Flagship Housing Group Limited (202326415)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326415

Flagship Housing Group Limited

25 July 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 repairs to the resident’s back patio doors.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3 bed end–terrace house. There are no resident vulnerabilities noted on file.
The resident first reported issues with her back patio doors before September 2020. The landlord records do not show the date this was reported but the landlord’s contractor attended to reports of drafts coming from the doors on 9 September 2020. The landlord’s contractor adjusted the keeps on this date and the job was marked as ‘complete’.
The resident reported that her back patio doors were drafty again after this date. It is unclear when she reported this but the landlord’s contractor attended again on 9 December 2020. The issue was identified as ‘part of the gasket was missing and needing to be adjusted’. The job was marked as ‘completed’.
The resident reported further issues with her patio doors after this date. It is unclear from the records, when she reported these. The resident reported that the seals to the back patio doors had been replaced but that there were still large gaps and mould around the patio doors. The landlord’s contractor attended on 10 May 2021 and adjusted the positioning of the doors and the hinges and the job was marked as ‘completed’.
The resident contacted the landlord via its live chat on 18 June 2021 to chase the repair to the patio doors. She stated that she had logged the repair 3 to 4 weeks previously and that the landlord’s contractors had attended and had advised they would return the following week to carry out the repair. She said that it had not returned and she had heard nothing from the landlord or its contractors. The landlord responded that this repair was due to be completed on 12 July 2021. The resident questioned why it was going to take another 4 weeks when she had logged the repair 3 to 4 weeks previously. The landlord responded that this was a standard repair, not an urgent repair, and that it would contact the resident when it had a carpenter available to book the work in.
The resident asked why the landlord had not fixed the doors at the time it had attended 3-4 weeks previously, and why it had not returned to compete the works the following week, as it had undertaken to do. The resident expressed concerns about the time taken and the fact that she was paying for heating which was “going out the door, costing money”.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 12 July 2021, following an email received from its energy team, that the back patio door was letting a draft into the property. This Service has not had sight of the email from the energy team. The landlord inspected the door and noted that it found no gaps letting daylight or drafts into the property. It took photographs of the door, in the event that a replacement would be necessary.
The resident contacted the landlord via its live chat on 4 November 2022. She said that the doors should have been repaired or replaced over a year ago. The landlord responded that the job had been closed down as it had found no daylight or drafts coming from the doors, so a replacement had not been deemed necessary at the time. It offered to raise a new repair for the doors if the doors had “got worse”. The resident responded that the doors were leaking so much that the only option would be to replace them. She said that the landlord had advised her that new doors would be on order and did not understand why the landlord was “lying and closing the job down”. She stated that the doors had been adjusted several times, they could “not get the seal any tighter” and that the doors still leaked. She asked to raise another repair.
The landlord advised the resident that the next available appointment would be on 25 November 2022.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 25 November 2022 and the landlord’s repair notes state that it was unable to start work as the “operative ran out of time”.
The landlord’s contractor attended again on 28 November 2022. It noted that “nothing much more” could be done with the patio doors, except to replace the gaskets and keep the trickle vents shut to stop the drafts. It said it needed to order a new gasket for the door.
The landlord chased its supplier regarding the new gasket on 16 January 2023. It is unclear when it received this and the landlord fitted the gasket and adjusted the door on 3 May 2023.
Following the works above, the resident contacted the landlord again to report that the doors were still drafty, despite the works being carried out. It is unclear from the landlord’s notes, when the resident reported this. The landlord attended on 30 June 2023 and noted that no works were required at the time.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 23 August 2023. She said the following:
1. She wanted compensation for the length of time she had waited for a correct repair to the back patio doors.
2. She wanted compensation for the higher cost of electricity bills, due to heating in her home escaping from the faulty patio doors.
3. She wanted the doors to be permanently fixed before contacting the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 29 August 2023 and informed her it would issue a response by 12 September 2023. It also advised her that she could contact this Service during the complaints process but that the Ombudsman would not be able to investigate her complaint until the landlord had concluded its internal complaints process.
The landlord internal email communication of 4 September 2023, notes that it would not replace the resident’s patio doors due to its “current budgetary requirements”.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 11 September 2023. It said the following:
1. The resident reported the patio door repair on 7 November 2022. Its contractor visited on 25 November 2022 but was unable to start work.
2. Its contractor attended on 28 November 2022 and advised that the gasket needed to be replaced.
3. On 16 January 2023, it was waiting for the gasket to arrive from its supplier as this was on a “back order”.
4. The gasket was fitted and the door adjusted on 3 May 2023.
5. A contractor visited on 30 June 2023 and found there was no repair needed.
6. It apologised for the length of time the resident had to wait for the gasket to be ordered. It said the contractor had not placed the order for the gasket, which then caused a delay.
7. The resident should report a further repair if she had ongoing issues with the patio doors.
8. It would not compensate the resident for her energy bills but offered £50 as a goodwill gesture, for the length of time the resident had waited to have the door fixed.
9. She could request a stage 2 complaint escalation if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint on the same day 11 September 2023. She remained dissatisfied that the landlord had said the doors had been repaired. She said the following:
1. The doors had not been repaired and they were still faulty.
2. The gasket the landlord fitted was the incorrect one for the door and it “just falls out”. It was only fitted in one small section and not completely around both doors.
3. The last contractor who had attended had told the resident it would raise a job as the door had not been repaired adequately.
4. Although the landlord claimed she had raised issues with the patio doors in November 2022, she had been logging the repair since at least June 2021.
5. The repair had not been attended to in May 2023 or June 2023, and she would not have complained after this date if the repair had been completed.
6. She would record conversations with contractors in future, so that the conversations could not be mis-represented.
7. She was “disgusted” that the landlord had said that no further action was required. The gaskets were hanging off the door as they were the wrong size and were cut too short so were not even sealing in the corner.
8. The doors were tight by the wall and there was a 5 millimetre gap by the other patio door.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 12 September 2023. It advised her that it would conduct a further investigation and respond by 10 October 2023.
The landlord arranged a site visit with the resident and inspected the patio doors on 6 October 2023. It found the following:
1. The door seals installed by a previous contractor were “possibly the wrong ones”, causing the seals to fall out.
2. The doors had not been adjusted correctly, causing one side of the doors not to catch on the door-keep correctly and to swing open, unless locked.
3. It had booked a contractor in for the following day to assess the seals and adjust the patio doors as well as assessing the seals on the front door.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 9 October 2023. It said the following:
1. Its repairs and voids manager had attended on 6 October 2023 to inspect the back patio doors and found that the door seals installed by a previous operative were incorrect, causing the seals to fall out. Additionally, the doors had not been adjusted correctly.
2. An operative would attend on 10 October 2023 to assess the seals and adjust the patio doors.
3. It apologised for the significant delays and the distress caused to the resident. It had fed this back to the department in question and would carry out a review to prevent such delays reoccurring.
4. It would continue to monitor the works until completion and offered the resident £300 as a gesture of goodwill for the delays and distress caused.
5. The resident could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 10 October 2023 to assess the doors. It attended again on 18 October 2023 but was not able to gain access to the property.
The resident contacted this Service on 2 November 2023. She stated that she had been reporting issues with her patio doors since 2020 and that they had still not been adequately repaired, despite numerous visits. The landlord had missed appointments, had miscommunicated and the doors were still drafty, resulting in expensive energy bills. As an outcome to her complaint, the resident would like the repair to be fully completed and to be financially compensated for the delays.

