Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202228666)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228666

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

11 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs required to his property to prevent pests entering.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the property since 24 September 2004. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 2 bedroom flat and the resident lives with his family.
The resident took over the lease of the property on 24 September 2004. The property was built in 1997 and no latent defects were reported either before or after the resident took possession of the property.
The resident made a formal complaint on 14 December 2022. They key points were as follows:
1. There were holes in the boundary walls to the property where pipe work runs through for services to the block. The holes are too big and allow mice to enter. The mice were appearing in the kitchen near the resident’s boiler.
2. There were also mice behind the plaster on the back wall of the property.
3. There was a big hole under the bath leading to an outside pipe connection.
4. The plastered wall in the resident’s bedroom let a lot of cold air into the property.
On 16 December 2022, the landlord raised a maintenance request for a surveyor to attend the resident’s property to inspect the property for holes that may let mice in.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 29 December 2022. It gave an overview of the resident’s complaint. It advised it had referred the matter to its repairs team. It had tried to contact the resident on 19 December 2022, but had been unsuccessful. It confirmed it wished to attend on 5 January 2023, to assess the issue.
The surveyor attended the resident’s property on 5 January 2023. The surveyor inspected under the bath and located a hole that needed boarding up. They advised the bath may need to be removed. They also stated that pest control would need to attend and lay mice traps in the property. The job was marked as complete.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 January 2023. He said the contractor had only inspected the holes on the boundary walls. He said he had been told that the landlord would ask for pest control to attend to put some traps down but that he believed that would not resolve the issue. He had expected the landlord to plug the holes to prevent the mice entering the flats via the pipes. The resident said he had been told previously that the landlord would make changes to the pipe access outside. In concluding, he requested escalation to stage 2.
Internal emails show the landlord sought to confirm with its surveyor if they had noticed any structural or external issues during their inspection. The surveyor confirmed there had been no major structural issues but there was a requirement to carry out repairs to minor holes. However, it said that responsibility lay with the resident.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 9 February 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. It did not uphold the complaint because an offer was made by its repairs team to assess the issues the resident had been concerned about.
2. The inspection was not a repair and was arranged as a goodwill gesture. It confirmed the resident was a leaseholder and responsible for the repairs and maintenance of his home including pest control.
3. It confirmed that the leaseholders in the block had opted out of pest control being provided by the landlord through its chargeable services.
4. It provided the resident with the inspection report so that the resident could use it to make his own arrangements for the repairs.
In referring to this Service, the resident said the void between the 2 walls in his property and its boundary meant that cold air came into the flat. The resident said the landlord had failed to address this at both stages of his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to prevent pests from entering.

The lease for this property began in 1997 and was taken over by the resident in 2004.
Under the terms of the lease, the resident holds the repair responsibility for all internal parts of the property and the landlord holds the repair responsibility for the main structure of the building. This includes all external and load bearing walls, external windows and doors and the pipes in relation to drainage.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 December 2022 to advise that there were holes inside his property that let mice in. Given the landlord holds the repair responsibility for the main structure of the building and the resident for the internal parts, it was appropriate that the landlord agreed to carried out an inspection. Doing so enabled the landlord to establish where the responsibility for the repair lay.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised the resident that it had referred the matter to its repairs team who wished to attend to assess the issue. It did not however provide clarity on the reasons for doing this or explain that an outcome of the assessment may have been that the resident held the responsibility for repair. Advising it had raised a “repair” request would have raised the resident’s expectations that a repair would take place. The lack of clarity was unhelpful.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord advised it had undertaken the inspection as a goodwill gesture. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to have set out clearly its position in its stage 1 response to manage the resident’s expectations. Not doing so would have caused confusion. The Ombudsman expects landlords to provide clear explanations to residents of its actions and the possible outcomes.
The resident contacted the landlord after the inspection and expressed disappointment that the landlord had not taken steps to prevent mice from entering. Additionally, the resident said he was informed that pest control would address the issue. This situation underscores the landlord’s lack of clarity in its initial response, which led the resident to expect a resolution. Ideally, the landlord should have clearly communicated from the start that while an inspection would occur, it would not implement any recommendations if it was found not to be a structural issue. Failing to do so caused confusion for the resident and was not in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
Following the resident’s contact with the landlord on 6 January 2023 to gain information on the next steps, no evidence has been provided to show that the landlord responded. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident to explain its position with regards to the issues raised and explain the resident’s repair responsibility as per the terms of his lease. Not doing so would have frustrated the resident and caused a delay in the resolution of the issue.
Following the residents request to escalate to stage 2, the landlord sought to clarify with its surveyors that the required works were not major structural ones and therefore not the landlord’s responsibility. The surveyor confirmed that was correct. It was, therefore, appropriate for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its qualified surveyors and not undertake the recommendations of its inspection. However, this decision was never communicated to the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to update the resident, providing its position on the repairs and confirming why the resident was responsible.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed it had provided the resident with the inspection report for him to make his own arrangements for the repairs and confirmed the resident’s responsibility as a leaseholder. While it was appropriate for the landlord to so, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have provided this clarity sooner.
It also confirmed that the residents of the block had opted out of the landlord’s pest control services. The landlord would have known this from the outset and therefore it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have communicated that at the earliest opportunity. Not doing so caused a delay in a resolution for the resident and would have likely caused frustration.
Overall, while the landlord did undertake an inspection of the property, its communication and lack of clarity around what it would and would not do caused confusion. This led to the resident believing that the landlord would undertake the required repairs. Had the landlord been clearer in its communication, an adverse finding may have been avoided in this case.
Therefore, taking into account all the above, there was service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to his property to prevent pests entering.
Given the lack of clarity in the landlord’s responses and the failure to explain to the resident that he held the repair responsibility and the reasons why, a compensation order has been made for £100.

Complaint handling

The resident raised in his formal complaint that he believed there was an issue with his bedroom wall which meant cold air entered the property. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it appropriately advised it had arranged for its repairs team to attend the property to assess the issue and establish if it was responsible for the repair.
However, the repairs request raised by the landlord makes no mention of inspecting the void area and therefore it was not inspected during the visit. If the landlord had intended for all the issues to be inspected, it would have been appropriate for it to ensure all matters had been raised in its repair request. If it had not intended to inspect the wall, it would have been helpful for that to be communicated to the resident to manage his expectations.
The landlord’s initial response, at stage 1, lacks clarity regarding the actions they were going to take and why. Although they confirmed they had raised a repair request, the Ombudsman expects a thorough investigation to be undertaken and clear explanations provided to the resident. The stage 1 response was an opportunity for the landlord to explain their inspection process to establish repair responsibility. The lack of a proper explanation caused confusion and did not align with Dispute Resolution Principles.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord made no mention of the issue with the void in the wall despite this being raised at stage 1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out clearly that all issues raised in a complaint need to be addressed. It is unsatisfactory the landlord ignored the resident’s complaint in this respect. This would have frustrated the resident and caused him to expend more time seeking a resolution.
Overall, the landlord’s communication with regards to this issue was misleading and lacked clarity. It raised the resident’s expectations that it would undertake an inspection of the issue which it then failed to do. It then failed to address the issue in its stage 2 response. All of which would have the left resident confused and unsure of the next steps he should take.
Therefore, taking into account all the above, there was service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the internal wall.

Determination

In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs required to his property to prevent pests entering.
2. Complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £200, made up of the following:
1. £100 for the lack of clarity in its communication in the resident’s report of repairs required to his property to prevent pests entering.
2. £100 for its failure in its complaint handling to investigate all the issues raised.
The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord undertook an inspection of the void in the wall in July 2023. If the landlord has established the resident is responsible for any remedial works, it must explain this clearly to resident and link it to the lease or a policy as appropriate.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.