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

Flagship Housing Group Limited (202229998)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229998

Flagship Housing Group Limited

29 February 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a damage front entrance door and frame.
    2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leasehold who purchased a 50% share of the property in June 2020. The landlord is the freeholder. The property is a two-bedroom house. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities listed for the resident in its systems. However, the resident has told this Service she receives higher level PIP for mobility issues, specifically, arthritis in her spine and ankles.
  2. On 16 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to enquire about repair responsibility for the front door. The landlord informed the resident that this would be her responsibility, however, agreed to check for details of any warranties in place. The landlord also referred the resident to the National Housing Building Council (NHBC) to see if a claim could be made under their Buildmark scheme. The resident employed her own contractor to adjust the door who informed her the damage was due to a defect when the building was built. As such, the resident returned to the landlord, who inspected the door in January 2022 and informed the resident it would undertake renewal as this was the landlord’s responsibility.
  3. In June 2022 the landlord’s contractors measured the works required and provided a quote to the landlord. However, in October 2022 the landlord informed the resident that the works would not be undertaken as the repair was the resident’s responsibility. On 31 October 2022 the resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the situation. The landlord responded at the first stage of its complaints process on 10 November 2022. The response said that the Tenant Voice Officer was seeking advice on whether the developer or landlord could undertake works to the door and would convey any decisions to the resident once they’d been made.
  4. On 21 December 2022 the resident escalated her complaint to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord provided its final response on 19 January 2023 and apologised that the resident had been provided conflicting information about whose responsibility the repair was. However, it ultimately decided this was the resident’s responsibility and it would not undertake the works. The landlord offered £500 compensation to the resident.
  5. In bringing her complaint to this Service the resident has said:
    1. She was not satisfied with the resolution offered in her complaint.
    2. As the damage is caused by a building defect the landlord should be responsible for remedying.
    3. The landlord originally accepted responsibility for the repair however changed its mind.

