West Kent Housing Association (202126586)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126586

West Kent Housing Association

8 September 2023

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. The repair to a leak over the resident’s front door.
2. The withdrawal of a management move.
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat on an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that began in 2003.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement places certain repair and maintenance responsibilities on the landlord in relation to the structure, services, fixtures and fittings of the property. It has a repair priority timescale for attendance of the following:
1. Emergency – by the end of the next day (where there is an immediate risk to health, security or serious damage to the property).
2. Urgent – up to 3 full days (where there is a risk to the resident’s health or security).
3. Routine – up to 21 full days (all other repairs completed by appointment).
4. Planned – up to 12 months (some repairs involving large scale replacement or improvement work).
The leak affecting the resident’s home is from the soil pipe belonging to a leaseholder in the flat directly above the resident and, as such, this is their responsibility to maintain in accordance with the terms of their lease agreement.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a 2 stage complaints process but it does have a ‘quick fix’ process prior to this where it aims to resolve the issue within 2 working days. Otherwise, it will register a stage 1 complaint and provide a response within 10 working days. If a complaint is escalated to stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy refers to it considering an inconvenience and goodwill payment where the resident has experienced service failure and refers to payments in relation to the level of impact on the resident. As an example, where there is a severe impact, its compensation level is between £251 – £500.

Summary of events

On 21 August 2019, the resident emailed the landlord about waste water falling outside her front door. She said it was the 3rd time she had brought the matter to its attention and was concerned about the health hazard. She also reported it was causing damage to a gas meter box and a wall was damp.
On 23 August 2019, the landlord confirmed it had logged a job (after inspection) for the soil pipe as follows:
1. Check joint to soil vent pipe and rainwater pipe on front elevation of the building due to a leak causing damp to bathroom and bedroom walls. The landlord has confirmed that the pipes were not found to be the cause of damp and mould and other works were raised to address this issue.
2. Check and repair the waste pipe into the ‘hopper’ on the front elevation of the property and report back to the surveyor.
3. Remove flaking paint to soil vent pipe on front elevation, rub down, undercoat and gloss to match existing.

The job completion date shown is 3 September 2019.

