West Kent Housing Association (202419718)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419718

West Kent Housing Association

23 June 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. Repairs following a mutual exchange.
2. Pest issues (infestation of rats and mice).
3. The complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom property. She moved into the property via a mutual exchange on 14 August 2023. There are several vulnerabilities in the household and the resident has a number of health conditions. She lives in the property with her children.
The resident raised several issues with the property once she had moved in. This included damp and mould, general repairs, and external structures which she said were a health and safety risk. The external structures were a shed, a patio, and a wooden pagoda.
The resident raised a complaint on 22 April 2024. She said that she had been ready to move into the property in May 2023, but that the landlord delayed the move until August 2023. She said there were several repairs outstanding and there were rats in the garden. She also said there were health and safety concerns regarding structures in the garden. The resident said she was told that the bathroom was due for replacement, but the landlord had now said it was not due to replace it until 2040. The resident said that the number of repairs was causing her distress, particularly due to her health conditions. She said that she had no heating in the winter months due to a boiler issue.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 21 May 2024. It apologised for the length of time the resident waited for a bathroom tap replacement, and a repair to uneven flooring. It offered £200 compensation for this. It acknowledged that the resident had been left without a working boiler and stated this was due to the repair being more complex than it had first thought. It offered £100 compensation for this. It listed multiple repairs and identified which were its responsibility, and which were the resident’s. It stated that it had assessed the shed, wooden pagoda and patio to be health and safety risks and although these structures were not its responsibility it said it would remove them due to the risk. However, it said it would not complete further works such as replacements.
The resident escalated the complaint on 20 May 2024. She had concerns about how the landlord was handling her repairs. She also requested that the landlord review the compensation. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 2 August 2024. It reiterated what it had said in the stage 1 response. It confirmed which repairs it had completed, and which were outstanding. It said that it would lay down turf when it had removed the decking.
The resident’s solicitor submitted a letter of claim on 27 September 2024. This related to all the outstanding repairs. At the time of writing this report, court proceedings had not been issued. The resident remains unhappy at how her repairs have been handled following the mutual exchange.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs following the mutual exchange

The landlord’s mutual exchange policy and the mutual exchange property condition form says that residents need to check a property before agreeing to it, as they take on responsibility for a number of repairs. These include:
1. Property decoration.
2. Minor repairs.
3. Fixing damage or neglect from the previous tenant.
4. Repairing any fixtures and fittings that do not belong to the landlord.
The landlord’s repairs policy provides timescales for any repairs it is responsible for completing. These are:
1. By the end of the next day for emergency repairs.
2. Within 3 full days for urgent repairs.
3. 21 days for all other repairs.
There were multiple repairs raised by the resident in her complaint. These were:
1. Heating repairs.
2. Unsafe decking, shed, pagoda and garden tiles in the garden.
3. Disrepair in the bathroom.
4. Uneven upstairs floors.
5. Plastering repairs.
6. Mould.
7. Door repairs.
8. A loose electrical cable in the bedroom.
9. Kitchen disrepair.

Heating repairs

On 7 November 2023, the resident advised that her heaters were not working. The landlord advised the resident to bleed the radiators. The resident said that due to her disabilities she could not do this herself and she had no local support. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it is the resident’s responsibility to bleed her radiators. However, the landlord agreed to send someone out. It said that there may be a charge for this. It is unclear if the landlord charged the resident. It is positive that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerability and offered support.
In the resident’s complaint she raised that she had been without heating for a period of time. It is unclear from the records when the resident’s heating stopped working in full, however the landlord records show that it provided temporary heaters on 24 November 2023. On the same day, the resident advised the landlord that she had an allergy to the cold and that she had additionally had to buy an electric blanket. On becoming aware that the resident had a condition which was significantly worsened by the lack of heating, the landlord should have considered whether there were further steps it could take to support the resident. This may have been escalating the case internally to expedite the repair, considering a decant, or providing additional source of heating. We have not seen evidence that the landlord considered additional measures.
The landlord’s records indicate that it completed the repair to the air source heating on 12 December 2023. In the stage 1 response, the landlord recognised that the repair took longer than it would have liked and advised this was due to the matter being complex. It also recognised that there was a significant impact on the resident due to her health conditions. It offered £100 compensation as an apology. We consider that the landlord responded appropriately to this aspect of the resident’s complaint as it acknowledged the delay and paid compensation. We consider the compensation amount to be inline with our remedies guidance. This is due to the delay to the repair being relatively short, and the landlord providing an explanation for why there was a delay.

Unsafe decking, shed, pagoda and garden tiles in the garden

The landlord completed a mutual exchange inspection on 15 June 2023. It did not note any concerns regarding the garden. The earliest evidence that a concern was raised regarding this was on 13 December 2024 when the landlord raised a job to remove the shed, wooden pagoda, and decking. On 9 February 2024, the landlord noted that the resident’s dog had been injured on the wooding decking. In the resident’s complaint she also said her daughter had been injured on the decking. When the landlord was made aware that there was a potential risk to a resident, having agreed to remove the structures it should have considered whether it needed to treat the works with more urgency. The evidence shows that the landlord did not attend to remove the structures until 29 April 2024.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 April 2024. She said contractors were on site and that they advised the job to remove the decking was more complex than initially thought. This was because the removal of the decking would leave rats exposed and that the garden would need to be “made good.” They had further said that the air source heating pump was on the decking, and it would need to move this. They advised that for the shed and the pagoda to come down, a skip was required. The resident asked the landlord to advise her how they could move forward. The landlord said the external structures were the resident’s responsibility and as such they would not replace them. They also said they were not responsible for making good the garden.
While we recognise the landlord’s position that the structures were the resident’s responsibility, the landlord had accepted there were health and safety risks and agreed to remove them. It may have been beneficial for the landlord to discuss why the contractors said they were unable to remove the structures on their first visit. This subsequently became the reason that the resident was unhappy to have the structures removed, causing a delay in resolving the health and safety concern. The landlord missed an opportunity to work with the resident at the earliest opportunity to help her understand what the landlord was and wasn’t responsible for.
On 25 June 2024, the landlord advised it would place turf down. The resident subsequently raised concerns about the turf. She advised that maintaining this would be extremely difficult due to her disabilities. On 9 August 2024 the landlord said it would get quotes for slab as an alternative for turf. The landlord was not responsible for making any replacement for the decking, however it is positive to see that it considered the resident’s circumstances and explored possible resolutions.
The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that the landlord had tried to raise appointments to remove the structure, but that the resident had been refusing the work. As per the resident’s tenancy agreement, the resident should be providing access for the repairs to be completed. In not providing access to have the structure removed, there have been further delays in completing the works.
The Ombudsman notes that the structures currently remain in place. We recognise that the potential legal dispute has further delayed works. However, if there are outstanding health and safety concerns, these should be considered. The time taken to remove potentially dangerous structures has been excessive. We recognise that actions of both the resident and the landlord have contributed to the delays. However, we consider that the landlord has a duty of care to ensure the property is safe, regardless of the ongoing dispute. As such the landlord should ensure that this matter is prioritised.
In her complaint the resident raised concerns about uneven garden tiles. In the landlord’s complaints response, it said these were the resident’s responsibility. We have seen limited evidence in relation to the garden tiles. However, we consider that the landlord should ensure there are no safety concerns. If there are any safety concerns, the landlord should take responsibility, as per its repairs policy.

