London Borough of Lambeth (202400915)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400915

Lambeth Council

26 March 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 repairs to windows and the exterior of the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. She has lived at the property since 1987. The property is a one bedroom flat.
The landlord has an alert on its system to prioritise repairs reported by the resident as she is vulnerable. Its records reflect that she has “complex health needs”.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 26 October 2023 (Complaint 1). She said that:
1. the 2 windows in her living room were in a “poor state” and were allowing draughts into the property.
2. the landlord’s contractor inspected the windows in July 2023. It said that the outside of the property was also in need of repair. The contractor told her it was unable to complete the work that day as it required scaffolding.
3. the contractor returned in October 2023. The only work it carried out was to sand down the inside of the windows and paint them with a stain.
4. the windows were still draughty and the paint had caused them to stick when opening and closing.
5. the outside of the property was still in need of repair. This included peeling paint and repairs to the windowsills.
6. as a result of the outstanding repairs, the property was “cold and damp”.
7. the landlord’s response to these repair issues was “very slow”.
The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response on 27 November 2023. It said that it understood the resident’s complaint to be “a request for service”. It advised her that a surveyor would attend the property on 28 November 2023 to inspect the windows and determine the next steps.
The surveyor attended on the scheduled date and carried out a further visit on 7 December 2023. Following this the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had raised 3 works orders with its contractor asking it to repair the windows and outside of the property.
The contractor attended the property on 5 February 2024. It did not carry out any work. It told the landlord that the resident had not allowed it to carry out the repairs as she said the surveyor told her in December 2023 that the windows would be replaced.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 February 2024 and asked it to escalate her complaint. She said she had spoken to a customer service advisor that day who informed her the landlord was no longer going to carry out the repairs to the windows or outside of the property. She outlined her confusion at what she understood to be a “refusal [by the landlord] to do any of the works”. She said the surveyor assured her in December 2023 that the repairs would be carried out. She said she was living with “black damp” and in “cold conditions”.
The resident sent a further email in support of her escalation request on 24 February 2024. She explained that the contractor told her previously that the windows were “rotten”. She said repairs were required to cracked windowsills and that paintwork coming off the outside of the property was allowing cold air and damp in. She said it was “not true” that she refused to allow the contractor to carry out any works on 5 February 2024. She understood there was a “conflict” between the surveyor and contractor and she felt that she was caught in the middle of it.
On 5 March 2024 the resident rang the landlord to ask when it would carry out the window repairs. She reported that the wall around the window was “peeling and letting in damp”.
On 11 March 2024 the contractor attended the property and replaced a sash cord inside one window. It recorded that both windows required painting to prevent them from rotting, but it did not carry out the work at that time. It did not carry out any external works to the wall around the window or the windowsills.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 March 2024. It said:
1. the contractor advised it that the resident had refused the repairs as she said new windows were required.
2. it had scheduled an appointment to make good the outside of the property for 19 March 2024. The work did not go ahead as it was investigating the complaint. Instead on this date the surveyor and contractor carried out a further inspection of the windows.
3. the inspection confirmed the windows were not in need of renewal. They required maintenance only. The contractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment for this repair work.
4. it apologised if the surveyor “did not clarify the correct works” following his December 2023 visit.
5. as a local authority, the landlord had a responsibility to use public funds “in a fair and responsible manner”.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in April 2024. She said the windows were rotting and paint was coming off the wall outside. She wanted the landlord to carry out all the required repairs. She said its handling of the matter had affected her mental health.
The landlord carried out no further repairs to the windows or outside of the property in the months that followed. The resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord on 20 August 2024 (Complaint 2). She said it had caused her a “lot of stress” to keep chasing the landlord to complete the repairs. She said the landlord had “abandoned” the work.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 on 28 August 2024. It explained it had moved its repairs service contract to a new contractor at the start of that month. It advised that it had raised works orders relating to the windows and exterior of the property with the new contractor. It apologised for its delay in completing the repairs.
The resident asked to escalate Complaint 2 on 9 September 2024. She said no repairs had been completed or even attempted. She referred to the situation as a “stalemate”.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to Complaint 2 on 8 October 2024. It said:
1. its surveyor had confirmed the windows were beyond repair.
