Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202225383)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225383

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

26 January 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

The complaint is about the landlords handling of
1. Water ingress to the property.
2. Communication about the complaint.

Background

The resident has been the shared ownership leaseholder of the property since 16 June 2008. The property is a one bedroom second floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder. There are no vulnerabilities recorded in the household.
Under the terms of the lease the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the roof foundations, main structure and external parts of the building.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture policy states that compensation offers will not be made until all outstanding works have been resolved. It also states that “we may pay compensation, in the form of rent rebate, if a customer is not able to use a room or where there are severe limitations of use of a room in their home, because of a repair issue that is our responsibility, and which causes prolonged and unreasonable disruption…loss of living room 20% of daily rent”. The rental element charge for the property for financial year 2022-2023 was £428.54 per calendar month and for financial year 2023-2024 was £458.54 per calendar month.
The resident first reported to the landlord that there was water ingress to the property in February 2014. In a previous determination by this Service in February 2022 we found that there had been severe maladministration in the landlords handling of this. This report will only cover events that occurred after that determination. This is because paragraph 42 (l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. Reference to events previously determined are made for context only.
Information has also been provided regarding activity that happened after the landlords final stage 2 response. Any reference to events that occurred after the landlords internal complaints procedure had been exhausted are for reference purposes only and have not otherwise been considered, with the exception of a recommendation set out below.
The landlord carried out an inspection on 2 March 2022, and informed the resident that the roof would need to be replaced. It expected the work to be completed by 31 August 2022.
The resident complained on 1 November 2022 and said that since the Ombudsman’s report 8 months ago nothing had changed. He said that the landlord had apologised for miscommunication on 15 May 2022 and confirmed that the repairs would be completed by 31 August 2022. On 26 May 2022 he was then told that the repairs were more complicated than previously presumed and the completion date would now be the end of October 2022. He asked why it had taken almost 3 months from the inspection in March to determine that the work was more complicated. In August 2022 he was told by the landlord that the October 2022 deadline would also not be met.
The complaint also highlighted that, in a meeting about service charges on 29 September 2022, residents were told that the roof replacement work would now commence in January 2023 and it would take 24 weeks to complete. The resident received a call from his landlord contact on 30 September 2022, but this member of staff did not know about this new timeline. However, he said that he would find out more and confirm the information in writing.
An internal landlord email dated 1 November 2022 stated that the landlord did not have any confirmed dates yet for the roof to be replaced but that “this was not unreasonable given that they only instructed the contractor on 21 October 2022”. The anticipated start date was now December, and the work should take 20 weeks.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 3 November 2022 and told him that the work would start in December 2022 and would take 20 weeks. The resident raised further queries. He enquired about compensation and said that the property could not be let on the open market in its current condition. The landlord said that it would email the resident to confirm the points raised in the conversation and would also provide a stage 1 complaint response.
An internal landlord email following this conversation dated 4 November 2022 gave answers to all the queries the resident had raised in the conversation the day before. It said that 1 member of staff should communicate with the resident. The landlord said that it had not realised that a like for like replacement was inappropriate until further investigation had taken place to provide detailed specification drawings. Building regulations had also changed which meant further consideration was required. It said that it thought that these technical issues started to be discovered in July but that it had received all the relevant information to move the project forward on 7 October 2022. It confirmed that the roof could not be patch repaired because it was the poor design of the roof that was causing the water to ingress. There was a complex design fault with the roof that needed to be resolved. It therefore had taken 3 months to design and price a new specification and behind the scenes there had been collaborative working between design teams to develop the new design in line with current regulations.
On 14 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to chase the update that was promised on 30 September 2022. He was advised that he would have a full response by the end of the week.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 14 November 2022. It apologised for the delay in repairing the roof. It explained that this was due to the need to prepare a new design specification because, after further investigation, it was discovered that the existing design was not suitable. It gave the new confirmed timescales and explained that delays had been out of its control. It apologised that the resident felt that he had been misled with the timeframes given but explained that it had taken time to design and price a new specification.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the process on 17 November 2022. He asked again why it took almost 3 months from the inspection on 2 March 2022 to determine why the work would need a new design specification. The resident asked for a copy of the report that would have been written to explain such findings and said that he found it hard to believe that these issues were not discovered in any of the previous investigations. Work would now not be complete until April 2023 at the earliest which would mean that he would have another winter of water leaking into the property. He said that the failure to carry out repairs had led to a further 9 months of anxiety and stress.
On 15 December 2022 the landlord visited the property again and said that it would arrange for someone to visit in the new year with a borescope to investigate behind and above the wall. The landlord promised weekly updates.
