Housing For Women (202402247)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402247

Housing For Women

30 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:

a.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement bedroom door.

b.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen door.

c.      The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new front door.

2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a house.
4. The resident emailed the landlord’s repairs team on 27 July 2023. The resident asked the landlord to replace a bedroom door, which she said its contractor had removed. The resident also said the back door was drafty and was letting in rain. The resident reported to the landlord’s repairs contractor on 16 January 2024, that she had no kitchen door.
5. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 12 February 2024. She said the landlord needed to replace the bedroom and kitchen doors in case of a fire. She explained that its repairs contractor had attended on several occasions to measure up for new doors, but the doors had never been replaced.
6. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 11 March 2024. It noted that it had raised a repair on 26 February 2024, to fit a new kitchen door. It said an appointment had been arranged to fit the kitchen door on 2 April 2024, at the resident’s request. It said it could not replace the bedroom door, as internal doors were the resident’s responsibility under its repairs policy. It said it had acted within its policies and processes. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
7. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its process on 2 April 2024. The resident said:

a.     She had continuously reported that the bedroom door, kitchen door, and front door needed replacing. She said she had reported this on multiple occasions, but the landlord had not provided a successful outcome.

b.     It was not her fault that its contractor had taken the bedroom door away, after the door dropped from its frame.

c.      The front door had been attended to but there were ongoing issues with drafts and debris coming through the door. She said it was a source of disappointment and frustration that the landlord had replaced the doors on neighbouring properties.

8. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 15 April 2024. The landlord:

a.     Did not uphold the complaint about the bedroom door, as it said this was the resident’s responsibility to maintain.

b.     Did not uphold the complaint about the kitchen door, as it said it had committed to replacing the door. It noted that attempts had been made to complete the repair, but the resident had not provided access. It asked the resident to get in contact so it could arrange a new appointment.

c.      Stated that the resident had not raised the issue with the front door as part of the stage 1 complaint. But said after reviewing its records, it had repaired the front door in July 2022, October 2023, and January 2024. It said that it had completed all of the works identified and had received no further reports about the front door.

d.     Asked the resident to provide details of any neighbouring addresses, where front doors had been replaced. It committed to reviewing how often these doors had been replaced, allowing it to consider if there were any wider concerns.

e.     Originally offered the resident £2,300 compensation for failure to deliver a response in line with its complaint policy. The landlord then changed this to £50 and apologised for offering the wrong amount in error.

9. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 April 2024, expressing dissatisfaction with the stage 2 outcome. The resident said:

a.     The landlord’s contractor removed the bedroom door, then measured up for a new door but never replaced it. She said this presented a fire safety risk to her and her family.

b.     Its contractor removed the kitchen door, but it did not return to replace this. She said that its contractor attended the property on 3 April 2024 to address this, but this was without her consent. She clarified that it was not possible for its contractor to install the kitchen door on this date as the resident was out of the country.

c.      It had not fully resolved the issues with the front door, despite attending on several occasions to repair it. She explained this was why she had requested the landlord replace the front door. She provided the address of the neighbouring property with the new front door.

d.     It had originally offered her £2,300 compensation but had then changed this to £50, which was unfair.

10. The landlord issued the final stage 2 response on 23 April 2024. The landlord did not change its position in relation to the bedroom and kitchen doors. It noted that its Head of Property Services had spoken to the resident on 19 April 2024 and had agreed to reinspect the front and back doors. It suggested that this would allow it to establish if further repairs or replacement doors were required. The landlord offered a further £25 compensation in additional to the compensation it originally offered, in recognition of its error in offering £2300 compensation when it meant to offer £50.
11. The resident brought her complaint to us in June 2024. The resident said the landlord should replace the bedroom door and the front door and pay her compensation.
12. The resident has told us that the landlord replaced the kitchen door in early May 2024.
13. The landlord’s repairs records show that it fitted a draft excluder on the front door on 21 December 2024.
14. The resident told us on 7 April 2025, that the landlord never replaced the bedroom door or the front door.
15. The landlord told us on 9 April 2025 that it had reviewed its records and was making arrangements to fit a new bedroom door.

