West Kent Housing Association (202215700)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215700

West Kent Housing Association

27 June 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Increase in the resident’s annual rent and service charges.
2. Communication about annual rent and service charge increases.
3. Handling of the closure of the resident’s parking area.
4. Handling of defects at the resident’s property.
5. Provision of grounds maintenance for which the resident paid a service charge.
6. Response to the resident’s concerns about inadequate street lighting outside her property.
7. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of a 3 bedroom house with the landlord which is a housing association. The resident moved in to the new build property in June 2021. The resident pays rent and service charges to the landlord. The landlord has no known health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
Following her move in June 2021, the resident reported defects to the landlord. This included a leak from the bathroom which affected the downstairs toilet ceiling, a broken bedroom door handle, settlement cracks, incorrect flooring in the dining room, issues with the bath plug, and an excessively worn stair carpet after only 4 months. Further correspondence with the landlord included dissatisfaction with the provision of car parking, street lighting, and grounds maintenance.
On 20 May 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord. She expressed dissatisfaction that her allocated parking had been blocked off by the developer. She informed the landlord that she did not receive an advanced warning. She considered the allocated alternative parking unsuitable due to the risk of damage to her car by children playing in that area.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 27 May 2022. It advised that it would provide its response within 10 working days.
On 24 June 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it was awaiting information from relevant departments to progress her complaint. It said it would have to extend the timescale for its response until 27 June 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 30 June 2022. It acknowledged the inconvenience poor communication caused when its developer undertook car park work. It apologised and offered £50 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP) on 4 July 2022. She considered £50 compensation for the loss of parking “an insult” and considered she should be refunded service charges for street lighting and grounds maintenance.
The landlord recorded the resident’s escalation request on 11 July 2022 and sent its acknowledgement on 12 July 2022. It said it would provide a response by 8 August 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 4 August 2022. It acknowledged poor communication and failures with its complaint handling. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £500. Furthermore, in January 2023 the landlord offered an additional £504.60 as a gesture of goodwill for the resident to replace her stair carpet.
On 6 April 2023 the resident brought her complaint to us. She considered the landlord had let her down and she had suffered stress and upset since living at the property. She wanted the landlord to pay its offer of £500 compensation as well as refunding the rent increase and service charges for street lighting. Her complaint became one we could formerly consider on 20 April 2023.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

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 us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (d) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Increase in the resident’s annual rent and service charges.
Paragraph 42 (d) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
As part of the resident’s complaint she raised concerns regarding the reasonableness and liability for an increase to her rent and service charges.
Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident would be advised to seek free and independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) www.lease-advice.org in relation to how to proceed with a case, should she wish to do so.
While we are unable to determine the reasonableness of the level of rent and service charges applied, we can consider how the landlord communicated the information to the resident when asked.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes that although not raised as a specific complaint point, the resident’s correspondence said that she had felt stressed with the landlord’s handling of her matters.
While we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to establish legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on her health.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where the Ombudsman identifies a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Communication about annual rent and service charge increases

