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

West Kent Housing Association (202127636)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127636

West Kent Housing Association

20 January 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. The resident’s reports of outstanding defects in the property.
    2. The related complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of the property which is a house. The lease started in November 2019. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident’s teenage son has autism, and this is recorded on the landlord’s system.
  3. The 12-month defect liability period (DLP) ran from 8 May 2019 to May 2020 which, due to the COVID-19 lockdown, was extended to September 2020. The landlord completed an end of defects inspection at this time and agreed 30 snagging/defect items. Due to acknowledged poor service from the developer, in November 2020, the landlord accepted responsibility to address the items. These included an uneven garden, foul smells from the downstairs toilet and dips in kitchen flooring.
  4. Its contractor cleared a blockage found in the toilet however the resident continued to report a foul odour. There were still outstanding items by May 2021 and the resident raised a complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the defects. The landlord responded to this complaint on 14 June 2021 (not seen by this Service). In July 2021 the landlord’s surveyor inspected the outstanding defects, and it sent an alternative contractor to investigate the foul smell from the toilet. They recommended a repair to the soil stack. The landlord cancelled an appointment it had made in August 2021 for the repair to the toilet and the next appointment on 9 September 2021 was recorded as no access. After communicating with the resident in December 2021, the landlord attempted to schedule appointments for its contractor to complete works, without success. The landlord then suggested alternative options to resolve the issues including for the resident to arrange for his own contractors to complete works and it agree the cost.
  5. On 16 June 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. Within this he listed outstanding items and said that:
    1. There were discrepancies between the items stated as outstanding by the landlord and what was actually still outstanding.
    2. The landlord’s reluctance to speak to him on the phone or meet at the property was hampering the resolution of the issues.
    3. He was unhappy there were still sewage smells in property after 3 years.
    4. He was unacceptable that landlord kept ignoring his calls.
    5. He requested a call from the landlord and for it to attend the property to discuss the outstanding works.
  6. On 10 August 2022 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint. Within this it summarised its previous communications with the resident and stated it had told him in March 2022 that it would be working to the list of defects agreed by the surveyor during their visit in July 2021. The landlord offered £100 in compensation and set out that:
    1. It had been unable to arrange suitable appointments to complete the outstanding works and that the resident had raised concerns about the quality of work.
    2. It had suggested other options to progress works including him engaging his own contractor.
    3. It would not add any more items to the defects list as it was outside the defects period.
    4. It was unable to offer a more bespoke repair service than offered to its social housing tenants.
    5. It would ask its aftercare team to compare his list of outstanding defects with its own and it would call him next week to discuss this. 
    6. The resident had not indicated a preference for any of the alternative options suggested.
    7. It apologised for the length of time to respond to his complaint.
  7. The landlord arranged a joint visit to the property on 23 May 2023 with its contractor to agree a schedule of works. It also logged a stage 2 complaint on the same date.
  8. On 4 August 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. This stated that:
    1. It agreed to undertake an onsite visit with its contractor to go through the outstanding defects on 23 May 2023 as per the resident’s request.
    2. On 9 June 2023 it emailed the resident the agreed schedule of work (this listed 18 outstanding items).
    3. It provided clarification to the resident on a couple of missing items he had queried.
    4. Its contractor visited again on 30 June 2023 to go over the schedule with the resident and discuss start dates.
    5. It had paid the resident’s quote of £3,880 for garden work.
    6. The resident had agreed for works to the defects to start on 29 August 2024 and it would monitor these on its complaint tracker until completion.
    7. It acknowledged there had been communication and complaint handling failings on its part and offered £650 in compensation.

Post the landlord’s final complaint response

  1. The landlord’s contractor and subcontractors attended in September 2023 to undertake works. They attended again in January 2024 to continue to undertake works to outstanding defects. The landlord attended the property again with its contractors on further occasions in March and September 2024 however the works were “aborted”. The landlord has since offered the resident a lump sum of £6,500.75 to conclude 11 outstanding items.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

  1. It is clear from communications seen by the Service that the parties have remained in communication since the date of the landlord’s final response regarding the defects, some which remain outstanding. We are unable to consider the landlord’s handling of the defects reported since its final response until such time any complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. However, we will consider if the landlord has adhered to any actions agreed during the complaints process. The resident has been aware of this.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding defects in the property

  1. The DLP for the property ended in May 2020 however because of the COVID-19 lockdown, the landlord extended this to September 2020.

