Flagship Housing Group Limited (202317828)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202317828
Flagship Housing Group Limited
27 February 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property condition.
Background
- The resident held an assured tenancy from 10 June 2002 to 25 May 2023. The property was a 2-bed mid–terraced town house. The landlord is a housing association.
- The landlord obtained the property on 10 December 2012 following a stock transfer from another housing association. The resident was rehoused to a new address by the landlord on 26 May 2023.
- The resident and her partner have medical conditions. The resident has anxiety, depression, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. The resident’s partner has back, neck and knee problems. He also experienced breathing problems since Covid-19.
- The landlord’s repair records show the property was inspected on 4 August 2021 and 14 October 2021. The inspections found the property was an old, terraced cottage style house without damp prevention and:
- The kitchen units were in a poor condition with excessive mould behind them.
- There was an ongoing damp patch by the front and living room door.
- The shed needed a new door.
- Environmental health had been contacted and the damp and mould team should carry out an inspection.
- The landlord’s records have a 7-month gap until 13 May 2022 when it recorded that the resident was told the positive input ventilation (PIV) system should not be turned off. The PIV installed filtered air to expel the damp and reduce the smell and mould. An alternative PIV system could be installed which would heat the air, which would be more expensive to run. The resident was to discuss the alternative option with her partner.
- On 10 February 2023, the landlord received the resident’s mutual exchange application. A property inspection was arranged for 20 February 2023.
- The housing officer attended and recorded the property was in poor condition. The mutual exchange would not proceed and the property was recommended for disposal. Also, the resident would be considered for a managed move.
- The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 8 May 2023. The resident said:
- Environmental health had inspected the property in 2011 and the landlord had not acted.
- She had sent medical letters and the landlord had not responded.
- She felt disrespected and unheard by the landlord.
- She and her partner had mental health conditions, including depression.
- The property had many defects described as: rising damp, dangerous stairs which her partner had fallen through, rotten kitchen, asbestos pipes, damp from the roof, defective walls, doors and skirting.
- A replacement kitchen was promised in 2017 and never materialised. There were rats in the property due to defective sewage pipes.
- The extractor fan blew out cold air which caused the property to feel cold.
- The landlord decided to dispose of the property after she applied for a mutual exchange.
- The resident informed the landlord on 16 May 2023 that the compensation discussed was too low for the experience she had. The resident thanked the officer for finding her a new property and the relocation payment received. However, she wanted compensation for the time spent living in poor conditions as the only action taken by the landlord was to install extractor fans. The resident went on to say that the kitchen was rotten and full of damp and mould. She had to throw out her belongings due to mould growth.
- The resident’s new tenancy started on 23 May 2023.
- The landlord sent its complaint response on 21 June 2023. It acknowledged that the property was beyond economic repair and approved for disposal. The housing officer had worked with the resident to help her move to another property and the resident did not want to pay full rent for the time spent living in poor conditions. The landlord acknowledged the impact of this matter on the resident. It also said it had discussed a compensation award of £1,500 with the resident. It acknowledged the resident was dissatisfied with the compensation award and was going to obtain further advice.
- On 30 June 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. In a call with the landlord, she said that it had not taken seriously the impact of living in an unsuitable property.
- The landlord sent its final complaint response on 31 July 2023 as follows:
- It had reviewed the repairs history for the property and all repairs had been completed apart from those required to the kitchen.
- It acknowledged that it had not installed a new kitchen.
- In February 2023, it determined the property was beyond repair due to the age and works required. Once it determined the property would be sold, the resident was helped to move using the assisted move disposal programme.
- The resident had moved to a new property and received the home loss payment.
- It had not delivered the appropriate level of service and apologised to the resident for the delays experienced and for not completing kitchen repairs.
- It had implemented a robust process when properties were earmarked for disposal with repairs completed and regular contact with residents.
- It apologised for the service received and noted that the resident was taking her own legal advice.
- It agreed to increase the compensation awarded from £1,500 to £2,000. This was for its service failures and contribution towards damaged items.
- The landlord contacted the resident on 21 August 2023 to enquire whether she had decided to accept the compensation award. The resident said she was not willing to accept the compensation award and had contacted our Service.
- The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to us.
Policies and procedures
- The landlord’s repair policy says that properties must meet the Government’s Decent Homes guidance. It must also provide a cost-effective repairs and maintenance service to homes. The landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in a good state of repair.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may become unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. The resident complained that the landlord did not address damp dating back to 2012. We are unable to investigate events dating back this far, particularly given the availability and reliability of evidence. This assessment has therefore focused on the more recent period from 2021 onwards.
- Whilst the Ombudsman is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property condition
- The resident has described the distress and inconvenience experienced when she lived at the property. She also expressed her frustration with the landlord’s handling of the poor living conditions. The resident’s feelings are acknowledged as living in such situations would inevitably have been difficult and stressful for the resident and her family.
