The Guinness Partnership Limited (202102041)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102041

The Guinness Partnership Limited

1 July 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

1. The complaint is regarding the landlord’s:  
   1. Handling of a repair following a reported leak.
   2. Response to the resident’s request for replacement flooring damaged by the leak.
2. This Service has also considered how the landlord managed the resident’s complaint through its complaint procedures.

Background and summary of events

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He has resided in the property, a one-bedroom flat, since July 2005.
4. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure and states that it aims to provide a response within ten working days at both Stage One and Stage Two of its procedure. It is noted that the landlord has updated its complaints policy as of July 2021 but at the time of the resident’s complaint, Section 12 of its previous Complaints and Compensation Policy stated ‘a goodwill gesture may be given where we agree we should have provided a better customer experience…and an apology alone would not be proportionate’. It stipulates that goodwill gestures are ‘different to compensation payments…(which) are used to recompense customers for actual evidenced loss or expenses occurred as a consequence of our actions or inactions’. It also notes that the landlord will ‘always carry out repairs to remedy any situation where it is our responsibility to do so’.
5. Section 4.8 of the resident’s tenancy agreement (‘Improvements and alterations’) states ‘if you want to improve, change or add to your home, you must ask us first, and get our permission in writing…this includes…changing or adding to our fixtures and fittings or anything we have installed’. Section 4.9 also notes that the landlord is not obliged to give permission.
6. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy notes that it considers reports of ‘a flood or leak that cannot be contained’ to be an emergency repair, requiring a response within 24 hours.

Summary of Events

7. On 16 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report a leak in his property. The landlord’s repair records provide the following timeline regarding its handling of the repair:
   1. On 17 July an entry stated ‘please investigate leak in customer’s property which has become worse overnight. Property above checked and no signs’.
   2. On 20 July a further entry advised ‘this needs sorting today’ and recorded that the resident had advised the leak was ‘getting really bad, someone has been out twice and just drawn a line around the leak, this needs fixing today’. An additional note on the landlord’s Customer Records Management (CRM) system noted that the resident advised he had had two engineers attend already and the leak was now ‘affecting three walls and going into light fittings’. Notes suggested the landlord’s contractor had carried out inspections in the flat above but had not been able to identify the source of the leak. The contractor stated the resident had refused to allow them to ‘cut out’ a section of his ceiling to investigate further, but the landlord’s records also noted that the resident denied saying this.
   3. On 24 July records show the landlord raised an order to ‘take down a section of ceiling & plasterboard in the hallway walls to investigate leak’, while on 29 July another order was raised for ‘further removal of plasterboard to hallway wall and investigate source of leak from pipe going up through concrete to floor above. Water is still dripping onto plastic sheet so needs attention asap’.
   4. The following day a further record noted that ‘customer has uncontainable leak now inside property, please attend and make safe’.
   5. The landlord returned on 5 August to inspect the hallway walls and ceiling and the following day raised an order to ‘remove remaining and replace plasterboard duct case to wall and small section of ceiling…(add) stain block, fill cracks and repaint to make good’.
8. On 10 August 2020, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord. Within his complaint he raised the following points and concerns:
   1. The landlord attended on 16 July 2020 but was ‘not able to stem the flow of water into the flat’ and the same happened again the following day. He noted that the landlord attended several further times, including on 20, 21, 23 and between 25 and 29 July 2020 without managing to identify the source of the leak. The leak was finally resolved on 31 July 2020.
   2. While the landlord’s surveyor advised him on 31 July 2020 that ‘damage to the flooring in the passage would be rectified’ by the landlord, but ‘flooring in other rooms would not be as there was no damage’, he considered that his flooring should be ‘reinstated to the condition that it was in before the deluge, and as (the) floor was laid monolithically from the front door of the flat to the bedroom and sitting room’. He stated he ‘was not prepared to accept’ different flooring in any room and expected the same monolithic flooring.
   3. He was unhappy with the landlord’s offer, which amounted to covering the labour costs of replacing the flooring in the property, but it would only pay for the flooring in the passageway, and the resident would have to pay for any additional flooring he wanted replacing in other rooms.
   4. He believed the landlord had a ‘duty of care’ to replace all the flooring in the property. He provided measurements and a quote for £469.68 to replace the flooring throughout the property (£319.68 for the flooring, purchased from a High Street DIY/home improvement store, and £150 for labour) and advised that he considered this to be his desired remedy, also taking into consideration the ‘stress…and inconvenience’ he had endured from the leak.
9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day. It contacted him a day later to discuss the complaint in more detail, noting that his complaint was not about its handling of the leak repair specifically but rather its response to the resident’s request for all the flooring in his property to be replaced.
10. Internal landlord correspondence from 12 August 2020 indicates that it noted the resident had been ‘inconvenienced a lot’ and that it should consider offering to ‘replace the flooring as a whole as a GOGW (gesture of goodwill)’. Following that, while it is apparent that the resident and landlord had further correspondence regarding the issue, there are no further recorded emails or diary notes available.
11. On 12 October 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. In its response, it noted the following:
    1. It acknowledged that its handling of the leak repair ‘could have been carried out to a higher standard’. It apologised for this and advised it had passed feedback to its contractors.
    2. It advised that its ‘local teams’ had tried to provide a resolution to repair the damaged flooring’ (following the leak), although it stated that ‘any floor coverings in your home are your responsibility’ and that it encouraged residents to take out contents insurance.
    3. It advised it was ‘unable to determine if the damage (caused by the leak) could have been avoided had the repair been completed sooner’ but, as it acknowledged that its service ‘could have been better’, it had offered to replace the resident’s flooring. It clarified its offer and advised that it would only rectify the damage to the affected ‘area/room and not the flooring throughout the rest of the property’. It noted that the type of flooring the resident had installed was ‘unfortunate’ but that its offer to cover the cost of laying further flooring throughout the property (if purchased by the resident) stood and that as it considered this to be a ‘reasonable resolution’, it would not be able to offer anything further.
12. The resident replied the same day expressing his disappointment at the landlord’s response and requested that it confirm its offer regarding the flooring replacement in writing, in particular the costs it was willing to cover. He contested that he should not have to claim on his insurance as the landlord should have insurance of its own. The landlord provided a further response on 14 October 2020, advising it would follow-up with its formal offer in writing but also advising that it was now offering £50 compensation for the delay in issuing its response.
13. On 15 October 2020, the resident advised he would be seeking advice as to whether or not he should accept the landlord’s compensation offer. He also raised the following issues:
    1. He had raised the issue of his flooring being replaced ‘long before there was any damage’ and he had been advised that he would be compensated and the landlord should have recordings of these conversations.