In March 2022 the resident raised dissatisfaction to the landlord regarding a £26.54 per month increase to her rent and service charges. Due to information in the landlord’s recent letter, she considered the charges only applied to flats and rented properties.
There is evidence correspondence continued between the landlord and resident between March to June 2022. Similarly, the landlord communicated about the resident’s questions internally during this period. However, at this stage, it is unclear what caused the delay for the landlord to provide the resident with the calculation information and explanation she requested. The lack of effective communication from the landlord caused time and trouble to the resident as she tried to progress matters.
The landlord’s service charge policy states that it will send an estimate of variable service charges to shared owners at the end of each February. This should detail the anticipated cost of delivering services over the next financial year, 1 April to 31 March.
The service charge is applied from April or a later date depending on the lease type. After the close of each financial year, a comparison is made between the actual cost and the original estimated cost of delivering services. The balance is either applied as a credit or an additional charge on the following years’ service charges. Further explanation of service charge provision can be found under section 7 of the resident’s lease agreement.
On 1 June 2022 there is evidence the landlord identified its letter in February informing residents of the annual changes contained an error. It had suggested annual increases did not apply to shared owners. This was incorrect. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge how this may have caused confusion. It apologised and explained it would issue a new letter. While this demonstrated the landlord taking steps to put things right, it had taken 3 months at this stage to provide the resident with some form of response.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 30 June 2022 also failed to provide details regarding how costs had been calculated. While this information is available in the resident’s lease, it was appropriate for the landlord to correct this failure and inform the resident that the increase had been calculated in line with her lease agreement. This says rent can be increased by the retail price index plus 0.5%, which equated to a 5.4% rise. While the failure to provide this information was identified and corrected in the landlord’s stage 2 response, it had taken between March 2022 to August 2022 for the resident to receive answers to her questions. This was an unreasonable amount of time.
The landlord’s stage 2 final response recognised its communication failures and offered the resident £100 compensation. While the delay would understandably have caused time and effort to the resident, the detriment of this failure would have been minimal. We would therefore have made a finding of some level of maladministration but for the steps taken by the landlord to put things right.
The landlord apologised, offered compensation, and provided a clear explanation of rent and service charge calculations for the year. It is therefore our finding that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Handling of the closure of the resident’s parking area

On 19 May 2022 the resident returned home and was unable to access her allocated parking spaces. The developer had sectioned off the car park while undertaking work. While the resident understood that the development remained in the construction phase, she had received no notification. This was not reasonable and demonstrated a communication failure.
The landlord does not dispute that a communication failure happened and offered an apology to the resident. There is evidence on 27 and 31 May 2022 where the landlord communicated directly with the resident to inform her of ongoing work. It apologised and explained it had raised the communication failure with the developer. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord taking steps to put things right.
However, there is evidence the resident asked the landlord to clarify a further closure over a bank holiday weekend. The resident continued to chase the landlord and developer as both failed to respond. This did not demonstrate the landlord had learned from previous outcomes and communication remained poor.
The landlord acknowledged these failures within its complaint responses. At stage 2 it increased its compensation offered at stage 1 from £50 to £100. Furthermore, as the resident had paid for her windows to be cleaned, unaware of the parking work outside her house, the landlord agreed to reimburse her £50 as a goodwill gesture to cover the cost. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord taking steps to put things right.
While we acknowledge the resident raised concerns regarding children’s ball games and bicycles being left in the alternative parking area, this is a separate matter from the landlord’s communication failure. The landlord demonstrated checking its records on 21 June 2022 and informed the resident it had received no other reports. It encouraged the resident to report this if it continued and said in the meantime, it would write to residents. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The loss of parking without notice would understandably be an inconvenience. However, the alternative parking area remained on the resident’s development. While this would have caused an inconvenience, the detriment would have been minimal. The landlord apologised for the communication failures, offered compensation, and included an additional payment for window cleaning as a gesture of goodwill.
Based on the above, we consider that the £150 compensation offered was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. It is therefore our finding that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Handling of defects at the resident’s property

