Flagship Housing Group Limited (202101003)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101003

Flagship Housing Group Limited

15 September 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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the central heating system in the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied her property under an assured tenancy with her son. The tenancy began on 9 July 2020. She suffered from asthma and her son had a number of disabilities.

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord had an obligation to keep in good condition the heating and water heating equipment and water pipes inside the home and to carry out repairs within a reasonable time. The resident had an obligation to allow access to carry out work to her home.
According to the landlord’s complaints policy and procedure, the landlord had a two-stage process. It would work to agree an outcome and communicate timescales to the resident. It would send a full and final response and close the complaint when it had taken the relevant action in line with the agreed resolution. A tenant could request an internal review. In relation to compensation, it would endeavour to award a fair and reasonable settlement including “unnecessary” costs such as out-of-pocket expenses, damage or loss directly caused by failures in service.

Chronology

According to the landlord’s records, there had been issues with the boiler during the previous tenancy in the property. It had installed a new boiler in February 2020. The landlord’s contractor was unable to carry out a test when it was void as there was no gas or electricity supply at the property.
The resident moved into the property on 9 July 2020. She reported there was no heating or hot water when she moved in. According to the landlord’s records, it was reinstated shortly after.
On 9 December 2020, the resident reported that the living room and bedroom radiators were not working and only two radiators were working. Her vulnerable child spent most of the time in his bedroom. The landlord attended but was unable to effect a repair.
The landlord’s contractor was due to effect a power flush on 7 January 2021 but did not attend. The resident chased the landlord a number of times in February 2021.
On 23 February 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord to postpone an appointment due to illness. She also made a complaint as follows:
1. There was an ongoing issue with her heating which had caused her to become ill. The landlord attended in December 2020 but nobody had updated her. She had been provided with fan heaters, but, as a result, she had attended hospital the previous evening with a respiratory infection and was “signed off” work.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 March 2021 in response to the resident’s complaint as follows:
1. She had been experiencing issues with her heating since October 2020 and had been using her fan heater in her lounge which was costly. The dry air it produced had contributed towards a lower respiratory tract infection that had prevented her from working for two weeks.
2. The contractor would attend on 9 March 2021 to carry out a power flush.
3. It would consider her request for compensation. It invited her to produce evidence of her weekly energy usage.
4. It would contact her on 16 March 2021 to check progress and assess compensation. She could request a review of the complaint.
The contractor did not attend on 9 March 2021, apparently without warning. In the meantime, a survey took place where it was decided the landlord would re-pipe the system as the system had circulation issues.
The contractor attended on 22 March 2021. The resident reported that they had left a “complete mess”, with copper pipes left exposed, and her asthma was exacerbated by the lack of heating.
There followed a discussion about dates for the contractor to re-attend. Works were due to recommence on 13 April 2021. According to an email from the contractor to the landlord of 13 April 2021, the resident declined works due to a discussion about the positioning of radiators. The contractor asked the resident to sign a disclaimer which included provisions that the resident be responsible for removing carpets and fragile items. There was no evidence that the resident signed such a document.
The contractor carried out a survey on 22 April 2021 and produced a plan of works.
There followed correspondence between the parties to agree dates and a discussion regarding how to preserve the carpet and cause minimal disruption. The resident expressed concerns about the disruption for her son. The resident chased the complaint response in writing from time to time and set out the impact of loss of heating on her and her son, who had to get up at 6.30 in the morning to attend a specialist school. There also followed a discussion regarding compensation.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 May 2021 as follows:
1. It attached the contractor’s plan of works of 22 April 2021 which, it stated, had taken her wishes into account, where practical.
2. The contractor had arranged for a carpet fitter to be in attendance during the install to roll back the carpets. If the works caused damage, the contractor would replace the damaged section.
