West Kent Housing Association (202400774)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400774

West Kent Housing Association

14 May 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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Reports about her kitchen ceiling.
3. Requests to move.
4. Complaint.

Background

At the time of the complaint (January 2024), the resident lived in a 3 bedroom house with her 4 children and was pregnant. She was an assured tenant.
In December 2022, the landlord moved the resident temporarily while it did repairs to resolve damp and mould and structural issues. The resident was returned to her home in early January 2023. She reported further issues with damp and mould and stains on her kitchen ceiling from 19 January 2023.
The resident complained on 3 January 2024. She said the damp and mould had come back, her walls were “dripping” wet, and her belongings going mouldy. She was worried about the impact on the family’s health and wanted the landlord to address it urgently. She also complained that repairs to her kitchen ceiling had not been finished.
The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 30 January 2024 which said:
1. It had taken too long to address the cause of the condensation and mould. It was sorry for this and offered £850 compensation.
2. It had installed an air quality monitor and insulated some ceilings. It was due to insulate her loft and walls.
3. It had offered to skim the kitchen ceiling but later found she had lights that had not been correctly fitted. It could not work on the ceiling until the lights were made safe.
4. She had asked to move and it had given her advice about her options.
The resident replied saying the compensation was not enough. She wanted the landlord to do the repairs and help her move.
The landlord escalated her complaint and gave its stage 2 response on 8 March 2024 which said:
1. It had agreed to move her temporarily during the remaining repairs to resolve the damp and mould. It offered £250 compensation because this would be her second temporary move.
2. The work it had done in 2022 had not addressed the cause of the damp and mould. It was sorry for this and agreed there had been “severe” service failure. It increased its compensation offer to £1,000.
3. She was responsible for repairing the ceiling because the lights were not correctly fitted and her uncle had previously plastered it.
4. It had given her advice about her options for getting a permanent move.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in April 2024 because she was not confident the landlord would resolve the damp and mould. She did not feel the compensation offered was enough.
The landlord moved the resident on 1 May 2024. This was initially a temporary move while it completed repairs. However, it agreed to let the resident stay in the other home and gave her a tenancy around 21 May 2024.
The resident confirmed she still wanted the Ombudsman to investigate because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs and her requests to move. She wants to hold the landlord to account and for it to pay her compensation.

