Settle Group (202430339)

Decision
Case ID	202430339
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Settle Group
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	1 December 2025

Background

The resident’s property is not directly connected to the main drainage network, so a pumping station and macerator are in place. This requires maintenance and repairs, with costs recharged to her through annual service charges. She complained about a blocked drain that caused sewage to leak from a manhole outside her property. She also raised concerns that her service and repair charges were too high. She complained to us as the charge issues had not been resolved and she felt the compensation offered did not reflect the impact on her.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. the resident’s reports of a drain blockage.
2. the resident’s reports of issues with its administration and calculation of service and repair charges.
3. the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. a drain blockage.
2. issues with its administration and calculation of service and repair charges.
We found there was no maladministration in the landlord response to the resident’s reports of its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

A drain blockage

The landlord delayed completing repairs to a manhole leaking sewage in April 2024. It failed to inform the resident of planned works to the drain, which likely led to no access to the manhole. It delayed completing further remedial drain works until July 2024.

Issues with its administration and calculation of service and repair charges.

The landlord complaint responses did not clearly explain its decision to refund some repair charges or how the figures were calculated.

Complaint handling

The landlord followed the timescales outlined in the Complaint Handling Code during its complaint process.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 08 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 made up as follows: £250 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of a blocked drain. £150 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its issues with its issues with its administration and calculation of service and repair charges. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid as offered in its complaint responses.	No later than 08 January 2026
3	Specific action: Repair and service charges If it has not already done so, the landlord should write to the resident to explain its position on the level of service charges and explain its decision to refund specific repair charges. The landlord must provide us with documentary evidence of this by the due date.	No later than 08 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
February 2024	A contractor attended the resident’s property to address sewage leaking from a manhole.
March 2024	Contractors attended twice to carry out planned preventative maintenance.
24 April 2024	A contractor attended the sewer and found a blockage. They reported the blockage was caused by fat deposits. It completed the repair and recommended high pressure jet washing of the drain.
26 April 2024	The landlord emailed the resident and said its contractors had found the pipes were blocked due to residents putting the wrong materials down their drains.
26 April 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the sewage leakage. She said she had been told in March 2024 by sewage maintenance contractors that it was not the fault of residents. Instead, they found it was the lack of maintenance and poor pipe construction which had caused blockages. She said she was aware the landlord had replaced the pipes on other properties after CCTV investigations. She requested the same works. She said the service costs were too high.
3 May 2024	A contractor completed a CCTV investigation of the sewer. They found sections of the sewer to be partially blocked and recommended a new channel installed.
31 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for delays and communication issues. It said it was difficult to determine the cause of drainage issues. It offered £100 in compensation and detailed its learning in relation to communications and team responsibility for different repairs. It provided a timeline and outline of the works completed. The landlord waived the fee for these works. The landlord also provided a breakdown for ground maintenance and sewage costs.
28 June 2024	The landlord told the resident it had decided to refund £566.87 to her service charge account.
25 July 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She was unhappy that the sewage works had not been completed. She also felt the refund of £566.87 service charges was not adequate and requested further charges refunded.
30 July 2024	A contractor completed the sewer works.
16 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologised for the issues the resident had experienced. It said it was hard to pinpoint the exact location of the drainage issue but recognised the impact on the resident and increased its compensation offer to £150. It reviewed the repair costs the resident had incurred and issued a refund of £483.31 to her service charge account. It offered the resident a meeting to discuss charges. It agreed to waive all repair costs from when the issues were reported to when it was resolved.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said the issues around service charges were ongoing. She said the compensation offered by the landlord was inadequate as it did not address the impact on her quality of life, distress and inconvenience.
9 June 2025	Following the end of the landlord internal complaints process reviewed its handling of its contract with its pumping station contractors. It found it had not consulted with residents before extending the contract in 2023. It offered a refund of £181.91 for the related service charges. It offered £250 compensation for recognition of the delay in its decision.

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’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The resident’s reports of a drain blockage
Finding	Maladministration

On 17 February 2024 the landlord was made aware of a sewage leak from a manhole near the resident’s property. Under the lease agreement the landlord was responsible for repairs of the communal facilities. Its repair policy says external sewage leaks should be repaired within 24 hours. A contractor attempted to attend the repair the following day, however it was unable to access the manhole. The following day the contractor attended and resolved the issue. A contractor completed the repair at the earliest opportunity given the initial lack of access.
In April 2024 the resident reported a new sewage leak from the manhole twice. This repair was completed outside of the expected timescales outlined in its repair policy. The landlord failed to keep full records of its correspondence with the resident during this time.
In April 2024 the attending contractor said it had cleaned the drains by removing a blockage before the macerator. They said a build-up of fat could have been restricting pipework and recommended jet washing the pipes. The landlord emailed the resident to explain the findings. It also sent letters to all properties on the estate about what could be put down the drains. Based on the evidence it had at that time, the landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with its obligations set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure the drains were kept in proper working order.
On 26 April 2024 the resident complained. She said she had been told at a recent visit by contractors that it was the lack of maintenance and poor construction of the drains that was leading to blockages. She said contractors had not seen anything inappropriate in the drain. She requested the landlord complete a CCTV inspection of the sewers. On 3 May 2024 a contractor attended the property to carry out the CCTV study. This was completed within its routine repair timescales.
In May 2024 the resident requested a copy of the report which the landlord appropriately provided to the resident with its stage 1 response. The report found the piping diameter reduced which was not best practice. It recommended removing the old macerator, installing a new straight clay channel and cleaning it with a high-pressure jet. The contractor attended to complete these works on 10 June 2024 but did not access the manholes. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to inform them of this appointment. This was unreasonable and likely led to delays in the works being completed.
On 28 June 2024 the landlord informed all affected residents of the upcoming works. On 30 July 2024 the works were completed. Although there is reference to the completion of the works in internal emails and photos showing the removal of the macerator, there are no repair records to confirm what works were completed. This was a record keeping failure. The landlord took 59 days to complete these routine works and failed to follow its repair policy.
The resident chased the completion of these remedial works several times. Although the landlord responded with updates, a more proactive approach during delays would likely have managed her expectations, reduced her distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble.
From the documentation provided we have seen no evidence the drain blockage was caused by a lack of maintenance. The evidence indicates that inspections were completed each month with services completed as required by the inspections. The landlord has acted reasonably in its attempts to keep the drains in proper working order.
In its complaint responses the landlord apologised for the impact of the delays in completing the drain repairs. It said it had requested its repairs team review the drainage repair processes and provide information to staff to clear up where repair responsibility lies. The landlord has learnt from outcomes in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
The resident told the landlord on several occasions these issues were causing her distress and inconvenience. It offered the resident £150 in compensation to address the impact the delay in works had on her. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected a resident. While the awarded figure is within this range, the amount does not adequately recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident by the identified failures.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 in recognition of these failures, inclusive of the £150 already offered. This amount reflects the distress, inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident by the landlord’s communication failures and delays in resolving the repair issues.

Complaint	Issues with its administration and calculation of service and repair charges
Finding	Maladministration

The resident told the landlord she was worried about how much service charge she was paying. Deciding if a service charge is reasonable is something the First-tier Tribunal may be able to consider. We have not looked at whether the amount is reasonable. We have only looked at how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it had waived fees for the recent repairs and recommended works to the drainage system due to the time taken to resolve the issue. Later in the response it said although the report said the pipework was not best practice, it did not represent a building defect so it would not reimburse costs for works. The landlord’s explanation was not clear and contradictory. This was a failure of the landlord to be consistent with the resident and manage her expectations.
The stage 1 response listed the maintenance and service charges billed to the resident and her neighbours in 2023/2024. It also outlined the repair visits completed by the pumping station contractor since 2020. It explained that each household in the road was responsible for paying an equal amount. The resident’s lease agreement said the resident must pay a fair and proper proportion of the cost of maintaining and repairing communal facilities. The landlord’s explanation was reasonable and in line with the resident’s lease agreement.
When requested, the landlord gave the resident copies of the full invoices within a reasonable timeframe. It also signposted her to the First-tier Tribunal. It determined the original repair costs were not fair and refunded them. This was a reasonable action to remedy its earlier mistake.
In its stage 2 response the landlord reviewed the service charge history back to the financial year of 2018/2019. It also provided a breakdown of the charges, in some of the years listed there were no repair charges. The landlord agreed to partial refunds of repair charges from 2021/2022 and 2022/2023. It failed to explain what some of the charges were made for. It failed to explain why it would refund some but not all repair charges. Its calculation of the refunded sum was also not set out in a clear manner. This was a failure of the landlord to set out a clear decision.
The landlord also agreed to waive all repair costs from when the issue was reported on 24 April 2024 until it was resolved on 30 June 2024. The dates used were inaccurate and likely would have caused the resident frustration. It failed to explain why it had decided to waive the refund.
The landlord arranged a meeting between the resident and its staff, so she could ask questions. This meeting happened in October 2024. This was a reasonable step to help put things right in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
The landlord said it would use the resident’s complaint to support improvements to its services. It also said it would review how it communicated service charges to residents. The landlord took steps to learn from outcomes in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. However, it has not identified all the failings we have found in this investigation.
The landlord did not apologise for the issues we have identified. It’s also unclear whether it found there was a failing in service around the repair charges or the refunds were offers of goodwill. It did not offer the resident any compensation other than refunds of charges. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the charges likely caused her frustration, inconvenience and time and trouble. The landlord failed to provide a clear decision or put things right.
In recognition of these impacts, we have ordered the landlord to pay £150. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise for these issues and to write to the resident to explain its decision to reimburse repair costs and its position on the level of service charges.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition. Our findings are the landlord:
1. has a published complaints policy which complies with the Code in respect of timescales.
2. acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the timescales of the Code.
3. issued its stage 1 complaint within the timescales outlined in the Code.
4. acknowledged the stage 2 complaint within the timescales outlined in the Code.
5. issued its stage 2 response within the timescales of the Code.
In summary the landlord followed the Code when issuing its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

At times, the records have made it difficult for us to determine the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions. The landlord should record all actions it takes when dealing with repairs and ensure all communications with residents are added to case files.

Communication

The landlord accepted its communication with the resident and internally had been poor at times. It did not keep the resident updated around delays. It has outlined some learning to address these failings. It should ensure its ongoing communications with the resident are proactive, clear and timely.