West Kent Housing Association (202317974)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317974

West Kent Housing Association

1 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of inadequate external lighting and uneven surfaces on the steps in front of his property.

Background

2. The resident has an assured non shorthold periodic tenancy and has lived in the property, a one bedroom bungalow, since 2017. He is elderly and has impaired vision, a spinal injury and weak legs. The landlord is a housing association.
3. The resident raised concerns about health and safety risks on the paths leading to the property, including uneven surfaces and inadequate lighting, between November 2020 and April 2021. The landlord inspected the area, repaired lighting, and advised that some reported issues were not considered to be hazards.
4. The resident raised further concerns about the paths in June 2022 and submitted a complaint about the landlord’s failure to ensure adequate lighting and surfacing in September 2022. He reported that he had sustained injuries on several occasions due to the condition of the paths, and he had ongoing concerns about his safety and security when using them.
5. An inspection was carried out on 12 October 2022 and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 October 2022. It said:
   1. The resident had previously reported uneven paths during covid, when only emergency repairs were being carried out. His reports should have been addressed when normal service resumed and it apologised this had not happened.
   2. Works had now been identified to the tarmac on several paths and to reset the steps leading to the property. These would be scheduled soon, with updates provided to the resident.
   3. A bollard light would be installed by the steps leading to the property and it would investigate the wiring for the security lighting outside the property.
   4. All the nearby trees were found to be overgrown, so these would be cut back to improve visibility from the light of the lamppost.
6. The bollard light was installed and the landlord’s records indicate that the paths were repaired in October and November 2022. However, in correspondence in December 2022 and January 2023 the resident stated that the resurfacing works had not been completed and the trip-hazards remained. He also said that the new solar bollard light was inadequate as it did nothing to improve visibility, so providing additional similar lights would be ineffective.
7. In January 2023 the landlord installed further solar lighting along the paths by the steps, despite the resident’s reservations about them.
8. The resident escalated his complaint on 23 January 2023, when he restated his dissatisfaction with the solar lighting. He also said the security light on the property was incorrectly wired to his own electricity supply and it did not come on until you are ‘almost on top of it’. Therefore, it did not help him stay safe on the paths, which remained uneven.
9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 20 February 2023 it said:
   1. It does not have an obligation to provide external lighting under the Decent Homes Standard or the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
   2. It would be too costly to install further lighting and any additional running costs would be passed on to residents via the service charge. It was satisfied with the additional lighting it had already put in place and would not be installing any more. 
   3. The resident should use the security light on his property (which had been correctly connected to his personal electricity supply) to improve visibility when leaving and returning to the property.
   4. Two repairs to the paths were recorded as complete on 26 October 2022. It was seeking further information from the contractor on the scope and completion of these works and would update the resident shortly.
   5. The resident had confirmed that the tree pruning had been completed.
10. In emails to the landlord in March 2023, the resident advised that:
    1. The lighting on the paths was still inadequate.
    2. He had fallen on the steps outside the property as they were still uneven despite the landlord’s surveyor identifying that they needed to be reset.
    3. He was still waiting for a response to his concern that the security light on the property was incorrectly wired to his own electricity supply rather than the communal supply, which other properties were.
11. The resident has explained that, as well as the trees being cut back, the path has been repaired. However, despite the surveyor identifying that one of the steps was noticeably sloping and needed to be repaired, this has still not been done. In addition, while he has a sensor light which comes on when he is a certain distance from it, it does not light up the area near the property sufficiently. He says every property, except his, has another light that is on a ring main that stays on at night and, despite asking for one, his request has been ignored.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. A personal injury claim was raised in September 2022 and the landlord provided the relevant forms to the resident. This is a separate process that we will not be commenting on.
13. In March and April 2023 there was correspondence relating to criminal damage to posts and neighbours driving across the resident’s grass. This did not form part of the complaint we are investigating and so is not addressed in this report.

Response to reports of inadequate external lighting and uneven surfaces on the steps in front of his property

14. The Occupancy Agreement states the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and outside of the property, including paths and steps and any shared parts of the building the property is part of.
15. The landlord has accepted that from November 2020 the resident reported a number of issues and, although they could not be dealt with during the pandemic, it failed to address them immediately afterwards.
16. It is good to see the landlord acknowledging its oversight and apologising for this. However, it took the resident raising his concerns again in October 2022, having sustained injuries, for the landlord to take any action, which is unacceptable. While it accepted a shortfall in its service and took steps to arrange a surveyor and carry out works, it did not consider whether compensation was appropriate for the delay. Bearing in mind its compensation policy says that a discretionary payment may be appropriate to say sorry for delays or inconvenience, the landlord missed an opportunity to address this at an early stage.
17. The landlord has explained there are 3 forms of external lighting provided at or near the property. There is a lamp post outside that is owned by the local authority. There is a communal ring which has lights attached to some properties to provide lower-level lighting for all residents. In addition, there is an external light by the front door that is attached to the resident’s supply.
18. The landlord says lighting it has installed, as well as having cut back the trees that were obscuring the lamp post, has improved the lighting. It noted the resident’s health issues and installed a bollard light and some other solar lights, but the resident felt these were ineffective and insufficient. He has said his property is the only one that does not have a light on the communal ring. He says these lights are on a timer and come on at night, providing light in front of each house, but as he does not have one it is a lot darker by the property. It is this he says he asked for and the landlord has not addressed.
19. It is not our role to decide whether the lighting by the property is sufficient or not. Instead, it is to consider how the landlord dealt with matters in line with its obligations. The resident is disabled, but making reasonable adjustments to the property was not the issue here. He has a light on the outside the property which comes on as he gets near the door. It therefore provides him with light to be able to access/enjoy the property.
20. Correspondence between the parties shows that, despite having that light, the resident does not leave it on as things trigger it and he is conscious that he is paying for the electric. While that may be the case, the light was fitted in order to assist him accessing the property safely. Whether the resident chooses to use the light is a matter for him, but the fact the landlord fitted it shows it was taking the resident’s needs seriously.
21. The resident says he does not have a light on the communal ring which extends past his property giving him more visibility as other residents do, and this is what he wanted. However, the landlord has provided photographs which show there are 3 communal lights equally spaced between the property and the next 2 properties. If there is an issue with that light not working the resident needs to report it, but the evidence certainly indicates there is communal lighting by the property.
22. The landlord did assess the resident’s situation in line with the HHSRS. It noted his concerns about lighting, assessed the area, and arranged for a bollard light to be fitted as well as solar lights. This was in addition to the light outside his door, communal lighting and a lamp post. While the resident feels these are not very effective, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord has an obligation to provide anything further.
23. Turning to the steps by the property, the landlord has said that in March 2021 they were reviewed and deemed not a safety hazard. However, the surveyor’s report dated 13 October 2022 commented on the steps and said that the width of one of them was noticeably sloping from right to left. It said the landlord needed a quote to fix this issue.
24. The landlord’s repairs policy says any planned works such as repairing paths can take up to 12 months. Although the resident says the step has not been repaired, the landlord has confirmed a job was raised for the steps to be reset. In response to an email from the resident on 23 March 2023 saying the steps still needed to be repaired, the surveyor that inspected in October 2022, revisited the site on 14 April 2023. He confirmed the work had been completed satisfactorily. The landlord says it has not had any report from the resident in the last 2 years about the steps still being an issue.
25. The landlord has pointed out that, if the steps were reset, the same stones are likely to have been used, so they may not look any different, but the work has been completed. It says there is also access to the road using a path that runs past the property, with no steps, if there are any ongoing concerns. However, it will arrange for someone to reattend to consider if additional works are needed.
26. The evidence shows the landlord did address the resident’s reports of uneven surfaces and issues with the steps. The fact there has been no further issues reported indicates the repairs were carried out successfully.
27. When reviewing the landlord’s service overall, and whether it complied with its obligations, it is clear that it did take action in respect of the resident’s reports about lighting and uneven surfaces. However, there was an initial delay of about 2 years before the work was started. A significant reason for this was the pandemic, so from March 2020 work had to be carefully prioritised and it explains why routine repairs were postponed.
28. The landlord accepted it failed to address the repairs immediately after the pandemic, but once highlighted by the resident in 2022 it did then take action. The oversight starting the repairs after the pandemic does amount to maladministration, and it did cause some minor frustration to the resident, having to re-raise issues he had already reported as they were overlooked. However, the detriment to the resident was limited.
29. The landlord’s compensation policy says it should consider a discretionary payment in circumstances where there were delays providing a service. Therefore, it could have offered compensation in 2022 when it noted the oversight. Our remedies guidance also suggests compensation should be paid in these circumstances.
30. In considering an appropriate amount, it is important to note that, although there was a failure that adversely affected the resident, the landlord did take steps to put it right. Therefore, a modest award of £150 compensation is ordered to recognise the resident’s frustration at having to re-raise issues that had been overlooked. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance and is considered fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of inadequate external lighting and uneven surfaces on the steps in front of his property.

Order

32. Within the next 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has paid the resident £150 compensation for the frustration caused by the delay in carrying out the required works.