The landlord’s repairs history shows a completion date of 11 October 2019 to remove and replace the soil pipe. Notes refer to liaison between 2 contractors for the work to be completed.
On 12 November 2019, the contractor sent the landlord an email, noting that the soil stack needed replacing and it required access to the neighbouring property to carry out the work. It asked for the order to be cancelled and a decision on a way forward to be agreed. The landlord has confirmed that it referred the matter onto its ‘asset team’ but there is no evidence that the email was followed up or actioned.
On 4 November 2020, the landlord has confirmed that it advised the resident it would raise a job to adjust the ‘hopper’ to prevent the waste splashing over. The landlord has been unable to locate evidence of this job being raised.
On 9 June 2021, the landlord’s records refer to it receiving an email from the resident advising that builders had attended to the soil stack previously. It raised an order and booked an appointment for 28 June 2021 for a plumber to attend. The landlord has confirmed that it investigated this and found the soil stack required replacement and was the responsibility of a leaseholder. However, it has not provided the evidence of its investigations or when these were carried out.
On 27 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to complain about the lack of progress regarding the soil stack. The landlord carried out an internal chase up.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 5 October 2021 and 19 November 2021, to report the smell of sewage outside of her home. She made reference that it had been ongoing for over 2 years and there had been numerous communications with the landlord, including making a complaint several weeks previously. The landlord chased this up internally, asking for an update. In her latter contact, the resident requested her complaint was escalated.
On 22 November 2021, the landlord’s records show it telephoned the resident to discuss the issue of why the job had not been completed. It said this was because it had to organise 3 contractors and an external one had not got back to it. It said it had arranged for repairs to be done on 3 December 2021. It noted the resident was happy with this and it arranged to send an inconvenience payment of £50 to acknowledge the delays.
On 3 December 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord to advise that contractors were on site but did not seem to know details of the job. The landlord found out that a plumber was also due to attend and it advised the contractor of this.
The resident sent in a number of emails and made telephone calls to the landlord on 13 December 2021. She wanted a confirmed date of repair to the leaking soil stack and was concerned about the health risk, advising that the property was soaked with raw sewage.
In a further email of the same date, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with how the landlord was handling repairs to the soil stack and the landlord acknowledged this as a complaint on 15 December 2021, advising it should respond by 4 January 2022.
On 17 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the leaseholder, asking them to confirm how they planned to proceed with the required works by 22 December 2021.
The landlord’s records of 23 December 2021 show that the leaseholder had been trying to get quotes for the soil stack work. They were finding it difficult to obtain 2 quotes and asked if the landlord could assist as they wanted to ensure it was carried out to an acceptable standard.
The landlord emailed internally on 24 December 2021, stating it had telephoned the leaseholder several times the previous day but was unable to make contact or leave a message. As a suggestion, it said that it may be easier for it to carry out the work and recharge the leaseholder.
In another email of the same day, the landlord confirmed it had sent a holding letter to the resident in relation to her complaint. The full response was sent to the resident on 4 January 2022:
1. It noted the leak to be from the soil stack that was affecting the front garden and said it had found that it had acted correctly.
2. The soil pipe had been inspected and it agreed this required a repair. However, it belonged to the next door property that was not in its ownership. It had made contact with the neighbour and was working with them for work to be completed as soon as possible.
On 4 January 2022, during the landlord’s conversation with the leaseholder, it agreed to provide quotes for the work.
On 5 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord asking it to look again at the complaint. She expressed concerns that it had not acknowledged the raw sewage that had been leaking for over a year and the multiple reports she had made. The following day, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction and said that it aimed to respond to her complaint by 2 February 2022.
As part of the landlord’s complaint investigations, it held an internal meeting on 12 January 2022 to discuss a way forward and a decision was made that a ‘management move’ would be the best option.
On 17 January 2022, a ‘management move’ report was completed by the landlord and approved in relation to the ongoing sewage leak and the potential long duration until it was rectified by the leaseholder. Historical issues of ASB were also referred to as well as the family being overcrowded.
The landlord evidenced that on 19 January 2022, it took action to require that the leaseholder comply with the terms of their lease.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint reply to the resident on 25 January 2022 and the following is a summary of its response:
1. It had agreed to move the resident on a permanent basis under a ‘management move’ and the resident had confirmed that she was happy with this decision.
2. £50 had already been paid to her on 10 January 2022 for the delays and inconvenience caused with appointments to the soil stack.
3. It apologised for the inconvenience, stress caused and the length of time it had taken to resolve the matter. It said it recognised it was a very stressful time and it would guide and help her through the move.

Summary of events after landlord’s complaint procedure

During January to March 2022, communications continued between the resident and landlord. The waste pipe remained unresolved until late February 2022 when the leaseholder confirmed work was completed. Work to decontaminate the soil was not offered to the resident until the end of March 2022. The resident declined this work as she felt it had been offered too late; she had been regularly sanitising the area and commented that it would be better concreted.
As part of the stage 2 complaint resolution, a ‘management move’ was offered to the resident and she confirmed that she was happy with this decision. However, later in February 2022, due to the work being completed, the landlord withdrew the offer as the risk to the resident had now reduced.
There were further communications in relation to the ‘management move’ and the landlord noted that it should have advised the resident that it required further approval for the ‘management move’ from its head of service. However, in the landlord’s communications with the resident, it agreed that it could have worded the stage 2 complaint response clearer and it agreed that it had raised the resident’s expectations. It appears that at this point £250 compensation was offered to the resident for the miscommunication regarding the ‘management transfer’ and this was declined by the resident.
The resident wrote to the landlord in April 2022 wanting it to reconsider its compensation amount as she felt that a reasonable figure would be £5,000 giving reasons based on rent calculations since 2019 and other issues in relation to the drive and the condition of her home. She had previously explained how her anxiety was being affected by the situation. The landlord confirmed it had increased its offer of compensation to £500 and that this was based around the miscommunication regarding the management move.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the repair to a leak over the resident’s front door

