Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202106094)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106094

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

12 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the windows at the property.
2. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of a property owned and managed by the landlord. The property is a three bedroom flat. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident but is aware of her son having vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that its service standards are to attend all non-emergency repairs by appointment, at a time agreed with the customer and complete repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy uses the Housing Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint as ’’an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its staff, or those acting on its behalf, effecting an individual resident or group of residents’’. The landlord distinguishes service requests from complaints. The policy says that a resident does not need to use the word ‘complaint’ in order for it to treat it as one, however if the complaint can be resolved quickly and to the resident’s satisfaction, then the landlord will do this and it will not progress to an official complaint. The landlord will only do so with the resident’s express agreement and will never put barriers in a resident’s way to bringing an official complaint.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. At stage one the written response will be proved within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint. At stage two a response will be provided within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture policy says that it will maintain liability insurance to cover instances where a resident suffers loss due to its negligence. It will involve its insurer in all personal liability claims, and will take guidance from its insurer on the extent of its responsibilities when investigating any claim.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture policy also says that where the resident experiences distress or inconvenience, following a service failure, it can make a discretionary payment of up to £250. This includes cases of inconvenience, hardship, distress or a ‘making good’ payment. Sometimes the landlord may offer a discretionary goodwill gesture when it recognises distress or inconvenience caused e.g. it may have taken repeated attempts to resolve an issue. Goodwill gestures will not exceed £50 in value.
The resident moved to the property in October 2019.
The landlord’s records show that on 8 November 2019, following a report from the resident that the widows were rotten, it visited the property and noted that the sash windows in the lounge, bedrooms and kitchen were defective from wear and tear. It was recommended that temporary repairs were carried out and the property be recommended to the landlord’s window programme. The records also say that an email was sent to the window project survey team to add the property to the programme. The repair work was carried out on 5 December 2019.
The landlord carried out further work to the windows on 23 January 2020, 24 January 2020, 11 February 2020, 12 February 2020.
On 13 March 2020 the landlord’s contractors sent a letter to the resident saying that the windows at the property would be replaced with UPVC windows and giving the resident a date for it to visit the property to take the necessary measurements.
On 27 July 2020 the resident informed the landlord that the windows in the bedroom and living room wouldn’t stay open as the sashes were broken. On 11 August 2020 the landlord renewed the sash cord to the kitchen and living room windows.
Also in August 2020 the landlord carried out a stock condition survey at the property that advised that it should renew the windows in 2025.
The landlord attended the property on 4 November 2020 to carry out various repairs and made the following notes, “need to send roofer to check the guttering above the window is leaking in the bedroom top floor.” An appointment was made for the roofer to attend the property on 23 November 2020.
On 4 November 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord’s complaints email address saying that she was having difficulty getting various issues at the property addressed. She said that the windows were “rotten from the outside” and that she had had an appointment for someone to come and measure to install new PVC windows but no one had shown up. There was now rain water leaking into the bedroom from what looked like a guttering issue above the window and her carpet was getting ruined.
The landlord replied to the resident the same day and said that all her concerns had been escalated to the relevant departments and it had queried when the windows were due to be renewed. The landlord also said if the resident still wanted the matter logged as a complaint, to let it know. The resident confirmed to the landlord that she had already been told by the landlord that it would be attending the property on 23 November 2020 to deal with the leaking guttering.
On 10 November 2020 the landlord sent the resident an email apologising that the windows had not been measured in March 2020 as she had been advised. However, the resident would need to wait until the windows were scheduled to be replaced and it was trying to bring her forward on its window programme.
On 23 November 2020 the landlord’s roofer attended the property to look at the leak. Having inspected the roof and the guttering the resident said that the roofer informed her that he could find no problem with either.
Following a report from the resident on 23 November 2020, the landlord attended the property on 26 November 2020 and repaired a broken sash cord on the window in the resident’s son’s bedroom. The resident sent an email to the landlord the same day saying that the operatives who had attended the property that day had said that “the windows are really bad and that they also wanted to report that back so I hope they have.” She also said that her daughter’s and son’s bedrooms were freezing due to the single glass in the windows. She wanted to know when the landlord was going to measure the windows for replacement.
On 30 November 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident informing her that the property was on its schedule for window renewal in 2025.The resident responded the same day saying that she was not happy that it would take that long as the windows were in a poor state and had been repaired many times. She also said that all the landlord’s operatives who had repaired them had said that they needed replacing.
On 7 December 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord asking for it to get the single glass replaced in her daughter’s bed room as it was cold in the room. She also told the landlord that the window was still leaking and she had not received an update after the landlord’s visit to the property on 23 November 2020.
On 10 December 2020 the resident sent a further email to the landlord and telephoned the landlord saying that she had not received a reply to her previous email or request to get the single glass replaced in her daughter’s bed room as it was cold in the room. She could not wait for the widows to be replaced in five years and wanted to make a complaint.
On 16 December 2020 the landlord sent an internal email saying, “The property has single glazed windows, the property was void last year and the glazing would have been checked to ensure it meets current regulations. There wouldn’t be much we can do with the glazing to eliminate the draft the resident is experiencing through it.”
The landlord informed the resident that it would be attending the property to repair the leaking window on 16 December 2020, however, the landlord did not attend the appointment. A further appointment was made for 18 January 2021, which was cancelled by the resident. The job was raised again on 28 January 2021 and the landlord attend the property on 1 February 2021. The landlord’s notes say “Follow On Required: need roofer to sorted out possible guttering overflowing and flashing need fix it.”. A further note says “Already attended address on 23/11/20 when checked and cleared roof and guttering. Issue is old sash window that needs replacing also confirmed recently when [landlord operative] attended.”
On 24 February 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord’s complaints email address saying that she had had an ongoing problem with all the windows at the property as they were rotten. The landlord had visited the property and carried out a number of repairs, however, since October 2020 rainwater had been leaking through the window in her bedroom. She said that two of the landlord’s carpenters had inspected the window and told her that there was nothing more they could do as the window needed replacing. A roofer had also checked the roof and the guttering twice and told her they were fine but that the window was old and needed replacing. She repeated that in March 2020 she had been told the windows would be replaced but that had not happened and the carpet in the bedroom had been ruined from the rainwater coming through the window.
Also on 24 February 2021 the landlord sent an internal email, attaching the resident’s email saying “Hi, anything we can do so as not to turn this into a complaint please and can you let me know which of you will progress action on this.”
On 25 February 2021 the landlord attended the property to carry out a condition report and take photographs of the windows. The report said the following:
1. Front elevation windows “needs overhauling and repainting as after last year’s repair external painting not been carried out.”
2. Kitchen window needed replacing for UPVC unit
3. The resident’s daughter’s bedroom window was in good condition but was only single glazing so could possibly be replaced for UPVC unit to improve heat loss.
4. The bathroom window was in good condition but possibly could be replaced with a double glazing unit to improve the heat loss.
5. The window in the resident’s bedroom required a laminated glass window, a total replacement as the frame was rotten not salvageable, could possibly replace with a UPVC unit.
6. The resident’s sons bedroom window was rotten and too small for the frame and needed a total replacement for UPVC window to improve the heat loss.
Following the report and the photographs the landlord’s staff exchanged the following messages on 26 February 2021:
1. “some of the windows clearly need replacing,[landlord surveyor] is saying they are not on the program until 2025?”.
2. “all we can do is make good and adjust them as best we can.”
3. “front elevation window we can repair it and overhaul the top bedroom when the tenants are saying that’s the worst one is low level that needs to go completely and son’s bedroom is rotten daughter room are ok lot of heat escaping and room is really cold which is not helping.”
The landlord sent an internal email on 4 March 2021 asking for the following jobs to be raised: inspect the roof leak from the back of the property above the window and carry on repair and instal new draught proof brushes to all windows. These jobs were recorded as completed on 11 March 2021 and 17 March 2021.
On 12 March 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord to report the window still leaking.
On 19 April 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord. The landlord’s notes say that the landlord advised the resident that the windows would be replaced in 2025 and the matter was being dealt with as a service request. The resident clarified that there was an ongoing leak and the windows needed attention and the landlord advised that it would raise a complaint.
The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 5 May 2021. In its response the landlord said:
1. It understood that she had said that she had received a letter from its contractor saying that the windows would be replaced. It wanted to clarify that the contractor carried out fire compartmentation works and did not carry out window related works for the landlord. It apologised if there had been any confusion or miscommunication.
2. The property was void prior to the resident moving in and therefore the windows would have been checked as part of the void works.
3. Its records indicated that the windows were not due for replacement until 2025 and she had been previously advised of this.
4. Its records showed that:
  1. Its roofer had attended the property twice, checked the gutters and applied a mastic bead above the windows, resolving the issue.
  2. Its repairs supervisor had attend the property and arranged for a contractor to fit all the windows with storm guard window seals on 17 March 2021 and advised that no further action was required.
  3. She had been assured that a member of its staff would call her and this had not happened. It apologised for the lack of communication and said that its repairs manager would be contacting her to discuss her concerns.
5. It acknowledged that there had been some miscommunication and offered her £50 compensation for lack of communication and £50 as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 11 May 2021, saying that:
1. She had received a letter from the landlord’s contractors,[a different contractor from that named in the landlord’s stage one response] on 13 March 2020 that stated that they would measuring for UPVC windows. A date was provided but no one attended the property. She had followed this up with the landlord and was advised that this was due to the Covid 19 pandemic and she would be contacted again.
