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

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (201815545)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201815545

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

29 January 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 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:

  • The resident’s reports of disrepair to the kitchen and bathroom at the property.
  • The resident’s housing transfer request.
  • The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured non-short hold tenant of the landlord at the property, a two-bedroom flat. The resident has lived in the property since 2007 and is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the agreement. The landlord is a housing association that contracts to a third party for the repair and maintenance of its properties.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, the policy requires that the complainant is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident made a complaint at the first stage the landlord will acknowledge within three working days and formally respond within 20 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the stage one response they can request a stage two review and a formal response will be provided within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will strive ‘to complete repairs promptly, to a good standard and right first time’. The policy highlights that some works may require a pre-inspection to assess the works required before works can be arranged and an appointment agreed upon. In such circumstances, the landlord will attempt to arrange both the pre-inspection and repair works appointments within a set timetable. Under the policy, ‘priority four planned repairs are to be completed within 60 days’.
  4. The landlord has provided a copy of its compensation policy, Section 5 highlights that ‘tenants who have requested certain repairs may be entitled to compensation where the repair is not completed within our published timescales’. Section 5 also states that if the landlord fails to keep to published timescales when dealing with a complaint ‘the resident is entitled to £10 compensation plus £2 per working day, up to a maximum £50’.
  5. The landlord allocation and lettings policy states that it is part of a choice based letting system where ‘residents bid on eligible properties that have been advertised’. The resident with the most points has first choice of properties as they become available.

Summary of events

  1. The resident has had historical issues with a rodent infestation at the property, the rodent problem has been resolved however there was lasting damage to the resident’s property. The resident made numerous complaints about the damage which included holes throughout the kitchen cabinets and bathroom as well as inadequate repairs. The landlord agreed to fill all of the holes, replace the cabinets and install new benchtops in the kitchen however this had not been completed by the time of the formal complaint.
  2. On 24 March 2019, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord regarding a number of issues including:
    1. an infestation of mice and associated damage to the kitchen and bathroom;
    2. being excluded from bidding on any transfer properties;
    3. the landlord not responding to her complaints.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord in regard to her complaint on 5 April 2019 and requested a written explanation for the delayed response. The landlord replied the same day and advised that a complaint response would be provided when works were agreed and booked so it could be confirmed in writing. 
  4. On 29 March 2020, the landlord agreed to fill all the holes, replace the cabinets and install new benchtops in the kitchen. These works were scheduled to be performed on 23 and 24 April 2019.
  5. On 20 June 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that she was yet to receive a formal response from the landlord regarding her complaint on 24 March 2019 and that her repairs issues were still outstanding.
  6. The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident on 28 June 2019. It apologised for the delay and highlighted the reason for the delay was that ‘the resident has raised multiple issues with multiple officers which caused confusion’. The landlord agreed to refurbish the whole kitchen and stated that the resident should not need to decant during this time as she would be left with running water and cooking facilities. It also agreed to complete the requested improvement works to the bathroom including replacing the fittings and fixtures.
  7. On 17 July 2019, the resident asked for the complaint to be progressed to the next stage of the landlord complaints process as she was unhappy with the response. The resident raised the following issues:
    1. Kitchen repairs and refurbishment –she should be offered alternative accommodation for the period of the refurbishment.
    2. Bathroom refurbishment – she wanted the whole bathroom replaced and at the very least block up holes under the bath and wash basin and reseal the floor and perform a mould wash.
    3. Request for housing transfer – the landlord excluded her from bidding on a neighbouring property.
  8. The landlord’s repairs log shows that works to the kitchen were completed on 4 October 2019 and post inspection performed.
  9. The resident subsequently made contact with this service and stated that she had made a formal complaint to the landlord but was having trouble getting a response. This service contacted the landlord on four separate occasions between 5 December 2019 and 27 January 2020 and asked it to provide the resident with a final response.
  10. On 28 January 2020, the landlord provided a second stage one response and apologised for the delay. The landlord stated that contractors attended on the 24 January 2020 and the works to the bathroom had been approved including the replacement of fixtures and fittings and would commence on 4 February 2020. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for any inconvenience caused.
  11. On 29 January 2020, the resident asked for the complaint to be progressed to the final review stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident stated that the landlord only addressed the bathroom repairs and failed to give adequate acknowledgement of the kitchen repairs and transfer issue. 
  12. The landlord repairs log shows that the bathroom repairs were completed on 4 February 2020.
  13. On 3 April 2020, after multiple complaints from the resident, this service contacted the landlord and asked it to provide her with a final response by 24 April 2020.
  14. On 17 April 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its final stage two response. It apologised for the delay in responding and addressed the issues raised by the resident on 29 January 2020. It stated that it had emailed the resident in regard to the kitchen repairs and asked what she specifically wanted addressed and ‘got no response’. It offered the resident £692.60 for delays in responding to the Ombudsman’s request as well as for delays in the bathroom refurbishment. It stated that its complaints team had spoken with the resident’s housing officer who explained the transfer process and that there was currently a crisis in London where not enough three-bedroom properties were available compared to the increased demand. It assured the resident that it would check her transfer account and arrange for her to be contacted in order to provide any assistance that may be required.
  15. On 13 May 2020, the resident made a complaint to the landlord that a housing officer had not been in contact to discuss the issue regarding transfer bidding. The resident also raised that it had failed to sufficiently windproof her windows which were rotting but this issue has not completed the landlord’s complaints process.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of disrepair to the kitchen and bathroom at the property.