- The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed its policies and procedures. The landlord is expected to act appropriately in response to the reports it received. This Service will consider whether the landlord’s response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In doing so, the Ombudsman will not only consider the landlord’s response to the substantive issue but also the actions it took within its complaints process.
- The landlord has demonstrated in its complaint responses that it has formally acknowledged and accepted its service failures regarding its repairing obligations. The landlord recognised the service delivered to the resident was not acceptable. It also acknowledged that it did not replace the kitchen as it agreed to. Overall, its failure to act meant that the resident experienced a significantly delayed response. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising to the resident for the service failures and offering compensation of £2,000.
- We have considered whether the landlord’s compensation award was reasonable given the service failures experienced by the resident. We have done so using the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. One of the factors that the Ombudsman considers is whether the redress is proportionate to the severity of the service failure and the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to a resident.
- It is not disputed that the property condition was not suitable for the resident and her family. Nevertheless, overall, the actions taken by the landlord since February 2023, when it carried out the mutual exchange inspection, were appropriate. It decided that the property required extensive repairs. Consequently, the resident needed a move to another property.
- The resident is unhappy that she had to live in unsuitable conditions for a prolonged period of time as the landlord did not act prior to February 2023. The landlord has acknowledged in its complaint response that its records were incomplete.
- However, its records do show that it inspected the property due to damp and mould in the second half of 2021 and that it was aware follow-on works were needed, including a kitchen refurbishment. By May 2022, it was further aware of the presence of damp and mould in the property and had installed a PIV to manage this. There is no evidence that the landlord monitored the situation or assessed whether the PIV was acting as it should. This is not reasonable as the landlord has obligations to keep the property in repair and it is evident it did not do so up to the point the resident moved in the first half of 2023.
- In its final complaint response, the landlord accepted that it did not undertake an agreed kitchen replacement. This caused inconvenience to the resident as the kitchen units had reached a state of disrepair. For this, the landlord apologised to the resident and part of the compensation award was in recognition of this failing.
- The landlord took appropriate steps by arranging for the resident to be rehoused. The housing officer assisted with the application to the local council and the landlord made a home loss award in line with its policy. Within 3 months, the housing application was approved and the resident obtained a new tenancy. It assisted with the resident’s move by agreeing to dispose of white goods that she left in the property. These were all reasonable and resolution-focused actions.
- Before deciding on the compensation award, the landlord spoke to the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to try to obtain a proper understanding of the impact on the resident. However, it is noted that the landlord initially discussed making a compensation award of £200 which it said could go towards the purchase of a lawnmower.
- The landlord’s reasoning was that as the resident was moving a new tenancy, she would require a lawnmower. The offer was declined by the resident. She felt that she had not been heard and the landlord had not properly understood the impact on her and her family. While the landlord had made the statutory home loss payment to the resident, the initial compensation award of £200 was too low.
- The assessment of damaged items would normally be the responsibility of insurers. Therefore, it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine negligence. This is because the Ombudsman cannot make legally-binding decisions in the way a tribunal or court may. In this particular case, the landlord did not refer the resident to make a liability claim under its insurance policy but considered this under its complaint policy. This was reasonable considering the resident and her partner’s vulnerabilities and that the resident had already disposed of the belongings. Therefore, it was unlikely the resident had sufficient evidence to support an insurance claim.
- It was appropriate that the landlord spoke with the resident to obtain an understanding of the belongings damaged before reaching its decision. During the discussion, the resident had the opportunity to give the landlord information about the damaged belongings. The landlord determined there was damage due to the property condition and its compensation award included an amount for this.
- The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response within the time limits outlined in its complaints policy or our Complaint Handling Code. It took 30 working days to respond. It is noted that the landlord was communicating with the resident within this period. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that it agreed an extension with the resident. This was unreasonable.
- The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s overall compensation award of £2,000. It is our view that this was a proportionate offer given the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of property condition concerns and the related complaint. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance says that compensation exceeding £1,000 should be awarded where there have been serious failings by a landlord which had a severe long-term detrimental impact to the resident.
- The landlord was aware of potential harmful living conditions for the resident at least as early as late 2021 and these were not fully addressed in the 18 months up to the resident leaving the property. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to award a significant level of compensation, including an amount for potential damage to possessions.
- In summary, the landlord accepted that its service provision to the resident should have been better. It identified its failings and the impact on the resident. The compensation award and sincere apology were sufficient given all the circumstances of the case. The landlord also gave assurance that, in future, it would improve its communications and repair responses when dealing with properties due to be disposed of. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress has been made.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident, prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
Recommendations
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, if it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the total £2,000 compensation it awarded in its final complaint response dated 31 July 2023. The reasonable redress finding has been made on the basis that this amount is paid to the resident
- The landlord should reply to this Service to confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation.