Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202107472)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107472

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

10 August 2022

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 the landlord’s:
1. Decision not to add the resident’s two children as members of the household on the tenancy.
2. Response to a report of mice in the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident became a tenant of the property in July 2019 following a mutual exchange. The property is a four-bedroom flat.
At the start of the tenancy, the resident moved to the property with their spouse and six children. The resident has indicated that their two other children did not intend to move with them, and were completing their studies elsewhere, at the time the family moved. These two children were not included in the resident’s housing transfer application for the property.

Summary of events

In July 2019, the resident reported mice in the property. The landlord attended in November 2019 and completed remedial works to fill entry holes in the hallway and the kitchen.
In October 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting that it add their two other children as members of the household, as they had completed their studies and were facing homelessness if they did not move into the family home. At the time, one child was an adult over the age of 18 and the other was 17 years old. The resident also asked for an application for the children to apply for housing and asked how they could be put forward for a transfer to a larger property. The landlord did not respond to this.
On 3 December 2020, the resident’s local Member of Parliament (MP) made an enquiry with the landlord on behalf of the resident. The MP said that the resident was living in the property with seven children and their spouse. They raised concern that the property was overcrowded and asked the landlord if the resident was on a transfer list. In addition to this, the MP noted that among other issues, the resident had reported a problem with mice in the property.
In January 2021, the resident made a report to the landlord about mice in the property. A contractor attended on 11 March 2021 and recommended the installation of bristle strips to the front entrance and main entrance door.
In March 2021, the MP chased the landlord for a response to the enquiry sent in December 2020.
The landlord provided its response to the MP on 1 April 2021. It advised that the resident could register for rehousing on Locata, a choice-based lettings scheme, but would have the lowest priority banding, as they were considered adequately housed. It agreed to contact the resident to discuss registering them on Locata, as well as other options for them to seek rehousing as there was a severe shortage of four-bedroom properties. Regarding the mice, it confirmed that a pest control contractor attended and recommended work. It said that it was trying to contact the resident to arrange a date to complete the work.
On the same day, it called the resident to arrange an appointment to complete the works recommended by the pest control contractor, but it was unable to reach them. It sent the resident an email, on 5 May 2021, requesting their availability so that an appointment could be arranged.
Between April and May 2021, the landlord contacted the resident advising that they would need to submit a Locata application for consideration. It confirmed that its records showed that there were six children in the property but it established during the conversation that the resident’s other two children had also come to live in the property. It suggested that the resident’s two other children seek advice about how to find suitable accommodation for themselves. Following this, the resident submitted a Locata application form.
On 17 May 2021, the landlord completed the pest control recommendations and fitted bristle strips to the doors.
During a further conversation the resident had with the landlord on 20 May 2021, the landlord confirmed that it would not add their two other children as members of the household or consider them when calculating their bedroom need for their Locata application, as they were both over the age of 18.
Following this, the resident wrote to the landlord expressing dissatisfaction with its decision not to add their two children as members of the household. They explained that they had the impression, from the information the landlord provided in 2019, that the children would be added as members. They felt that the landlord should have made it clear when the request was made that this was not possible. They confirmed that they understood that the oldest of the two children would have been deemed independent when the request was made in 2019 due to their age. But the other child was not yet 18 years old when they submitted the request.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 11 June 2021. In this it:
1. Confirmed that it had not actioned the request in 2019 and apologised that it did not respond at that time. It noted that the request would have required approval before any changes were made to the tenancy. It noted that as per its complaints process, it would not review issues that the resident was aware of for over six months.
2. Confirmed that the child who was 17 years old in 2019, would have been eligible for a room at the time of the request. But once they turned 18 years old, they would have been deemed independent and the resident would only have been able to bid on four-bedroom properties on their Locata account.
3. Said at the time of the mutual exchange, in 2019, it understood that the resident only had six children living with them. If the resident had asked about adding children at the time of the exchange, it said it would have informed them that the exchange could not go ahead due to overcrowding.
4. Could not, as per its policy, award the resident an extra bedroom for rehousing and they remained entitled to a four bedroom. Also, while it could not consider the two adult children when awarding the number of bedrooms, they could live in the property so long as the tenancy conditions were met and could seek housing with local authorities.
The resident requested an escalation of the complaint and said:
1. They did not want the landlord to consider the mutual exchange process, as this was not the basis of the complaint.
2. They believed their two children would be added as members of the household but the landlord did not add them in 2019, and they were not aware of this until they made a Locata application, approximately 18 months later.
3. It should have been communicated that the youngest of the two was expected to find accommodation once they turned 18. The two children face homelessness as they cannot apply to any local authorities for housing, due to the length of time they have lived in the area.
4. They were not satisfied with an apology and believed that as a result of the landlord’s handling of the request, it should have a duty to house the two adult children.
5. The landlord failed to inform them about the long standing rodent infestation and other issues within the property. They said that had they known about this, they may not have signed the tenancy.
6. That they wanted to complain about the way the complaint was handled.
The landlord issued its final response to the complaint on 9 July 2021. It:
1. Confirmed its position regarding the request to add the resident’s two children as members of the household.
2. Confirmed the resident’s banding priority and bedroom entitlement on their Locata account remained the same. It advised that any children who are 18 years old or older, would not be considered under its policy.
3. Said that it could not set up a Locata account for the two children, as while they may reside with the resident, they are not its tenants. It reiterated that the adult children may be able to apply to the local authority.
4. Said in response to the resident’s point about the rodents, that proofing work was completed to the property in October 2019 and additional proofing work was completed in March and May 2021.
5. Said that when the resident had provided it with a copy of the email they sent it in October 2019, it raised a formal complaint. It apologised that it did not advise the resident that it would be investigating the email as part of the complaint.
6. Said that it understood that it should have ensured that the pest control recommendations were followed through and been clear in its communications. It apologised and offered the resident £200 compensation as follows:
  1. £150 for delays and associated inconvenience.
  2. £50 for the quality of service.
The resident referred their complaint to this Service and explained that they remained unhappy with the landlord’s position in respect of the request to add their two children to the tenancy. In addition, they noted that rodents were still in the property.
We are aware from the records the landlord has provided that since the resident brought the complaint to this Service, they have moved out of the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision not to add the two children as members of the household.