The first report of an issue with waste water affecting the resident’s home was in August 2019. However, there may have been an issue earlier as the resident referred to previous reports, but no evidence has been provided to support this. The landlord acted promptly in inspecting and ordering works to check the soil and rainwater pipes. It was appropriate for the landlord to first investigate the issue in an attempt to resolve it and it demonstrated that it acted on the reports within a reasonable timescale of 2 weeks. Although a completion date for works was recorded, it is unclear on the extent of work or whether any temporary repairs were carried out at this point.
In October 2019, the landlord established that the soil pipe required replacement. The landlord received an email from its contractor in November 2019 to confirm that it required access to the neighbouring property to carry out the work and it apparently referred the matter onto its ‘asset team’ to follow up. However, it is unclear what happened at this point as the landlord has offered no evidence. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not monitor and follow up on the required works and this contributed to the delays in completion of essential works.
There is a gap in evidence of almost 1 year before the landlord advised the resident in November 2020 that it would raise a job for the ‘hopper’ to be fixed to prevent waste water splashing over. However, the landlord does not have any records of this job and it therefore acted inappropriately by failing to respond to the resident’s continued concerns and progress the repair that it had determined to be necessary. It is also of concern that it cannot be established if it was waste water, sewage or both that was leaking as there are insufficient records to show that the landlord attempted to establish this.
Furthermore, given an inspection of the soil pipe took place in August 2019, it is reasonable to expect that the landlord should have established from an earlier point that the waste pipes were not its responsibility to maintain. It should therefore have started action earlier with the leaseholder to ensure the work was carried out.
There was another gap in any evidence of the landlord following up the repair between November 2020 and June 2021, when it attended the soil stack and confirmed again that it required replacement. It had already been established in 2019 that the soil stack required replacement, but the landlord inappropriately failed to take action. This time, it established that the soil stack served the leasehold property and therefore was the responsibility of the leaseholder to maintain.
Although the landlord demonstrated that it chased up the issue internally during September to November 2021, it failed to establish firm action to progress the works. The resident was clearly distressed by the situation, waste water/raw sewage was spilling over in front of her door, and it delayed for an unreasonable period in not only actioning the works with the leaseholder but establishing that it was the leaseholder’s responsibility to maintain this item.
It appears that even though it had established the responsibility for the work was with the leaseholder in November 2021, the landlord arranged a repair in early December 2021, acknowledged the delays with the resident and offered £50 compensation.
It was not until the landlord registered a complaint in December 2021 that it demonstrated that it contacted the leaseholder to discuss the works. This represented an unreasonable delay and one that impacted the resident’s full use of her home over a prolonged period of time as it affected her ability to use the front door and she reported constantly having to sanitise the outside area.
Once the issue was brought to the attention of the leaseholder, there was a delay in them responding and then further delays due to difficulties obtaining quotes for the work. The landlord, at this point, did demonstrate that it was proactive in assisting with quotes for the work and recognised that it may be quicker to carry out the work and recharge the leaseholder. This demonstrated that it understood the urgency of the situation and the impact it was having on the resident and was considering pro-active ways to resolve the issue.
The landlord also recognised the difficulties and potential long period it would take for the soil pipe to be replaced by the leaseholder and it demonstrated that it considered wider options to resolve the matter by arranging a ‘management move’ for the resident albeit this was later withdrawn. This again showed it was aware of the urgency and was attempting to reduce the impact on the resident.
In January 2022, the landlord took appropriate steps with the leaseholder to ensure the work was completed. This demonstrated that the landlord was willing to consider measures to bring about a resolution albeit there was unreasonable delay in it reaching this point. This could have been considered several months earlier at the point it was established the repair was the leaseholder’s responsibility and potentially even earlier had it correctly diagnosed the fault in August 2019. The delayed action was inappropriate and inevitably impacted on the resident’s ability to have full enjoyment of her home as well as causing distress and inconvenience to her.
The full extent of works to the soil pipe were not completed until late February 2022 and it was not until the end of March 2022 that associated work to decontaminate the ground were ordered (which the resident later refused). The resident had requested the area to be concreted but it is unclear if the landlord followed up and made a decision on this request. The prolonged delay of more than 2 years was inappropriate and likely caused significant impact to the resident.
In summary, the landlord delayed in establishing the soil pipe was the responsibility of the leaseholder and ensuring appropriate action to resolve the situation was taken. This impacted the resident significantly as she had to endure waste water/sewage within close proximity of her front door.
There was a prolonged gap in evidence of 17 months where it is unclear if the waste remained an issue and whether the resident continued to report the issue. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to pro-actively monitor the repair to completion throughout this period.
Although it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation, the amount of £50 (and the subsequent increased amount of £250) that it offered through its complaints process was insufficient. Compensation within this range is what the Ombudsman would recommend for a short-term minimal impact service failure and, given the long-term failings and impact on the resident, this did not offer reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of the withdrawal of the management move.

