Red Kite Community Housing Limited (202521890)

Background

1. The resident reported concerns about sinking floors in May 2024, prompting the landlord to investigate potential structural movement. She was unhappy with the lack of progression in resolving the matter and its communication. We have considered 2 complaints and the landlord’s responses within this investigation.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of subsidence.
   2. Complaints.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of subsidence

4. The resident experienced significant delays and inconsistent communication from the landlord. While it arranged appropriate specialist inspections and acted on expert advice, there were avoidable delays and communication failings.

The landlord’s handling of the complaints

5. The landlord managed the complaints in line with its policy, barring a minor delay in its response time.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. Once a landlord is on notice of a repair, it must complete any works for which it is responsible within a reasonable period. What constitutes a “reasonable” timeframe depends on the individual circumstances of the case, including the nature and complexity of the repair.
7. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it defines a “responsive repair” as an unplanned component failure, with an expected completion time of 20 working days. Where a repair falls outside this definition (such as cyclical or planned works) the timescales may be longer. This is particularly relevant where repairs require specialist investigations or more extensive remedial works.
8. Investigations into potential subsidence may be complex and often require input from multiple professionals. Delays can occur while the landlord and appointed experts determine the appropriate course of action. This makes it essential for the landlord to manage such investigations proactively, maintain momentum, and ensure early identification of the cause of any suspected structural movement.
9. Records show the resident first reported concerns about sinking floors in May 2024. Although operatives visited the property for other issues, no technical officer attended to assess the flooring until February 2025, over 9 months later. This delay was significantly outside the landlord’s own 20‑day responsive repair timescale and represents a failure to act within a reasonable period.
10. Following the technical officer’s visit, the landlord arranged for an external consultant to inspect the property. The inspection took place on 19 March 2025. It received the consultant’s report on 22 April 2025. During this period, the resident regularly chased the landlord for updates which likely led to frustration and avoidable time and trouble for her.
11. After receiving the initial report, there were further delays arranging the investigations recommended by the consultant. These investigations took place in June 2025. A structural inspection report issued in July 2025, confirmed the property was stable but required drainage works. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of qualified professionals. That said, the avoidable delays prior to these investigations contributed to an already drawn-out process.
12. Between May 2024 and July 2025, it is evident the resident contacted the landlord numerous times seeking updates and trying to progress the matter. The lack of timely communication likely added to her frustration and negatively affected the landlord‑resident relationship.
13. Following the initial complaint, further issues emerged with the drainage repairs, including difficulty accessing gullies and the discovery of additional defects as work progressed. These required further assessment. Although the problems were complex and unforeseen, the landlord conducted further investigations within a reasonable timeframe given the circumstances.
14. In August 2025, the resident raised concerns about a possible “sink hole” near her electric meter. The landlord acted promptly by attending the same day. While it found no evidence of a sink hole, it raised remedial works as a high priority. This was appropriate in the circumstances and demonstrates risk management.
15. Records show that the landlord contacted the resident several times between July and October 2025 regarding repairs and next steps. However, the resident provided call logs showing she also made unsuccessful attempts to reach the landlord during this period, reinforcing her concerns about its communication.
16. In its first complaint response, the landlord told the resident the building surveyor would act as her point of contact. In its second response, however, it advised her to use the general repairs telephone number as repairs staff were often on site. While the landlord’s explanation was reasonable, the shift in approach was not clearly managed. If appointing a single point of contact, the landlord should agree expectations at the outset, such as the frequency of updates, and ensure consistency. This represents a learning point, as clearer communication would likely have reduced the resident’s dissatisfaction.
17. In response to the first complaint, the landlord apologised for communication failures, set out next steps, confirmed reinstatement works, and offered £250 compensation. In response to the second complaint, it acknowledged ongoing issues in the handling of the repairs and offered a further £200, bringing its total offer to £450.
18. Where a landlord acknowledges failings, we assess whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, we consider whether the offer was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
19. While the combined compensation fell within the range of awards recommended in our guidance for failings adversely affecting a resident, it was not proportionate to the initial delays she experienced.  It did not sufficiently reflect the extended period of uncertainty, the time and effort the resident spent pursuing a resolution, the impact on the enjoyment of her home, or the landlord’s shortcomings in managing a complex repair. For these reasons, we have awarded additional compensation.
20. Within the stage 2 response from November 2025, the landlord declined the resident’s request for temporary accommodation. It said it did not have evidence that her home was uninhabitable or that the repairs could not be completed while she lived there. This was reasonable, considering the structural survey reported that the movement was not impacting the integrity of the building. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its appointed professionals.
21. We recognise that until the landlord is satisfied the ground movement has ceased, it will not be able to complete all the internal repairs. As such, we have not ordered it to remedy these within a specific timeframe. However, we expect it to communicate with the resident to confirm when repairs will likely be completed and use its best endeavours to action these as soon as possible.

22. In line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords are required to issue a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint, with the option to extend by a further 10 working days. It must provide stage 2 responses within 20 working days, with the possibility of a 20‑day extension. Landlords should not exceed these timescales without a valid reason.
23. The landlord’s complaint policy was consistent with the Code’s definition of a complaint. The timescales within its complaints procedure also complied with the Code’s requirements.

Complaint 1

24. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 3 working days later than its 10-working day policy timescale.  Its stage 2 response was in line with its policy within 19 working days.
25. The stage 1 response was detailed and set out a clear chronology of events. Where the landlord identified service failures, it acknowledged them and issued an apology. It also explained the next steps, including planned appointments. At stage 2, the landlord provided a comprehensive response and offered compensation.

Complaint 2

26. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and issued its stage 1 response within the required timeframe. It acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within a reasonable period after receiving it by post. The stage 2 response was issued within 22 working days, 2 days later than its policy timescale.
27. The stage 1 and stage 2 responses were detailed and set out the actions taken by the landlord since its previous final response. It recognised that it had not met its repair service standards and or progressed repairs as initially intended. It offered compensation.

Complaint handling overview

28. There were minor delays across both complaints, and in each case the landlord did not inform the resident of an extension. However, the delays were limited, and the impact was minimal. The landlord did not offer compensation for this. We have raised a learning point for the landlord regarding timely communication of extensions.
29. In both complaints, the landlord identified shortcomings in its service, apologised, offered compensation, and set out actions it intended to take. Overall, its approach was broadly in line with its complaint policy and the requirements of the Code.

Learning

General learning

30. When outlining its commitments within complaint responses, the landlord should consider a defined scope of works accompanied by expected start dates. This would offer greater detail and realistic timeframes to support transparency and help rebuild trust in the landlord–resident relationship.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory in this case.

Communication

32. The landlord ought to set out expectations for communication with residents, particularly where repairs are technically complex. This should include:

• guidance for staff on setting and managing expectations
• clarity on the role and availability of a single point of contact
• ensuring residents receive regular updates even when no progress has been made

33. Where it becomes apparent that a stage 1 response will exceed 10 working days, or a stage 2 response will exceed 20 working days, the landlord should inform the resident of an extension in accordance with the Code.