Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202226018)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226018

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

19 December 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 the resident’s:
   1. Request to have a cupboard removed from the property.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. Request to have a new bathroom and kitchen installed.
   4. Garage door repair.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. There are vulnerabilities in the property, namely the resident’s child has asthma.
4. A garage door repair was raised by the landlord in June 2022 when a contractor attended and advised the garage door needed replacing.
5. On 31 October 2022 the resident reported that she had damp and mould in her property and in a cupboard which had caused damage to her belongings. There is reference in the records available to an initial inspection being carried out on 4 November 2022. On 14 November 2022 the landlord raised an order to install ventilation panels to the cupboard door. It was noted that the resident wanted the wardrobe removed if possible.
6. The landlord made two appointments to attend following this, but these were either cancelled or no access was provided by the resident. The resident complained to the landlord on 11 December 2022 and stated that the damp in the property was causing her child to develop asthma and was causing damage to belongings and furniture. The resident also stated that she had been informed in May 2022 that she would be eligible to have a new kitchen and bathroom installed, but she had not received any communication about this. The records indicate that a surveyor carried out a further inspection on 14 December 2022, and concluded that the cupboard was in good condition and did not need to be removed.
7. The landlord made a ‘pre-complaint’ offer to the resident stating that a surveyor confirmed damage was due to condensation and an appointment for vents to be installed to the cupboard was scheduled for 6 January 2023. It offered £200 compensation as a goodwill gesture. That same day the landlord raised an order for a mould wash and treatment in the second bedroom, and to fit vents in the built-in cupboard doors in the master bedroom. The landlord additionally accepted there was a breakdown in communication between it and the contractor regarding the resident’s garage door repair, for which it accepted responsibility and apologised.
8. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 December 2022. She said that the £200 compensation offer would not be sufficient to cover the damage caused to her personal belongings which occurred as a result of a lack of ventilation in the cupboard. She requested the cupboard be removed, stating that she had previously been told it would be.
9. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 17 February 2022 in which it offered compensation in recognition of inconvenience caused and as a gesture of goodwill, but re-iterated that it would not remove the cupboard. It apologised for not managing expectations more effectively.
10. The resident contacted the landlord regarding the stage 2 response, stating that it had failed to address all the issues she had raised, and asked it to do so. A formal stage 1 complaint response was provided on 6 March 2023. While the landlord did not identify any failings, it reiterated its previous offer of £375 compensation (comprised of £100 for 4 x missed appointments, a goodwill gesture of £200, and £75 for communication).
11. Between January 2023 and 21 April 2023, the landlord attempted to attend multiple appointments at the property but these were either refused by the resident or cancelled.
12. The landlord issued its final response on 24 April 2023. It stated that a senior surveyor would be attending the property to complete an inspection. Once it had received their recommendations, further actions could be agreed on how to progress with the repairs. It stated that the kitchen and bathroom required replacing and that once it had finalised its plans for the financial year more information would be provided.
13. A surveyor visited the resident’s property on 27 April 2023. During this visit it was confirmed that the cupboard did not need removing and that vents would resolve the damp and mould. They also found black spot mould due to condensation. This was specifically in areas with reduced ventilation such as behind furniture which was pressed up against a wall. It was recommended that passyfier vents be installed in all bedrooms in the property to combat the damp and mould. Regarding the kitchen and bathroom, it was found that the kitchen had “multiple defects.” It was concluded that both the kitchen and bathroom would require replacing in the “near future.”
14. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in August 2023. She stated that there was ongoing damp and mould in the property which was causing a severe impact to her health. In addition, the kitchen and bathroom replacements had not been progressed and as such, all issues remained outstanding.
15. In November 2023, the landlord completed a kitchen and bathroom refit. In June 2024 the resident informed the Ombudsman that the outcomes she sought were an apology from the landlord, a review of its complaint handling process, to be reimbursed for loss of belongings and to be compensated for the distress caused to her and her family and for the time and trouble incurred in pursuing the complaint. The resident described the impact on her emotional and physical health and said that the damp and mould had affected her son’s health. The resident stated that she wanted the outstanding works, including removal of the cupboard, to be completed as soon as possible.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

16. In her more recent communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has explained that damp and mould are ongoing in the property, and that the landlord has now agreed to remove the cupboard though has not done so yet. She has said that the kitchen and bathroom have been replaced, but she is dissatisfied with the works. While we acknowledge the resident’s ongoing concerns, the focus of this investigation will be on the issues raised in the complaint dated December 2022, to which a final response was issued in April 2023. We are aware that the resident has since made a further complaint to the landlord about more recent issues. Should she be dissatisfied with the outcome of this, she can bring the matter to the Ombudsman for consideration.
17. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments about the effect the issues have had on her mental and physical health, and the effect that the damp and mould had her son’s health. It is generally accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. However, in this case it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between any action or inaction by the landlord and any specific damage to the resident’s or her son’s health in this case. Matters of legal liability for damage to health may be better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide. The Ombudsman is able to consider any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

Removal of cupboard from property.

18. The landlord attended the property in November 2022 and completed an initial inspection. Although the outcome of this is unclear, the subsequent work order noted that the resident wanted the cupboard to be removed, but did not state that it would be. The surveyor who inspected on 14 December 2022 found the cupboard to be in good condition. Orders to fit vents were raised. The landlord acted reasonably here in attending to inspect, and planning works to help alleviate the issue.
19. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction at this and the records indicate that she refused appointments offered relating to the installation of the vents. The basis of the resident’s frustration was that she said that she had previously been informed during a telephone call with the landlord that the cupboard would be removed.
20. While evidence to support this has not been provided, it is noted that within an email chain from December 2022 between the resident and a staff member, the resident questioned why the cupboard was not being removed. In an email dated 20 December 2022 the staff member said, “In regards to advising that your cupboard would be removed, that was a job that was raised previously and booked in for the 6th January. I was reiterating what currently existed as a job. I can now see that following the attendance of [the surveyor] to your property she has …requested that supply & fit plastic grille vents to these 2doors”.
21. There does seem to have been some unclear communication on this issue. However, the evidence available supports the landlord’s response to the complaint, that the cupboard had never been assessed as requiring removal. It offered apologies for not having managed the resident’s expectations better on the matter. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise to the resident and inform her of the recommendations made by the surveyor.
22. The Ombudsman understands that the resident would like the cupboard to be removed as a resolution to her complaint (and it is understood that this may now have been agreed). However the landlord reasonably relied upon the finding of its qualified staff at the time, who deemed that the cupboard did not need to be removed.

Damp and mould.

23. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will attend urgent repairs within 5 days, and non-emergency repairs, by appointment, at a time agreed with the customer within 20 working days. The policy does not refer specifically to how the landlord will respond to reports of damp and mould. Within its March 2023 stage 1 complaint response the landlord stated that it had implemented a new damp and mould process. However, this has not been provided to the Ombudsman.
24. The resident reported damp and mould in the property on 31 October 2022. The records suggest that the landlord attended the property on 4 November 2022 for an initial inspection which was within the urgent timescale stipulated in its repairs policy, although there is no record of the findings. Works to install ventilation panels in the cupboard were subsequently raised. The surveyor made a further inspection in December 2022, although it is not clear what triggered this, and works were raised for a mould wash and block to the second bedroom.
25. The landlord attempted to schedule a number of appointments with the resident between November 2022 and February 2023 to carry out these works, but the records indicate access was refused to the property. This delay was outside of the landlord’s control and as such, cannot be attributed to any deviation from its policy obligation.
26. In February and March 2023 the landlord again tried to arrange appointments with the resident to complete a further damp and mould survey. This was reasonable as the previous survey had been completed 2 months prior and as such, could have been outdated at this stage. However, the records indicate that the resident did not engage.
27. The landlord attempted to attend the property on 11 April 2023 to complete the survey. However, the contractor was unable to locate the property, and so missed the appointment, which was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part.
28. In its 24 April 2023 stage two response the landlord acknowledged missed appointments, and confirmed that a senior surveyor would attend that month to assess damp and mould and then put forward recommendations so any further actions could be agreed. This was a reasonable plan to address the ongoing issue.
29. The evidence available shows that the surveyor attended the property on 27 April 2024 and identified that the property had black spot mould due to condensation. The surveyor also found this to be primarily in areas with poor ventilation and with furniture pressed up against the wall.
30. In response to this report the landlord informed the resident on 5 May 2023 that it was working to create an action plan to tackle the damp and mould and would be in contact regarding this. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take. The records indicate that on 9 May 2023 the surveyor emailed the resident and said that recommendations had been made for the landlord to install passyfier vents and a humidistat extractor fan in the bedrooms to allow more ventilation. It is noted that following further information from the surveyor on 12 May 2023, the resident stated that she agreed to have the passyfier vents fitted. In light of this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to take timely action to follow these recommendations, and keep the resident updated.
31. However, the resident continued to contact the landlord as it had not provided her with the action plan. Whilst the Ombudsman appreciates that it may take some time to arrange works, it is expected that the landlord stay connected with the resident. As stated in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021), ‘Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing’. During this time, it is clear that the resident did not feel that the landlord was communicating with her effectively, nor taking her concerns seriously which is evident in the communication she had with the landlord.
32. When the resident expressed her dissatisfaction at the lack of communication, on 31 May 2023 the landlord appropriately apologised for this and acknowledged that it was not communicating often enough with the resident. It agreed to contact the resident with updates every 2 weeks. This was a reasonable response from the landlord as it acknowledged that its current communication was not sufficient and took steps to improve this.
33. The landlord raised a new works order on 6 June 2023 for the passyfier vents to be installed and for a mould wash and stain block to be applied to the walls. It is unclear why an order was not raised sooner than this given that the surveyor had made recommendations a month ago. This represents a delay on the part of the landlord. Further, the evidence provided to the Ombudsman following this date is limited and there is a lack of clear evidence to show that any action plan was sent to the resident (as had been promised in the stage 2 response) or works undertaken. Emails between the resident and the landlord dated October and November 2023 show that the resident was chasing the landlord regarding the installation of the passyfier vents, indicating that these works remained outstanding. As such, the evidence suggests that the surveyor’s recommendations were not followed up on in a timely manner and that the damp and mould had not been rectified in the property.
34. The resident also expressed her dissatisfaction that her personal belongings had been affected by the damp and mould. The landlord’s compensation policy states that the landlord will maintain liability insurance to cover instances where a customer suffers loss or personal injury due to its negligence.
35. On 8 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and stated that a staff member had advised her to claim on her own contents insurance for damage to belongings. However, the resident said that the claim should be made on the landlord’s insurance and requested the relevant details, or to be compensated for the damage caused. In its 17 February 2023 stage 2 complaint response, the landlord informed the resident how to raise a liability claim and concluded that it should have provided details to her about making a claim at an earlier stage.
36. The landlord ought to have clearly explained what matters could be considered through its formal complaints procedure and what should be progressed through its insurers when the resident raised her initial complaint. However, the landlord appropriately identified that it did not initially provide this information to the resident, and it made efforts to ‘put things right’ by offering compensation in light of this.
37. Overall, when assessing the appropriate outcomes in a case, the Ombudsman must consider all factors both mitigating and aggravating. In this case, the resident’s refusal of access and cancellation of appointments contributed to the delays which occurred. However, the landlord’s lack of communication when the resident was engaged with the repairs process led the resident to feel that it was not taking her concerns seriously.
38. The Ombudsman must consider the landlord’s previous offers of redress, and determine whether any additional orders or recommendations need to be made. In this case, the landlord awarded the resident £275 compensation, comprised of £200 as a gesture of goodwill and £75 for poor communication in relation to the concerns which have been split between that of damp and mould and the garage repair. Therefore, the compensation has been split as £100 attributed toward the damp and mould and £37.50 for poor communication.
39. Had the evidence demonstrated that the works recommended by the surveyor in April 2023 were carried out in good time, then it is likely that the landlord’s compensation offer would have resulted in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’ on this issue. However, the evidence indicates that the recommendations by the surveyor were not completed in a timely manner. This means that at this stage, it is unclear what work has been completed and if any work is outstanding. This delay would have caused the resident further distress and frustration, and as noted above, the resident reports that damp and mould are still present and impacting her home. As such, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for additional compensation, and for the landlord to attend the resident’s property to inspect any damp and mould and complete any works identified. The compensation ordered is made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which sets out amounts of £100 and above where there has been a failing on the part of the landlord, but there has been no permanent impact.

Kitchen and bathroom replacement.

40. The customer handbook states that it will replace or improve kitchens and bathrooms where required in property on a schedule. It states that the decision is based on the condition that they are in, whether they are safe and whether they can be repaired. This will usually be determined by a stock survey of the property. If the kitchen and bathroom require replacing, it states that these will be dealt with as a priority 4 repair. The repairs policy states that a priority 4 repair should be resolved within 40 days of being reported.
41. The resident stated in her 11 December 2022 complaint to the landlord that both the kitchen and bathroom were in a poor condition and required numerous repairs. She said she had been informed in May 2022 that both required replacing. In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In this instance, while acknowledging the resident’s position, we have seen no evidence of the landlord stating it would replace the kitchen and bathroom in May 2022. Therefore, in the absence of any formal recommendation that the kitchen and bathroom required replacing, the Ombudsman is unable to determine that the obligations on the landlord to resolve the repair within 40 working days should start from May 2022.
42. There was no response from the landlord to the resident’s December 2022 communication about this (which is addressed further below).
43. Following contact from the resident about her complaint, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord in February 2023 in relation to her outstanding issues, which included delays in replacing the kitchen and bathroom which she said had been previously promised.
44. In its stage two response dated 6 March 2023 the landlord stated that it had not seen any evidence showing that a kitchen and bathroom renewal had been agreed previously. It also said that it did arrange for a surveyor to attend and assess the kitchen and bathroom but the resident cancelled. It explained that replacements were scheduled for next year and the resident would receive more information subsequently.
45. As there were multiple repairs ongoing in the property at the same time, it is unclear whether an appointment was arranged specifically for the kitchen and bathroom inspection. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unclear on whether a reasonable attempt to inspect the kitchen and bathroom was made at this time.
46. On 27 April 2023, the landlord’s surveyor stated that following a visit the bathroom was deemed to be in a reasonable condition but was reaching the end of its natural life and would require replacement within the “next few years”. In relation to the kitchen the surveyor identified that it was in poor condition with multiple defects and a replacement would be required in the “near future.” It was noted that works in the kitchen would be needed in the interim period, specifically repairs to a light and the rear door.
47. Following on from identifying the requirement for a replacement kitchen and bathroom, the landlord should have provided the resident information on the next steps in the process and set expectations regarding how long it may take to schedule the works. It should also have arranged interim works as per the surveyor’s recommendation. There is no evidence to indicate that these repairs were completed, which indicates a failing.
48. In May 2023, it was the resident who had to contact the landlord again for an update on the kitchen and bathroom replacement as the landlord had not communicated with her about progress. This is not in accordance with good practice and would have caused further inconvenience to the resident. The landlord emailed the resident on 31 May 2023 and stated that a contractor had agreed to carry out the kitchen and bathroom replacements, but that it did not yet have a date for when the works would take place. As stated above, the landlord said it would increase the frequency of communication with the resident.
49. The evidence further shows that the landlord logged the kitchen and bathroom replacement on its repair system until 6 June 2023. It is unclear why this delay occurred and whether this delayed the replacement works.
50. There has been little evidence provided in relation to the replacement kitchen and bathroom works following on from 6 June 2023. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 2 August 2023 and said that the landlord had attended a few weeks ago for her to choose the kitchen and bathroom, but she had heard nothing since. As such, the landlord has failed to show that it stayed connected with the resident and set clear expectations. It is acknowledged however, that the kitchen replacement was completed in approximately November 2023 and does not remain outstanding.
51. Overall, the landlord has shown poor record keeping practices and a lack of communication with the resident regarding the replacement. The landlord was aware of the resident’s request for a new bathroom and kitchen in at least February 2023 and the works were not carried out until November 2023. While it is accepted that such works may take some time to complete, the delay was considerably in excess of the 40-day timeframe for priority 4 repairs set out in its repairs policy.
52. This would have caused the resident frustration and also inconvenience as she had to contact the landlord repeatedly regarding the replacement. As such, a finding of maladministration is made, and the landlord should pay the resident £175 compensation as a remedy. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Garage door repair

53. The landlord confirmed the garage door repair was raised in June 2022 when a contractor attended and advised the garage door needed replacing. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman delays occurred due to the need for specialist parts, as well as a delay in parts being delivered, however there is no evidence to suggest this was communicated to the resident. The landlord confirmed the repair was cancelled with its previous contractor dated 16 December 2022 and raised the same day with another contractor who completed the works on 11 January 2023.
54. The landlord’s pre complaint offer dated 16 December 2022 accepted there was a breakdown in communication between it and the contractor, for which it accepted responsibility and apologised. In subsequent email correspondence dated 21 December 2022 it confirmed the breakdown of compensation of £200 was for both the concerns of damp and mould and the garage repair. It confirmed to the Ombudsman one of the four compensated missed appoints was also for the garage repair. As such, £125 of the total £300 compensation has been attributed to the garage repair, as well as 50% of the additional £75 compensation for communication, equating to £37.50. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the total compensation for the garage door repair stands at £162.50. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, I find this value to be reasonable for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified.

Complaint handling

55. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
56. After the resident raised her complaint in December 2022, the landlord wrote to her on 16 December 2022 with a ‘pre-complaint’ offer to resolve the issues raised. It said that if the resident was unhappy with the response, then she could log a formal complaint. However, it is evident that the resident wished to complaint, and the landlord failed to act in accordance with its complaints policy as it did not log a formal complaint and issue a stage 1 complaint response.
57. On 21 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and said that she wanted to escalate her complaint. However, there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord responded to the resident which indicates a further failing. The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 January 2023 to request the escalation of her complaint, and the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 17 February 2023. Again, this was not in line with its complaint handling process because no stage 1 response had previously been issued.
58. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 February 2023 and stated that the stage 2 response did not address all of the complaint points raised. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord issued a new stage 1 response and said that it had not previously seen a complaint from the resident regarding kitchen and bathroom renewals. However, it is clear that the resident’s December 2022 complaint included concerns about the kitchen and bathroom renewals, and this matter ought to have been responded to within the landlord’s initial complaint response. Landlords should endeavour to resolve complaints in their entirety at an early stage, if possible. However, the landlord’s handling of the complaint was protracted, and the resident was required to continue raising issues in order to gain a resolution. A finding of service failure has therefore been made regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.
59. It is evident that the resident incurred time and trouble in pursuing her complaint with both the landlord and the Ombudsman, and the landlord’s handling of the complaint is likely to have caused significant frustration to the resident. Orders have been made below for compensation to be paid in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been service failure, and for the landlord to review its handling of the complaint.

Determination

60. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to have a cupboard removed from the property.
    2. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    3. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the request to have a new bathroom and kitchen installed.
    4. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
61. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the garage door repair, satisfactorily.

Orders

62. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident the £375 compensation already offered within its complaint responses plus £687.50 compensation ordered by the Ombudsman, made up as follows:
       1. £412.50 for the impact of the failings in the handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
       2. £175 for the impact of the lack of communication regarding the kitchen and bathroom replacement.
       3. £100 for poor complaint handling.
    2. If it has not done already done so this year, attend the resident’s property to complete a damp and mould survey, and identify any works required. A record of this inspection should be completed and a copy provided to both the resident and the Ombudsman. This should detail whether or not the passyfier vents and the humidistat extractor fan have been installed as per the 27 April 2023 recommendation. Following on from this, the landlord should complete any works identified within a further 4 weeks.
    3. If a survey has already been completed this year, the landlord should advise the Ombudsman and the resident of the outcome, and provide a schedule of works (if any have been identified), along with dates for completion (which should be adhered to).
    4. Conduct a review of its handling of the resident’s complaint and consider whether any measures can be put in place to improve complaint handling. The outcome of this review should be provided to the Ombudsman.
    5. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timeframes stipulated.