Assessment and findings

Damaged front entrance door and frame

  1. On 16 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord by phone to enquire about the repair responsibility for a damaged front door. The landlord informed the resident that this would be her responsibility but that it would check if any warranties were in place.
  2. The landlord followed up with an email to the resident on 17 November 2021 confirming the repair was the resident’s responsibility but that it was looking into warranties. This was an appropriate response overall, however, as part of the landlord’s response it mentioned a time period of 5 years. It said that “as your property is over 5 years old this would be your repairs responsibility under the terms of the lease”. Having reviewed the lease this Service is unable to determine the significance of the property being over 5 years old. It is not relevant to the lease or the defects liability period. This was a failing in communication and caused confusion in later interactions.
  3. On 9 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord again. She informed it that she had employed a private contractor to adjust the door. The contractor had informed her that the issue was with the door frame and that she believed the landlord was responsible to repair. The landlord informed the resident that she should seek to make a claim with the NHBC. This was appropriate advice because as a new-build property certain defects would be covered by the extended warranty provided by the NHBC. The NHBC warranty covered all defects for a period of 2 years and structural issues for a period of 10 years.
  4. The landlord made direct contact with the resident’s contractor that same day and he informed it that he did not believe the door frame had been fitted correctly when the house was built. The landlord also responded to an enquiry from the NHBC concerning the property and informed the resident of its actions. It provided further information to the NHBC on 14 December 2021. These were appropriate actions and undertaken in a timely fashion.
  5. On 10 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord informing it that she had received a response from the NHBC. It had recommended she seek to raise a claim through the buildings insurance or make contact with the manufacturer to see if any guarantees were provided to the developer.
  6. The landlord responded on 11 January 2022 providing details of its building insurance policy and guidance on how to make a claim. It also informed the resident that it would seek information about any warranties or guarantees provided to the developer. However, could not refer the matter back to the builder as it was outside of the defects period. It followed this up with a phone call to discuss the issues directly with the resident. This was an appropriate response and in line with information provided prior to the sale and signed by the resident which said “Should I need to make a buildings insurance claim I will need to contact the insurance provider directly.”
  7. On 18 January 2022 the landlord contacted the resident offering an appointment for a member of the Asset Team to inspect the door the next day. It is not in dispute that at this appointment the resident was informed that the door and frame are the landlord’s responsibility and would be replaced. Given the landlord later confirmed this was incorrect information this was unreasonable. The impact of this information being given to the resident was significant. Both in terms of the time and effort invested in chasing the landlord to undertake the works and distress.
  8. On 25 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord for more information about when the new door would be installed. On 4 March 2022 the landlord told the resident that it was liaising with its Asset Management Team and would let her know when they had an update. However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident in a reasonable time causing her to have to contact it again on 12 May 2022. At this time she was told details had been passed to a contractor to arrange a quote.
  9. The contractor attended the resident’s property to measure the door and frame on 13 June 2022. Given the landlord later states that these works are the resident’s responsibility this was unreasonable. It resulted in wasted time for the resident and wasted resources for the landlord. It also contributed to the distress caused to the resident by raising her expectations works would be undertaken by the landlord. The landlord also failed to follow up with the resident regarding the works which resulted in her having to chase it again. Which she did on 2 August 2022, 5 September 2022 and 4 October 2022.
  10. On 13 October 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it was referring the matter back to the NHBC. On 18 October 2022 the NHBC responded confirming that the issue is not something it covered and it was unable to assist. On 28 October 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it was unable to facilitate the repairs and that these were the resident’s responsibility. This was 9 months after having informed the resident the works would take place and caused significant distress. On 31 October 2022 the resident made a formal complaint.
  11. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 10 November 2022. In its response the landlord said that it was liaising with the developer and that it would respond to the resident once decisions had been made. However, it did not keep the resident updated, resulting in the resident contacting the landlord for updates on 22 November 2022 and 13 December 2022. This was unreasonable. On 21 December 2022 the resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint to the second stage of its complaints process.
  12. The landlord provided its final response to the resident on 19 January 2022. It said that shared owners are responsible for repairs in their homes. The landlord explained the reason for its decision by referring to the lease. This was appropriate as the lease sets out the contractual responsibilities of both parties. However, the Ombudsman cannot make a binding decision on whether the landlord’s interpretation of the lease was correct, because producing a definitive or binding ruling on the interpretation of the lease would be a matter for the courts or tribunal. Should the resident disagree with the landlord’s interpretation of the lease she can seek independent legal advice with regards how to challenge this.
  13. The Ombudsman has carefully considered the resident’s comments that as the issue is a building defect the landlord should take responsibility for this. As with any home purchase, the principle of ‘caveat emptor’ or ‘let the buyer beware’ will apply, which implies that it is for the buyer to ensure that the goods about to be purchased are fit for purpose and meet their specific requirements, and they bear the risk. It is also the reason that a number of defect policies and warranties exist. They ensure that snagging issues and defects are resolved by the appropriate party during a defined period post purchase. The only protections in place when the property was constructed was a one year defects liability period which expired in 2017 and the warranty provided by the NHBC. The resident purchased the property in June 2020 from its original owner. Therefore, as the landlord had satisfied itself that door was the resident’s responsibility, it was reasonable for it to convey this to the resident.
  14. Overall the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports have been characterised by miscommunications, delays and failures to keep the resident updated. However, as part of its final response to the resident the landlord has offered £500 compensation in recognition of the miscommunication, delay and inconvenience caused. Having carefully considered this offer it is the Ombudsman’s opinion it represents reasonable redress to the resident. It is noted it is in-line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for where there has been maladministration which adversely affected the resident.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that “we define a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual tenant or group of tenants.’” Given this, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that, a formal complaint should have been logged much earlier than when it was on 31 October 2022.
  2. It is noted that the resident expressed dissatisfaction following the landlord informing her that if no warranty was in place she would be responsible for the repair on 11 January 2022. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction with delays in her email to the landlord on 8 June 2022 and again in her email of 4 October 2022. These were missed opportunities to engage the complaints process and offer a fulsome response to the resident earlier than it did which was unreasonable.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy also states “Stage One … Our response will include: … the decision on the complaint … the reasons for any decision made … the details of any remedy offered to put things right … details of any learning from the complaint.” However, having reviewed the landlord’s stage one response, it is noted that it lacked any kind of learning and demonstrated a lack of investigation. This was unreasonable and contributed to the resident escalating the complaint to stage two.
  4. The landlord’s stage two response went some way to making amends by providing the resident with a more detailed response. However, its delay in accepting the issue as a complaint and the stage one’s lack of investigation caused inconvenience to the resident and amounts to service failure. As such an order is set out below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a damaged door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord should take the following action within the next 4 weeks and provide evidence of compliance with this order to the Ombudsman:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £550 compensation which includes:
      1. £500 offered at stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. (if this has not already been paid)
      2. £50 for the inconvenience caused to the resident through the landlord’s handling of her complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure that the resident’s arthritis is recorded on its systems as a vulnerability. It should speak with the resident to understand how this affects her ability to interact with the landlord and ensure any reasonable adjustments required are put in place.