Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202321496)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321496

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

25 March 2025

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 handling of and communication about reports of property damage caused by subsidence.

Background

2. The resident is a shared owner of a ground floor flat with the landlord.
3. The evidence shows the resident reported subsidence from 2019. The landlord’s records show a tree on a nearby railway embankment was the cause. National Rail removed the tree in 2022. The insurance loss adjusters (“adjusters”), who were responsible for the repair, took preparatory remedial steps such as movement readings until September 2023 and drain surveys in March 2025. The landlord told the Service on 14 March 2025 that it expects the work to take 3 to 4 months “at best”.
4. The resident complained on 22 July 2023 about delays with resolving the subsidence and property damage such as cracks throughout her property and being unable to securely close her back door. She said the landlord did not provide timely updates or respond to enquiries.
5. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 2 August 2023 it explained it was working with the insurers and adjusters to resolve the issue. It had also set up a joint working team to progress the matter. It said it would be a long process to address the subsidence and apologised for the delays and lack of updates. It said the main repair works would start once the subsidence was resolved. It said it would provide regular updates. It offered £100 compensation for its lack of communication.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 9 August 2023. She repeated her original concerns and did not provide any new information. She rejected the compensation offer saying it did not reflect her stress and discomfort.
7. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 14 September 2023. It said it was taking the lead from the insurers but should have been more proactive in getting information from them and updating the resident. It said the continual ground movement meant the insurers would carry out emergency repairs, but the cracks could not be resolved until the subsidence was dealt with. It apologised for the stress and discomfort caused and offered £250 for distress and inconvenience to her.
8. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 21 September 2023. She said she wanted the landlord to resolve her repairs, apologise and increase its compensation.
9. The landlord has provided evidence that shows the adjusters have arranged property repairs investigations after the complaints process ended.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident has complained the issues and the landlord’s actions have had a mental and physical impact. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts. It will not be considered in this report.
11. In the resident’s communication with this Service in December 2023, she raised a new issue involving her inclusion in an insurance claim. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme advises that the Ombudsman may not assess complaints that have not fully exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident should raise a formal complaint with the landlord about any additional matters which were not part of her July 2023 complaint. If she remains dissatisfied once the issues have been through the landlord’s complaints process, she has the option of bringing the new matters to the Ombudsman for consideration.

Handling of and communication about reports of property damage caused by subsidence

12. The title deeds state the landlord will “repair, redecorate and renew” the main structure of the building including external and loadbearing walls, windows, and doors. If the building is damaged it will claim insurance for repairs or property reinstatement.
13. The resident complained the landlord had not resolved the damage to her property despite the subsidence issue arising in 2019. The damage included windows, and external and internal doors not closing. She said structural cracks in the walls and ceilings throughout her property were getting worse and causing draughts. Further, she said it had not resolved the draughts which she requested when she was having cancer treatment in 2022 and 2023.
14. In its stage 1 response of 2 August 2023 the landlord apologised for the resident’s experience, delays, and lack of updates. It said it was actively engaging with the insurers and adjusters to identify next steps and timeframes along with organising teams to work jointly to progress the matter. It however said it would be a long process to deal with the subsidence, but temporary repairs would not be “sufficient” pending the main repairs after the subsidence had “concluded”. It also said it had taken the resident’s health into account in its communication with her. It committed to providing regular updates of any development and progression and offered £100 compensation for its lack of communication.
15. The resident complained her back door was not secure as it did not close. The adjusters wrote to the landlord on 4 July 2023 informing them of an allowance for temporary repairs given the resident’s stated safety concerns. There is no reference to these concerns in an internal email on 2 August 2023 about temporary repairs. Further, there is no evidence the landlord considered securing the door. While the final repair lay with the insurers, the landlord failed to consider interim solutions to address what was clearly an important security concern. This was unreasonable and a failure to comply with its repair obligation or to provide reassurance to the resident.
16. While the landlord accepted the resident’s health condition, it failed to respond to her request to address the draughts caused by the cracks. She said she needed a warm environment due to her cancer treatment. Aside from the reference to waiting for the insurers to undertake substantive repairs, the evidence does not show it considered any potential ways to alleviate the aggravated impact on her from the draughts. This was unreasonable. The insurer’s role in the repairs handling did not absolve the landlord of its duty to make the property safe for her by at least considering remedial actions even if only temporary.
17. The landlord acknowledged its communication with the resident had been poor. It said it had set up a joint working team to progress the works and she would be “updated during any development and progression”. It apologised for its communication failings and offered £100 compensation. This was appropriate and showed it had accepted its failures which it was trying to put right.
18. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 August 2023 repeating her original complaints. She declined the £100 compensation as she said it did not reflect the stress and discomfort she had experienced.
19. In its final complaint response, the landlord said due to the continual ground movement, its insurers would carry out emergency repairs. It said structural cracks could not be plastered over as they would re-occur until the main issue had been addressed. It apologised for the stress and discomfort the resident was living with and offered £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
20. The landlord appropriately relied on the insurers to take the lead on the substantive issues. But it failed to robustly explore interim solutions to mitigate the significant impact on the resident such as from the door and the draughts. We have not seen evidence the landlord considered asking the insurers to carry out emergency or temporary repairs. While the insurers may have declined the request it was a failure of the landlord not to explore this. Had it done so it would have shown her it was taking all steps to repair her property and comply with its repair obligations. It was unreasonable of it not to have done so.
21. In conclusion, the landlord appropriately apologised and showed it had learnt lessons with the joint working group to work more cohesively. The subsidence issue arose in 2019 with no current end date. The overall timetable for fully resolving the work appears to be largely outside the landlord’s control. Nonetheless, the lack of a secure back door and the resident’s vulnerabilities should have prompted the landlord to actively investigate potential interim solutions. Its failure to do so was unreasonable.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of and communication about reports of property damage caused by subsidence.

Orders

23. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident £700 for the failings identified in this report. This figure includes its previous offer of £250.
24. Within 6 weeks of this report the landlord must confirm the current state of the property and the timetable for completing the subsidence-related structural repairs. It must also show evidence it has considered whether it can provide any interim solutions in the period before work is finally complete, and if so, how, and when it will do so. This should be done in cooperation with the resident to identify her key repair concerns and is in relation to repairs the landlord is responsible for.
25. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided by their respective deadlines.