Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202004086)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004086

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

30 November 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to various repairs at the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant, and the tenancy began in September 2001. The property is a two-bedroom house.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy shows how it categorises different types of repairs and gives response times for each category. It confirms the landlord will respond to immediate repairs within four hours, emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within five working days, routine repairs within 20 working days and planned repairs within 60 working days. Timescales are based on whether repairs present a risk to health and safety or could cause further damage to property.
  3. The policy confirms appointments are necessary where the landlord requires access for repairs to be facilitated by a resident, or if repair works will cause undue disruption. It shows the landlord will pay compensation it fails to attend a scheduled appointment without prior notification.
  4. The landlord has a two stage complaints policy which is available online. The policy took effect from December 2020. It shows at stage one the landlord will respond to complaints within 10 working days. Alternative timescales, to be agreed with the resident, may be considered on a case-by-case basis but will not exceed 20 working days in total. This process is mirrored at stage two, but the relevant timescales are 20 working days and a total of 30 if additional time is needed.
  5. The landlord has a separate “compensation and goodwill gesture policy” which can be found online. It shows the landlord can use goodwill gestures, financial or otherwise, to recognise shortcomings in the service it provided. Elsewhere, it confirms the landlord is obliged to replace a carpet if it has damaged it.
  6. The resident has several vulnerabilities relating to his physical and mental health including mobility problems. The evidence seen confirms the landlord was aware of his circumstances from the outset of the events detailed below.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord’s repairs history confirms the property was included in a bulk kitchen and bathroom replacement programme. This was undertaken by an external contractor (the contractor) on the landlord’s behalf. Although the job record was opened on 1 June 2019, no closure date was given.
  2. A further record was opened on 17 January 2020 based on a report of outstanding repairs. It said painting and decorating works were required to address damp and cracks at the property. Further, carpets in two rooms had been damaged by the contractor when the bathroom was replaced. The job specified a surveyor’s inspection was required. It was eventually closed in August 2020. The closure note said if the resident called and works were existing, a new job was to be raised and the surveying team was to be notified.
  3. On 4 February 2020 another job was opened to address several issues including a leaking external soil pipe and the condition of the wall above the boiler. This record also specified that the job was to be undertaken by a surveyor. The notes show it was closed on 7 April 2020 because the resident had not made contact and the target date had passed.
  4. Another note from 3 March 2020 records two calls with the resident. It shows he was initially contacted by the landlord and internal works were scheduled for 9 March 2020. However, a later note shows he called back and said works were to be put on hold because he had a complaint with the Ombudsman.
  5. A note from 4 June 2020 confirms the resident reported his shower wasn’t working. The landlord’s operative said it needed to replace the shower valve, which had been fitted at Christmas by the contractor. Further, the contractor had left outstanding works in the kitchen, and it needed to be recalled to the property.
  6. A follow up record was created on 9 June 2020 in response to a report the shower had again stopped working. It said the shower had been fixed the previous week, but it needed replacing under warranty by the contractor. It restated that the contractor should be recalled and outstanding works in the kitchen should be completed. This prompted the landlord to contact the contractor on 17 June 2020.
  7. The Ombudsman’s involvement began on 4 August 2020. The resident got in touch following a home condition survey arranged by the landlord. He told us the property was damp and lacked insulation. Further, an external pipe was leaking and there were cracks in the walls and ceiling. The Ombudsman’s records show the resident had contacted us on several previous occasions but, at the time of this assessment, he had no other open complaints with this Service.
  8. The Ombudsman notified the landlord of the resident’s concerns on 10 August 2020 and was promptly told a formal complaint had not yet been raised. The resident would therefore need to complete the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, but a response would be issued in due course.
  9. Following several extension requests, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 2 October 2020. It said:

a.     A survey completed by an external consultant confirmed the property was adequately insulated.

b.     An inspection had been arranged to assess the damp and leaking external pipe.

c.      Hairline cracks in the walls and ceiling could be addressed with decoration but this was the resident’s responsibility.

The response was issued 39 working days after the landlord was notified of the complaint.