Assessment and findings

Reports of damp and mould

The resident reported her walls being wet on 19 January 2023. The landlord said it would visit “urgently” but it is not clear from its records whether it did so. It did, however, raise an order to fit a humidistat extractor fan in the bathroom on 24 January 2023. This was to alleviate condensation which was a reasonable response to the resident’s report. The fan was fitted on 31 January 2023 which was a reasonable timescale.
From March 2023 the landlord had a Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy aimed to ensure it meets its obligations under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The policy says it will prioritise reports according to severity and arrange for its contractor to inspect within set timescales. It says the landlord will use the HHSRS to assess the risks of damp and mould in a home.
The resident reported that damp and mould had returned on 27 March 2023 and the landlord booked an inspection for 27 April 2023. However, the inspection was delayed because of sickness absence and was not done until 11 May 2023. This meant it was not done within the 21 day timescale of the landlord’s policy.
The contractor’s report dated 11 May 2023 explained its findings and likely causes of the damp and mould. It assessed the risks arising from the damp and mould as high partly because there were young children in the household. The contractor had assessed the risks in line with the landlord’s policy.
The report recommended providing a dehumidifier, repairs to improve ventilation and removing, and treating, the mould. The landlord was entitled to rely on the contractor’s recommendations. It was appropriate that it raised the necessary orders.
The contractor returned around 30 May 2023 to resolve an issue with the dehumidifier it had provided. It returned again on 6 June 2023 to check the progress in drying out the damp. It completed repairs to improve ventilation and remove and treat the damp on 13 and 14 June 2023. The actions taken following the inspection of 11 May 2023 were in line with the recommendations of the inspection report.
The evidence suggests the resident may have reported damp and mould again around 24 July 2023. This is because the landlord ordered gutter repairs and the order said it was “affecting” a bedroom wall. The gutter was repaired on 11 August 2023. This was within the 21 day timescale for completing routine repairs within the landlord’s Repairs Policy.
The resident reported her walls being wet again on 31 October 2023. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what action it took, if any, in response to this report. There is no reference to it doing anything further in relation to damp and mould until after the resident complained. As such, there is no evidence the landlord followed its policy after this report by the resident.
After the resident’s complaint of 3 January 2024, the landlord booked another damp and mould inspection. The inspection report, dated 8 January 2024, concluded the mould could be due to condensation because of inadequate insulation in various rooms. It recommended treating the mould and further investigation and monitoring, and the landlord raised the necessary orders.
Its contractor attended on 16 January 2024 but was unable to treat the mould because the walls were too wet. The contractor told the resident she should not use 2 bedrooms because of the damp and mould. It also updated the landlord. The landlord raised orders for another damp and mould survey, and for cavity wall and loft insulation to be installed.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reassessed the risks arising from the damp and mould, given the contractor’s advice about the bedrooms. There is no evidence it did so and this meant it missed the opportunity to assure itself that the resident’s home was fit for her to remain living in. It also missed the opportunity to show the resident it had due regard for her health and safety.
By 30 January 2024 when it gave its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord had installed an air quality monitor and insulated some ceilings. Its response said it was due to insulate the loft and wall cavities. This shows the landlord was taking action to try to resolve the damp and mould.
However, when its contractor attended, it found that most of the walls did not have cavities. This meant the contractor was only able to insulate the lower parts of the walls where there were cavities. The landlord then decided to fit insulating boards on the inside of the walls and raised orders for this on 1 February 2024.
It is not clear from the landlord’s records if the loft was insulated and, if so, when that happened.
The landlord decided the resident should be moved temporarily while repairs were done around 13 February 2024. It is not clear from its records if this was because of the work needed or the resident’s requests to move.
Its Housing Options Policy explains it will match temporary accommodation with a resident’s housing need where it can. It says that compromise is often needed due to limited availability of homes.
The landlord initially offered the resident a flat around 4 March 2024. It was reasonable that it looked for a different property when the resident explained why a flat was not suitable for her family even on a temporary basis. The reasons included complications with her pregnancy which made it difficult for her to walk. It then offered a 3 bedroom house which the resident accepted on 6 March 2024.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 8 March 2024, the landlord accepted there had been “severe” service failure in its handling of the damp and mould. It accepted its previous repairs had not resolved the problem and that it should have identified the causes sooner. It acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused by the ongoing damp and mould and the need for the resident to move out temporarily for a second time. It offered £1,250 compensation for its failings which was in line with its compensation policy.
The resident moved on 1 May 2024. While this was initially intended to be temporary while the repairs were done, the landlord gave her an assured tenancy around 17 May 2024. It completed the repairs before reletting the resident’s former home.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. While there were failings, it apologised for them and offered suitable compensation. It also let the resident remain in the home it had given as temporary accommodation. In our view, the landlord’s actions resolved the matter appropriately.

