Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Hounslow (202325961)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325961

London Borough of Hounslow

29 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local council. The property is a 2-bedroom second floor flat.
  2. On 25 April 2023, the resident reported 3 windows in his property had “blown” with condensation between the glass. The landlord inspected the windows on 27 April and arranged an appointment to replace the 3 double-glazing units on 21 June.
  3. The resident complained on 10 July. He said he called to chase the repair on the afternoon of 21 June and the landlord told him it would not take place. This was because the materials for the job were not available.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 August 2023. It upheld the complaint and apologised for not completing the work on 21 June or communicating ahead of time to let him know. It confirmed that it scheduled an appointment to complete the work on 16 August. It offered £50 compensation to the resident.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 21 August 2023. He said the work took 4 months and wanted to know why the landlord had not communicated with him. He said the compensation offer was “a disgrace.” The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 October. It confirmed it replaced the windows on 16 August. It did not uphold his complaint and offered no further compensation.
  6. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident stated he wanted further compensation of £200 to resolve his concerns.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms routine repairs are those that cause inconvenience but are not urgent and do not pose an immediate risk to a resident’s health and safety. It will complete these repairs in 20 working days.
  2. The resident said in his complaint of 10 July he was assured by the landlord two days before the 21 June appointment that the materials were available and the appointment would go ahead. He said he had external help to move his belongings in preparation for the appointment. He called twice on 21 June, and the landlord cancelled the appointment as the materials were not available.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response confirmed it had attended the resident’s reports of 25 April 2023 of blown windows on 27 April.  It then arranged the repair for 21 June. Had it completed the repair on 21 June this would have exceeded its 20-working day timescale. However, the appointment was agreed as suitable with the resident. 
  4. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for its failings in its stage 1 complaint response of 10 August 2023. This was regarding the missed appointment of 21 June. It stated it was the engineer’s responsibility to check that the materials were available in advance. It said that as soon as it was aware the materials were not available, it should have contacted the resident. It demonstrated accountability for the fallings, confirming it would take this forward with the teams responsible to prevent reoccurrence.
  5. The landlord also acknowledged its failing in not having glass in stock for the appointment. It managed the resident’s expectations, confirming it would replace the windows on 16 August 2023 to allow time for the glass to be manufactured.
  6. Evidence shows the landlord called the resident on 26 June 2023 and apologised for the failed appointment of 21 June. It appropriately combined the replacement of the 3 windows with a further blown window reported by the resident on 20 May. It replaced the 4 windows on 16 August.
  7. The landlord apologised for the missed appointment and its lack of communication. It offered a total compensation of £50, made up of £20 for the missed appointment and £30 for the inconvenience and delay. The landlord does not have a compensation policy and uses the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance to decide compensation.
  8. In the absence of its own compensation policy, the amount of compensation offered was proportionate to the inconvenience caused, when considered against the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It was also within the range of £10 to £25 compensation commonly offered by other landlords for missed appointments. This accounted for the missed appointment of 21 June.
  9. Although the repair took 4 months to complete, there is no evidence of a specific impact from the time taken, other than the inconvenience to the resident. The cause of the delay appears largely to be due to the need to manufacture the glass.
  10. The landlord did not uphold the complaint in its stage 2 response of 6 October 2023. It offered no further compensation. This was not unreasonable as the resident presented no further evidence, and the landlord explained it could find no further service failures from its stage 1 response.
  11. In his complaint escalation the resident was concerned the time of the appointment on 16 August 2023 was changed from morning to afternoon. The stage 2 response addressed this. The landlord confirmed it had spoken with him on 15 August to state it would make the glass in the morning and fit the window in the afternoon. Evidence shows it did speak with the resident on 15 August; however, the details of the call are uncertain.
  12. The resident’s complaint included concerns about the landlord’s operatives wearing shoe coverings when entering his property. The landlord’s final complaint response explained the proper process and apologised it did not explain this accurately in its stage 1 response. The resident did not say there was any impact and so the landlord’s response was appropriate to the scale and nature of the issue.
  13. In summary the landlord missed the appointment it arranged for a non-urgent repair at the resident’s property. Its complaint responses acknowledged the failings in its handling and communication of this and it took appropriate steps to remedy its future approach. It offered proportionate compensation to the resident and completed the repairs once it had manufactured the glass needed.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.