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

Flagship Housing Group Limited (202215333)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215333

Flagship Housing Group Limited

30 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of her former property when the tenancy commenced and the resident’s disrepair reports.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint including the amount of compensation offered.

Background

  1. The resident was a tenant of the landlord and the tenancy began on 25 April 2019. The resident first informed the landlord of cracks in the walls of her property during a phone call on 7 May 2019, a couple of weeks after the tenancy commenced. The landlord’s records indicate it visited the resident’s property during June 2019 for an early tenancy visit and an options appraisal report took place on 1 August 2019 and identified works totalling £20850.
  2. The landlord informed the resident on 17 September 2019 that it would be discussing her property and the works involved. The resident rang the landlord on 25 September 2019, 2 October 2019 and 17 October 2019 asking for an update from the landlord.
  3. On 30 October 2019 the landlord confirmed a structural engineer would attend on 8 November 2019. The landlord noted the resident was open to moving if she had to.
  4. The landlord called the resident on 8 January 2020 and advised her the property was being considered for disposal due to the amount of works required and it would confirm the decision, the landlords records noted the resident wished to move. The resident moved from the property on 21 November 2021.
  5. On 12 July 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. The resident stated it was apparent after a short time after moving in she should never have been moved in to the property and after being advised she needed to move again, it took nearly three years. In that time she had spent a considerable amount making the property liveable and the process had a very damaging affect on her mental health and well being and affected her children. She felt the situation could have been avoided if the property had been properly checked before she moved in.
  6. The landlord issued its stage one response on 26 July 2022 and said that it had moved her to the property and after a short period, she was presented with multiple concerns in the property regarding works that needed attention and were advised to move out of the property due to the number of works that needed completing. The landlord acknowledged it was a failing by the landlord for the resident having to move from the property and it apologised. An amount totalling £17556 had been paid to the resident to compensate for the property moves and it would not offer any further compensation.
  7. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 27 July 2022 stating the payments she received were for disturbance of having to move, not for being housed in a property that was in a state of disrepair. The payment did not take into consideration the failings made by the landlord of initially letting the property and her family having to persevere it for 30 months. The following day the resident informed the landlord she was requesting an additional £12000 in compensation.
  8. The landlord issued its stage two response on 12 October 2022. The landlord said:
    1. The home loss and disturbance payments were paid to the resident to recognise and compensate for the disturbance, upheaval and emotional stress caused by needing to move home involuntarily. However, the repairs issues experienced at the outset of the tenancy were not factored into those payments.
    2. Based on pictures and information provided, it had investigated the repairs noted, specifically scrap/tyres/broken glass and alleged asbestos left in the garden; cracks located at different areas of the house; large gaps around the internal face of windows; cracked lintel viewed from the external to the property, which the resident had noted that those issues were all present when she moved into the property in 2019.
    3. It’s records differed in places however given the time elapsed, the complexity of the house moves over time, and in the interest of resolving the complaint, it offered compensation of £2445.00.
  9. The resident responded on 19 October 2022 and stated although she appreciated the offer of the compensation she wished to carry on with her request for the compensation she had requested.
  10. The landlord confirmed to the resident the complaint had been escalated to stage three on 25 October 2022 and the following day asked the resident to provide a short summary of the complaint, the reasons she had requested the escalation and her availability for it to form a panel to hear her case. The landlord repeated this request on 9 November 2022.
  11. On 1 December 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and stated it had changed it’s complaints policy from 31 October 2022 to consist of two stages rather than three stages. It’s previous policy gave tenants three months to escalate complaints from stage‐two to stage‐three, therefore that meant its stage‐three meeting with involved tenants would no longer be available as of 1 January 2023. The compensation offer it made would still stand but it wanted to raise with the resident the changes to how the complaint would progress, which would no longer be to a stage three hearing, but an escalation with the Housing Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of her former property when the tenancy commenced and the resident’s disrepair reports.