The stage 2 complaint response dated 15 December 2022 explained that the change in timescale was due to the complexity and design of the replacement roof. The roof work also had to occur in conjunction with fire safety work which overran. The landlord apologised and admitted that a clearer update could have been given in the summer. It confirmed that work had started on 21 November 2022 and that phase 1 was now complete with phase 2 starting in January (weather permitting). A CCTV investigation into the ceiling void was being arranged in January and the resident would be kept updated.
On 16 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord for an update following the meeting on 15 December 2022 as he had not been provided with any weekly updates. He emailed again on 23 January 2023 and was then asked when it would be convenient for the CCTV appointment.
On 30 January 2023 the resident chased the landlord again as he had heard nothing following the dates he had suggested for the CCTV appointment. He received a response on 7 February 2023 advising him that the roof works were progressing well. He was told that the CCTV inspection would hopefully be done within the week because the original supplier had let the landlord down.
A visit was made to the property by the landlord and contractors on 8 March 2023. The CCTV inspection was not carried out at this visit. It was suggested that the water ingress might be related to the fitting of the balcony above rather than the roof. It was agreed that further investigations into this should be made whilst scaffolding was in place. The landlord said that it hoped that this would be actioned that week.
In an email of 30 March 2023, the landlord advised the resident that following the investigation to external areas above the balcony doors it appeared that the steel work had lost some of its weathering capabilities causing it to degrade. This allowed water ingress through the facade into the plasterboard and down the frame. The landlord was in discussions with the contractor to remedy this urgently.
An internal landlord email of 11 May 2023 advised that the resident had been called and been given an apology for the further delays. A job order had not been raised for the contractor to seal around the balcony and steel beam as promised on 30 March 2022, but it would be done after the call. The resident said that recently the property had been dry, but the landlord said it wanted to “adopt a bells and braces approach” whilst contractors were still on site and would keep the resident informed of the progress.
On 26 May 2023 the landlord telephoned the resident and told him that the contractor had decided that the steel work, which had been thought to have lost weathering capabilities, would now no longer benefit from any further repair.
On 1 June 2023 the landlord phoned the resident again and they discussed the work that had now been cancelled to remedy the steelwork. The landlord told the resident that another opinion would be sought. The resident said that he did not want the scaffolding removed to find that water was still leaking into his flat. The landlord said it would call again on 5 June 2023 with a further update.
On 20 June 2023 the resident advised the landlord that water ingress had resumed following heavy downpours that morning. The roof replacement had been completed by this time. The water ingress was in the same place, so there had to be a different cause.
The landlord commissioned a leak detection report which took place on 30 June 2023. The equipment located multiple ingress points on the balcony of the flat above the property and around the property itself. Most ingress points found were due to missing or defective sealants which allowed water to penetrate through the fabric of the building, behind the cladding details and to migrate down into the property. Further ingress points were identified around the surrounding area to the exterior details from the level of the property’s balcony up to the main roof. It was recommended that a sealant specialist ensured that all areas were watertight including the exterior and perimeter of the balcony doors of the property and the property above.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 July 2023 to advise him that it had received the leak detection report but said that unfortunately the report did not give a firm indication of the source of the leak. The balcony door above and the beam would be sealed and hopefully this would resolve the issue.
The landlord emailed the resident on 15 August 2023 to advise him that it believed that the specialist mastic company had now completed their work and all the areas were sealed. The resident emailed back to say that he did not think the work was complete. Photographs were provided to the landlord who responded to the email to say that the specialist mastic work was not finished and the job wouldn’t be signed off until the resident was happy.
The resident has advised this Service that he was not consulted again about the sign off of the work and when he returned from a holiday on 9 September 2023 the scaffolding had been removed from the property.
On 19 September 2023 the resident reported that there was still water ingress above the patio door and that now there was a further leak in the room that housed his boiler.
A further leak detection survey was commissioned by the landlord which took place on 27 September 2023. Equipment again detected failures to the cladding sealant in multiple areas and also unsealed holes in the walls from the scaffolding towers. Engineers recommended that all cladding was sealed correctly and all upstands were wrapped correctly and the roof door seals were replaced. Tests were also made to determine the source of the second leak which was subsequently repaired.
The resident said that during the water test from the balcony of the flat above a lot of water had leaked through the original ingress site. The resident also said that he was told by the contractor that completed the leak detection survey that the repairs recommended in the June report had not been carried out effectively.
On 16 October 2023 the resident has advised this Service that the landlord emailed him and said that a vertical metal strip above the patio doors needed to be removed to resolve the leak around the patio doors. The resident told the landlord that there were still other areas that the leak detection reports that identified that needed reviewing.
On 24 October 2023 the resident has advised us that the landlord emailed him to say that it would like to erect a small scaffolding tower. This would be to enable the removal of the metal strip which might give an indication where the source of water ingress might be.
On 7 November 2023 the landlord offered the resident a £1000 compensation/ goodwill gesture. It said that this would “not impact future discussions around further compensation.” It was to reflect the issues that the resident had suffered with the property over the past few months and the impact this had had. It said that further works and discussions were to take place regarding the leak around the patio doors.
The landlord contacted the resident on 19 December 2023 to say that the contractor was monitoring the leak as they believed the insulation would keep soaking up the moisture. The resident advised the landlord that this was not acceptable due to the area still being soaking wet. The landlord said it would find out more and come back to him. In December 2023 the resident advised this Service that there was still water ingress to his property.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

