Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Flagship Housing Group Limited (202228686)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228686

Flagship Housing Group Limited

14 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the hot water from the bath and shower.

Background

  1. The resident and her partner have a joint assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a newly built semi-detached bungalow. The property has an air-source heat pump system. There is an immersion heater to provide hot water if the heat pump does not work. At the time of her complaint the resident had a baby and was also pregnant.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 December 2022 to report no hot water. At the initial appointment it was identified that it was the bath and shower which did not have hot water. After multiple visits from the landlord’s heating contractor and the developer’s plumber, the problem remained unresolved.
  3. On 11 February 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She stated there had been lots of appointments but no resolution. The resident thought the boiler was the problem. She explained that she was having cold showers in winter and had been unable to give her baby a warm bath. The resident said her electricity bills were now very high and she thought that was because the boiler was trying to get to the right temperature.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 March 2023. It acknowledged the stress the problem was causing and apologised for this. The landlord said that after multiple appointments had occurred it was identified that the manufacturer needed to attend to address the problem. It advised the resident that it was chasing the developer and plumber about when the manufacturer was going to attend. The landlord recognised, nonetheless, that the delays were unacceptable and apologised for the service the resident was experiencing. It said it would provide compensation once the repair had been resolved. On 28 March 2023, the landlord issued an interim compensation payment of £400.
  5. The manufacturer attended the property and resolved the problem on 5 April 2023. On 11 April 2023, however, upon receiving contact from the landlord, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 as she was unhappy with the length of time it took to resolve the matter and wanted more compensation.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 April 2023. It said the repair was not considered an emergency as the heating was fully working and other rooms had hot water. The landlord acknowledged the distress caused and the delay in fixing the problem. It said on 28 March 2023 the resident was advised to put the immersion heater on and it would pay for the costs for this. The landlord said the resident had been given £400 compensation and advised that further compensation would be awarded when the problem had been resolved. It offered the resident a further £500 compensation which made its final total offer of compensation £900. It apologised for the service the resident had received and said it had taken learnings from the case.
  7. On 25 April 2023 the resident contacted this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. The resident was unhappy the problem was not resolved earlier and wanted more compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s property was newly built in December 2021. There was a defects period for the first 12 months during which the landlord referred issues back to the developer to resolve. The agreement between the landlord and developer was known as the Employer’s Requirements. Appendix O of this document listed the defects categories and response times. “Hot water faults or breakdowns” were listed under “urgent repairs” which had a response time of “3 – 5 days”.
  2. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord did not have a repairs policy and referred to Appendix O from the Employer’s Requirements and the resident’s tenancy agreement. The resident’s tenancy agreement stated the landlord was responsible for keeping “electrical wiring, fire detection, heating and water heating equipment and water pipes inside your home, including statutory inspections (we must do this by law)” in “good and safe condition”. Section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also states the landlord is required “to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water”.
  3. When the resident reported the low hot water temperature from her bath and shower on 12 December 2022, the landlord sent its heating contractor to attend the property on 13 December 2022. In the absence of a repairs policy, in the Ombudsman’s view this was a reasonable response time. Unfortunately, the resident was not at home and a card was left. The evidence did not show whether the resident had been advised of this appointment or not. A missed appointment may have been avoidable with clear communication with the resident.
  4. The heating contractor returned on 15 December 2022 and found a blending valve under the bath was faulty. The contractor advised the landlord that it did not carry these parts and asked for a plumber to attend. The contractor advised the landlord that the appointment should have been better qualified as a plumber should have been sent for this job. It is the Ombudsman’s view, that the landlord should have established who was the correct operative for the job when originally booking the appointment. This would have prevented the need for a follow-up appointment.
  5. On 15 December 2022 the landlord sent a works order to the developer as this repair was covered under the defects period. The developer’s plumber attended on 16 December 2022 which was quicker than the specified response time of 3-5 days under the contract for defects. At this appointment the developer’s plumber advised it was not the blending valve that was the problem. The plumber contacted the manufacturer for advice and carried out some tests.  The evidence showed that the landlord repeatedly chased the developer on 20 December 2022, the second working day after this appointment, for an update on the case. This was appropriate as the landlord was responsible for ensuring this repair was completed in accordance with its obligations in law and the resident’s tenancy agreement. The landlord also contacted the resident on 20 December 2022 to follow up on how the appointment went. This was a customer-focused approach.