Disrepair to the bathroom

The resident contacted the landlord on 7 November 2023 to ask about a bathroom upgrade. She said she had been told when taking the property that her bathroom was due for replacement. We have not seen evidence showing that the resident was told she would get a replacement bathroom. In the complaints response the landlord said the bathroom was not due for replacement until 2040 unless it was in poor condition.
On 14 November 2023, the landlord said it raised a repair for a bathroom floor inspection. On 23 November 2023, the resident raised that the tiles were a trip hazard. The landlord’s repairs records dated 24 November 2023, said it needed to inspect the bathroom floor as the tiles were lifting and were sharp. There is no evidence that the landlord completed this inspection at this time, or what the outcome was.
When the resident raised her complaint on 22 April 2024, she said she was concerned about her children’s safety every time they went into the bathroom, due to the tiles. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to repairs which have a health and safety concern within 3 working days. There is no evidence that the landlord treated the repair as urgent, despite the potential safety concerns.
The stage 1 response acknowledged that it was the landlord’s responsibility to inspect the floor and that it would arrange an appointment for this. We have not seen evidence that the landlord completed this inspection.
The stage 1 response recognised that 2 repairs to the bathroom had been delayed. This was repairs to the basin taps and seal around the bathroom wall. The landlord acknowledged that the repair was out of service timescales and considered this when offering compensation. The landlord responded appropriately in identifying a service failure for these two repairs and considered how to put things right.
The stage 1 response identified that the sink and bath needed replacing. It said it would raise these works. We have not seen evidence that the landlord completed these works. We have also been unable to see what communication the landlord had with the resident about when she could expect the repairs to be completed. We have seen evidence that the landlord notified the resident on 24 June 2024 that the bathroom was now on the list for a replacement that year. As a replacement was due, the landlord may no longer have considered the repair necessary. However, we consider that the landlord should have been clear in its communication if it no longer intended to complete the repairs.

Uneven upstairs floors

On 23 November 2023, the resident advised that the floors upstairs were uneven. An internal email dated 25 April 2024 raised that the uneven floors remained outstanding. It also identified that there had been several jobs raised for the uneven floors but these were not completed, and it could not see a reason for this. We have not seen evidence that the landlord has acted on the repair within the timescales in its repairs policy. We have also not seen evidence that the landlord was communicating with the resident regarding the outstanding repair.
On 15 May 2024, an internal note said that contractors had identified the floor to be chipboard, which it said was difficult to repair. It said this may be due to the age of the property. It suggested a surveyor visit to inspect the floors. In the stage 1 response dated 21 May 2024, the landlord apologised for the length of time it had taken to inspect the floor. It considered this in its compensation award.
A surveyor attended on 24 June 2024 and identified uneven flooring. However, it did not record what if any, action it needed to take to rectify this. The landlord did not address the uneven flooring in the stage 2 response. We understand that no repairs to the flooring have taken place. The landlord should have communicated to the resident its findings in relation to the uneven flooring. If it no longer needed to be repaired the landlord should have advised why this was the case. There is no evidence to support that it did this.

Plastering repairs

The resident raised plastering disrepair in the front room, hallway, and bedroom. The repairs policy says that plaster repairs and decoration is the responsibility of the resident. It said in its complaints response that it was not responsible for plastering repairs. The stage 1 response from the landlord was therefore reasonable.
The stage 2 response said that the landlord undertook plastering works to the living room, in an area where a storage heater had been removed. The landlord’s repairs log shows this was completed on 16 July 2024. The landlord has not said why it considered these plastering works to be its responsibility. However, the landlord’s repairs records says that it is responsible for replastering where the damage is larger than a pound coin. Given the area was where a storage heated had been removed, it is likely that the area was large enough for it to meet the parameters for it to be repaired, in line with the repairs policy.

Mould

In her complaint the resident raised mould in the bathroom and on the front room windows. In the stage 1 response the landlord confirmed it was responsible for addressing mould in the property. A damp and mould survey was completed on 29 April 2024. It treated the mould on 12 June 2024. The landlord took appropriate action to resolve the mould concerns. However, we note that it took longer than 21 days from when the resident first raised her concern, to the landlord treating the mould. This is outside the timescales in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord has not acknowledged the delay in addressing the mould or provided an explanation for this. This is a service failing.

Door repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy states that the resident is responsible for repairs to doors unless the repair is to the door frame. In her complaint dated 22 November 2023, the resident said a bedroom door was “half broken”. The landlord said that it was not responsible for the bedroom door as per its repairs policy. However, the landlord should have sought clarity as to whether the resident was reporting damage to the frame or to the door itself.
Following a surveyor’s inspection on 24 June 2024 a damaged door frame was identified in the bedroom. The landlord raised a repair for this, however the resident requested for this to be rescheduled. The repair was not rescheduled until 9 September 2024. The door frame repair remains outstanding. We have not seen evidence to support why the works were not completed. We recognise that the landlord has subsequently said that repairs have been delayed due to a potential legal claim.
When the resident raised her complaint, she advised that the lock on her back door was broken. As this is an external door the Ombudsman considers it to be a potential security risk. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will repair matters of security within 3 days. There is no evidence to support that it completed the repair within this time.
The landlord raised a repair to fix the lock on 21 May 2024. We have not seen evidence that it completed this repair. A note on 10 September 2024 stated that the door was insecure as it could not lock. As such we consider that it is likely the landlord did not repair the lock in May 2024. As the lock was a security issue, we consider that this was a significant service failure due to the length of time the matter was outstanding and the impact on the resident.
The landlord noted that there was a draft due to a gap under the back door. The landlord said in the stage 1 response that it was responsible for repairing this. A note on 1 October 2024 said that a gap under the door was letting in rain and a draught. The landlord has not demonstrated that it completed the repair as agreed in the stage 1 response.

Exposed electrical wiring

The resident raised a concern regarding an exposed electrical cable in one of the bedrooms. The landlord logged this in its repairs records, on 22 April 2024. We have not seen evidence that the landlord repaired this within 21 days, as per its repairs policy.
On 24 June 2024, the landlord noted that the cable was potentially live. The landlord should have attended the repair within 3 days on realising it was a possible health and safety risk. We have not seen evidence of when the landlord completed the repair. However, we note that neither the resident nor the landlord mentioned the cable after 24 June 2024. On the balance of probabilities, we consider it is likely that the landlord has completed the repair.

Disrepair in the kitchen

The resident raised a concern with the flooring in her kitchen. The landlord agreed that it was responsible for inspecting this. On 25 June 2024 it found that the flooring was peeling off and agreed to repair it. It completed the repair on 16 July 2024. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about her kitchen floor.
The landlord agreed in its stage 1 response to fix damaged kitchen kickboards. The landlord completed the repair on 16 July 2024. Although the landlord has completed the repair, it took significantly longer than the 21-day timescale given in its repairs policy. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it had first identified the repair during a survey completed on 24 June 2024, however this was inaccurate as it had acknowledged the repair in its stage 1 response. This was a service failing.

Summary

The landlord completed a mutual exchange inspection before the resident moved into the property. The resident also conducted an inspection by video. The landlord and the resident both had a responsibility to ensure the property was in good condition before proceeding with the mutual exchange. We note that no repairs were identified in the landlord’s inspection report. We also note that the resident agreed to take on the property. However, given the level of disrepair subsequently identified, we consider that it is likely that the landlord and the resident missed repairs in their inspection.
The resident has on several occasions made the landlord aware of her disabilities and those of her children. The resident advised that there was a negative impact of having multiple people visit the home to complete the repairs. We have identified times that the landlord has attempted to complete several repairs in one day, in an effort to minimise the number of visits required. We also recognise that there are times that the landlord has had to reschedule repairs through no fault on its part. However, we recognise that some repairs, such as the uneven flooring and garden structures required multiple visits, with limited progress. For any outstanding repairs moving forward, we would encourage the landlord to consider the residents vulnerabilities, and look to minimise impact wherever possible.
The landlord has demonstrated attempts to make repairs to the resident’s property. It has responded appropriately for some repairs it was not responsible for. It also took actions it did not need to take on some repairs, which were beneficial to the resident, such as sending someone to bleed the radiators and completing plastering in the resident’s front room. However, we have identified several service failings. This included not resolving health and safety repairs quickly enough, failing to communicate effectively in relation to bathroom repairs and uneven hallway floors, and not repairing an external door lock which was a potential security concern. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following a mutual exchange.
We are aware that the resident has consulted a solicitor. However the matter has not been through the courts. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that some delays to repairs are due to the pre-legal dispute. The landlord still has an obligation to progress the repairs, regardless as to whether the resident has engaged a solicitor.
We are aware that both the landlord and the resident’s solicitors have completed inspection reports since the stage 2 response. This may have resulted in some works progressing. As such the Ombudsman will make an order for the landlord to provide an update on the outstanding repairs identified in this report.
Due to the number of repairs and the length of time the situation has been ongoing, we consider that a compensation payment is appropriate. We note that the landlord offered £100 for the heating issues, and we consider this to be reasonable, in line with our compensation guidance.
The landlord offered £200 for the delay in completing 2 bathroom repairs and inspecting the hallway. We have identified a number of repairs which the landlord has not completed within its timescales in its repairs policy. The landlord should have treated some of these repairs emergencies, due to potential risks. We also recognise that the resident has been experiencing issues for a significant period of time, and that this has caused distress and inconvenience. We consider an increased compensation amount to be appropriate.
We have based our order of compensation on our remedies guidance and have considered the impact of each failing and the time the matter has been outstanding. The total amount is £1,100 which is broken down as:
1. £100 already offered for the heating repairs.
2. £300 for the bathroom disrepair. This amount recognises that a potential trip hazard was not investigated, and that the bathroom repairs remained outstanding for a significant period of time.
3. £150 for the response to the uneven flooring. This is in recognition that the resident had to raise the matter on multiple occasions.
4. £50 for the delay in treating the mould, which was an inconvenience for the resident.
5. £300 for the failure to repair the back door. This is in recognition of the length of delay and that part of the repair was a security risk.
6. £50 for not attending the exposed wire within the repairs timescales.
7. £50 for the delay in attending the repair for the kitchen kickboards.
8. £100 for failing to investigate and tackle the potential infestation.

The landlord’s handling of pest issues (rat and mice infestation)

When the contractors went out to inspect the decking, they identified a rat infestation under the decking and in the garden shed. The landlord’s repairs policy says that the resident is responsible for any pest control issues. However, in the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said that once the structures where the rat issues were, had been removed, it would revisit the infestation and consider what further actions it could take.
Rat infestations are considered a hazard under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS). Although the landlord said it would tackle the infestation once the structure had been removed, we note this repair remains outstanding, more than a year since it was first raised. The landlord should have explored options, such as speaking with environmental health, to ensure it dealt with the infestation as early as possible.
Although the landlord’s repairs policy says the resident is responsible for infestations, we would expect the landlord to satisfy itself that there was no significant hazard. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took sufficient steps to do this. As such there was service failure in the landlord’s handing of pest issues (rat and mice infestation).

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident first raised a complaint on 22 April 2024. The landlord’s complaints policy states it should respond to the complaint within 10 working days. The landlord responded within 20 working days. Although this was outside of the timescales in the complaints policy, the landlord had requested an extension, due to the complex nature of the complaint. As such we consider the response time to be appropriate.
The resident escalated the complaint on 30 May 2024. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The landlord responded in 46 working days, as such this was outside of the timescales in its policy.
Both of the complaints responses contained a large amount of detail regarding the extensive repairs identified. Although we have identified failings in the report, it is positive that the landlord attempted to address all concerns raised by the resident in its complaints responses.
Due to the delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs after the mutual exchange.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of pest issues (mice and rat infestation)
3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. pay the £1,100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs following the mutual exchange. The calculation for this amount is provided in paragraph 49 of this report. The landlord may deduct the £300 it offered in its complaints responses, unless it has already paid this. All other compensation must be paid directly to the resident.
2. issue an apology to address the failings identified in this report.
3. provide an update on the following repairs:
  1. The garden structures and garden tiles
  2. The hallway floors.
  3. The exposed wire in the bedroom.
  4. The bathroom replacement.
  5. The backdoor lock and gap allowing in a draft.
  6. Whether there remains a rat infestation. If so, the landlord should demonstrate that it has sought advice from environmental health.

If any repairs remain outstanding, the landlord must confirm when it expects to complete these. The landlord should also confirm what actions it is taking to ensure that it has considered any safety risks where repairs remain outstanding. The update should also advise how the landlord will consider the resident’s vulnerability and whether there is appropriate further support it can offer to ensure the repairs are completed.

Provide documentary evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman.