The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Flagship Housing Group Limited (201915211)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915211

Flagship Housing Group Limited

26 February 2021


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 response to the resident’s reports about:
    1. The landlord’s response to requests for adaptations.
    2. Animal excrement at the property.
    3. The resident’s tenancy being transferred from one housing provider to another without his knowledge.
    4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, the policy requires that complainants are kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint and set out clear timescales for providing a response. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a formal review of the decision within 20 working days. The policy provides that the landlord will set out clear timescales for providing a response and a senior manager will provide the outcome to the resident in writing.
  2. The landlord’s disabled aids and adaptation policy states that for any major adaptation ‘the customer must contact Social Services to arrange a visit from an Occupational Therapist (OT) to assess their needs’. It highlights that most major adaptations are paid for and undertaken by Local Authorities with a grant by the DFG (Disabled Facility Grant).
  3. The landlord’s letting and allocation policy states that the majority of the landlord’s homes are allocated through Local Authority Choice Based Lettings (CBL) schemes, or local housing registers, which enable an assessment of an applicant’s needs and aspirations, whilst also ensuring that allocations are compliant with equality legislation.
  4. Under Section 3 (15) of the tenancy agreement the resident has an obligation to keep the ‘garden at the premises in a clean and orderly condition’.
  5. The landlord provided a booklet from 2010 that was given to all residents that detail the amalgamation of a number of different housing providers into the current landlord.

Summary of events

  1. On 11 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and reported that his driveway had not been finished and that he would like an update. He stated that he was referred to an external building firm but needed an update as he felt unsafe. The resident also complained about animals fouling the grassed areas at the front of the property.
  2. On 12 March 2020, the resident made a complaint to this service stating that he was yet to receive a response from his landlord about a complaint he raised and wanted to know what was being done. The resident raised reports of being promised a driveway and help from the landlord to deal with a cat fouling outside his front door.
  3. On 12 March 2020, this service wrote to the landlord and asked them to provide the resident with a response to the above complaint within 21 days. The landlord responded and stated that the complaint had not been through its complaints procedure and it would provide a response within the required period.
  4. On 1 April 2020, the landlord provided the resident with its stage one response regarding the lack of repairs to the driveway and animal fouling. It advised that cats are free roaming animals and unfortunately this means that there is little it can do to prevent them fouling. It stated that the resident had previously raised concerns regarding the unevenness of the driveway in 2004 and 2015 and in May 2019 the resident was asked to obtain an Occupational Therapy report but it was never provided by the resident. The landlord asked the resident to obtain an up to date Occupational Therapy report so that any adaptations can be identified and works arranged. The landlord agreed that it would arrange to attend the property again to reassess the driveway for any deterioration.
  5. On 22 April 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and stated that due to Covid-19 it is unable to attend to reassess the condition of the driveway. The resident stated that when the restrictions were lifted he would seek an updated Occupational Therapy assessment. The landlord stated that due to the residents high risk it is likely that the inspection would be put on hold further for another 12 weeks. The landlord agreed to contact the resident every 3 weeks to see how he is and to keep communication open as it is unable to give definitive time frames at this time.
  6. On 13 May 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and outlined that it would speak again in 3 weeks about the assessment of the driveway. The resident wanted to know when the landlord had transferred stock from his old landlord to the new landlord.
  7. On 16 June 2020, an operative attended the resident’s property with permission from the resident to assess the condition of the driveway for any deterioration. The operative made an assessment of the condition of the driveway and it was found that the driveway was in a good condition and did not require any further works.
  8. On 23 June 2020, the landlord sent the resident a stage one closure letter addressing further issues raised by the complaint and advised the following:
    1. The operative that attended on 16 June 2020 found that the driveway was in a good condition and did not require any further works.
    2. That the resident needed to have an Occupational Therapy assessment as it would ensure any works carried out are to the specification of the resident and would support his requirements and safety. Once this was received the best course of action could be decided.
    3. It reassured the resident that if the report shows no recommendations, it would look to pave and level the strip of grass that extends down the driveway, to widen the paved area for him.
    4. In relation to the animal excrement, an operative attended the property and confirmed it was ‘unable to see any with the naked eye’. It stated that it would reattend when restrictions were lifted to assess the resident’s concerns regarding flies.
    5. The resident highlighted a willingness to move to a detached bungalow due to health issues if it had three bedrooms and a garage and driveway. The landlord advised that due to the restrictions advised by the resident (three-bedroom, garage and driveway) the options would be limited but it provided the registration details.
    6. The resident raised concerns that he had taken on his tenancy under a ‘different landlord’ and wanted to know why he was now with the current landlord. The landlord explained that the resident’s old landlord became the current landlord through amalgamation in 1998. The landlord assured the resident that it would have carried out customer consultations at the time and that the process was a legal one. The landlord was unable to comment on the resident’s consultation due to the time elapsed.
    7. The resident repeatedly raised that he felt that he had received poor service due to his ethnicity, and that racism was the basis of the landlord’s decision not to carry out works to the driveway. The landlord assured the resident that this was not the case, and that its staff must adhere to the standards set out in its Equality and Diversity Policy.
  9. On 6 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that he was unhappy with the decision in its stage one closure letter. The landlord believed that the most appropriate course of action was to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure.
  10. On 12 August 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two final review. It upheld the original decision and highlighted that it had continued to liaise with Adult Social Care in relation to the resident’s driveway and this week returned the landlord consent form to confirm that works can proceed.
  11. On 25 August 2020, a third party completed an assessment of how the resident was managing to carry out everyday tasks around their home. The report stated that the resident required hard standing to the right area of front garden, level access front door and stepped access from the front door. The landlord gave the local council permission to make arrangements for completion of the work via the Local Authority by a Disabled Facilities Grant.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to requests for adaptations;

  1. The resident has raised issues regarding the unevenness of the driveway on a number of occasions. In May 2019, the resident made a similar complaint and was asked to obtain an Occupational Therapy report by the landlord. On 11 March 2020, the resident made a complaint to the landlord that his driveway had not been completed. Under the landlord’s disabled aids and adaptation policy it states that for any major adaptation ‘the customer must contact Social Services to arrange a visit from an Occupational Therapist (OT) to assess their needs’. The landlord provided the resident with a stage one response to his complaint on 1 April 2020, the landlord asked the resident to obtain an up to date Occupational Therapy report so that any adaptations could be identified and works arranged in line with its policies and procedures. The landlord also arranged to attend the property again to reassess the driveway for any deterioration.
  2. There was an initial delay in the landlord’s operative attending the property due to the Covid-19 pandemic, this was communicated to the resident and agreed upon on the basis that he was in the high-risk category. The operative attended the property on 16 June 2020 and found that ‘the driveway was in a good condition and does not require any further works’. The landlord issued the resident with a stage one closure letter and advised again that the resident needed to have an Occupational Therapy assessment as it would ensure any works carried out would be to the specification of the resident and would support his requirements and safety. On 25 August 2020, the assessment was completed by the occupational therapist and the landlord gave the local council permission to make arrangements for completion of the work via the Local Authority by a Disabled Facilities Grant.
  3. The evidence provided supports the conclusion that the landlord acted appropriately with the resident in dealing with his complaint. It followed its policies and procedures in regard to the process of assessing major adaptations and kept the resident informed throughout the process. Once the approprate assessments had been performed the landlord gave the local council permission to perform the works without delay. Accordingly, there is no evidence of any service failure by the landlord in regard to this part of the complaint.

Animal excrement at the property

  1. The resident contacted the landlord and complained about animals fouling the grassed areas at the front of the property on 11 March 2020. Under the tenancy agreement it is the resident’s obligation to keep the ‘garden at the premises in a clean and orderly condition’. In the landlord’s stage one response it advised that cats and dogs are free roaming animals and that unfortunately this meant there was little it could do to prevent them fouling. The landlord used its discretion to have an operative attend the property to assess the situation and it found no animal excrement that was visible ‘to the naked eye’. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and stated that it would attend the property again to reassess the fouling situation. It is determined that the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s complaint in line with its policies and procedure and it is agreed that there was no evidence of failure.

The resident’s tenancy being transferred from one housing provider to another without his knowledge.

  1. On 13 May 2020, the resident raised that he signed his original tenancy agreement with a different housing provider and wanted to know how the current landlord became his housing provider without his knowledge.  The landlord appropriately addressed the complaint in its stage one closure letter and explained that the resident’s old landlord became the current landlord through amalgamation in 1998. The landlords complaint policy sets out time limits for complaints that it will respond too and had been flexible in responding to the residents complaints. The landlord assured the resident that customer consultations would have been performed at the time and that the process was a legal one. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and provided the resident with a booklet from 2010 that explained the history of the amalgamation of a number of housing providers into the one organisation (the current landlord). It is accepted by this service that the landlords actions wee reasonable and that it was unable to comment on the resident’s consultation due to the time elapsed and accordingly

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident made the initial complaint to the landlord on 11 March 2020 and the next day the resident also made a complaint to the Ombudsman wanting to know what was being done. This service asked the landlord to provide a response within 21 days which the landlord appropriately complied with and provided the resident with a stage one response on 1 April 2020.
  2. On 23 June 2020, the landlord sent the resident a stage one closure letter addressing further issues that had been raised through conversation with the resident. On 6 July 2020, the resident said that he was unhappy with the closure letter so the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure. On 12 August 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its final stage two review. The length of time in providing the stage two review was appropriate and the landlord communicated with the resident throughout the process.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of:
    1. The landlord’s response to requests for adaptations;
    2. Animal excrement at the property.
    3. The resident’s tenancy being transferred from one housing provider to another without his knowledge.
    4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took approprate steps in assessing the resident’s complaint about the driveway in line with its disabled aids and adaptation policy. The landlord had an operative inspect the condition of the property and then informed the resident of the steps that need to be taken to get the issues remedied. Once the approprate assessments had been performed the landlord gave the local council permission to perform the works without delay.
  2. Under the tenancy agreement it is the resident’s responsibility to maintain and keep the ‘garden in a clean and orderly condition’. The landlord appropriately attended the property to assess the situation and found no evidence of excrement that was visible to the human eye. The landlord informed the resident it would continue to assess the situation and reassess if necessary.
  3. The landlord provided the resident with the approprate information regarding the amalgamation of different housing providers into the one landlord. Due to the time that has passed the landlord was flexible in acknowledging the residents complaint and it is accepted that it cannot comment on the consolation with the resident.
  4. The complaints handling by the landlord was in line with its policies at both stage one and two of the complaints processes. The landlord kept the resident informed about the timelines in providing responses in line with its policies and procedures.