September 2020 to July 2021

  1. At end of defect inspection on 3 September 2020, the landlord agreed a final list of approximately 30 snagging items and ‘defects’. This included:
    1. An issue with the downstairs toilet causing a foul smell.
    2. Dips in the garden.
    3. Patio (2 slabs “rocking”).
    4. Front bedroom window leaking.
    5. Damage to the bathroom and kitchen flooring.
    6. Doors to shed being mis-aligned.
    7. An issue with tumble dryer venting.
    8. Low water pressure from the outside tap.
    9. Carpet not gripping on the stairs.
  2. When the landlord sent the list to the resident on 22 September 2020, it told him the developer had until 16 October 2020 to complete these. This was in line with the landlord’s defects policy which makes clear that it is the developer’s responsibility to complete defects raised during the DLP. However, none were completed by the deadline. On 5 November 2020 the landlord confirmed to the resident it had appointed its own contractor to complete the outstanding items due to “difficulties” with the developer. The landlord acted appropriately in the circumstances, therefore, the resident reasonably expected that all items would be completed by the landlord in a timely manner going forward.
  3. The landlord promised at this time to prioritise the issue with the downstairs toilet (1 of 3 in the property) which the resident had first raised in December 2019. It arranged for a close circuit television (CCTV) survey of the drain which was completed by a subcontractor on 18 November 2020. This report stated that all drainage pipe work was structurally sound and in a free-flowing condition. However, a blockage was found in an above ground pipe which was cleared. Although this left the toilet operational, within 4 to 5 weeks, the resident informed the landlord that the foul odour remained. As the ongoing reports of smells indicated its initial attempt to resolve this issue had not worked, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to further investigate the issue. While it did re-raise this with its contractor in March 2021, there is no record of the contractor revisiting this issue during the next 3 months. The landlord’s delay in reinvestigating this issue, was unreasonable.
  4. It was only after further contact from the resident expressing concern regarding the lack of a resolution, did the landlord make an appointment on 21 June 2021 for an alternative contractor to investigate the ongoing smells. They visited on 1 July 2021 and recommended replacement of the “dervo vale” in the soil stack.
  5. Regarding other items on the list, it is evident the contractor made visits to the property to undertake the works between 9 November 2020 and May 2021. It is noted that during this timeframe the resident asked the landlord to add strip lighting in the kitchen to the defects list as this had stopped working. The landlord told him that as the time for reporting defects had passed, it would not be adding anything else to the list. This was in line with its defects policy which states items cannot be added after expiry of the DLP. The landlord is also not liable under the lease to repair lighting as such its response was reasonable.
  6. However, on 19 May 2021, the resident raised a concern with the landlord regarding the pace of works suggesting that all but 5 or 6 items were still outstanding despite being told they would be completed by 31 May 2021. The landlord did not dispute the resident’s list of outstanding items at the time. The landlord has since told the Ombudsman that lockdowns due to COVID-19 in 2020 and early 2021 led to a large back log of cases that affected its service delivery. This Service recognises that the lockdowns would have impacted timescales of repairs and works. Nonetheless, many of the items on the defects list were still outstanding by the end of May 2021. As this was more than 6 months after the landlord took responsibility and around 18 months after the resident moved into the property, this indicates an unreasonable delay in the circumstances. This was a failing in the service provided by the landlord.
  7. The landlord however did take steps during June and July 2021 to progress the works. Both the contractor and the landlord’s surveyor attended the property to carry out works and assess outstanding items including the garden works. This was appropriate however it is unclear from the evidence if any further items were completed.