2. it had asked its original contractor to provide a quote to renew the windows. However, there were “IT issues” with transferring the job to the new contractor when it changed contracts on 1 August 2024.
3. it had now raised the job with the new contractor who would be in touch with the resident to arrange an inspection.
4. it was sorry the service the resident had received did not meet its “usual standards”.
The resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord on 10 January 2025 (Complaint 3). She complained that the repairs had still not been carried out. She said she had chased the landlord numerous times and that she felt she was “repeating herself and going around in circles”.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to Complaint 3 on 13 January 2025. It said it was “processing these works” but was unable to confirm when the work would start. It apologised to the resident for the delay.
The resident asked to escalate Complaint 3 on 14 January 2025.
Later that month a sub-contractor replaced the 2 living room windows. Another sub-contractor then built scaffolding outside the property so that it could carry out the external repairs. The resident advised us this was erected on 1 February 2025. She said that at that time, the landlord was unable to provide her with a date for when it would complete the external work and that she raised security concerns with it about the scaffolding.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to Complaint 3 on 18 February 2025. It said:
1. it had completed the work to replace the 2 windows.
2. the scaffolding would remain in place until it had completed the external works.
3. it appreciated the impact the ongoing delays had on the resident and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It would ensure its contractor made an “early appointment” to complete the outstanding external repairs.
We spoke to the resident on 13 March 2025. She advised us that the scaffolding remained in place as the landlord had not yet completed all the external repairs. She said she asked it a number of times when it would carry out the external works but it had not yet given her a date. She was particularly concerned about the security implications of having scaffolding outside her property for an extended period. She wanted the landlord to complete the works without further delay and to remove the scaffolding as soon as possible.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the impact of the landlord’s actions on her mental and physical health. The Ombudsman can consider the likely distress and inconvenience any identified failings may have caused, but we cannot determine liability for personal injury. We are not qualified to make an assessment as to how the landlord’s actions might have caused a medical condition or resulted in a deterioration of an existing condition. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed through insurance or as a civil action. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim, she should seek independent advice.
The resident told us that a contractor damaged her television during an inspection at her property. She replaced it at her own expense. She said she did not report it to the landlord as she did not think it could do anything given it concerned a contractor. The resident’s comments are noted. However, landlords are however usually responsible for paying for any damage caused by their contractors.
Whether the landlord should cover the cost of the television in this case falls outside the scope of this investigation as the resident did not raise it in her complaint correspondence. Our role is to consider the landlord’s response to the complaint. Liability for damages is also a matter more appropriately determined by insurers rather than the Ombudsman. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she may ask the landlord to advise her whether she may make a claim on its insurance. Claims are usually time bound and will require supporting evidence. The landlord will be able to advise the resident of any such requirements should she advise it she wishes to make a claim.

Handling of repairs to windows and the exterior of the property

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes windows and walls.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) provides landlords with a tool to identify and protect against potential risks and hazards found in residential properties. Windows that require repair may give rise to a number of hazards under the HHSRS. This includes an increase in the risk of excess cold, damp and mould growth, access by rodents, noise nuisance, entry by intruders and personal injury.
The Decent Homes Standard (DHS) estimates that landlords will need to replace windows in blocks of flats below 6 storeys every 30 years. The resident advised us that the same living room windows had been in place ever since she moved into the property in 1987. We do not know how old the windows were when she moved in. They were however at least 36 years old by the time she made her complaint.
The landlord’s repairs policy seeks to ensure that its residents “live in a warm and dry home that is well maintained.” The policy prioritises response times according to the urgency of the repair. It states that it will:
1. attend to emergency repairs within 2 hours and aim to fix them within 24 hours.
2. aim to fix routine repairs within 3 to 28 days depending on what the repair entails.
3. aim to complete planned works within 90 days.
The repairs policy also states that vulnerable tenants will have their repairs prioritised for quicker action. The landlord had an alert on its system to prioritise repairs at the resident’s property for this reason. However, at no stage throughout its handling of the repairs to the windows or exterior of the property has it demonstrated that it has provided a quicker than normal response. On the contrary, at each step of the way, it failed to adhere to the 28 day timeframe for routine repairs set out in its policy.
