Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202225310)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225310

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

5 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 response to requests for reimbursement for damaged possessions following a roof leak.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom house.
  2. On 5 November 2022 the resident reported a leak from her roof. She subsequently informed the landlord on 6 and 7 November 2022 that she wanted to claim for damage caused to her computer. She provided photographs of the damage and asked the landlord if it would reimburse her. On 14 November 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. As well as raising concerns about its handling of the leak, she asked the landlord to pay for the damage to her possessions. The next day, the resident also provided photographs of her damaged possessions to the landlord’s insurance team.
  3. On 25 November 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns at stage 1 of its complaints process. Concerning the damage to the resident’s possessions, it said that if she held the landlord liable, she would need to refer the matter to its insurance team. It provided her with information on how to do this and added that she would need to include evidence, such as receipts.
  4. On 4 and 11 January 2023 the resident asked the landlord for a response to her claim for reimbursement for her damaged possessions. She explained that despite contacting the landlord’s insurance team, she had not received a response to her requests. As such, she wanted compensation for the inconvenience this had caused.
  5. The landlord subsequently escalated the complaint and issued its final response on 28 January 2023. It repeated the insurance advice it gave in its stage 1 response. In addition, it offered £100 compensation in recognition of the ‘additional delays’ and for not signposting her to its liability claim process. It explained that the delay and absence of signposting was an error and had been raised as part of lessons learnt to avoid a recurrence.
  6. In the resident’s referrals to this Service, she said her insurance would not cover the damage to her items and that the landlord had not responded to her insurance claim.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This Service recognises that the resident felt that the landlord was responsible for damage caused to her possessions due to its handling of her reports of a roof leak. However, it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for damage to the resident’s possessions. Neither can this Service assess the handling or decision-making of an insurance claim. This is outside our jurisdiction. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident by the landlord’s response to requests for reimbursement for damaged possessions.

Requests for reimbursement for damaged possessions following a roof leak

  1. When a resident raises a concern with a landlord, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to consider this and provide a timely and clear response, setting out its position.
  2. The resident initially emailed the landlord asking it to reimburse her for her damaged possessions on 6 and 7 November 2022. However, there was no evidence that the landlord responded to these requests. This was a failing on the landlord’s part. Furthermore, we are only aware of these initial requests as the resident provided evidence of these emails to this Service. This likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping, and a recommendation is made below.
  3. The resident sent these initial emails to the landlord’s customer service team, which included photographs of the damaged possessions. She subsequently emailed the landlord’s insurance team directly on 15 November 2022 and again provided photographs of the damage caused. However, it was not until the landlord’s 25 November 2022 stage 1 response that it responded to her requests for reimbursement. In doing so, it explained its insurance process, provided information on how to claim through its liability insurance and referred her to its insurance team. While this was not a significant delay, its response would have frustrated the resident as she had already contacted its insurance team and provided evidence of the damage. However, its insurance team failed to respond to her within a reasonable timescale.
  4. The resident subsequently contacted the landlord’s complaints team for an update on her ‘insurance claim’ on 4 and 11 January 2023. However, the landlord’s 28 January 2023 final response only repeated the insurance advice it had already provided in its stage 1 response. This was inappropriate. Given that the resident had clearly said that she had already contacted the landlord’s insurance team regarding her damaged possessions, it would have been reasonable for it to check on the progress of this and update her accordingly. This likely demonstrated a lack of communication between internal landlord departments. This would have caused further frustration to the resident as the landlord failed to recognise or acknowledge throughout its formal complaints process that she had already referred this matter to its insurance team.
  5. The landlord’s final response offered £100 compensation for ‘additional delays’ and not signposting her to its liability insurance claims process. While its offer was broadly in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which suggests that compensation of up to £100 should be considered where there has been a failure that has caused frustration to the resident, its explanation as to why it had offered this amount was unclear and did not appear to be entirely accurate. Additionally, it did not acknowledge that the resident had continued to chase for a meaningful response to her request for reimbursement and that its insurance team had failed to respond to her.
  6. The evidence showed that the resident continued to chase the landlord for a response to her claim after its final response in late January and February 2023. Although the landlord’s insurance team responded to the resident and requested further information, which she appeared to provide, there was no evidence that it set out its position to her. This was despite the landlord’s internal records showing that its insurance team had considered the landlord unlikely to be liable for the damage. Indeed, the resident informed this Service in October 2023 that she had not received a response from the landlord about her requests for reimbursement. This likely demonstrated that the landlord had failed to learn from previous delays in communication. It is also unclear whether the landlord has updated the resident on her claim. As such, a further recommendation is made below.
  7. The landlord’s insurance team failed to respond to the resident within a reasonable time, and its formal responses repeated the same advice despite the landlord being aware that she had already contacted its insurance team about the damage to her possessions. Overall, the landlord failed to provide a timely and clear response, nor did it adequately set out its position in response to the resident’s requests for reimbursement for damaged possessions. This amounts to service failure, and orders have been made below for remedy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to requests for reimbursement for damaged possessions following a roof leak.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £200 comprised of:
      1. £100 as offered in its final response if it has not done so already.
      2. A further £100 for the frustration caused by the landlord’s response to requests for reimbursement for damaged possessions following a roof leak.
  2. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
  2. The landlord should update the resident on her insurance claim if it has not done so already.