3. It would carry out any necessary remedial works such as boxing in of pipework, filling in of holes and general “patching up”.
4. It offered compensation in the amount of £1348.32 calculated as follows:
  1. The resident had calculated that the excess cost of the fan heaters since September 2020 was approximately £10 a week, amounting to £300.00, subject to evidence.
  2. She had provided evidence of unpaid leave from work amounting to £396.00.
  3. She had missed a week off work due to illness, due to the use of the fan heater, amounting to £196.02.
  4. In acknowledgement of the issues since moving into the property a good will gesture of a 10% rebate of the rent had been offered amounting to £456.32.
5. It had understood she was dissatisfied with the offer and she requested a review of the complaint. It would provide a full and final response within 20 working days.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 June 2021 with its second complaint response as follows:
1. It had noted its delays in delivering a solution. It also considered that it had made a number of attempts to put her “at ease” over concerns about the work and the process.
2. She had requested £2800.
3. She had declined the works until a compensation amount had been agreed.
4. It offered £2000 as compensation as a final offer to settle the matter and to enable works to go ahead.
5. It set out its criteria for escalation as follows:
  1. Some or all of the complaint had not been investigated or responded to in line with the complaints policy.
  2. Some or all agreed actions had not been carried out or not carried out to her satisfaction.
  3. Her complaint had not been responded to within the agreed timescales.
On 17 June 2021, the resident queried an issue with the pipe work in the top floor bedroom and an issue in relation to her windows.
The landlord’s reply on 21 June 2021 referred the resident back to the report 22 April 2021 and stated that that the windows were not part of the complaint. The resident asking again about the pipes. She wished to appeal.
On 30 June 2021, the landlord stated that her request for escalation did not fall within its criteria for escalation. It invited her to provide her reasons within those criteria.
On 30 June 2021, the resident replied referring to occasions when contractors did not attend, the damage they had caused, the lack of heating and the repairs to windows.
On 2 July 2021, the resident wrote again regarding missed appointments and the discussion regarding the carpet.
The landlord replied on 12 July 2021 as follows:
1. The offer of £2000.00 “fully” reflected the money lost due to time missed off work through missed appointments, damage to belongings and her stress and inconvenience.
2. In relation to the criteria for escalation, the complaint was investigated and responded to in line with its complaints policy and within the agreed timescales.
3. In relation to the agreed actions not being carried out to her satisfaction, a plan of action was in place. The contractor had been ready to commence the works from 12 May 2021 however the resident declined the works until compensation was agreed.
On 14 July 2021 the landlord recorded that the resident accepted the compensation but required a letter undertaking the start and completion dates of the works and that the contractor would accept responsibility if they damaged anything. The landlord asked the contractor for a date to start work.
On 20 July 2021, the contractor proposed to start works the week beginning 23 August 2021 so that the head contractor could supervise the works.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 August 2021 asking whether the resident wished to go ahead the week commencing 23 August 2021 as it was aware that she had wished to discuss the matter with this service. She replied that she was awaiting the Housing Ombudsman service to take on the case and the landlord would “receive correspondence”.
On 19 August 2021, the resident asked that the works go ahead on 24 August 2021. The following day, the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that following their email exchange of 13 August 2021, it had understood that she would be pursuing a formal investigation before allowing the install. It apologised that it had misunderstood. It was, at that point, unable to reinstate the dates. The next date it could assemble the appropriate team was the week commencing 13 September which would be organised to fit in with the resident’s work commitments.
She replied that she was not informed that the works would be stood down or the offer of this date be revoked.
On 6 September 2021, the resident queried why no carpet fitter would attend. There followed correspondence whereby the carpet fitter would not attend but the contractor would remedy any damage.
According to the landlord’s repair records, and email from the resident, the works were completed on 16 September 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord to state the contractors had “smashed” the concrete on the top floor landing.
According to an email on 22 September 2021 from the contractor to the landlord, this referred to a gap in the boards filled with cement which crumbled when it was taken up. Alternative solutions were proposed.