Reports about the kitchen ceiling

The resident reported a stain on her kitchen ceiling on 20 January 2023 and the landlord visited the same day. Its notes say the resident was happy with the advice given but do not explain what the advice was.
The resident reported the ceiling again on 31 October 2023 saying she was worried it would collapse. The landlord raised an urgent order and booked an appointment for 3 November 2023. This was in line with its repair policy which says it will respond to urgent repairs within 3 days. It is not clear from its records what work was done.
When the resident complained on 3 January 2024, she said the repair had not been finished. The landlord asked its contractor to inspect which it did on 25 January 2024. The contractor then told the landlord that spotlights in the ceiling had not been correctly fitted. It said there was a risk of damaging the wires if it scraped the ceiling to remove loose plaster before skimming it.
Through its complaint responses, the landlord said it could not skim the ceiling because of the incorrectly fitted spotlights and because the resident’s uncle had previously plastered it. The landlord should have explained how those factors affected its repairing obligations under the tenancy agreement. Its failure to do so meant the resident felt its decision was unfair. It also meant she did not have the opportunity to challenge the landlord’s view of its obligations.
The landlord’s records show it had discussed the ceiling with the contractor on 30 January 2024, before giving its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord understood the ceiling was safe if left undisturbed. However, the resident disputed it was safe in her complaint escalation of 31 January 2024. The landlord should have addressed this in its stage 2 response but did not. This left the resident feeling the landlord had ignored her safety concerns.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her ceiling. It responded to her initial reports in line with its repairs policy. However, it failed to adequately explain its view of its repair obligations or explain why it felt the ceiling was safe.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. It appropriately reflects the inconvenience likely to have been caused by its service failure.

Requests to move

The resident’s complaint is that the landlord should have offered a permanent move sooner because of the disrepair at her home.
When a resident asks to move, we expect landlords to give advice on the options available such as joining their local council’s housing register and seeking a mutual exchange. Where landlords have lettings or transfer policies and procedures, we expect the landlord to follow them.
The landlord’s Housing Options Policy explains it lets most of its homes through the Choice Based Lettings (CBL) Schemes of local councils it works with. It says existing tenants wanting to move must register on their council’s CBL scheme unless the move is temporary due to major repairs being needed.
The resident asked the landlord above moving on 19 January 2024. She explained she wanted to move because of the damp and mould in her home, and also because it was too small.
The landlord spoke with her on 24 January 2024. It advised her to apply to the council’s CBL scheme and provide medical evidence to support her application. It also discussed the option of a mutual exchange which the resident did not want to pursue because of the repair issues in her home. It followed up with an email giving links to the relevant websites and contact details in case of further enquiries. As such, the landlord gave reasonable advice on the options available and this was in line with its Housing Options Policy.
In her complaint escalation of 31 January 2024, the resident said she felt the landlord should do more to help her move quickly. By the time it gave its stage 2 response on 8 March 2024, the landlord was trying to find suitable temporary accommodation while it did the repairs needed in the resident’s home.
Its response repeated the advice it had given but did not address the matter of whether it should be doing more to move her permanently. While the landlord may not have been obliged to offer the resident a permanent move quickly, it was a service failing that it did not explain this.
Our view is that this was a minor failure which did not cause detriment to the resident because the landlord had already given appropriate advice. It was also actively looking for temporary accommodation while repairs were being done. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to move.

Complaint

Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must:
1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days for the acknowledgement.
3. Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging an escalation request.
The resident complained on 3 January 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it 4 working days later (on 9 January 2024). This was in line with the Code.
The landlord extended its response timescale on 21 January 2024. This was in line with the Code which allows landlords to extend a response timescale in exceptional circumstances. This is to help landlords give a full response to complex complaints.
It gave its stage 1 response 6 working days later on 30 January 2024 which was within the extended timescale it had given.
The resident escalated her complaint on 31 January 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it 2 working days later on 2 February 2024.
The landlord extended its response timescale on 27 February 2024. It is not ideal for landlords to extend response timescales at both complaint stages. However, in our view it was reasonable for the landlord to do so in this case. This is because the situation with the scope of the repairs had changed during its investigation at stage 2 resulting in it deciding to move the resident temporarily. It is understandable that the landlord wanted to explore the options for temporary accommodation before giving its final complaint response.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response of 8 March 2024 which was within the extended timescale it had given.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her kitchen ceiling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Requests to move.
2. Complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £100 for the inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports about the kitchen ceiling. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The landlord must send us evidence to show it has paid.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord:
1. Pays the £1,250 compensation offered in its stage 2 response of 8 March 2024 if it has not already done so. The compensation offer is part of the reason for our finding of reasonable redress.
2. Considers the record keeping failures we have identified. It should consider how it can avoid similar failings in future.