Paragraph 42 (l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, has already decided upon. Therefore reference to events previously determined are made for context only.
Reference to events that occurred after the stage 2 complaints response are included for reference only and are not otherwise considered with the exception of a recommendation set out below.

The Landlord’s handling of water ingress to the property

The landlord accepted responsibility for repairing the cause of the water ingress which was correct under the terms of the lease. Since the previous determination by this Service, the landlord has replaced the roof which shows a commitment to resolve the issue but unfortunately the water ingress continues. The resident has suffered a further 23 months of water ingress around the patio door which will have caused further damage and there is a hole in the living room ceiling. This is not acceptable and has caused the resident further distress and hardship.
On the 15 December 2022 the landlord told the resident that a CCTV inspection would be carried out to try to find the source of the leak. This was confirmed in the stage 2 complaint response. This Service has seen no evidence that this inspection was ever completed and the resident has said that although he gave the landlord convenient appointment dates the inspection was not arranged. There must have been a reason to offer this as a solution to the issue but if the inspection did not happen it was a missed opportunity to resolve the source of the water ingress. It also mismanaged the resident’s expectations and made him lose further faith in the landlords promises.
On 30 March 2023 the landlord told the resident that following the inspection on 8 March 2023 it had found that the steel work above the resident’s balcony doors had degraded which would mean that it had lost some of its weathering capabilities. It said that the contractor would urgently remedy this. However, on 11 May 2023 the landlord admitted that no job had been raised with the contractor and that it would do so now. On 26 May 2023 the landlord then said that this work was not necessary after all. This failure to carry out actions it had promised to do and subsequent change of opinion would again undermine the resident’s faith in the landlords’ abilities to resolve the problem. It could also have been another missed opportunity to resolve the issue.
The landlord commissioned 2 leak detection reports by specialists which was an appropriate action to take, although it is unclear why such surveys were not commissioned earlier. The landlord told the resident that the first report did not give a firm indication of the source of the leak, however the report did give recommendations to resolve the issue. The landlord should have ensured that all recommendations were actioned and then carried out a post-inspection itself to confirm this. This Service has seen no evidence that this happened. This was a further failing on the landlord’s part.
The resident has advised us that on 16 and 24 October 2023 the landlord said that a metal strip needed to be removed from above the patio door and that a small scaffolding tower would be erected to enable this. The landlord told the resident in an email of 7 November 2023 that further works and discussions would take place regarding the leak around the patio doors. However, the resident has advised us that there has been no further action and that the landlord has since told him that the insulation would soak up any moisture. This is another contradiction and a failure by the landlord to resolve the water ingress. The resident has had water ingress issues for a further 23 months which has caused him considerable distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s communication about the complaint