  1. The landlord’s Supervisor inspected the property on 5 October 2021. This service has not seen a copy of their report, but later correspondence between both parties gives a good indication of the highlighted issues.
  2. The resident replied to the landlord on 7 December 2020 and asked for his complaint to be escalated. He said it had not complied with recommendations to prevent mould and damp, which arose from the inspection. Specifically, that a hallway fan should be replaced, and damp patches should be cleaned. He also said the radiators did not work properly and that painting was the landlord’s responsibility. The following issues were raised in relation to the contractor: unfinished kitchen works, shower valve unresolved and carpet damage incurred during bathroom replacement works.
  3. The repairs history shows several radiator valves were unblocked on 18 January 2021. The comments section confirms the boiler had previously been moved downstairs to the kitchen by the contractor. Further, the residents were unhappy that a hole created in the Kitchen ceiling for pipework, to the boiler, had been left unsealed. This gives additional clarity to the repair note from 4 February 2020.
  4. The repair history shows pipe boxing work around the boiler was completed and the hole in the ceiling was repaired on 25 January 2021. Further, the crack filling and mould washing works were completed the following day.
  5. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 28 January 2021. The main points were:

a.     The property was sufficiently insulated based on the survey and no further investigation would be conducted into insulation at the property.

b.     Of the works identified during the supervisor’s inspection, appointments had been scheduled to repair the fan and the external pipe. Filling works to address cracks had been completed along with mould washing.

c.      When the above repairs were complete the landlord would inspect the property to ensure the works were of a high standard and that the resident was satisfied.

d.     A delay had occurred during the repairs, this was attributed to the landlord’s definition of hairline cracks and decoration as a “customer responsibility”.

e.     The landlord was unable to recall the contractor as the defect period had passed.

f.        It was also unable to pay compensation for personal items so the resident would need to raise a personal insurance claim for the carpet damage.

g.     £175 compensation was awarded to address: the landlord’s failure to “complete repair” within a published timescale, £50; goodwill gesture, £50; delayed complaint response, £25; distress and inconvenience, £50.

The response was issued 35 working days after the resident’s escalation request. The repairs history confirms the extractor fan was also repaired the same day.