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

16. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bedroom and kitchen doors between 27 July 2023 and 23 April 2024. This being the date the resident raised concern about outstanding repairs to the bedroom door and the date the landlord issued the final stage 2 complaint response. For clarity, events that happened after 23 April 2024, may be referenced where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint. However, any new issues raised outside of this timeframe will fall outside the scope of this investigation. Therefore, we have not considered any issues with the new kitchen door which arose after the door was fitted.
17. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which are made prior to a landlord’s complaint procedure being exhausted. In this case, the landlord did not consider the resident’s request for a new front door as a formal complaint in its stage 1 response. However, the landlord did choose to address this issue in its initial stage 2 and final stage 2 complaint responses. These responses gave the resident permission to complain to our service and the landlord did not say that the resident could not complain regarding the front door because it would respond separately to this through its complaints process. Therefore, it is appropriate for us to consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new front door in our investigation.

 Obligations, policies, and procedures

18. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord was responsible for keeping in good repair the outside doors, internal doors and door frames, and door hinges.
19. The landlord’s 2018 responsive repairs and maintenance policy states that, the landlord:

a.     Is responsible for outside doors and inside door frames. However, residents would be responsible for internal doors in their individual properties.

b.     Will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, to make safe. And will carry out all non-emergency repairs in one visit and within as little time as possible.

c.      Will try to phone the resident and will leave a calling card when a resident does not provide access to complete a repair, asking the resident to rearrange the appointment. It will cancel the repair if the resident does not make contact.

20. The landlord stated during the complaint process, that it was responsible for maintaining kitchen and bathroom doors, according to its repairs policy. But said all other internal doors were the resident’s responsibility. This suggests that the landlord may have made some changes to its repairs policy since 2018. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of a more recent policy.
21. There is no legal requirement for a landlord to fit external or internal fire doors in the majority of single household occupancy houses, where a property is no more than 2 storeys high.
22. However, the landlord had an obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the property free of hazards, which were so serious that the dwelling would not be suitable for occupation in that condition. The courts have held that a property is not reasonably fit for habitation if the state of repair means an occupier might be injured or experience injury to health as a result of the ordinary use of a property.
23. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is used by local authority housing enforcement teams, to risk assess the condition of housing from the perspective of avoiding or, at the very least, minimising potential hazards arising in a property, such as fire. The Department of Communities and Local Government issued HHSRS guidance to landlords in 2006, setting out a range of preventative measures that landlords should consider to prevent the likelihood of harm being caused to a resident from hazards. The guidance suggests that the risk of fire spreading through a property may be minimised by having properly constructed and fitted internal doors.
24. Fire safety guidance produced by the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) suggests, that “sound well-constructed, and close-fitting conventional doors are required in single household occupancy houses”.
25. According to the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord will pay:

a.     Up to £100 compensation, where there has been a direct failure of service.

b.     Compensation of between £51 and £500, where there has been a succession of failures and / or a problem has not been resolved within a reasonable timescale.

c.      Compensation of between £501 and £1,500, where there has been a serious or prolonged service failure or loss of services, resulting in severe distress, disruption, or loss of amenities.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement bedroom door

26. It is unclear from the available evidence when the bedroom door was removed, although the resident told us it had been missing for several years prior to her raising the formal complaint. The resident has said that the landlord’s contractor removed the door, after it dropped from its frame. The landlord was unable to verify the resident’s account from its records. The landlord is not expected to keep detailed records indefinitely and without any supporting evidence we cannot confirm that the contractor removed the door or if they did remove it, when this happened.
27. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 July 2023, asking it to replace the bedroom door. The resident expressed concern that if there was a fire, there would be no way for her to isolate herself from the smoke and fire. The landlord’s records show that it did not approve the resident’s request for a new bedroom door because according to its policy, this would be the resident’s responsibility. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated this information to the resident at the time, leaving her unclear of its intentions.
28. The landlord ought to have demonstrated at this stage that it had considered the potential risks involved with leaving the property without a bedroom door. And it ought to have addressed the resident’s evident concern about this. While there may have been no legal requirement for fire doors to be fitted throughout the property, the landlord was still obliged to minimise any potential hazards arising in the property. If the landlord was satisfied that it was not responsible for replacing the bedroom door, it should have given the resident a timescale for completing this work herself, and then proactively checked that the door had been replaced and correctly fitted to remove the hazard.
29. The resident raised concerns again on 8 January 2024, about the missing bedroom door. The landlord’s repairs contractor asked the landlord if it should arrange to fit a new door. The landlord maintained that this was the resident’s responsibility to replace. It is unclear if the landlord communicated this information to the resident, which was unfair.
30. The resident phoned the landlord’s repairs contractor on 16 January 2024. The resident suggested that being without a bedroom door, presented a “huge health and safety risk”. The landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord the same day, stating that it had no record of removing a bedroom door at the property. It asked the landlord to investigate and provide the resident with an outcome. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident as its contractor had requested. But it did send an email back to its contractor, asking it to raise a job. However, it was unclear if the landlord’s instruction related to the bedroom door, kitchen door, or both.
31. The landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord on 24 January 2024, checking if the landlord wanted it to replace the bedroom door. There is no evidence that the landlord clarified its instructions, which left the matter unresolved.
32. The landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord again on 12 February 2024, asking for the landlord’s instructions. The landlord’s contractor said it had spoken to the resident, who was adamant that the landlord had agreed to replace the bedroom door. The landlord told its contractor that it had spoken to the resident itself, confirming that the bedroom door was her responsibility to replace.
33. The landlord’s position regarding the doors remained the same throughout its complaints process. While the landlord’s position was consistent with its repairs policy, its position was inconsistent with its contractual obligations under the tenancy agreement to keep the property free from hazards, which would have taken precedence.
34. We asked the landlord on 4 April 2025, to confirm if there had been a variation of tenancy, which may have changed the obligations placed upon both parties concerning internal doors. The landlord emailed us on 9 April 2025, confirming that after reviewing its records, it had identified that it was responsible for “repairing / replacing the bedroom door”, in accordance with the tenancy agreement. It clarified that it had updated its repairs policy in 2018 concerning internal doors, but it was unable to verify that it had communicated the changes to the resident. The landlord committed to replacing the bedroom door and said it would make a suitable offer of compensation to the resident once the repair had been completed.
35. It was reasonable that the landlord changed its position once it became aware of its obligations under the tenancy agreement. However, the landlord should have been aware of this change and acknowledged its responsibilities regarding the bedroom door sooner than it did. The delay would have caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident over a significant period of time.
36. Therefore, when considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement bedroom door.
37. To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to replace the bedroom door, as it has previously agreed. The landlord is also ordered to pay £400 compensation, which reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a replacement bedroom door. This compensation is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) and with the landlord’s own compensation policy in mind. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there have been errors by the landlord which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident over a prolonged period of time, but there may be no permanent impact. In this case, the delay caused significant inconvenience but there will not be a permanent impact as the landlord will now replace the door.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen door