August 2021 to August 2022

  1. The landlord cancelled an appointment it made for the contractor and subcontractor to complete the work to the soil stack on 13 August 2021. While the landlord re-booked this for 8 September 2021, the appointment was recorded as no access. The landlord then had difficulty re-booking this work in with the resident as it is evident relations between the parties by this stage had become strained. The resident had disputed that the contractor had attended on 8 September 2021, he was also unhappy that the landlord did not provide call backs from a manager requested on 2 occasions. He also expressed concern about the extent of the work still outstanding.
  2. The landlord’s internal emails show it chased its contractor regarding re-attending the toilet job in late September 2021. This was appropriate however it is unclear from the landlord’s records if any further attempts were made following this to resolve the foul odour. There are no records of the contractor attending the property to complete other repairs over the next 3 months. This indicates little or no progress was made in completing the repairs during this timeframe. This is indicative of poor management by the landlord of the outstanding repairs. There is also no evidence of the landlord providing a call back from a manager as per the resident’s request. This shows poor communication by the landlord.
  3. When the landlord asked the resident on 17 December 2021 about which of the defects were still outstanding, the resident expressed frustration that the landlord was unaware of the status of the works. He did not confirm which were outstanding. Following this the landlord emailed the resident on 14 January 2022 to re-book attendance of the contractor to complete outstanding works, however, the resident did not respond.
  4. On 3 February 2022 an appointment was agreed by the resident for the contractor (and flooring subcontractor) to attend on 16 February 2022 however, this was recorded as no access as they reported there was no answer at the property. On the same day the resident called the landlord advising that he wanted all appointments to be arranged and then contacted with the dates. The landlord was aware the resident’s son has autism and that work being carried at the property caused him distress. The landlord is required to give reasonable notice of the repair appointments so that the resident could work around these. It is evident that there had been prior occasions when the contractor attended without reasonable notice or without the resident being aware of the works to be undertaken for example on 9 November 2020. This was unreasonable in the circumstances. However, during the call on 16 February 2022, the landlord offered to re-attend on 15 March 2022 to continue with works, but this offer was not taken up by the resident. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably by attempting to arrange appointments during this timeframe.
  5. On 16 March 2022 the landlord suggested the resident look into arranging his own contractors to complete the defects and indicated that it would be prepared to cover the cost. The landlord referenced that the resident had not been happy with the quality of some of the work and said if he obtained quotes, it would compare these with its own costing of the work to reach an appropriate settlement amount. On 22 April 2022 the landlord offered to pay the resident £5,274.00 in full and final settlement based on costings of the remaining works by its contractor. It repeated its offer on 18 May 2022 and 16 June 2022 when it also confirmed another option was for its contractor to continue with completing the outstanding defects.
  6. Bearing in mind the delays and prior issues in completing the items, the willingness shown by the landlord to consider alternative solutions to resolving the situation, was reasonable. At this point the resident raised a complaint in which he explained there were discrepancies between the items stated as outstanding by the landlord and the work that was needed. He also said the landlord’s reluctance to speak to him on the phone or meet at the property was hampering the resolution of the issues. The resident said he was unhappy with the repairs to the shed and he felt he had been “fobbed” off regarding water pressure from the outside tap. He asked the landlord to call him and meet at the property so he could show it the outstanding works.
  7. There is no evidence of the landlord calling or visiting the resident following his complaint despite his requests of the same. This would have been appropriate in the circumstances in order expedite a resolution. The landlord’s failure to so indicates an unwillingness to listen to the resident or take appropriate steps to resolve the complaint.

