Flagship Housing Group Limited (202113213)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113213

Flagship Housing Group Limited

16 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding into her former property, including the amount of compensation the landlord paid to the resident for her damaged possessions.

Background

2. The resident is an Assured tenant. The property is a three bedroomed terraced house. The tenancy started on 15 April 2019 and the resident moved out of the property on 30 July 2021.
3. The landlord’s repairs records show that on 3 April 2020 it was recorded that, repair jobs had been booked for repair work that included “various windows [being lifted] to close gaps”. The appointment was cancelled due to covid restrictions and the resident self-isolating. There is no record of this job being rescheduled.
4. The landlord’s record show that on 16 August 2020 it raised an out of hours job as rain had flooded the resident’s property and water appeared to be coming in under the windows. A surveyor inspected the property on 26 August 2020 and reported that the windows needed to be sealed. The resident raised a complaint on 27 August 2020 expressing dissatisfaction with the quality of service. She also noted that although the house had not flooded before, she felt this could be a recurring problem if the “root cause” was not fixed. She was displeased that her carpet and personal possessions had been damaged in the flood.
5. In its stage one complaint response on 28 August 2020 the landlord said it assess the cause of the flood and put together a plan of action to address this. It would also reimburse the resident for her damaged possessions. It appears that this complaint was subsequently closed.
6. Following a further flood at the resident’s property on 27 July 2021, and a subsequent second complaint, on 28 July 2021 the landlord issued a new stage one complaint response. Within this, no comments were made in relation to the recent flood, but rather, only in relation to the actions taken to address the earlier flood. With the suggestion that the landlord’s actions at this time were insufficient, and that this had resulted in a further flood, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated on 18 August 2021.
7. In its stage two complaint response, issued on 8 September 2021, the landlord said whilst it could have taken steps to prevent or reduce the impact of flooding, it could never completely remove the risk. This was why its tenancy agreements recommended that residents arrange their own contents insurance. It also said that its discretionary payment policy excluded any compensation claims that would fall under contents insurance and strongly recommended that the resident arranged contents insurance at her new property.
8. The resident subsequently brought her complaint to this Service on 9 September 2021. It is noted that following further communication between the landlord and resident in February 2022, however, the landlord accepted that it “could have done additional flood prevention works which [the resident] had been promised”. A full and final offer of £1,700 compensation was subsequently made which the resident accepted on 4 March 2022, and which included £1,000 for damaged possessions.

Assessment and findings

9. Following the resident’s report of an initial flood at her property on 16 August 2020, the landlord acted appropriately by sending a surveyor to inspect the property on 26 August and relying on his expertise. The landlord also arranged for the gaps under the windows to be sealed with silicone as he recommended.
10. This Service notes that on 16 September 2020 the landlord’s operative reported that the gaps in the resident’s window were too wide and would need to be refitted correctly. The landlord therefore acted reasonably in arranging for another surveyor to inspect the property.
11. It is recognised however, that upon doing so, on 8 December 2020, the landlord’s second surveyor recommended that minor repairs were needed to several parts of the property, including sealing the kitchen / lounge window and a possible refitting. While most of these minor repairs were completed on 4 January 2021, the landlord’s repair record offers no confirmation that the windows were sealed or refitted.
12. On 1 March 2021 the landlord’s records show that the resident highlighted that its operative had attempted to put filler under the windows, but the gap was too large. The Ombudsman is aware that as such, the landlord advised the resident that a list of outstanding repairs would be put together in March 2021. This would have been appropriate and would have enabled the landlord to have addressed any additional issues (including the refitting of the windows and filling of any gaps) which might have prevented a later flood. The landlord did not do this, however. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s failure to do so was unreasonable and was a missed opportunity to potentially prevent the reoccurrence of the flood on 27 July 2021.
13. With the above said, it is not disputed that the landlord could have done more to prevent the issue reoccurring. This Service can see that the landlord accepted this in its later correspondence to the resident. As such, it was reasonable that the landlord took steps to put things right and acted in line with its compensation guidance.
14. It is not the role of this Ombudsman to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is the role of this Service, however, to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
15. As the landlord suggested, the tenancy agreement explains that the resident is “responsible for insuring [their] own contents, personal belongings and any other items for which [they] have responsibility. [The landlord] have no responsibility for personal belongings and will not pay for damage or compensation if [the resident does] not have contents insurance.” This is further supported by the landlord’s discretionary payments policy which explains [the landlord] “will assess all requests except those for personal injury or contents insurance”.
16. It was therefore not unreasonable that the landlord declined to uphold the resident’s request for compensation for damages, being that she would have been expected to pursue this via her own contents insurance. The resident was expected to have this in place. 
17. Given that the landlord did later recognise that it could have done more, however, this Service would expect it to take steps to put the matter right. It might have also been reasonable for the landlord to have signposted information about its own insurer, for the resident to pursue.
18. In any case, it is noted that in recognition of the landlord’s oversight, an offer of compensation was made. This was both in recognition of the service failure and the damage to the resident’s possessions. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s offer and has determined that this was both reasonable and proportionate.In any case, it is noted that in recognition of the landlord’s oversight, an offer of compensation was made. This was both in recognition of the service failure and the damage to the resident’s possessions. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s offer, and has considered this to be reasonable and proportionate.
19. It is noted that on making contact with this Service in September 2021, the resident explained that she sought a reimbursement of approximately £1,000 for her possessions. As such, it has been concluded that the landlord’s offer of compensation was adequate in satisfactorily resolving this element of the complaint. The landlord’s offer of an additional £700 was also in line with what this Service might reasonably order, for the landlord’s failure to undertake works and the subsequent impact on the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that reasonable redress was offered. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident has since accepted this offer and also that the resident was decanted to a new property where she has remained permanently.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.