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

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (201914164)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914164

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

10 May 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of scaffolding remaining in place for an extended period.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has had an assured tenancy with the landlord since 9 March 2012.
  2. The landlord’s repair log recorded that the resident cancelled an appointment scheduled for 24 September 2019 to attend her property to investigate a leak affecting her neighbour’s property as she was not available. She informed it that the leak was coming from the balcony.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 3 December 2019 in which she expressed her dissatisfaction with scaffolding which had been erected at her building. She stated that this scaffolding had been erected in August 2019 for cyclical external decoration and, while some painting work had been done in September and early October 2019, this had not been completed. The resident set out that she was unhappy that she had “lived in darkness behind scaffolding for 4 months with no end in sight”. She reported that, during periods of rain, water dripped through the scaffolding, bringing dirt and debris with it, and that it posed a security risk by allowing “easy access to an intruder or burglar”.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident on 5 December 2019 where it acknowledged her contact as a service request. It advised that it would refer the matter to its surveyor who would keep her updated with progress.
  5. The landlord’s internal correspondence on 9 and 10 December 2019 showed that it was aware of an issue with water penetration into the resident’s neighbour’s property due to cracked asphalt on her balcony and damaged guttering. It also noted that rainwater was penetrating into the property due to an issue with the asphalt on the entrance stairs. It was recorded that the landlord was to carry out an inspection of the issues.
  6. On 2 January 2020, the resident reported that water was entering her property, draining into her wall, and making her plaster wet. She suggested that it was either from the scaffolding or that the drainage on the above balcony was blocked.
  7. On 3 January 2020, the landlord relayed to the resident that it had attended that day and found that the water outlets were indeed blocked and causing water ingress into her property. It advised that the asphalt on the balcony was in a “poor state” leading to water not falling correctly but this would be rectified once the asphalt was replaced. The landlord committed to checking the outlets on a weekly basis to remove blockages until the asphalt was replaced. The resident replied later that day to say that “at a later stage” she would discuss work to her interior wall which had become damp from the leak.
  8. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 6 February 2020 to report her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her complaint concerning the scaffolding, which she said was preventing it from carrying out remedial work to prevent a leak penetrating into her neighbour’s property. She was also unhappy with its communication with her, and its handling of her complaint. This Service contacted it the same day to request that it respond to this by 27 February 2020.
  9. The landlord contacted this Service on 7 February 2020 to acknowledge the complaint and issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 19 February 2020. It advised that the painting of the building had recommenced on 10 February 2020 and, once completed, the scaffolding would be removed. The landlord acknowledged that it had initially logged the resident’s dissatisfaction as a service request, but this had not resulted in work being carried out. It apologised for this and assured her that it had put measures in place to prevent a reoccurrence of this.
  10. The landlord referred to previous leaks reported, one on 13 March, which was rectified, and the other on 24 September 2019, for which the appointment was cancelled. The landlord asked the resident to report any new leaks to its customer services team directly.
  11. The resident emailed the landlord on 30 March 2020 to escalate her complaint to the next stage, contending that it should not have closed her complaint at stage one until the painting work was completed and the scaffolding removed. She stated that the unresolved points of her complaint were:
    1. The landlord had not yet explained why the exterior work on the building did not start until February 2020 despite the scaffolding being erected in July 2019.
    2. The exterior painting appeared to have been completed on 28 March 2020, yet the scaffolding had not yet been dismantled.
  12. The landlord issued an internal review stage complaint response to the resident on 16 May 2020 in which it apologised for not fully addressing the reasons why the exterior painting had been delayed. It explained that there had been a change in personnel which had led to a delay in appointing someone to oversee the project. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed in its responsibility to keep her informed of the delay and assured her that it had raised the matter with management to prevent a reoccurrence.
  13. The landlord explained that the removal of the scaffolding had been affected by the corona virus pandemic, as its contractor had placed its staff on furlough. It advised that, once restrictions were eased, it would carry out a final inspection of the works and remove the scaffolding. It apologised for the inconvenience and delays.
  14. In recognition of its failure to fully explain the delays, the landlord offered her compensation of £25 and a further £10 for its delay in responding to the complaint.
  15. The resident emailed this Service on 15 July 2020 to report that the landlord had not yet removed the scaffolding and she had written to it to advise that she would be taking legal action if the work was not completed by 2 September 2020. We wrote to the landlord on 26 July 2020 to ask it to respond to her complaint.
  16. The scaffolding was taken down on 29 July 2020.
  17. On 2 and 5 August 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that the removal of the scaffolding had resulted in an accumulation of rubbish and debris in the area which she wanted removed.
  18. After further contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 15 October 2020 to ask it respond to her complaint. The landlord replied the next day to advise us to confirm that her complaint had been responded to at both stages of its complaint procedure but it had since spoken to the resident and it had agreed to review the complaint again.
  19. The landlord issued its final response to the resident on 6 November 2020 in which it acknowledged that it could have handled her complaint better. It repeated that the lack of communication about the delay to works requiring the scaffolding was due to the absence of a staff member alongside a “slow down” due to the impact of the corona virus. The landlord advised that it would implement a communication plan to keep residents updated on work.
  20. The landlord explained that the impact of the corona virus had put a “strain on service productivity”. It repeated that its contractor had placed its staff on furlough which affected its ability to remove the scaffolding. After investigation, the landlord found that after it had resumed normal working, it did not remove the scaffolding. It apologised for not providing a plan for monitoring the removal of this in its review stage complaint response on 16 May 2020.
  21. In recognition of “the overall service failure and stress that [she had] experienced”, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £480. It confirmed this was its final response.
  22. On 11 January 2021, the resident confirmed to this Service that she continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She held that it had attempted to close the complaint without resolving the matter by removing the scaffolding. The resident contended that the landlord re-opened the complaint only in response to her notice of legal proceedings. 

Assessment and findings

Policies

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy specifies that the timeframe for carrying out urgent repairs, such as roof leaks and leaks from neighbouring properties, is five working days. For routine repairs with “no risk of harm, damage or severe distress” the timeframe is 20 working days. This includes blocked gutters, downpipes, and broken rainwater hoppers. For planned works, such as exterior decoration, the timeframe is 60 working days.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy provides for a two-stage formal complaint procedure, consisting of an official complaint at stage one, and an internal review at the final stage. Before an official complaint is logged, the policy provides for a “pre-complaint” service request step, to be used when the timeframe for delivering the action specified has not yet passed. The landlord is to respond to an official complaint within ten working days, or up to 20 working days with agreement from the resident, and its response should include details of the proposed remedy and the timescales for its actions. It is to respond at the internal review stage within 20 working days, or within a maximum timeframe of 30 working days with the resident’s agreement.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for payments of compensation to be offered for repair delays, except where there are exceptional circumstances, and for discretionary payments when it has failed to maintain its service standards.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of scaffolding remaining in place for an extended period.

  1. It is not disputed that the landlord originally erected the scaffolding for external cyclical painting of the resident’s building in July 2019. This category of work would be considered planned works with a timeframe of 60 working days, as per the landlord’s repairs policy above at point 23. It would be expected, therefore, that this work would be completed by October 2019 and the associated scaffolding removed.
  2. It is evident that the cyclical exterior painting work requiring the scaffolding was not completed until July 2020, approximately nine months outside of the timeframe specified in its repairs policy. The landlord acknowledged its failure to complete the work in its stage one complaint response on 19 February 2020 but did not provide an explanation for why this had been delayed until its review stage response of 16 May 2020 and its final response on 6 November 2020. It therefore failed to complete the works in accordance with its timeframes or to keep the resident updated on the delay to the work.
  3. The landlord offered, in its final response on 6 November 2020, compensation of £480 to the resident for its acknowledged failures in communicating with her and its delays in completing the exterior painting and removing the scaffolding and the complaint as a whole. This offer was proportionate to the likely level of distress and inconvenience she experienced while the scaffolding was in place for nine months in excess of its repairs policy at point 23. This offer is also broadly in accordance with our remedies guidance where there has been a “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs”. Considering the likely delay to the landlord’s works resulting from the impact of the corona virus, the level of compensation it offered was reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak

  1. The resident has contended that the delay in removing the scaffolding impacted on the landlord’s ability to address a leak entering her neighbour’s property. There is no evidence of this, and it is noted that its appointment on 24 September 2019 to address this was cancelled by the resident, and there was no information provided of any subsequent work done with the neighbour to address the leak. It would not be expected of the landlord to provide information on the neighbour’s property.
  2. While the resident did mention damage to her internal wall from a leak she reported on 2 January 2020, the landlord attended to remedy the leak within 24 hours, within the timescale for an urgent repair as per its repairs policy, and there is no evidence that she requested it attend to damage to her interior wall. Therefore, there is no evidence of it failing to address her reports of a leak appropriately.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord initially acknowledged the resident’s complaint as a service request on 5 December 2019. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy, as the cyclical exterior decoration work requiring the scaffolding had exceeded the timeframe for this priority of work, as per its repairs policy. Therefore, the landlord failed to progress the complaint in accordance with its policy.
  2. Further involvement was required by the resident before the landlord acknowledged the complaint at the first stage of its procedure on 7 February 2020. Its stage one complaint response on 19 February 2020, while issued within the timeframe specified in its complaints policy, failed to include a timeframe for the proposed remedy, which was not in accordance with its policy.
  3. More involvement was required of the resident on 30 March 2020 to escalate her complaint, which was responded to on 16 May 2020. This was 12 working days in excess of its complaint policy, as there was no evidence of the landlord agreeing an extension with her. It acknowledged this delay in its response and offered compensation for this. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in completing the work and removing the scaffolding and, considering the corona virus restrictions in force, it was reasonable that it did not offer a definitive timeframe for the completion of the work.
  4. The landlord reviewed the complaint for a final time and issued its final response on 6 November 2020. While this final response was in excess of its policy timeframe, as there was no obligation for it to issue a further response, this was issued 73 working days after this Service requested it respond to the resident on 26 July 2020. This was an excessive length of time and required further involvement from the resident before it responded to her.
  5. While the landlord’s final response on 6 November 2020 did not specifically address its handling of the resident’s complaint, it offered £480 compensation, previously mentioned above, to her for its “overall service failure”. This was a reasonable award which was proportionate to the likely level of inconvenience and time and trouble she experienced in pursuing the complaint. This offer was also in accordance with our remedies guidance where there has been “significant failure to follow complaint procedure” leading to “considerable delay in resolving [the] complaint”. Therefore, the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning its response to the resident’s report of scaffolding remaining in place for an extended period.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of a leak.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning its handling of the associated complaint.   

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged its failures in the handling of the works requiring the scaffolding and its communication with the resident and offered a reasonable level of redress in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience she experienced.
  2. The landlord attended the resident’s report of a leak promptly and there is no evidence of it failing to address the water penetration into her neighbour’s property.
  3. The landlord acknowledged its “overall service failure” in its response to the resident and offered a reasonable level of redress in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience she experienced. 

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. Within the next four weeks, if it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the amount of £480 compensation it offered her in its final response on 6 November 2020.
  2. The landlord should carry out refresher training with its staff to ensure that future complaints are progressed in a timely manner and in accordance with its complaints policy.
  3. The landlord should ensure that it implements the communication plan it referred to in its final response to ensure that residents are updated periodically and in a timely fashion when works are expected to take an extended time to complete.