Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202111617)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111617

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

22 January 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 about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. reports of a mice infestation in her property
    2. communication with the resident and her representative; and
    3. reports of various repairs in the property, including repairs and mould in the bathroom and problems with the windows and front door.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. There were three repairs raised to fill pest access points, mainly in the property’s kitchen, carried out on: 12 May 2017, 19 February 2018, and 20 March 2020.

4. In August 2017 the resident reported that her bedroom and bathroom windows were difficult to open and close and the landlord attended and completed repairs. In May 2018 the landlord reattended to inspect the bathroom window and determined that it needed overhauling by a specialist, which was completed in September 2018.

5. The Ombudsman has not seen any record of any further repairs or pest activity being reported until March 2020, when the landlord raised a repair for the resident’s windows not closing properly and having mould build up around the window; however, there is no record that these repairs were completed.

6. In March 2020 the resident reported a leak from the bathroom into the utility room. The landlord attended in July 2020 and completed repairs in August 2020. In September 2020 the resident reported that her electric shower had come away from the wall and was leaking. The landlord attended and completed repairs.

7. According to the landlord’s records, on 9 April 2021 the resident called it and asked for pest control to attend. The landlord noted that it advised that pests in the property were the resident’s responsibility to resolve, but the resident said she could not afford to get pest control out and had mental health issues. The landlord confirmed it would check if it could arrange pest control and would contact the resident to confirm this.

8 On 26 April 2021 the resident’s daughter called the landlord to pursue the pest control visit and asked how to send in photos and log an official complaint. The landlord asked the resident’s daughter to send in documentation regarding the resident’s mental health so it could add it to its records. The landlord then called the resident back to confirm it had approval to arrange pest control.

9. A pest control operative attended on 4 May 2021 and reported back to the landlord that the kitchen would need to be removed and refitted in order to block up holes which could be allowing access for vermin. The contractor noted that it was clear that somebody had attempted to proof the holes previously but they were not able to access the area properly. They also confirmed there were a lot of other holes to attend to.

10. The landlord has noted that following this visit it received a complaint and raised works for its carpenter to attend to fill the holes without removing the whole kitchen, but the resident did not want this work to go ahead.

11. On 15 June 2021 the resident’s daughter asked to raise a formal complaint, raising the following concerns:

  1. The issue had been ongoing since May 2017 and previous repairs to holes had not resolved the pest infestation, which was severe.
  2. In April 2021 the landlord told the resident that pests were her responsibility to resolve. (the resident’s daughter disputed this and referred to the landlord’s pest control policy). The resident’s daughter called back and explained that the resident was vulnerable, over 60, and suffered with significant mental health issues. However, the landlord said this made no difference and it would still be the resident responsibility to resolve pest issues, so the resident asked to speak with someone more senior. The resident’s daughter was told someone would call her back, but this did not happen.
  3. The resident’s daughter called on 26 April 2021 and was concerned that the landlord could only find one record of the pest issue in the property.
  4. The resident’s daughter arranged with the landlord for pest control to attend on 4 May 2021 and call her thirty minutes before arrival because the resident was not well; however, the contractor did not call prior to arriving.  The contractor explained that he would not be able to fill the holes because they were large, went down to the sub flooring, and the kitchen needed removing in order to access and fill the holes. Since the visit, the landlord had not contacted the resident and the mice issue persisted.
  5. The resident’s daughter referred to the landlord’s handling of other issues including: mould to the bathroom ceiling; the front door not fitting the frame and being in poor condition; the windows being difficult to open and close. She said the window sills in the bedroom were rotting, issues with the glass, and the windows rattling in the frames; the shower was fitted 1cm away from the wall; the bathroom cold tap did not work properly; and there was a hole in the hallway ceiling which required filling and redecoration. The resident’s daughter said she believed there may be a leak from the bathroom causing the hole in the ceiling, which she had made the landlord aware of.
  6. The landlord told the resident’s daughter on 26 April 2021 that there wasn’t a complaints team email address, and she should use the customer service email but on 15 June 2021 the landlord gave her the complaints team’s email address. The resident’s daughter said she found communication with the landlord to be stressful and its customer service team to be “very dismissive and blocking”. The resident’s daughter reiterated her request that the landlord only communicate with her, due to her mother not being well.

12. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 June 2021, advised that it was experiencing high volumes of contact, apologised for the delay, and said that it aimed to respond by 6 July 2021.

13. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, dated 9 July 2021, it said that the sub-contractors who attended in May 2021 provided incorrect advice, and raised expectations regarding the scope of works as well as the requirement for taking the kitchen apart to complete the works. It said it reviewed the repair requirements and the scope of the works did not need to include taking the kitchen apart. The landlord explained that pest issues could reoccur and it would block all entry points as part of the repairs. The landlord confirmed it contacted the resident on 1 July 2021 to arrange an appointment to fill the holes and assured the resident that it would arrange a post work inspection to ensure that the works were caried out as intended and to a good standard.

