Clarion Housing Association Limited (202227293)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227293

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 September 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of her front windows and her request for double-glazing.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The property has 2 bedrooms and is situated on the first floor of a converted house. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 2 December 1996.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. The structure of the property includes windows, frames, sashes, cords and essential window furniture.
The landlord has advised this Service that it did not have any disabilities recorded for the resident. However, the landlord’s repairs log stated against various jobs raised in 2020 and 2021 that the resident was disabled and there were vulnerable children living in the property.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord using its webchat on 10 January 2022. She advised the landlord that 3 of her windows needed to be replaced. She stated that she had been told to expect a window subcontractor to contact her but she had not heard anything. The resident was advised during the webchat that she would receive a call back from the landlord’s Area Manager.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 January 2022 and asked when her 3 windows would be replaced. She stated that she had received a job number and a subcontractor had measured for the windows in December 2021. However, she said the subcontractor had advised her that the landlord had not yet approved the job.
The landlord’s records dated 8 February 2022 confirm that it had decided that the windows had to be replaced on a ‘like-for-like’ basis and had confirmed that the existing windows were single glazed, timber sash windows. The landlord raised an order on 22 February 2022 regarding the windows. The order stated that 3 sash windows were loose and letting in water. The job notes show that the landlord issued the job to a window contractor and the contractor was booked to attend on 7 March 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 March 2022 and advised her that a contractor had inspected the work and submitted a quote to the landlord. The landlord said that the contractor would contact the resident once the landlord had approved the quote.
The resident submitted an online enquiry to the landlord on 4 April 2022 and stated that the window contractor had not yet contacted her regarding the windows. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the enquiry on the next day.
On 20 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord using its webchat. She stated that she had still not been contacted by the window contractor. She also asked the landlord to remove scaffolding that had been erected 4 months ago around her property. She said she did not know why the scaffolding had been put up but it made her feel unsafe. The landlord advised her during the chat that the window job had been booked in for 9 May 2022 and that it would check regarding the scaffolding.
An internal email dated 20 April 2022 from the landlord stated that it wanted to leave the scaffolding in place to install new windows in the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 May 2022 and advised that the window contractor had not contacted her. The landlord advised her that it currently had no further updates but would arrange for someone to contact her with an update.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 May 2022 using its webchat. She requested an update regarding the replacement of the 3 windows. The resident also mentioned other matters, including that her skylight was allowing water ingress and that scaffolding was still erected.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 June 2022 using its webchat and requested an update regarding the windows.
The landlord’s records state that the new windows were fitted to the property on 27, 28 and 29 June 2022.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that it raised an order on 29 September 2022 regarding the 3 new windows. The job notes stated that the windows had large gaps around them and were letting in draughts. The order requested an inspection of the windows. The job notes stated that the resident was disabled. The landlord inspected the windows on 4 October 2022 and noted that one of the sash windows kept dropping slightly. It was also noted that the resident was reporting draughts coming from the windows. The landlord’s records show that it contacted the window contractor about the window dropping and the contractor wrote to the landlord on 6 October 2022 to confirm it would attend the property on 18 October 2022.
The landlord’s records show that it left a voicemail message for the resident on 24 November 2022 to advise her that a surveyor would attend her property on 29 November 2022 to inspect the windows and the damp that the resident had reported.
On 13 December 2022, the resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord in which she stated the following:
1. The resident stated that water and draughts were entering through the 3 new single glazed windows. As a result, the house was cold despite keeping the heating on.
2. The resident said there was damp and mould present on the windows, the skylight and the walls and this was affecting her health.
3. The resident stated that she had contacted the local authority’s environmental health department and they had advised her that the landlord should install double glazed windows.
4. The resident said her housing officer and the local authority environmental health officer had visited in October 2020 and the new windows were only installed in August 2022. She said she had therefore waited 2 years for the windows and was not informed that they would be single glazed.
5. The resident added that there were other major repairs, including:
  1. Damaged walls due to a leaking roof.
  2. The floorboards and stairs were damaged and had no soundproofing.
  3. The radiators were not working properly and needed to be replaced.
  4. The sink, bath and toilet floor needed replacement due to mould growth.
  5. The chimney was damaged.
6. The resident stated that she was disabled and the issues with the windows and condition of her home were causing her problems.