A roof inspection was carried out on 2 March 2022. However, the resident was not informed until 26 May 2022, nearly 3 months later, that there would be a delay because the roof replacement was more complicated than originally presumed. The landlord has since said that this was because a new design specification was needed and that this was only discovered at the specification stage. As the roof could not be replaced like for like it is possible that this was the cause of the delay, but this was not communicated to the resident effectively at the time. The resident had suffered due to the water ingress for many years and had lost faith in the landlord’s promises so it should have kept the resident fully informed of any causes and reasons for delay as soon as it knew about them. This was a considerable and entirely avoidable failure in communication by the landlord.
In the service charge meeting of 29 September 2022 residents were told that the roof work would now start in January 2023 and take 24 weeks to complete. The member of staff that telephoned the resident the next day was unaware of the new timescale which again undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlords promises. The internal email sent on 4 November 2022 confirmed that the information given at the residents meeting was not accurate. This contradiction was a further failure in communication by the landlord and would have mismanaged the residents’ expectations.
On 30 September 2022 the resident was promised a written update in addition to the complaint response. This Service has seen no evidence that this was received. The resident had to chase a response. He received a further telephone call on 3 November 2022 and was told that he would be emailed regarding his queries but again this Service has seen no evidence that this email was sent. Although the internal email of 4 November 2022 answered the queries fully this information was not passed straight onto the resident. The resident chased an update again on 14 November 2022. This would have caused the resident further time and trouble at an already difficult time.
The complaint responses did not answer all the queries raised by the resident. He asked why there had been a delay between the initial inspection and the landlord finding out that the roof replacement was more complex. The landlord’s internal email of the 4 November 2022 explained the reasons fully however not all this information was included within the stage 2 complaint response. This meant that the customer still had questions and it was a complaint handling failure by the landlord.
The landlord promised to give weekly updates to the resident on 15 December 2022, but this Service has seen no evidence that these were given. The resident contacted the landlord on numerous occasions to ask for updates, which would have caused him further distress and inconvenience.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of water ingress to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of communication about the complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident compensation in line with its compensation policy for the severe limitation of use of the living room in the property. That is 20% rent reduction per day from the day after the last Ombudsman’s report (22 February 2022) until the stage 2 complaint response (15 December 2022). This is calculated to be £836.35.
2. Pay the resident a further £250 compensation for time and trouble in chasing responses from the landlord due to its poor communication.
3. Pay the resident a further £250 for distress and inconvenience whilst dealing with the water ingress.
4. The above compensation to be paid direct to the resident and in addition to any compensation already paid.
Within 14 days of the date of this report the landlord must review the recommendations made in the completed leak detection surveys. It must also carry out an inspection of the site and assessment of records held to ensure that all recommended work was carried out and delivered to a satisfactory standard. This should specifically include inspection of the balcony above the property.
If any of the work has not already been carried out the landlord must raise an order within 7 days of the inspection for all outstanding works to be carried out. The landlord must also raise an order for any additional work it feels is necessary to fully resolve the water ingress to the property. These works should be completed within 2 months.
Following completion of the work the area should be monitored for a period of 4 weeks to see if the issue has been resolved. The resident should be given a named contact so that if there is further water ingress at any point he can inform the landlord so that the action detailed in paragraph 55 can be taken.
If the water ingress is still not resolved a further leak detection survey must be commissioned within the following 14 days. This survey should be carried out by an independent contractor as soon as it is available. The leak detection report should be shared with the resident and an order should be raised within 5 working days of the completion of the report to carry out any recommended work.
Once the work is completed the area should then be monitored for a period of 4 weeks to see if the issue has been resolved. The resident should be given a named contact so that if there is further water ingress at any point he can inform the landlord so that the actions in paragraph 55 can be repeated.
When there has been no water ingress above the patio doors for a period of 4 weeks the landlord must carry out all remedial works required inside the property within 6 weeks to make good any water damage caused by the water ingress.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders in accordance with the specified timescales.

Recommendations

The landlord should finalise a further compensation payment, in line with its compensation policy and pay this to the resident once the water ingress is resolved.