Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202305455)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305455

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

27 January 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

The complaint is about how the landlord has handled the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Faulty external and internal doors.
3. A rodent infestation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat where the resident lives with her 2 children. She says both her children have asthma.
On 12 April 2023 a stack pipe in the flat above the resident’s burst and flooded her property. On 13 April 2023 she complained the flood had damaged her belongings and saturated the flooring and carpets, and that the property was full of damp and mould. She also complained that she had tried to call customer services to report the flood the day before, but she was left on hold for 3 hours. The landlord completed repairs over the following 5 days which resolved the burst pipe and subsequent leak.
On 25 April 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised that she could not get through to customer services on 12 April 2023. It explained that it fixed the burst pipe on 18 April 2023. It offered to clean her carpets, but advised she would need to make a claim via contents insurance regarding any damaged property. It explained that, once the property dried out, she should contact it again about any damp and mould and it would organise an inspection.
The resident was unhappy with this and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 2 May 2023. She complained that the landlord’s attempts to clean the carpet were insufficient. She also complained that the landlord should compensate her for damaged belongings, extra energy costs from running dehumidifiers, and a mouse infestation in the property which she says was caused by works in April 2023. She complained that the landlord also failed to address delays in responding to the leak, missed appointments, and ongoing damp and mould.
On 2 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It explained it had attended the burst pipe within its repairs timescales and advised she should pursue a claim with her contents insurance, or its own liability insurance, for any damaged belongings. It offered £200 compensation as a goodwill gesture and £10 for a delayed stage 2 response. It also offered to compensate her for the extra energy costs once she provided her energy bills.
The resident was unhappy with this and asked her MP to intervene. Her MP wrote to the landlord on 13 September 2023 and relayed that the landlord had failed to address: a hole in the bathroom wall, a subsequent mouse infestation, and her reports of damp and mould. The landlord repaired the bathroom wall on 27 September 2023. On 28 December 2023 the landlord also repaired the resident’s garden door, which was not closing properly.
The landlord identified damp and mould in the property on 18 March 2024 and raised works to address it. It completed works to treat mould on 1 May 2024. The resident was unhappy as she considered the treatment was incorrectly restricted to her bedroom and so on 10 May 2024, she asked the landlord to treat the mould in her children’s bedroom and the living room.
The landlord attended on 10 May 2024 and repaired the backdoor of the property.
From this point onwards the resident and the landlord appear to have disagreed about the extent of outstanding mould and scope of works required to address it. At present we understand there have been no further works related to damp and mould since the 1 May 2024 visit. The resident considers that the landlord has to-date failed to suitably investigate and address the mould in the property. To resolve her complaint, she would like the landlord to treat all of the reported mould, replace the wallpaper and carpet throughout the property, provide compensation for distress, and reimburse her for mould cleaning equipment that she has bought.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

Under paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The resident has complained that the landlord failed to promptly repair her faulty garden door and internal backdoor. However, we have not seen any evidence to suggest she has raised this with the landlord as a formal complaint. Therefore, in line with 42.a, we will not consider this as part of this investigation.
The resident has also complained the landlord failed to respond to her reports of a rodent infestation, and the landlord has not addressed this in any of its complaint responses. We can see the resident gave the landlord the opportunity to address this in her complaint of 2 May 2023. However, the landlord failed to do so. For this reason, we have decided to exercise our discretion and investigate this complaint as per paragraph 42.a.

How the landlord handled the resident’s report of damp and mould

Our Spotlight Report on damp and mould recommended that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. We also recommended that landlords should take a “zero tolerance” approach to reports of damp and mould. This means we expect them to take a proactive approach to resolving damp and mould by making efforts to address any issues as early as possible.
The landlord’s damp and mould framework says that it will respond to reports within 5 working days and aim to complete all remedial work within 20 working days.
The resident raised concerns about damp and mould on 13 April 2023 following the leak the day before. The landlord provided a dehumidifier on 13 April 2023 and photographed sections of carpet which appeared saturated with water. The resident complains that the landlord delayed in taking this action. She says she first attempted to phone it on 12 April 2023 but was left on hold for 3 hours. While we recognise the resident’s account, we cannot see any evidence of this call, and so we will treat 13 April 2023 as the date the landlord was made aware of these issues. Based on this, the landlord acted reasonably by providing the dehumidifier on the same day as a means of drying out the property.
We can see the landlord completed several repairs from 13 April 2023 to 18 April 2023 when it resolved the broken stack pipe. Until it was repaired, we understand that water was continuing to leak into the property. This exceeded the 24-hour target set out in its repairs policy. However, we note that the landlord had to break through the floor of the flat above to replace the soil pipe, and that the ultimate repair required extensive works across 2 separate properties. Therefore, we consider it was reasonable considering these circumstances that the repair took several days. The landlord emailed the resident on 19 April 2023 and offered to reimburse her the costs she incurred in dry cleaning clothes affected by the leak. This was a positive step toward mitigating the impact of the leak on the resident. The landlord also explained it had not found any damp and mould in any of its visits in the days preceding this.
In its stage 2 response on 25 April 2023 the landlord advised the resident to report any ongoing damp and mould once the property had dried out. Given the extent of the water saturation from the leak, this was a reasonable instruction. It would not have been productive to start investigating and treating any damp and mould until the dehumidifiers had time to dry out as much as possible of the water which had entered the property from the broken stack pipe, and so we consider the landlord acted reasonably.
Internal email messages from the landlord note that it cleaned the carpets twice between 14 April 2023 and 27 April 2023. The resident advised that these attempts were insufficient because the damp, mould, and related smells remained. The landlord has not provided any records related to this, so we are unable to assess how they were cleaned or to what standard. The resident then complained again about the carpets and persisting damp and mould on 2 May 2023.
The landlord raised a post-inspection on 5 May 2023. On 18 May 2023 it attended and cleaned the carpets in the living room, hallway, and bathroom. However, there is no indication in the records of any inspections or observations related to damp and mould at this visit despite the resident’s report of this 3 days earlier.
On 14 June 2023 the landlord raised another post-inspection. It attended this on 20 June 2023 and identified that a section of the bathroom needed tiling over, which was removed as part of the stack pipe repairs. It also identified that the “bedroom carpet by balcony needs reattaching.” There is again no indication it inspected for damp and mould.
The landlord advised the Ombudsman in February 2024 that the 20 June 2023 inspection was raised in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, but that its observations did not corroborate her reports. However, there is no evidence that any damp and mould related observations were made at this visit or the 18 May 2023 visit. A reasonable response to reports of damp and mould should address the resident’s concerns by investigating, documenting observations and, if appropriate, detailing remedial actions. The landlord’s failure to record this information was not in keeping with its policy or our Spotlight report. Poor information management undermines a landlord’s ability to address damp and mould and impedes its capacity to respond to subsequent complaints. The landlord’s failure to record any observations, conclusions or remedial actions in relation to damp and mould from the two visits on 18 May 2023 and 20 June 2023 means it is not possible to determine if the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould on these occasions were reasonable.
Following this there are no records of any correspondence related to her reports of damp and mould until the resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 13 September 2023 to complain about this, and other concerns. The landlord then visited on 27 September 2023 and repaired the hole in the bathroom wall, but there is no evidence it took any action to investigate or address the damp and mould report. It should have done so in response to the MP’s report of her concerns as per its policy, and we consider its failure to do so likely delayed things further. The next related record is an internal email from 22 November 2023 in which the landlord acknowledged that the resident was chasing “outstanding repairs” related to damp and mould within the property. A checklist was attached to this email which noted:
1. Damp and mould under the floorboards.
2. Bedroom doors, walls, and garden window had condensation.
3. Visible mould was growing on the ceiling and under carpets throughout the property.
The checklist noted that, based on this, “everywhere” needed to be inspected. On 8 December 2023 the landlord called the resident to schedule an inspection, but the resident advised she would call back with her availability. The landlord appears to have taken this action in response to the MP’s letter of 13 September 2023. It is disappointing that it took 3 months following this correspondence for the landlord to begin engaging with the resident to organise an inspection for damp and mould. This was not in keeping with the 5 working day timescale set out in its policy, and this likely caused the resident distress. We also consider this further delayed any resolution.
There is no record of when the resident got back in touch with the landlord to reschedule, but we can see a damp and mould inspection was raised on 10 January 2024. We recognise that the resident was unable to confirm her availability on 8 December 2023, and that the landlord may have raised the inspection sooner than this had she been able to do so. Repair logs indicate the landlord then attempted to visit the property on 23 January 2024 but was not granted access. There is then no record of any contact with the resident until 1 March 2024 when the landlord wrote to her. It explained that it had been trying to contact her to arrange an inspection for damp and mould and advised it had booked a visit for 7 March 2024. The resident then rescheduled this appointment for 18 March 2024.
We recognise that the landlord was not given access to the property on 23 January 2024, and that this delayed the inspection. However, given the previous delays we have identified, and that the resident had advised the landlord of potential adverse impacts of the mould on her children’s asthma, the landlord should have made more efforts to reschedule this inspection. While we note it did so via the letter on 1 March 2024, we consider similar efforts could have been attempted sooner. We consider this likely contributed further to the delay and the resident’s distress.
The landlord then inspected the property on 18 March 2024. It identified that wallpaper in both bedrooms had come off the walls and mould was present. It raised works to complete a mould wash and reattach the wallpaper. The records note that the resident did not allow the landlord to inspect the living room or front bedroom (her children’s bedroom) because they were full of “stuff”. This contradicts the previous identification of mould in both bedrooms, as it is unclear how this was identified if the resident had only allowed 1 room to be inspected. If the landlord required a further inspection, it should have booked this and asked the resident to clear the areas. It should also have clearly informed her that no remedial action would be taken in any rooms until they were properly inspected. The landlord did not take this action and left the resident under the expectation that all affected walls would be treated.
The landlord attended again on 24 April 2024. The landlord noted that it found further pockets of mould which had previously been concealed by the wallpaper. The surveyor advised that the following steps should be taken:
1. Affected walls were to be stripped to expose any hidden mould growth.
2. Mould washing was to be completed to all affected areas.
3. Depending on condition of walls, walls were to be prepared and redecorated in white if found to be in poor condition.
4. If found to be in good condition, and if tenant requested that wallpaper finishes were restored, then decorating vouchers could be provided.
The inspection report from 24 April 2024 does not stipulate what rooms were included in the scope of work. These works were marked as completed on 1 May 2024, but only in one bedroom. The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that the landlord did not strip the wallpaper as advised. The internal emails also indicate that when the landlord queried why the works were limited to one room, its contractors advised that it understood that work was only required in one room.
The landlord raised remedial works following the appointment on 18 March 2024. These were changed and expanded following a further inspection on 24 April 2024, but this change was not appropriately communicated to its contractors. Remedial works were therefore only part completed on 1 May 2024. This is a clear shortfall in the landlord’s handling of this matter..
The resident then contacted the landlord on 10 May 2024 and asked it to strip the wallpaper and treat the mould in her children’s bedroom. An internal email exchange on 13 May 2024 explains that the works order raised on 25 April 2024 had stated affected walls, not specific rooms. There is then another email on 24 May 2024 which notes the resident had refused works as she thought more were required. While we recognise the resident considers the landlord failed to attempt works of a sufficient scope to address all outstanding mould, we do not consider it was reasonable of her to refuse the landlord’s attempts to at least partially address the outstanding areas of concern. We consider this likely contributed to the apparent stalemate that both parties appear to be in regarding further works.
A landlord email on 31 May 2024 then raised works to “strip the wallpaper of the affected 2 rooms”. The email also asks the contractor to notify the landlord if there are additional rooms requiring mould treatment. Emails on 25 and 28 June 2024 note that the landlord had spoken to the resident who advised that the living room and carpets needed to be treated for mould. The email on 25 June 2024 notes that the landlord needed to clarify whether it could do so with its surveyor. A repair log on 5 July 2024 then notes that the works could not be completed because the resident had completed a mould wash.
The communication records between 10 May and 5 July 2024 indicate a lack of clarity on the landlord’s part as to what outstanding works there were, and whether it was obligated to complete them. We consider it likely that this confusion resulted from its failure to keep a suitable audit trail of inspections and related repairs. This in turn has unnecessarily delayed a resolution for the resident, and we consider this has likely caused her significant distress. Ultimately, we consider the landlord has delayed unreasonably in addressing the resident’s reports of damp and mould from April 2023 to present. Therefore, we will order it pays the resident compensation to put this right.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on compensation payments sets out that payments in the range of £600 and £1,000 are typically suitable to redress a failure which has had a significant impact on the resident.
In determining the appropriate level of compensation, we have considered that the resident did not provide access on 23 January 2024, and that she was unable to accommodate the inspection offered on 7 March 2024. We have also considered how she appeared to refuse works on 24 May 2024. We accept that these factors contributed to some degree to the overall delay. However, we consider that the landlord should have done more to engage the resident to reschedule an inspection appointment from 23 January 2024 to 1 March 2024, and that the delay may have been mitigated had it done so. We note that the resident may still have refused access had it been arranged sooner.
We consider the resident was likely caused distress from April 2023 to present by the landlord’s failure to suitably inspect the property for damp and mould. We also consider the resident was caused distress by the landlord’s inconsistent approach to addressing the mould following its inspections. It is also likely that this distress was more pronounced than it would have been for another person without vulnerable children. Any compensation needs to reflect this and the length of time the landlord has failed to suitably address the issue. With this in mind, and the ways in which the resident’s own actions likely contributed to the delay, we will order the landlord to pay her £600 compensation. This will be inclusive of the £210 it has already offered as part of its stage 2 response.
We note that, in response to the leak in April 2023, the landlord offered to pay for the resident’s dry cleaning and reimburse her surplus energy costs from using the dehumidifiers. We consider this was a positive course of action towards mitigating the impact of the leak on the resident. However, the resident has complained the landlord failed to fulfil either offer. Internal emails from 1 June 2023 indicate the landlord asked the relevant team to reimburse the resident £89.60 for her dry-cleaning bills. This amount was credited to the resident’s rent account.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will compensate residents at £3 per day when they have to use a dehumidifier due to property conditions. Therefore, an order will be made for the landlord to clarify with the resident the number of days she had to use the dehumidifier and compensate her in line with this policy.
We recognise the resident would like us to order the landlord to replace all the carpets and wallpapers in the property. However, we have not seen sufficient evidence to indicate the extent of mould damage to either feature. In the absence of this evidence, it would not be reasonable to order the landlord to replace them. However, an order will be made for the landlord to complete a suitably detailed inspection of the entire property, including the carpets and wallpapers, to address the resident’s concerns about remaining damp and mould and outline an action plan stating what it intends to do to resolve any outstanding mould. We encourage the resident to allow the landlord full access to the property to enable it to comply with this order. An order will also be made for the landlord to provide details of its liability insurer to the resident so that she can contact them if she continues to consider the landlord liable for damage she has suffered.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation

The resident complains that the landlord delayed in repairing a hole in her bathroom wall from April to September 2023, and that this delay allowed mice to infest the property. She also complains the landlord has refused to address this. She first complained about this on 2 May 2023, and then raised it again via her MP in September 2023. While we can see the landlord repaired the hole on 27 September 2023, we have seen no evidence that it addressed her concerns about the infestation or considered if these events were related.
The landlord’s repairs policy obliges it to complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
We can see the landlord cut a section of the bathroom wall out on 17 April 2023 to grant it access to complete the stack-pipe repair. Photos from this visit depict a tile shaped hole in the bathroom wall. We can see it raised a post-inspection for this on 5 May 2023. There was no further related action until another post-inspection order was raised on 14 June 2023, and there is no evidence to indicate why the initial post-inspection was not attended and another raised.
It attended on 20 June 2023 and identified that a section in the bathroom needed boarding up. Photos indicate the hole was covered up with tarp and duct tape at this visit. The landlord then attended on 27 September 2023 and repaired the hole with plywood and new tiling. There is no evidence to indicate why the landlord delayed in completing the repair, and no indication that the resident was kept informed about the delay. Ultimately, the repair was completed 94 working days past the timescale set out in its policy.
The landlord’s policy on pest infestation states that, if it is apparent that an infestation is caused by disrepair or lack of action on its part, then it will take full responsibility for carrying out repairs and treating the infestation. Therefore, it should have considered the resident’s report and investigated whether the hole it made in the bathroom wall, and the delay in repairing it, was related to the infestation. The landlord failed to do so, and this omission meant it missed an opportunity to investigate whether the hole in the wall was a likely access point for any infestation.
Given the passage of time, it would not be productive for us to order the landlord to investigate now and reach a retrospective view on whether the events are related. However, we consider the resident’s view that the hole contributed to the infestation by providing an access point is reasonable. With this in mind, an order will be made for the landlord to organise an inspection by a suitably qualified professional to assess if an infestation remains and, if it does, to address it as per its policy.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on compensation states that payments of £100 to £600 are sufficient to put right failures by the landlord which have adversely, but not permanently affected the resident. We consider the landlord’s delay in repairing the bathroom wall likely caused some distress, so we will order the landlord pays £100 to remedy this. The lower placement of this figure on our scale reflects that the majority of this distress was likely caused by the infestation itself.
We consider the landlord’s failure to address the resident’s report of an infestation was a missed opportunity to investigate this and whether the hole was related, and then to either treat the infestation as per its policy or advise the resident on her options. We consider this likely caused the resident further distress. For this reason, we will order the landlord pays £200 to remedy this. The low-mid level placement of this figure on our scale reflects that we have not seen further reports from the resident outlining the impact of these omissions.

Record keeping

While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request.
Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify that its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping and information management was inadequate, which made the Ombudsman’s investigation more difficult.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp and mould
2. A rodent infestation
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of faulty external and internal doors is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

The landlord is to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord is to pay the resident £900 in compensation (this amount includes the compensation already offered. All payments should be made directly to the resident not offset against the rent account). This comprises of:
1. £600 for its failure to suitably address the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. £200 for its failure to acknowledge the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation.
3. £100 for the delay in repairing the bathroom wall.
The landlord is to clarify with the resident the number of days she had to use the dehumidifier and pay her £3 per day for this period.
The landlord to complete a detailed inspection of the property, including all carpets and wallpaper, to address the resident’s concerns about remaining damp and mould. The landlord is then to provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a suitably detailed action plan outlining what it intends to do to resolve any damp and mould it identifies.
The landlord is to provide details of its liability insurer to the resident so that she can pursue a claim if she continues to hold the landlord liable for damage she has suffered.
The landlord is to organise a detailed inspection by a suitably qualified professional to assess if an infestation remains and, if it does, to address it in accordance with its policy.
The landlord is to provide us with evidence of compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already, the landlord should self-assess against our Spotlight Report on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). It should also consider the additional guidance in the Ombudsman’s follow up report published in January 2025. This will give it the opportunity to consider how it can improve its record keeping to avoid repeating the omissions we identified in this report.