The resident’s social worker phoned the landlord on 19 December 2022 to report damp and mould.
The landlord’s records show that its surveyor inspected the property for dampness on 4 January 2023. The surveyor’s notes stated that the property was not being ventilated correctly and, as a result, there was condensation in some rooms. The surveyor provided condensation advice and a leaflet to the resident. He noted that the level of humidity in the property was very high as the resident was not opening the windows. He also noted that water was coming down the chimney and therefore roofers and a mould wash were needed. He concluded that the moisture readings he had taken indicated the dampness was caused by condensation and not a leak.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 January 2023 through its webchat. She reported that her property was cold due to draughts coming through the 3 single glazed windows. She also reported damp and mould. The landlord advised her that it would book an inspection which would take place on 16 January 2023. The landlord’s repairs log shows that it attended an appointment to inspect the windows on 18 January 2023 but there was no access. It therefore rebooked the appointment for 26 January 2023. It is not clear from the evidence seen whether the landlord attended on this date.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 27 February 2023 regarding a complaint the resident had made about the condition of the windows. The Ombudsman requested the landlord to respond to the complaint or write to the resident explaining its reasons for not accepting the complaint.
One of the resident’s relatives wrote to the landlord on 28 February 2023 on behalf of the resident. The relative stated that the property was uninhabitable due to water ingress through the roof and windows and there was a gas leak from the boiler. The relative advised the landlord that the resident suffered from various medical conditions.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 March 2023 using its webchat. She stated that the landlord had attended on 16 January 2023 regarding damp and mould and she had not received an update. She also asked when the landlord would replace the 3 new single glazed windows with double glazing.
On 3 March 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge receipt of her complaint which had come from the Ombudsman on 27 February 2023.
On 14 March 2023, the landlord sent its stage one reply to the resident in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord said it had tried to contact the resident for further information but had been unsuccessful.
2. The landlord stated that it had not replaced the windows in the property with double glazed units because the property was in a conservation area and therefore the landlord had to adhere to the appropriate regulations.
3. The landlord added that its policy was to replace windows on a ‘like-for-like’ basis and therefore the front windows were replaced with single glazed windows. However, the back windows were double glazed.
4. The landlord apologised for the delay in fitting the windows as it had to order them from a specialist manufacturer. It also apologised for the delay in replying to the resident’s complaint.
5. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £100, which consisted of £50 for its failure to follow its process/policy and £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 March 2023 to advise that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She requested double glazing as she could hear noise from other properties. She requested the landlord to arrange an inspection of the windows as they were draughty. The landlord confirmed that it would arrange an inspection.
The landlord sent a further email to the resident on 15 March 2023 to confirm that the windows were sealed when installed and there had not been any draughts present. Therefore, it would not be arranging a further inspection of the windows.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 March 2023 using its webchat. She enquired about the flooring and damp and mould in her property. The landlord advised her that an appointment had been made to attend on 24 April 2023 regarding the flooring and damp and mould.
On 28 March 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that she was dissatisfied with its stage one reply. She stated that she was concerned about the condition of the windows, which she said were causing mould, water leaks and draughts. She stated that the problems with the windows were causing a deterioration in her health, including breathing difficulties. She requested the landlord to replace the windows with double glazing as she was aware that some neighbours had double glazing.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 April 2023 to say she was unhappy that the landlord had paid the £100 compensation into her rent account when she had advised the landlord that she did not want to accept the offer. The resident sent a further email on 25 April 2023 chasing the landlord for a response regarding her enquiry of 11 April 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 and 27 April 2023 to acknowledge receipt of her stage 2 complaint. It apologised for the delay in contacting her regarding the complaint, which it said was due to a backlog of complaints.
On 18 May 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord regarding her complaint. She stated that she had previously reported damp and mould, which she said was affecting the walls, floorboards and windows. The resident advised the landlord that its surveyor had inspected the property on 16 January 2023 and had taken photos. However, she said she had not heard anything following the inspection. The resident added that operatives had attended and the last visit had been by a mould specialist on 24 April 2023.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 June 2023 to request an update regarding her complaint and the damp and mould inspections she said had been carried out on 16 January 2023 and 24 April 2023.