    2. He acknowledged the landlord’s reluctance to replace flooring that was ‘not directly affected by the leak’ but considered that it had a duty to restore the property to the condition it was in prior to the leak.
    3. He also stated that ‘the flooring was not damaged until the second week (of the leak)’ and that he had been advised by the landlord’s surveyor to remove the flooring.
14. On 20 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and declined its offer of £50 compensation, indicating that he would go to the Small Claims Court if the landlord did not agree to his request to replace all the flooring in the property.
15. On 21 October 2020, the landlord responded to the resident and clarified that its offer regarding the flooring was that it ‘would replace the flooring in the hallway of the property and if (the resident) wanted to purchase flooring for the bedroom and living room…we would pay for the cost of laying all the flooring’. It acknowledged the resident remained unhappy with its response.
16. There are no further records regarding the progression of the complaint until 17 February 2021, when the landlord provided a further complaint response which largely reiterated the information provided in its previous response in October 2020. It confirmed that it was still willing to ‘replace the area of damaged flooring’, but while it acknowledged that the flooring ran into other rooms, it clarified it ‘would not supply the flooring but would be happy to arrange for your own new flooring to be fitted when your hallway flooring is being replaced’.
17. In its submissions to this investigation, the landlord stated that the resident requested his complaint be escalated on 12 March 2021 although this Service has not seen a record regarding this or evidence of the escalation request. The landlord subsequently provided a further complaint response and although it is not entirely clear from its records when this was sent, a blank diary entry suggests it was sent on or around 22 March 2021. In its response, the landlord noted it had discussed the complaint in more detail with the resident on 19 March 2021, although again, this Service has not seen any records regarding this conversation.
18. In its complaint response, the landlord noted:
    1. That the resident acknowledged he installed flooring without seeking permission but that he believed his tenancy agreement did not prevent him from doing so. The landlord referred him to the ‘Improvements, alterations and additions’ section of his tenancy agreement and quoted the following: ‘if you want to improve, change or add to your home, you must first get our permission in writing. This includes…fitting laminate flooring’.
    2. It had offered to replace his hallway flooring as a goodwill gesture ‘due to the inconvenience experienced with the leak that seemed to be problematic in resolving’. It acknowledged the resident’s flooring was damaged following the leak but only in his hallway. It stated it could not be clear ‘whether the flooring was damaged from the initial leak or the failure to repair in our agreed timeframe’ and for this reason it had made a goodwill gesture and would otherwise have expected the resident to claim on his contents insurance.
    3. The resident had declined its offer ‘of having the hallway flooring replaced or accept (sic) the money to the value of having it replaced’, which it stated it made to him via email on 11 March 2021, although this Service has not seen a copy of this. It referred to a further conversation on 17 March 2021, again not noted in the information provided to this investigation, in which it stated the resident advised he had removed two floorboards on the entrance to his bedroom which he now considered to be a trip hazard. However, he had only removed the boards as they had been left ‘protruding’ after the flooring had been removed, due the flooring having originally been laid monolithically, with no threshold to the room. As a result of this, the landlord noted the resident was ‘not prepared to accept the floor in the hallway to be replaced without filling in the gaps in the floor on the entrance to the bedroom’.
    4. Having consulted with its surveyor, the landlord considered it was not possible to exactly match the type of flooring in the resident’s hallway due to the flooring he had installed, and the way he had installed it. It also stated it was not possible to replace the two floorboards by the entrance to his bedroom in the way he wanted, although it clarified that it was not ‘refusing to make good your hallway flooring’ but it considered it was ‘impossible on a technical level to achieve the same monolithic style that you installed’.
    5. It clarified that its offer to ‘replace the hallway flooring or receive the money of replacement, £290’ was still available, although it could not guarantee it would be an exact match due to the issues it had raised above. It would not replace flooring in other rooms that were unaffected by the water damage.
    6. It acknowledged that, in conversation on 19 March 2021, the resident had refused the landlord’s offer. The landlord stated it had therefore ‘not been able to reach an agreeable resolution’ and advised him of his right to escalate his complaint to this Service.
19. The landlord issued an updated Stage Two response on or around 6 April 2021. Within this it outlined that, in its opinion, it did not consider the resident’s tenancy agreement to contain any reference to needing to ask permission to install laminate flooring and advised that it had quoted a section from its new tenancy agreements, which post-dated the resident’s. The landlord apologised for what it stated was an error but clarified that it did not believe it had breached his tenancy and advised its Stage Two response otherwise remained the same.
20. On 7 April 2021, the resident’s case was referred to this Service by his local MP, acting as a Designated Person.
21. Following the resident’s request for a review of the Ombudsman’s determination, this Service contacted the landlord to clarify its position regarding its final offer of redress to the resident regarding his flooring. On 1 June 2022, the landlord confirmed that the offer set out in its Stage Two response (“to replace the hallway flooring only OR pay up to £290”) was its final offer. However, as there had been confusion following an offer made earlier in the complaint process to relay the resident’s floor if he purchased the flooring himself, it made a revised final offer. It clarified its final offer was now to “replace the hallway flooring only; or pay up to £500 to contribute towards (the resident) completing this (relaying the flooring) himself”.

Assessment and findings

22. From the time the resident first reported a leak in his property, it is not disputed that the landlord took over two weeks to identify the leak and stop it. The landlord was reasonable in acknowledging this delay within its complaint responses, and it apologised to the resident for the fact that its handling of the repair ‘could have been carried out to a higher standard’. While it was appropriate that the landlord apologised for the delay and advising that it would pass on feedback to its contractors, it did not provide the resident with any further details regarding what caused the delay. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord missed an opportunity to provide further clarity to the resident.
23. It is also noted that, while references to the repairs are made on the resident’s CRM records regarding his complaint, the landlord did not provide any comprehensive repair records to this Service, as requested during this investigation, which outlined the steps it took to resolve the leak. This was not appropriate and means the landlord is not able to fully demonstrate its actions and whether there was any reasonable explanation for the repair taking some two weeks to complete. Within its complaint responses, the landlord also advised the resident that it was not clear if the damage to his flooring was caused by its delay in resolving the repair. While this is not necessarily an unreasonable position for the landlord to take – it is also noted that the resident advised the landlord at one point that the flooring was not damaged ‘until the second week’ – the lack of comprehensive repair records detailing its attendances and the progress of its repair mean it is not able to adequately show how it reached this conclusion.
24. However, while it is not disputed that there was a delay in completing the repair, the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of a leak appears to have been appropriate. Its records note it was first advised of the leak on or around 16 July 2020, while a CRM entry from 17 July 2020 notes a further order was raised to investigate the issue after the property above had been checked. This indicates that the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s initial report, apparently attending within 24 hours in accordance with its repair procedures (Annex Three of its Responsive Repairs policy stating that emergency repairs include ‘a flood or leak that cannot be contained’).
25. Regarding the main aspect of the resident’s complaint – that the landlord did not agree to his request to replace all the flooring in his property following the damage to the flooring in his hallway – this Service understands his frustration as the leak was not his fault and the landlord has acknowledged that there was a delay in identifying the cause of, and rectifying, the leak.
26. While it is noted that the resident believes he did not require permission to lay new flooring in the property, it is noted that Section 4.8 of his tenancy agreement (under ‘Improvements and alterations’) stipulates that tenants must get permission in writing from the landlord if they want to ‘improve, change or add to (their) home…this includes…changing or adding to our fixtures and fittings or anything we have installed’. While the landlord acknowledged that, contrary to the information it provided in its original Stage Two complaint response, there was no specific mention of laminate flooring within the resident’s tenancy agreement, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would be reasonable to consider that the original wording of his tenancy agreement, noted above, would cover flooring as a ‘fixture or fitting’ and any new flooring would therefore have required permission.
27. Section 21 of the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy notes that it ‘will not normally undertake repairs to fixtures and fittings installed by the customer’. However, following the acknowledged damage caused by the leak, the landlord offered to replace the section of damaged flooring in the hallway. When the resident pointed out that the type of flooring he had installed (a ‘monolithic’ kind, with no apparent joins) meant it would not be possible to replace the flooring in the passageway on its own without the ‘no join’ effect being spoiled, the landlord advised it would also be willing to cover the cost of further flooring being installed, although the resident would need to pay for the additional flooring himself. After extensive correspondence with the resident regarding his request and counter-offers, the landlord clarified that it was not ‘refusing to make good (his) hallway flooring’ but that it believed it was not possible ‘on a technical level to achieve the same monolithic style that (he) installed’. It was appropriate that the landlord provided a further explanation, and it was a reasonable position for it to hold.
28. While this Service empathises with the resident and acknowledges he feels the landlord should restore his property to the same condition it was in prior to the leak, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer was reasonable. Having noted it advised the resident it would ordinarily require residents to claim on their contents insurance and its Responsive Repairs Policy, as referred to in Paragraph 27, states it does not ‘normally’ carry out repairs to fittings installed by its tenants, the landlord was not obliged to carry out any repair. Nevertheless, in general, the Ombudsman would consider it good practice for a landlord to make good any damage to a property that has been caused by a delay in completing repairs, where a resident is unable to claim from their own insurance and the damage has been caused through no fault of their own.
29. In this case, the landlord was prompt in advising the resident it was willing to restore the area of flooring that had been damaged by the leak as a gesture of goodwill. It also went further and advised that, if the resident went ahead and purchased replacement flooring for the remainder of his property, it would also cover the cost of laying that flooring. It is noted that the landlord initially appeared to offer to relay the flooring if the resident purchased the materials himself and this offer does not appear to have been formally withdrawn prior to the landlord making its final offer of redress in its Stage Two response. This was not appropriate and will be referred to later in this determination.
30. While its final offer of replacing the hallway flooring or paying up to £290 towards the resident’s costs fell short of the resolution the resident had requested, as a provider of social housing, the landlord would have had to consider the best use of its resources. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, taking all aspects of the case into account, the landlord’s offer was fair.
