We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202324063)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324063

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

28 April 2025


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:
    1. Damp and mould and associated repairs.
    2. Pest control reports.
    3. Antisocial Behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement which began on 9 September 2019. The property is a 2-bed basement flat conversion.
  2. The resident moved into the property in 2019 following a management move supported by the police. The resident made previous reports of ASB and damp and mould at the property prior to the complaint period.
  3. The resident reported damp and mould at the property on 15 February 2023. The landlord carried out an inspection in April 2023 and works to replace the bathroom and treat the damp and mould were agreed with the resident in June 2023. Repairs began on 14 August 2023 but the resident was left without bathing facilities during the works.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 17 August 2023. The complaint was about the current and historical damp and mould issues at the property. The resident also referenced reports of ongoing ASB, with people knocking at the property for the previous tenant who the resident believed was linked to drugs and drug users. The resident also complained about problems with rats and pigeons in and around the property.
  5. The resident raised a further complaint on 31 August 2023 about the ongoing works at the property and the inconvenience caused by the continued lack of bathing facilities. 
  6. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 1 September 2023 which addressed both complaints. The landlord acknowledged that the works had taken longer than expected. It said that this was due to it waiting for the room to dry out before it could proceed with the remaining works. The landlord requested that the resident provide incident reports about the ASB and report to the police when those incidents occurred. The landlord said it would arrange an inspection of the property to identify any potential infestation or method of access for pests.
  7. The landlord continued with the bathroom works and completed damp and mould prevention works throughout September 2023. It also carried out three pest control visits out at the property. The landlord noted that the resident refused to provide incident reports for the ASB. On 19 September 2023, the resident escalated her complaint but no reason for the escalation was noted. 
  8. On 11 October 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. The landlord said that the bathroom was now confirmed as having dried out and it would arrange the required decoration works. It acknowledged that the resident was without bathing facilities for 3 weeks and offered £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord added that pest control works and treatments had continued and further works would be undertaken. It said that it would liaise with the police about the resident’s ASB reports but asked that she provide evidence of the visits and report them to the police.
  9. Following the complaint, the remaining bathroom works were completed along with further damp and mould prevention works. The landlord closed the ASB case on 16 November 2023 due to a lack of evidence from the resident.
  10. It is evident that in January 2024, the resident raised more concerns about damp and mould following a leak from the property above. Further complaints were raised by the resident and the landlord carried out another refit of the bathroom and several other damp and mould related works over the following months.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman is aware that following the completion of the bathroom works referenced at stage 2 of the complaint process, the resident experienced further issues with damp and mould, predominantly in 2024.
  2. As these reports, and the works that took place as a result, were not the basis of the initial complaint from August 2023, these cannot be considered within this investigation. We are unable to assess matters that have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. Therefore, this review will only cover, and make a determination on, the 2023 events. Any complaint about events following this would be a new complaint and would need to have exhausted the landlord’s complaint process before this Service could investigate them further.

Damp and mould and associated repairs

  1. Within the landlord’s damp and mould policy framework, it responded to recommendations made by the Housing Ombudsman for managing damp and mould. It said that any reports of damp and mould would be responded to within 5 working days with a view to completing all remedial work within 20 working days. 
  2. Landlord records show that the resident reported damp and mould at the property on 15 February 2023. Despite the landlord making efforts to do so, as of 28 February 2023, it had been unable to contact the resident to discuss the problem further. 
  3. The landlord carried out an inspection at the property but this Service was not made aware of the date of this. The contractor provided their findings and recommendations to the landlord on 21 April 2023. The landlord did not respond to the contractor until 8 June 2023, over 6 weeks later. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to manage the damp and mould reports in line with its own policy. At this stage, there were 5 months between the initial report and the landlord authorising the works to be completed.
  4. Despite the works being agreed on 8 June 2023, they did not begin until 14 August 2023, over 2 months later. However, given that the proposed works were for a total refit of the bathroom, along with other damp and mould treatment works throughout the property, this was not unreasonable.
  5. It is not disputed that the bathroom works took longer than expected. This meant that the resident was without bathing facilities for longer than expected also. The works started on 14 August 2023 and it was recorded that the bath was refitted on 23 August 2023. However, in its stage 1 response, the landlord said that, despite being installed, the bath would remain out of use for a week to 10 days after 5 September 2023, meaning it was out of use for 31 days in total.
  6. Although the resident had agreed to use facilities with family during the initial delay, the extended delay of over 4 weeks was a service failing on the part of the landlord. This caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.  
  7. Given the extent of the works that were to be carried out, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered temporary accommodation for the resident during the repairs. Its response to Housing Ombudsman recommendations on damp and mould say that temporary accommodation will be considered based on household circumstances, vulnerabilities and the extent of disruption caused by the repairs.
  8. As the landlord was removing the bathroom, it knew it would leave the resident without access to bathing facilities and leave the bathroom in a condition that would be of a concern to a resident with a young child. The landlord has not evidenced any consideration of temporary accommodation or a risk assessment. It is the view of the Ombudsman that this was a service failing on the part of the landlord. It is clear from the resident’s correspondence that the works did cause significant inconvenience and concerns while they were ongoing.
  9. The landlord’s compensation policy says that a loss of the bathroom would be compensated at 20% of the daily rent. Within the landlord’s response to the complaint, it offered a payment of £300 compensation, which included a payment of £97 for the loss of her bathroom for 3 weeks.
  10. The resident’s tenancy lists the weekly net rent as £137.01, which means that loss of bathroom should equate to £3.91 per day. As it was out of use for 31 days, the compensation payment for the loss of use of the bathroom should have been £121.21. In view of this, the Ombudsman will recommend an increased payment in line with this amount. It was nevertheless appropriate for the landlord to make this offer alongside its separate award in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.
  11. The landlord’s compensation offer included a payment of £203 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of the damp and mould. This Service considers the offer proportionate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance when considering the failings and the impact on the resident.
  12. We therefore make a finding of reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint. This may have been a finding of maladministration had the landlord not taken steps to acknowledge and provide redress for its failings. This finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and associated works, or impact on the resident, was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were considerable failings by the landlord which its compensation offer suitably recognises.

Pest control reports

  1. The landlord’s pest control policy says that it would be responsible for dealing with pest control issues if they were due to disrepair at the property.
  2. The resident reported rats around the drains at the property on 17 August 2023. The landlord attended the same day and replaced the drain cover along with an additional wire mesh to prevent further access. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns.
  3. Within the resident’s stage 1 complaint, she indicated that there was an infestation of rats and a problem with pigeons at the property. On 25 August 2023, the landlord raised a works order to install pigeon deterrents and investigate the reports of rats in the communal area. The works order raised on 25 August 2023 was marked as completed the same day, showing nets and spikes installed in the “light well” to prevent pigeons. This shows that the landlord provided a reasonable and timely response to this issue.
  4. Despite carrying out the works to prevent further pigeons, the landlord records do not show any action taken to investigate the rat issue at this same time. This is a service failing by the landlord which delayed any appropriate action, adding to the distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  5. The landlord said within its stage 1 response that it would inspect the communal area to identify any potential pest infestation. This Service has not had sight of any report from such an inspection. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to act on the works order in full.
  6. A works order was then raised by the landlord on 15 September 2023 as a rat had bitten through a washing machine pipe, causing a leak. The landlord failed to attend and it was raised again on 18 September 2023. This was another service failing on the part of the landlord.
  7. The plumber that attended the leak reported to the landlord that there was evidence of mice or rats. The landlord raised a works order for the property to be baited on the same day. Three visits were carried out by the pest controller with the last being on 27 October 2023. During that time, it requested that access points be blocked. The landlord attended quickly but the initial attempt to block the access points with wire wool was unsuccessful.
  8. Within its stage 2 response on 11 October 2023, the landlord said that it would attend again to block the access points. Landlord records show that it attended on two occasions after this, with the works order being marked as completed on 20 November 2023. Landlord notes show no further reports following these works.
  9. This Service accepts that pest control may require trial and error and must be monitored after each attempt. Although it took more that two months (from the proposed works at stage 1) for baiting and proofing, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord did make reasonable attempts to resolve the pest control issues. However, there were delays across a few weeks earlier in the timeline so we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of pest control issues. 

ASB reports

  1. Within the stage 1 complaint raised on 17 August 2023, the resident said that people continued to knock at her door looking for the previous tenant. She said that these visits were from “drug addicts” as the last tenant was involved with drugs. The resident said that these visits had continued since she moved in almost 4 years prior.  
  2. Landlord notes show that the resident reported similar issues in 2020. She said people were looking for the previous tenant, loitering around her front door and, in one instance, they had tried to force entry. At the time of these reports, the landlord contacted the police for further information but the police advised they had no record of such reports from the resident.
  3. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord requested that she report these incidents to the police and obtain crime reference numbers. As the resident’s reports were about members of the public, this was an appropriate response, as the landlord would be limited in its options to stop such occurrences. The landlord also agreed to send incident report sheets for the resident to complete.
  4. Landlord notes show that the resident refused to complete the incident logs and did not provide any crime reference numbers. Its records also show that, following its stage 2 response, it did discuss contacting the police for further assistance around any measures that could be taken. The notes show that the landlord questioned whether it was reasonable to request police assistance given that it had no records of any reports ever being made to them.
  5. In the resident’s letter to her MP in November 2023, she indicated that reporting these encounters, as per the landlord’s request, would be “wasting police time”.  Nevertheless, given the potential criminal activity and that landlords are expected to take a multi-agency approach to ASB, it was reasonable for the landlord to request evidence of police reports being made.
  6. Ultimately, given the resident’s reports were about members of the public rather than other residents, the landlord was not in a position to resolve them by itself. The landlord’s request for the resident to report the incidents to the police and provide a log of them was reasonable in its attempts to seek assistance and evidence. As the resident did not provide any evidence of these incidents, it was reasonable for the landlord to close the ASB case in November 2023. In view of this, the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB reports.      

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of pest control reports.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB reports.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is required to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £50 to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of the pest control reports.
  3. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should increase the compensation payment for the loss of use of the bathroom to £121.21 and, if it has not already done so, pay the amount of £203 that it offered through the complaints process. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress decision was made on the basis that these amounts are paid.