  6. It is unclear from the evidence what occurred between 21 December 2022 and 12 January 2023. On 13 January 2023, an end-of-defects period inspection was carried out with the developer. This identified that there was a problem with “heating” which the end-of-defects form said had been previously noted. The end-of-defects form recorded that the developer would attend that afternoon to address the problem. The landlord stated it was advised by the developer that the repair was completed on this date. This Service has not seen evidence of this. However, the job was closed and there was no evidence to show further contact from the resident after this date until she made her complaint on 11 February 2023. It would have been appropriate and reasonable for the landlord to have followed up with the resident after the appointment on 13 January 2023 to ensure that the matter was resolved. The evidence did not show the resident was contacted after this appointment.
  7. The resident made her complaint on 11 February 2023. She also raised the outstanding problem with the hot water temperature with the landlord at a starter tenancy inspection on 14 February 2023. The landlord contacted the developer on 15 February 2023 about the outstanding problem. Although the property was out of the defects period, the landlord stated the problem was identified during the defects period and deemed unresolved. The landlord chased the developer again on 16 February 2023 and was advised that the developer’s plumber would visit that week to resolve the problem. However, the landlord was still chasing the developer on 3 March 2023 to arrange for somebody to attend the property. As the developer was not responding within the agreed timescales of the employer’s requirements which stated 3-5 days for “hot water faults or breakdowns” it would have been appropriate for the landlord to raise this formally with the developer rather than continually chasing. This may have brought a resolution sooner for the resident.
  8. The developer’s plumber was still unable to resolve the problem when it attended the property on 3 March 2023. It stated the manufacturer would need to visit. The evidence showed the landlord repeatedly tried to progress the repair with the developer. This was in accordance with the landlord’s obligations in law and the resident’s tenancy agreement. The landlord chased the developer 13 times between 6 March and 29 March 2023 to try to get confirmation of a date for the manufacturer to visit the resident’s property.
  9. The landlord escalated the problems it was experiencing with the developer to the employer’s agent on 20 March 2023 and asked them for advice on how to proceed. It was appropriate for the landlord to follow the employer’s agent’s advice. However, it would have been reasonable to have done this sooner due to the length of time that had passed, and the number of appointments the developer’s plumber had attended at the resident’s property without resolution. On 27 March 2023 a formal escalation was made to the developer’s two managing directors by the employer’s agent. The problem was also escalated internally within the landlord. The head of housing was made aware on 28 March 2023 and advised the landlord’s managing director. It would have been reasonable and proportionate for the problem to have been escalated internally within the landlord earlier. This may have helped expedite the resolution for the resident.
  10. The property had an immersion heater to provide hot water if the heat pump was not working. On two visits the engineers switched on the immersion heater as a temporary fix. The immersion heater enabled the resident and her family to have access to hot water from the bath and shower, if they wished. The resident advised the landlord on 6 March 2023 that she had switched off the immersion heater as since the immersion heater had been on her electricity bill had increased considerably. On 28 March 2023 the landlord advised the resident to turn on the immersion heater and it would reimburse her for the costs incurred to use this. This was reasonable of the landlord. There was no obligation for it to offer this support. However, it may have been beneficial for the landlord to have considered this as a remedy earlier when the resident expressed her concern on 6 March 2023.
  11. Throughout her communication, the resident advised that the problem with the hot water temperature was causing her and her family inconvenience and stress. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stress, distress and the delay in its complaint responses. It also acknowledged in its stage 1 response that the resident had a baby and recognised the stress this would have caused the resident. In both its complaint responses it also acknowledged the service the resident had received was unacceptable. In addition to acknowledging these detriments, the landlord also apologised for them which was appropriate.
  12. The landlord requested copies of the resident’s electricity bills and in the stage 1 response issued on 13 March 2023 said it would provide the resident with compensation. As the repair was still outstanding the landlord wanted to provide the compensation when the problem was resolved to calculate the correct amount to award. On 28 March 2023 the resident requested some compensation be paid as she had incurred costs now. The landlord agreed to do this which was reasonable. It provided the resident with an interim compensation payment of £400. In the stage 2 response the landlord offered the resident a further £500 compensation, making its final offer of compensation a total of £900. This was for the resident’s electricity costs for the immersion heater and for distress and inconvenience.
  13. The manufacturer attended the resident’s property and fixed the problem on 5 April 2023. When the resident was unable to be at home for this appointment the landlord organised getting access to the property with the resident via a key safe. The landlord sent two of its staff and its heating contractor to attend the appointment. This was a resolution-focused approach.
  14. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response issued on 25 April 2023 that learnings had been taken from the resident’s case. It advised that the problems with communication and the subcontractor had been taken “incredibly seriously” and discussed at a senior level. This demonstrated the landlord was willing to learn from the identified service failure in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of “learn from outcomes”.
  15. Considering the above, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord made an offer of redress which was satisfactory in resolving the complaint. This is because the landlord acknowledged the unacceptable delay in the repair being resolved. It apologised to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord awarded a total of £900 compensation which has already been paid to the resident. It should be noted that the amount of compensation awarded to the resident by the landlord exceeded what this Service would likely have awarded for the oversights identified.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the hot water from the bath and shower, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.