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

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202335357)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335357

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

7 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of disrepair to the windows.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy at the property, a 2 bedroom top floor flat in a converted house. The resident lives at the property with his partner and 4 children aged 16, 13, 10 and 8 months.
  2. The resident was moved to the property under an internal management transfer in August 2023. The resident began reporting issues with the windows from the day he moved to the property. He first noted the windows were stuck in the open position and then reported the frames were rotten. Two of the windows were boarded over in September 2023 as they were identified to be in an unsafe condition. The resident also reported cracks to the glazing in the skylight which started leaking in December 2023. The resident chased the landlord for a solution to the windows issue on at least 9 occasions between August 2023 and December 2023. On each occasion he reminded the landlord that the property was very cold and his partner was pregnant, due to give birth in December 2023.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 12 December 2023. He was unhappy that the landlord had sent 6 operatives to repair the windows and still nothing had been done. He told the landlord his heating bills were expensive because of the condition of the windows and that he had taken multiple days off work for appointments that were wasted time. He told the landlord that it was unacceptable for his family to live in these conditions.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident on 28 December 2023. It apologised for the delays and acknowledged the resident’s comments about living with the cold conditions. It said the delays had been caused by operative sickness and miscommunication. It confirmed appointments to repair the 4 damaged windows in January 2024. The landlord said it could not reimburse the resident for his heating bills but offered him £100 compensation for the delayed repairs. The landlord said it should have opened a customer resolutions case to progress the repairs. It said it would do this now to ensure the issues were resolved.
  5. The resident was unhappy as the landlord rescheduled the January 2024 appointments to March 2024. The resident sought legal advice and commenced a disrepair case in February 2024. The resident also contacted this Service for advice. We contacted the landlord in March 2024 and asked it to issue the resident with a stage 2 response by 3 April 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 April 2024.
  6. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the further delays which it said were caused by operative availability and delays sourcing parts. It acknowledged it had failed to confirm if the resident wanted to proceed to stage 2 of the complaints process after the resident had started the disrepair case. It said the work was “well advanced” but that there was further work to be scheduled. It increased its offer of compensation to £200 for the further inconvenience incurred by the resident.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated the matter to this Service in May 2024. In doing so, he confirmed that the new windows had been fitted on 22 April 2024 but other issues had been identified and remained outstanding. He wanted an increased offer of compensation in recognition of his increased heating costs over the previous 7 months and the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
  8. It is relevant to note that the landlord increased the compensation offer to £500 in October 2024. The resident has not accepted this offer as of the date of this report.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

  1. The resident has informed this Service that he is now overcrowded in the property. He said he has told the landlord but hasn’t heard anything back. This matter is not related to the complaint therefore has not been investigated but a recommendation has been included below for the landlord to contact the resident about this.
  2. The resident has informed this Service that there have been further issues and delays in resolving all the repairs within the property. These included issues that were identified after the events of the formal complaint. This investigation can only consider matters which the landlord has had the opportunity to investigate through its own internal complaints procedure. For this reason, this investigation has only assessed the events that were the subject of the resident’s initial complaint in December 2023 and the landlord’s final response in April 2024. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident regarding the other issues.

The resident’s reports of disrepair to the windows.

  1. The resident was moved to the property in August 2023 under an internal management transfer. This was because of issues with a neighbour at the resident’s previous property. The evidence shows that the landlord completed extensive works to the property prior to considering it ready to let.
  2. The landlord asked its contractor to check the windows as part of its void works on 31 July 2023. When submitting evidence to this Service the landlord explained that it felt it was reasonable to move the resident into the property with known issues with the windows. It said there were no health and safety concerns at the time of moving the resident in and therefore the property met the lettable standard.
  3. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the windows were in fact in a poor condition leading to safety concerns prior to the resident moving in. This is because the evidence shows the landlord had to board up 2 windows in the property within 6 weeks of the resident moving in. This was due to a safety concern caused by the rotten window frames. There were also issues of rotting noted on 2 other window frames in the property. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to note this or take action to resolve this prior to the resident moving in. The landlord could then have planned the works in shortly after the resident had moved in with the resident’s agreement. However there is no evidence of the landlord discussing this with the resident. In failing to do so, the landlord missed the opportunity to resolve things promptly for the resident. Instead it placed the onus on the resident to report and chase the repairs and this was a failure.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete non-urgent repairs within 20 days and complex or major repairs within 40 days. In this case, it is evident that the landlord did mostly attend to the repairs within these timescales. However, the repairs were not fully completed within these timescales. For example, the landlord boarded 2 of the windows in the living room on 22 September 2023 and said the windows needed replacing. It advised there would be a 6 week wait for the windows to be ordered. These windows were not replaced until 22 April 2024, over 30 weeks later. This was inappropriate.
  5. The landlord’s repairs policy also says if it is unable to complete a repair or further works are required, it will confirm a follow up appointment with the resident. There is no evidence of the landlord doing this. On the contrary, there is evidence of the resident chasing the landlord for updates on the follow up appointments on multiple occasions. It also meant the landlord inspected the same work on multiple occasions which wasted the resident’s time. He told the landlord he had had to take a lot of time off work to allow access to contractors. The landlord failed to acknowledge the time taken in pursuing these repairs in its complaint responses and this was a failing. The landlord did not act in line with its policy and this was inappropriate.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy notes it may offer £25 for missed appointments. This is meant for instances where the appointment has to be cancelled by the landlord with less than 24 hours’ notice. However, in this case it may have been reasonable for the landlord to consider some of its wasted visits as equivalent to missed appointments. There is evidence of at least 3 appointments where the landlord attended and was unable to complete any tangible repairs to improve the situation for the resident. On each occasion, the landlord took photos and referred the matter back for window replacements to be quoted. For this reason, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £75 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience likely incurred by the resident from these wasted visits.
  7. The landlord also failed to consider its obligations under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which notes excess cold as one of the hazards. This was of particular note given the resident’s household had potential vulnerabilities, firstly with a pregnant partner and then a newborn baby. There is no evidence of the landlord offering any interim measures to assist with the cold, such as providing additional portable heaters or contributing to additional heating costs. There is also no evidence of the landlord risk assessing the resident’s situation to determine if alternative accommodation might be required. On the contrary, the landlord said it could not reimburse the resident for his increased heating bills as this could have been caused by a variety of factors. There is no evidence of the landlord requesting evidence of the increased bills nor of it seriously considering this request against its compensation policy which notes it will consider reimbursing out-of-pocket expenses. This was a failure. The landlord is ordered to consider the resident’s request again and confirm in writing its stance on the matter.
  8. The landlord did apologise for the delays in repairing the windows and offered £200 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may make awards of up to £250 for distress and inconvenience following a service failure. This Service’s remedies guidance sets out  a range of awards between £100 and £600 for situations such as this where there have been significant failures which had no permanent impact on the resident. In this case, the resident had been living with the rotten windows for 8 months and the landlord had not committed to a timescale by which they would be repaired. For this reason, an increased offer of compensation would have been proportionate.
  9. After this Service requested evidence from the landlord in October 2024, the landlord reviewed the case again and increased its offer to £500. This amount is within the range of awards this Service would make for failures such as in this case. Although it is positive that the landlord increased its offer of compensation, it was inappropriate that this offer only came after the intervention of this Service and after the resident sought legal advice. This is dealt with further below in the assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling.
  10. As outlined above, this investigation is limited to the events that were the subject of the resident’s initial complaint. This centred around the boarded–up windows, rotten window frames and subsequent cold temperatures in the property. Although these windows were replaced in April 2024, it is relevant to note that the evidence shows that the resident was living with related outstanding repairs until much more recently. The work to repair and repaint the other frames was not completed until July 2024 and the skylight repair (which leaked when it rained) was also completed in July 2024. The resident was living with internal scaffolding until at least September 2024 which was very inconvenient as it restricted the resident’s accessibility to the property. For example, the resident told the landlord the internal scaffolding made it difficult to bring the baby’s pram into the property. The landlord also needed to carry out associated repairs to the roof and gutters and it took until October 2024 for the required scaffold to be installed externally to complete this. The resident has told this Service that some repairs remain outstanding as of the date of this report. Although these events have not been assessed as part of this complaint, it is recommended the landlord contact the resident to confirm the status of all the outstanding repairs and whether he would like to raise a complaint about any of these events.
  11. In conclusion, although the landlord eventually offered proportionate compensation for the delays in repairing and replacing the rotten window frames, it failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and failed to consider its other obligations under its repairs policy and the HHSRS. This investigation has found service failure and orders have been made below.

The associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will not consider legal matters through its complaints procedure. It further explains that it does not consider a matter as “legal” until court proceedings have been issued. In this case, the resident sought legal advice and commenced a disrepair claim in February 2024. The claim did not progress to court therefore should not have been considered “legal” by the landlord. The evidence shows the landlord closed the resident’s complaint in March 2024 on the basis that a disrepair case was now active. This was inappropriate. This Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf in March 2024 asking it to escalate the matter to stage 2 and issue its response by 3 April 2024. However, the landlord failed to do so and instead left the resident a voicemail on 27 March 2024 asking him to confirm if he wanted the complaint to progress to stage 2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint escalation was not in line with its policy and this was inappropriate.
  2. The landlord did acknowledge it had only made one attempt to confirm whether the resident wanted to keep the complaint open and that this hadn’t been followed up. However the landlord did not apologise for this, nor did it offer any form of redress in recognition of its failure to act in line with its policy. It is unclear if the landlord would have escalated the complaint without the involvement of this Service and this was unreasonable. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and to pay £50 compensation for the additional distress and inconvenience likely incurred by the resident as a result of this failure. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for minor failures.
  3. As outlined above, the landlord contacted the resident in October 2024 to make an increased offer of compensation. In doing so, the landlord said it had reviewed the case. However, the landlord did not elaborate on any details of this review and no further failures were identified outside of the delays (which have been assessed above). It was positive that the landlord reconsidered its handling of the matter however there is no evidence of the landlord identifying any learning from the complaint. This Service encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to improve service delivery and the landlord missed the opportunity to do so. This was a failure.
  4. As set out above, although it is positive that the landlord increased its offer of compensation, it was inappropriate that this offer only came after the intervention of this Service and after the resident sought legal advice. Had the resident chosen not to contact this Service or a solicitor, it is unclear if the landlord would have made this offer and that is unfair. The landlord’s internal complaints process should enable timely and proportionate awards of compensation, in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord is ordered to apologise for this failure and pay an additional £50 for the distress and inconvenience the resident likely incurred having to go to such lengths pursuing the complaint.
  5. In conclusion, the landlord did not handle the complaint escalation in line with its complaint policy and failed to properly assess the compensation required during the complaints process. It also failed to use its complaint process to identify lessons learned. This investigation has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and orders have been made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures outlined in this report.
    2. Consider the resident’s request for reimbursement of his increased heating bills and confirm in writing its stance on the matter.
    3. Pay the resident the £500 offered in October 2024.
    4. Pay the resident an additional £175, comprising:
      1. £75 for the distress and inconvenience likely incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the reports of disrepair to the windows.
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience likely incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to confirm the status of all the outstanding repairs and confirm if he would like to raise a complaint about any of these events.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident about his report of being overcrowded in the property. The landlord should confirm what actions it will take in response to this.