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

Red Kite Community Housing Limited (202314847)

Back to Top

   A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314847

Red Kite Community Housing Limited

20 March 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. Leaks to the resident’s property.
    2. Subsequent repair works.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The resident suffers from anxiety and depression and has mobility issues, which the landlord is aware of. The resident has been represented in part by a family member in bringing her complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman. For ease of reference, both the resident and her representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
  2. On 16 December 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that there was a burst pipe near the boiler in the kitchen in her property. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day and identified that a pipe fitting was leaking. They put the fitting back in place and tightened it.
  3. The resident reported a leak under her kitchen sink on 6 January 2023. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day. They identified that the leak was due to a fitting having come off the water supply pipe. They noted that there were puddles of water in the living room, hallway and kitchen. The contractor installed a new pipe fitting and cleared the water from the floor. On 7 January 2023, a contractor switched off the gas supply at the resident’s property due to concerns over a gas leak. On 9 January 2023, the landlord installed a dehumidifier to remove moisture from the ground floor of the property. The landlord’s repair records, show that its contractor reinstated the gas at the property on 10 January 2023.
  4. On 23 January 2023, the resident reported a leak coming from her hot water tank in the upstairs airing cupboard. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day and identified a leak in the pipework. They replaced the pipe and recommended replacing the ceiling of the downstairs hallway cupboard as this was directly underneath the airing cupboard. They said the floor of the airing cupboard was very wet and could give way under the weight of the tank.
  5. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord over the phone on 7 February 2023. The landlord called the resident on 8 February 2023 to discuss her complaint. The resident said:
    1. She wanted the landlord to investigate why the leaks had happened and to ensure that they were not linked.
    2. The leaks had damaged her flooring and other belongings.
    3. Her gas and electricity had been switched off after the leaks. She said she would let the landlord know how long this had been for.
    4. The landlord’s contractor had damaged her oven door when pulling it out to switch off the gas.
    5. She wanted compensation for the cost of running the dehumidifier.
  6. On 16 February 2023, the resident reported that there was a leak in her loft. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day and identified that this was due to broken tiles on the roof. The contractor’s notes state that a significant amount of water had collected above the resident’s bedroom ceiling, so the contractor pierced holes in it to allow the water to drain through. The contractor advised that the landlord repair the tiles on the roof and replace and redecorate the bedroom ceiling. On 17 February 2023, the landlord’s contractor identified that there was a leak to a compression joint to the cold-water tank in the loft. On 18 February 2023, the landlord’s contractors repaired the tiles on the roof.
  7. The landlord told the resident on 21 February 2023 that it needed more time to investigate her complaint and would respond by the end of the week.
  8. On 23 February 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
    1. There was no evidence that the leaks the resident had reported were related, nor that any of the leaks were caused as a result of poor workmanship.
    2. The resident had told the landlord she would claim on her contents insurance for the damage caused by the leaks. The landlord advised her to also claim for the damage to the oven on her contents insurance.
    3. The resident had told it she had to have her heating on continuously to dry out her home. It offered her £25 to assist with the cost of this.
    4. It would reimburse her £103.40 for the cost of running the dehumidifier, broken down as £4.70 per day for 22 days.
    5. It had scheduled an appointment for 6 March 2023 to assess the damage caused by the leak including the damaged ceiling in the resident’s bedroom and the damage in the airing cupboard.
  9. On 7 March 2023, the resident called the landlord to inform it that no-one had attended to carry out the inspection booked for the previous day. On 8 March 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to rearrange the inspection for 13 March 2023. The resident requested that the landlord inspect the following damage caused by the leaks: mould coming through the wallpaper in the living room, the living room doors not opening, damage to a kitchen cupboard, the floor upstairs, the door to the airing cupboard, and doors to 2 bedrooms not closing. The resident said that asbestos found on the hallway cupboard door needed removing before the door could be replaced.
  10. On, or around, 20 March 2023, the landlord identified that there was a slow leak to the pipework in the downstairs hallway cupboard.
  11. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 March 2023 to advise it that an appointment booked for the following day could not go ahead as the asbestos contractor had not yet removed the asbestos found in the hallway cupboard.
  12. On 27 March 2023, the landlord contacted the resident. It said it had increased its compensation offer to £50. It sent her a schedule of works as follows:
    1. On 20 April 2023, it would repair the slow leak in the downstairs hallway cupboard. It would also realign the kitchen cupboard door, ease and adjust the bedroom doors, refix and make good the lower panel of the upstairs airing cupboard, replace the door to the cupboard in the hallway, and apply a mould wash to the living room walls.
    2. On 3 and 4 May 2023, it would carry out plastering and repainting in the bedroom. However, it would need to check whether there was any asbestos in the bedroom ceiling. It would also replace roof tiles.
    3. On 12 June 2023, it would replace the ceiling and plasterboard in the downstairs hallway cupboard and replace the boards or reinforce the wood underneath the hot water tank in the upstairs airing cupboard as this was very wet.
  13. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 March 2023. She said she would start to clear the areas the landlord’s contractors would be working in. She said that the contractors were due to remove asbestos from the downstairs hallway cupboard on 20 April 2023, therefore the landlord would need to reschedule the other works it had planned for that day. She asked that the landlord coordinate any further tests and removal of asbestos prior to the works scheduled to the bedroom ceiling. She told the landlord the tiles on the roof had already been replaced. However, she said it needed to replace the loft insulation.
