The Guinness Partnership Limited (202227530)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227530

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

29 February 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs following water ingress.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the bin store.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of stolen post.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge accounts.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder, living in a third-floor flat. The landlord’s records do not indicate that the resident has any vulnerabilities.
The resident’s complaint relates to damage caused to his property from water ingress around his front door which damaged his flooring and the wall surrounding the door. The resident also complained that the communal bin store was regularly overflowing and subject to fly-tipping. Additionally, the resident complained that his post was stolen due to an insecure door on the property. For all these reasons, the resident challenged the appropriateness of a service charge increase for the property.
For context, the resident’s property sits within a block that was subject to extensive fire safety works during the period of this complaint. Due to the height of the building, in response to the Grenfell Tower findings, the landlord was undertaking works to remove non-compliant cladding and replace this with fire-resistant cladding. This work began in 2021 and involved the replacement of around 6,000 square metres of timber cladding, along with associated timber balconies and flammable insulation.
The resident made a complaint on 22 November 2022 in which he complained about ongoing issues with damp in his property. The landlord issued its response on 15 December 2022 in which it maintained that the damp and mould was not being caused by the cladding works. The landlord stated that damp and mould repairs were being handled by a special project, which would be in touch with residents in due course.
The resident escalated his complaint on 3 January 2023 as he felt that the landlord has misunderstood elements of his complaint. The resident confirmed that ongoing issue with damp and mould, but also raised concerns around communication failings, a bin storage area and insecure post boxes within the property. The landlord issued its final response on 3 February 2023 in which it stated that a contractor had attended to survey the damp in his property and that it would arrange for the works to be completed once it had finished the cladding programme.
Additionally, the landlord explained that it had sought planning permission to address the bin store, however the local authority declined this. It also said that it was considering options in relation to the insecure post boxes, including boxing these off or applying frosting to a window to obscure the view.
Concurrently with this complaint, the resident raised a further stage one complaint on 19 January 2023. He stated that the front door was broken and that this was allowing people access to the property, including to the post boxes, where post had been stolen.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 1 February 2023 in which it said that it had ordered a new mechanism for the door, but this had been delayed. The landlord also committed to replacing the main door later in the same month. The resident escalated his complaint on 7 February 2023, however the landlord’s final response, issued on 3 March 2023 upheld the stage one response in full.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 8 February 2023 seeking completion of the repairs to his property.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

When a resident brings a complaint to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why we cannot investigate elements of a complaint. After carefully considering all the evidence I have determined that some elements of the complaint, as set out above, are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
As part of the complaint, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of the service charge account. This related to an increase in the charges, which he felt was unreasonable given the outstanding repair issues in the property.
Paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.” This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the appropriateness of the level of service charge or any proposed increase, therefore we will not consider this element of the resident’s complaint.
Additionally, paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.” Within the evidence seen by this Service, there is no record of this element of the complaint being progressed through the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, or any final response being issued.
The resident should consider raising this issue as a formal complaint with the landlord. Should it remain unresolved, he may then wish to take legal advice around progressing his case to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) who will be able to make an assessment on the merits of his case.
Taking both factors into consideration, this Service will not consider the element of the complaint related to service charges within this determination.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman expects residents to raise issues with their landlord in a timely way. In this case, the resident raised a formal complaint in November 2022 for defects which he said had been occurring for 11 years.
It is not fair or reasonable for this Service to assess potential fault over this extended period. All parties are better able to recollect the events when complaints are raised shortly after the issue arising, and this can be supported by documents. It is unlikely that the landlord will have sufficiently detailed records dating back 11 years, to support an investigation.
In the interest of fairness to both parties, the scope of this investigation has been limited to considering matters raised from 6 months prior to the formal complaint being raised. This Service will only consider correspondence from February 2022 in this determination.

Repairs following water ingress

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have a statutory duty to maintain the structure and exterior of its properties, which includes the roof, walls and external fixtures. Once notified of a defect, landlords must make a lasting and effective repair in a reasonable time.
The landlord’s repairs policy has five levels of repairs with different timescales for response:
1. Priority 0 – immediate response within four hours of being reported.
2. Priority 1 – emergency response within 24 hours of being reported.
3. Priority 2 – urgent repairs which will be completed with 5 days of being reported.
4. Priority 3 – routine repairs which will be completed within 20 days of being reported.
5. Priority 4 – complex and major repairs, which will be completed within 40 days of being reported.
The resident raised a complaint about damp and water damage around his property’s front door on 22 November 2022. There is some evidence of him mentioning this in earlier correspondence in 2022. The resident stated that he had been reporting this issue for over 11 years.
The water damage had caused flooring near the front door to become damp. As well as this, the walls above and to the side of the door had blistered from water damage. The resident provided the landlord with pictures of this, and its own surveyors did not dispute this when they visited the property.
In response to the resident’s reports of damp, there is evidence that the landlord attended the resident’s property on 19 January 2023 to take pictures of the damage and complete a property survey report. The report showed that water was pooling outside the resident’s front door. The surveyor recommended removing the plasterboard, treating the damp, re-applying the plaster and decorating to resolve the issue. The survey also indicated that around ten square metres of flooring would need to be sourced and replaced in the resident’s hallway, as this had been damaged by water.
The landlord committed to making good the damp and mould in the entire building once it had completed the cladding works and had established a “special project” to manage this. In a letter to all residents on 13 March 2023, the landlord committed to starting on the damp and mould works in late Autumn 2023, following completion of the cladding works. The evidence indicates that the landlord completed the cladding work on 31 July 2023.
In correspondence with this Service on 9 February 2024 at the time of investigation, the landlord noted that these works remain outstanding. It attributed this to the need to survey all properties, identify a “priority list” and then complete these works in a systematic way. The landlord estimated that these works would begin in March 2024.
It is positive to note that the landlord has assigned the damp and mould repairs to a specialist, dedicated project team and that it has committed to undertaking this work at no cost to the leaseholders in the building.
Given that the cladding works were completed in July 2023 and the landlord has now indicated that works will begin in March 2024, it is unclear why there has been a delay of over eight months in commencing these works. This is particularly extended as the resident’s property has been surveyed previously. In total, a period of at least 16 months will have elapsed between the resident’s first report and the start of the works. Depending on the resident’s priority within the works, it is possible that the works may not be completed to his property for some time after this.
Overall, the Ombudsman considers that this was maladministration as it is unreasonable for the landlord to have delayed completion of these works for such an extended period. These delays have caused the resident distress, inconvenience, and a loss of enjoyment of his property. The landlord has not provided any remedy for these delays, and it must now apologise to the resident, pay him compensation for the delays and conduct the works promptly.

Bin store

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 sets out several matters which may constitute a ‘statutory nuisance’, and this includes “any accumulation or deposit which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance.” Accumulations can include rubbish or waste which are not properly stored or removed in a timely way.
The resident first told the landlord that the bin store was becoming a “messy area” on 7 August 2022. The resident sent pictures which showed large volumes of rubbish on the ground and around the bins. The images show that the bin store had been regularly overfilled and was the target of fly tipping.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 3 February 2023, the landlord said that it had requested planning permission to install a new, more secure bin store. This permission was declined by the local authority, although the landlord has not provided the reasons for this to its residents or this Service.
Within the stage 2 response, the landlord suggested that the resident raise his concerns about the bin store with the cladding team, as it had previously suggested. This was not appropriate as it is not for a resident to escalate these issues within the landlord’s own internal teams.
There is extensive evidence to show that this issue was regularly reported by the resident throughout 2022 and 2023 including within his complaints and other correspondence with the landlord. The landlord provided a mixture of responses, initially re-confirming that planning permission had been denied and later stating that a new bin store would be installed after the cladding works had been completed. The communication around this issue was not clear until the landlord issued a letter on 10 August 2023 to all residents, which stated that the cladding works had been completed on 31 July 2023 and a new bin store would be installed by the end of that same month.
Whilst there was some evidence that the landlord’s neighbourhood team attended the bin store sporadically to clean the accumulations of waste, there has been no evidence presented to show that the landlord undertook any formal assessment of the accumulations of rubbish to determine whether a statutory nuisance existed.
At the time of this investigation, a new bin store has not yet been installed by the landlord. The landlord attributed this delay to the refusal of planning permissions, which has since been granted. The landlord has advised that the installation of the new bin store is likely to be completed by May 2024 and provided a schedule of works for this.
Provided this is completed on time, this amounts to a delay of over 21 months since the issue was first reported by the resident. Whilst some of this delay can be explained by the complex cladding works being undertaken and the initial refusal of planning permission this still represents an unreasonable delay.
Taking together the delays in rectifying this issue and the potential statutory nuisance that existed within this period, this is maladministration. The landlord must use its best endeavours to install the new bin store within the timescales it has indicated to this Service, to abate the nuisance the refuse may be causing to residents and others.

