Settle Group (202338563)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338563 & 202320332

Settle Group

23 April 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Drainage issues.
2. Reports of damage to the resident’s conservatory and sheds.
3. Repairs to the kitchen floor.
4. The resident’s concerns about a gas meter.
5. Requests to replace a back door.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 2 bed house. Since moving into the property, she erected her own conservatory. She has lived at the property with her 2 adult children since September 2004.
In 2022/23 the resident reported being unhappy with the landlord’s handling of window repairs. In response to her complaints, the landlord replaced the windows and offered £250 compensation. In a call to the Ombudsman in April 2025, she said that she was happy with the compensation offer and new windows. She said she did not wish to pursue this part of her complaint.
In her request to escalate her complaint about windows on 5 May 2023, the resident reported further problems to the landlord. She said:
1. the kitchen floor was damp;
2. she was concerned about the location of her neighbour’s gas meter;
3. there was a section of soffit board missing on the roof where it joined with the neighbours; and,
4. the sewer was blocked and water was overflowing into her garden.
She said the problems were causing damp and mould in the bedroom. She reiterated these points in a further email to the landlord on 18 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 25 May 2023.
In June 2023 the landlord inspected the property and found no mould in the kitchen or bathroom. It found the down pipe had come away from the gutter and raised the associated repairs. It found the kitchen floor was dry and there was no evidence of a leak. It inspected the neighbour’s property and found no issues with the location of the gas meter. It consulted with the gas network distribution provider who agreed with its assessment.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 23 June 2023. It said it would arrange a contractor to investigate the blocked drains and speak to her neighbour. Its records show that it replaced part of the downpipe in May 2023.
The landlord installed an extractor fan in the bathroom in July 2023. It issued a follow-up response letter to the resident on 20 July 2023. Amongst other issues, it said that it planned to conduct a CCTV survey of the drains on 10 August 2023. It took readings from the kitchen floor which showed it was dry. It found no evidence to show it needed to complete further works to the kitchen floor. It provided a list of actions with dates it planned to complete the repairs.
The resident replied to the landlord on 21 July 2023. She said she was happy with the landlord’s attempts to resolve the drain issues and install an extractor fan in the bathroom. She was concerned about the condition of the kitchen floor. She was anxious to see the results from the drain survey. She was worried that the neighbour had tampered with a gas meter attached to their property next to her kitchen window.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 7 August 2023 it discussed the gas meter. It had sought advice from the gas network distribution provider and completed an informal visit to assess the meter. There were no issues with the condition of the meter. It noted that it had no jurisdiction to enforce any material changes to the meter as there was no known risk to the resident.
The landlord’s contractor completed the CCTV drain survey on 10 August 2023. It found no cracks or damage to the drains. However, it chose to jet the drains to make sure they were clear.
In a call to the landlord in September 2023, the resident reiterated her concerns about the position of the meter. The landlord advised her to contact the gas network distribution provider to report concerns about her neighbour’s gas meter.
The landlord called the resident on 19 September 2023. It confirmed that it had mould washed and installed an extractor fan in the bathroom. It agreed to get roofers to check the gutters surrounding the property. It confirmed that the CCTV drain survey found no problems with the drain.
The landlord offered the resident a move to another property in December 2023. She withdrew her application for the property when the landlord said she would have to remove the conservatory and her sheds before leaving. She told the landlord she would be unable to cover the costs involved.
In December 2023 the landlord replaced the gutters at the property. The resident reported that the works were unsuccessful and water was pouring onto her conservatory. The landlord returned in January 2024 to complete further works to the gutters.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaints to the Ombudsman in January 2024. We wrote to the landlord on 1 March 2024 to ask that it respond to her complaints about:
1. Reports of damage to the resident’s conservatory and sheds.
2. Repairs to the kitchen floor.
3. Concerns about the gas meter.
4. Replacement of a wooden back door.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 March 2024. It summarised the actions it had taken in 2023. It determined that it had acted on her reports. It found no record of any repairs reported for the back door. The conservatory and sheds were the resident’s responsibility but it offered to help her move by removing the conservatory and sheds for her.
The resident responded to the landlord on 22 March 2024. She thanked it for its decision regarding the conservatory and sheds. She asked it to remove the shed as soon as possible but leave the conservatory until after she moved. She wanted the landlord to review its position regarding the back door and replace it with a UPVC door.
On 25 March 2024, the landlord said it would review the option of installing a UPVC back door. It agreed to progress the removal of the shed and put the conservatory removal on hold. However, if the resident chose to stay at the property it would not remove either.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 2 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the request on 4 April 2024. It issued its stage 2 response on 23 May 2024. It said:
1. It had no concerns about the position of the gas meter but agreed to speak to the neighbour and update the resident.
2. It described the actions taken to survey the drains and work done to repair the downpipes and soakaway. It planned to install a non-return valve to stop the drains overflowing into her garden.
3. It agreed to reassess the kitchen floor, remove a floor tile and test the sub floor.
4. It had passed works to a contractor to assess the back door for replacement.
5. It would remove the conservatory and shed to help the resident move.
6. It provided an action plan setting out dates and works planned for the property.
7. It apologised for the delays and contacts to repair the gutters and treat the damp/mould in the bathroom and bedroom. It felt its communication had been poor and it should have addressed the issues sooner. It offered £500 compensation for her time and trouble.
In June 2024 the landlord inspected the kitchen floor. It found a leak from a waste pipe for the resident’s dishwater/washing machine and repaired it. Although the resident disputes that the cause of the leak was from the waste pipe.
It replaced the kitchen floor in July 2024. Also in June 2024, the landlord inspected the neighbour’s gas meter. The neighbour showed it a copy of a tightness test for the meter confirming it was safe. It confirmed the outcome to the resident on 5 July 2024.
The resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response on 24 June 2024. The landlord met with the resident to discuss her concerns and confirm the outstanding repairs on 22 July 2024. The landlord replaced the back door with a UPVC door on 30 October 2024.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her complaints to the landlord, the resident raised issues related to a boundary dispute with her neighbour. Under paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which seek to raise again matters which the Ombudsman has already decided on. This Service published a determination relating to the boundary dispute under reference 201809973 in August 2019. Therefore, we have not considered matters related to the position of the boundary as part of this investigation. We have, however, considered the landlord’s response to the impact the changes had on the resident’s ability to complete repairs to her conservatory below.
In her complaints to the landlord, the resident was unhappy with repairs to the gutters and treating of damp and mould. However, she was satisfied with the landlord’s offer of redress for these issues in its final response on 23 May 2024 (including the offer of £500 compensation). Neither party has disputed the timeline, and the landlord has resolved the related repairs. Therefore, the Ombudsman has not investigated this part of her complaint further.