Post Internal Complaints Procedure

The landlord’s contractor did not attend a pre-arranged appointment to the resident’s property on 8 November 2023, due to “operative availability”. The landlord’s contractor missed another appointment on 12 November 2023, due to “parts not being available”.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 19 January 2023 and booked a further visit on 4 January 2024.
On 4 January 2024, the landlord’s contractor replaced the frame seals on the rear patio door.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 14 June 2024 to fit the door gasket and also adjusted the rear doors so that they shut correctly.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has complained about numerous other repair issues in the property. Whilst we understand the resident’s frustration, this is not something this Service can investigate. This is because the Scheme states that the Ombudsman can only investigate a complaint that is duly made to this Service. A complaint can only be duly made to us when it has completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and residents have received a final response. As the other repair issues have not yet been fully investigated by and responded to by the landlord, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s back patio doors.

Landlord Obligations – Policies and Procedures

The resident’s occupancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building, which includes external doors. It says that the landlord must carry out repairs within a reasonable time.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to carry out a timely, effective and efficient repairs service.
It operates the following timescales:
1. Emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs will be attended to, completed and service restored within 28 calendar days.
3. Planned repairs (such as replacing external doors – when this is part of a cyclical planned maintenance programme) will be completed and service restored within 90 calendar days.
4. Major repair works (unplanned, but resulting from a major fault) will be completed within 90 calendar days.
It operates an appointment based system and aims to complete repair work within the allotted appointment time. The policy states that it will stay in touch with residents, updating them on progress of repairs, including changes to agreed appointments.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that as part of complaint resolution it may be necessary to make either a payment to cover residents’ out of pocket expenses or a discretionary or goodwill gesture to put things right.
The landlord operates a discretionary payment policy “to make amends for the inconvenience caused and to minimise the level of dissatisfaction” in the event of a service failure. It gives no figures and states that it will assess all requests and come to “ a fair and reasonable decision”.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s back patio doors