31. However, subsequent to this, as noted in Paragraph 21, the landlord has increased the amount it is willing to pay towards the cost of the resident relaying his own flooring, confirming that it is willing to pay £500 or relaying the flooring in just the hallway. In his review request, the resident advised that he had requested £450 from the landlord to cover the cost of relaying flooring throughout the property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s revised offer of £500 matches the amount sought by the resident as a resolution of the complaint and therefore still constitutes reasonable redress in the circumstances.
32. It is acknowledged that the resident felt the landlord’s suggestion he claim on his insurance was unreasonable. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was appropriate that the landlord advised him that he could do so, if he had a live policy, and was unhappy with its offer.
33. Regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, it is noted that the resident first raised a formal complaint on 10 August 2020. Following his complaint, the landlord and resident exchanged correspondence regarding the landlord’s repair offer before the landlord provided a formal complaint response on 12 October 2020. This was thirteen days outside of its target response time (taking into account a Bank Holiday). However, although the landlord did not acknowledge this delay in its initial response, in further correspondence with the resident in the following days, it apologised and offered £50 in compensation for issuing its response late. As there did not appear to any significant detriment to the resident, its apology and compensation offer was reasonable at this point.
34. The landlord’s initial formal response on 12 October 2020 did not specify which stage of its complaint procedure it is being issued at and does not advise the resident of any escalation rights. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord did not treat the resident fairly as it did not provide him with all the relevant information regarding how his complaint was being progressed.
35. Following its response in October 2020, while there was further correspondence between the resident and the landlord, particularly regarding its offer of compensation for the delayed complaint response, there are no further records regarding how the complaint was progressed until a further complaint response was issued on 17 February 2021, some four months later. It is not clear why this further response was sent, as it largely copies the information provided in October 2020 and again does not advise which stage of the complaint process the response is issues at, or of any escalation rights. This is also not appropriate and was liable to cause the resident confusion regarding how his complaint was being handled. It is essential that a landlord’s complaints process is clearly defined, with appropriate options for escalation detailed at each stage of the process. This provides transparency and reassurance for the resident and allows the landlord to manage the process in a timely manner. It was not appropriate that the landlord’s responses did not do so in this case.
36. Landlord records indicate that the resident requested his complaint be escalated on 12 March 2021. However, this Service has not seen evidence of the resident’s request or an explanation of the grounds on which he sought his complaint to be escalated. This raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping. Once the escalation request was logged, the landlord promptly issued a further response on 22 March 2021 which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, attempted to demonstrate that it understood the resident’s concerns, while also better explaining its position. However, the landlord again did not specify at which stage of the complaint process it was responding. While this time it did advise the resident of his right to escalate his complaint to this Service and advised him that he had exhausted its complaint process, this Service has not seen any explanation as to why the resident only received a Stage Two response seven months after logging his original complaint. This was not appropriate.
37. It is also noted that during the complaint process, the resident raised concerns regarding being initially advised by the landlord that it would replace all his flooring and being advised by its surveyor to remove the flooring. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not respond to either point in any of its responses, thus not properly addressing the whole of the resident’s complaint. This again meant it did not treat him fairly in terms of its complaint handling.
38. As noted in Paragraph 29, earlier in the complaint process the landlord offered to replace the resident’s flooring throughout the property if he purchased the materials. As outlined above, while it was ultimately not unreasonable of the landlord to determine it would not be feasible to do so, it should have sought to avoid confusion by formally withdrawing this offer before proceeding to make any subsequent offer of redress. It was not appropriate that, having made the resident its original offer, it then made a further offer to either replace the hallway flooring or pay £290 towards the resident’s costs, without any subsequent reference to the previous offer. This Service would expect the landlord to communicate with greater clarity that its previous offer had been withdrawn, and clarify the reasons why, and that its final offer of redress was made in place of any previous offer.
39. However, subsequent to the conclusion of the complaint process, it was reasonable of the landlord to consider increasing its final offer during the resident’s review of the Ombudsman’s determination to an amount which ultimately met the amount requested by the resident in resolution. This demonstrated that the landlord was willing to be flexible in ultimately reaching an agreeable settlement to the complaint.
40. In this case, the landlord was prompt in advising the resident it was willing to restore the area of flooring that had been damaged by the leak as a gesture of goodwill. It also went further and advised that, if the resident went ahead and purchased replacement flooring for the remainder of his property, it would also cover the cost of laying that flooring. It is noted that the landlord initially appeared to offer to relay the flooring if the resident purchased the materials himself and this offer does not appear to have been formally withdrawn prior to the landlord making its final offer of redress in its Stage Two response. This was not appropriate and will be referred to later in this determination.

Determination (decision)

41. In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s offer to repair the damaged area of flooring and pay for additional flooring to be laid amounted to reasonable redress in regards of its handling of the repair following a leak.
42. In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement flooring.
    2. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

43. The landlord apologised for the delay in fixing the reported leak and made a goodwill gesture regarding replacing the area of flooring which suffered water damage. As the type of flooring the resident had laid made it impossible to simply replace one smaller area, it advised it would be willing to further cover the cost of laying any additional flooring that the resident purchased. It was not obliged to carry out a repair to fittings installed by the resident but its offer acknowledged the inconvenience he had been caused by a leak that was not his fault. While there are concerns over the lack of details provided regarding the landlord’s initial handling of the repair, overall, the goodwill gesture it offered was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair redress.
44. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement flooring was fair. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s position and reasons for wanting the entire floor to be replaced, the landlord’s response was reasonable. It provided further clarification of its offer when requested, demonstrated that it understood his concerns regarding the limitation of its offer but communicated regularly with the resident and appeared to be consistent in its offer. Its goodwill gesture, as above, was reasonable, and in its later responses in early 2021, it went into more detail regarding why it would not be able to offer anything further.
45. While the landlord’s initial offer of £50 compensation for the delay in issuing its Stage One response was reasonable, there were other issues with its complaint handling, including a lack of transparency regarding how the resident’s complaint was being progressed through its complaint procedures and initially not advising him of his right to escalate his complaint. The landlord’s records also do not make clear why a further complaint response was issued in February 2021, include details of the resident’s complaint escalation request or explain how the complaint was, or was not, progressed between its Stage One response in October 2020 and its Stage Two response in March 2021. It also did not address all of the points raised by the resident during the complaint process. The Ombudsman considers that its initial offer of £50 compensation should have been revised upwards in its final complaint response to reflect the additional issues.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

46. The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this letter:
    1. Pay the resident £150, an increased compensation offer, to reflect the delay in providing its complaint response and its poor handling of his complaint.
47. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance.

Recommendations

48. The landlord should contact the resident to:
    1. Propose its final offer of either relaying the flooring in his hallway, or pay £500 towards the resident’s costs of relaying flooring himself.
    2. Confirm whether it will grant retrospective permission for his flooring, or otherwise advise him of what he needs to do to request such permission.