The landlord was advised by its contractor on 30 August 2023 that the 2 living room windows “inside and out” required repair and that the bottom runners were “falling apart”. It issued no further instructions to its contractor at that time to carry out any repair work to resolve this. It failed to attend to the repair within 28 days as required by its policy.
It was only after the resident contacted the landlord and asked for an update that it identified on 26 September 2023 the job was “closed in error”. That the landlord failed to monitor the repair was completed in line with its repairs policy, led to the resident spending unnecessary time and trouble seeking updates.
The landlord arranged for the contractor to attend the property on 23 October 2023. At that appointment the contractor rubbed down and painted the inside of the windows. The landlord’s repair records show that it had raised a separate works order for the external repairs required. It noted that scaffolding was required. This appears to be the reason for the delay in carrying out those works at that time. However, there is no evidence this was communicated to the resident with a timeframe given for when the remaining works would be carried out. This led to her submitting Complaint 1 on 26 October 2023.
Following the surveyor’s inspection on 7 December 2023, the landlord told the resident in an email that 3 works order had been raised with its contractor asking it to:
1. repair “defects” to an external window frame.
2. “overhaul” the 2 windows in the living room.
3. make good a “defective wall area under the windowsill in the living room”.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 5 February 2024 to carry out the repairs. It appropriately checked and confirmed to the landlord that the windows could open, close and lock. However, it did not carry out any of the repairs ordered by the landlord. It advised the landlord this was because the resident had refused to allow it to do so on the basis that she was expecting the windows to be replaced.
The resident told us that when the contractor attended on 5 February 2024, she was confused about what work the landlord had instructed it to carry out. She said that the surveyor told her during his visit in December 2023 that he thought the windows required replacement but that the landlord might not approve this due to cost. She was not sure when she received the email setting out the 3 works orders whether this meant the windows would be replaced or not.
We similarly found it difficult to determine what repairs were ordered based on the information contained in the works orders. For example, it is not clear from the word “overhaul” whether the landlord intended to repair or replace the windows. We note the same wording was used when the contractor was later instructed in 2024 to replace the windows. We therefore asked the landlord to clarify what its intention was when raising each works order. It advised us that “overhaul” would normally mean to repair, but confirmed that the same word was used in 2024 to mean replace. We have considered this further below in our assessment of its record keeping.
The resident told the landlord when asking to escalate Complaint 1 that she did not refuse the works. She said she was trying to clarify with it what works it was carrying out. That this confusion arose was due to the landlord’s lack of clear communication with her following the December 2023 survey.
Once the landlord was aware the works had not been carried out on 5 February 2024, it should reasonably have contacted the resident to ask why, according to its contractor, she refused the work. Instead it updated its repairs records to reflect that the works orders for the windows were complete. It raised no further works orders at that time. This was inappropriate given its statutory repair obligations and its knowledge that the windows were not in a good state of repair.
On 19 March 2024, as part of the landlord’s stage 2 investigation into Complaint 1, the surveyor and contractor attended the property together to examine the condition of the windows. This was a reasonable course of action to ensure their views on the work required was aligned. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response, issued on 20 March 2024, that the windows were “not in need of renewal and require maintenance only”. It said its contractor would arrange an appointment to carry out the repair work.
It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its professional operatives when it decided in March 2024 that it would repair rather than replace the windows. However, it has not provided us with an inspection report or other records that detail how the operatives reached the conclusion that a repair would be sufficient. We do not know if the DHS recommendation regarding the age of the windows was factored into the landlord’s decision making. If it was not, this was unreasonable. It was also unreasonable that once the landlord reaffirmed its position that it would repair the windows, it did not then prioritise that repair and the outstanding external repairs. It knew the resident was vulnerable and had already been waiting a long time for it to complete the repairs.
In the 6 months that followed the stage 2 response to Complaint 1, the landlord carried out no repairs at the property. This led to the resident submitting Complaint 2.
