Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202212275)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212275

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

30 September 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 landlord’s handling of repairs.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat and the resident’s tenancy began in September 2021.
The resident has a number of medical conditions which impacts their mobility. They use a wheelchair and are paralysed on their left side. The landlord has made adaptations to the resident’s property following occupational therapy recommendations.
On 8 September 2022 the resident told us they had made a complaint to their landlord but had not received any response. We wrote to the landlord the same day to ask it to respond to the resident within 10 working days. We explained that the resident was complaining about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A gas leak in the property.
2. A sewage leak coming from the toilet.
3. The bathroom sink flooding and causing damage to belongings.
4. The ventilation system not working correctly.
5. Contractors leaving glass shards in the bathroom which had led to the resident injuring their foot.
6. A shower seat which had collapsed when the resident used it. This had caused the resident to injure themselves.
7. Grab rails installed in an incorrect location in the bathroom.
8. A refund for costs the resident had incurred while in temporary accommodation.
9. Bolting the property’s back door closed which the resident was concerned was a fire hazard.
10. The ongoing issues having a severe impact on the resident’s mental health.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 September 2022. It explained:
1. It had no record of any reports of a gas or sewage leak in the property.
2. It had attended twice in February 2022 to resolve a water leak from the boiler, and it had recently completed a gas safety check with no identified issues.
3. It had raised a repair request for the ventilation system on 12 April 2022. It had attended on 31 May 2022 and made repairs. While the system was operating correctly, it had identified a failed indicator light which needed replacing. It had replaced this on 9 August 2022.
4. It had received a report of the bathroom sink overflowing and flooding the property. It had attended and made repairs on 23 May 2022.
5. It apologised for any injuries the resident may have sustained and the impact on the resident’s mental health. It explained it would treat these matters as a liability claim outside the complaints process. It provided an extract from a letter it had sent to the resident on 31 March 2022 that had explained how they could make a personal injury claim to the landlord’s insurers.
6. It explained it had processed a payment to cover costs the resident had incurred while in temporary accommodation. It apologised for the delay in making the payment and advised it had raised this with the relevant area of service.
7. It clarified that an occupational therapist had determined the location of the grab rails. It provided the resident with a copy of the relevant occupational therapy report.
8. It had attended the resident’s property on 23 September 2022 and completed repairs to the back door which was fully functional from that point.
9. It explained it was working on a specification of works for further adaptations to the bathroom and changes to the door entry system. It stated it would share this with the resident and, once the resident had moved into temporary accommodation, would progress the works.

It identified there were areas where it could have provided a better level of service and apologised to the resident for any inconvenience caused.

We wrote to the landlord again on 30 June 2023 to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2. We advised the landlord the resident had said the following matters were still unresolved:
1. A sewage leak coming from the toilet.
2. The bathroom sink was flooding and causing damage to belongings.
3. The ventilation system not working correctly.
4. Grab rails installed in an incorrect location in the bathroom.
5. The landlord had bolted the property’s back door closed and the resident was concerned it was a fire hazard.
6. Issues around their decant to temporary accommodation.
The landlord issued its final response on 21 July 2023. It said it had reviewed its stage 1 decision of 23 September 2022 and agreed with the findings that it had previously reached. It further advised that the Housing Services Manager had been in touch with the resident several times and had confirmed that it had booked in 3 outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord has advised that the resident had made a stage 1 complaint in December 2021, but they had not escalated the complaint to stage 2. It also advised us that it received additional stage 1 complaints in September 2023 and March 2024. It provided stage 1 responses on 2 October 2023 and 4 April 2024. These complaints have not fully exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The issues in these complaint responses cannot be considered as part of this complaint. As such, this investigation will focus on the matters raised and reviewed by the landlord in its stage 1 response of 23 September 2022 and final response of 21 July 2023.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

