From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202343209)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343209

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

23 April 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 removal of items from a communal cupboard.
    2. The resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for her. Throughout her complaint both the resident and her local MP were in contact with the landlord. For clarity, this report refers to correspondence from the resident and her MP as ‘the resident’.
  2. The landlord did a fire risk assessment at the resident’s property on 26 June 2023. The inspection found “combustible items” close to an ignition source in a communal cupboard located outside the resident’s property. It recommended removing all items from the cupboard and keeping the cupboard locked.
  3. The landlord issued the resident with a notice to remove all personal items from the cupboard (within 7 days) on 6 July 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 July 2023 and said she was unhappy at having to remove items from the cupboard. She said she was given a key to the cupboard at the start of her tenancy and had been using it ever since. The landlord responded to the resident on 18 July 2023 and explained its fire risk assessment found that all items needed to be removed from the cupboard. It explained that its communal areas policy stated residents were not permitted to store items in communal areas. It did not take further action at the time.
  4. The landlord issued the resident with another notice to remove all personal items from the cupboard (within 7 days) on 30 November 2023. The landlord agreed to meet the resident at the property on 15 December 2023 to assist with clearing the cupboard. The appointment did not go ahead.
  5. The landlord cleared the cupboard on 21 December 2023. The resident complained on 9 January 2024. She said she had come home to find its operatives “smashing” the cupboard door and removing items. She said its handling of the matter caused her “immense distress”. She raised a concern about the conduct of its staff and said the behaviour amounted to “unpleasant harassment”. She raised a concern that its operative had “threatened” to end her tenancy when she asked for more time to remove the items from the cupboard.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 19 January 2024. It explained that under the terms of her tenancy the resident was not permitted use of the cupboard outside her property. It explained that its recent fire risk assessment had found there was a fuse box in the cupboard. It explained it needed to keep it clear so it could easily access it in the event of a fire. It said it had interviewed the officers who handled the matter. It found they had explained the landlord’s position and given the resident adequate time to clear the cupboard. It apologised if its actions had caused distress. It offered £25 in compensation for missing the appointment on 16 December 2023.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 26 January 2024. She said she was unhappy about the loss of use of the cupboard. She also raised a concern it did not address her concerns that her staff were “heavy handed” and their actions amounted to “bullying”.
  8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 23 February 2024. It restated its position regarding the resident’s use of the cupboard. It said the correct procedure was followed regarding the removal of the items. It restated its offer of £25 in compensation from its stage 1 complaint response.
  9. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint on 5 June 2024. She said she was given no clear explanation of why the items had to be removed, and was treated in an “aggressive” way by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the removal of items from a communal cupboard

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states she is required to keep “common areas clean and free from obstacles”. The landlord’s resident handbook stated residents are responsible for keeping communal items free from personal possessions.
  2. The landlord’s communal areas policy states it aims to ensure communal areas are kept free from hazards, and residents must not store personal items in communal areas. Its policy states when it finds items that need removing from communal areas, it will issue a notice explaining when the items need to be removed by up to a maximum of 7 days. Once that timeframe is elapsed the landlord will exercise its right to remove the items.
  3. Following its fire safety inspection the landlord put the resident on notice it wanted her to remove personal items from the cupboard on 6 July 2023. However, we have seen no evidence it explained why it was asking her to do so. Considering she had been using the cupboard to store items since the 1980s, the lack of explanation was unreasonable and may have been confusing for the resident. She was inconvenienced by the lack of explanation. The information provided for this investigation shows the notice it left on the above date lacked detail which was inappropriate.
  4. The landlord’s email on 18 July 2023 went some way to putting right the above failings. It explained why it was asking the resident to remove the items (its fire risk assessment). It also explained its position that it was a communal cupboard and not for the resident’s use. While we acknowledge the resident disagreed with its decision, the landlord explained its position with clarity. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  5. Following its further notice to remove the items on 30 November 2023, the landlord contacted the resident on 6 December 2023 to discuss her concerns. This is evidence it took her concerns seriously. That it arranged to attend to assist with clearing the cupboard (on 16 December 2023) was appropriate and evidence it had due consideration for her individual circumstances.
  6. The evidence shows the appointment on 16 December 2023 did not go ahead. We have seen no evidence the landlord told the resident it was not going to attend, or sought to rearrange the appointment. This was a failing in its communication that inconvenienced the resident.
  7. The landlord attended soon after its missed appointment and removed the resident’s possessions from the cupboard on 21 December 2023. It is noted its actions were in line with its policy and it had given the resident reasonable notice. However, its communication about the appointment was poor. We have seen no evidence it had informed the resident it was attending on that day, and she was evidently distressed to find its operatives emptying the cupboard. Its poor communication inconvenienced the resident, and the lack of notice likely caused confusion.
  8. As part of her stage 1 complaint, the resident raised a concern the cupboard was not communal, and she had been using it for over 30 years. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to explain its position in relation to the resident’s tenancy agreement. It gave its reasons why it was no longer willing to allow her to use the cupboard. We appreciate this was disappointing for the resident, and she disagreed with the landlord’s position. However, the evidence shows it outlined its position with clarity, which was reasonable in the circumstances. It is not for us to determine whether the landlord’s interpretation of the resident’s agreement was legally correct, as a court is better suited to make such a decision. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to challenge the legality of the landlord’s position.
  9. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to set out its position about the use of the cupboard. This is evidence its position on the matter was consistent.
  10. The landlord’s communication around the removal of the items was poor and we have determined its offer of £25 in compensation did not fully put right the distress and inconvenience caused. We have determined there was service failure in its handling of the matter. Our remedies guidance states that up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors where an offer of redress does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident. As such we have determined an order for a further £100 is appropriate to put right the errors in its handling of the removal of items from a communal cupboard.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.

  1. We will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
  2. The evidence shows that when the resident raised a concern about the conduct of its staff, particularly in relation to the removal of items from the communal cupboard, the landlord investigated. It explained it had interviewed the members of staff in question. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was silent on her concerns about the fact she claimed it staff had “threatened” to take tenancy enforcement action against her. That the landlord’s complaint response was silent on this concern was inappropriate and a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was evidently distressed about this aspect in particular. That it did not use its complaint response to address these concerns in any detail did little to alleviate her distress.
  4. The resident used her stage 2 complaint to explain she felt the landlord had not adequately addressed her concerns about the conduct of its staff. This further supports the conclusion outlined above that its stage 1 response lacked detail about the matter.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did little to put right the failings identified above. It was silent on the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. That it set out it had followed its procedures appropriately was dismissive of the specific concerns the resident raised. She was evidently distressed at how the events had transpired. The distress she experienced may have been increased by the landlord’s failure to address her concerns in its stage 2 complaint response.
  6. We have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. Considering the failings identified above, we have determined an order for £150 is appropriate to put right the errors in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the removal of items from a communal cupboard.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £275 in compensation. The landlord’s offer of £25 in compensation should be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £125 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the removal of items from a communal cupboard.
      2. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.