2. At the end of 2020 she had reported problems with the windows and some work was carried out but the works were not completed. There was a leak in the bedroom just above the window following rainy weather, leaking through the wood around the window and onto her carpet.
3. The landlord had sent roofers on two occasions who advised that no further works could be undertaken and she had contacted the landlord again about the leak, but the landlord had not re-attended the property. The problem remained unresolved and rain water was still leaking into the bedroom.
4. The landlord had visited the property on several occasions but she did not believe that the landlord was aware of the causes of the window problems or what actions needed to be taken. The windows were in a bad condition and one of the landlord’s operatives who had installed a storm guard at the windows told her that they needed replacing. Some windows didn’t have putty in them. The storm guard couldn’t be fitted properly because some windows wouldn’t close due to fitting badly.
5. The landlord’s compensation offer did not cover the damage to her blinds and carpet from the leaking rain water.
The resident says that on 13 May 2021 the landlord’s surveyor sent her a message saying that he had put her on the window replacement scheme for the current year as the windows were so bad.
On 18 June 2021 the landlord sent an internal email saying that:
1. A recent inspection had confirmed that the windows did not require renewal.
2. There had been an error by the contract manager who had instructed the contractors [not the contractors named by the landlord in its stage one complaint response] to carry out renewals at this property. This was an error as the property was void prior to the resident moving in in October 2019. It could only let properties once they met the void lettable standards. As part of the void works all moving parts of the property, electrics and components etc are checked.
3. The property had a stock condition survey in August 2020 the results of the survey advise it should review the windows in 2025.
4. All its renewals replacement programmes were led by stock condition data, where decent home failures took precedence. The property did not meet the criteria of failing decent homes.
The landlord issued its stage two response to the resident’s complaint on 23 June 2021. In its stage two response the landlord said:
1. There was an error whereby [the contractor] was incorrectly instructed and the letter dated 13 March 2020 was subsequently generated. The resident was also subsequently incorrectly advised . The landlord apologised for the service the resident had received and it appreciated that it had not managed her expectations effectively.
2. As previously explained the windows were not due for replacement until 2025. All its programmes were led by stock condition data, and the stock condition survey on the property was completed in August 2020. This didn’t affect her right to repair.
3. Following the resident’s reports of the rainwater leak it had attended the property and carried out the following works:
  1. On 23 November 2020 it had accessed the roof, cleared debris from the valley and gutters, repaired two cracked tiles and sealed the cracks around the top of the windows externally.
  2. On 26 November 2020 it had attended the property to fix the broken sash cord to the window.
  3. In March 2021 it had placed storm guard around the windows.
4. It understood that the resident might have previously been advised that the windows required replacing. It clarified that its operatives did not have the authority to determine whether windows require replacement. Operatives would report back on their findings and a supervisor or manager would then review and make a decision accordingly. It apologised for any possible confusion and assured her that its operatives had been reminded of the replacement process.
5. Its stock condition survey said that the windows at the property were due for renewal in 2025.
6. Its repairs supervisor had reviewed the matter recently in person and via images provided by operatives, and had confirmed that there was no associated danger and that the windows met its decent home standard.
7. It was unable to address the issue about damage to the resident’s personal belongings as part of the formal complaint. The resident could submit a liability claim if she wished to pursue this and it gave her the contact details of its insurance team. It noted that it should have advised the resident of this previously and this had been raised internally to avoid it happening in the future.
8. It accepted that it should have managed the resident’s expectations more effectively, and been proactive and prompt in its communication. It apologised for the service issues. As part of lessons learnt, it had raised the resident’s concerns with the areas of service concerned and had also changed the way its repairs were registered and contractors used.
9. It revised its compensation offer to £160, made up of:
  1. £50 for service failure concerning communication .
  2. £50 for service failure concerning quality of service.
  3. £10 for service Failure for delayed complaint response.
  4. £50 discretionary payment.

The landlord’s stage two response was its final response to the resident’s complaint, confirming that its internal complaints process had been exhausted.
On 3 December 2021 the landlord wrote to this Service saying that, having reviewed its records, it had noted concerns regarding the condition of the windows at the property in 2018. Therefore, it was looking to replace the windows in the next financial year. It was unable to provide a specific date, due to the need for planning permission and a lead-in time for the manufacture of the windows. It said that it would start the process in the New Year, and would aim to update the resident with a clear timeline by the end of March 2022. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord has provided the resident with a clear timetable for the replacement of the windows.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the windows at the property.

Whilst the landlord carried out various repairs to the windows at the property throughout 2020 and 2021 its response to the resident’s reports of problems with the windows was inappropriate as:
1. It had incorrectly told its contractors to inform the resident that the windows would be replaced. The contractors then wrote to the resident on 13 March 2020 saying that the windows would be replaced with UPVC windows and gave her a date for it to visit the property to take the necessary measurements.
2. In its stage one complaint response it referred to the wrong contractor as having sent her the letter on 13 March 2020 and said that that the contractor carried out fire compartmentation works and did not carry out window related works for the landlord.
3. When the resident chased up the landlord about measurements being taken for replacing the windows it incorrectly told her that the matter had been delayed because of the Covid 19 pandemic restrictions.
4. On 23 November 2020 the landlord’s roofer informed the resident that the leak wasn’t due to a problem with the roof. However, the landlord did not then arrange to reattend the property to repair the leak and the resident contacted the landlord again on 7 December 2020 to follow this up.
5. It did not attend the appointment to repair the leaking window on 16 December 2020.
6. It did not attend the property to repair the leaking window until 1 February 2021 (48 working days after the roofer had confirmed that the leak was not coming from the roof) and the landlord’s notes demonstrate confusion around its record keeping concerning what work had been carried out and what work was required.
7. Despite the landlord comments following the condition report on 25 February 2021 that “some of the windows clearly need replacing” it continued to carry out works to the windows in March 2021 which did not repair the leak.
8. Its operatives had advised the resident that the windows required replacing.
9. Its surveyor had sent the resident a message on 13 May 2021 saying that he had put her on the window replacement scheme for the current year.
10. The leak had not been repaired by the time the landlord issued its final response to the complaint, which was158 working days after the resident had reported the leak on 4 November 2020. This was 138 working days later than the timescale for repairs set out in the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
The landlord accepted that it should have managed the resident’s expectations more effectively, and been proactive and prompt in its communication. It also apologised for the service issues and offered compensation.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) 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.
The landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from outcomes by raising the resident’s concerns with the areas of service concerned and by changing the way its repairs were registered and contractors used.
The landlord acted fairly by apologising for not effectively managing the resident’s expectations and for its poor communication about how she could make a claim for compensation for the damaged belongings. However, it did not act fairly by failing to acknowledge that, despite attending the property on various occasions, it had not repaired the leak.
The landlord’s response did not put matters right as:
1. It did not confirm what work it would be doing to repair the ongoing leak.
2. The £150 compensation offered for service failure relating to communication and quality of service and the goodwill gesture was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures set out in paragraph 40 above, as:
  1. The sum of £150 did not include any compensation for the landlord’s failure to repair the rain water leak over a considerable period of time.
  2. The resident incurred significant amount of time and trouble in chasing the landlord to attend the property to repair the windows and the leak.
  3. The resident incurred distress and inconvenience and time and trouble over a significant amount of time in clarifying the contradictory information she received form the landlord, its contractors and operatives, about if and when the windows would be replaced.
  4. The sum of £150 was within the maximum amounts of compensation set out in the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture policy. However, the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends awards of at least £250 compensation in cases like this where the landlord has given contradictory or incorrect information, a resident has had to repeatedly chase responses and there has been failure over a considerable time to address repairs.
Therefore, for the reasons set out in the previous two paragraphs the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of its failures and that the landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s complaints handling

There was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling as:
1. There is evidence that the resident tried to make a complaint by email on 10 December 2020 and again on 24 February 2021. However, the landlord did not raise a formal complaint following either email. This was despite the requirements under its complaints policy for it not to raise a formal compliant not being met as:
  1. Neither email was a service request.
  2. There was no evidence that the complaint had been resolved to the resident’s satisfaction.
  3. It did not have the resident’s express agreement not to progress to an official complaint.
2. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 5 May 2021, 12 working days after the complaint was made on 19 April 2021, two working days later than the timescale set out in its complaints policy.
3. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 23 June 2021, 30 working days after the resident’s escalation request on 11 May 2021 and 10 working days later than the 20 working days set out on its complaints policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the windows at the property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord provided the resident with conflicting information about when and if the windows would be replaced, the landlord failed to address the repairs concerning the leak over a considerable length of time and did not keep accurate repair records. The compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident.
The landlord did not raise a complaint when the resident twice made a complaint and there were delays in it providing its complaint responses.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident £435. This is comprised of:
1. £160 previously offered if it has not already been paid.
2. A further £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the windows at the property.
3. A further £100 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to write to the resident and this Service setting out a clear timetable for the replacement of the windows at the property within this current financial year.
If the windows are not to be replaced within the next six weeks then the landlord is further ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to inspect the windows to see if further repairs are required and within two weeks of the inspection write to the resident, and this Service setting out the timetable for repairs.