  14. On 30 March 2023, the landlord told the resident it had rescheduled the remedial works booked for 20 April 2023, to 2 May 2023. It said there was asbestos in the bedroom ceiling, and this would be removed by its asbestos contractor on 3 May 2023. It had booked an electrician to isolate the ceiling light in the bedroom for the same day.
  15. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 April 2023. She said the landlord’s contractors had told her that the loft insulation needed replacing due to damage from the leak to the roof. She said that the £50 compensation the landlord had offered was not sufficient reimbursement for her having to keep the heating on all day and night after the leaks.
  16. The landlord contacted the resident on 25 May 2023. It said it would replace and paint a door on 26 May 2023. It said it would replace the cupboard ceiling on 30 May 2023.
  17. On 2 June 2023, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it would attend on 20 June 2023 to inspect the following issues which she had told it were not yet complete: the painting of woodwork in the bedroom, the repair of the hallway doorframe and the replacement of the hallway cupboard ceiling.
  18. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 12 June 2023. She said she had been delayed in doing so due to suffering from depression caused by the frequency of the leaks and the landlord’s unorganised approach to the repairs. She said:
    1. She had been away from home at the time of the leak from the kitchen sink. As there were large amounts of water all over the downstairs of her property, she could not return home for 2 weeks and had to pay £100 to change her flight and had incurred extra subsistence costs.
    2. In relation to the second leak, the first contractor had not been able to identify the source. A second contractor came out but said this was a cold-water leak and they could only deal with hot–water leaks. They were unable to switch the water off. A third contractor attended at 1am and repaired the leak.
    3. She had had to call the landlord and its contractors multiple times a week to try and get appointments for the works and waited for over 20 minutes each time she tried to get through. She had been left to coordinate the repairs between the landlord and its contractors. After the landlord sent her its schedule of works, she had to ask it to rearrange these so that asbestos could be removed before repairs took place. An electrician had arrived to make safe the ceiling light after the bedroom ceiling had already been removed. She often had no notification that contractors were due and on other occasions contractors did not show up for prebooked appointments.
    4. The landlord had taken no steps to investigate the damage its contractors had caused to her oven.
    5. The landlord had offered her inadequate compensation for the additional heating costs.
    6. She had to claim separately on her contents insurance for each leak and her excess was £600 per claim.
    7. The repairs to her property were not complete and she was still having to sleep on the sofa.
    8. The leaks and the repairs had caused her mental health to deteriorate.
  19. The landlord contacted the resident on 10 July 2023. It said it was unable to accept her stage 2 complaint due to the length of time that had elapsed since its stage 1 complaint response. It said it would open a new complaint as there were some issues which required further investigation.
  20. On 20 July 2023, the landlord issued a complaint response. It said:
    1. The delays to it completing repairs to the resident’s bedroom ceiling was unacceptable.
    2. It had scheduled a further appointment for 25 July 2023 to carry-out repairs to the ceiling and walls in the downstairs hallway cupboard.
    3. It offered the resident an additional £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience for the delay in it completing the repairs.
    4. It said it would assess what it could learn from the resident’s complaint in relation to improving its communication and taking ownership of repairs.
  21. The landlord’s repair records show it completed the works to the downstairs hallway cupboard on 17 August 2023.
  22. The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 18 August 2023. She said there had been 6 leaks to her property since December 2022. She said the compensation was not reflective of the distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the leaks. She said she wanted the landlord to pay the £600 excess she had had to pay on her contents insurance claim.
  23. On 16 November 2023, the resident complained to the Ombudsman again. She said the landlord’s poor maintenance and upkeep of the property had caused severe damage to the property and to her belongings. The landlord had asked her to clear out a cupboard which contained asbestos. She said she had had to sleep on her sofa for months due to the severe damp in her bedroom and the risk of the bedroom ceiling collapsing.
  24. On 7 March 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord had not repaired skirting boards damaged by the leaks. She said that despite the mould wash the landlord had carried out in the living room, the mould had returned. She said that her contents insurer had a deal with certain contractors and therefore did not replace items on a like-for-like basis.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. As noted above, the resident said that the landlord has not repaired skirting boards damaged by the leaks. She has also said that the mould in her living room has returned. She said the landlord had asked her to clear out a cupboard which contained asbestos. These issues are outside the scope of this investigation. This is because the Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she can complain to the landlord. she may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman for a separate investigation if she remains dissatisfied once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. It is recommended however, that the landlord inspect the skirting boards and the mould in the living room and carries out any necessary repairs.
  2. The resident has mentioned in her complaint that her health was affected by the landlord’s handling of the leaks and the subsequent remedial works. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments about her health. However, it is beyond our remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. We can, however, consider any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s health concerns.
  3. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she is unhappy with how her insurer dealt with her contents insurance claim. Complaints about the actions of insurance companies are outside of our jurisdiction. The resident may be able to refer a complaint about this issue to the Financial Ombudsman Service, if she wishes to pursue it further, once it has exhausted the insurer’s internal complaints process.