August 2022 to August 2023

  1. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 4 August 2022, the landlord reiterated the 3 options offered to resolve the defects. It also told the resident it would speak to its aftercare team regarding the perceived discrepancies between the 2 lists and call him “next week”. This Service has not seen any evidence of the landlord following through with these promises. This is further evidence of the landlord failing to act reasonably. This would have caused distress and undermined the resident’s trust in its handling of the issues.
  2. The landlord however then sent an email to the resident on 24 November 2022 asking which option the resident wished to follow regarding the outstanding defects. It asked the resident to respond by 1 December 2022 however it did not receive any reply. The landlord wrote again to the resident later in December 2022 but again it did not receive any response. The resident called the landlord around 2 months later chasing the repairs and explaining he had not been in touch due to family issues. The landlord responded on 23 February 2023 telling the resident that due to the amount of time that had passed, it was unable to re‐open the defects. It said however, it would honour it previous offer to pay him £5,274.00 so he could complete the defects using his own contractors.
  3. Given that the landlord had received no contact from the resident during the prior 6 months, the landlord’s response was reasonable. However, on 13 March 2023 the resident explained to the landlord that he believed the lack of resolution was because it had been unwilling to provide clarification on works still outstanding. Following this, the landlord agreed to carry out a further inspection of the outstanding items. By agreeing to the resident’s request to revisit the list of outstanding defects, the landlord showed a commitment to resolving the issues for the resident.
  4. The inspection went ahead on 23 May 2023 following which the landlord sent the resident a schedule of defects on 9 June 2023. This listed 18 items including the repair to the downstairs’ toilet. It asked the resident to review the items and explained that the contractor confirmed they would need 1 weeks’ access to his home to complete works from 8 am to 5 pm. Later that day however the landlord emailed the resident offering to pay him £2,500 in full and final settlement of the garden works (1 of the 18 items on the list). The resident subsequently accepted an increased offer of £3,880 from the landlord which covered his quote for garden works.
  5. After the landlord provided clarification on 2 items queried by the resident, the works were booked in to start on 29 August 2023. The landlord confirmed the work commencement date in its stage 2 final complaint response when it also stated it would continue to monitor the work until completion.
  6. Therefore, by reinspecting the property and by reaching an agreement with the resident regarding the outstanding items and also in regard to providing a payment for the garden works, the landlord demonstrated its ability to work effectively with the resident in order to progress the works.
  7. In summary, there have been excessive delays in the landlord completing the defects since it agreed in November 2020 to resolve 30 items outstanding at the end of the defects inspection. Little progress was made over the next 6 months however much of this delay was caused by the impact of the COVID-19 lockdowns. Over the next 2 years there were periods when the landlord reasonably managed and progressed the repairs. However, at times its poor communication with the resident in particular its failure to provide call backs or unwillingness to communicate by phone as per the resident’s preference, created barriers and delays.
  8. Also, the landlord’s reluctance to re-inspect the property when requested by the resident either to quality check work carried out by its contractor or review progress, further hampered a resolution. However, the landlord is not responsible for all delays as there were instances of the resident failing to respond or engage with the landlord. On occasions its contractors were not able to gain access to the property despite notice of appointments being given and agreed by the resident.
  9. It is clear from the landlord’s evidence that it attended the property following its final response to complete the outstanding defects. This indicates the landlord took the action it agreed in its final response which was appropriate. However, as mentioned above, the outstanding defects were not fully resolved at this time. Furthermore, despite the landlord and contractors attending on additional occasions most recently in September 2024, they remain unresolved. We are unable to consider the landlord’s handling of the defects after the date of its final response however we have included an appropriate recommendation below.
  10. As well as assessing any failings by the landlord, the Ombudsman also considers if it took any steps to put these right during the complaints process. As mentioned above, the landlord offered alternative solutions to resolve the issues when progress to complete the works stalled. It then agreed to ‘re-open’ the resident’s case and re-inspect the defects despite an absence of any communication from the resident for 6 months. In its final complaint response, the landlord also acknowledged some of the failings identified in this investigation including in relation to its poor communication. This shows a willingness to learn from the complaint to avoid the same situation reoccurring. In addition, the landlord offered the resident £450 in compensation in recognition of its failings while handling his reports of defects in the property.
  11. Therefore, the landlord took some action to put right its failings. However, bearing in mind the length of the delays, the number of failings and the impact caused by these, the compensation it offered was insufficient to resolve the complaint. This is indicative of maladministration by the landlord. In the circumstances, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £350 in compensation for distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to him and his household. This amount is consistent with this Service’s guidance on remedies where there has been a significant impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident raised his stage 1 complaint on 16 June 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 39 working days later, on 10 August 2022. This was inconsistent with the landlord’s complaints policy which gave a 10-working day timescale.
  2. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 23 May 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 final response 52 working days later, on 4 August 2023. Again, this was inappropriate as it was outside the 20-working day timescale in its complaints process.
  3. The delay by the landlord in providing its complaint responses was a failing and prolonged the complaints process. However, in its stage 2 final response the landlord offered the resident £200 in compensation for the delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint. In the circumstances, this Service is satisfied that the remedy offered by the landlord was proportionate to the delay and inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore, we consider the redress offered by the landlord put right its failing while handling the resident’s complaint, as such it provided reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding defects in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the related complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord within 4 weeks to:
    1. Provide an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
    2. Pay additional compensation of £350 for distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused while handling his reports of defects (£800 including the amount offered during its complaints process).
    3. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £200 in the compensation offered during its complaints process in relation to complaint handling failings.
    2. Continue to make reasonable efforts and work with the resident to resolve the outstanding defects.