The landlord made a decision to offer a ‘management move’ to the resident in mid-January 2022 but withdrew this in February 2022, after the landlord had sent its stage 2 final complaint response. Although the move was quickly offered and withdrawn, it was a reasonable decision for the landlord to take as the risk to the resident had reduced given the leaking waste/sewage pipe had been resolved.
The landlord does not have a ‘management move’ policy but it is referenced within the local authority’s lettings policy and the landlord does have discretion to consider either a ‘decant’ or ‘management move’ where there is a risk to the resident. An example of this could be immediate danger to life or property. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider this as an option but withdraw it when the circumstances changed. Nevertheless, it did raise the resident’s expectations by not communicating clearly and explaining that it could withdraw its decision if the situation was resolved.
The landlord recognised its communication failures and the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It offered compensation to the resident of £250 – in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a proportionate offer of redress given the impact of this on the resident was over a short duration.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord registered a formal stage 1 complaint in December 2021; it acted appropriately and acknowledged receipt within 2 days. However, the resident had been making contact with the landlord earlier about her dissatisfaction and in September 2021 had indicated that she wanted to complain. The landlord delayed in registering the complaint from this point and therefore missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint earlier.
The landlord did not respond fully until 4 January 2022 (albeit there is evidence that a holding letter was sent), which is outside of its 10 working day target for a response. Even then, it did not offer a full explanation in relation to the delays and was very brief in its explanation. This indicates its investigation was insufficient and meant that it was unable to satisfy itself or the resident that it had fully investigated the issue and provide a full explanation in relation to the reasons for the delay or its plan of action to resolve the matter.
The resident escalated the complaint almost immediately and the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint the following day. The landlord issued its final complaint response 14 working days later and in accordance with its complaints policy. It confirmed its actions in relation to its decision to move the resident on a permanent basis, its offer of £50 for delayed appointments and it apologised for the inconvenience and stress caused to her. However, at this point, it was unreasonable that it did not recognise its delays in registering the complaint, its delayed initial response and its failure to offer a full and thorough investigation at stage 1 and offer reasonable resolution for its failings.
A total of £500 compensation has been offered to the resident after the landlord’s final complaint response. Whilst it is recognised that the matter went on unresolved until March 2022, it is unclear exactly what this compensation relates to as the landlord’s correspondence makes reference to compensation being paid for different elements of the complaint without a full breakdown.
For example, in the landlord’s correspondence with the resident in April 2022, it was confirmed that the £500 related to the denial of the ‘management move’. However, in the landlord’s correspondence to the Ombudsman, it has broken this compensation down differently. It is therefore unclear if any of the £500 related to the landlord’s complaint handling failings and whether it has appropriately compensated her for the time and trouble caused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to a leak over the resident’s front door.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in relation to the landlord’s handling of the withdrawal of a management move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord delayed unreasonably in diagnosing that works to remedy a leak were the responsibility of a neighbouring leaseholder and carrying out repairs when it understood that this was the leaseholder’s own responsibility. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation did not offer sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord failed to communicate clearly to the resident about the ‘management move’, what it entailed, the procedure it had to follow for approval and explain that it could be withdrawn if the situation was resolved. However, the compensation award it made was sufficient given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord delayed unreasonably in recognising the resident’s complaint and responding at stage 1 of its complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified within this report.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £1150 (including the £500 it already offered), made up as follows:
1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failings identified in its handling of the repair to a leak above her front door.
2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the unclear communications in relation to the management move and its subsequent withdrawal.
3. £200 for the time and trouble caused to her by its complaint handling failings.
Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Carry out a review of this complaint and advise this Service how it intends to learn from its failings in relation to management of essential repairs involving a leaseholder.
2. Carry out a review of this complaint and advise this Service how it intends to learn from its failings in relation to its complaint handling of the case.
3. Review its recording keeping in relation to its repair and maintenance service and provide its action plan on how it intends to ensure it retains key information. Reference should be made to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) that highlights important recommendations for landlords to ensure recording keeping forms a key part of effective housing management.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers introduction of a standalone ‘management move’ policy and related staff guidance to ensure consistency in its approach and that decisions are clearly explained to residents.
The landlord to confirm in writing to the resident and this Service (if it has not already done so) its response to the resident in relation to her request for the area affected by the leak to be concreted.
The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation.