Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

Futures Housing Group Limited (202317660)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317660

Futures Housing Group Limited

1 April 2025

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:
    1. Concern about damage to his washing machine.
    2. Request for adaptations to his property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and moved into the property in November 2022. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to being registered blind and having ongoing health conditions.
  2. The landlord raised works to install grab rails in the resident’s bathroom, and by his front door, in January 2023. It installed the grab rails in March 2023.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 March 2023 and asked for it to install handrails at his property. The landlord booked a visit for 23 March 2023, and its records indicate it was unable to access the resident’s property.
  4. The landlord attended to measure for grab rails at the resident’s property on 17 May 2023.
  5. The resident made a complaint in June 2023. He was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his request to install grabrails. He raised a concern that his washing machine was damaged due to being installed on a hot water pipe rather than cold. The resident stated that the hot and cold water pipes were installed incorrectly with the hot feed on the right, and cold feed on the left. This had led to the company who installed his washing machine installing it to the hot feed and had caused damage to it.
  6. The landlord adjusted the pipework in the resident’s kitchen on 27 June 2023. It switched the hot and cold pipes (including taps) so the cold feed was on the right and hot feed on the right (in line with standard practice for plumbing).
  7. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 29 June 2023, and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said as it had not installed the washing machine it did not accept responsibility for any damage caused as a result of the installation. It set out it had rectified the issue with the pipework. It gave a history of its handling of the adaptations issue. It said it had measured for the grab rails in May 2023 and was due to install the grab rails on 6 July 2023, but the resident had asked to reschedule this appointment. It asked him to confirm his availability for to progress with the matter.
  8. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it to raise a stage 2 complaint. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 25 July 2023. It restated its position on the washing machine and said it considered the matter closed. It said it was awaiting confirmation of when the resident was available to progress with the grab rail works.
  9. The resident contacted this Service on 19 September 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he disagreed with the landlord’s position on the washing machine and felt it was responsible for the damage caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about damage to his washing machine is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
  3. Paragraph 42.f. of our Scheme states that we may not investigate a complaint which 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.
  4. It is not the role of this Service to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. This Service does not have the expertise to make determination on whether the landlord was liable to damage to the resident’s washing machine. It is not disputed that the landlord did not install the washing machine. It was installed by a private company. The resident maintained that due to the way the pipework was installed the landlord was responsible for the damage to his washing machine. The landlord used its complaint responses to outline its position that it was not liable for damage to the washing machine. While we note the landlord communicated its position with clarity, but its failure to provide information about its own insurer was a shortcoming in its response.
  5. We recommend the landlord shares information about how the resident can make a claim through its liability insurer (if it has one) now. Matters of insurance fall outside the complaints process and the insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord. Therefore, we cannot comment on the insurer’s actions if a claim is made to it or the likely outcome of such a claim.
  6. When the resident asked us to investigate his complaint he said the landlord’s handling of the adaptations had resulted in injuries. This was due to falls while moving around his property. We acknowledge the serious nature of this issue and do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  7. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers that he was injured by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s overall response.

The resident’s request for adaptations

  1. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states that it aims to provide an efficient and timely adaptations service. It states it aims to complete minor adaptations within 30 days of receipt of enquiry. For major adaptations, such as those recommended by an occupational therapist, it aims to complete them within 90 days.
  2. The resident raised a concern with us in February 2025 that he was unhappy with his landlord’s ongoing handling of adaptations in his property and that some adaptations it had installed did not meet the required regulations. We acknowledge the seriousness of the resident’s concerns. However, considering what is fair in all the circumstances of the case the landlord’s handling of the adaptations beyond it final complaint response of July 2023 are not within the scope of this investigation.
  3. We have not seen evidence the landlord had the opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns about adaptations it installed as part of a complaint. Therefore, in line with our Scheme, we have determined its handling of the adaptations beyond July 2023 are not within the scope of this investigation. The resident may wish to raise a complaint about its handling of adaptation beyond July 2023. We could then investigate if he remains unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaints process.
  4. The evidence shows the resident made a request for some grab rails (front door and in bathroom) in January 2023. This was included in an internal email from January 2023. It completed these works in March 2023. This was 2 months after it raised them and outside the timeframes set out in its policy. This was an unreasonable delay considering the need for the resident to use them to mobilise around his property.
  5. When the resident requested more adaptations in March 2023, the landlord sought to attend promptly, well within its target timeframe. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it treated the resident’s request with reasonable urgency. However, the information provided indicates it was unable to access the resident’s property at the time. This means the delay was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control.
  6. The information provided for this investigation indicates that after it was unable to access the resident’s property in March 2023 it closed the job. An internal email from June 2023 stated that when the landlord is unable to access a property the repair is closed until the resident rebooks it. Considering the nature of the request and the resident’s vulnerability this was unreasonable. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristics. The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not have due regard for whether the resident had a disability, as defined by the Equality Act.
  7. The evidence shows that by not being proactive in seeking to reattend the resident’s property it may have fettered its discretion by applying a blanket policy of not rebooking visits until the resident contacts it. Considering the individual circumstances of the resident and the importance of adaptations to enable him to safely move around his property this is concerning. The resident was inconvenienced by the lack of proactive follow up on the part of the landlord.
  8. The landlord did not reattend to measure up for the adaptations until May 2023, a delay of the 2 months. This was unreasonable considering the importance of the adaptations. This supports the conclusion that its lack of follow up from its March 2023 visit contributed to the delay and increased the detriment the resident experienced.
  9. Following its visit to measure up in May 2023, the landlord sought to attend to complete the adaptations work in July 2023. This was within its 90 day target timeframe and reasonable in the circumstances. The evidence shows that the resident sought to rearrange the repair to a planned operation. The landlord used its complaint responses to encourage the resident to provide dates that he was available for the works to go ahead, which was appropriate and evidence it sought to progress with the works within a reasonable timeframe.
  10. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses failed to acknowledge the delays caused at the start of the adaptations process. Which is further evidence it failed to have due regard for the resident’s vulnerability. We note that some of the delays were outside of the landlord’s control. However, its failure to assess its handling of the matter in relation to the particular circumstances of the resident indicate its complaint investigation was not appropriately thorough and did not have due regard to the resident’s vulnerability.
  11. We have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for adaptations. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order for £200 compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damage to his washing machine is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for adaptations.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £200 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its response to the resident’s request for adaptations.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord shares information on how the resident can make a claim with its liability insurer (if it has one) for the damage to his washing machine.