The landlord has provided detailed evidence of its interactions with the resident. This includes a communications report detailing email and telephone contact, as well as timelines and repair records. It appears the landlord has sourced these records from several different internal systems. Having reviewed this evidence, the records can be checked across the different sources as well as against other information provided by both the landlord and the resident. The Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord’s evidence is appropriate in the circumstances. In light of the landlord’s position that it does not have records, the resident has not produced evidence to show how and when they reported the issues to the landlord.
There is no evidence in the landlord’s records of the resident reporting a gas leak. There is a report of a leak from the boiler on 24 January 2022. The landlord recorded it would attend on 25 January 2022 to inspect, but it rearranged this to 1 February 2022 as the resident had a hospital appointment. The recorded outcome stated the landlord did not identify any visual leaks from the boiler, but water was seen to be occasionally coming from under the kitchen units.
Following the 1 February 2022 visit, the landlord raised a works order to remove the plinth and gain access to the condensate pipe. The landlord was unable to access the property on 7 February 2022 and rebooked the appointment for 15 February 2022. The resident then asked for it to be moved to 18 February 2022. This visit identified the condensate pipe had been cross-threaded and repaired the issue. The landlord’s actions in dealing with the boiler leak were in line with its policies and were appropriate.
The landlord’s records indicate that on 5 September 2022 the resident’s carer sent it a photo of sewage on the bathroom floor. The landlord asked for further details about how the sewage got on the floor as the photo did not show the toilet was blocked. It arranged for a chemical clean of the bathroom the same day. It also raised a work order to replace the toilet which it completed the following day (6 September 2022). These were reasonable actions for the landlord to take.
The only record of the resident reporting that their bathroom sink was flooding the property was on 23 May 2022. The landlord attended out of hours on the same day to repair this. This was an appropriate action by the landlord.
It does appear there were delays in completing some of the raised repairs. In particular, the ventilation system repairs and replacement back door. However, some of the delays appear to be due to issues with access or requests from the resident to change the date of appointments. The Ombudsman therefore does not consider it would be fair or reasonable to hold the landlord solely responsible for these delays.
The resident reported issues with the ventilation system on 12 April 2022. The repair records indicate that the landlord was unable to gain access on 13 April 2022, 18 May 2022, or 24 May 2022. It attended on 31 May 2022 and identified that the main isolator switch was off. It fixed this and tested the system was working. It noted it would need to replace a switch as the indicator light in it had failed. The landlord’s handling of the initial repair does appear to have been in line with its policies and was therefore appropriate.
The landlord attempted to replace the switch on 4 August 2022 but could not gain access to the property. It was able to attend on 8 August 2022 and replaced the switch. It is unclear why there was a delay of 2 months to replace the switch. However, the Ombudsman has noted that, during this period, the ventilation system was otherwise functional. As such it appears likely there would have been minimal adverse impact on the resident.
The back door was damaged due to high winds and secured shut on 18 February 2022. The landlord noted at that time that a new door would be required. While its repair records state it attended the property on 8 April 2022 and 10 June 2022, it does not appear it had ordered a replacement door until August 2022. There has been no clear explanation provided for this delay. The landlord has advised that, when the resident raised concerns about fire safety, it produced a personal emergency evacuation plan for the resident and paid for a 24-hour waking watch to assist the resident if a fire had occurred while waiting for repairs. This was an appropriate action to take. While the Ombudsman appreciates it would be frustrating to not be able to use the back door for an extended period, there is no evidence the door remaining secured shut caused significant inconvenience.
It was reasonable for the landlord to explain it would treat matters relating to alleged injuries, both physical and mental, as a liability claim which would need to be handled by its insurers. The landlord provided clear details on how the resident could submit a claim, either directly to the landlord’s insurers or through its internal insurance team. This action was in line with its compensation policy.
The resident had an occupational therapy assessment on 6 October 2021 which, amongst other things, set out where grab rails should be placed in the bathroom. There is no evidence that the landlord installed the rails in a different location. It would not be reasonable for the landlord to have made changes to items recommended by an occupational therapist without a further assessment. The Ombudsman has noted that a further occupational therapy visit took place on 9 September 2022 which did recommend further changes and adaptations to the bathroom. The landlord completed these adaptations in, or around, November 2022. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s actions in respect of the grab rails were appropriate.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge in its stage 1 response that the resident had incurred costs while in temporary accommodation and to make a payment towards these. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for not having made the payment sooner and to explain it had raised this with the relevant service area.
The landlord also recognised in its stage 1 response that it could have managed the situation more effectively by acting sooner following the resident’s repair reports. It apologised for any inconvenience caused. It said it would use lessons learned from this case to put in place measures to prevent similar incidents occurring in the future.
Based on the evidence that has been provided to this service, the Ombudsman considers it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord had resolved the matters outlined in the resident’s complaint by the date of its stage 1 response. The landlord’s stage 2 decision was therefore a reasonable one for it to have made.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of repairs. While there were some failures by the landlord it recognised these and stated it would be taking action to ensure similar failings did not occur in the future.

The landlord’s complaint handling

To comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’), landlords should ensure that complaint responses are clear about the matters that have been considered and the decisions that were reached.
When this service wrote to the landlord on 30 June 2023 we had additionally advised that the resident had told us there were new repair issues. We asked that the landlord raise a stage 1 complaint for the following matters:
1. Reports of the electrics tripping when the bathroom light or ventilation were turned on.
2. A broken intercom in the living room.
3. The hallway radiator and lounge thermostat needed securing to the walls.
4. The handrail beside the toilet needed to be resecured to the wall.
5. Grab rails that were in the bathroom needed installing.
6. Tape needed removing from 2 mirrors in the bathroom.
7. The landlord’s decision to issue the resident with a warning about damage to the property and to recharge the resident for some repairs.
It is not clear from the landlord’s final response whether it had only considered the issues the resident had stated were still outstanding from the stage 1 response or if it had also reviewed its handling of the new repair issues. There is no evidence the landlord had raised a new stage 1 complaint for the new issues.
The Ombudsman has noted that the final response does provide details of appointments that the landlord had booked appointments to complete repairs. These appointments related to new repair issues. This would suggest the landlord had considered these matters as part of its stage 2 handling.
It appears the landlord had identified the new repair issues on 7 March 2023 after a visit to the resident’s property. At the time the landlord issued its final response it appears that, for each issue, it had already attended and made repairs or had booked appointments to complete the repairs. There is no evidence of undue delay by the landlord in either raising appropriate repair orders or attending the resident’s property to complete repairs.
It would have been better for the landlord to have been clear in its final response about the exact matters it had considered and to have provided a clear explanation about what it had done to address the raised matters. However, it is noted the resident was already aware that they could approach the Ombudsman for assistance with their complaint. The Ombudsman considers this lessens the potential detriment that could have been caused to the resident by the complaint handling failure.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the failure by the landlord was minor and would not be sufficient to constitute maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.