14. The landlord apologised for the advice that was provided originally in April 2021 (that pest control was the resident’s responsibility) and for not providing the resident’s daughter with clear information on how to register a complaint. It confirmed it raised this matter internally and would be arranging training for new staff members and would also pass on this information to the relevant department to avoid similar issues in future. It confirmed it would also note on the resident’s account that the landlord must contact the resident’s daughter on her behalf in the first instance.

15. In relation to the other repair issues, the landlord said that these had not been reported previously and they would be managed outside its complaints process as requests for service.

16. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the service failures, including: £40 for communication service failures; £50 for delays; and £10 for its delayed complaint response.

17. On 22 July 2021 the resident’s daughter asked to escalate the complaint. She had asked that the resident would not to be contacted; however, the landlord continued to contact the resident and call her on 1 July 2021, causing her distress. The resident’s daughter also referred to missed call back requests, a delay in her complaint being acknowledged and delays to the stage one complaint response being issued.

18. The resident’s daughter maintained that the landlord needed to find another solution because it had attempted to fill holes without removing the kitchen on three to four occasions, and it did not work. She said the mice had chewed through previous attempts to fill the holes with foam and referred to the hazards that living with mice could cause. She disputed that the additional repairs had not been reported previously, said she believed the landlord had not kept up-to-date records, and expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s offer of compensation.

19. In the landlord’s final complaint response, dated 18 August 2021, it apologised for the communication issues the resident’s daughter experienced, including contacting the resident instead of her daughter concerning the repairs and complaint in error. It also apologised for the delays in it acknowledging the complaint, as well as for not calling the resident’s daughter back as. The landlord confirmed it would ensure that it contacted the resident’s daughter directly going forward.

20. The landlord advised that it had reviewed the pest-proofing recommendations, alongside photos and videos provided by the resident, and confirmed that the kitchen did not need removing in order to block the holes.  It said this was not a practical solution and did not guarantee a resolution whereby the matter would not occur again. The landlord said it would address this matter directly with the contractors concerned. The landlord said that wire wool and expanding foam were proven effective in stopping rodents coming through the current holes, and it would continue to block any other entry points if they should appear.

21. The landlord reiterated that its records indicated that the resident did not report the other repairs mentioned previously.

22. The landlord concluded that it should have managed the situation effectively, communicated with the resident’ daughter directly, and managed her expectations in terms of the repairs. It apologised for the service failures identified and confirmed it would raise the resident’s daughters concerns internally and changed the way its repairs were registered and tracked. The landlord revised its compensation offer to £235, broken down as: £100 for inconvenience; £75 for communication service failures; £50 for delays; and £10 for its delayed complaint response.

Assessment and findings

23. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is expected to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including: windowsills, window catches, sash cords and window frames; internal and external doors; internal walls, floors and ceilings (but not including internal painting cord decoration). It will also keep in repair and proper working order any installations provided by the landlord for space water heating, sanitation ad for the supply of water, gas and electricity.  The resident is responsible for the cleaning and internal decoration of the property, and proper disposal of rubbish and refuse (so as not to attract vermin).

24. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will not consider service requests for a repair, provision of service, or action (where the timeframe for delivering that repair or action has not yet passed) as a complaint.

25. In line with its complaint policy the landlord will:

  1. acknowledge an official complaint within two working days of receipt.
  2. respond within ten working days of receipt of the stage one complaint or it may agree an alternative timescale with the resident on a case-by-case basis, but this will not exceed 20 working days in total.
  3. complete complaint reviews within 20 working days. If this is not possible, it may agree an alternative timescale with the resident on a case-by-case basis, but this will not exceed 30 working days in total.

26. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay:

      a. £10 for failure to complete a repair within published timescales

b. £2 for every additional day the repair(s) remains outstanding up to a maximum of £50

c. £10 for failure to keep to published or advised timescale when dealing with a complaint.

 

 

 

Scope of Investigation

27. In line with paragraph 399(e) the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (which set out the rules governing our service) The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. It is understood that the resident raised the issue of pests in the property to the landlord several times between 2017 and 2021, but there is no evidence to suggest that she pursued the matter as a formal complaint until June 2021. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s investigation will focus on events from January 2021 onwards which is six months prior to the formal complaint being raised.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property.

28. Tenants are generally responsible for resolving pest issues affecting their own property. However, the landlord would be responsible for resolving pest issues where the pests are entering through defects in the structure of the building. In this situation, the landlord would be expected to block up any holes/cracks and provide pest control treatment.

29.  Despite the landlord attending on multiple occasions to complete repairs, the evidence demonstrates that the mice infestation has persisted. More recently, the landlord has instructed a pest control contractor to attend, in line with its obligations, and the pest control contractor concluded that the kitchen required removing to proof pest entry holes behind. However, the landlord disagreed that kitchen needed to be removed and there remains a dispute over the works required

30. It would be reasonable for the landlord to seek the most cost- effective method of carrying out the necessary repairs, in line with its responsibilities as a social landlord to manage its limited funds effectively for the benefit of all its residents. However, in this case there are conflicting opinions concerning the extent of the work required to resolve the pest issue. The landlord’s repairs manager and the pest control contractor had different opinions of the works required and that the issue has persisted despite the landlord’s attempts to seal entry points in the past. In view of this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange a further independent inspection to confirm what works were required. The landlord did not do this, and instead relied on its repairs manager’s conclusions rather than the conclusions of the pest control operative who had the opportunity to visit the property rather than conducting a desk-top assessment.

31. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be contacted through her representative

32. There were several failings in the landlord’s communication, which the landlord has accepted, including failures to call the resident back and provide updates on the pest control, miscommunication around how to contact the complaints team and not following the resident’s instruction to contact her daughter rather than herself.

33. There was also a delay in the landlord acknowledging and responding to the stage one complaint, in line with its complaints policy, with the landlord taking 12 working days to acknowledge and 25 working days to respond to the complaint.

34. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an acknowledgment of its failings, an apology, confirmation it would raise the service failures internally, changes in the way its repairs were registered and tracked, and a compensation payment of £235) were reasonable to put things right and resolved the resident’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.

35. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests awards of between £50 to £250 where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Examples include repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls, not having regard to a complainant’s preferred method of contact or contact requirements, and/or failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact on the outcome of the complaint.

36.  In this case, the complaint handling delays, and poor communication did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint, but these errors did have an impact on the resident and compensation is due in view of this. The amount of £235 compensation offered by the landlord was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance as well as the landlord’s own compensation policy and was therefore reasonable in view of all the circumstances. Additionally, the landlord’s acknowledgement of and apology for the service failures, and steps to prevent the issues occurring again (by changing how it recorded repairs and passing the resident’s concerns on internally) were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

37. Therefore, the landlord has provided reasonable redress in respect of this aspect of the complaint and does not need to do anything further in this regard.

 

The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the bathroom, windows and front door.

38. The landlord has declined to consider the aspect of the resident’s complaint concerning various repairs including mould in the bathroom, issues with the shower and bathroom taps, windows and front door. It has explained that this is because the repairs had not been reported before, and it considered the matter to be a service request rather than a complaint.

39. However, the available evidence indicates that the landlord has historically raised repairs in relation to some the issues reported, including to various issues relating to the windows, to a leak from the bathroom into the utility room, and to the resident’s shower leaking and coming away from the wall. While the evidence indicates that the landlord completed most of the repairs, it appears that there were repairs to the window which were not completed. This evidence conflicts with the landlord’s statement that the repairs had not been raised previously. The landlord did not clarify/revise this response in its complaint responses or demonstrate that it had completed all the repairs.  despite this Service’s requests for the repair records, it has not provided records of any repairs from January 2021 onwards or explained why this information is not available.

40. It is recognised that the landlord’s complaints procedure says that it will not consider requests for a repair; provision of service; or action (where the timeframe for delivering that repair or action has not yet passed) as a complaint. However, given the circumstances mentioned above, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have responded to the resident’s concerns about the outstanding repairs as a complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which says:

a. Landlords should recognise the difference between a service request, where a resident may be unhappy with a situation that they wish to have rectified, and a complaint about the service they have/have not received.

b. If a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, a detailed explanation should be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process and the right to take that decision to the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman does not agree that the exclusion has been fairly applied, the Ombudsman may instruct the landlord to take on the complaint. 

41. The landlord should now respond to the complaint, in line with its complaints process and carry out any necessary repairs.

 

 

Determination (decision)

42. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of:

a. a mice infestation in the resident’s property.

b. various repairs in the property including repair issues and mould in the bathroom and problems with the windows and front door.

43. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be contacted through her representative satisfactorily.

Reasons

44. The landlord has not provided a reasonable explanation for why it would not complete the pest-proofing works as recommended by its pest control contractor to resolve the long-standing pest infestation.

45. The landlord has failed to investigate the aspect of the complaint concerning its handling of repairs to the bathroom, windows and front door in the property or provide a reasonable explanation for not investigating the complaint in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, given that the resident has previously reported most of the repairs to the landlord and has expressed dissatisfaction with its handling of the repairs.

46. The landlord has offered appropriate redress for its acknowledged failings in its communication with the resident and her representative, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.

Orders

47. The landlord is ordered to:

a. Arrange an inspection to determine what works are required to eradicate the pest infestation, within four weeks of the date of this decision. If any repairs are identified as necessary following this inspection, they should be completed in line with the timescales given in the landlord’s repairs policy.

b. Investigate the resident’s complaint concerning its handling of the repairs to the bathroom, windows and front door in line with its complaints policy and arrange for any necessary repairs to be carried out, if it has not already done so in line with the timescales in its repairs policy.

c. Pay the resident £585 compensation. This consists of:

i. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation at her property.

ii. £150 for the time and trouble to the resident in pursuing her complaint about the landlord’s handling of various repairs in the property.

iii. £235 offered to the resident through the landlord’s complaints process. This amount can be deducted from the total compensation payment if it has already been paid.

48. The compensation should be paid within four weeks of this decision.