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

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202228848)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228848

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

8 February 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:
    1. The landlord’s communication with the resident following damage to the property caused by flooding.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for damage caused to her personal belongings.
    3. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy which started on 17 October 1994. The property is a 1-bedroom basement flat, below street level. The resident is immune suppressed as she had a kidney transplant.
  2. On 12 July 2021, flash flooding occurred in London which affected many properties. The resident’s property was one of a large number of the landlord’s properties that were affected. The landlord temporarily moved the resident into a hotel for 6 weeks and then moved her into a temporary flat, paid for by the landlord’s insurers.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 11 July 2022. She said that she was expected to move back into her property on 19 July 2022, but the landlord was not providing sufficient communication, acknowledgement, and assistance for her to return. She said the property did not have adequate facilities and was a “shell” and she mentioned that she was immune suppressed. She also asked the landlord to reimburse her for the flooring that she had bought after the flood and for it to replace her fitted wardrobes, as these had been damaged by the flooding. She asked if the landlord would install the flooring for her because she did not have the means to do so herself.
  4. On 22 July 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said that the repairs had taken longer than expected and works were scheduled to be completed in August 2022. It said it should have updated her with the progress and changes to the expected completion date for works and apologised for both the length of time it had taken and for the inconvenience caused. It said it would not cover costs for the wardrobes or flooring as the flooding was a natural disaster.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 27 July 2022. She remained unhappy that the landlord would not reimburse her for the flooring, as she said that the property was let to her with flooring down which the landlord removed for her at her request when she moved into the property. She said that she felt the landlord had an obligation to provide flooring. The resident also asked if the landlord could guarantee that the flooding would not occur in the future. She said that her property was more at risk of flooding as it is situated below the street level and that the landlord should have been regularly clearing the drains to ensure any damage caused by flooding would be minimised. She asked the landlord for the date that maintenance was last undertaken on the drains.
  6. On 7 September 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it upheld its previous decision. It said that floor coverings are residents’ responsibility and that there was only sub-flooring in the property when the resident was let the property. It gave a link to its website regarding various responsibilities for residents. It said that it could not guarantee whether flooding may occur in the future as this was a result of flash flooding and the water company responsible for the external drains was investigating this. It said it had reviewed its repair records and noted there were no requests made or repairs identified for drainage as far back as April 2021. It gave the resident information about considering taking out a home contents insurance policy to protect her possessions and gave a link to the website for further information. It offered £25 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint.
  7. The resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint about the landlord’s communication and its decision to not reimburse her for the flooring and wallpaper. It became a complaint that this Service could investigate on 1 March 2023.
  8. It is evident that after the landlord’s final complaint response on 7 September 2022, the resident moved back in to the property and experienced further issues. This included issues such as damp and mould and that a further decant period was required to rectify these issues. On 15 September 2023, the landlord conducted a review of its handling of the damp related repairs and made a compensation offer of £1,300. It said that this was in recognition of the delays in addressing the issues and the impact that this had on the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns to both this Service and her landlord about issues with damp and mould found in the property after moving back in during December 2022. She also raised concerns about a lack of carbon monoxide alarms within the property after she returned there. As these matters were either not raised as a complaint to the landlord or were raised after the end of the landlord’s complaints process for the complaint under our consideration, they have not been investigated as part of this investigation. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, these matters are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident may wish to make a new complaint to the landlord about these issues.
  2. The resident stated in her complaint that her health, marriage, and employment had been affected by the stress of the situation. The Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about these issues. However, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or liability insurance. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Ombudsman Scheme. This Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to the concerns she raised about her health.

The landlord’s communication with the resident following damage to the property caused by flooding.

