Orbit Group Limited — case 202412985

Decision Case ID 202412985 Decision type Investigation Landlord Orbit Group Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Shared Ownership Date 16 February 2026 Background The resident contacted the landlord and queried a manual adjustment it made on his service charge account. The landlord explained that this related to a 2021/2022 deficit, largely arising from communal fence repairs. These included installing a fence which was being used as a cut through and repairing damaged sections.

As the costs did not exceed £250, the landlord said resident consultation was not required and the works were urgent. The landlord also provided sinking fund information. Although the matter was considered through the complaints process, the resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. What the complaint is about The landlord’s: Handling of the costs of the fence repairs. Response to the resident’s request for invoices. Complaint handling. Our decision (determination) There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of costs for the fence repairs.

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for invoices. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Reasons The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. The landlord’s handling of the costs of the fence repairs. The lease states the landlord is under obligation to maintain repair redecorate and renew the common parts.

It goes on to state the resident is to pay relevant expenditure reasonably incurred by the landlord in connection with this and the landlord has absolute discretion with what it thinks will be of benefit to the building and leaseholders. Therefore, the landlord had the right and responsibility to install new fencing where there was a boundary gap, despite the resident not experiencing any issues from this. The resident advised the landlord a neighbour damaged another part of the fence.

We have not seen that the landlord was provided with any evidence of this at the time for it to take appropriate steps against the neighbour. Therefore, it had the responsibility to repair the fencing and the right to recharge this to residents through service charges. The resident believed that he should have been consulted in line with section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. He believes the landlord split the cost, so it was below the section 20 trigger of £250. The landlord has provided us with its repair logs.

This clearly shows they were raised 5 months apart and one was raised after the other was completed. Therefore, it did not have to consult due to the cost and because it has absolute discretion under the lease to do what it thinks will benefit the building and leaseholders. We find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the costs of the fence repairs. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for invoices. Prior to the complaint being made, the resident asked the landlord for invoices which it provided in 3 working days.

We have also seen the resident asked for the invoices again. The landlord did this in 2 working days. This was good practice from the landlord. The landlord advised the resident they were bulk invoices, which were for the contractors work over different sites and repairs. In an email prior to the complaint and in the final response letter the landlord provided the specific amount charged and the works order numbers. We recognise bulk invoices, though regular practice, are not a simple way to see costs and that the resident was not satisfied with this.

However, the landlord provided the resident with the specific charges relating to the repairs in question in an understandable format. Therefore, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for invoices. The landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord acknowledged, apologised, and offered redress for the delays in its stage 1 response (£100). This was reasonable. After this, the landlord failed to recognise or acknowledge its shortcomings.

The resident clearly expressed frustration to both the landlord and us due to the delays experienced. There were delays with his complaint escalation, the final response letter was issued 8 working days late, and the resident advised he did not receive it until 4 months after. Despite alerting the landlord to his dissatisfaction on the day of the stage 1 response, it did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request until 125 working days after. The resident sent the landlord 6 emails expressing his dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response or chasing for a response.

On 3 separate occasions the landlord asked the resident whether he wanted to escalate his complaint. We recognise the resident said he had email issues and did not explicitly say he wanted to escalate. However, the landlord should have recognised the resident’s clear dissatisfaction. The resident advised the landlord he did not receive the final response letter. He chased the landlord and it only responded after his third email (at which point, the letter was shared). We do not know why the resident did not receive the letter and recognise this may not be the landlord’s fault.

However, the landlord should have responded to the resident sooner. As it had been emailing him throughout the complaint process it might have been sensible to email as well as post its letter. This would have likely resolved this issue and is a recommendation of this report. The resident specifically raised the landlord’s delay in progressing his escalation request. The landlord did not respond to this in the final response letter. The resident also reraised some issues for example the gardening service and whether he should pay less in the sinking fund due to not sharing a communal entrance.

In the stage 1 response the landlord had said it was satisfied with its previous communication on these matters, however it should have considered these in its final response letter or shown us evidence it had raised another complaint for consideration. After its stage 1 response the landlord did not recognise or acknowledge its failings. The resident clearly expressed his frustration to both the landlord and us because of the delays. We find there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.

The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 17 March 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. It must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. This includes the £100 the landlord previously offered.

No later than 17 March 2026 Recommendation Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendation If the landlord has been emailing the resident it would be wise to email complaint responses, posting as well if it wishes to.