The landlord’s repair logs show that it categorised all the resident’s reports of her faulty patio doors as responsive repairs to be attended to within 28 calendar days.
Good record keeping is a prerequisite to providing a good housing management service. The landlord’s repair logs do not show all the dates that the resident reported faults with her back patio doors and only the days of attendance by its contractors. This is a failing on the part of the landlord as it would be difficult for the landlord to monitor if it was completing repairs within its specified timescales.
The landlord’s records show repeated visits to address the issues with the patio doors from September 2020 to January 2024. This is contrary to the landlord’s policy which aims to provide a ‘timely, effective and efficient repairs service’. This is an unreasonable timeframe in which to carry out a full and effective repair. This caused the resident stress and anxiety, time and trouble in pursuing the issue and significantly impacted on the resident’s ability to enjoy her home. Further, the resident has stated that this impacted on her fuel bills as the “heat was escaping through the doors”. This would have caused her further adverse effect in terms of possible additional fuel costs.
Although this Service understands that repeated visits may be necessary to fully diagnose and rectify a problem, 3 and a half years is an inappropriate delay and significantly outside of the landlord’s own timescales.
Furthermore, the landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete works within the allotted time frame for its appointments, however the repair records show that on at least two occasions, the landlord did not complete the work as it “ran out of time”. This is inappropriate and caused the resident distress and anxiety and time and trouble on pursuing the issue, as well as impacting on the enjoyment of her home. This Service would expect the landlord to allocate an appropriate timeframe to affect a full repair.
Additionally, the landlord’s policy states that residents will be updated regarding progress of repairs, including changes to agreed appointments. This was not the case, as the resident repeatedly contacted the landlord to chase the patio door repairs. This caused the resident frustration, stress and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
Further, although on 2 occasions, the landlord was waiting for parts (the gasket) to carry out the repair, there is no evidence that it attempted to source the parts from an alternative supplier, who may have been able to provide this in a more timely manner. Nor did it update the resident that it was waiting for parts. This is inappropriate and contributed to the lengthy delays in completing the works. Further, the landlord’s records show that the landlord’s contractor initially forgot to order the parts. Although errors do occur, this Service would have expected the landlord to chase its contractor and monitor progress of repairs. This caused the resident additional distress and frustration, time and trouble in pursuing the issue and impacted on the resident’s ability to enjoy her home.
Furthermore, in its stage 1 complaint response to the resident, the landlord did not offer any action plan regarding repairs to the patio door, and advised the resident that there were no further works to be carried out, despite the resident stating that the doors were still faulty. It advised the resident to log another repair, which is inappropriate and caused the resident frustration, time and trouble in pursuing the issue and continued to impact on the enjoyment of her home.
Additionally, despite the frequent repair visits not resolving the problem, the records show that the landlord did not consider a replacement due to “budgetary requirements”. Although this Service understands that social housing providers operate within budgetary constraints, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider a replacement, particularly since the repeated repairs to the patio doors did not resolve the faults.
Although the landlord did conduct a full inspection on the patio doors on 6 October 2023 and identified works that had not been done correctly, this inspection should have been carried out in a far timelier manner, particularly as the resident reported repeated issues with her doors on several occasions after repairs had been carried out. Had the doors been surveyed sooner, the full repair may have been completed in a reasonable time frame.
Although in its stage 2 complaint response of 9 October 2023, the landlord did apologise and offered the resident £300 for the delays and assigned a date for the following day to complete the repairs, the landlord records show that there were various missed appointments after this date and the doors were not repaired until 4 January 2024 and then again on 14 June 2024. This is a further extended delay, which is inappropriate and continued to cause the resident frustration, time and trouble in pursuing the issue and continued to impact on the enjoyment of her home. This would have also impacted on the landlord and resident relationship.
Due to the fact that it took over 3 and a half years to complete the repairs, over repeated visits, and the time and trouble, frustration and impact on the resident’s enjoyment of her home, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for redress. This Service would have made a finding of severe maladministration if the landlord had not made any attempts to repair the doors, or if it had not offered some level of redress, albeit an insufficient amount.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s back patio doors.

Orders

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology needs to be from a member of its senior leadership team.
2. Pay the resident £1000 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the issue. (This includes the £300 already offered if it has not already done so).
3. Arrange for a suitably qualified person to inspect the back patio doors and provide a report and timeline of any further repairs/replacement if appropriate.
Within eight weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to :
1. The landlord should review its record keeping practises in terms of its repairs reporting, to include all dates that repairs are reported.
2. Complete a case review to assess the failings identified in this report and provide an action plan to evidence how to avoid this happening again in the future.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.