landlord’s stage two complaint response noted that the resident had explained her less than positive experience of the independent living management team and apologised if the resident felt the service provided did not meet the landlord’s values and standards. The landlord noted anecdotal examples of behaviour going back a number of years but that the resident had not given any recent and specific examples which the landlord could look into effectively, without which the landlord could not confirm or deny any of the behaviours referred to. The landlord offered mediation with one staff member of the independent living team but noted the resident was not keen to explore this. The landlord noted it had discussed with the resident the importance of reports being timely and specific to allow them to be investigated.
36. The landlord noted it had agreed with the resident the best way to report concerns and set out contact details. The landlord also agreed communication with a particular staff member would be in writing as the resident requested, except for any face-to-face communication which might happen on a scheme visit. Based on the above, the landlord did not uphold this part of the complaint. The landlord also apologised if the customer relations team did not respond in 2018 and 2019 and said that feedback would be provided to managers. However, the landlord had been unable to identify specific examples or the reason this may have happened. The landlord explained that calls were not recorded at this time and emails would not have been retained since then.
37. The resident said that she remained dissatisfied that members of the independent living team had lied about not receiving a complaint about another staff member in 2018/2019. She also noted communication was supposed to be in writing, so she found it unacceptable when a staff member made a phone call in November 2020.
38. Whilst understanding the resident’s frustration, the landlord needed specific details of recent incidents in order to investigate. Nevertheless, the landlord took steps to try to put things right. It appears that then Head of Customer Experience who investigated the complaint at stage two invested time in building a good relationship with the resident and had discussed and agreed with the resident how to report any future issues promptly. The landlord also suggested mediation which was appropriate in the circumstances in terms of rebuilding the relationship. However, this is a voluntary process, so it was up to the resident as to whether she wanted to take part. The landlord also agreed to the resident’s requests that communication with one staff member from the independent living team would be in writing. Taken altogether, the landlord’s response to this part of the complaint was appropriate.

Complaint handling

39. The landlord’s stage one complaint response exacerbated the resident’s dissatisfaction as the letter inaccurately referred to oil heating rather than oil heaters which the resident went on to point out were different things. The stage one complaint response also referred to the thermostat needing to be repaired which did not reflect the resident’s understanding of work required. The resident noted she was not contacted about oil heaters between 8 July 2020 and 8 September 2020 and so had chased this. The resident also noted she was not given fan heaters in 2020 and had never been unavailable for an appointment. The resident noted that the landlord had telephoned her on 20 November 2020, but the conversation was not about oil heating. The resident also stated that the staff member had not re-raised work for the thermostat.
40. In its stage two response to the complaint the landlord addressed the resident’s dissatisfaction with the stage one response by:
    1. apologising that the stage one response referenced to a phone call about heating as the landlord confirmed that the phone call on 20 November 2019 did not progress beyond a data protection check.
    2. apologising for confusion or distress caused by the stage one response failing to make a distinction between ‘oil heaters’ and ‘oil heating’ and this was a training point for the team.
    3. explaining that the reference to a faulty thermostat was due to the resident’s reports that she was unable to control the heating temperature.
41. The landlord concluded that the response and resolution at stage one did not meet its service standards and with reference to its compensation policy, offered £250 for poor complaint handling.
42. The landlord offered redress for its complaint handling failures that satisfactorily resolved the complaint as:
    1. It acted fairly by apologising for its failings in its stage 1 complaint response.
    2. It put things right by awarding the maximum compensation (£250) for complaint handling set out in its compensation policy. This amount was proportionate to the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
    3. Demonstrated that it had learnt from outcomes by saying that it had identified training points for its team from its failings at stage1.

Determination

43. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress that satisfactorily resolved the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the heating at the property.
44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about its independent living team.
45. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress that satisfactorily resolved the complaint about its complaint handling.

Recommendation

46. That the landlord checks if the compensation was paid to the resident following the stage two complaint response. If not, the landlord should check if there is anyone authorised (via grant of probate or equivalent) to receive the compensation.