Flagship Housing Group Limited (202304884)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304884

Flagship Housing Group Limited

31 May 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:
1. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord to replace damaged items.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property to rectify the damp issue reported by the resident.
3. The landlords decision to place a staff safety alert on the resident’s account.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlords response to the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, she lives in a 3 bed semi-detached house. The tenancy began on 22 December 2001 prior to a stock transfer to the current landlord on 13 February 2006. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. In correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident has stated she is listed as a “vulnerable tenant”.
Correspondence has been seen where the resident has stated she has had issues with damp in her property for over 20 years. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman, it first received reports of damp in August 2021 which was referred to its asset management team in September 2021. The landlord inspected the property on 4 October 2021 and noted that no property defects were causing damp issues. An independent, non-intrusive damp and mould survey was undertaken on 14 January 2022. This recommended further readings should be taken from the floor slab to the kitchen and hallway as it appeared that excess moisture was being introduced to the property and elevated dampness was recorded on some internal walls and party wall.
Further correspondence shows the property had a kitchen replacement in July 2022 and remedial works to rectify the damp issue were scheduled for September 2022. The remedial works required the whole of the ground floor to be replaced therefore it was agreed that the resident needed to be decanted for about 1 week. The works started on 5 September 2022, the resident’s belongings were stored within the property and its outbuildings. The resident returned to the property on 7 September 2022 and was not happy with how her belongings had been stored. Following this she requested work be stopped until her belongings were stored safely. Following a meeting with the resident on 8 September 2022 at the property, the landlord placed a staff safety alert on the property to advise staff not to visit alone due to the residents behaviour, which it detailed as verbal abuse.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 October 2022 and made a complaint online on 24 October 2022 as she was not happy with how the works had started at her property, how her items were stored and being informed a “flag” had been placed on her account. Within her complaint, the resident:
1. Said she wanted her personal belongings removed and stored safely, not in the outhouse as suggested.
2. Said she found her furniture “haphazardly” stacked in the property when she had returned to collect some belongings.
3. Said the landlord had refused to give back her keys when she asked for them the next day which resulted in her shouting but she was not threatening.
4. Advised she had emailed the landlord on 11 September 2022 and asked for a manager to contact her, but this request was “ignored”.
5. The next contact she had from the landlord was 3 weeks later when a letter was sent to say a “flag” had been placed on her account.
6. During the kitchen works she was left with a floor covered in “wet tar” and was “poisoned by the toxic fumes”.
7. She had not received an apology or explanation.
8. She concluded by asking her complaint be investigated, damage to be repaired and her belongings removed and stored safely so works can continue.
The resident requested her complaint be escalated on 30 November 2022. The resident told the landlord she was “registered disabled and a vulnerable tenant”. She was not happy with how her belongings were stored and was anxious about how the work was progressing when she returned to her property in September 2022. Due to her past experience with contractors which was reported to the police she felt “extremely vulnerable”.
Following this, on 14 December 2022 the resident reported a burst pipe in her outhouse and her furniture had been damaged. The landlord visited the property on 19 December 2022 where it advised the resident should check if her insurance would cover the damaged items and it was agreed the resident could remain in the property whilst the work progressed, however she was unwilling to have the work completed until the flag on her account was removed. The landlord removed the flag on 22 December 2022 and advised the resident over the phone.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 December 2022 following its visit on 19 December 2022. Within its response, the landlord:
1. Provided a list of the agreed works to the property.
2. Confirmed it was agreed the resident would remain whilst the works took place.
3. Advised after a review of the “flag”, it understood the resident was upset at the time and had now removed this from her account.
4. Apologised for how the furniture was stored as there was some “miscommunication” about the agreement.
5. It would look to cover the cost of repair for the damaged items.
6. Apologised for the damage to the belongings due to the leak in the outbuilding on 14 December 2022 and it would look to ensure the resident was “put back in the position” she was in before.
7. Confirmed, with the residents agreement the damaged items would be disposed of by the landlord.
8. Said it would provide the COSHH data sheets as requested by the resident.
9. Apologised for not communicating the access needed in the kitchen.
10. Apologised the resident felt “anxious” due to missing keys and advised it could do a lock change.
11. Clarified there was no reason for any operative to have gone upstairs, it had spoken to the contractors and they advised they had not gone upstairs.
12. It concluded by apologising for the lack of communication during the works.
The landlord provided a follow on response to its stage 2 response on 24 January 2023 and provided the COSHH information the resident had requested.
Extensive correspondence between the resident and landlord has been seen following its final response to agree a start date for the work and the landlord offered the resident £2640.99 to reimburse the resident for some of her personal belongings. The internal works were completed in April 2023 and a storage container was used to house any items that needed to be removed from the property.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 10 May 2023. Within correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident has stated her house no longer feels like a home as she lost nearly all her possessions to the damage caused by the leak in the outhouse. The impact the process has had on her mental health had been “huge”. To resolve her complaint, the resident would like:
1. An apology from the landlord and an admission they have mishandled her case.
2. A commitment from the landlord to better practise when completing works on their homes.
3. To be compensated for the further £1688.96 for items lost which the landlord had disputed liability for.
4. Compensation for the impact on her mental health and family.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion 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”.
The Ombudsman will not consider claims for damaged personal items, as these should be referred to the landlord’s insurers. Unlike the courts or insurance companies, we are not able to make a legally binding determination on whether the landlord has been negligent or whether it is liable for damages. The Ombudsman does not have the jurisdiction to award damages, nor does it have the necessary expertise to assess liability and determine loss. These are matters within the jurisdiction of the court and the Ombudsman cannot provide a legal determination.
Therefore, after carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint concerning the amount of compensation offered for damaged personal belongings sits outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme.

Scope of investigation

Evidence has been seen which suggests the situation has directly impacted the residents wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property to rectify the damp issue reported by the resident.

The evidence provided for this investigation shows the landlord being made aware of a damp issue at the property on correspondence about other issues the resident was reporting in August 2021. The resident has advised that she has been reporting damp for the past 20 years. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments however this investigation will focus on the landlords actions from August 2021. This is also in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period of the matter occurring.
In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 amended the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, with the aim of ensuring that all rented accommodation is fit for human habitation. It required landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. Section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act states that when considering whether a property is fit for human habitation, regard should be given to various matters including repair and freedom from damp.
The landlord’s website states the responsibility for handling damp and mould is shared between it and the resident. It says an important part of this responsibility is preventing the damp in the first place. Evidence has been seen that suggested the damp issue initially reported by the resident was noted to be due to condensation. The independent survey on 14 January 2022, instructed by the landlord noted this as a possibility also and that the resident did not heat her home efficiently, but rather as and when required. This survey recommended some remedial works and further readings to be taken from the property.
It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to investigate further as per the recommendations from the survey, however it is not clear from the landlords records what further tests took place prior to its decision to carry out an extensive list of remedial works to rectify the damp issue, a decant form in July 2022 suggests the works could not go ahead until a decant was found. These works were then not scheduled in until September 2022. The landlord has been unable to demonstrate this amount of time was reasonable and it is not clear from the evidence provided the reasons for the delay. Evidence was provided which showed the resident chasing up the works for her property on numerous occasions between April and July 2022. This caused avoidable time and trouble for the resident.
It was reasonable for the landlord to decide, due to the scope of the works, for the resident and her pets to be temporarily decanted for the works to take place. However, no evidence has been seen to show any agreement to what would happen at the property was documented, which in the circumstance, was not appropriate and then became the focus of the resident’s complaint with the landlord. It is important for effective communication around situations where residents are moved out of their homes temporarily, the resident should be kept fully informed of the plan of works and a clear timeframe of when such works will happen. Any changes to an agreement made should be fully documented. It is evident in this case that the landlord’s communication around the start of these works was not as effective as it could have been.
The works started early September 2022 and came to a halt when the resident disagreed with how her belongings had been stored. The landlord apologised for the miscommunication over the matter of storing belongings in the outbuilding in its final complaint response in December 2022, however prior to this no apology was offered to the resident, which was not appropriate. In its stage 1 response the landlord advised it deemed the outbuilding as suitable for short term storage and as the work was scheduled for about a week, the items would have been returned inside once the works were complete. This was a reasonable stance to take by the landlord at the time.
Following this and the residents disagreement, the landlord’s communication was lacking, with just a letter sent on 21 September 2022 to advise that a staff safety alert had been placed on the residents account and an agreement to sign in order for works to continue. The landlord could have made further attempts to contact the customer to gain her agreement for works to progress as it was aware the property was damp and her items were not stored in a place for long term use. No evidence has been seen to show any attempt to contact the resident was made between issuing its stage 1 complaint response on 4 November 2022 and when the resident reported a burst pipe to the outbuilding on 14 December 2022, which is not a reasonable amount of time.
It was unfortunate that a leak occurred in the outbuilding on 14 December 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to attend the property swiftly after this on 19 December 2022 in a bid to resolve the issue and complaint for the resident. The visit was well documented by the landlord and focussed on what it could for the works to commence and resolve the damp issues for the resident which was appropriate.
The Ombudsman has sympathy with the resident that the period for which the repairs were required was a difficult and distressing time. It is not clear as to when the landlord decided to instruct the remedial works however it was reasonable for it to do so. The landlord could have communicated better with the resident around the works starting and then following the disagreement of storage which is a service failure by the landlord.

