Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202222910)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222910

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

26 April 2024

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:
   1. Handling of repairs to the property.
   2. Response to reports of damage to personal property.

Background

2. The resident has lived in the property as an assured tenant since June 2020. The property is a 3-bedroom flat.
3. Following a report of rainwater leaking through the roof in July 2021, the landlord carried out repairs to fix the leak. It then arranged to carry out internal work to repair leak damage to the ceilings.
4. Before it carried out the internal repairs, it did a survey in March 2022 that identified the damaged ceilings contained asbestos. The landlord agreed to replace the ceilings and carry out other repairs. Because of the type of work, the resident and his family were decanted while the work was carried out.
5. On 21 October 2022, the landlord informed the resident that all work had been completed and he could move back to the property.
6. The resident complained on 25 October 2022 that some agreed work had not been done. He also said his personal property and furniture had been damaged during the work.
7. In its complaint response on 8 November 2022, the landlord said a survey on 19 October 2022 had confirmed 2 outstanding minor repairs and plaster dust on the floor. It said the contractor had been called back to complete this work. The landlord said other repairs raised by the resident in his complaint were not part of the agreed work, and it would arrange a phone call to book these in. On the complaint about damage to personal property, it said 2 bedrooms had been fitted with locks for the resident to store his possessions, and only he had access to those rooms. It asked the resident to send photos of damaged items. Because of the dust, it offered £75 compensation, which comprised £25 for inconvenience and a £50 good will payment.
8. The resident escalated his complaint on 19 November 2022. He said the landlord had not done all the agreed works and it was responsible for damage to his property. He said the landlord had caused emotional distress.
9. In its final response on 16 December 2022, the landlord said all agreed work had been completed and any new repairs would have to be reported. It said it would arrange for the sofa to be cleaned and offered an additional £250 for inconvenience caused. It said damage to personal belongings could not be resolved as part of the complaints process and the resident needed to contact its insurance team. It said because of the resident’s complaint it would take photos before and after work in future and would ensure contractors covered furniture.
10. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman as he felt the compensation was insufficient because of the distress and inconvenience caused. He said the landlord had failed to reimburse him for damage caused by its contractors.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident complained the landlord did not reimburse him for damage to his personal property. After carefully considering the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider whether the resident was appropriately reimbursed. This is because the Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to award damages in the way an insurance procedure or court might.
12. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord followed proper procedures and behaved reasonably when considering the resident’s request for reimbursement.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property

13. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This is confirmed in the occupancy agreement and means the landlord has a general obligation to repair and maintain the property. The landlord did not dispute that it was responsible for the repairs.
14. Records provided by the landlord show rainwater leaked through the roof into the resident’s property in July 2021, and this caused damage to ceilings. On 11 February 2022, the landlord told the resident the roof needed to be fixed before it could repair damaged ceilings. The Ombudsman has not seen a record of when the roof work was completed. However, on 18 March 2022, the landlord carried out a survey, which found the ceilings contained asbestos.
15. On 15 May 2022, the resident asked for an update on the repairs. The landlord told him it was waiting for the asbestos to be removed and contractors should have contacted him to arrange this. It said it would chase the contractors for an update and would do the repairs as soon as the asbestos was removed. The landlord’s records at this time noted the resident would decant from his property while work to remove asbestos and carry out repairs took place.
16. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 July 2022 and said the work had still not been done. He said he had been left living with asbestos, which was detrimental to his family’s health. The landlord responded on 6 July 2022, and said there was no danger from the asbestos as it was not exposed. It said a decant had been offered but had been declined by the resident. It asked him to confirm a date when he could decant, as it was unable to proceed with the work until he decanted.
17. The asbestos was removed on 6 September 2022, and repair work started on 20 September 2022. On 21 October 2022, the landlord told the resident the work had been completed and he could move back to the property.
18. The Ombudsman has noted that there was a lengthy delay between the landlord carrying out a survey in March 2022, which identified asbestos in the ceilings, and the works commencing in September 2022. It is unclear from the information provided why there was a delay. The Ombudsman accepts that specialist contractors were required to remove the asbestos, and there appears to have been a delay in the works starting due to the resident declining a decant offer. Because of the lack of clarity, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the delay was reasonable.
19. The resident complained on 25 October 2022 that all work had not been done. He said various repairs, including damp in the bedroom, repainting skirting in the corridor, and replacing a bathroom cabinet had not been done. He said the house had not been cleaned.
20. In its complaint response on 8 November 2022, the landlord said damp in the bedroom was not part of the agreed work, and there was no access to the room as it was locked. It said the skirting boards and bathroom cabinet were also not part of the agreed works, and these would need to be reported as new repairs.
21. The Ombudsman has noted that the issue underpinning the complaint is a disagreement between the landlord and resident about what work would be done during the decant. The landlord advised the resident that the work had been completed. The resident disputed this. Although the Ombudsman has been provided with a completion report dated 27 October 2022, which details the work the landlord did, we have not been provided with communications sent to the resident advising him what work would be done. Because of this, the Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on whether the landlord did all the work it said it would do during the decant.
22. However, when carrying out major works, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to clearly communicate with the resident what work it would do. Because there is no evidence the landlord did this, the Ombudsman has found there was a service failure in the landlord’s communications, which led to a disagreement about whether work had been done. This led to the resident raising a complaint with the landlord. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, service failure is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found a minor failure. Because of this, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident with £100 in recognition of the failure to communicate effectively.