Stolen post

The landlord’s repairs policy shows that breaches on the security of outside doors, or insecure communal door access are both ‘priority 1’ repairs. Priority 1 repairs should be made secure within 24 hours of being reported.
The landlord’s records show that it was made aware of a fault with the entrance door on 5 October 2022. The resident made the landlord aware that the door has been broken for around a month and that post had been stolen in this time.
As part of the resident’s complaint, he said that stolen post had led to a fraudulent bank account being opened in his name on one occasion. Any theft or fraud is potentially a criminal matter and not directly something that the landlord or this Service is able to make a judgement upon. It is noted, however, that the resident felt that broken doors or door locks allowed unauthorised people access to the building, which meant they could steal post.
In response to the resident’s concerns, there is evidence of the landlord:
1. Installed a new mechanism on the front door on 26 January 2023. The landlord committed to frosting the glass once this was installed.
2. Replaced the letter box faces on 24 January 2023 to make them more secure.
3. Committed to installing a new main entry door on 6 February 2023. Records indicate that this was installed on 24 April 2023.
4. Undertook further works to adjust the door between March and May 2023 including planning the door and adjusting the mechanism to prevent the door from catching.
5. Replaced the intercom and entry system in April 2023.
6. Fitted anti-theft devices to the letter boxes in May 2023.
The resident suggested that frosted glass in the communal entranceway would prevent members of the public from seeing the post boxes and parcels that had been delivered. The landlord accepted this suggestion and committed to frosting the glass in January 2023, following the installation of a new mechanism on the door. This deadline was not met and later the landlord committed to completing the frosting when the wider cladding works were completed. The cladding works concluded on 31 July 2023 and the frosting remains outstanding at the time of this investigation.
Overall, the landlord has rectified the issue with the door and has provided some additional security for the post boxes, including anti-theft devices. There was a delay of over three months before the first action was completed by the landlord, which is significantly in excess of its 24 hour ‘priority’ policy timescale for this type of repair. Additionally, at the time of this investigation, the glass frosting remains outstanding. The landlord has not provided a deadline for this, as it is awaiting quotes from its contractors.
Taking these factors together, the Ombudsman considers that this is maladministration as the landlord’s delays have caused the resident distress, inconvenience and additional time and trouble in pursuing this matter, particularly given that some aspects remain outstanding. The landlord has provided no remedy for this complaint, and it must now apologise to the resident, pay him compensation and complete the remaining works in a reasonable timescale.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following water ingress.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the bin store.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of stolen post.
In accordance with paragraphs 42(a) and 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the service charge accounts is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Arrange for a senior officer to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this determination.
2. Pay the resident £1800 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £850 for the distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of his property caused by the landlord’s delays in repairing the damage caused by water ingress.
  2. £250 for the distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of his property caused by the landlord’s delays in installing a new communal bin store.
  3. £450 for the distress and inconvenience of landlord’s delays in addressing the faulty front door and insecure post boxes.
  4. £250 for the time and trouble for the resident in pursuing this complaint to completion over an extended period.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must undertake a self-assessment against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. It must provide this Service with a copy of the self-assessment, any learning identified and a detailed plan to implement this learning, including timescales.
The landlord must provide the resident with a schedule of works for the outstanding repairs and use its best endeavours to complete them within the timescales it has provided to this Service, namely:
1. To begin repairs to the damp and mould in the resident’s property in March 2024 and complete them within a reasonable timescale not exceeding 6 weeks.
2. To install a bin store no later than May 2024.
3. To install the frosted window around the communal entranceway within a reasonable timescale of receiving its contractor’s quote. This period must not exceed 6 weeks.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of its compliance with the orders above.