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

West Kent Housing Association (202340274)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340274

West Kent Housing Association

28 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for repair to the steps and the handrail at the front of the property.
    2. The replacement of the resident’s front door.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2 bedroom house. The resident has limited mobility, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. In May 2023 funding was granted by the local authority for adaptation works to the property to improve accessibility. The funding was for a replacement front door, and new steps and a handrail leading to it.
  3. The steps were completed in early July 2023. On 5 July 2023 the resident called the landlord to complain about the size of the new steps. On 1 August 2023 the landlord attended the property to view the steps. On 2 August 2023, the landlord told the resident that its contractor would attend to further review the steps, and the resident raised concerns with the landlord that the handrail on the steps was not secure. On multiple occasions between August and November 2023, the resident called the landlord to complain that the handrail by the steps was loose and had caused him to fall. He was also in regular contact with the landlord and its contractor in relation to the door order.
  4. On 1 November 2023 the landlord’s contractor told the resident they had ordered the door, and the resident called the landlord to complain that he had not been given a chance to pick the style and colour of the door.
  5. On 13 December 2023 the resident called the landlord to complain about the time taken to repair the steps and replace the door, saying that the steps had still not been repaired and that he had been informed the door was going to be replaced by 5 December 2023. The landlord formally acknowledged this complaint on 15 December 2023.
  6. The landlord ordered a new door with the resident’s input, which it attempted to fit on 23 January 2024. This new door did not fit with the existing porch and the landlord ordered a third door.
  7. On 24 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. The landlord apologised for the delay in fixing the poorly fitted steps and in replacing the door. It offered £700 in compensation for service failure and delays relating to the steps, and £100 for the delay in replacing the door.
  8. On 29 January 2024 the resident called the landlord requesting that his complaint be escalated to stage two, saying he wanted at least £1000 compensation. The landlord formally acknowledged this complaint on the same day.
  9. On 20 February 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It confirmed that the steps, handrail and door had all been replaced. It supported its stage 1 decision, but offered an additional £200 compensation for further delays with the door replacement since its stage 1 response had been issued.
  10. On the same day the resident escalated his concerns to the Service. He said he had been injured by falling on the steps, and £1000 was not enough to cover what he had been through.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. The resident complained that the condition of the steps and handrail caused him injury. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, personal injury. This would normally be dealt with through the courts. If the resident wants to pursue this further, he has the option to seek legal advice. However, the Ombudsman may investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures.

The resident’s request for repair to the steps and the handrail

  1. It is not disputed that the original steps installed by the landlord’s contractor in July 2023 were of inadequate quality, and that the landlord delayed in fixing them after the resident reported the repair. The landlord’s survey on 13 November 2023 confirmed that the steps were of inconsistent heights, one slab was insecure, and the handrail was insecure. The landlord told us that the work on the steps had been completed by the day it had sent its stage 2 response on 20 February 2024, which was 230 days after the resident first reported that the landlord’s previous works were faulty.
  2. It is unclear when, or how many times, the landlord carried out interim repairs to the handrail, or precisely when the permanent replacement was carried out. The landlord did not provide us with any records to show when the permanent replacement was completed prior to its stage 2 response letter on 20 February 2024. However, at stage 2 it acknowledged the replacement had been carried out. As the resident did not dispute this point, it is accepted the landlord completed the replacement by 20 February 2024.
  3. The landlord, in its stage 1 complaint response, said that the resident reported falling and damaging the handrail on 30 August, 11 October, and 22 November 2023, and in each case it carried out repairs to make the steps and handrail safe. The call records the landlord have provided suggest repairs were organised to temporarily secure the handrail on 29 August, 26 October, 14 November, 16 December 2023, and 9 January 2024. The landlord’s repairs logs show only 2 urgent repairs to secure the handrail raised on 26 October and 14 November 2023, which were each completed within 1 day. There is also a note in the repairs log for a repair to secure the handrail raised on 9 January 2024, but it was not recorded as completed until after 20 February 2024, by which point the permanent replacement was complete.
  4. It is therefore difficult to confirm when the landlord completed interim repairs to secure the handrail, outside of the 2 instances which it has provided repair logs for. However it is clear in any case that the landlord’s attempts at interim repair on multiple occasions were unsuccessful, as the handrail repeatedly came loose again before the permanent repair was completed (by 20 February 2024).
  5. As the landlord’s initial installation of the steps and handrail was faulty, and because the landlord failed to fix them until around 20 February 2024, the entryway to the resident’s home was unsafe for an extensive period of time. Further, the faulty steps and handrail required numerous additional contractor visits for additional surveys and repair appointments. These failures caused significant distress and inconvenience for the resident, as it impacted his ability to safely enter and exit his home, and consumed a considerable amount of his time contacting the landlord to inform it of faults with the steps and handrail and coordinating with its contractors for attempted repairs.
  6. The landlord accepted these failings in its complaint responses to the resident. The landlord agreed that the original steps it installed in July 2023 were “poorly installed”. It further explained that works to replace them were delayed by unexpected unavailability of its surveyor, and its poor communication with its contractors.
  7. As the landlord acknowledged its failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to now consider whether the landlord has followed the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  8. The acknowledged and addressed all the failures identified in this report. It demonstrated it learned from the complaint by explaining in its complaints responses its plan to avoid future delays of this kind by ensuring appointments were attended by the right contractors, so that works could be completed and inspections signed off on the same day wherever possible. Furthermore, the landlord apologised for the faulty works and the delay in repairing them, and offered the resident £700 compensation.
  9. An offer of £700 is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures with significant impact on a vulnerable resident, over a considerable period of time, which reflect to a finding of maladministration. This offer was also proportionate for the length of time the resident experienced the landlord’s failure in this case.
  10. Taking into account all of the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this offer was reasonable.

The replacement of the resident’s door

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy stated that planned improvements and upgrades will be completed by appointment and on a date agreed with the resident.
  2. In line with its repairs policy, the landlord (through its contractor) agreed to a date of 5 December 2023 with the resident for the door replacement. However, this appointment was delayed twice due to failures by the landlord. The landlord should have offered the resident an opportunity to provide input on the style and colour of the door before ordering the first door, and it should have measured the porch before ordering the second door. These failures caused the resident distress and inconvenience by delaying the installation of the new door by an additional 77 days, until around 20 February 2024. The failed installation of the second door also inconvenienced the resident as his porch was unnecessarily removed and reinstalled three days later.
  3. The specific date the door was replaced is not shown in the evidence the landlord provided, and the landlord informed us that it had completed the replacement by the time it sent its stage 2 response on 20 February 2024. As the resident did not disputed this point, it is accepted the landlord completed the replacement by 20 February 2024.
  4. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that its failures to consult with the resident on the design of the new door, and to accurately measure the porch, delayed the replacement of the door, and caused the unnecessary temporary removal of the resident’s porch. It apologised to the resident for these failures and explained the learning it had taken to avoid similar failures in future. It offered the resident a total of £300 in compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delays to the door replacement and the removal of the porch.
  5. The landlord demonstrated that it appropriately acknowledged and addressed all the failures in its handling of the door replacement and took learning. It demonstrated that throughout the complaint process it was actively engaged in supporting the resident about the door design and in his further correspondence with contractors. Its offer of £300 is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures with significant impact on a vulnerable resident. The compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the length of time and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures.
  6. Accordingly, the landlord’s remedy was consistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. Taking into account all of the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this offer was reasonable.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy timeframe for responses to stage 1 complaints was 10 working days.
  2. When the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 15 December 2023, it informed the resident that it would provide its response within 10 working days, by 3 January 2023. The landlord provided its response on 24 January 2023, after the resident followed up on his complaint.
  3. This response was 15 working days outside of the timeframes of the landlord’s complaints policy, and the landlord did not address this delay in either its stage 1 or stage 2 responses. This delay extended the time taken to complete the complaints process, and inconvenienced the resident by requiring him to follow up for a response.
  4. The landlord since wrote to the Service about this delay, advising that it had learned from this failure and provided feedback to its complaints handling staff.
  5. This is not sufficient to satisfactorily resolve the complaint, as the landlord did not offer any apology, explanation, or redress to the resident during its complaints process. Taking into account all of the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this delay was unreasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint about its handling of the steps and handrail repair satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint about its handling of the replacement door satisfactorily.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was service failure with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation for the time and trouble caused by its delay in responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its agreements with its contractors for recording and providing evidence of work completed, to ensure it is able to locate this information when required for its own complaints process or to respond to an evidence request from the Service.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £1000 compensation it offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not done so already.