Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202318813)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318813

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

24 February 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 the resident’s concerns in relation to changing the communal door lock.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property was a 1-bedroom flat situated on the ground floor of a terraced house which was converted into flats. The resident signed her tenancy in 1998 but has since moved to a new property in March 2024.
3. The landlord delivered a letter to residents on 28 June 2023 (but dated the previous day) to advise the communal front door lock would be changed on 29 June 2023. The letter also contained new keys. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 June 2023. She said:
   1. The letter was not on letter-head paper.
   2. The staff member that delivered the letter did not identify himself via the intercom. She was therefore concerned the letter might not be genuine. 
   3. She had not been given prior notice.
   4. There was no issue with the current lock.
   5. She wanted compensation for distress, time and effort in raising a complaint, and for possibly being locked out of her home.
4. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 July 2023, in which it said:
   1. It had difficulty accessing the building previously when it needed to conduct Fire Risk Assessments (FRA) to communal areas.
   2. It had decided to replace the lock.
   3. Its standard practice is to give between 24 and 48 hours notice prior to a lock change. And apologised it changed the lock before the 24-hour notice was over.
   4. It had listened to her concerns raised and:
      1. Going forward, all letters delivered to residents would be on letter headed paper.
      2. It reminded all staff members to show identification when carrying out work in communal areas and resident’s property.
      3. It offered £25 compensation in recognition of its communication failures.
5. The resident rejected the offer and disagreed with the reasons given by the landlord as to why it need to change the lock. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 August 2023. It said:
   1. It should have given more notice.
   2. It had learnt lessons and would review communication prior to lock changes. It would give more notice if the change was not an emergency. 
   3. It was committed to a ‘suited key system’ to enable access to communal areas.
   4. It offered a further £25 compensation (totalling £50) to acknowledge more notice should have been provided.

The resident responded the same day and said the compensation offered was insufficient. She said the landlord had keys to access the communal areas, therefore there was no reason for a new lock.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

6. The landlord emailed the resident on 16 August 2023 and explained its compensation amount. The resident contacted us on 27 August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident said:
   1. The lock had been changed “4 times in 11 months” and she had been locked out in September 2022.
   2. Over the previous 5 – 6 years there were numerous incidents of violence and forced entries through the communal door associated with the upstairs flat. This was why she was terrified when she heard some one entering the property who refused to identify themselves when they spoke via the intercom.
   3. She had raised previous complaints in relation to similar issues where she had received more compensation.
8. The Ombudsman acknowledges the distress the situation caused the resident, particularly given the history. Each case is assessed on its own merits and compensation is only considered for what happened, not what might have happened. This investigation will focus on events from 30 June 2023 when the resident complained, to 11 August 2023 when the landlord sent its stage 2 response.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns in relation to changing the communal door lock.

9. The resident’s tenancy agreement said the landlord:
   1. “is responsible to take reasonable care to keep common entrances, halls, stairways… and any other common parts …in reasonable repair.”
   2. “will normally give at least 24 hours’ notice [to carry out repairs or other works] but immediate access may be required.”
10. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can award “up to £250 for distress and inconvenience where the issue was resolved within a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience having some impact on the resident.”
11. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2. Put things right
    3. Learn from outcomes
12. The FRA contractor previously attended on 20 April 2023 and identified work was required to the electric meter enclosure, which was situated in a communal area. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 and 15 May 2023 and requested she contact the FRA contractor to arrange access to the property. It was not clear whether the resident contacted the contractor. However, the landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the work to be completed. With that in mind, it should have done more to follow up with the resident and its contractors rather than leaving it for the resident to arrange access, which was a failing.
13. The resident highlighted landlord staff and contractors had accessed the communal area previously, including to deliver the notice. It was therefore not clear why the landlord needed to change the communal lock. While the notice letter was not on letter headed paper, it did provided landlord contact details and a reference number so residents could query the lock change, which was reasonable. There was no evidence the resident contacted the landlord. However, it is acknowledged there was not much time between the letter delivery and lock change for her to contact the landlord.
14. The resident said had she not been home, she would not have known the lock would be changed or had new keys. Fortunately, she was home and was therefore aware the lock would be changed the next day. Whilst the landlord was entitled to change the communal lock, its handling of the situation was poor. However, it used its complaints process to apologise and outline the changes it would make. This was positive and demonstrated it had learnt from the complaint.
15. The landlord offered £50 for poor communication and to acknowledge more notice should have been provided. Given the history at the property, the landlord could have shown more empathy to the resident in dealing with the situation. There was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided. The offer of compensation does not quite reflect the detriment caused to the resident. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our own remedies guidance, an additional £50 (to the £50 already offered) is ordered. This is to reflect the distress caused to the resident by the handling of the lock change.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns in relation to changing the communal door lock.

Orders and recommendations

Order

17. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation (less £50 originally offered in the stage 2 response if this has already been paid).

Recommendation

18. The landlord should consider whether it would be appropriate to provide notice to residents via email/phone as well as letter, when carrying out lock changes.