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request to add the two children as members of the household in October 2019. However, the resident did not raise a formal complaint about this until 19 months later.
The Ombudsman expects that issues are raised to a landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which is usually six months. Given the time that lapsed before the formal complaint was raised, we will not consider the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s request in 2019.
The assessment will consider the landlord’s decision not to add the resident’s two children as members of the household from when it discussed this matter with the resident in May 2021.
The landlord’s tenancy policy explains that tenancy variations, including requests to add permitted occupants, are agreed at its sole discretion. Whilst the landlord has no obligation to add the resident’s two daughters as members of the household, it was expected to consider the resident’s request in a reasonable manner.
The landlord confirmed that even though it would not add the two children as members of the household and did not consider them as its residents, they could still live in the property if they wished to. It was appropriate that it provided the resident with this reassurance, as they expressed concern that their children would be left homeless if they were not added as members of the household on the tenancy. The landlord’s confirmation that the children could live in the property meant that they would not be homeless.
As well as confirming that it would not add the resident’s two children as members of the household, the landlord also informed the resident that it would not consider their two children when awarding bedrooms for the resident’s Locata application that they submitted in May 2021.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy confirms that aside from a spouse, it will not consider anyone aged 18 years old or over, who has no dependency needs, as a household member.
Both children were over the age of 18 at the time the resident’s application was submitted and as a result would not be considered members of the household for the purposes of the transfer. The landlord’s position was in line with its policy. It would not consider the two children as members of the household due to their age and as a result, would not award bedrooms for them on the resident’s application for rehousing.
The landlord managed the resident’s expectations and confirmed that it could not rehouse the two children or, consider them in the resident’s Locata application. As it was not able to provide the two children with housing, it provided appropriate advice that they seek housing assistance with the local authority.

The response to the reported mice

Following the landlord’s visits to the property in 2019, it received no further report about mice in the property until December 2020, when it was raised in the MP’s enquiry.
The landlord’s pest control policy explains that if it is apparent that an infestation is caused by disrepair or lack of action on its part, it will take responsibility for completing repairs and treating the infestation. Under the policy, residents are expected to take reasonable actions to remove and prevent pest infestations.
Its repairs and pest control policies do not set out the timeframes it expects to carry out repairs relating to pests.
From when the report was made in by the MP in December 2020, it took the landlord three months to attend initially and a further two months thereafter, to complete the works the contractor recommended following the visit in March 2021.
The works the contractor recommended were to install bristle strips to the front entrance door and main entrance door. This work, therefore, was not to address any disrepair but was recommended as a preventative measure.
It took the landlord a total of five months to complete the work from when the report was first made, which is a significant period of time. However, in this time, there is evidence that on 1 April and 5 May 2021, the landlord tried to call the resident and emailed them to arrange a date for it to complete the work the pest control contractor recommended.
In the complaint response, the landlord noted that it should have ensured that the pest control recommendations were followed through. It awarded compensation for the delays and associated inconvenience however, this Service notes that the landlord did not specify what delays it had identified in its handling of the work relating to the pests.
This Service would suggest that in future, the landlord when making offers for compensation, clearly specify where it has identified delays in its service delivery so that its rationale behind its compensation offer is clear.
While it did not clearly acknowledge the delays in it attending to the report about the pest and completing the recommended work, its offer of compensation for the delays and inconvenience was appropriate.
Its compensation policy explains that if a resident has experienced distress and inconvenience following a service failure, it can make an offer of compensation of up to £250. The landlord offered £150 which was proportionate for the delay experienced by the resident as overall, it took a total of five months to address the issue.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to not add the resident’s two children as members of the household.
In accordance with paragraph 55b the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

Under its tenancy policy, the landlord has no obligation to include the resident’s two children as members of the household on the tenancy. As well as confirming its position, the landlord managed the resident’s expectations about its inability to assist the two children with housing or, consider them as part of the resident’s Locata application. It provided the resident with reasonable suggestions for their two adult children to apply for housing independently.
It offered the resident compensation which is proportionate to the inconvenience they experienced as a result of the delay in it addressing the pest issue after it was raised in December 2020.