It is evident from the landlord’s stage 2 response to Complaint 2 that by October 2024, it had decided it would replace the windows. It said its surveyor had advised they were “beyond repair”. It explained to the resident that it had changed to a new repairs contractor from 1 August 2024. It said that it had asked its original contractor to replace the windows but it had not yet carried out the job due to “IT issues” with transferring it to the new contractor.
It is unclear why the landlord changed its position given its firm stance in its stage 2 response to Complaint 1 that the windows would be repaired only. Following the inspection on 19 March 2024 when it determined the windows would be repaired, there is no evidence it carried out any further inspections before changing its position and deciding to replace them. At no point prior to the stage 2 response to Complaint 2 in October 2024 did it communicate this change of position to the resident. This was unreasonable and further demonstrates its poor communications with her, as well as its poor record keeping in relation to its decision making.
The landlord appropriately apologised in the stage 2 response to Complaint 2 for the delay caused by the IT issues. However, it failed to acknowledge the full extent of its delay up to that point in its handling of the windows and external repairs. It had been aware for over 14 months by that stage that the windows and exterior of the property required repair. It had carried out minimal repairs to the windows during this time and no repairs to the outside of the property. It had not prioritised the repair in line with the requirements of its repairs policy. IT issues alone did not account for these delays. It was unreasonable that it did not acknowledge this in its complaint response.
The landlord replaced the windows in January 2025. Its repairs policy provides that planned works will be completed within 90 days. Although we do not know the exact date the landlord decided to replace rather than repair the windows, it was prior to 1 August 2024 given the work was initially allocated to its former contractor. It therefore took signficantly more than 90 days to complete the work from the date of its decision to replace the windows. This was a further failure to adhere to its policy.
The landlord apologised to the resident in its stage 2 response to Complaint 3, issued on 18 February 2025, that it had not yet carried out the external works. It said it would ensure its contractor contacted her and made an “early appointment” to complete the outstanding work. However, when we spoke to the resident on 13 March 2025, she told us that the work has not yet been carried out. She said she asked the landlord when the work would start but it was unable to confirm a date. This was unreasonable given its commitment in the stage 2 response to Complaint 3 that there would be an early appointment to complete the work.
Overall, we find that there was maladminstration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to windows and the exterior of the property. It took approximately 18 months from it became aware the windows were not functioning as they should until it resolved the issue by replacing them. This far exceeded the repair timeframes set out in its repairs policy. It failed to fully complete the external repairs during this time. This is contrary to its statutory obligations which require it to keep the exterior of the property in good repair.
The impact of the maladministration to the resident is evident in her complaint correspondence. She told the landlord on numerous occasions that the repairs issues were causing her property to be cold and damp. She said this was distressing her. The landlord was aware she was vulnerable due to mental health issues and physical disabilities. There is no evidence it took this into account at any stage in its handling of this case. It did not prioritise the repairs as required by its policy where a vulnerable resident is involved. Its communications were poor and resulted in the resident spending considerable time and trouble seeking updates from the landlord and submitting 3 separate formal complaints.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration.
The resident told us she is particularly concerned about the scaffolding that the landlord built outside her property in early February 2025. She is worried that it poses a security risk to the building. She raised this with the landlord. It indicated in its stage 2 response to Complaint 3 the scaffolding will remain in place until the outside work is complete. We therefore asked the landlord when this will be. It advised us on 21 March 2025 that it had carried out some of the external works but that it still had to finish repairs to the windowsills. It said it would complete this work by 4 April 2025. If it is delayed beyond this date, we have ordered it to clearly communicate with the resident and provide her with an action plan setting out when the work will be completed and scaffolding removed.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s original complaint, the landlord’s complaint policy provided that it would respond to complaints at stage 1 within 20 working days and at stage 2 within 25 working days of receipt.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 1 after 22 working days. While this was a minor delay, it should reasonably have acknowledged this and apologised for it in the complaint response. It failed to do so.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to Complaint 1 after 25 working days. This was in keeping with its policy. By the time it was issuing its responses to Complaints 2 and 3, it had introduced a new complaints policy. The new policy brought the timeframes for a response at both stages into line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its new policy provides that it will acknowledge complaints and escalation request within 5 working days of receipt. It will issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and stage 2 responses within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord adhered to these timeframes when responding to Complaints 2 and 3.
In her original complaint email, the resident complained about how long the landlord was taking to repair the windows and the outside of the property. She also expressed dissatisfaction with the standard of the contractor’s paintwork as she said it led to her windows sticking shut. The landlord did not address any of this in its complaint response. Instead, it said it understood her complaint was a “request for service” and that it had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property. It was appropriate that it arranged for a survey of the property. However, it was unreasonable that:
1. it did not attempt to carry out the survey during the complaint investigation. It had over a month to do this. Had it done so, it could have advised the resident in its complaint response of its findings and proposed next steps.
2. it did not acknowledge its delay to date in attending to the repairs. The resident had reported the issues to it over 3 months previously and it had not resolved them by the time of the stage 1 response.
Instead, the stage 1 response to Complaint 1 read as though it were no more than an appointment confirmation letter. Its complaints policy and the Code required it to carry out a thorough complaint investigation, provide a response that addressed all aspects of the complaint, and acknowledge where things had gone wrong. It failed to do this. It also failed to review its stage 1 response and acknowledge the poor complaint handling during its stage 2 review.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response to Complaint 1 it said it apologised “if the Surveyor did not clarify the correct works”. The word ‘if’ indicates this was a qualified apology. It was not an acceptance by the landlord that the surveyor had not clearly communicated with the resident. As outlined above in our assessment of the substantive complaint, we have found that its communications with the resident were poor.
The landlord did not acknowledge its delay in completing the repairs in the stage 2 response to Complaint 1. The only explanation for any delay it provided was that the resident refused to allow the contractor to carry out the repairs during the appointment on 5 February 2024. Given this appointment occurred 7 months after the resident first reported the repair issues to the landlord, it was unfair that it did not acknowledge it had contributed to the majority of the delay.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on the Code recognises that landlords will not always have completed all outstanding actions by the time a complaint response is issued. This is particularly the case where the complaint involves repair issues that can take time to resolve. Where this is the case, our guidance suggests that the complaint response should provide an action plan explaining how the landlord will resolve the issues. The landlord should monitor the action plan and keep the resident updated on the progress of any outstanding actions until they are complete. The landlord failed to do that in the stage 2 response to Complaint 1. It said in the response that its contractor would contact the resident to schedule an appointment but it provided no timeframe for it doing so. It then failed to oversee that the repairs were carried out. This led to the resident submitting 2 further formal complaints about the same issue.
In its responses to Complaints 2 and 3, the landlord acknowledged:
1. that it had not yet completed the repairs and that the service received by the resident had not met the landlord’s “usual standard” (Complaint 2).
2. for the “ongoing issues with the delays to the repairs being carried out”. It acknowledged the “stress and frustration” this had caused the resident (Complaint 3).
Although the landlord acknowledged its delays in both responses, it provided a limited explanation as to why the delays had occurred and it demonstrated no learning from this. There is no evidence that it considered applying its compensation policy and offering the resident financial redress for the distress and inconvenience its delays had caused her. This was unreasonable.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling. It failed to thoroughly investigate her original complaint and it did not address in its response all of the issues she raised. When reviewing the complaint at stage 2, it missed the opportunity to fully acknowledge its failings, put things right and learn from outcomes. This resulted in the resident submitting and escalating 2 further formal complaints about the same issue.
In line with our remedies guidance we order the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation for her time and trouble in pursuing the complaints, and for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration.

Record keeping

As part of its evidence submission to the Ombudsman, the landlord included a repairs history report for the property. The report contains details of works orders the landlord raised with its contractor. It records the date it raised each order, the instructions to the contractor, the date of any appointments, the contractor’s notes, and the date the order was closed.
When reviewing this report, we noted it lacked detail. It was often unclear from the works orders included what each job entailed. For example, there were numerous works orders requesting the contractor “overhaul” the windows, but no explanation of what “overhaul” meant. It appears to have been originally used to mean ‘repair’, and later used to mean ‘replace’. This may have contributed to the resident’s confusion in February 2024 as to what work the landlord instructed its contractor to carry out.