38. It has not been possible to verify when the kitchen door was removed based on the evidence provided. The resident has said that the landlord’s contractor removed the door. The landlord was unable to verify the resident’s account from its records. As we cannot say with certainty who removed the door or when it was removed, we cannot conclude that the landlord was at fault for this.
39. According to the available evidence, the resident first reported the missing kitchen door to the landlord on 16 January 2024. The landlord accepted that it was its responsibility to replace the kitchen door. It acted promptly the same day, by instructing its contractor to raise a job. However, as set out above it was unclear if the landlord’s instruction related to the kitchen door, bedroom door, or both. The landlord then failed to clarify its instruction to the contractor.
40. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint the on 12 February 2024. The landlord spoke to the resident the following day, confirming that works had been authorised. This was positive but it is unclear if it gave the resident an expected timescale for completing the repair, to manage her expectations.
41. The landlord emailed its contractor the same day, confirming its conversation with the resident. But according to the stage 1 complaint response, it did not raise a works order to replace the kitchen door until 26 February 2024. We have not seen evidence of this works order. It is unclear why the landlord did not raise this job in a timelier manner.
42. The landlord’s stage 2 response states that an appointment was made to fit the kitchen door on 2 April 2024. Allowing time for the landlord to order the door, this was reasonable. However, the landlord noted that the resident had subsequently changed this appointment to 3 April 2024. The resident says that she never made this appointment, as she was not in the country at the time. We were unable to verify the accounts of either party from the evidence seen, so we cannot conclude that the landlord was at fault for changing the appointment.
43. It was unfortunate that the landlord was unable to gain access to the property on 3 April 2024, to complete the repair. The landlord claims to have tried phoning the resident at the time to rebook the appointment, which was in line its repairs policy but it has not provided any evidence to confirm this. It is unclear if it left a calling card. It is recommended that the landlord adjusts its record keeping practices for repairs to ensure that it keeps logs of phone calls with residents to arrange repairs so it can verify any attempts to book an appointment.
44. According to the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord tried to phone the resident again on 11 April 2024 to rearrange the appointment, without success. The landlord said the resident should get in contact to arrange a new appointment to fit the kitchen door, at a time that was convenient to her. This was encouraging, as it would have been inappropriate for the landlord to have cancelled the job, given that the kitchen would be a high-risk area for a fire to start.
45. The resident confirmed that the kitchen door was subsequently replaced in early May 2024. This was around 3 and a half months after the resident reported the kitchen door was missing. While the landlord’s repairs policy does not give an expected timescale for completing non-emergency repairs, we would have expected the landlord to have installed the kitchen door sooner than it did because it was a potential hazard.
46. We accept that misunderstanding between the parties over access arrangements, and difficulties contacting resident to rearrange the appointment, may have created some unavoidable delay in the landlord completing the repair. But the repair might have been completed sooner if the landlord’s instructions to its contractor been clearer at the outset and it had raised the works order in a timelier manner.
47. Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen door.
48. To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, arising from avoidable delays instructing its contractor to replace the kitchen door. This compensation in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as set out above which suggests awards in this range where there have been errors such as delays by the landlord which caused distress and/or inconvenience to the resident but the delay may have been of a shorter duration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new front door

49. The resident reported ongoing issues with drafts and debris coming through the front door on 2 April 2024, in her stage 2 escalation request. The resident said that the door was old and the landlord’s previous attempts to repair it had not resolved the issue. She said she was disappointed that her neighbours had been given new doors. She said the landlord ought to replace her front door as well.
50. While the landlord did not investigate the resident’s complaint about this, it did address the resident’s concerns about repairs required to the front door in the stage 2 complaint response on 15 April 2024. To avoid confusion for the resident, it may have been better if the landlord had addressed this separately as new service request rather than including it in its complaint response.
51. The landlord said that it had repaired the front door in July 2022, October 2023, and January 2024. It noted that it had completed all of the repairs identified. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have committed to arranging another inspection of the front door at this stage, given that the resident was reporting ongoing drafts and the door had been repaired once a year for 3 years.
52. The landlord committed to reviewing the circumstances around the installation of new doors at neighbouring properties if the resident was able to provide addresses. The willingness of the landlord to consider the frequency of replacement doors in the locality and whether there were wider concerns was positive. However, it is unclear why the landlord could not have carried out its own desk top review from its own asset register. The landlord’s approach would have created additional time and trouble for the resident, that may have been avoided.
53. The landlord noted in the final stage 2 complaint response on 23 April 2024, that the resident had provided the address of one of her neighbours, for whom it had installed a new front door. It noted that its Head of Property Services had contacted the resident following this, which shows that the landlord was treating the resident’s concerns with the attention deserved.
54. The landlord clarified that after talking to the resident, its Head of Property Services had arranged an appointment to inspect the front door. It explained that this would allow it to determine if the front door should be repaired or replaced. The landlord ought to have confirmed the date of this appointment for clarity. Landlords are entitled to attempt repairs before considering a replacement but if repairs have been carried out multiple times and have not worked, then a replacement should be considered.
55. We were unable to verify when the landlord attended to inspect the front door, in line with its stage 2 commitment. The resident told us that the landlord did not replace the door and we have seen no evidence that the landlord carried out any repairs to the front door until 12 December 2024, when it fitted a draft excluder.
56. The resident told us on 7 April 2025, that she had continued to experience drafts through the front door. But she said she was encouraged that the landlord had contacted earlier the same day, committing to replace the front door. However, we note that the landlord’s latest communication with us on 9 April 2025, gave no such commitment. Therefore, it is not clear what the landlord’s current position is regarding the front door.
57. When considered cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a new front door.
58. Given that the door has been repaired 4 times in the last 3 years without a lasting resolution, the landlord is ordered to replace the front door.
59. The landlord is also ordered to pay £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, arising from identified failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to replace the front door. This compensation is made in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as set out above in this assessment.

The landlord’s complaint handling

60. The landlord had a 2-stage complaint policy. The landlord aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 2 working days and provide a full response within 10 working days. The landlord aimed to issue stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days. The complaints policy states that the landlord will write to the resident if it needs more time to issue a response. Any extension should not exceed an additional 10 working days. 
61. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 12 February 2024 and issued the stage 1 acknowledgement the following day, which was within expected timescales under its policy. The landlord wrote to the resident 10 working days later, stating that it needed an extension, which was also in line with its policy. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response 10 working days later, as it had committed. 
62. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 2 April 2024. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response 9 working days later, which was well within the expected response timescales.
63. It is unclear why the landlord determined at stage 2, that it had issued the full stage 1 complaint response outside of its expected response timescale. However, having made this finding, it was positive that it tried to put things right by apologising and offering compensation. It was unfortunate that the landlord made an error by initially offering £2,300 compensation for the complaint handling delay it itself identified. The landlord ought to have apologised to the resident for its error, rather than recalling the stage 2 complaint response and issuing a new complaint response without explanation, with a lower offer of compensation. The landlord’s approach created unnecessary confusion for the resident and unfairly raised her expectations that a higher amount of compensation would be paid.
64. We would not have expected the landlord to have honoured the initial offer of compensation. This is because this would have significantly exceeded the recommended limits the landlord was able to offer under its compensation policy, for similar failings. This is also in excess of the amount of compensation we consider to be reasonable for the landlord’s errors in its handling of the door replacements, as set out above in this report.
65. However, it was positive that the landlord awarded an additional £25 compensation in recognition of its error. The overall offer of compensation made by the landlord for complaint handling failure was proportionate to the failings identified.
66. Therefore, on balance, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

67. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:

a.     Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement bedroom door.

b.     Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen door.

c.      Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new front door.

68. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

69. The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified by this investigation. Its apology must be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.
70. The landlord must pay £700 compensation directly to the resident. This compensation is broken down as follows:

a.     £400 compensation, which reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, by the landlord’s handling of her requests for a replacement bedroom door.

b.     £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, arising from avoidable delays instructing its contractor to replace the kitchen door.

c.      £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, arising from identified failures in the landlord’s handling of her requests to replace the front door.

71. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
72. The landlord must replace the bedroom door within 8 weeks of the date of this decision.
73. The must replace the front door within 12 weeks of the date of this decision.
74. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders.