West Kent Housing Association (202321956)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321956

West Kent Housing Association

30 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s request for a move.
2. The repairs to the resident’s property pending her permanent move.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord under a tenancy commencing 14 May 2018. The property is a 3–bedroom house which the resident occupies with her three children.
The landlord has several medical vulnerabilities recorded for the resident and Sher children. The resident and her youngest child have mobility issues.
As mentioned below, the Ombudsman is unable to consider historic events as part of this investigation. However, the history of repair and complaints has been taken into account by way of context and background.
In summary, the resident experienced damp and mould in her property on a number of occasions following the start of her tenancy. Although the landlord attempted to address the problem through repairs, the problem returned.
On 17 November 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint about the damp and mould in her home and the damage it caused to her belongings. As part of the resolution of that complaint, the landlord’s maintenance surveyor attended the resident’s home on 7 December 2022. He recommended that various works be carried out. On 3 February 2023, he advised the landlord that, although it could carry out some works with the resident in occupation, she would need to be moved out of the property for the main works. These involved fitting thermal boards to the bedroom walls.
The current complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move out of the property and the associated repairs.
The resident explained to the landlord that she did not want a temporary move. She was concerned that the disruption would be too much for her family. She wanted to defer the works until a permanent move was available, whether that was a permanent move arranged by it or by her own bidding on properties on the housing register.
After various discussions, the landlord agreed to move the resident permanently. It confirmed this to the resident by letter on 31 March 2023. The letter explained that the landlord would make two reasonable offers of alternative accommodation. If refused, it would review the offer and may take other action to allow the completion of the works.
The resident understood from these conversations with the landlord that all the proposed works would be done after she moved.
On 6 April 2023 there were internal landlord communications regarding the outstanding works. It was concerned about the time it may take to arrange a permanent move and complete the works. It decided to carry out a mould wash treatment while the resident was in occupation. When the landlord informed the resident of this on 11 April 2023, she stated that it had done a mould wash in January 2023 and it did not need to be done again. She also informed the landlord that she had been advised that all repairs would be frozen until after the permanent decant. The landlord cancelled the mould wash.
On 15 June 2023 the landlord made a property offer to the resident. She declined the offer because the property did not have a driveway and there was nowhere to park outside the house. She explained that this was necessary due to her spinal condition and her daughter’s cerebral palsy.
The resident considered that the landlord’s offer was not reasonable as it did not meet her family’s mobility needs. She felt it should not count as one of her two offers. She called the landlord on various occasions in June and early July 2023 to discuss the matter. The landlord raised tasks for the resident to be called back.
On 29 June 2023 the landlord raised further repair jobs. These were mould treatment, repairs to the windows, bathroom decoration and loft insulation. The resident called the landlord on 30 June 2023 to advise that she could not agree to book the works in as she did not have a date to leave the property. The repair jobs were cancelled.
On 6 July 2023 the resident logged a formal complaint because she was unhappy about the property she was offered. The landlord discussed the resident’s complaint with her and summarised the issues in an email to her on 13 July 2023:
1. The property offered was not suitable due to the mobility of the resident and her daughter.
2. She had not had any communications from the landlord despite calling many times.
3. She felt the medical information she sent was ignored.
4. The outcome sought by the resident was for the offer to be withdrawn and for the two offers made to be more suitable based upon mobility issues.
On 14 July 2023, the landlord emailed the resident. It stated that the offer it had made of an alternative property was a reasonable one and would be counted as one of her offers. It confirmed that she still had one offer left.
On 25 July 2023, the resident sent an email to the landlord adding to her complaint that she was still being harassed with text messages and calls regarding booking works to the property. She said she had been assured that all booking of work would stop until she moved out.
On 3 August 2023, the landlord provided its Stage 1 response to the complaint. In the response:
1. The landlord set out the criteria it used for any offers made. These included the details of her and her family’s medical conditions. It recorded that the property adaptations required were a driveway or allocated/on street parking directly outside the property.
2. It explained that it felt that the property offered was suitable for most of her needs. With regard to parking, it suggested the resident consider the option of applying for a blue badge or disabled parking space on the road which would alleviate the issue of on street parking and the walk to the property.
3. It confirmed that it had taken her and her family’s disabilities into account when making the property offer. This would stand as her first offer, with one more still available. It would notify her when a more suitable property became available.
4. With regard to the calls from the contractors, the landlord explained that it had agreed to move the resident because of the disruption of the major works. It planned to carry out the less invasive jobs to ensure that it was providing a safe and liveable environment for her and her family. With autumn and winter approaching, it needed to get the works done as soon as possible. It apologised for the level of calls and communications and the stress this may have caused. It asked that she co–operate with the contractors to ensure the works were carried out successfully.
5. With regard to communications, the landlord stated that its standard response time was 5 working days and from its records this had been adhered to. It accepted that it had not called the resident with an update on the complaint on 20 July 2023 which was the end of the 10 working days for the complaint to be resolved. It apologised and offered £50 compensation for the delay in the call back and the complaint process.
On 4 August 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. Among other things, the resident stated that a disabled parking bay would be useful but it was still not going to be safe getting to and from it on a country road with no footpath. In addition, she relayed that the council had informed her that a blue badge bay was not possible as there was nowhere safe to put one with enough clearance.
On 14 August 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it had amended the scope of the works to omit the thermal boarding. It intended to see how the property coped with the other repairs. It had additionally included a survey of cavity wall insulation, using thermal imaging from outside, to identify areas where insulation may have dropped or compacted.
On about 18 September 2023 the landlord removed the resident from its decant list as she no longer needed to be moved out for it to complete the works at the property. It agreed to honour one further offer as a direct let to the resident and confirmed this to her.
On 19 September 2023 the landlord issued its Stage 2 response. The response reiterated its Stage 1 decision that the first property offer would stand as one of her two offers. It confirmed that it was still willing to make a second offer and that it would contact her once it found suitable properties that met her requirements. It outlined a schedule for the outstanding works to be done while the resident was in occupation, to which the resident had agreed. The landlord had reviewed the length of time it had taken to complete the works and communication about these and agreed that compensation was due. It offered £150 in compensation.

Post-complaint events

On 20 September 2023 the resident referred her complaint to this Service.
Between 17 and 20 October 2023 the outstanding works were completed as scheduled.
On 29 November 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it would make one further suitable direct offer of accommodation.
On 12 January 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident stating that it had reviewed her management transfer status. This was to be removed as the works to her property were completed. It signposted the resident on how to bid for suitable properties or register for a mutual exchange.
On 31 January 2024 the resident referred the landlord’s retraction of its offer of a direct let to this Service.
The resident reported to the landlord on 31 January 2024 that damp and mould had returned in one of the bedrooms. The landlord carried out further works to address the damp and mould in March 2024. The resident raised another complaint to her landlord about miscommunication and repair delays.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (“the Scheme”). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
As part of her complaint to this Service, the resident has referred to historic damp and mould in her property and the damage that this caused to her belongings. As noted in the background above, the resident brought an earlier complaint about these matters prior to the current complaint.
The resident has also referred to the fact that, after conclusion of the subject complaint, damp and mould returned to the property. This was part of a separate more recent complaint by the resident.
This investigation will not assess the resident’s earlier complaint, her later complaint, or the matters which gave rise to them. This is because in both cases the complaints were addressed by the landlord and concluded at Stage 1 of its complaints procedure. Under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may only investigate complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
As part of her complaint to this Service, the resident also raised concerns about the landlord’s decision of 12 January 2024 to retract its offer of a direct let. She feels the decision is unfair because the landlord committed to this offer at a time when it knew that the works to her property no longer required her to move out.
As this issue has not been considered by the landlord as part of a formal complaint, it has not yet had the opportunity to respond to it. The matter is therefore also outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.
Accordingly, this assessment will focus on the period after 3 February 2023 (when the landlord identified the need for the resident to move out of the property) and up to the conclusion of the complaint on 19 September 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move

