Flagship Housing Group Limited (202305024)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305024

Victory Housing Trust

15 August 2024

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 the resident’s:
1. report of repairs outstanding to the property on letting.
2. request to fit an external post box, ring doorbell and a solar outside light.
3. complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He signed an assured non-shorthold starter tenancy agreement on 23 February 2023. This contains a clause which allows the tenancy to automatically become an assured tenancy after 12 months. The agreement states that from this point the resident became “responsible for the property and any rent due”. The property is a 1 bedroom, semi detached bungalow.
The landlord’s eligibility assessment completed with the resident on 21 February 2023 records that the resident has physical disabilities impacting his mobility. It further records that the resident has poor mental health and had previously experienced a brain injury. The resident has advised that he is diabetic.
On 23 February 2023, the resident reported that there was no water at the property. An appointment was booked for a plumber to attend on 27 February 2023. The resident left keys in the key safe at the property to provide access. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 March 2023 and again on 7 March 2023 as the water had not been restored. He said that he had been promised a call back, but he had not been contacted.
The resident logged a formal complaint on 6 March 2023 about the lack of water to his new home, the missed appointment and the landlord’s failure to contact him despite a promise to do so.
The landlord called the resident on 8 March 2023 to discuss his complaint. It confirmed that the water had been reinstated the previous evening. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the delay in resolving this issue as he had been required to pay a month’s rent in advance. He asked why the plumber had not attended when this had been arranged and why he had not been contacted. He made a request to fit an external post box, ring doorbell and a solar light to his home. He said that he had been told that he could not fit anything to the exterior of the property. He also wanted a fence installed at the front of the property but wanted this to be 6 foot high. The landlord made a further call to the resident on 14 March 2023. In this he raised further repair issues with the property. The landlord agreed to refer these to its voids team to follow up.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 March 2023. It defined the resident’s complaint as “you signed your Tenancy agreement to start on 23 February 2023, however the property had no hot water which prevented you from moving in immediately”. It said:
1. that the problem with the hot water had been resolved. The problem having been caused by an isolation valve on the boiler being turned off. This had been completed on 10 March 2023.
2. this should have been identified prior to him signing the tenancy agreement and offered its apologies.
3. that during a telephone conversation with the officer he had raised a number of other issues. These included:
  1. The replacement of 2 fence panels in the rear garden. It said that this had been scheduled for 23 March 2023.
  2. His request to install an external post box, ring doorbell and a solar light. It said that this was not something that the landlord would do. It advised that he had permission to do this himself.
  3. Further repairs required at the property. It said that it was liaising with its repairs and voids manager to ensure that these were carried out urgently and would contact him when an appointment had been arranged.
4. it concluded the complaint and apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 23 March 2023. He said that the response to his complaint was incorrect and identified errors within the content of the letter. He restated that the main issue was that there had been no water to the property rather than no hot water. He also expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to his other reported repairs as he believed these should have been completed before he moved in. He said that he felt that his complaint had not been taken seriously and that the complaint handling had been rushed.
The resident chased a response to his escalated complaint on 13 April 2023. On 19 April 2023 repairs were carried out to the roof felt within loft space of the property to address a leak.
On 20 April 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. Within this the landlord:
1. recognised the errors in its original complaint response and apologised for these.
2. confirmed that the date given in the stage 1 letter for works to the garden fence was incorrect and that the appointment had been booked for 27 March 2023.
3. further apologised for the incorrect information around his request to install an external post box, a ring doorbell, and a solar light at the property. It acknowledged that he was seeking permission to undertake this work himself and was not asking the landlord to do this. It confirmed that this permission had been given in its stage 1 letter.
4. detailed the resident’s report of no water at the property and set out the timeline in terms of his report and follow up contact. It said that he had not received the promised call back and that the water had been reinstated on 7 March 2023.
5. identified the list of repairs required to the property and said that the work had been booked for 24 April 2023.
6. said that a visit by its tenancy support officer had been arranged for 25 April 2023 and she would address any outstanding queries he had.
7. apologised that he had felt that its complaint response had been rushed and acknowledged the errors in its stage 1 letter. It said that it had spoken with its team to reinforce the importance of providing accurate information.
8. offered him £250 compensation in acknowledgement of the poor communication he had experienced, the delay in getting the water restored to the property, the missed appointment, and the inconvenience of having to chase the repair.
The resident brought his complaint to the Service on 12 May 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has explained to the Service how the outstanding repairs to his property and the lack of contact with the landlord had a negative impact on his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments and understands this situation may have had a detrimental impact on his wellbeing. However, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.

The resident’s report of repairs to the property on letting.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It also has an obligation to keep in repair and working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas, and electricity. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
When a property is void or empty, a landlord is obliged, in accordance with section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and section 1(3) of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that, when a tenancy commences, the property is “fit for human habitation”. The housing, health, and safety rating system (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, makes it clear that a supply of both hot and cold water is required to avoid potential hazards around personal hygiene, sanitation and food safety.
The landlord has provided the Service with a copy of its repairs policy dated September 2023. It has said that this is a new policy, and no policy was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint. This policy identifies the total loss of water to a property as an emergency. It sets a 1 day target for completing the necessary repairs. The landlord has further provided a copy of its empty homes’ lettable standard. This indicates that a new resident would be provided with a plan indicating the location of the stop cock to the property.
The resident reported that there was no water to his property on 23 February 2023, the day he signed for the property and from which his tenancy commenced. He has said that this was identified by a contractor working on behalf of the landlord to check and show him how to use the boiler. There is no evidence that the contractor took any steps to report the lack of water to the landlord. The resident has said that he called the landlord, and an appointment was made for a plumber to attend on 27 February 2023. This appointment was not kept. The landlord’s site history report does not capture this repair having been raised or the appointment being made. It is unclear who was due to attend and why they did not do so. However, that the landlord did not attend was a failing.
The resident made follow up calls to report that the water had not been reinstated and then raised this as a formal complaint. Internal correspondence states that there had been a leak to the property during the void period and there had been an issue at the time with isolating the water. This says that the water had been left on and that a request had been made for an internal stopcock to be fitted. In correspondence with the Service the landlord has confirmed that the water to the property was reinstated on 7 March 2023.
The property should not have been let without the landlord having confirmed that all the services were working. Having identified the issue on the day of the sign up the landlord or those acting on its behalf should have taken steps to ensure that the water was reinstated within a reasonable period. In line with its current repairs policy this would be 1 working day. Given the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, the property should not reasonably have been let without the landlord ensuring that all services were working. This includes ensuring that there was a working water supply. That the landlord did not take such steps was a failing. There was then a subsequent significant delay in the water being turned on and a failure to communicate with the resident about the steps it was taking to do so. Without any clear record of the initial appointment made, no steps were taken to identify why this was missed. The work was only completed following further calls from the resident and his raising a formal complaint.
The delay in reinstating the water caused significant inconvenience and distress to the resident. He told the landlord that he was travelling between his former and new home by bus, a round trip of some 30 miles. Having made the journey, he had been unable to clean the property for carpets to be installed as the water had not been reinstated.
The resident identified additional works required to the property. The landlord’s site history report captures these as being raised and completed on 24 April 2024. This listed the completed repairs as: “kitchen door eased, bathroom door eased, front door eased and holes under front door filled, 3 fence panels replaced and silicone sealant carried out to the bathroom floor”. This record further identified that there was a lever stopcock on the water meter in the base unit in the kitchen. This highlights a failure by the landlord to maintain accurate records of its properties. Following the resident’s report of no water to the property there was information about the lack of a stopcock to the property and the resident said that the water had to be turned on via a stopcock outside the property. Internal communications relating to the resident’s complaint capture that there had been a leak to the property while it was empty and that there had been an issue with isolating the water. A request was made for an internal stopcock to be fitted following this but there was a lack of clarity as to whether this had been done. This omission should have been identified ahead of the property being let in line with its lettable standard to provide the resident information as to the location of the stopcock.
The additional repairs were raised by the resident through his communication with the landlord’s complaint’s officer and there is evidence that they directed these to its voids and maintenance team. Internal communication highlights a pressure on the availability of staff to carry out the works until late April. There is however no record of how this was communicated with the resident. The stage 2 letter refers to an appointment made for 27 March 2023 to repair the fence in the rear garden. There is no evidence that this appointment was attended and works to the fence was completed along with the other repairs on 24 April 2024.
While these repairs did not prevent the resident moving into his new home, the delay in completing these was a frustration to him. It was not an unrealistic expectation that these repairs would have been carried out prior to the property being let to him. He told the landlord that he was having to travel a distance between his former home and his new property while waiting for the water to be reinstated and expressed the level of stress that this had caused to him. This was acknowledged by the landlord when it appropriately made a safeguarding referral following its contact with him. The delay in completing the repairs was not reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident was left without running water to the property for 14 days. The additional repairs required were completed 8 weeks after his tenancy started. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs. An order has been made for the landlord to review its handling of this case and its empty homes process to ensure that its properties meet its lettable standard. An award of compensation totalling £254.90 has been made in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies. In calculating the compensation, the Service has considered that given the absence of a running water supply, the resident was without an essential amenity at the beginning of the tenancy and for 14 days. We have used the resident’s rent as a basis for this calculation. The resident’s monthly charge of £345.77 equates to £11.37 per day. For the 14 days without water this totals £159.15. An additional amount of £95.75 has been included, based on 20% of the total rent for the delay in completing the additional repairs.

