Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

West Kent Housing Association (202420405)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420405

West Kent Housing Association

27 May 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. Issues with the wet room flooring.
    2. Issues with the tiling behind the toilet cistern.
    3. Issues with the shower curtain.
    4. Additional repairs to the remainder of the resident’s property.
    5. The resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
  3. When bringing her complaint to the Service, the resident raised multiple repair issues. Some of these issues had not been raised at both stages of the landlord’s internal complaints process. These included repairs to the kitchen, living room, internal doors and flooring in the property (except the wet room).
  4. As these complaints did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process, we will not be considering the multiple repairs to the remainder of the resident’s property in this investigation. This is because they are outside our jurisdiction in accordance with 42.a. of the Scheme.
  5. If these further issues are still of concern to the resident she has the option of asking the Ombudsman to investigate them once she has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in a one bedroom flat on an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, who is a housing association, since 5 December 2022.
  2. In March 2023 a burst pipe caused a leak into the resident’s flat. Following the leak she raised multiple repairs to the landlord. Some of the repairs were caused by the leak and some she said had been present since she moved in. The landlord decanted the resident for a week in May 2023 to complete multiple repairs at the property. When she returned the resident reported some repairs had not been completed and some work had caused damage to the property.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 13 June 2023. In the landlord’s acknowledgement it defined her complaint as being about several different repair issues. These included multiple issues with the wet room (including damage to the floor, chipped wall tiles, damaged tiles behind the toilet cistern) and problems with the wet room door threshold.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 July 2023 and responded to each of the issues raised. It acknowledged there had been some failings on its part, apologised and said it would organise relevant repairs. These included multiple repairs to the wet room such as adjusting the extractor fan settings, installing a shower curtain, filling holes in the wall tiles, replacing tiles behind the toilet cistern and cleaning the floor capping.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 1 August 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response, many repairs were still outstanding, and she wished her complaint to remain ”open”. The landlord did not recognise this as an escalation request at the time. In September 2023 it acknowledged its failing to escalate her complaint and asked her to clarify what points she remained unhappy about.
  6. The landlord called the resident on 30 November 2023 to clarify if she still wished to escalate her complaint and the reasons why. The landlord’s records state she confirmed she did. She said there were still outstanding repairs, such as problems with the threshold, the shower curtain, some of the skirting, the door lock and the tiles behind the toilet cistern.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 December 2023. It said it would not investigate several of the escalated issues because they were new issues and had not been raised at stage 1. It responded to the outstanding repairs to the wet room and the tiling behind the toilet cistern. It said it had completed repairs to both in August 2023, but acknowledged these works had failed to rectify the issues. It apologised, offered a total of £100 compensation and organised repairs for later that month. It also recognised its failure to escalate her complaint in good time, apologised, and offered £300 compensation for its poor complaint handling. In total it said it was offering the resident £600 compensation across both its complaint responses.
  8. The resident remained unhappy and escalated her complaint to the Service in August 2024. She said there were still multiple repairs outstanding. She also said she was not happy that the landlord had declined to investigate parts of her escalated complaint. She said she wanted it to complete all outstanding repairs in her property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the landlords stage 2 response it said it would complete several outstanding repairs in the wet room. Both the resident and the landlord have confirmed these repairs were completed. In her complaint to us the resident said that the quality of the work was not satisfactory.
  2. This investigation centres on the resident’s complaint to the point of the landlord completing any work it promised in its final complaint response. The resident’s dissatisfaction with the way the work was completed should be considered to be a new complaint. The resident should raise a new complaint to the landlord outlining her concerns. If, once completing its internal complaints process, she still remains unhappy she can escalate her complaint to the Service for us to investigate.

The landlord’s handling of issues with the wet room flooring

  1. The resident’s occupancy agreement states she is responsible for all flooring in her property except any flooring that was in place when she moved in. This flooring is the landlord’s responsibility to maintain. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord confirmed the wet room flooring was in place when the resident moved in and was therefore its responsibility to repair.
  2. In her stage 1 complaint the resident said problems with the wet room flooring and the flooring near the entrance to the room were causing leaks out of the wet room into the hallway.
  3. In response the landlord visited the resident’s property with a surveyor on 17 July 2023 to inspect the property, including the wet room. Following this inspection it issued its stage 1 response where it acknowledged there were some issues with the wet room flooring which it should have been identified in the void inspection prior to her moving in. It apologised for this and agreed to complete works to finish and level the entrance to the wet room and clean the floor capping, which is a trim installed where the flooring meets the bottom of the wet room walls.
  4. The landlord’s surveyor’s report from the inspection on 17 July 2023 agrees with the findings of a previous survey that the wet room flooring capping needed to be cleaned. The report did not mention levelling the wet room floor or finishing the room entrance, but did recommend that the landlord should consider replacing the wet room floor in its entirety.
  5. The landlord’s initial response to the complaint was reasonable. It was good practice for it to inspect the property prior to issuing its response to obtain a clear understanding of the issues the resident had raised. It was also appropriate to have a surveyor lead on its findings as they had seniority on the type of issues raised and showed the landlord took the resident’s complaint seriously. Its inspection showed repairs were needed for the wet room which should have been resolved during the void period, so it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failing and arrange the necessary repairs.
  6. When bringing her complaint to the Service the resident said she was not happy the landlord did not fully replace the wet room floor. The surveyor had only highlighted this as a possible option. The landlord had discretion to decide what specific action to take in light of the survey report, and it decided to repair the wet room entrance threshold to help fix the leaking issue, which was appropriate for it to do given the surveyors findings.
  7. The landlord emailed the resident a schedule of works on 1 August 2023 which included cleaning the floor capping and fitting a trim to the wet room floor. It said work would take place on 10 and 11 August 2023. The landlord’s repair records say it completed the repairs promised to the wet room floor on 11 August 2023.
  8. When the resident clarified her stage 2 complaint on 30 November 2023 she said the wet room flooring was unfinished and was still causing leaks into the hallway. In its response the landlord said it had completed works to the wet room flooring in August 2023 but agreed the work had not rectified the issues. It apologised for this, agreed to arrange further works to fix the problem on 22 December 2023 and offered £50 compensation for stress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  9. The landlord’s records and internal email correspondence confirm the landlord’s explanation. They show that despite repairs being marked as complete on 11 August 2023 there were unresolved or further issues still to be addressed, or at least the problem had not been fully resolved. Given that the issues had originally been reported in May 2023 and were not fully complete until December, this shows a significant delay, and nothing in the evidence or the landlord’s final complaint response explains why it occurred. The £50 compensation the landlord offered was therefore disproportionately low for a failing of this scale, when considered against the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  10. In summary, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the wet room floor. It did not complete repairs as promised following its stage 1 response. and did not offer redress proportionate to the scale of its delays.

The landlord’s handling of issues with tiling behind the toilet cistern

  1. In her stage 1 complaint the resident said the tiling behind the toilet cistern in the wet room was poor and had been since she moved in. She made the landlord aware she had matching tiles spare in the property that could be used to replace them.
  2. In response the landlord arranged an inspection of the resident’s property with a surveyor that took place on 17 July 2023. The surveyors’ report identified that there were several broken tiles behind the toilet cistern. They recommended the landlord remove and replace these tiles, firstly using the matching spares the resident said she had, and then replacing with a standard white tile where needed. There is no evidence to suggest the tiling was causing an issue with use of the toilet or wet room. The landlord promised to do these works in its stage 1 response to the resident, which was appropriate given the surveyors’ findings.
  3. When clarifying her stage 2 complaint on 30 November 2023, the resident said the works to the tiles behind the toilet cistern had not been “fixed”. In response the landlord said work to replace these tiles had taken place on 10 August 2023 but the new tiles were now causing a problem with the toilet cistern lid not fitting. It apologised for not picking this up sooner and arranged for the cistern lid to be fixed on 22 December 2023. It also offered the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
  4. The evidence does not clearly show when the tiles were replaced. However, the resident was in correspondence with the landlord in August 2023 about other incomplete or outstanding work, and she did not refer to the tiles in her list of outstanding works. Furthermore, the landlord visited the property in September and collated a list of unresolved issues. The tiling was not listed.
  5. Overall, the landlord responded to the issue promptly, and appropriately took action to resolve a further problem its repair had caused. Despite handling the matter reasonably it recognised the resident had been caused inconvenience, apologised for that, and offered compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for an issue of this scale and nature.

The landlord’s handling of issues with the shower curtain

  1. The resident’s occupancy agreement states replacement or maintenance of shower curtains are the residents responsibility.
  2. The resident had reported to the landlord concerns about the shower curtain prior to raising her complaint. She said the shower curtain was too small which was leading to leaks in the wet room and out into the hallway. She said this was linked to the issues with the wet room floor and the unfinished entrance to the wet room.
  3. The resident did not clearly mention her concerns about the curtain in her stage 1 complaint. Nonetheless, in its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledge the curtain was not fit for purpose and it had failed to pick this up during its void inspections. It apologised for this and said it would replace the curtain as part of several repairs it was planning for the wet room. This was good practice by the landlord given that the occupancy agreement stated the resident was responsible for the shower curtain,.
  4. As with the tiling work, the landlord’s records do not clearly show when the curtain was replaced, but the resident’s subsequent correspondence about outstanding work does not refer to it until she escalated her complaint. At that time she referred to new issues with the curtain. In response the landlord confirmed it had installed a new curtain on 10 August 2023. It agreed that this had not helped stop water leaking out from the wet room and apologised. It arranged a repair to adjust the baton for 22 December 2023 and offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience.
  5. The landlord’s handling of the issues with the curtain was reasonable. It was not obliged by the tenancy agreement to replace or fix the shower curtain. Nevertheless, it recognised it had not identified this issue during the void period and used its discretion to replace it, which was reasonable for it to do given its potential to contribute to the wet room problems the resident was experiencing.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states residents must raise a stage 2 escalation within 20 working days of its stage 1 response being issued. The policy also says the landlord will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of receiving an escalation from a resident. It may extend this deadline by no more than 10 working days if further time for investigation is needed.
  2. In bringing her complaint to us the resident said she was unhappy with how the landlord had handled her complaint. She said it had failed to recognise her stage 2 escalation request, which led to delays in getting a stage 2 response. She also said the stage 2 response was not adequate. She said the landlord had removed parts of her stage 2 escalation on the grounds that she had not raised these issues at stage 1. She felt this was not correct and the landlord should have responded to all the points she raised.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 July 2023. It provided a full response to all 13 complaint points the resident raised and did so within the timeframes set out in its own complaints policy.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 August 2023 saying she was not happy with its stage 1 response. In the email she pointed out several elements of the response she felt were incorrect and why. At the end of the email she asked for her complaint to remain “open”. When bringing her complaint to us she explained by “open” she meant she wished for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2.
  5. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a resident does not have to use the term “complaint” or other related terminology for a complaint or escalation request to be treated as such. This is in accordance with the Code.
  6. However, the landlord failed to recognise the resident’s email from 1 August 2023 as an escalation request. In addition it did not go back to the resident in good time to seek clarification on what she wanted it to do with her email, which was a failing on its part. The residents email clearly showed she was unhappy with its stage 1 response, which was sufficient for it to escalate her complaint.
  7. The landlord recognised this failing in its stage 2 response. It acknowledged it had failed to treat the email from August 2023 as an escalation request, which then led to unnecessary delays in providing its stage 2 response. It apologised for this and offered the resident a total of £300 compensation broken down into:
    1. £100 for its complaint handling failure
    2. £200 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  8. The landlords stage 2 response was appropriate. It recognised its failings and apologised. The compensation it offered was reasonable in light of the failings found and in line with our own Remedies Guidance.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it included a section explaining the resident had raised new or further issues at stage 2 that had not been raised at stage 1.  It outlined what it would consider in its response and advised the remaining elements of her complaint had been passed as service requests to the relevant teams. This was an appropriate step to take, showed it had considered the additional issues the resident had raised and taken steps to remedy these outside of the internal complaints process. This action again complied with the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of issues with the wet room floor.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in:
    1. The landlord’s handling of issues with tiles behind the toilet cistern.
    2. The landlord’s handling of issues with the shower curtain.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has not considered the landlord’s handling of additional repairs to the remainder of the resident’s property.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £300 compensation for the failings identified in its handling of issues with the wet room flooring. This amount includes the £50 the landlord has already offered.
    2. Provide evidence of the above to the Service.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £600 compensation it has already offered.