The landlord has supplied this Service with its Housing Options policy. This explains how it allocates its homes and the circumstances in which existing residents can transfer or swap properties. It also explains the circumstances in which residents can be moved out of their homes for repairs or other reasons – such moves are referred to as decants in the policy and, where it is necessary for clarity, we have used the same term.
The landlord identified on 3 February 2023 that the resident would need to be moved out of her property in order for major works to be done, with an estimated duration of 3 weeks.
In situations where repairs need to be carried out and the resident is expected to return to their home once the repairs are finished, the landlord’s Housing Options policy explains that it will move residents under a short–term temporary decant. Available options include staying with family or friends, a hotel or a temporary move to another of the landlord’s homes.
In this case, the resident expressed concern at the disruptive effect of a temporary decant on her children because of their medical needs.
The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policy in discussing the resident’s concerns with her. It took into account that a temporary decant would be disruptive to the children and agreed to offer a permanent decant on 31 March 2023. This was also reasonable of the landlord. As part of these discussions, the landlord explained that it had a limited stock of properties of a suitable size and in the area sought by the resident. It appropriately managed the resident’s expectations as to how quickly a permanent decant could be achieved.
The landlord made an offer of alternative accommodation to the resident on 15 June 2023. The resident declined this on the basis that it did not meet her and her daughter’s mobility needs. For the same reason, she disputed that the offer should count as one of the two reasonable offers she was entitled to receive.
The landlord’s policy does not address what is required of a property offered by way of a permanent decant, save where a resident has first moved temporarily and wishes to make the decant permanent. In such cases, it states that the landlord will look at whether the home is suitable for the resident on a permanent basis. This compares to the landlord’s policy in respect of temporary decants. For emergency, short–term, or long–term temporary decants, the policy explains that the landlord will try to match a resident’s current housing need but that they may need to move to a home that does not quite match their current home.
It is reasonable to conclude from this that where a move is only temporary, residents may be required to make compromises with regard to the accommodation offered, because they are not expected to be living there forever. Where a move is permanent, the landlord has a greater obligation under its policy to assess whether the property offered is suitable as a permanent home.
In this case, the evidence provided by the landlord does not show what steps, if any, it took to assess whether the offered property was suitable for the resident and her family as a permanent home. From the evidence provided, enquiries it did make occurred after the property was offered to the resident and she had declined it. Those enquiries cast doubt on the suitability of the property for a person with disabilities. Nevertheless, the landlord proceeded to confirm to the resident on 14 July 2023 that the offer was reasonable and would count as one of her two offers. It did so without giving further explanation in response to the concerns she had raised. This was not reasonable of the landlord.
In its subsequent Stage 1 response dated 3 August 2023, the landlord stated that it had taken the disabilities of the resident and her family into account in the offer. It set out the criteria by which any offers were to be made. These included the criteria: “Property adaptations required: – driveway or allocated or on street parking directly outside the property.”
It is common ground that the offered property did not have allocated or on street parking directly outside it. The landlord did not say that it would be adapting the property to provide this or suggest that this was possible. It follows that the property offered did not meet the landlord’s stated criteria.
The landlord explained in its complaint response that the offered property was suitable for most of the resident’s needs. With regard to the concerns raised by the resident about the suitability of the property, it suggested that the resident apply for a blue badge or disabled parking space on the road to alleviate the issue of on street parking and the walk to the property.
The landlord’s suggestion did not fairly address the resident’s concern that the property was unsuitable because it was unsafe due to her and her child’s mobility needs. It is noted that the landlord repeated the suggestion in its Stage 2 response. This was after the resident had explained that a parking bay would not resolve the issue and that she had been informed by the council that it would not install one in any event. This was unreasonable of the landlord because it appeared not to take into account the resident’s concerns over her and her child’s safety.
In short, it was not reasonable for the landlord to maintain that the offered property should count as one of the resident’s two offers of alternative accommodation. That property did not meet the criteria which the landlord said it would apply and it did not otherwise satisfy itself that the property was suitable for the resident and her family’s needs.
The resident attempted to discuss the matter with the appropriate team of the landlord on various occasions between 15 June 2023, the date she declined the offer, and 14 July 2023, the date when the landlord confirmed that this would stand as one of the resident’s two offers. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident called on 8 occasions in this period to speak to the relevant team. The landlord promised her a callback within 5 working days. It is acknowledged that some of the resident’s 8 calls may have fallen within the same callback window. However, there is no evidence in the landlord’s records that the relevant team called the resident back. This was a communication failing by the landlord.
Ultimately, there were failings by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s proposed move as follows:
1. in its decision to maintain that the offered property should stand as one of the resident’s two reasonable offers;
2. in not properly addressing the resident’s concerns about the safety of the offered property;
3. in its response to the resident’s calls.
The landlord’s failings caused detriment to the resident. She was caused stress and inconvenience by the situation because she felt that one of her property offers had been wrongly used up. She spent time and trouble in pursuing calls to the landlord and bringing a complaint to try resolve the matter.
The detriment was for a period of 3 months from 15 June 2023 to 18 September 2023 – when the landlord removed the resident from its decant list and made a fresh offer of a direct let. As noted above, the landlord’s actions in that respect do not form part of this investigation.
The landlord did not recognise its failings in its complaint responses or subsequently. Under the circumstances, an award of compensation of £300 would be appropriate.

Repairs to the resident’s property pending her permanent move

Shortly after agreeing to move the resident permanently, the landlord identified that there was likely to be a delay in locating a suitable home for her to move to and, as a consequence, a delay in completing the outstanding works.
Internal communications on 6 April 2023 show that it decided to do a mould wash treatment. It was reasonable under the circumstances for the landlord to take action where it could to address the damp and mould, rather than leaving it in the resident’s property for an open–ended period of time.
The landlord may not have been aware at this time that the resident’s expectation was that all works would be carried out once she moved out. However, the resident explained this to the landlord on 11 April 2023 when she was contacted regarding the mould wash. The landlord cancelled the mould wash but missed an opportunity to explain to the resident at this time that it may need to carry out some works while she was in occupation.
On 29 June 2023 the landlord again raised jobs for it to carry out various works. It appears from the landlord’s internal communications that it intended to discuss this with the resident. However, it did not do so for reasons which are not clear. As a result, the resident received communications from contractors about booking in works which she was not expecting.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 June 2023 to advise that she could not agree to book the works in as she did not have a date to leave the property. The landlord again missed an opportunity to explain that it needed to carry out some works while she was in occupation. The landlord gave the contrary message to the resident on this occasion. It reassured her that it would speak with the contractors and make them aware that they needed to wait until the resident was moved before the work was done. It cancelled the repair jobs.
Despite the reassurance the landlord gave her, the resident continued to receive requests for works to be booked in. This caused her to add to her complaint on 25 July 2023 that she was still being harassed with text messages and calls regarding booking in works.
It was not until 3 August 2023, when the landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response, that it explained that it planned to carry out the less invasive jobs to ensure that it was providing a safe and liveable environment for the resident and her family.
The landlord’s failure to properly communicate with the resident over a period of 4 months delayed completion of the interim works and caused detriment to the resident. She was caused stress and inconvenience in dealing with numerous requests to book in work which she was not expecting. She spent time and trouble in contacting the landlord and in adding to her complaint to resolve the situation.
In its Stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the delay in completing the works, its poor communication and the stress and inconvenience this caused the resident.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.
The redress offered by the landlord comprised an apology and compensation of £150 for this aspect of the complaint. The compensation offered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for circumstances where a landlord’s failings have adversely affected a resident. Given the time and trouble caused to the resident across the 4-month period, the compensation award, together with the apology, represents reasonable redress for the failures identified.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. At Stage 1, it aims to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. Where a resident requests an escalation to Stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and provide a response within 20 working days. If more time is needed at either stage, the landlord will discuss this with the resident and may extend by a further 10 working days.
The resident logged her formal complaint on 6 July 2023. The Stage 1 response was due on 20 July 2023, as the landlord advised the resident. The landlord did not provide its response by that date, nor contact the resident to discuss an extension before time expired as it should have done. The resident had to chase the landlord for a response.
On 23 July 2023, the landlord advised the resident that it needed to extend time for the complaint response in order to complete its investigations. While it was appropriate for the landlord to update the resident, it should have provided a date when it would respond by, which it failed to do. This caused the resident to contact the landlord on 3 occasions to ask that someone deal with her complaint.
In its Stage 1 response provided on 3 August 2023, the landlord accepted and apologised for the delay in providing the complaint response and offered compensation of £50. This was appropriate. However, the response did not properly address one aspect of the resident’s complaint as it should have done. This was that the landlord had not responded to her request for callbacks to discuss the property she was offered.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint by email dated 4 August 2023. The landlord should have acknowledged the request for escalation by 11 August 2023 and responded to it within 20 working days – by 1 September 2023. Instead, it acknowledged the complaint on 15 August 2023 and provided a Stage 2 response on 19 September 2023. This meant that the landlord provided its response some 12 working days outside policy timescales.
The Stage 2 response appropriately recognised and offered redress to the resident for its failure to communicate regarding the outstanding works, as noted above. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to recognise that it had failed in its Stage 1 response to respond to part of the resident’s complaint and address it; and also to recognise its delay in providing the Stage 2 response.
The landlord’s failings caused detriment to the resident. The resolution of the complaint was delayed. This meant that the resident was required to chase the landlord for a response. Part of her complaint was not addressed. Overall, she spent more time and trouble in seeking to resolve her complaint than would reasonably be expected. Under the circumstances, an award of £150 would be appropriate compensation for the resident. This sum includes the £50 already offered at Stage 1.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a move.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property pending the resident’s permanent move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

With 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £300 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s request for a move.
3. Pay the resident compensation of £150 in respect of the time and trouble caused by the failings identified in its complaint handling, inclusive of the £50 it awarded through its complaints process (if it has not paid this sum already).
The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to confirm its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £150 compensation it offered at Stage 2 of the complaints process for the failings in its handling of repairs to her property pending her permanent move. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this amount is paid.
The landlord should contact this Service confirming its intentions regarding the recommendation made.