Flagship Housing Group Limited (202014892)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014892

Flagship Housing Group Limited

19 December 2022

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 resident complains about:
1. the landlord’s handling of the removal of her car;
2. the landlord’s handling of her subsequent formal complaint, and;
3. the landlord’s handling of her formal complaint about harassment and discrimination.

Background

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the resident must not abandon any vehicle on any of the landlord’s land, and that any vehicle parked on the land must be taxed or have a valid SORN declaration, and be in a roadworthy condition.
The landlord’s ‘Abandoned Vehicles’ policy sets out that its purpose is to effectively deal with untaxed and abandoned vehicles on the landlord’s land. It sets out the following procedure when dealing with vehicles that appeared abandoned:
1. Enquiries to be made with local residents as to who owns a vehicle.
2. If an owner could not be established an initial warning notice to be placed on the vehicle giving five working days for removal.
3. If the vehicle had not been removed, the landlord would liaise with the local authority (LA)/police for assistance, and where procedures were in place for the LA to deal with the removal of abandoned vehicles, these would be followed.
4. Once a registered owner was traced, a seven day notice letter would be sent to them, and if the vehicle was not removed in this time frame, it would be scrapped or sold at auction, or stored for three months off site if there was likely to be a resale value.
The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 permits a landlord to attach a legal document (a tort notice) to an item that is believed to have been abandoned on its grounds and then arrange for the disposal of the abandoned item if the notice is not acted upon or the item removed.
The landlord’s complaint policy as was in place at the time set out a two stage process. At stage one it would provide a full response to the complaint. If the resident remained dissatisfied they could ask for it to be reviewed within 20 working days, and this would then be escalated to be reviewed by an appropriate senior manager.

Summary of events

The landlord first made contact with the resident regarding her car in March 2020, advising that it needed to be moved from the car park as it had no tax or MOT. Over the following year there were various communications between the landlord and the resident regarding the matter, with the landlord sending a final notice in December 2020. As the car was not made roadworthy or removed, on 21 January 2021 the landlord’s contractors removed it. The records note that the contractors believed the car was ‘a write off’ and its condition indicated that it must have been sat unused for a long period of time, there was moss growing underneath, moss on the roof, a flat tyre, and the car had seized up and had to be craned onto a low loader to be removed.
The resident contacted the landlord that same day and made a stage one complaint, setting out her dissatisfaction about the removal of her car, and referring to the fact that she had been shielding and so could not take the car for an MOT. The resident also wrote to her MP that same day about the matter, and the landlord received an enquiry from the MP on 25 January 2021.
The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident on 27 January 2021. It confirmed where the car was being held, and that it would remain there until the complaint had been fully investigated. The landlord noted that the resident had been sent letters and notices which advised that the car would be removed unless she took action. It said that as it had not received any formal evidence about the resident’s requirement to shield, it was not aware of her personal circumstances. It said had such information been received it would likely have held off from removing the car. It also noted that the resident had said she had made contact with garages after the December 2020 notice was received but they were unable to assist. However, the resident had not advised the landlord about this.
The landlord explained that the vehicle was classed as ‘abandoned’ because it was situated on its land without being road worthy or holding an up to date MOT and tax. It explained that if a vehicle’s owner failed to comply with this requirement, the landlord had the legal right to remove a vehicle after so many warnings had been issued. The landlord concluded that it had acted in line with its process, and said that should the resident remain dissatisfied, the complaint could be reviewed by a senior manager.
In reply on 27 January 2021 the resident stated that she had never been asked for evidence of shielding, and also explained that the car had been taxed and insured as of 11 March 2020. She said that she had also made contact with the landlord that summer explaining she was going into hospital, and that the landlord ‘put everything on hold’ and did not refer to any date for removal. The resident said that she next received a letter in December 2020, when full shielding was effective, and the landlord knew that she was shielding. The resident said had the landlord asked for evidence of shielding she would have provided it. She asked to escalate the complaint.
The landlord sent a reply to the MP on 2 February 2021 in which it stated that it had a policy for managing unroadworthy and abandoned vehicles to ensure car parks and communal spaces were kept safe and free of hazards. It said that it required all residents to ensure any cars were legally compliant, including having a valid MOT. Even in cases where a SORN had been applied for, it would still request a vehicle was removed and stored elsewhere as its car parks are not classed as off road. It was aware that due to lockdown there had been difficulties in obtaining MOTs, and did take this into account.
On 24 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and asked what law or guidance it used when removing her car. She also noted that the stage two response was now due. A manager provided a stage two response that same day. This set out the facts as the landlord saw them as:
1. The car was not roadworthy and had not been moved for around 18 months.
2. Road tax expired on 1 March 2020 and at some time between August 2020 and December 2020 the resident applied for a SORN.
3. The MOT test certificate expired on 30 August 2019 prior to the pandemic (and so did not qualify for the Covid-19 MOT exemption).
4. The tenancy agreement required the resident to have valid tax or SORN and keep the car in a roadworthy condition, with valid MOT test certificate and insurance.
The landlord said that it made attempts to speak with the resident about the matter, and sent several letters detailing its intention to remove the car if it was not taxed, MOT tested, and made roadworthy. It said that there was a period of at least 10 months in which the resident could have addressed the issue prior to the removal of the car, which was longer than usual as it had extended this period due to the circumstances presented by the pandemic.
The landlord said that when it had noted in its stage one response that it had not received confirmation of shielding, this was not because it had requested it, or was unaware the resident was shielding, but was in response to the resident’s claim that she had not been able to deal with these issues due to medical conditions. The landlord said, ‘We would expect that if you are claiming your inaction was due to your medical needs you would have informed us of this as your earliest opportunity and/or provided us with supporting information.’
The landlord detailed where the car was being stored, and the contact details of the facility, and explained that it had paid for the car to be stored rather than scrapped while it looked at the complaint. It said that this arrangement would end on 5 March 2021 at which point the car would be scrapped. It said that should the resident retrieve the car before that date, she should make sure that it was road worthy. The landlord said that the resident had the option to appeal to the Tenants Experience Group (TEG) if she was dissatisfied with its response to the complaint. If she did not wish to appeal she could approach the Ombudsman.
The resident made contact with this Service soon after, raising concerns that her car had been removed, and requesting compensation. This Service advised that she could bring her complaint to the Ombudsman should she wish.
On 1 March 2021 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord again, and asked that the car not be scrapped while the complaint was ongoing. They also said that the resident had been in touch with the scrapyard who had informed her that there had been damage done to the car during removal, and asked the landlord to fix this before the resident retrieved her vehicle. The MP explained that the resident felt harassed and unfairly treated.
On the same date the resident wrote to the landlord setting out her appeal to the TEG. She said that the landlord had failed to address the harassment, humiliation, racism and disrespect she had experienced and the impact the landlord’s actions had on her health. The resident set out her account of events, and disputed that the landlord had the authority to remove vehicles, referring to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which she said meant that only authorised bodies could move vehicles on private land. The resident also explained that the car had been dented during the removal.
On 16 March 2021 the landlord replied to the MP setting out its position on the matter, and stating that it had fully investigated and that there was no evidence of harassment, humiliation, racism or disrespect. It also said that the matter had been dealt with in line with its abandoned vehicles procedure. It noted that shielding was ending, and that the car could not be returned to the property unless it was taxed, had a valid MOT, and was in a roadworthy condition, and so urged the resident to get in touch to make the necessary arrangements for her vehicle to be taken to a garage of her choice. It noted that some damage was caused to the vehicle when it was craned onto the back of the recovery vehicle, which had to be done as it had ‘seized completely’.
On 19 March 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to offer to relocate her car to a garage of her choice. In response the resident said the landlord had no right to remove her car and she would not pay to have it repaired, and expected the landlord to do so.
The resident resent her 1 March 2021 escalation letter on 24 March 2021 as she had received no reply form the landlord. The landlord acknowledged this on 25 March 2021 and said that it would arrange a stage three TEG meeting. As she heard nothing further, the resident emailed the landlord on 26 April 2021 asking for an update. The landlord replied on 27 April 2021 apologising for the delay in progressing the matter, and giving a date of 6 May 2021 for the meeting.
The meeting went ahead on 6 May 2021. The minutes of this note that the resident felt that there were inaccuracies in the information that the TEG had been provided with, and that she described what these were page by page, and also provided her own account of events relating to the removal of the car. The meeting minutes note that the resident expressed that she felt she had been unfairly treated, harassed, and humiliated. She explained that no other tenants were treated in the same way, and that she believed that she had been treated in the manner she had due to the colour of her skin, as there was no other explanation for the landlord’s actions.
The resident explained that she was seeking £15,000 compensation for distress, humiliation, harassment and the discrimination she had suffered and the impact this had on her health. She also wanted her car to be repaired and returned to her, an apology, and for all landlord staff to undergo inclusion and diversity training. The meeting was concluded with an agreement that the rest of the appeal hearing would be postponed until the resident had supplied further evidence.
The TEG wrote to the resident to confirm this outcome, and also noted that during the meeting she had raised concerns about racial discrimination. It said, ‘Such allegations are taken very seriously, therefore, we have raised your allegations to Flagship’s Learning and Resolution Team for them to fully investigate this as a formal complaint and provide you with a response.’ It said that this matter would be dealt with separately from removal of the car. The landlord then contacted the resident to ask to discuss this new complaint with her.
On 9 May 2021 the resident provided some additional information regarding the car removal complaint, such as shielding and medical letters. The landlord then provided a copy of the minutes from the meeting dated 13 May 2021.
Also on 13 May 2021 the resident emailed the landlord about the new complaint it had opened regarding claims of racial discrimination, saying that she raised these in her original complaint on 22 January 2021 and also in her letters to her MP. In further emails that day the resident requested a date for the TEG hearing, and provided her corrections to the minutes/information.
On 20 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident about the complaint of discrimination and harassment. It explained that it would conduct a full investigation into these concerns, but that due to the complexities and seriousness of the matter it would need additional time for this.
The resident chased up the further TEG meeting in May, June, and July 2021. On 15 July 2021 the landlord apologised for the delays in providing a date for the continuation and conclusion of the complaint, and that this had now been arranged for 23 July 2021.
The meeting went ahead on 23 July 2021. The minutes note that the resident presented her account of events, and expressed concerns that the TEG had not been provided with all of the relevant information but that she wanted it to make its final decision so that she could take the matter forward as she wished. The resident explained that she felt that the landlord should pay 25% of the costs of returning the car to a roadworthy condition. The meeting concluded with the resident being advised that the TEG would provide a final response by the end of the week
The final response was sent on 29 July 2021, and stated that the TEG found that the landlord had acted in line with policy in regards to removing the car, after having used its discretion to allow the resident more time to get her car in a roadworthy condition in light of her health issues and having to shield. Since the removal of the car, the landlord had paid to store this instead of scrapping it whilst the complaint was investigated. In addition, the landlord had attempted to arrange with the resident a garage of her choice for the car to be delivered to for the necessary works to be carried out and return the car to a roadworthy condition. TEG recommended that the landlord gave the resident a further 4 weeks to advise the garage of her choice for the car to be moved to, so allowing her to arrange the necessary repairs needed to restore the car to a roadworthy condition. If the landlord did not hear from the resident by then, the vehicle would be scrapped.
Also on 29 July 2021, the landlord provided a stage one response to the discrimination complaint. It was noted that during the previous complaint regarding the removal of the car the resident suggested that staff may have discriminated against her. It noted that in its letter dated 16 March 2021 to the MP it said that the complaint had been investigated fully and no evidence found with regards to harassment, humiliation, racism, or disrespect. The landlord said that after the complaint was raised in the May 2021 TEG meeting, this had been investigated but it could find no evidence to support these concerns. It sad that should the resident wish for the complaint to be reviewed, she should let the landlord know by 26 August 2021.
On 31 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and asked to escalate the discrimination and harassment complaint to stage two. The landlord declined to do so as it was outside of the period stipulated in the stage one response. In reply the resident said that she had made the complaint about harassment and discrimination in January 2021, and that following the stage one outcome she had asked why there was no mention of harassment and racism, and humiliation, but had received no reply. She felt that given this the stage two should be investigated. However, the landlord reiterated its stance that this was out of time.
The Ombudsman has been provided with a certificate of destruction of the car dated 16 September 2021.

Assessment and findings

In her complaint to this Service the resident has stated that she was harassed, humiliated and racially targeted in the process of the landlord removing her car. She has explained that she was ‘shielding’ during the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic and so was not able to resolve the issues with the car, but the landlord did not take this into account and continued to harass and humiliate her. The resident states that the landlord should have contacted the LA about the car but didn’t, that the car was damaged when it was removed which the landlord should have paid for, she was not provided with any paperwork after the car was removed, and while the landlord said that the car had been destroyed, she has since seen it being driven around.
The resident also states that the landlord withheld evidence from the complaint review meetings, she wasn’t able to put her say across, and that it gave ‘mixed messages’ in regards to reviewing the harassment complaint. She is also dissatisfied with its decision not to escalate her harassment and discrimination complaint.
As part of her complaint the resident has raised a number of issues and questions about the landlord’s handling of these matters. While the Ombudsman takes these into account, the assessment will take an overview of the landlord’s handling of the removal and the subsequent formal complaints, and does not seek to address every concern that the resident has raised individually.

Scope

In relation to the removal of the vehicle, the resident has raised concerns about events that occurred after the final response to the complaint, such as her concern that the car was not destroyed and that she has seen it being driven around. As such matters occurred after the date of the final response, and so did not form part of the complaint that was considered via the landlord’s complaint process, they are not considered in this assessment. This is in line with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The resident has referred to harassment she has experienced from the landlord ‘going back years’ which she feels is linked to this matter. This is not something that was raised with the landlord as part of the formal complaint, and so is not considered in this investigation, in line with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme as set out above.
Within her complaint to this Service the resident has raised concerns about the legality of the landlord’s actions and whether or not these were in line with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The landlord has stated to this Service that it was permitted to remove the car in line with the Interference with Goods Act 1977. This investigation does not seek to interpret legislation, as that would be a matter for the courts, but will focus on whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures when handling the removal of the vehicle, and whether it treated the resident reasonably and fairly. This is in line with paragraph 42 (g) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in its option 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.
Finally, while the Ombudsman can consider the reasonableness of the actions taken by landlord, this Service is unable to make a legal finding of discrimination in that regard. This would be a matter for the courts to determine, where appropriate evidence could be interrogated and the relevant legislation applied to the circumstances. If the resident believes she has been unlawfully discriminated against or harassed, she may wish to seek independent legal advice or contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission for further information on her options. This is in line with Paragraph 42 (g) of the Scheme, as set out above.

The landlord’s handling of the removal of the car

By signing the tenancy agreement the resident agreed not to park ‘unroadworthy’ vehicles, and as such, the landlord acted reasonably in taking action in line with its ‘abandoned vehicles’ policy when it considered that the terms of tenancy agreement had been breached. It has stated to this Service that it did so in line with the Torts Interference with Goods Act 1977.
The resident has set out her own account of events in her various communications with the landlord and the MP.
1. The MOT on her car expired in summer 2019, but the car was taxed up until she applied for a SORN in 2020. The car had a flat tyre.
2. She was first contacted by the landlord about the car via a notice placed on the car on 11 March 2020. There had been a knock at her door that day but she had not answered. She spoke to the landlord soon after, questioned why other residents over the years had not been asked to remove their cars, and explained that she was shielding.
3. She heard nothing further until July 2020.
From the resident’s account, there is no indication that the landlord acted unreasonably here. Even if the car was taxed, having no MOT and a flat tyre could reasonably be considered as unroadworthy, which was in contravention of the tenancy agreement. However, a valid MOT is required to tax a vehicle, and the landlord’s own records show that at the time of its checking with the DVLA the car was showing as untaxed, and had not had an MOT since August 2019. In light of this information it was reasonable and in line with the tenancy agreement to take action to have the car made roadworthy or removed.
The landlord’s records also indicate that it followed its policy and procedure by attempting to identify the owner of the car (hence knocking on the resident’s door) and placing a notice on the vehicle. When informed of the resident’s circumstances with regards to shielding, it took no further action, demonstrating that it took this into account.
Having said this, there is no record of the landlord liaising with the LA/police for assistance in line with its policy, and it is unclear if procedures were in place for the LA to deal with the removal of abandoned vehicles that should have been followed. The landlord has informed this Service that it did contact the LA, which would not assist with the removal as the vehicle was parked on private land, but has been unable to provide evidence of this.
The resident then sets out the following events:
1. On 14 July 2020 a staff member ‘was banging on the door and shouting’ and demanded that the resident remove the car. The staff member acknowledged that the resident was shielding, but noted that shielding was ending shortly. The resident declined to open the door and asked the staff member to leave.
2. She then called the landlord to ask to make a complaint about the staff member’s conduct.
3. She received a removal notification of an untaxed abandoned vehicle on 14 August 2020. The resident contacted the landlord which agreed to put the matter on hold, with no further date for removal given.
4. The resident made further contact with the landlord in September 2020, and explained that she was about to go into hospital for an operation. The resident recalls that the landlord agreed to give her more time to address the car.
From this account there is no indication that the landlord acted unreasonably. As shielding was ending on 1 August 2020, and shielding was the reason the resident had given for being unable to arrange an MOT, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek to resolve the matter at this point. The 14 August 2020 letter advised the resident that if the car was not roadworthy the landlord would remove it, and came with a torts notice providing further information. The landlord then took into account the resident’s vulnerabilities, and no further action was taken when the resident expressed her concerns, despite shielding advice having ended. It then agreed to a further extension when the resident said she was undergoing an operation.
However, it would of course be unreasonable for a staff member to bang and shout in the way that the resident has described. The landlord’s own record of this visit states that the resident refused to discuss the car, she was shielding, and in light of this it would ‘leave’ the situation for the time being. Notes of the calls made by the resident to the landlord on 14 July 2020 state that during one call she explained that she could not move the car as she was shielding. In another she complained about the staff member banging on her door, and saying that she was being treated this way due her race. The landlord noted that it had to terminate this call.
While the Ombudsman does not question the resident’s description of the landlord’s 14 July 2020 visit, it is not possible for this Service to determine whether the staff member acted in an unreasonable manner. However, the resident’s concerns about this are something that the landlord should have addressed in its responses to her formal complaints, and this will be commented on further in this report.
The resident sets out subsequent events as follows:
1. Tier 4 (and therefore a return to shielding) was implemented on 26 November 2020.
2. In mid-December 2020 she received a notice to remove the vehicle by 18 January 2021.
3. She made contact with a mechanic to address repair issues with the car, but did not make contact with the landlord, and did not move the car.
4. The car was removed by the landlord on 21 January 2021.
Again, from this account there is no indication that the landlord acted unreasonably. At this point it had been nine months since the landlord had first asked the resident to address the car. Shielding had ended on 1 August 2020, and while the resident noted that she had an operation in September 2020, it is unclear why she was unable to MOT the car in this period. Nevertheless, the landlord provided a further extension in September 2020, and when the car was still not addressed, it was reasonable for it to send another notice.
The evidence shows that prior to doing so it completed a further DVLA check that confirmed that the car was SORN and had no MOT. The notice sent to the resident stated, ‘Following several extensions to your initial notice the vehicle remains in an unroadworthy condition and no further extensions will now be granted. Please read the notice very carefully and ensure that the vehicle is now removed or made roadworthy within the specified time. Failure to comply with the notice will result in Flagship making alternative arrangements for the removal of the said vehicle and recharging you the full cost of doing so.’ An Interference with Goods notice was included.
While the resident has noted that she was again shielding from 26 November 2020, there had at this point been a period of nearly four months where shielding advice had not been in place. She did not make contact with the landlord to discuss the notice after she received it in December 2020 and did not address the car. The landlord was therefore acting in line with its policy in arranging its removal. The evidence does show that it was not immediately able to inform the resident where the car had been removed to, and there is no indication that any written confirmation was provided. However, taken in the context of the overall handling of the matter, this does not constitute maladministration.
In relation to comments that the resident has made about other residents leaving cars in a similar condition and not being asked to move them, the only information available that relates to this is an internal landlord email dated 16 December 2020. This notes that extensions had not been provided to other tenants and their vehicles had been removed.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident experienced this series of events as humiliation and harassment, and believes it was based on racism, which must have been very distressing for her. However, there is no evidence that indicates that the landlord acted unfairly.
However, as noted above, there is no record of the landlord liaising with LA/police ‘for assistance’ and it is unclear if procedures were in place for the LA to deal with the removal of abandoned vehicles that should have been followed. There is no information that indicates that the landlord actually required ‘assistance’, or that had this been done the outcome would have been any different, however, it is important for a landlord to adhere to its procedures when undertaking the removal of vehicles.
Finally, the evidence available shows that it was open to the resident to retrieve her car, and that the landlord provided several opportunities for her to do so. In discussing this with the resident as part of the investigation, it was unclear to this Service why she did not. There is no indication that the landlord sought to recharge the resident for the removal or the cost it had incurred in keeping it at the facility while the complaint was ongoing, and it offered to move the car to a garage of her choice so she could have an MOT completed, so allowing the car to be returned to the property. This was a reasonable course of action and shows that the landlord made efforts to try and resolve the matter and have the car returned.
Taking all the circumstances if the case into account, while there were some shortcomings in the landlord’s actions, overall there was no maladministration in the handling of the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the subsequent formal complaint

When the resident made her complaint to the landlord, it was obliged to provide a response in line with its complaint policy. The landlord responded to the stage one complaint within a week, setting out its position. It then took four weeks to reply to the resident’s stage two complaint, which was a reasonable timeframe and in line with the Ombudsman’s own Complaint Handling Code.
In line with the landlord’s complaint policy, the next stage of the process was the Ombudsman, however it offered the resident the right to appeal to the TEG. It is unclear why this happened or via what process. There is no reference to the TEG in the landlord’s complaint policy, and therefore the landlord cannot be said to have acted in line with this. Having said this, the resident was also given the option of taking the matter to the Ombudsman and decided that she wanted to appeal to the TEG. As such, the failure to follow policy did not disadvantage the resident, although it did then take two months for the landlord to arrange the meeting.
When the landlord responded to the resident on 27 April 2021 after she chased up the matter, it did apologise for the delay in progressing the meeting, and gave a date of 6 May 2021. The resident expressed her concern at this short time frame and lack of information about the matter, and so the landlord offered to rearrange the meeting should the resident wish to, which demonstrates that it took action to address the resident’s concerns. It then provided a copy of the information pack that was to be used at the meeting. When the resident raised concerns about the completeness and accuracy of the information this contained, the landlord replied asking the resident to supply any information that she felt was missing, and it would then revise the pack and redistribute (which it did). It also again offered to postpone the meeting (although the resident declined). As above, this shows the landlord taking steps to address the resident’s concerns.
The minutes of the 6 May 2021 meeting note the resident giving her account of events, and was concluded with an agreement that she would compile a list of any information that she felt was incorrect, what could have been done better, and a summary of what the she would like in order to resolve the complaint. It was also agreed that any other documents, for example shielding letters, could also be included for the panel to consider. As such it was agreed that the rest of the appeal hearing would be postponed until such evidence was supplied and considered. This demonstrates that the resident was afforded the opportunity to put forward her account, discuss her concerns and supply any evidence that she wanted to be considered, which she subsequently did, and which was forwarded on to the TEG.
On 27 May 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to chase up the further TEG meeting. In reply the landlord confirmed that all of the information that the resident had provided had been passed to the TEG and was being reviewed, and the landlord was waiting for it to provide dates for the hearing. The resident chased up again on 21 June and 1 July 2021. On 15 July 2021 the landlord apologised for the delays in providing a date for the continuation meeting and conclusion of the complaint, and that this had now been arranged for 23 July 2021.
The resident has referred to telephone calls that she had with the landlord on 15 and 16 July 2021 during which she asked for a copy of the information that had been provided to the TEG. The resident states that she was then emailed this, and found that some information was missing, which she informed the landlord of and resent. The resident therefore contends that the TEG were not provided with all of the relevant information. However, emails from the landlord to the TEG on 15 July 2021, and between the landlord and the resident from 16 July 2021, show the landlord assuring the resident that it had shared all of the documents with the TEG.
That it took a further two months to arrange the second meeting would again have been frustrating for the resident, as would any failure to provide relevant information, and the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s ongoing concern that the TEG did not have all of the relevant evidence. However, the records that are available indicate that the resident was able to submit information for consideration and that this was passed on to the TEG. The meeting went ahead on 23 July 2021, and the minutes indicate that the resident was able to present her account of events.
However, the TEG final response to the complaint was very brief, and did not address the resident’s concerns about damage to her car and request for the landlord to pay for this, nor her questions about the landlord’s authority to remove the car (although the landlord has since stated to this Service that under the Torts Interference with Goods Act 1977 it is entitled to remove abandoned vehicles), despite these issues being set out clearly in her 1 March 2021 escalation.
As the landlord had offered a third stage to its complaint process, it should have ensured that this addressed all of the resident’s concerns, or managed expectations about what the TEG would provide. As it was, the July 2021 TEG response did not add any information to that which had previously been provided.
Finally, the landlord stated in its responses to the resident’s complaints that even in cases where a SORN had been applied for, it would still request a vehicle was removed and stored elsewhere as its car parks are not classed as off road: This position does not appear to be in line with the tenancy agreement, which sets out that a vehicle could either be taxed or have a valid SORN declaration.
Overall, the information available does not suggest that evidence was withheld from the panel, or that the resident was unable to put her say across. But did take too long to organise the TEG meetings, which would have added to the resident’s frustrations, and the final response did not directly address the issues the resident had raised in her escalation request, which meant she did not receive a full response to these concerns. There was service failure on the part of the landlord here.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint about harassment and discrimination

While the resident has stated that she raised these matters in her original complaint in January 2021, the evidence available does not support this. The original January 2021 complaint does not make reference to these issues, and neither were they raised in the resident’s 27 January 2021 escalation request. The first complaints that can located in the evidence available about these issues is on 1 March 2021, in both the resident’s and the MP’s correspondences of this date.
Generally, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to raise a new complaint if matters that had not already been considered at stage one are added at stage two and beyond. This is because adding in new issues at later stages of the process will mean that they are not fully considered via the entire complaint procedure (and therefore may only be afforded a single response), and as this will often delay the process.
In this case, the first two stages of the landlord’s complaint process had already been completed, and adding in new issues at stage three would have meant that the landlord would not have had the opportunity to fully consider these, and the resident would not have been afforded a full response. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to raise this as a new, separate complaint. Having said this, it should have identified the new complaint when the resident first raised it in March 2021, rather than at the May 2021 panel hearing over two months later. This caused a delay in the new complaint being raised. There was a further delay of over two months from May to the date of the stage one letter at the end of July 2021, which meant that overall it took the landlord nearly five months to respond to these concerns.
The records available, and the resident’s own account, indicate that the landlord made contact with the resident in May 2021 to try and discuss the complaint in more detail. The resident’s own account suggests that she was hesitant to do so, stating, ‘I told her that Flagship have written that they had investigated and there was no harassment according to them so why have you been asked to look into it.’
The landlord’s subsequent stage one response was lacking in detail, simply stating that there was no evidence of harassment and discrimination. While it may be that there was a lack of clarification as to the resident’s specific concerns, the response should have been more comprehensive, especially given the time taken to provide it. The resident had set out in her previous complaints her concern about the staff member shouting outside her door in July 2020, and her concern that her car had been removed (while other’s hadn’t) due to her race. These issues were not addressed, and there is no indication that the staff member in question was contacted about the incident, which should have been a first step in assessing it. This meant that the resident did not receive a full response to these concerns.
Further, while the landlord was, strictly speaking, acting within the terms of its policy when it declined to escalate the complaint to stage two, given the resident was only three days outside of the timeframe, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to exercise its discretion here. Taken in the context of the delays the resident experienced in the previous TEG meetings being arranged, it is understandable that the landlord’s decision felt unfair.
Having said this, the landlord’s position that there was no evidence of harassment or unfair treatment is supported by the Ombudsman’s assessment of the car removal complaint.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of this complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the removal of the car;
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the subsequent formal complaint, and;
3. Service failure in landlord’s handling of the formal complaint about harassment and discrimination.

Reasons

The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s experience of the removal of her car was traumatic and upsetting, and that she felt discriminated against and humiliated. However, the landlord’s actions in removing the car were in the main in line with the tenancy agreement and its policy. The evidence shows that the landlord took into account the resident’s specific situation, and provided extensions over ten months to allow time for resolving the matter.
The resident’s complaint was considered via two formal responses, and she also discussed this at two TEG meetings, with a subsequent further written response provided. The evidence available demonstrates that the resident was given the opportunity to provide information. However, the final response to the complaint was very brief, and did not address the resident’s concerns about damage to the car and request for the landlord to pay for this, nor her questions about the landlord’s authority to remove the car.
Similarly, the landlord’s response to the harassment and discrimination complaint was lacking in detail, and it was unreasonable for it to decline to escalate the complaint in the circumstances.

Orders

Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident a total of £300, comprised of £150 for the adverse affect caused by the failings in the handling of the car removal complaint, and £150 for the adverse affect caused by the failings in the handling of the harassment and discrimination complaint.
2. If it has not already done so in the last 12 months, undertake a staff training exercise, to ensure that all complaints receive a reasonable level of detail in response, and that expectations are managed.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its abandoned vehicles policy, its stance on vehicles that are SORN, the position relating to contact with the LA/police when dealing with abandoned vehicles, and any authority it believes it has to remove these, to satisfy itself that it is acting in line with the tenancy agreement and within the confines of the law.
The landlord should provide residents with information in relation to its TEG – confirming what its role is, how it fulfils its role, the applicable timescales and how it fits within its complaints process.