Policy and procedures

The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy list windows (where they are secure), blocked drains, and leaking gutters as routine repairs. It says that it aims to complete all routine repairs within 28 days, but this may change depending on risk.

Drainage issues

The resident first reported problems with a blocked drain on 5 May 2023. The landlord should have scheduled an inspection of the drains within 28 days of the report in accordance with its repairs policy. It did not and this was a failing by the landlord.
The landlord did not reflect on this oversight in its stage 2 response on 23 June 2023. It missed the opportunity to provide the date for the survey in its stage 2 response. This was also a failure and caused the resident additional time and trouble.
There were overall delays of around 3 months between the report in May and the survey in August 2023. This was above the 28 days set out in its repair policy. In its follow on response on 20 July 2023, the landlord appropriately provided the date to survey the drains. However, it did not consider the delay.
Once it completed the survey on 10 August 2023, it conducted further investigation into the resident’s reports by visiting the neighbour. Despite finding no evidence of damage to the drains, it jetted them to ensure there was no blockage. Its actions were reasonable and showed its intention to remedy any problem with the drains.
The landlord’s records from May 2024 show it returned to conduct further drain surveys. It found an issue with a soakaway and arranged the associated repairs. It conducted a full drain survey and found no significant signs that may cause blockages. Its contractor recommended that it install a non-return valve to protect the property.
The landlord followed through with the contractor’s recommendations and appropriately installed the non-return valve in November 2024. This was to stop the drains overspilling into her garden. The resident confirmed this was successful in her call with the Ombudsman in April 2025.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of drainage issues. Although it scheduled the appropriate surveys and jetted the drains, it did not comply with the timescales set out in its policy and procedures. It missed the opportunity to put things right for the resident in its stage 2 response in June 2023, and follow on response in July 2023. The landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation for the delay in scheduling the works.

Reports of damage to the resident’s conservatory and sheds

Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair. Section 3.12 of the tenancy agreement states that the resident may make improvements or alterations to the property (such as erecting a conservatory) with the landlord’s permission. Section 5.10 of the tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for the maintenance of any shed or other structure in the garden.
In its communication with the resident, the landlord stated that she did not seek permission to erect the conservatory. However, the resident has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of a letter which confirms that the landlord granted permission for the conservatory. However, repairs and maintenance of the conservatory were the resident’s responsibility.
The resident told the landlord that the changes to the boundary made by the neighbour prevented her from accessing the side of her conservatory for repair in February 2023. She reported that the neighbour had encroached into her garden, erected fencing against her shed and restricted access to the conservatory for maintenance. She reiterated these concerns through her complaints in March 2024.
The ‘Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992’ provides provision for anybody who shares a boundary with a neighbour to request access to complete repairs. If a neighbour refuses permission then legal action can be considered to require the neighbour to provide access.
The resident repeated many times in her communication with the landlord that she has a poor relationship with the neighbour. Although it had no repair responsibility for the structure, the landlord could have intervened and offered to contact the neighbour on her behalf about her right to repair. It did not do this early in the timeline, or in its complaint responses, and this caused the resident time and trouble pursuing her complaints.
However, the landlord’s records show that it addressed the resident’s right to repair during a visit to the resident on 22 July 2024. It is positive that the landlord gave the advice even after agreeing to demolish the conservatory on her behalf. In a letter to the Ombudsman on 20 November 2024, the landlord said that if the resident chose to stay at the property and keep the conservatory it would contact the neighbour on her behalf to request access to fix any damage. This is positive and if the resident does choose to remain in the property, it should follow through with this offer.
To replace the gutters in January 2024, the landlord erected scaffolding at the property. On 31 January 2024 the resident reported that the scaffolding had damaged part of her conservatory. The landlord did not address the damage to her conservatory in its complaint responses in March or May 2024 and this was a failure.
In her emails to the landlord in April and June 2024, the resident repeated her concern that the landlord did not address the damage done by the scaffolding. It was not until 5 July 2024 that the landlord offered to pass the damage to the conservatory to its insurer. It appropriately asked for quotes for repairs to the damage. There was an unreasonable delay of around 6 months.
The landlord appropriately met with the resident on 22 July 2024 and assessed the condition of the conservatory. It said the damage was external and did not affect the inside. The structure was watertight but in need of further repairs. If it had conducted this visit or made this offer sooner, it would have reduced the resident’s time and trouble pursuing her complaints.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the resident’s conservatory and sheds. From March 2024 onwards, the landlord repeated its offer to remove the conservatory and sheds on the resident’s behalf. These offers are positive and show the landlord’s understanding of the impact the overall issues have on the resident. It also intervened when the resident said the neighbour had screwed their fence to her shed. It contacted the neighbour and asked them to remove the screws.
However, it should have addressed the damage done to the conservatory by the scaffolding in is complaint responses. It could have given advice and guidance about her repair responsibilities and her right of access sooner. It did not and these caused the resident time and trouble.
The landlord should pay the resident £50 for her time and trouble. This reflects the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies where there has been a minor failure by the landlord in the service provided. The failure to refer the damage to its insurer may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. Especially as the landlord has offered to demolish the structure to assist the resident with her request to move.

