Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202219818)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219818

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

31 October 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 resident’s reports of an unregulated structure, built by his downstairs neighbour.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. This is a one bedroom first floor flat in a two storey building. The neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord. The resident has health vulnerabilities, including mobility issues and a history of heart problems.
On 18 September 2022, the resident complained to the local council’s building control department, regarding his downstairs neighbour. He complained that she had built a structure in her garden, beneath his bedroom and around her kitchen area without permission. He felt this was unsafe and also a possible fire risk. Additionally, he was concerned that burglars could easily access his home.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 7 October 2022. He said the following:
1. He had previously made several complaints about the neighbour’s structure, including sending photographs but had received no contact from the landlord.
2. He had told the landlord about this issue within the last 6 months.
3. He wanted to escalate the matter to a stage 2 complaint directly.
On 20 October, the resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive. He said he was stressed and frustrated as his neighbour had built an extra room, attached to her property in 2015. It was directly beneath his bedroom window and extended around her kitchen area. He said she had been ordered to take it down in 2016, but she rebuilt it and made further changes. He had made various further complaints from 2018 to 2022 but had received no response from the landlord.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 28 October 2022. It said the following:
1. Its alterations process allowed residents to make improvements to their properties, but residents must obtain written permission beforehand. It would usually give permission if residents could evidence that the work would be completed to a good standard and met building control regulations.
2. It would carry out a block inspection and it would be in contact within 10 working days to arrange this.
3. Once the inspection was completed, it would be in further contact about the next steps.
4. It could not move to a stage 2 complaint, until its stage 1 complaints process was completed.
On 28 November 2022, the resident contacted this Service, asking the Ombudsman to assist him with his complaint. This Service contacted the landlord the same day.
On 30 November 2022, the resident submitted a stage 2 complaint. He said the landlord had not resolved the issue and he had not heard from it since his initial complaint, and it had been over a month now.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 23 December 2022. It said the following:
1. It partly upheld its stage 1 decision as it had delayed in providing an update in terms of an action plan.
2. The landlord had contacted the resident on 21 November 2022, to discuss the impact on his home.
3. The landlord had attended to carry out a block inspection and would be arranging a surveyor to visit the property by the end of January 2022.
4. After the surveyor’s visit and inspection report, it would contact the resident with an update and a forward plan by February 2023.
5. It could not investigate an issue the resident had known about for over 6 months, but it would check its records to see if it had approved the neighbour’s structure.
6. It apologised for the communication issues and had addressed this with its team and learned lessons from this. It offered £50 compensation for this.
On 23 December 2022, the resident contacted this Service as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. As an outcome to his complaint, he would like the structure to be removed. He would also like an apology for the distress and inconvenience, and the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Post Internal Complaints Procedure

The landlord conducted a survey in January 2023. It also concluded that the neighbour did not have written consent to build the structure and also that the structure was a security risk for the resident. It was deemed to be ‘removable’ under permitted development as it was technically a temporary structure.
It asked the neighbour to remove the structure in June 2023, advising that failure to remove it would result in it seeking an injunction. The neighbour refused to do this.
It opened a new stage 1 complaint in June 2023 and advised the resident that it had asked the neighbour to remove the structure. The neighbour instructed a solicitor to assist her and also raised her own complaint with this Service.
In March 2024, it offered the resident a revised compensation figure of £600 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
In June 2024, it instructed an independent structural surveyor to attend the property. The findings concluded that the neighbour needed to remove the structure as it was structurally unsound. This was communicated to the neighbour and the neighbour’s solicitor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has stated that the issues with his neighbour’s structure, date back to 2015. Although we understand the resident’s distress, paragraph 42 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, states that this Service can only investigate matters which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention within 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. As such, this investigation will focus on matters from September 2022 onwards.
The resident has advised that the handling of this matter by the landlord has led to a deterioration in his health. Whilst we empathise, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an unregulated structure built by his downstairs neighbour.

Good record keeping is a pre-requisite to providing a good housing management service. Although the landlord stated that it spoke to the resident on 23 September 2022, there is no evidence on file that it actually did this. It has not provided evidence of its client record management system (CRM) or any contemporaneous notes of the visit. The resident has stated that he did not hear back from the landlord and this Service has no reason to doubt this. This caused the resident distress and frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement and tenant handbook state that tenants may make improvements, alterations and additions to the premises, provided they have first obtained written consent and all other necessary approvals, including building regulations approval. It goes on to say that tenants must not obstruct means of escape in case of a fire.
The landlord’s internal communication of 20 October 2022 shows that its asset management team did not initially carry out an inspection of the property, in response to the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s structure. The landlord relied solely on the photographs provided and “looked on google maps’ and as it “appeared the structure was already there” and “not a permanent fixture”, deemed that that the neighbour did not need landlord permission. It noted that the neighbour was “doing maintenance to an existing structure and was entitled to do so.” This is inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s tenancy agreement and tenant handbook. The landlord did not check if the neighbour had permission, nor did it carry out an inspection to monitor the suitability and safety of the structure. This Service would have expected the landlord to check its records and carry out an inspection of the neighbour’s works. This caused the resident distress and frustration and severely impacted on the enjoyment of his home.
Further, the resident had health issues, which the landlord was aware of. It did not consider the resident’s individual circumstances or the effect on him. This is not resident focussed and is a failing on the part of the landlord.
Furthermore, the landlord later deemed the structure to be an obstruction in case of fire. Had it conducted an inspection in a timely manner, this would have been noted sooner. This delay in inspecting, caused the resident adverse effect, in terms of distress and frustration and fearing for his safety.
It was appropriate that the landlord engaged a surveyor to inspect both the resident’s and neighbour’s property, however, as stated above, it would have been reasonable to do this sooner. The landlord did not engage a surveyor until January 2023, after its stage 2 response at the end of December 2022 and after intervention from this Service. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to arrange a survey when the resident first reported the issue in October 2022. This is particularly pertinent as the resident was concerned about the safety implications of the structure, particularly in terms of means of escape in case of a fire. This delay impacted on the resident’s enjoyment of his home and caused him distress and frustration. It also impacted on the resident/landlord relationship.
When the landlord carried out a survey to the neighbour’s property in January 2023, it found that the structure was a security risk to the resident as the structure’s roof was just underneath the resident’s bedroom. The resident was anxious about potential burglaries and this impacted further on the enjoyment of his home. The delays to the inspection and subsequent surveys compounded his distress and anxiety and further impacted on the enjoyment of his home.
Although the landlord acted in line with the findings of the survey, and instructed the neighbour to remove the structure, it did not do this until June 2023, after further intervention from this Service. This is an unreasonable delay and 8 months after the resident submitted his stage 1 complaint. This delay caused the resident distress and frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
Due to the issues above, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint stated that the following was not deemed as a complaint:
1. A problem which residents had known about for over 6 months, unless it related to health and safety.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy where stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
It was not appropriate that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint until 28 October 2022. This is 16 working days and not compliant with its own policy. This delay caused the resident distress and frustration and could have impacted on the substantive issue being resolved.
It was not appropriate that, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised the resident that it could not investigate a problem that the resident had known about for over 6 months, albeit it agreed to look into whether the neighbour had permission from the landlord to erect the structure. The resident was concerned for his health and safety. He was concerned about potential intruders being able to access his property and that a means of escape, in case of a fire had been blocked. He was also concerned about the safety of the structure. This response caused the resident distress and frustration and impacted on the landlord/resident relationship.
It was further unreasonable that the landlord did not update the resident with its actions, further to its stage 2 complaint response. Although the landlord did arrange a survey and carry out further actions, there is no evidence that it updated the resident on this, and this caused him distress and frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
Although the landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process, it is unclear why it then provided a new stage 1 complaint response in June 2023, after intervention from this Service. Although it was appropriate that the landlord carried out further actions, had it done this in its original complaint response, the issue could have been resolved in a more timely manner. The protracted delays caused the resident distress and frustration, continued to impact on the enjoyment of his home and caused him additional time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
Although the landlord has advised this Service that it has since offered the resident £600 compensation in March 2024, this is 18 months after its initial stage 2 complaint response and 9 months after its further stage 1 complaint review. This is an inappropriate delay and impacted on the resident/landlord relationship as well as protracting the issue and causing the resident distress and frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
Due to the failings above, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for redress.
The landlord’s complaint handling policy has been updated since this complaint so this Service will be making no orders regarding a complaints policy review.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an unregulated structure, built by his downstairs neighbour.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Arrange staff training to ensure all relevant staff are aware of the tenancy agreement/tenant handbook in terms of residents seeking permission to alter their properties. This is to ensure that staff are aware that any proposed tenant works must be pre-approved in writing, monitored and then checked after completion.
3. Pay the resident the £600 compensation offered, if it has not already done so. This is for the following:
  1. £300 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience in respect of the unregulated structure built by the downstairs neighbour.
  2. £300 for the complaint handling failures.
4. The landlord to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.