Policies and procedures

  1. Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of her property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 2 to 24 hours. Its policy states that it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy in operation at the time of the resident’s complaint states that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 25 working days.
  4. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Code) in operation at the time of the resident’s complaint, set out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code stated that landlords must confirm the complaint stage in writing in each complaint response. The Code also stated that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the leaks to the resident’s property

  1. The Ombudsman understands the fact that there were several leaks to her property within a few months will have been very distressing for the resident. However, the leaks were unforeseen and there is no evidence to suggest that any of the leaks were related or were caused by poor workmanship. Landlords are only expected to carry-out repairs once issues are reported to them and are not obliged to carry out general checks on pipes or tanks prior to any issues being reported. The landlord’s records show that after each report of a leak, it attended the same day to make the leak safe. This was in line with its repairs policy which states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours.
  2. The resident told the landlord it had taken its contractors several attempts to identify and repair the leak in her downstairs hallway cupboard. It is understandable that this may have been frustrating for the resident, as the leak was not repaired until the early hours of the morning. However, it can take more than one attempt to resolve leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset and in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily mean there was a service failure by the landlord, provided it was making reasonable efforts to identify the causes and carry out repairs.
  3. The landlord identified a further slow leak to the pipework in the downstairs hallway cupboard, on or around, 20 March 2023. Landlords are expected to fix slow/containable leaks within their timescales for completing routine repairs. The landlord acted appropriately in repairing this leak on 20 April 2023, which was within its 20-working day timescale for doing so.
  4. The resident claimed for the damage to her floor coverings and belongings on her contents insurance. The landlord would not be responsible for refunding the excess the resident paid on any claims. This is because there is no evidence that the leaks were caused as a result of the landlord’s action or inaction. The resident was responsible for repairs to the decoration to her home and this included items such as floor coverings and wallpaper. The landlord acted appropriately in reimbursing the resident for the cost of running the dehumidifier at her property to reduce any damp caused by the leaks.
  5. The landlord acted reasonably in its handling of the leaks to the resident’s property, therefore we find there was no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the subsequent repair works

  1. The landlord’s contractor’s notes of 27 January 2023 recommended that the floor underneath the hot water tank in the airing cupboard be replaced as a matter of urgency, as it was very wet and could be at risk of collapse. The landlord has provided evidence showing it was not able to gain access to carry out these works on 2 occasions. It told the Ombudsman that therefore it closed this repair. This was a failing. Where a safety risk has been identified, the landlord is obliged to continue to attempt to carry out repairs to make the issue safe and should follow its processes to gain entry to the property if necessary. Where appropriate, the landlord should work with the resident to find out why access has not been granted and try to overcome any barriers to allowing access. These repairs did not take place until 17 August 2023, which was a significant delay.
  2. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord told the resident it would arrange an inspection for 6 March 2023 to establish what follow-on works were needed. The evidence shows that the landlord missed this appointment as the resident called it to say no-one had attended. This was a failing which will have likely caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience.
  3. The landlord sent the resident a schedule of works on 27 March 2023 in relation to the works needed to repair the damage caused by the leaks. However, it is clear from the correspondence between the landlord and the resident, that it had not planned these adequately as the resident had to point out that certain works such as checks for, and the removal of asbestos, should take place prior to the replacement of the bedroom ceiling and the hallway cupboard door. It told the resident it had booked repairs to the roof in May 2023; however, the resident had to inform it that these repairs had already been completed. On another occasion the landlord told the resident it could not see all the works booked by the contractor and asked her to contact the contractor directly. The landlord’s lack of clear planning and oversight left the resident having to liaise with both the landlord and its contractors to ensure that the repair works were carried out in the right order and this led to delays in these being completed. The replacement of the resident’s bedroom ceiling was raised by the contractor on 16 February 2023, yet this work was not carried out until May 2023. It was positive that the landlord apologised for this delay and acknowledged that it was unacceptable.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised the resident to claim for the damage to her oven door on her contents’ insurance. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with any evidence to show that it took steps to investigate how this damage was caused. This was unreasonable. The landlord should have investigated the issue to see whether it could establish whether its contractor had caused the damage, and if they had, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to repair or replace the oven door. It is not practical for the landlord to investigate the damage to the oven door now, given the length of time that has passed and the availability of evidence after such a long time. However, we can consider the time, trouble and inconvenience this error will have likely caused the resident, including the disappointment caused by the fact that the oven claim will not be investigated now. The landlord should pay compensation for this.
  5. The landlord has apologised for its errors in this case and has offered the resident a total of £100 compensation, not including the £50 it offered in reimbursement of the additional heating costs. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to compensation. The guidance states that where maladministration is identified that adversely affected the resident, compensation of £100-£600 should be considered. The landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation in addition to the £100 it previously offered her through its complaints process, bringing the total amount of compensation for this aspect of the complaint to £300. This amount better reflects the impact of the landlord’s failures on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident attempted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 12 June 2023. The landlord refused to escalate her complaint. It said that this was due to the resident not providing further evidence that would alter the outcome of its stage 1 complaint response and due to the length of time that had passed since it had responded to her stage 1 complaint. However, the resident had told the landlord that she had been delayed in escalating the complaint due to not having been well. It would have been reasonable therefore for the landlord to take this into account. The resident had also provided clear reasons for wanting to escalate her complaint such as the landlord’s response to the damage to her oven, asking it to consider increasing its reimbursement for the costs of additional heating, as well as its contractors missing appointments and turning up without making appointments.
  2. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £25 towards the additional cost of heating. It later increased this offer to £50. In her escalation request, the resident told the landlord that she did not consider this to be a sufficient amount, however the landlord did not respond to this aspect of her complaint. This was a failing. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, set out above, states that landlords must respond to all points raised in a resident’s complaint. The landlord should reimburse the resident for the cost of additional heating, should she provide evidence that these costs amounted to more than £50.
  3. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request that it reimburse her for the costs of her staying away from the property for 2 weeks. This was a failing as it should have responded to this. However, we have not seen evidence to show that the resident told the landlord in advance that she would not be returning to her property. Therefore, the landlord would not have had an opportunity to assess whether the property was habitable or if it could be made habitable, nor to look at alternative accommodation, if appropriate. Generally speaking, a property would only be considered uninhabitable if it was unsafe to enter/stay in or if it lacked basic facilities for washing or sleeping. We have not been provided with evidence that the property was uninhabitable, therefore we will not ask the landlord to consider reimbursing the resident’s costs for the period she was not living at the property.
  4. The landlord’s complaint response of 20 July 2023 did not say what stage the complaint was at. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and may have caused the resident confusion as to whether the landlord was responding to her complaint at stage 1 or stage 2 of its process. The landlord did however set out referral rights to the Ombudsman in its complaint response of 20 July 2023, which means we have the authority to consider the resident’s complaint even though the landlord did not issue a stage 2 complaint response.
  5. The landlord’s errors in its handling of the associated complaint amount to service failure. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where we have identified service failure, £50-£100 compensation should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the errors in its complaint handling. It is recommended that the landlord also carry out staff training to ensure that it clearly sets out the complaint stage in its complaint responses and that it responds to all complaint points raised.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the leaks to the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repair works.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that the Ombudsman is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date:
    1. Pay the resident £200 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the repair works to her property. This is in addition to the £100 already offered through its complaints process and the £50 reimbursement it offered for the cost of additional heating, which it should also pay, if it has not done so already.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Inspects the skirting boards and the mould in the living room and carries out repairs if necessary.
    2. Carries out staff training to ensure that it clearly sets out the complaint stage in its complaint responses and that it responds to all complaint points raised.
    3. Reimburses the resident for the cost of additional heating, should she provide evidence that this came to more than £50.