The landlord inspected the flooring in the property on 5 June 2023 and reported that the flooring appeared to be hardboard, which was being damaged every time the resident moved furniture.
The resident phoned the landlord on 13 June 2023 to report that water was coming through the windows and she was unhappy that they were single glazed windows. She stated that the previous windows had been double glazed.
On 14 June 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 reply in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint.
2. The landlord said it was satisfied that its stage one reply had been fair, reasonable and accurate.
3. The landlord stated that the resident had complained about the quality of the windows, which she said were causing mould, water leaks and draughts and had contributed towards a deterioration in her health.
4. The landlord confirmed that the resident had requested double glazed units and had pointed out that some of her neighbours had double glazing.
5. The landlord stated that the resident had first reported issues with the windows in February 2021 and in response the landlord adjusted the window catches. The resident then reported further concerns in December 2021 and an inspection was done on 7 March 2022.
6. The landlord accepted there had been an overall delay in replacing the windows, which was done in late 2022 on a like-for-like basis.
7. The landlord confirmed the property was in a conservation area and therefore it had to replace the windows on a like-for-like basis.
8. The landlord advised the resident to heat and ventilate the property to avoid condensation and further damp and mould.
9. The landlord apologised for the delay in replacing the windows after the initial inspection in December 2021. It offered compensation of £250, comprised of £200 for inconvenience and £50 for the delay in replying to the stage 2 complaint.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply

The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 July 2023 and confirmed that the amount of compensation awarded to her was £450 and this would be paid into her rent account to offset arrears. The landlord also wrote on the same day to advise the resident that a surveyor would attend on 28 July 2023 to inspect the property.
A surveyor inspected the roof of the property on 3 August 2023 and identified works to the coping stones, chimney and external rendering. The report stated that all the vents, including the kitchen extractor fan had been sealed by the resident.
An internal email dated 19 September 2023 from the landlord’s surveyor outlined the findings from his inspection of the property carried out during the previous week. The main findings were:
1. Moist or damp conditions were present because the resident had sealed all the ventilation grilles in the property, including the kitchen extractor fan.
2. There was evidence of damp patches on the ceiling in the front room and chimney breast. The surveyor recommended further inspection of the roof to determine the cause of water ingress. However, he noted that the damp patches may be due to cold bridging.
3. The survey noted that it was difficult to identify the causes of the dampness in the property as it was a warm, dry day but noted that the humidity level in the property was expected to be high as the property was “airtight”.
4. The floors were bare and uncarpeted and this was unsuitable as it would cause noise transference.
5. Although the resident had stated that water was entering through the windows, the surveyor said this was not the case. The surveyor’s assumption was that it was caused by condensation.
6. The surveyor recommended fitting humidistat fans in the kitchen and bathroom, capping the roof vent ducting or fitting a one-way valve, unsealing all the vents and cutting an inspection hole in the living room to inspect the roof rafters.
The landlord commissioned a party wall specialist consultant to carry out a detailed survey of the property to assess the causes of rainwater penetration to the property. The consultant inspected the property on 20 December 2023 and identified the presence of damp and mould, some of which it attributed to condensation. The consultant identified various works to the parapet wall and flashings.
The landlord wrote to this Service on 18 September 2024 and provided the following additional information:
1. The previous windows in the property had been single glazed.
2. The landlord said it had sent the email dated 25 July 2023 to the resident in error. The compensation offered to the resident should have read £250 Rather than £450. The landlord said it had apologised to the resident and confirmed it had processed the correct sum of £250 at the time of the offer.
3. The landlord confirmed that it had received instructions from its Planned Investment team that the windows had to be replaced on a like-for-like basis. It also stated that the specialist window contractor advised the resident when measuring for the windows that the replacements would be single glazed.
4. The landlord confirmed that it had not post-inspected the windows but had received a completion email from the window contractor when the work had been completed.
5. The landlord confirmed that it had checked the local authority website and was now able to confirm that the property is not in a conservation area and that it had installed UPVC windows in a neighbouring flat. The landlord has stated that the details of the conservation area were unknown at the time the decision to install the sash windows was taken. It had proceeded on the basis of the instruction from its Planned Investment team to replace the windows on a like-for-like basis.