  1. The resident formally complained about the disrepair to the kitchen and bathroom on 24 March 2019. The landlord had an obligation under its repairs policy to make the appropriate repairs and it agreed to replace and refurbish the kitchen in June 2019 as it was beyond repair. The landlord’s improvement to the bathroom was discretionary and reflected bringing forward planned upgrade works. It is clear from the evidence that the landlord did not take a resolution focused approach to the repairs issues as the kitchen repairs were not completed until the 4 October 2019 and the bathroom repairs until the 4 February 2020. This represents an inappropriate four-month delay from the resident reporting the kitchen repairs to the completion of the works. There was also an eight-month delay in the bathroom works but as the works were discretionary the delay was not as significant because the impact on the resident was less. Under the landlord repairs policy scheduled repairs were to be completed within 60 days. Overall, this represents a significant failure on the landlord’s behalf and was not in line with the timeframes outlined in its policies and procedures.
  2. The landlord accepted that there were delays in the repairs process as demonstrated by it offering the resident £150 at stage one for the distress and inconvenience caused and for the delay in getting the issues remedied. The landlord reviewed this amount at stage two and increased its offer to £692.60 for the delays in responding to the Ombudsman’s request as well as for delays in the refurbishments. The landlord did not further break down the £692.60 offer of compensation into specific amounts for delayed repairs and its complaints handling failures. Under the landlord compensation policy the resident is entitled to £10 plus £2 per day up to £50 for a delay in repairs. It is inappropriate in this situation for the landlord to set a cap on the amount of compensation as it does not allow it to take into consideration all the relevant factors.
  3. In assessing the amount of compensation for the repairs delay, it was relevant that the resident still had access and use of the bathroom and kitchen whilst the repairs were delayed. It was fair that the landlord increased the amount of compensation between stage one and two of its complaints process in order to address the significant delay and make the situation right. Taking into account the landlord’s failures, an offer in the region of £400 – £600 would be proportionate compensation for the identified failures and in line with our remedies guidance.  Accordingly, the £692 offered by the landlord was sufficient to include a fair offer of redress and to put right the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for this part of the complaint.

The resident’s housing transfer request.