The resident’s request to fit an external post box, ring doorbell and a solar outside light.

The landlord has shared a copy of its permissions guide for residents about making changes to their homes. This sets out changes that the resident can undertake without consultation with the landlord, and those for which they would need to seek its permission. The resident correctly approached the landlord for permission for the works which he wished to carry out.
This was considered through the landlord’s complaint responses. Initially the landlord misunderstood the request and believed that the resident wanted it to undertake these works. It confirmed that it would not carry out the works, but it did provide permission to the resident to do these himself. At stage 2 the landlord appropriately acknowledged its error. The letter does not however explicitly confirm that permission had been given for him to carry out the works. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide clarity, or for it to issue standalone correspondence confirming that permission had been granted. This would reasonably help to avoid any confusion that may have been caused and would ensure that there was a clear audit trail relating to the request and the permission that had been granted. In the circumstances, we have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request. A recommendation has been made that the landlord should provide retrospective written confirmation of the permission it gave.

The resident’s complaint.

The landlord has a complaints policy, which governs its approach to handling complaints from residents. The policy sets out that it will log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receiving them. Thereafter, it will respond to the resident at stage 1 within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. It will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days from its acknowledgement of a request to escalate the matter. At both stages, if there are exceptional circumstances that mean the landlord requires more time to issue the response, it will agree an extension with the resident. Such extensions should not exceed a further 10 working days at either stage.
While the landlord met the target times set within its policy, both responses were provided on the last day of the response window. Its stage 1 contained an inaccurate definition of the complaint, despite the officer having spoken directly with the resident to discuss the reason for his complaint. There was also further inaccurate information around an appointment date and the resident’s request for permission. Furthermore, it did not address the direct points raised by the resident as to why the plumber had not attended as arranged and why a promised to call him back had not been kept. This left the resident believing that his complaint had not been thoroughly considered and as he expressed in his escalation request that it “had not been taken seriously”.
Within the stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the errors made in the original letter. In offering an apology for this it appropriately set out the actions it had taken to remind staff about the need for accuracy in complaint responses. The letter however lacked detail as to why appointments were missed, and communication failed. As a result, the apology appears perfunctory and lacks empathy for the resident’s circumstances. It does not acknowledge the impact that these issues had in respect of the resident’s trust in the landlord. The letter records that a home visit had been arranged with the resident, but this was scheduled for after the letter was sent, and no comment could be made as to the outcome of this. This was a missed opportunity to rebuild the relationship with the resident.
In considering the landlord’s complaint handling, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord acted in line with the dispute resolution principles of: Be fair, Put things right and Learn from outcomes. The overall quality of the complaint responses was poor and do appear to have been hurried, particularly when considering the inaccuracies and the lack of detail. In the stage 2 the landlord said, “I have spoken with my team and reiterated the importance of providing accurate information”. This did not however extend to an explanation behind the incorrect detail given in the stage 1 around the hot water or indicate that further training would be provided. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s offer, made in its stage 2 response of £250 compensation. This was made in acknowledgement of its poor communication, the delay in getting the water restored to the property, the missed appointment, and the inconvenience of to him having to chase the repair. This covers a broad range of issues which could have more appropriately been broken down within the landlord’s response. An order has been made, in line with the Services guidance on remedies for an additional amount of compensation in recognition of the failures identified through this report and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs outstanding to the property on letting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to fit an external post box, ring doorbell and a solar outside light.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. The landlord must provide an apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report. It is recommended that alongside a written apology the landlord should arrange for a senior manager to meet with the resident and offer the apology in person.
2. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £504.90 in compensation, calculated as follows:
  1. £254.90 in acknowledgement of the delays in reinstating the water to the property and the completion of further repairs.
  2. £250.00 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures in its complaints handling.
3. This award is made in addition to the £250.00 offered by the landlord at stage 2.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Carry out a review its handling of this case and its empty homes process to ensure that its properties meet its lettable standard. It should recognise the importance of staring a new tenancy on a positive footing to build a positive relationship with its tenants. It is encouraged to meet with the resident to discuss his experience of this process.

Recommendations

The landlord should send a letter to the resident to confirm that permission had been given to the resident for the alterations that he wished to make.
Consider the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s recent spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights. These include recommendations around the introduction of minimum staff training in areas of customer care and mental health.