  1. In investigating this complaint this Service was informed by the landlord that it had limited data available dating back to 2019 as it had since migrated to a new repairs and management system.
  2. The resident first informed the landlord of cracks in the wall during a phone call on 7 May 2019. The landlord did not supply any repair records however the landlord’s records indicate it visited the resident’s property during June 2019 for an early tenancy visit and noted the walls were in fair condition but required an inspection. The visit also noted issues with the radiators when water was put on. 
  3. Internal correspondence noted the resident was advised to fill the cracks with cork herself and a chunk of concrete had come out the back of the kitchen window and it was asked could anything be done. The landlord confirmed to this Service that it was conceivable issues with external cracks particularly around window lintels should have been identified at the voids stage and were not adequately addressed during the tenancy with its earliest records indicating works were not completed until May 2020.
  4. The landlord’s lettable standards notes what the landlord would do before a property is let and this included that it would insure that roofs, walls, gutters and downpipes will be safe and in working condition From the evidence provided in this investigation the landlord failed to do this.
  5. The landlord in its evidence supplied a copy of the post void inspection it conducted on 23 April 2019 which found no faults with the property. The inspection report also recorded no comments from the inspection. It is concerning that this inspection found no faults however once the resident moved in a week later she identified significant faults.
  6. Following an options appraisal report that took place on 1 August 2019 which identified works required to replace Lintels, wall plaster and ceiling repairs, gully and downpipe repairs and lighting repairs which totalled £20850 the landlord was considering what it would do with the property.
  7. On 8 January 2020 the resident was informed that the property was being considered for disposal. The landlord did not evidence what actions it took during this time or how it was keeping the resident informed.
  8. The landlord was entitled to move the resident from the property as it determined it was not financially viable to carry out the required repairs, and this is allowed for under section 5.3 of the tenancy agreement. The resident had also expressed a wish to move from the property, so it was not unreasonable that the move took place.
  9. During this time the landlord received the repairs and costs report on 1 August 2019 and the evidence provided shows a structural engineer attended the property around 21 August 2019 to discuss structural works and confirmed a report was required. The resident was contacting the landlord by phone during August 2019 and September 2019 asking for updates and was advised on 17 September 2019 that managers were discussing her property and the works involved.
  10. There was no evidence provided from this meeting of what decisions the landlord made. The resident then made further attempts to find out from the landlord what works would be done at the property on 25 September 2019, 2 October 2019 and 17 October 2019. During the call on 17 October 2019 the resident informed the landlord the state of the property was effecting her mental health.
  11. The landlord’s records indicated a structural engineer was to attend the property on 8 November 2019 however no evidence was provided to this service if that visit took place.
  12. The resident made further attempts to find out from the landlord what would be happening with her property. The resident called the landlord on 22 November 2019 asking for an update and when / if the works would be carried out or if she had to move. The resident called the landlord again on 9 December 2019 for an update and the landlord informed the resident the property was being considered for disposal on 8 January 2020.
  13. It was 172 working days from when the resident first reported the cracks in her walls to the landlord informing her the property was being considered for disposal.
  14. Once the resident was informed that the property would be disposed of, the landlord would be expected to take steps to ensure the resident is moved within an appropriate timescale and consideration was given to any further time the resident needed to remain in the property. It took a further ten months for the move to take place and the landlord did not provide evidence of any correspondence between the resident being informed the property was being considered for disposal and her moving out of the property so this Service was unable to establish any reasons for the delay in the move taking place, this was a significant record keeping failure by the landlord. 
  15. From the evidence provided, the resident during this time reported further issues to the landlord including the presence of suspected asbestos sheets in the garden of the property and the landlord confirmed to this Service its records did not show when it was removed. The resident stated it had not been removed. This would have cause further distress and inconvenience to the resident especially given the on going issues with the property.
  16. It does not appear disputed by the landlord that the property was not in a suitable condition when it was let to the resident and the landlord acknowledged those failings in the stage one and stage two responses.
  17. It is clear from the evidence provided that the resident was calling the landlord on a regular basis asking for updates on the status of the investigations into the condition of her property and on most occasions either asked for a call back or was told she would be called back. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the majority of those requests.
  18. Although the landlord may well have responded to the resident the lack of evidence provided to this Service cannot determine the landlord did so. Given the resident had during the period covered in this investigation reported suspected asbestos in the garden, issues with the properties electrics in the bathroom and kitchen, large cracks through out the house, large gaps around windows, broken lintels, faulty heating system and mentioned in her calls that the property was affecting her mental health, may have been increasing energy bills and may have been dangerous to live in it was not appropriate for the landlord to not respond to the resident or to provide updates on the progress of its investigations. 
  19. There is also no evidence of the resident being kept informed of the landlord’s consideration of the appraisal report or if the landlord was considering any impact the repairs could have on the resident. There was also no evidence if any risk assessments were conducted to ensure the landlord was satisfied the property was safe for the resident to remain living in while further investigations were taking place or if a temporary decant was required while a permanent property was found.
  20. The stage one response explained that it had already paid an amount for home loss and disturbance and that it would not be paying any additional compensation. The landlord however failed during the stage one process to acknowledge that the resident had reported significant issues at the property she was living in and although she had received disturbance payment’s, it failed to consider any distress and inconvenience that the resident would have suffered, especially given the length of time she remained in the property. This was a failing by the landlord which it identified and attempted to remedy when it offered compensation in its stage two response. 
  21. The resident’s complaint made it clear following her escalation request that she was requesting compensation for the time spent in the property in the condition it was in and the effect on her and her children’s health. 
  22. The landlord spoke to the resident and established that the resident’s desired outcome was for £12000 consisting of £6000 for living in a home of disrepair, equating to 50% of the rent paid over the 30 months she lived at the property and £6000 for emotional damage and failings.
  23. The landlord did recognised this in the stage two response and made an offer of £2,445.00. The amount of compensation offered to the resident is inline with an award this Service would make in cases of severe maladministration given the length of time the resident remained in the property and the lack of evidence provided by the landlord of the actions it took during that time. The amount of compensation offered to the resident is considered reasonable redress by this Service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. It should be noted that the landlord has reviewed its complaints policy and procedure since it dealt with this complaint. The landlord now operates a two stage complaints process which is compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This investigation however will be considering the policy and procedure in place at the time the resident’s complaint was made. The landlord at that time operated a three stage process with the third stage being a complaints panel hearing.
  2. The landlord issued the stage one response within the 10 working days timescale in its complaints policy. The stage two response however was issued after 53 working days and this was outside of the landlord’s complaints policy timescale of 20 working days for a stage two response. Although the landlord records indicate it may have been in contact with the resident there was no evidence provided that the resident was informed of the delay, why there was a delay or when she should expect the response by.
  3. The stage two response informed the resident she could escalate her complaint to a third stage with the landlord which would have been a complaints panel hearing. The resident made the request and the landlord confirmed the escalation to stage three on 25 October 2022. The landlord then informed the resident on 1 December 2022 that the third stage had been removed to be inline with the expectations of this Service and the resident was provided with the option of contacting this Service at an earlier stage. It was a positive and appropriate step taken by the landlord to review its complaint policy and to make the changes it did.
  4. The delay in the complaint response at stage two however was service failure by the landlord and it should pay the resident £100 for the delay in issuing the stage two response. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning its handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of her former property when the tenancy commenced and the resident’s disrepair reports.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord pays the resident the £2,445.00 it offered in its stage two response if it has not done so already.