The resident submitted various photos to this Service on 26 September 2024, which appeared to show that secondary double glazing had been added to the previous windows.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 March 2023 and stated that the problems with the windows were causing a deterioration in her health, including breathing difficulties. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
The resident stated in her stage one complaint dated 13 December 2022 that she had been requesting new windows for 2 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the reported issues with the windows from January 2022. It was at this point the resident advised the landlord that 3 of her windows needed to be replaced.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of her front windows and her request for double-glazing

The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy states:
1. Emergency repairs will be attended within 24 hours.
2. In the case of non-emergency repairs, an appointment will be offered and the repair completed within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
3. Repairs will be completed to an acceptable standard which comply with current statutory standards, and to a specification which does not make the item less serviceable or of an inferior quality unless that repair is of a temporary nature and for which further work will follow.
4. Major component replacements are not responsive repairs and these items should be referred to the relevant teams to deliver through planned programmes. This would include window replacements.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 and 26 January 2022 to ask when her front windows would be replaced. She advised the landlord that a window subcontractor had measured for the windows in December 2021. The landlord raised an order to replace the windows on a like-for-like basis on 22 February 2022. The order raised by the landlord stated that the windows were loose and were letting in water. Therefore, given the reported condition of the windows and the resident’s known vulnerabilities, it was unreasonable that the landlord had taken over 2 months to raise an order for the windows following the subcontractor’s visit in December 2021. The delay meant that the resident had to chase the landlord twice in January 2022.
A contractor attended the property on 7 March 2022 and the landlord confirmed to the resident on 21 March 2022 that the contractor had submitted a quote for new windows. The landlord advised the resident that the contractor would contact her once the landlord had approved the quote. The resident contacted the landlord on various occasions to request updates. For example, she contacted the landlord on 4 April 2022, 20 April 2022, 10 May 2022, 25 May 2022 and 13 June 2022. It was unreasonable that between 21 March 2022 and 13 June 2022, the landlord had not provided the resident with updates on when the windows would be installed.
The lack of communication meant that the resident had to chase the landlord for information as she was anxious about the condition of her windows, which the landlord had noted were allowing water ingress. The new windows were fitted on 27, 28 and 29 June 2022. It had therefore taken 6 months for the windows to be fitted following the resident’s request for an update on 10 January 2022.
This Service understands that the contractor would need time to manufacture the new windows. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that the overall time taken to install the windows was unreasonable, particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities. As previously stated, the landlord was aware that the windows were reportedly allowing water ingress and the resident was therefore anxious for them to be replaced. The landlord accepted in its stage one and 2 replies that there had been an overall delay in replacing the windows and apologised for this.
The landlord raised an order on 29 September 2022 to inspect the 3 new windows at the front of the house for gaps that were reportedly letting in draughts. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord inspected the windows on 4 October 2022. The inspector identified that one of the windows was dropping slightly and therefore it was appropriate that the landlord had arranged for the window contractor to attend on 18 October 2022.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord on 13 December 2022 in which she stated that water and draughts were entering through the 3 new windows. She also stated there was damp and mould present on the windows and this was affecting her health. The landlord therefore arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property for dampness on 4 January 2023. The inspection was appropriate to enable the landlord to assess whether dampness was present and, if so, to identify the causes.
The surveyor concluded that the moisture readings he had taken indicated the dampness was caused by condensation and not a leak. He therefore provided the resident with an advice leaflet regarding condensation. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord communicated its findings regarding the condition of the windows to the resident following the inspection.
The landlord’s records state that it carried out a further inspection of the property later in January 2023. However, this Service has not seen any information showing the outcome from the inspection or that the landlord communicated the outcome to the resident.
As the resident had clearly stated in her stage one complaint that she was concerned about water and draughts coming through the new windows, it was incumbent upon the landlord to check the windows and to advise the resident of its findings. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord had not advised the resident of whether it had identified any issues with the windows during its inspections and, if so, what action it would take.
The landlord’s lack of communication led the resident’s relative to write to the landlord on 28 February 2023 to report water ingress through the windows. It also prompted the resident to contact the landlord on 1 March 2023 to request feedback from the dampness inspection in January 2023.
The landlord explained in its stage one reply dated 14 March 2023 the reasons it had fitted single glazed windows at the front of the property rather than double glazing. However, it did not comment on the resident’s reports of draughts and water coming through the new windows. Furthermore, the landlord wrote to the resident on 15 March 2023 and stated that it would not inspect the windows as they were sealed when installed.
The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s response on 15 March 2023 was inappropriate, particularly as the landlord had advised the resident on 14 March 2023 that it would inspect the windows. Despite the resident raising concerns about the condition of the windows, the landlord had not provided the resident with any reassurance about their current condition and whether they were unacceptably draughty and/or were letting in water.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 28 March 2023 as she was still concerned about the condition of the windows. She said they were causing mould, water leaks and draughts. She also contacted the landlord on 18 May 2023 to advise that she had not heard anything following the surveyor’s inspection in January 2023. She then contacted the landlord again on 4 and 13 June 2023 to report that water was coming through the windows.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 14 June 2023 but again did not address the resident’s concerns about the condition of the new windows. This was unreasonable as the resident had repeatedly reported that the new windows were draughty and were allowing water in. Although the landlord had inspected the property, the Ombudsman has not seen any correspondence it sent to the resident specifically addressing these concerns.
One of the resident’s main complaints was that she was not told before the windows were installed that they would be single glazed. The landlord has, however, stated that the window contractor advised the resident about the type of windows when it was measuring for the new windows. Where there are differing accounts of conversations, it is difficult for this Service to determine which of the accounts accurately reflects the events that occurred. Therefore, the Ombudsman has focussed on whether the landlord’s actions in fitting the single glazed windows were in line with its policy and legal obligations.
As previously stated, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair, which includes windows. Common law has also placed an obligation on the landlord to ensure that any replacements must be on at least a like-for-like basis. Finally, the landlord is responsible for ensuring that window replacements comply with the appropriate building regulations, including the requirements around heat loss.
In this case, the landlord has provided evidence to show that the previous windows were wooden, single glazed, sash windows. The landlord therefore complied with its obligations by installing like-for-like windows. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any information about whether the new windows complied with the building regulations at the time, particularly in terms of heat loss. Given that the resident has complained about draughts, the Ombudsman has included an order for the landlord to write to the resident confirming that the new windows met the building regulations that were in force at the time.
The resident has submitted evidence to show that secondary double glazing was fitted to the previous windows. However, the landlord’s obligations are to ensure the windows themselves are in good repair and complied with the building regulations. Therefore, as long as these requirements are met, the landlord would not be required to fit secondary double glazing. Nevertheless, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider fitting secondary double glazing to the windows as this was previously present.
The landlord stated in its stage one and two replies that it had fitted single glazed windows because the property was in a conservation area. However, the Ombudsman has established that this information was incorrect and the landlord has now confirmed to this Service that the property is not in a conservation area. Although the landlord was entitled to fit new like-for-like windows, it was, in the Ombudsman’s view, inappropriate that the landlord had not carried out adequate checks to determine whether the property was in a conservation area prior to ordering the new windows. This would have ensured it was making decisions based on correct information.
In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the delays in replacing the windows and offered compensation of £50 at stage one and £200 at stage 2. The landlord therefore offered total compensation of £250 for the delays in fitting the replacement windows.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account 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.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging the delays in replacing the resident’s front windows, apologising and offering compensation. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to reflect the failings identified in this investigation, which were:
1. The landlord took over 2 months to raise the order for replacement windows following the contractor’s visit in December 2021 to measure for the new windows.
2. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. For example:
  1. Between 21 March and 13 June 2022, the landlord did not provide adequate updates to the resident about when the windows would be fitted. This meant that the resident had to chase the landlord for updates during this period.
  2. The resident had been advised by the landlord on 20 April 2022 that work to the windows was booked to take place on 9 May 2022. However, the appointment was not kept and the resident had to contact the landlord on 10 May 2022 for an update.
  3. The landlord did not provide feedback to the resident regarding its findings following the inspections carried out between January and June 2023.
  4. The landlord did not directly respond to the resident’s reports of draughts and water ingress through the new windows following its inspections.
3. The time taken for the landlord to install replacement windows was too long, particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities. For example, it took 6 months for the windows to be installed following the resident’s enquiry in January 2022.
4. The landlord did not adequately check the details of the conservation area, even though the evidence shows that this was a key factor in its decision to install single glazed windows.
The Ombudsman has therefore found there was maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £500 to put things right. The compensation figure includes the £250 already offered by the landlord. The figure of £500 is within the range of financial redress in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for situations where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by the Ombudsman’s investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

At the time of the resident’s stage one complaint the landlord had in place an ‘interim’ complaint policy, which consisted of a 2-stage complaints process. The policy stated that stage one complaints would be dealt with within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 40 working days. The interim policy was put in place after the landlord fell victim to a serious cyber-attack.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 13 December 2022 and the landlord sent its stage one reply on 14 March 2023. The landlord had therefore taken 62 working days to reply, which was longer than its advertised timescale for stage one complaints and was inappropriate. The delay had led to the resident incurring additional time and effort in approaching this Service in February 2023 regarding her complaint.
As part of its stage one reply, the landlord apologised for the delay in replying to the complaint and offered compensation of £50. This offer was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which stated that it would offer £50 per quarter, per failure. However, the Ombudsman considers the delay to have been excessive and therefore has ordered an additional £50 compensation to reflect the unreasonable delay in the landlord replying to the stage one complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 March 2023 to advise that she was unhappy with its reply. She also wrote to the landlord on 28 March 2023 to repeat that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one reply. As the resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one reply on 14 March 2023, the landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage 2 or written to the resident communicating its reasons for not escalating the complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 13 June 2023, which was 61 working days after the resident had expressed her dissatisfaction with the stage one reply on 14 March 2023. The time taken by the landlord to reply was therefore again longer than its advertised timescale and was inappropriate.
The landlord apologised for the delay in replying to the complaint and offered the resident £50 compensation. The amount offered was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. However, as the resident had already experienced a delay at stage one of the process, it was unreasonable that the stage 2 reply was also delayed. The delay meant that the resident had to chase the landlord about her complaint. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered an additional £50 compensation for the delay in replying at stage 2.
The Ombudsman is concerned that the landlord did not directly address the resident’s concerns about the quality of the new windows in either its stage one or stage 2 replies. When responding to complaints, landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. In this case, the resident had clearly raised concerns about the quality of the new windows and stated they were allowing draughts and water ingress. The Ombudsman would therefore have expected the landlord to set out clearly whether it had identified any problems with the new windows based on its inspections. It was inappropriate that the landlord failed to do this.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling because:
1. There were delays in replying at both stages of the complaints process and although the landlord offered compensation, the amounts offered were not proportionate to reflect the extent of the delays.
2. The landlord failed to address one of the key points in the resident’s complaint, which related to her reports of draughts and water ingress in relation to the new windows. This resulted in the resident continuing to raise the same issues with the landlord.
This Service has ordered compensation of £300 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in replying to her complaints and by failing to respond to her concerns about draughts and water ingress in relation to the new windows. This sum includes the £100 already offered by the landlord.
The amount ordered is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for situations where there were failures which adversely affected the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of her front windows and her request for double-glazing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged the delays in replacing the resident’s front windows and offered compensation. However, the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to reflect the failings identified in this investigation, including the poor communication, the excessive time taken to install the new windows and the lack of checking regarding the conservation area.
The landlord apologised for the delays in sending its stage one and two complaint replies and offered compensation. However, the amounts offered were not proportionate to reflect the extent of the delays. The landlord did not directly address the resident’s concerns about the quality of the new windows in either its stage one or stage 2 replies.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 6 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £500 for its response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of her front windows (this sum includes the £250 already offered by the landlord).
3. Pay the resident £300 for its complaints handling (this sum includes the £100 already offered by the landlord).
4. Carry out a further inspection of the windows and write to the resident setting out clearly:
  1. The findings from the inspection in terms of any water ingress or unacceptable draughts through the windows.
  2. Any remedial work to be undertaken to prevent water ingress or unacceptable draughts.
  3. Set out the timescales for carrying out any identified remedial work.
5. Write to the resident confirming whether the new windows met the building regulations that were in force at the time they were fitted, particularly in terms of heat loss. If not, set out the action the landlord will take to ensure retrospective compliance with the regulations.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider fitting secondary double glazing to the new windows as this was present prior to the replacement of the windows.