Landlord’s response to reports of damage to personal property

23. The landlord has a compensation policy that says when a resident experiences distress or inconvenience because of a service failure, it can make a discretionary payment of up to £250. The policy says payments are made subject to supporting evidence. The landlord says it may offer a goodwill gesture of up to £50 but this is not an admission of liability.
24. The landlord also has liability insurance for instances where a resident suffers loss due to its negligence. The landlord says it will not pay compensation where there is damage when the resident believes the landlord was at fault. It says in these cases, a liability claim can be made by the resident.
25. Records provided by the landlord show that on 18 May 2022, the resident asked the landlord to put locks on a bedroom door so he could store valuables securely during the decant period.
26. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a works report dated 6 September 2022, which includes a photo showing the sofa and living room floor covered in protective plastic sheeting.
27. When the resident complained on 25 October 2022 that his possessions had been damaged by contractors during the decant period, the landlord responded and said 2 bedrooms in his property had been fitted with padlocks for him to store valuables. It said its surveyor attended the property on 5 September and had noted the rooms were locked. It also said no damage was seen during an inspection on 19 October 2022, but there was dust on the floors. It asked the resident to provide photos of the damage, and, because of the dust, it offered £75 compensation.
28. When the resident escalated his complaint on 19 November 2022, he said the rooms were not locked and the items damaged included a sofa, dining furniture, fridge, clothing, a bed and bedding, a baby buggy, and lighting. He said he wanted compensation for damage caused. He also said he wanted a refund of rent paid since the decant and compensation for inconvenience and distress.
29. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with an internal email where it considered the items the resident said were damaged. The landlord noted the sofa, beds and other furniture had been protected with plastic sheeting during the works, and items including the dining set and fridge were not in the rooms affected by the work. It also noted that the resident had been asked to place other belongings in a separate room, and this was fitted with a padlock. It said a refund of rent was not appropriate.
30. In its final response, the landlord offered to clean the sofa and offered an additional £250 compensation. In line with its policy, it said the resident would need to make a claim through its insurance for damages.
31. The Ombudsman is not able to assess whether the resident’s property was damaged. It was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident that he would need to make a liability claim and the Ombudsman has noted the landlord provided the resident with details of how to do this. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the offer to clean the sofa and give an additional £250 for inconvenience was reasonable in the circumstances. There was no obligation on the landlord to refund the resident’s rent. This is because he was provided with alternative accommodation while the works were being carried out and the property was fully usable when he returned to it.
32. Taking all of this into account, the Ombudsman has found there was reasonable redress by the landlord in the way it responded to reports of damage to personal property. The Ombudsman has noted that the resident declined the offer of £250 made in the landlord’s final response. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reoffers this amount to the resident.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs.
34. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of damage to personal property.

Orders and recommendations

Order

35. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of its failure in the handling of repairs. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident within 4 weeks, and not offset against any arrears.

Recommendation

36. It is recommended that the landlord reoffers the £250 for inconvenience that it offered in its final response.