Repairs to the kitchen floor

The landlord’s records show the resident first reported problems with the kitchen floor on 3 March 2023. The landlord responded promptly and conducted an inspection on 22 March 2023. Its records show that there was no evidence of damp found during the inspection. It was reasonable to close the repair following the inspection.
When the resident reported the same issues on 5 May 2023, the landlord again conducted a prompt assessment of the floor. When it visited on 2 June 2023, its notes show that it took readings showing the floor was dry. It appropriately clarified its findings in a letter to the resident on 20 July 2023. The landlord’s actions early in the timeline were reasonable, and it was appropriate to rely on the findings from its investigation.
The resident believed the problems resulted from a defective drain, as highlighted in her emails to the landlord during this period. In August 2023 the landlord visited again and its notes show that it determined the drains did not run underneath the kitchen. It could have shared this information with the resident to allay her concerns but there was no record available to the Ombudsman that it did so.
The resident continued to report the issues in October 2023 and in her complaint in March 2024. In its complaint response on 13 March 2024 the landlord fairly determined that it had responded to the resident’s reports and conducted reasonable investigations. However, it could have scheduled a more detailed survey of the floor based on the resident’s description. It did not and this caused the resident additional time and trouble later in the timeline.
In her reports to the landlord on 4 April 2024, the resident said the ground outside the kitchen was sodden, slimy, and damp. The landlord should have inspected the area within 28 days. It did not and its records show that it did not log a new repair until 22 May 2024, which was around 48 days later. This was an unreasonable delay and caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing her complaints.
The landlord missed the opportunity to review its handling of the resident’s reports from April 2024 in its stage 2 response on 23 May 2024. It could have recognised the delay in scheduling the repair and put things right for the resident. However, it did appropriately apologise for its poor communication and passed works to its contractor to conduct a more detailed survey of the kitchen flooring. Its action plan included details on how it would excavate and test the sub-floor. It showed that it was fair, was seeking to put things right, and learning from outcomes.
The work undertaken by the contractor between June and July 2024 was invasive. It required the contractor to remove large sections of the floor and a section of the wall from the living room. The resident highlighted the risks this work posed to her with her breathing difficulties. The landlord did not fully address these concerns, but it did remain in contact with the contractor to ensure that works were progressing. Its records show that it found a leak coming from a waste pipe, which it believed caused the damp floor. It promptly repaired the pipe work and made good the flooring.
The Ombudsman welcomes and encourages landlords to learn from complaints. In this case, the landlord could have reconsidered its compensation offer once it resolved the repairs to the kitchen floor. It was clear from the resident’s communication with the landlord that the work caused her distress and inconvenience. She was without the full use of her kitchen for around 2 weeks. The landlord could have taken the opportunity to reflect on the impact the works had on the resident. It could have considered if the works would have had less impact if had identified them sooner. It did not and this was a failure by the landlord.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen floor. The landlord was reasonable to rely on the outcome of its inspections early in the timeline. It conducted the assessments within the timescales set out in its policy in 2023. It appropriately scheduled a more detailed survey of the floor in its stage 2 response in May 2024.
However, there were some delays in 2024 that it did not address in its complaint handling. The works took around 2 weeks to complete, during which the resident was without full use of her kitchen. The works caused the resident distress and inconvenience and the landlord did not fully address the impact this had on her. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation. This is comprised of £50 for her time and trouble and £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is reflective of the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. There was a service failure which the landlord did not fully address in its complaint handling.

The resident’s concerns about a gas meter

The resident’s records show that she was concerned about the position of the gas meter from around 2018. However, the gas meter services her neighbour’s property. It is not the property of either the resident, or the landlord. The meter is either the property of the gas supplier or the gas network distribution provider.
Even though the landlord had no jurisdiction over the position of the meter, its records show that it attempted to allay the resident’s concerns. When she raised issues with the position of the gas meter in May 2023, the landlord inspected the meter. It was fair in its approach and showed empathy for the resident. Following its visual inspections of the meter in June and August 2023, it was reasonable to explain that it found no risks. It was also reasonable to direct the resident to the gas network distribution provider in September 2023.
The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a gas meter. Throughout its complaint responses the landlord attempted to allay the resident’s concerns. It responses show that it tried to manage the resident’s expectations and explained its lack of jurisdiction. Its explanation of the neighbour’s gas safety certificate in its stage 2 response in May 2024 was further demonstration of this.

Replacement of a back door

The records show that the resident was unhappy with the condition of the back door because other residents had theirs swapped for UPVC. She believed the landlord replaced them as part of a planned maintenance schedule. There were no records available to the Ombudsman related to repairs to this door prior to 2024.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord was fair in its assertion that there was no record to show the door required replacement. It could have scheduled an inspection following the complaint, but it did not. This caused the resident some additional time and trouble pursuing her complaint.
The landlord’s response improved at stage 2 in May 2024. It appropriately scheduled an inspection of the door and suggested that it may replace it with UPVC. Its records show that it conducted the inspection in July 2024 and replaced the door in October 2024.
The Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of requests to replace a back door. The landlord could have followed up its stage 1 response in March 2024 with an inspection of the door. When it did not, the resident took further time and trouble to pursue her complaints. Despite this minor failure by the landlord, there was no record to show that the door was in a state of disrepair. The resident asked the landlord to replace the door and felt it overlooked her during a planned maintenance programme. Although there was no evidence to suggest that it had overlooked her, the landlord appropriately surveyed the door and replaced it within a reasonable period.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of drainage issues.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the resident’s conservatory and sheds.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen floor.
4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a gas meter.
5. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of requests to replace a back door.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £200 compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £50 compensation for the time and trouble caused to her by its delay scheduling the works related to the drainage issues.
  2. £50 for the time and trouble caused to her by its handling of reports of damage to her conservatory and sheds.
  3. £100 for distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its handling of repairs to the kitchen floor.
3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

If it had not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £500 for her time and trouble due to the communication and unannounced appointments offered in its stage 2 response in May 2024.
The landlord should reiterate its offer to contact the neighbour on the resident’s behalf to request access to fix any damage to the conservatory if she chooses to remain at the property.