Some of the records on the repairs history report were incomplete. For example, the landlord raised a repair order in October 2023 as the resident reported there was damp and mould in her living room below a window. The report states that an appointment was scheduled to take place on 14 November 2023 but that the resident asked it to reschedule this. The works order is marked as being “completed” on 14 November 2023. It is not clear if the appointment went ahead that day despite the resident’s request to reschedule. It is not known what work, if any, the landlord or its contractor carried out or if they even found damp and mould to be present in the property. The resident advised us that the landlord did carry out a mould wash inside her property. However, this is not reflected in any of the records provided to us from 2023 onwards.
There were other reasons why the repairs history report alone did not provide us with a full understanding of the background to this case. For example:
1. the report only detailed works orders raised with contractors. It did not contain any notes or dates of inspections carried out by the landlord’s own staff.
2. if a works order was marked as ‘complete’, this did not necessarily mean the repair had been carried out. This may have been one of the reasons why the landlord failed to oversee that jobs assigned to its contractor were followed through to completion. It also potentially affected the accuracy of the information its customer service advisors provided to the resident. For example, a customer services advisor told the resident in February 2024 that the landlord no longer intended to carry out any repairs at her property. This may have been because the works orders for the windows had been marked on its system as being ‘completed’. There had not, however, been an actual decision by the landlord at that time not to carry out any further repairs.
We asked the landlord to provide us with any surveys or inspection reports produced by its staff or contractors. We hoped this might help bridge the gaps in our knowledge due to the limited information contained in the repairs history report. It advised us it did not have any other surveys or reports. It said that its surveyors usually outlined their findings in the works order. However, as explained above, the works orders in this case were unclear. The landlord is aware that this is poor record keeping. It told us it was addressing this with the relevant service areas and that in future surveyors would produce reports “so that they can then be shared with the resident and provided upon request”.
In addition to the repairs history report, the landlord also provided us with a contact history report. The report reflects that between July 2023 when the resident reported the repairs and December 2024 when the landlord provided us with this report, the resident spoke to the landlord on the phone 3 times. This is inaccurate as the resident was in regular contact with the landlord throughout this time period. Both she and the landlord referenced phone calls in their written communications that are not reflected in the contact history report.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping. This has hampered our ability to carry out a thorough investigation.
We previously reviewed the landlord’s record keeping as part of a special report published in February 2022. We found that, “Incomplete records meant that the landlord could not evidence it had appropriately diagnosed or completed repairs it was responsible for, so could not satisfy itself or the Ombudsman that it had fulfilled its obligations or acted reasonably. It also meant that it was unable to track or monitor repairs in real time or follow up on outstanding repairs, which exacerbated delays. This also meant that it could not provide accurate information to residents when they made enquiries. We also found that poor record keeping hampered the landlord’s ability to respond in a meaningful way to complaints.”
The events giving rise to the resident’s complaint occurred over a year after we published the special report. It is therefore disappointing that the landlord’s repair and contact records were so poor in this case.
The Ombudsman continues to keep the landlord’s record keeping under review through our casework. In September 2023 we ordered it to carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations made in our spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ (KIM) (case reference 202204121). In response to that, the landlord carried out a gap analysis and drafted a strategy and action plan. It consulted with residents on the draft plan. In its latest update to us in September 2024, it advised us the plan was with its senior management team for sign off.
Given this, the Ombudsman makes no orders relating to record keeping in this investigation report. However, we encourage the landlord to keep its records strategy and action plan under regular review. It should continue to seek resident feedback and learn from its complaints, particularly where record keeping failings have been identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to windows and the exterior of the property.
2. maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.
3. maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. pay the resident £900 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of repairs to windows and the exterior of the property.
  2. £300 for her time and trouble in pursuing the complaints, and for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its complaint handling.
If the landlord is unable to complete the external works by 4 April 2025 as it has anticipated, it is ordered to:
1. clearly communicate the reasons for the further delay in completing the works to the resident.
2. provide the resident with an action plan setting out when the work will be completed and when the scaffolding will be removed.
3. provide the Ombudsman with evidence within 4 weeks of the date of this report that it communicated with the resident and provided her with an action plan.