Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202335198)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335198

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak into the property.

Background

2. The resident, who is a vulnerable person, has been an assured tenant at the landlord’s property from 2015. The property is a 1-bedroom flat.
3. In late October 2023 the resident reported a leak at the property from the flat above.
4. The resident did not consider the landlord was responsive to her report and on 22 November 2022, aided by a representative from her mental health team, raised a complaint.
5. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint’s process on 6 December 2023. It apologised, said it had been expecting a call from the resident to arrange an appointment and had now done so for 12 December 2023. It said another appointment for its surveyor to visit was to go ahead on that day.
6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 8 December 2023. She was concerned about the landlord’s approach to the repairs and her health and safety because of concerns about the electrics.
7. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 5 January 2024. It said some repairs had been completed in the agreed timeframe but others had not. It apologised, explained what action it was taking to complete outstanding repairs and offered £100 to compensate the resident for the delay.
8. On 7 February 2024 the resident took her complaint to the Ombudsman. The outcome she hoped to achieve was for the remaining repairs to be completed. She said the landlord’s approach was having a detrimental impact on her mental health and she did not consider the compensation offered was adequate.
9. At the time of writing, the resident told the Ombudsman that all the repairs had been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

10. The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has caused to her health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
11. The resident continued to report issues with the repair works the landlord undertook, including the fixing of hinges to kitchen cupboards, a draught from newly-installed windows and a wet wall. Under paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaint’s procedure. Therefore, these issues, some of which appear to have gone through the first stage of the landlord’s complaint’s procedure, but not the second stage, do not form part of this investigation.
12. Further, after stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint’s process had been concluded, in an undated letter, the resident also made further comments about her initial report, saying that, for instance, the electrics had been turned off when the landlord first responded. We have not examined this claim, falling as it did, after the complaint’s process had concluded.

On the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak into the property.

13. When the resident reported the leak at the property on or around 28 October 2023, the landlord was initially responsive. The records indicate a plumber attended within 24 hours. He reported that the leak, which caused “extensive water damage” to the kitchen wall, was “resolved”. It was noted that the resident used a dehumidifier to help dry out the damp.
14. An electrician attended on 31 October 2023 to disconnect the extractor fan and inspect the plug sockets, but did not attend again until 20 November 2023. As he reported the area was still damp, this delay might have been necessary. However, the resident was a vulnerable person and the landlord did not communicate well with her, or in line with its 2021 damp and mould policy, which said that throughout the works process, it would maintain regular contact with the resident.
15. Instead, a representative from the resident’s mental health team joined with the resident in attempting to contact the landlord 3 times in the month of November 2023 to try and arrange repairs. On 7 December 2023, the representative informed the landlord they had tried to move the case forward with the landlord on 15, 20 and 22 November 2022. The representative told the landlord, “…this is having a notable effect on [the resident’s] mental health…is a health and safety concern and the fact that the mould is a breeding ground for damp is especially concerning given that [the resident] is asthmatic.”
16. In its 6 December 2023 stage 1 response, the landlord said that a surveyor had been booked for 30 November 2023 but was off sick and so another appointment had been made for 6 December 2023. The records show that the operative who attended listed a number of works that needed completing, including filling the kitchen wall and decorating, filling the bricks in the kitchen wall with sand and cement to stop water penetration to the walls, replacing the kitchen cabinet hinges, removing the kitchen cabinets to address damp and mould and replacing the kitchen floor caused by the leak.
17. The landlord’s 2021 damp and mould policy (the policy) sets out that it will attend and complete all non-emergency works that it identifies within 20 working days. It says that where a timeframe for works changes, it will inform the resident and explain the reason for the change. This means the non-emergency works that were caused by the leak of 28 October 2023, to be in line with its policy, should have been completed by 24 November 2023. This did not happen. It was inappropriate that the landlord had not undertaken an assessment of the works necessary until 6 December 2022.
18. At stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord said that some repairs were completed and some were not at the time the resident escalated her complaint. It is unclear from the landlord’s records what repairs were completed by that point. Rather, the records indicate that a new fan was not fitted until 12 December 2023, the kitchen wall was not filled and decorated until 31 January 2024, an appointment had not yet been made to replace the kitchen flooring, and the job to fill the bricks with cement was not scheduled to be completed until 1 February 2023. It is inappropriate that none of these repairs were completed within the timeframe set out in its policy.
19. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for a discretionary payment of up to £250 where a resident experiences distress or inconvenience following a service failure. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £100 to acknowledge the impact caused by delays. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
20. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology and compensation), was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. We consider, given the poor communication and delay in this case, that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak into the property.
21.  The offer of £100 was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. It does not sufficiently acknowledge the impact the delays and poor communication had on a vulnerable resident. We have ordered that the landlord make a higher payment totalling £400. This amount is in line with the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for circumstances such as this where there is maladministration with no permanent impact on the resident and the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
22. We note that following the stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it provided the resident with a single point of contact with a view to making its processes more supportive. As the landlord has, by this action, already taken steps to increase the support given to this vulnerable resident, demonstrating learning, we have not made any further orders to address any shortcomings in its approach to reports made by vulnerable residents.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of a leak into the property.

Orders and recommendations

24. Within 4 weeks of this report a senior member of the landlord’s staff should apologise to the resident, in writing, or on person if the resident prefers.  The apology should acknowledge the maladministration, accept responsibility for it, explain clearly why it happened, and express regret.
25. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident the total sum of £400, inclusive of the £100 already offered if this has already been paid.
26. The payment is to be made direct to the resident and not used to offset any monies that the resident may owe to the landlord. The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made and provide evidence.