  1. Following the widespread flooding in London on 12 July 2021, the resident was given an emergency temporary decant to a hotel, where she remained for 6 weeks. She was then moved to a temporary flat where she lived until 19 July 2022, when she was told to move back to the property. There were additional works required to her property and she was then placed into various hotels until 16 December 2022, when she returned to her property.
  2. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 13 September 2021. It set out the steps that it would take to rectify the damage caused by the flooding and that it expected works to take between 3-6 months. It said it would update the resident when it had more detailed plans. This was good practice by the landlord as it kept the resident updated and reassured her of what it would do to resolve the situation.
  3. The landlord’s decant policy states it will cover agreed reasonable expenses and its compensation and goodwill gesture policy states it will pay disturbance payments including storage of items during a decant period. The landlord agreed to reimburse the resident for food expenses, storage costs and the energy utility bills at her affected property. While it was good practice and in line with its policy to offer this reimbursement, the landlord’s communication was poor in response to the resident asking for these to be paid to her.
  4. Between November 2021 and April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on 10 occasions to ask for updates on the works at the property and to be reimbursed for her food expenses. In this same period, she contacted the landlord on 7 occasions to ask for it to pay the energy utility bills. The landlord’s policies do not specify when or how often it would make payments, but the delay in it paying the costs to the resident was unfair and not reasonable. The resident had to pay the costs herself upfront and the landlord’s delay in reimbursing her caused distress and inconvenience to her, as well as her time and trouble in pursuing the landlord for the payment. It also did not provide any meaningful updates about the works on her property during this time.
  5. On 3 August 2022, the landlord sent a letter to the resident’s property, where she was not currently living because of the decant. The letter was a general reminder and warning about anti-social behaviour (ASB) and advice on what behaviours count as a breach of ASB. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 August 2022 after finding the letter and said that she felt this was sent in response to her complaint. She told the landlord that she wanted this removed from her file, given an explanation and an apology for the distress and inconvenience this had caused her. This Service has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord responded to her concerns and requests. The letter should not have been sent to the resident’s property and the landlord should have responded to her concerns. This was a failing by the landlord.
  6. In cases where works are being completed to a large number of properties and are subject to an insurance claim, delays can be likely because of the amount of planning required. Such delays are often outside of the landlord’s control and this Service recognises the challenges that the landlord had to meet to respond to this emergency. On 22 February 2022, a survey identified that there was excessive moisture in the walls of the property. On 30 May 2022, a handover document confirmed that works to rectify this had been completed and had returned the moisture levels to those prior to the flooding.
  7. The landlord estimated that the resident would be able to return to her property as of 19 July 2022 and as such, the resident had to give notice to leave the temporary flat. In her stage 1 complaint, made on 11 July 2022, she noted that the property was a shell and did not have adequate facilities, which she required due to her health needs. It is unclear what facilities were missing, however, the landlord accepted further repairs were required. While it would have been inconvenient and distressing for the resident to move out of the flat she had been temporarily staying in, the landlord acted appropriately by ensuring its insurers placed her back into hotels as the works took longer than anticipated.
  8. In the letter sent by the landlord to the resident on 13 September 2021, it said that its insurers would provide alternate accommodation for the temporary decant period. It is unclear whether the actual booking of the hotel was the responsibility of the landlord or the insurer. The resident moved out of the temporary flat on 19 July 2022. She contacted the landlord on multiple occasions and said that the delays in the hotels being rebooked often meant that the hotels were fully booked on the day of check out. This caused her further inconvenience and distress as she did not know when or where she was moving to.
  9. It is evident that the landlord did not proactively update the resident about extending the hotel bookings. If the landlord did not have responsibility for booking the hotels, it should have acted on her concerns by communicating this to the insurers on the resident’s behalf. This Service has not been provided with any evidence to suggest that it did so. The resident had to continually contact the landlord for updates regarding the hotel accommodation which added further distress to her.
  10. In the resident’s complaint escalation to stage 2, on 27 July 2022, she said that the landlord was responsible for the extent of the flooding in her property because it had not completed recent maintenance to the drains. She asked it to confirm the date that it last inspected or completed repairs to the drains. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, on 7 September 2022, it said that it had checked its records as far back as April 2021 and could not see any reports of repairs being required. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns, as while the landlord is obliged to carry out repairs, it was evident that there had been no request for repairs and no repairs had been identified as being required. The landlord therefore did not have any repair obligations on the drains prior to the flooding incident.
  11. It is evident that the landlord failed in its communication with regards to updating the resident about the reimbursement of food costs, storage, and energy utility bills. It also failed to provide proactive updates about when and where she would have to move while being temporarily decanted into hotels and it did not provide timely or meaningful updates about the works to her property. The ASB warning letter it sent to her during this time was a further failing in the landlord’s communication at an already distressing time.
  12. The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture policy allows for compensation where residents experience inconvenience or distress following a service failure. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response apologised for the length of time the works were taking. It also apologised for the inconvenience caused by it not updating her with any changes and progress of the works. It did not offer any further redress in terms of compensation, and given the failings identified in this report and those acknowledged by the landlord, it would have been appropriate for it do so, in line with its policy. In consideration of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in communication, including her time and trouble spent pursuing updates, this Service orders the landlord to pay £450 compensation.
  13. Following a complaint about the landlord’s response to the flooding by another resident to the landlord, this Service recommended that the landlord reviewed its communication processes for responding to tenant enquiries and facilitate staff training in this area where necessary (complaint reference 202117057). This prompted the landlord to review its actions on this complaint, which it did before this Service started its investigation.
  14. On 15 September 2023, the landlord provided its findings upon review of its handling of the repairs. It said its communication and time taken to complete works was due to its staff picking this up alongside their existing caseload, and that it would put a dedicated resource in place to manage the process in future major events such as this. It said that dedicated asset management specialists could have also addressed snagging issues and provide more efficient outcomes in future too. The landlord also awarded compensation of £1,300 which it said was in recognition of the impact of delays in addressing damp issues at the property. This award is separate to that which the Ombudsman has now awarded for the landlord’s communications failings between July 2021 and September 2022.
  15. This Service would have ordered the landlord to complete a case review to identify how it would have learned from this for any future cases. However, it is not deemed necessary for such an order in light of the landlord providing a comprehensive case review already.
  16. After the landlord’s final complaint response, given on 7 September 2022, the resident returned to her property in December 2022. It is understood that there have been further works identified which remain outstanding currently. The landlord is recommended to provide the resident with a schedule of works that are required, with dates of when the works are expected to be completed, if it has not already done so.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for damage caused to her personal belongings