We note the landlord’s stage 2 response referenced the resident’s concerns regarding its handling of outstanding defects at the property. In particular, investigating an issue with the resident’s stair carpet, mastic required to the bath, and making good a plug installation.
This complaint point was not raised by the resident within her original complaint, nor responded to by the landlord at stage 1. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have treated this as a new and separate complaint. As the landlord has included it within its final response, it is appropriate for us to consider the landlord’s actions to address the resident’s concerns.
The landlord confirmed that new build properties usually benefit from a defects period. This is normally the first 12 months after completion of the building. This has been confirmed in the resident’s case.
The landlord’s defect repair policy states response times, if during the defect rectification period, defects are identified that the contractor needs to rectify. It states the following response timescales:
1. Emergency defects, within 2 hours.
2. Urgent defects, within 3 days.
3. Routine defects, within 21 calendar days.
4. End of defects, up to 13 months.
Following the resident’s reports of a suspected leak on 1 July 2021, the landlord’s defect records demonstrate its developer contacted the resident the same day. This was appropriate and within the 3 day timescale of the landlord’s defect policy.
There is evidence that new mastic was required to prevent the escape of water, and the developer repainted the stained ceiling to the downstairs toilet. This was recorded as completed on 14 July 2021. This was appropriate and within the expected timescales of the landlord’s defect policy.
However, the resident continued to raise concerns regarding the quality of workmanship and the reappearance of stains and mould on her toilet ceiling. Although this was addressed again by the developer in November 2021, the quality of the repair remained outstanding until June 2022. During this time, there is evidence that communication with the resident remained poor. This was unreasonable and caused time and trouble on the resident as she chased both the developer and landlord to progress matters.
Although the date is unclear, the landlord advised its developer had subsequently gone into administration. It is not disputed by the landlord that the resident experienced some delays, poor communication, and issues with the quality of workmanship during her defect period. The landlord apologised and took responsibility for the outstanding work in June 2022 following the end of the defect period. This was appropriate.
We also note the resident expressed dissatisfaction that her stair carpet had worn in 4 months and was concerned it was coming away from the gripper strips. The developer did not accept the carpet as a defect, as it had gifted it to her prior to moving in. It was therefore reasonable that this was anticipated to be the resident’s responsibility.
It is clear from the evidence that the landlord acted appropriately to put right the resident’s defects which were outstanding from its developer. It acknowledged there had been delays and poor communication and completed all outstanding works. While these actions were appropriate, the landlord made no offer of redress in its stage 2 final response.
However, the landlord offered an additional £504.60 as a gesture of goodwill in January 2023 for the resident to replace her stair carpet. Although this action can be said to be an offer of a remedy to put things right for the resident, the landlord failed to resolve the resident’s reports within its ICP. The Ombudsman’s outcome guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot therefore be determined under such circumstances.
Where there has been maladministration the remedies guidance available to us provides guidance of the appropriate level of redress. For the reasons set out above the landlord is ordered to pay £504.60 compensation for the identified delays with its handling of defects at the resident’s property. This sum can be deducted from the landlord’s gesture of goodwill, if already paid.

Provision of grounds maintenance for which the resident paid a service charge

There is evidence the resident chased the landlord regarding grounds maintenance on 12, 24 August 2021, and 6 September 2021. She supplied photographs to show no work had been completed since she moved in. The landlord responded to the resident on 7 September 2021. It explained that service charges for the year had been estimated and while a managing agent was due to be appointed, it was currently the developers responsibility to maintain the grounds. It advised it would chase the developer and asked the resident to update it if the was work was not done.
The landlord advised that as a new development the costs were estimated. It explained each September the resident would receive a balancing charge notification of actual expenditure against estimates for the previous financial year April to March. Therefore, in September 2022 it would issue her balancing accounts for the period April 21 to March 2022. It advised that there may be a credit adjustment due. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord taking steps to reassure the resident it would review what she had paid.
In July 2022 the resident repeated that grounds maintenance continued to be poor. She was dissatisfied paying for a service she had not received during the 13 months at the property.
In September 2022 the landlord gave the resident a £193.32 refund for grounds maintenance which had not been provided. It advised that a further cost reconciliation would be completed for the currents years charges in September 2023. This was a reasonable step to take and demonstrated the landlord recognised that the service provided had been poor.
Based on the above, the landlord’s apology and refund of service charges was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. It is therefore our finding that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Response to the resident’s concerns about inadequate street lighting outside her property

Upon receipt of the estimated service charge letter in February 2022 the resident raised dissatisfaction regarding the provision of street lighting. She informed the landlord that she would not pay more rent until she was satisfied all issues with service charges were dealt with.
The resident’s lease sets out the rights and responsibilities of the landlord and the resident. This includes the resident’s responsibility to pay rent and other charges. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to expect these payments in line with the terms of the lease.
There is evidence this information was shared by the landlord on 12 August 2021 and again between 17 June 2022 and 1 September 2022 following the resident’s complaint. Within the correspondence, the landlord explained the estimated service charges. This included street lighting, maintenance, repair, and replacement. The landlord explained to the resident street lighting had been provided in line with the planning conditions set prior to the development starting. There is no evidence to suggest that these plans were not adhered to by the developer.
The landlord further explained that the street lighting would be managed and repaired by a managing agent. There was therefore a cost to provide this service. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident this formed part of her lease agreement and would have been raised with her legal representatives prior to her purchasing the property. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise that the service charge for lighting stood, irrespective of the location of each light. Its explanation the lights were a benefit to the whole estate, and all properties paid an equal proportion was reasonable in the circumstances.
On 1 September 2022, the landlord informed the resident she could ask for permission to install her own motion sensor solar light. It explained that this would be classed as a home improvement and gave details how to do this via its website. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord informing the resident of her options and a solution to her query.
Therefore, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about inadequate street lighting outside her property.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage formal complaints procedure. It states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. At stage 1, a resident can expect a response within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. This is appropriate and in line with the Code published on 1 April 2022.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 20 May 2022. It was therefore reasonable for her to expect an acknowledgement by 27 May 2022 and a written response by 7 June 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s complaint on 27 May 2022. This was in line with its complaints policy and the expectations of the Code.
However, the landlord incorrectly informed the resident that it would provide a response by 13 June 2022. Paragraph 5.1 of the Code states landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Therefore, this error indicates a training need.
There is evidence the landlord informed the resident by email on 24 June 2022 that its complaint response would be delayed. While it was appropriate to provide the resident of an explanation, this communication should have taken place before the expected response date of 7 June 2022. This was not appropriate and demonstrated a training need.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 June 2022. This was not appropriate and 17 working days beyond the landlord’s complaint policy response timescales.
While the landlord’s stage 1 response was courteous and attempted to acknowledge and apologise for identified failures, it lacked evidence of a thorough investigation. Particularly regards providing the resident with answers to her parking related concerns. Its response failed to demonstrate learning or explain what action it would take to prevent similar communication failures happening again.
On 4 July 2022 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP. It was therefore reasonable for her to expect an acknowledgement by 11 July 2022 and a stage 2 final response by 1 August 2022. The landlord failed to achieve either of these dates, missing the response expectation by 1 working day and 3 working days respectively. While the detriment of these delays would have been minimal, there is no evidence the landlord informed the resident in advance. This was not appropriate and not in line with the expectations of the Code.
The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 4 August 2022. Its response demonstrated improved complaint handling and provided detailed explanations to each of the resident’s complaint points. It acknowledged failings, identified learning with its complaint handling, and increased its offer of compensation from £50 at stage 1 to £500. Of which, £250 was offered in recognition of its complaint handling failures.
The landlord does not dispute that there has been service failure during the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman would therefore have made a finding of some level of maladministration but for the steps taken by the landlord to put things right. The landlord has apologised, offered compensation, and sought to ensure all points have been addressed with its position explained. This demonstrates its efforts to correct its mistakes and restore the resident to her original position.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman considers that the compensation amount offered was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. It is therefore our finding that the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the issue with the landlord’s communication about annual rent and service charge increases.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the issue with the landlord’s handling of the closure of the resident’s parking area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of defects at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the issue with the landlord’s handling of the provision of grounds maintenance for which the resident paid a service charge.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident concerns about inadequate street lighting outside her property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the issue about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident £504.60 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience with the landlord’s handling of the handling of defects at the resident’s property. This sum can be taken from the gesture of goodwill offered post ICP, if already paid.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman’s determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £500 is paid to resident within 28 days of this report, if it has not already been paid.
If it has not already done so, the landlord is encouraged to pay the resident the £193.32 refund of grounds maintenance service charges.
It is recommended that the landlord consider refresher training for staff involved with this case. This should be around its complaint handling responses and the importance of providing timely responses.
The landlord should consider issuing a customer satisfaction survey to the residents of the estate affected by the grounds maintenance issues. This will provide an opportunity to assess how things are now and whether further improvements are necessary.