The landlords decision to place a staff safety alert on the resident’s account.

The landlord recorded detailed accounts of the incident which resulted in the work at the property being placed on hold in September 2022. Evidence has been seen to show that the landlord followed its alerts procedure in requesting a staff safety alert on the residents account following this. It also wrote to the resident on 16 September 2022 to advise of the alert being placed onto her account. Although the resident disputed this, the landlord did have an obligation to ensure its contractors or staff are able to work in an environment free from abuse.
The Ombudsman is unable to form a view as to which party’s account of the incident on 7 September 2022 is most accurate, nor is it able to offer a diagnosis of the issue. It is however apparent from the evidence seen by this investigation that the relationship between the landlord and resident had broken down. The resident was undoubtedly upset with what she saw as inappropriate conduct in her property, however her refusal to allow the landlord access to continue works due to a flag being placed on her account and the storage of her items was unreasonable, contrary to the conditions of the tenancy and obstructed the landlord in resolving the issues in a more timely manner. The landlord sought, through different staff members to engage with the resident, however, was unable to come to a mutual agreement to progress the works which was reasonable action to take at the time.
The landlord upon review, removed the flag on the residents account on 22 December 2022 and attempted to arrange the works to progress for a further 3 months. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the breakdown in communication prior to this, the landlord could have considered seeking additional support to help it engage with the resident and thereby resolve the issues.
Taking the above into consideration, no evidence has been seen to show that the landlord acted in an inappropriate manner in placing a staff safety alert on the residents account, therefore a finding of no maladministration has been made.

The landlords handing of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time, stated that at stage 1 it would aim to respond to complaints within 10 working days and acknowledge these within 5 working days of receiving the complaint. For stage 2 it would aim to review a complaint and respond within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated to stage 2. This policy details any extensions to timeframes at either stage would be communicated and agreed with the complainant.
Evidence was provided which showed the resident advising the landlord on 6 April 2022 and 12 June 2022 of her clear dissatisfaction with the lack of repair and communication from the landlord. Each of these contacts could have been recorded as a complaint, moreover it is of concern that the landlord has not provided its recorded response to these communications which is not appropriate. In addition to this in the telephone call on 6 April 2022, the resident made a comment about her mental health and “not being able to cope for much longer”. In other communications with the landlord evidence has been seen of similar statements from the resident. No evidence has been seen to show the landlords acknowledgement of these statements by the resident or any appropriate safeguarding referral.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 24 October 2022 and responded on 4 November 2022, which is in line with its policy. It also called the resident in between these dates which was reasonable. Its stage 1 response however, failed to grasp how upset the resident was with the situation and did not show empathy towards her in the situation.
Its final response, showed an improved resolution focus, for example, records show discussions with the resident to reach a resolution and although the landlord acknowledged and apologised for some service failures it failed to offer any form of redress to the resident, except for offering to look at reimbursement for some items and a lock change. Although the landlord has, following its complaints process, offered to reimburse the resident £2640.99 for some damaged items it offered no redress for any distress or inconvenience, which is not appropriate. While the landlord accepted its failings and apologised, the lack of offer of redress in its final complaint response was not reasonable in the circumstance of this case. Its lack of detail in its investigation into its lack of communication around the works resulted in the resident remaining dissatisfied, which further damaged, the already fraught landlord and tenant relationship. Taking the above into consideration a finding of service failure has been made for how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the amount of compensation offered by the landlord to replace damaged items is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of repairs at the property to rectify the damp issue reported by the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its decision to place a staff safety alert on the resident’s account.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident in total £700, to include:
1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs at the property to rectify the damp issue reported by the resident.
2. £100 for the failures identified in how it responded to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 6 weeks of this determination.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 10 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must initiate and complete a senior management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan for its senior leadership team to consider. This plan that must be shared with the Ombudsman outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its procedures involving remedial works where a resident requires to be decanted, this should include an agreement for storage of any goods and how this is documented.
2. The timeliness of its actions in response to reports of damp and mould, the sequence of remedial works which follow, which should occur after resolving the underlying issue. The landlord may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould (October 2021) for reference.
3. Its intention and a timescale to review its procedures in relation to resident’s vulnerabilities. In doing so, demonstrate how it will record and use vulnerability information to provide any additional support that may be required or make suitable referrals, such as safeguarding, as appropriate.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 10 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord review its procedure for safety alerts, including its communications to residents where there is evidence of potential underlying vulnerabilities.