Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202116969)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116969

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

25 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
    1. Water ingress.
    2. The state of the communal hallway flooring.
    3. Frequent lift breakdowns.

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease on the property, a two-bedroomed third floor flat, that began in July 2019.
  2. The resident first experienced a leak from the roof into her kitchen on 17 June 2021. Prior to this, she had also made a formal complaint about the poor condition of the flooring on one of the communal hallways. In addition, the resident said that the communal lift had broken intermittently since she moved in. As there was a period of over three weeks in June/July 2021 when the lift was not working, her complaint also came to encompass that issue.
  3. Because there was a major issue at the building in relation to cladding, the landlord’s final response of 11 August 2021 explained it was putting a programme of works together to fix the cladding and the roof at the same time. It said that some repairs to the roof were completed on 22 July 2021. The landlord then said it would continue to instruct its contractor to undertake patch repairs to the roof where required. It also stated that work to make the hallway flooring safe had been completed on 15 July 2021, although it apologised for failing to carry out the work by 2 July 2021 as originally advised. With regard to the lift, the landlord said it appreciated that its contractor had been called out to the lift a number of times but that all breakdowns had been attended within four hours and that there had been an issue with the lift overheating that had now been fully resolved. The landlord apologised and accepted that its level of service fell short. It further said that recent internal changes had been made which would address the issues of service quality and delays. The resident was offered £60 compensation, made up of £50 for service failure (communication) and £10 for service failure (quality of service).
  4. Unfortunately, problems with water ingress and the lift persisted after the landlord’s stage two response. At the time that the resident complained to this service on 27 October 2021, she said that water continued to pour through her kitchen ceiling when it rained. She also said that the lift had been broken again since 3 October 2021 and that she was dissatisfied with the temporary repair to the communal hall flooring.
  5. The resident has advised this Service that she would like the repairs to be completed. She has also clarified that she is dissatisfied with the offer of £60 and instead would like her service charge and rent to be refunded from June 2021 until the day when the water ingress into the flat is resolved and the ceiling fixed. The landlord has confirmed for this Service that ceiling works were completed on 1 December 2021, and that the kitchen light fitting was reinstated on 15 December 2021.

Assessment and findings

Water Ingress

  1. When the first leak into the kitchen happened on 17 June 2021, the water was coming in through the central light fitting. The landlord therefore attended to remove the light and make the cables safe. A contractor then attended on 25 June 2021 although it is unclear what work, if any, was done at that point. The landlord has reported that a wide-ranging inspection took place between 19-22 July 2021 and that when the repairs supervisor visited the resident’s property on 20 July 2021 it was noted that the ceiling was dry, despite recent rainy weather. However, the landlord states that its leasehold team had separately arranged for roof repairs and that these were carried out on 22 July 2021. Based on the available evidence, the Ombudsman considers this initial response by the landlord to be reasonable. It acted to make the electrics safe and then further investigations and work were completed in a timely fashion.
  2. However, it is clear that the repair undertaken on 22 July 2021 was insufficient in resolving the problem for the resident as she continued to experience issues. The landlord’s contractor was subsequently required to re-attend to try and locate the source of the ongoing leak. Its stage two response suggests that this may have emanated from a different area.
  3. The landlord acknowledged that the roofing material had failed and that the entire roof needed to be replaced. The Ombudsman understands why the landlord wanted to wait so that it could carry out all other major works at the same time as it would make economic sense and be less disruptive overall. In light of this, the landlord’s solution of doing patch repairs to the roof where necessary was reasonable in theory.
  4. In practice however, this failed to result in a satisfactory outcome for the resident and she continued to experience issues in the absence of a proper overhaul. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide a suitable temporary fix until such time as it was ready to undertake the planned works. The landlord’s approach, however, seemed to have been reactive, rather than proactive, which resulted in ongoing issues and the resident being fearful of further leaks whenever it rained.
  5. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to look towards a longer-term solution, in responding to the complaint it has failed to consider the effect that the ongoing leak had on the resident and her family. The £60 compensation that it offered the resident only recognised its lack of communication and quality of service. The landlord’s own compensation policy states that it can make payments when a resident has experienced distress and inconvenience, up to a maximum of £250. However, it has not considered making such an award to the resident so far in this case. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is an indication that the landlord has not adequately recognised the impact on the resident.
  6. The resident informed this Service, on 27 October 2021, that she continued to experience water ingress through her kitchen ceiling. From the landlord’s records, this was subsequently rectified on 1 December 2021. While the Ombudsman has only considered the landlord’s handling of matters up until it offered its final response, this further evidences the inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s delay in ensuring a permanent fix of the roof. The Ombudsman has subsequently taken this into consideration. With this though, the Ombudsman does note the landlord’s recent comments that it has brought in a project manager as part of its cladding and remediation team, to offer particular focus to the roof.
  7. Despite finding that the landlord could have handled this matter better, this Service is unable to require the landlord to refund the resident’s service charges and rent during the period she has experienced water ingress issues. This is as it is beyond the powers of this Service to do so, and would not be proportionate in the circumstance. The Ombudsman has, however, made an order below for the landlord to increase its offer of compensation, to adequately reflect the resident’s experience as a whole.

Communal hallway flooring

  1. The landlord has not disputed that the wooden planking to the walkway was in a state of disrepair which it failed to act on sooner. The landlord’s explanation for not resolving the issue earlier was that major works had been delayed and that its responsive repairs team had limited scope to cover such work. When the resident complained on 13 June 2021, the landlord apologised and sought to carry out temporary repairs by 2 July 2021. There was a delay due to a lack of contractor availability and the work was completed on 15 July 2021. Although the resident considered the temporary repair to be unsightly, this was a secondary issue to making the area safe. It was practical for the landlord to seek to carry out all major works to the building at the same time. Although there was a slight delay in carrying out the works, overall, the landlord’s actions in undertaking a temporary repair in the interim was reasonable.

Lift maintenance

  1. Although the resident has complained that there had been a frequent issue with the lift since moving in to her property, this Service is only able to look back as far as six months prior to the resident’s complaint. This is as under paragraph 42 (c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period – which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
  2. In any case, the Ombudsman notes that there was an extended period within which the lift frequently broke down. As the landlord explained, nonetheless, these were responded to within four hours as its repair policy explains that it will. Although the Ombudsman appreciates that this would still cause some inconvenience, this was an appropriate response. The existence of a problem has not been deemed a failure, however, as the Ombudsman is aware that this can often be caused by lift users themselves.
  3. With the above said, the Ombudsman is aware that following a breakdown on 13 June 2021, the lift was not reinstated until 8 July 2021. Records indicate that this was due to a malfunction which required new parts to be ordered. There was also a delay in the new parts being received, which the Ombudsman accepts was outside of the landlord’s control. In the Ombudsman’s view, nevertheless, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have updated residents at this time, to ensure that they were aware of the issues delaying the lift repair. This would have been practical.
  4. At the time of writing its stage 2 response in August 2021, the landlord confirmed that the problems with the lift had been resolved. The Ombudsman can also confirm that evidence has been seen that the lift was regularly serviced and that call outs for breakdowns were made as emergencies. As such, the Ombudsman has concluded that generally, the landlord took the right approach to addressing the lift issues.
  5. The Ombudsman is conscious of the fact that months after the landlord’s final response, further breakdowns occurred. It is understood that the landlord subsequently arranged for a consultant to survey the lift to decide on a possible upgrade or replacement. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the situation at this time, given that it falls outside of the scope of this investigation. It was reasonable, however, for the landlord to have considered a potential upgrade, given the longstanding and ongoing issues being experienced.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
    1. The state of the communal hallway flooring.
    2. Frequent lift breakdowns.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £210 compensation. This has been calculated as an additional £150 on top of the £60 already offered to the resident.
  2. The landlord should also update the resident, if it has not done so already, on the status of the roof, whether any further works are required, and if so, when it anticipates this will be completed.
  3. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of receiving this determination.