  1. The landlord is a member of a choice based letting system where residents bid on eligible properties that are advertised. The landlord expressed to the resident that there is currently a crisis in London where not enough three-bedroom properties are available for letting compared to the increased demand. It informed the resident that they were able to bid for any property in which they were eligible and the resident with the most points has first choice of properties as they become available. The landlord responded to the resident regarding the issue however it failed to take a resolution focused approach and ensure that the residents application was correct and correctly imputed on the system. The resident raised this issue in her initial complaint on the 24 March 2019 and the landlord only agreed to check and assess the residents application in its final response on 17 April 2020. This one-year delay represents a failure because the landlord should have taken steps much sooner to engage with the resident and ensure that the application was correct.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy; if the resident is dissatisfied with the response at the first stage, they can request a formal review of their complaint. The documentation provided shows the initial formal complaint from the resident was made on 24 March 2019. The landlord provided the first formal stage-one response on 28 June 2020 this represents a two-month delay which the landlord stated was due to ‘multiple complaints with multiple housing officers’.
  2. The resident was unhappy with the decision and asked for a formal review on the 17 July 2019, the resident contacted this service on 5 December 2019 stating that she was having issues getting a response from the landlord. This service contacted the landlord 4 times between 5 December 2019 and 27 January 2020 and asked it to provide the resident with a final response. The landlord provided the resident with a second stage one response on 28 January 2020. The resident contacted the landlord and asked for a formal review on 29 January 2020. The resident received a formal review response from the landlord on 24 April 2020.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that during both stages of the complaints procedure it was required provide a formal response within 20 working days. The landlord failed at stage one to respond to the resident’s complaint within the required time frames, the two-month gap between receiving the resident’s complaint and providing a formal response was not appropriate or in line with its policies.
  4. There was a further failure by the landlord in the final review stage of the complaint with it failing to provide a response to the resident within the correct time frame causing this resident to again seek assistance from this service. The landlord then failed three times to comply with deadlines set by this service and when a response was supplied it was an additional stage one response. This caused a further 3-month delay in the resident receiving a final response.
  5. The landlord is expected to operate a timely and efficient complaints process that complements its overall service delivery but in this case the landlord has failed in its obligations at all stages of the complaints process. However, it has acknowledged it’s complains handling failures and explained that part of the £692.60 compensation it offered to the resident in its final complaint response was for its complaint handling errors. Taking into account the landlord’s complaint failures, an offer in the region of £150 – £250 would be proportionate compensation for the identified failures and in line with our remedies guidance.
  6. Overall, the £692.60 compensation offered by the landlord was sufficient redress to put right the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the failures identified in both the kitchen & bathroom complaint and in regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.  

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of  reasonable redress to the resident in relation to:
    1. The resident’s reports of disrepair to the kitchen and bathroom at the property. 
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the complaint about the resident’s housing transfer request.

Reasons

  1. It is evident that the landlord had an obligation to repair the kitchen and bathroom at the property. It was made aware of both issues and failed to have them properly rectified within a reasonable timeframe as per its repairs policy. The landlord however made a reasonable offer of compensation for the delay and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  1. The complaints handling by the landlord was not in line with its internal policies at either stage of the complaints process. It failed to provide a formal response within the correct 20 day time frames at both stage one and two of the complaints process. The landlord also failed to progress the complaint and issued two stage one responses to the same complaint. The landlord however acknowledged the failure and made a reasonable offer of compensation for the delay and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  2. The landlord explained the issue of availability and supply of large properties in social housing, however it failed to take a resolution focused approach and delayed addressing the residents transfer issues. The landlord failed to engage with the resident and check and assess the resident’s application within a reasonable time.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 in respect to the delayed approach in addressing the residents transfer issues.

 

  1. The landlord is to make this payment to the resident within four weeks and to update this service when payment has made.

 

Recommendations

  • That the landlord re-offers the £692.60 compensation to the resident (if not paid already) for its acknowledged delays to the kitchen and bathroom repairs and its complaints handling failures.
  • If the landlord has not already done so have a housing officer look into the resident’s transfer bidding in line with its allocation and letting policy.
  • The landlord should provide staff with training regarding its complaints policy.
  • The landlord should review its complaints policy – last year, the Ombudsman published a Complaint Handling Code which provides a framework for high-quality complaint handling and greater consistency across landlord’s complaint procedures. This applies to all members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It will enable landlords to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. It sets out good practice for the sector that will allow landlords to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code will help residents in knowing what to expect from their landlord when they make a complaint and how to progress their complaint. Non-compliance with the Code could result in the Ombudsman issuing complaint handling failure orders. The Code can be found here: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/ComplaintHandling-Code.pdf