  1. In a letter that the landlord sent to the resident, on 13 September 2021, it said it was unable to offer compensation for residents’ belongings and that it recommended that residents have contents insurance in place. It also gave her details of a support fund available through the water company and of local support payments available through the local authority. It was good practice and appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident for alternative support available regarding her belongings.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy advises residents to take out their own contents insurance. It makes specific reference to floods and states that the landlord would not pay or replace any items damaged due to floods. Its complaints policy, and its compensation and goodwill gesture policy, states that where there are disputes over damages to personal belongings, such claims should be referred to its insurers to investigate.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to replace or reimburse her for the flooring, wallpaper and fitted wardrobes which was damaged in the floods, as she believed it was the landlord’s responsibility. In an email to the landlord on 21 June 2022, she said that it had replaced her flooring a number of years ago because of damage caused by works to her boiler. The landlord responded on 24 June 2022 and said that flooring was her responsibility. It said it could not find information detailing it having previously replaced her flooring but said if it had occurred, it would have been replaced as a goodwill gesture because of either failings by its contractor or a faulty appliance. It also asked for further information about the fitted wardrobes.
  4. Following further disputes about who was responsible for replacing the flooring, the landlord confirmed its position in its final complaint response. It said that floor coverings were the responsibility of its residents and confirmed this with a link to the various resident responsibility guidance on its website. It gave her advice about home contents insurance and directed her to its website for further information. The landlord was fair in its response as it did not have a responsibility to replace these due to the flood damage.
  5. The resident’s concern about the damage to the fitted wardrobes was ultimately addressed appropriately by the landlord. The landlord’s repair policy states that it has buildings insurance for the structure of the property, but this excluded any fixtures or fittings. It was unclear whether the fitted wardrobes were installed prior to the start of her tenancy or whether the resident had updated them. Due to the uncertainty of who was responsible for them, the landlord agreed to repair the fitted wardrobes and raised a job for its contractors to do so on 11 October 2022.
  6. It is also understood that after the landlord’s final complaint response, it offered to install the flooring and wallpaper that the resident had supplied herself. This was good practice by the landlord as it did not have an obligation to do this, but it showed that the landlord was willing to use its discretion to put things right. It also shows that the landlord considered the resident’s medical concerns as she had told the landlord that she could not install these herself.
  7. While the landlord’s responses regarding the flooring and wallpaper were appropriate, in line with its policies, it should have referred the dispute to its insurance team. Where disputes arise about damages to personal belongings, its policies state it should refer the claims to its insurers. This would have given a final decision on the matter and helped reassure the resident that it was listening to her concerns. This Service has not received any evidence that shows the landlord referred the claim to its insurers or insurance team. It is a failing for it to not have done so, especially given the repeated contacts and disputes put forward by the resident. While this Service cannot assume the outcome of such an insurance claim, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to follow its policies and refer the claim on the resident’s behalf.

The associated complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it would respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. At both stages, it could extend this timeframe to an additional 10 working days if it agreed this with the resident.
  2. The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 11 July 2022 and the landlord provided its response on 22 July 2022. This was within the timeframes set out in its policy, with its response given in 9 working days.
  3. The stage 2 escalation request was made by the resident on 27 July 2022. The resident did not receive a response within the timeframe set out in its policy and she contacted the landlord to ask for a response on 2 September 2022. It responded on the same day and said it would provide a response by 7 September 2022, which it ultimately did. It took the landlord 30 working days to provide its stage 2 complaint response.
  4. The landlord offered £25 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response. This was appropriate in the circumstances as it did not communicate the extension it needed to provide the response. The compensation was proportionate to the time and trouble experienced by the resident in chasing the landlord for its response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident following damage to the property caused by flooding.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for damage caused to her personal belongings.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the associated complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report regarding its communication to her following damage to the property caused by flooding.
    2. Pay an additional £450 compensation for the failures identified in this report regarding its communication to her following damage to the property caused by flooding.
    3. Provide training to its complaint handling team to ensure that disputes over damage to residents’ personal belongings are signposted to making a liability claim to its insurance team. This is in line with its complaints policy and its compensation and goodwill gesture policy.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timeframe set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the £25 compensation it awarded in its stage 2 complaint response if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord should consider providing the resident with a schedule of works that are outstanding, with dates of when these will be completed, if it has not already done so.
  3. The landlord should consider providing training to its repairs team and implementing procedures to ensure that residents are provided with proactive and timely updates regarding ongoing works in such cases as this where the resident is decanted.