  1. The resident replied on 30 January 2021. He said filling works had left marks in several rooms which needed painting, an upstairs ceiling had not been correctly completed, his shower was still not working correctly, and several radiators needed replacing. Further, although he understood the landlord’s compensation policy, he felt its decision in respect of the carpet damage was unfair. As a result, he was unwilling to accept the landlord’s offer of compensation to resolve his complaint.
  2. This prompted the landlord to review the case and respond to the resident with an action plan on 5 Feb 2021. It agreed responsibility for decorating works on the basis the property should be restored to its condition before filling works began. However, at that time, it was not undertaking non-essential decorating works as a precaution until the pandemic situation changed. The resident was therefore offered an allowance of £100 per room if he wished to arrange works himself. The landlord confirmed separate appointments were booked to address the radiators and the shower.
  3. The central heating was inspected on 6 February 2021. The repair history shows cleaner was added to the system and two new radiators were recommended along with several replacement values.
  4. The resident updated the landlord on 10 February 2021. He said his preference was for it to complete the painting as soon as possible. Further, it had been to inspect the shower and the radiators, but the works were not yet complete. However, an appointment had been raised to fix the external pipe and, since he was satisfied with the service he was receiving, he was prepared to accept the offer of £175 compensation.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments on 11 February 2021. It asked for account details to arrange the payment and assured the resident the outstanding works would be closely monitored. A repair history note confirms the shower valve was replaced the same day. This was more than eight months after the operative’s recommendation to replace the valve.
  6. On 15 February 2021, following a request from the resident for the agreed decorating works to be set out in writing, the landlord gave him a list of five rooms to be painted once restrictions had been lifted. It restated that these works had been agreed to address the marks left by its previous repairs.
  7. The resident updated the landlord again on 3 March 2021. He said the radiators had been replaced but the decorating and external pipe were still outstanding. Further, the issue of carpet damage caused by the contractor in two upstairs rooms had previously been discussed, but he hadn’t received a response from the landlord. The landlord replied the same day to confirm the contractor was investigating and it would respond in due course.
  8. On 5 March 2021 the landlord advised the resident outstanding plumbing and decorating works had been scheduled for the following week. Further, having spoken to the contractor and considered the date of the damage, it had decided to offer the resident a goodwill gesture in relation to the carpet. The resident was asked to supply images to allow it to formulate an appropriate offer.
  9. The resident provided three images on 7 March 2021. They showed beige and green carpets lifting and fraying at the edges around doorways or dividing strips. The landlord’s correspondence from the time shows the images were discussed internally and a figure of approximately £40 was suggested. However, this figure was described as “just a guess”.
  10. On 10 March 2021 the landlord offered the resident an additional £60 to address the damaged carpet.
  11. The landlord’s job completion report confirms the external soil pipe was successfully replaced on 15 March 2021.
  12. Correspondence between the landlord and the resident confirms he experienced issues with scheduled appointments on 17 and 19 March 2021. The information seen suggests they were the subject of a separate complaint investigation by the landlord. It is noted that the landlord awards compensation for appointments missed without prior notification. Further, that the resident did not raise this issue as an outstanding concern to be addressed by this Service. If the issue was not already resolved to his satisfaction, the resident should raise a formal complaint with the landlord.
  13.  A job completion report confirms the painting works were completed on 30 March 2021.
  14. On 11 April 2021 the resident notified the landlord that all outstanding works had been completed. However, the carpet was still an issue and he had been quoted £300 for one room. This service was given separate confirmation that the completed works included painting, external pipework, mould washing and radiator replacement.
  15. During a phone call with this Service on 23 November 2021 the resident confirmed the landlord had recently repaired one of the carpets. However, one was still damaged and needed remedial works. Further, because it had taken over a year to resolve the various repairs, he was dissatisfied with the total redress awarded by the landlord including the goodwill gesture offered in respect of the carpets.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is acknowledged the resident reported several issues over two jobs in early 2020. However, a comparison of the repairs policy to the history notes confirms that appointments were needed to allow the landlord to assess the reported problems. Since the repair history shows no contact was made to arrange inspection, it was reasonable that these records were ultimately closed. It is noted that the relationship between the parties deteriorated soon after the jobs were opened, and scheduled works were halted at the resident’s request on 3 March 2020. There is no information to show he raised the outstanding inspections at this point.
  2. Based on the above evidence, the landlord is not responsible for delays before 4 June 2020. However, from this point it had confirmation the resident’s shower valve needed replacing, and that the condition of the kitchen, following relocation of the boiler by the contractor, needed to be addressed. Although the information seen shows he had access to other shower facilities at the property, the timeline confirms these repairs were not fully completed until 11 February 2021.
  3. Whilst the effect of a national lockdown, for a period of around a month between 31 October and 2 December 2020, is acknowledged, this assessment found an unreasonable delay of around six months had occurred in relation to the above repairs. It is reasonable to conclude the situation caused the resident some inconvenience, but the landlord’s stage two response did not address this delay and there is no evidence it has previously acknowledged what went wrong.
  4. The supervisor’s inspection on 5 October 2020 confirmed repairs to the fan, soil pipe and cracked walls were necessary. With reference to the landlord’s repairs policy, this assessment found all the repairs mentioned above fell within the “routine” category and should have been resolved within 20 working days. It is noted these repairs were fully completed on 15 March 2021. Taking the lockdown into account, this represents an unreasonable delay of around four months. However, in contrast, these issues were directly addressed by the landlord’s stage two response.
  5. In its stage two response, the landlord identified a delay in completing required filling works. Based on the timeline, this assessment found an unreasonable delay of around two months had occurred. This is because the landlord was aware of the issue when its stage one response was issued on 2 October 2020, but the works were not completed until 26 January 2021. Once again, the duration of the relevant national lockdown was considered. The timeline confirms restrictions from January 2021 had a lesser impact on the landlord’s operations.
  6. Once the landlord became aware its filling works had left marks, it correctly assumed responsibility for restoring the decoration to its prior condition, and the timeline confirms this took around two months. Since the evidence shows its decorating operations had been impacted by the pandemic, this represents a reasonable timescale. The landlord also demonstrated good practice by setting expectations and providing the option of an allowance if the resident wanted to arrange the works himself.
  7. The timeline confirms repairs to the property’s central heating system took over 12 weeks to complete. However, it also shows improvement works were undertaken on three occasions during this time and that the landlord was conducting ongoing monitoring of its condition. As a result, this represents a both a reasonable timescale and a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns. Further, the landlord demonstrated good practice by liaising with the resident to ensure works were completed to his satisfaction. Whilst this Service has not seen a copy of the home condition survey, which prompted the resident to contact the Ombudsman, it is noted he has not raised any outstanding issues concerning mould, damp, cold or faulty central heating in his recent contact with this service.
  8. In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  9. A comparison of the timeline with the landlord’s complaints policy confirms there was a delay of up to 34 working days in its handling of the complaint. Its offer of £25 to address any inconvenience this caused was reasonable given the circumstances. The same rationale applies to the £50 awarded to address the delayed filling works given the length of the delay. It was also reasonable, given works were ongoing when the stage two response was issued, that a £50 goodwill gesture was awarded. Further that the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues acknowledged in the landlord’s response was also addressed with a separate offer of £50.
  10. Whilst it is acknowledged the landlord’s offer did not identify the delayed shower and kitchen works, mentioned above, it is also recognised it was managing multiple repairs at the time. Further, that the landlord was working with the resident to resolve the issues as confirmed by the timeline. Similarly, although the landlord did not initially accept responsibility for remedial painting works or the damaged carpets, it ultimately reached a different conclusion and took steps to rectify the issues. Based on the information seen, this was appropriate action on the part of the landlord.
  11. In respect of the £60 good will offer connected to the damaged carpets, this Service has not seen details of the landlord’s investigation with its contractor. However, the wording of its compensation policy confirms goodwill gestures are offered to redress failings in its service. It is noted the landlord has not disputed that the damage was caused by the contractor during its improvement works, and the wording of its correspondence from 5 March 2021 supports the conclusion that it has accepted responsibility for the contractor’s actions.
  12. It is noted that the images seen suggest the damage incurred was relatively minor. This is supported by the resident’s recent confirmation that the landlord has since resolved the issue successfully in one of the affected rooms. That said, this service is not qualified to assess the images or confirm the extent of the damage. This is a task to be undertaken by a qualified professional. However, in offering redress, the landlord is obliged to put things right by restoring the resident to his original position or as close to it as possible. The landlord’s compensation policy confirms this obligation extends to replacing any carpet it has damaged.
  13. The information seen shows the landlord’s goodwill gesture was based on an estimate. There is no indication the source of this estimate was the professional opinion of a qualified specialist. On that basis, the landlord should arrange for the damage to be inspected by a specialist. If they confirm the remaining damaged carpet can be restored to its original condition by way of a repair, then this represents a reasonable course of action. The resident has expressed a preference for the landlord to arrange repairs on his behalf based on his health conditions.
  14. In summary, this assessment found an unreasonable delay of around six months had occurred in respect of the replacement shower valve and remedial kitchen works. These issues came to light at the same time and the delay represents service failure on the part of the landlord. There is no evidence it has previously acknowledged what went wrong. However, except for the above delay, the landlord suitably recognised and redressed other delays and failures that occurred during its response to the repairs.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to various repairs at the property.

Reasons

  1. There was an unreasonable delay of around six months in completing remedial works to the resident’s shower valve and kitchen. Whilst the evidence shows the property had alternative shower facilities, and the works are now completed, it is reasonable to conclude this caused the resident and his family some inconvenience. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord identified the extent of the delay or that the inconvenience the resident experienced has been addressed.
  2. Aside from the above delay, the landlord’s stage two response gave suitable consideration to, and redress for, other delays and failures that occurred during its response to the various repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord, if it has not already, to pay the resident the £175 in compensation that was offered in its stage two complaint response within four weeks.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £100 in additional (separate from the previous offer of £175 awarded in respect of its response to repairs) compensation within four weeks comprising:

a.     £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed response to shower and kitchen repairs

This will bring the landlord’s offer in line with this Service’s expectations for instances where a landlord has failed over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.

  1. The landlord to arrange, within four weeks, a professional inspection of the remaining damaged carpet by a qualified specialist. The landlord to share the findings with the resident and take the recommended steps to restore the flooring to its previous condition.