Assessment and findings

It was not disputed that there had been a service failure in relation to repairs to the hot water and heating system, that there had been delays, cancellation of appointments and that the service failures had caused the resident loss of earnings and higher energy costs. The landlord accepted, and the evidence showed, that the original boiler was not installed to a good standard, the landlord did not check the system was working property prior to the resident moving in, its contractor did not keep the resident updated, and the quality of the works in March 2021 was poor.
In the circumstances, the issues for the Ombudsman to consider is what impact the service failure had on the resident, what steps the landlord took in response, the time it took to resolve the matter, and whether the resolution and the compensation offered was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
There was no evidence that the landlord had a repairs policy. While it had not set out timescales for repairs, the landlord was to effect repairs within a reasonable period. What is reasonable will depend on the type of repair. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to prioritise repairs to heating, in particular where a resident or occupier was vulnerable.
While the evidence was not altogether clear, it was not disputed that there was little or no heating in the property from September/October 2020, there were only two radiators working in December 2020 and the resident was using fan heaters in the property. In addition, she had a vulnerable child.
While, as is not disputed, communication was poor, the solution itself was not straightforward to identify or implement. The works were then postponed by the resident from April/May 2021 to July 2021 as the resident wished to agree compensation before the works went ahead.
It was reasonable that the landlord obtained an agreement from the contractors that they would carry out the works to suit the resident and also to repair or replace the carpets, if they were damaged. It was reasonable that the resident was not required to sign a “disclaimer” in particular as the works did not involve an upgrade but to rectify a defective heating system.
While the events after 12 July 2022 occurred after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint procedure, the Ombudsman considers it would be proportionate to consider these as they are so closely linked to the complaint.
While it meant a further wait until 23 August 2021, it was reasonable that the contractor ensured that there was an experienced team to attend to the works. It was reasonable for the landlord to check on 13 August 2021 that the works could go ahead the following week. The landlord did not warn the resident that the contractors would be stood down. However, it was understandable that the landlord deduced from the resident’s response of 13 August 2021 that she was waiting to hear from this service before going ahead with the works. It was reasonable that the landlord apologised for its misunderstanding.
The landlord’s calculation of the compensation included the additional energy costs from September 2020 to May 2021. It also included compensation for the resident’s loss of earnings. The compensation for distress and inconvenience amounted to the equivalent of a 10% rent rebate of £456.32 together with the additional £651.68 when the total compensation was increased to £2,000, amounting to £1,108.
The Ombudsman has taken into account the resident’s difficult circumstances, the particular impact the loss of heating had on the resident and her son, and the frustration, distress and inconvenience that she suffered. The Ombudsman considers this sum for a period of a year (September 2020 to September 2021), less the period the resident declined the repairs (from April 2021 to July 2021) was reasonable compensation. It was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for distress and inconvenience. The landlord also made a payment for the resident’s financial losses.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to the repairs to the resident’s heating.

The landlord’s complaint handling:

The Ombudsman notes that the landlord does not provide a timescale in its policy for responding to complaints. The Ombudsman does not consider this to be satisfactory as it lacks certainty and refers the landlord to its Complaint Handling Code and will make a recommendation in that regard. While the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s complaint in the first instance, there was a significant delay between the resident’s request for a review and the final response. While the evidence indicated that the landlord agreed a timescale for its review, there was no evidence of a timescale. If one was agreed, it should have been recorded in writing. It is noted that the landlord discussed the level of compensation before making its formal offer. However, the delay meant that the resident chased the complaint response.
However, the complaint handling was overall constructive and sympathetic to the resident in that it was responsive to her circumstances.
The Ombudsman is of the view that the resolution of a complaint does not have to wait for the works to be carried out. It was also reasonable of the landlord to decline the resident’s request for a further review. Apart from the issue of timescales, there was no evidence that the resident’s request for a second review fulfilled the landlord’s criteria for a review. The Ombudsman has not noted those criteria to be in the complaints policy of the landlord and, again, will make a recommendation in that regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of repairs to the central heating system in the resident’s property.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While there were unreasonable delays to the repairs, the landlord identified and acknowledged its failings, and offered compensation which covered the financial losses the resident requested but also, in the Ombudsman’s view, constituted reasonable compensation for distress and inconvenience.
While the timescales for the complaint were unclear, the complaint handling was constructive. The landlord’s decision not to escalate the complaint to a third stage was reasonable.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should consider paying the resident compensation for her excess heating charges from July 2021 to September 2021(three months).
2. The landlord should consider amending its complaints policy so that it provides a clear timescale for its complaints procedure. The landlord is referred to the Ombudsman’s complaint handling guidance at Complaint Handling Code – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
3. The landlord should consider adopting a compensation policy, if it has not done so.
4. The landlord should consider adopting a repairs policy, if it has not done so.
5. The landlord should consider publishing its policies on its website so as to be accessible and transparent.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 28 days of this report.