Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202228087)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228087

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

25 June 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy began on 13 March 2023. The resident suffers with anxiety.
  2. In August 2022 the resident was offered a property as a management transfer. The resident was advised that the property would be ready in September 2022. In January 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint due to her banding being changed historically and the length of time she had been waiting for the property. She said that she had been told she would move at the beginning of September 2022. She had already packed up all her belongings and cancelled her internet connection. She said that living in those conditions was impacting her son’s development and her health. She had not been kept updated by the landlord at all. She had had to visit the landlord’s contractors at the property to obtain any update.
  3. The landlord responded in February 2023.  It said that the delays were due to unforeseen major works. In recognition of the delay, it had offered alternative accommodation in January 2023, but the resident had refused this.  It acknowledged that it had delayed in its monthly updates which would have caused inconvenience. In recognition of the delays, it offered £50 compensation. It also offered an additional £10 for its delayed complaint response. It said that the property should be ready by the end of February, but it would update the resident. It also confirmed the works it would complete as part of the void works.
  4. The resident considered that the offer of compensation did not reflect the impact that the issue had had on her and her son. She said that she had also lost a deposit she had put on removals which she had had to cancel.
  5. On 9 March 2023 the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It said that it upheld its stage 1 decision. It said it had requested a copy of the invoice for the removals deposit but had not yet received this.  It had agreed that it would pay this once it had the receipt. It also said that if there were other expenses which were incurred as a result of the delay it would consider these if she would provide receipts.

Post Complaint.

  1. The resident moved into the property on 13 March 2023. She identified several repairs after moving into the property and reported these to the landlord.
  2. The landlord reviewed its offer of compensation in December 2023 and advised this Service that it considered that the amount offered did not reflect what had happened or how long the issues were ongoing. On that basis it would now offer the resident £750. 

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction.

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. After completing the landlord’s complaints process, the resident notified this service that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs.
  4. The resident reported all of the repair issues after she had moved into the property on 13 March 2023 which was after she had completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.  The landlord has not therefore had an opportunity to respond to her concerns about its response to her reports of various repairs. It is therefore not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The resident may wish to now raise a complaint directly with the landlord about its handling of her reports of various repairs.
  5. While the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repairs has not been considered as part of this investigation, all other elements of the complaint have been considered.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer.

  1. It is noted that the resident has stated that she considers that the issue has exacerbated her and her child’s health. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and any medical conditions. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her and her son’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
  2. The resident was first offered the property under the landlord’s management transfer in August 2022.  The evidence shows that she viewed and accepted the property shortly after but had detailed some works that she wanted to be done within the property. On 22 August 2022 the landlord advised the resident of the works that it would be completing, and that the property should be ready by the first week in September 2022. This was appropriate to manage the resident’s expectations.
  3. The resident tried to contact the landlord on several occasions from 26 August 2022. She had said that she believed that a call had been arranged and the lack of contact from the landlord had triggered her anxiety. The landlord responded on 1 September 2022 and explained its own customer service response times.  It is not clear whether a call had been agreed or not. The landlord explained at this point that the property was now an exceptional void as ongoing works were required. It said that additional reports were required, and it did not have a time scale at present. This was appropriate to keep the resident updated. On 29 September 2022 the landlord formally wrote to the resident confirming acceptance of the property.
  4. The evidence shows that the landlord had agreed to call the resident in October 2022.  It is unclear whether the landlord did call the resident as there is no evidence to show what was discussed if it did. In November the landlord contacted the resident to say it was still waiting for confirmation of a timescale. It said that it needed to investigate the damp work further and that an estimate for completion had not yet been confirmed.   The resident had responded asking for confirmation that the property would still be offered to her as she had not signed anything.  She said that it was causing her further anxiety.
  5. There was no further contact until December 2022 when the resident contacted the landlord to say that she had not received weekly updates as she had been promised.  The last contact she had received was in November 2022. The evidence also supports this. The resident said that the officer dealing with her case had now left and she was not informed until she visited the office as she was not receiving any response. This was poor communication from the landlord. The resident had made the landlord aware during correspondence that she suffered with anxiety and that the uncertainty was making her feel more anxious.
  6. The landlord acknowledged that there were delays in its communication in its stage 1 complaint response. It explained that the delays in the property being ready to let were due to unforeseen works. Its explanation for the delays was reasonable as the unforeseen works were outside of its control.  It was also appropriate that the landlord ensured that the property met its lettable standard.
  7. However, the resident had made the landlord aware that she had anxiety. It should have therefore been more proactive in updating her because of this. By providing more regular updates it would have been able to offer reassurance and manage her expectations. The uncertainty would have caused the resident further distress. She had to wait almost 7 months because of the unforeseen works. She had also spent a considerable amount of time chasing the landlord by email and on occasion visiting its office to obtain updates which the landlord should have provided itself.
  8. The landlord offered an alternative property in January 2023 which showed that it was listening to her concerns. It clarified the works that it was completing within its stage 1 response. It was also able to provide an estimated completion date. It offered £50 compensation to acknowledge its poor communication. It later reviewed the amount offered and increased the amount to £750.
  9. While we welcome the landlord recognising the need to revisit the complaint. The landlord did not revisit its offer of compensation until 10 months after its final complaint response. It said it was in recognition of what had happened and how long it had gone on. It is not clear whether this includes the repair issues that the resident raised when she moved into the property, after the complaint which this Service is not assessing. This means that the Ombudsman does not consider it an offer of compensation made as part of the complaint. Given the length of time this Service considers the subsequent offer made was for the detriment caused outside of the internal complaint period. 
  10. As such this Service has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer. The works required to ensure the property met the lettable standard were clearly complex. The landlord was taking steps to resolve the issues to ensure it met its lettable standard which was appropriate. 
  11. However, its communication was inadequate particularly given the resident’s anxiety. The resident had several occasions where she had to spend time and effort having to chase the landlord for updates. As well as living with the uncertainty of what was happening. The landlord correctly acknowledged this and sought to put matters right.  While there was an offer of £50 compensation within the complaint process this did not reflect the full detriment experienced. The detriment has been considered in the order made below.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time gave ten working days for a stage one complaint response, and 20 working days for a stage two response. In this case, the stage one response took 16 working days. The landlord acknowledged its delay and offered £10 compensation which was reasonable given that the delay was only for a short period of time.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response explained its position in respect of the historical matters the resident raised.  Its explanation was in accordance with the time limitations set out in its complaints policy which was reasonable.
  3. The landlord explained the reasons it was unable to let the property and the need for it to meet its lettable standard which was appropriate.  It acknowledged that its communication in respect of updates was not adequate. It also sought to put matters right by offering compensation. It did not however explain why its communication had been poor. Neither did it provide any learning outcomes. By not investigating what went wrong it failed to fully put things right. 
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued within its time scales. It upheld its stage 1 response.  It also acknowledged the resident’s concerns in respect of out-of-pocket expenses. It offered reimbursement but requested receipts. This was reasonable in the circumstances and showed that it was listening to the resident and taking her concerns seriously.
  5. In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling failures were minimal and for that reason amount to a service failure.  The landlord clearly explained its position in relation to the delays. It also acknowledged its communication should have been more consistent but did not explain what went wrong and consider learning outcomes. An order has been made in respect of this below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of a report of the resident’s reports of various repairs is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £225. £60 of the landlord’s compensation offer made in its stage 1 response can be deducted from the total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows: 
      1. £150 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer.
      2. £75 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.