London Borough of Lewisham (202330074)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330074

Lewisham Council

19 December 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the windows.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident occupies the property, a two-bedroom, first floor flat, under a secure tenancy, which began on 13 September 1993.
The resident complained to the landlord in November 2021 because she was concerned about delays in replacing the windows at the property under the landlord’s planned works programme. The resident noted the problems she had experienced with heating the property due to draughts from the windows.
The landlord attended the property to assess the windows on 17 January 2022 and responded to the resident’s complaint by email on 26 January 2022. It offered a goodwill gesture of a £50 voucher and confirmed that it would arrange for a contractor to undertake window repairs. The landlord confirmed that the resident had agreed to withdraw her complaint in response to these actions by the landlord.
On 1 June 2022, the resident complained again to the landlord about the delays in replacing the windows at the property. She noted that the property would not retain heat due to the draughts from the windows, which meant that the heating had to be on constantly to maintain a comfortable temperature. She noted that a contractor had visited some months earlier and adjusted a handle and painted over mould on the window frame. She stated that she had been told on several occasions that the windows were part of a programme of improvements which the landlord was due to carry out to her building, but on each occasion, the works had not gone ahead. In addition, she noted that the £50 voucher which the landlord offered to her on 26 January 2022 had not been sent to her.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 10 August 2022 and confirmed that it would be asking its contractor to attend at the property to carry out repairs. It also stated that works to renew the windows in the resident’s block were due to start in July 2023, and that the resident would be contacted about this nearer the time. The landlord apologised for the failure to send the £50 voucher offered to the resident in January 2022, and said it would arrange to pay the sum of £50 into the resident’s rent account. The landlord also apologised for the delays and failures in service.
The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend the property on 18 October 2022 to remove old window seals and fit new draught strips to the windows at the property.
Following these repairs, on 14 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She reported that the repairs had been ineffective, that one seal had fallen out the week after the contractor visited, and another had fallen out on 13 December 2022. The resident also stated that when she had contacted the repairs team to report the issue, the people handling the calls had been unprofessional.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was issued on 23 January 2023. The landlord confirmed that the contractor would be asked to attend again to carry out a further inspection and complete any further repairs. The landlord also apologised for the delays and for the poor customer service the resident had received from the landlord’s contact centre officers.
The resident responded on 24 January 2023 noting that she was not happy after the landlord’s stage 2 response and that she did not want the same contractor to attend at the property in light of their previous work.
On 8 December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to request that the landlord consider her complaint under stage 3 of its process, stating that she had been ignored by the major works team, the repairs team and the complaints team, noting that her windows were due to be replaced in 2016 but this was delayed until 2021. She noted that the works had still not taken place, and when she sought an update, she did not get a response to her enquiry. She noted that she was living out of one room, as she could not afford to heat the whole property due to the draughts.
The landlord responded on 23 January 2024 with its stage 3 adjudicator’s response, which did not uphold the resident’s complaint and concluded that the council had not unduly delayed the major works programme to replace the resident’s windows, and had carried out interim repairs when requested. The adjudicator said it would ask the landlord to send a contractor out to inspect and carry out any interim repairs.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the adjudicator’s response, and contacted the Ombudsman on 24 January 2024, to confirm she wanted the Ombudsman to investigate the case. She was dissatisfied that the window replacement works had been delayed again and confirmed that there had been no further attendance by the landlord or contractor to carry out any further repairs since October 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Although it is noted that the resident has reported that she made enquiries about when her windows would be replaced over several years, dating back to 2016, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of matters up to 12 months prior to the resident raising her complaint on 1 June 2022. This is because, under paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the windows

In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the windows in the property in a good state of repair.
The landlord’s lettable standards set out that windows and frames will be free of rot or decay and open and close easily, and that glazing will be in good condition and meet current British Standards.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord will respond to routine repairs within 20 working days.
In this case, the landlord’s records show that the resident reported that the wooden window frames at the property were rotten on 29 April 2020. The landlord attended to assess the windows at the property and a replacement window was fitted in the resident’s bedroom in November 2020.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 29 November 2021, requesting confirmation of when the windows in the property would be replaced or fixed.
The records show that the landlord attended to assess the windows at the property on 17 January 2022. On that occasion, the landlord’s employee noted that the window seals had gone and needed to be replaced. This assessment set a basis for the landlord’s next steps.
On 29 April 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended the property, and repairs were carried out to the window handles and the resident reported that one of the window frames was painted. However, the seals were not replaced.
After the resident made a further complaint on 1 June 2022, the landlord confirmed it would arrange for its contractors to attend at the resident’s property to carry out repairs to make the windows less draughty, pending completion of the planned works to renew the windows at the resident’s property.
The landlord’s internal email correspondence dated 10 August 2022 asked the contractor to go back out to renew the window seals or undertake alternative works “to make the windows less draughty to get her through the winter”, until the planned programme of works were due to take place the following year.
The landlord’s contractor attended at the property on 18 October 2022 to replace top and bottom draught strips to all 7 windows, apply mastic to the vents in 5 windows, and adjust 2 window handles. The contractor took photographs of the works carried out and provided these to the landlord.
It is acknowledged that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. In view of this, landlords are entitled to opt to repair damaged items such as windows, if possible, rather than replacing them. The landlord was entitled to rely on its employee’s assessment that the windows could be repaired in the first instance, so undertaking the repairs to the window seals was an appropriate course of action following the landlord’s assessment of the windows in January 2022.
However, the landlord’s repair guidelines state that routine repairs should be carried out within 20 working days. The landlord did not complete the repair to the seals in this case until 18 October 2022, which was 9 months after it had assessed the windows. In the absence of any reasonable explanation for the delay, the Ombudsman concludes that it was not appropriate that the recommended works were delayed until 9 months after the initial assessment was made.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 December 2022 to note that the repairs to the seals had been ineffective, that the draught strips had fallen off and that the property was still draughty.
The Ombudsman notes that in subsequent email correspondence from the contractor to the landlord dated 13 December 2023, the contractor referred to the earlier repairs they had carried out, noting that they had attended at the property 4 times in total and ended up putting in self-adhesive draught strips which they knew would fall off. The contractor further stated that the windows needed to be changed, but the landlord did not want to do that.
It was unreasonable that the landlord’s contractor went ahead with repairs which they knew were unlikely to be effective. In addition, the Ombudsman considers that, in a case such as this, where a repair failed after only a few weeks, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to conduct a more thorough assessment to determine the condition of the windows and whether they could be repaired effectively.
Further to the complaints raised by the resident, in both the stage 2 response on 23 January 2023 and the stage 3 response on 23 January 2024, the landlord stated it would arrange to send its contractor out to the property to see whether any further works could be undertaken to draught proof the property. On 14 March 2023 there is evidence that landlord asked the contractor to arrange an appointment at the property, and a response from the contractor to state that they would call. However, from the records provided, it appears that no further repair inspections or works have in fact taken place at the property since October 2022.
This was not appropriate, and this failure by the landlord to follow up to arrange further inspections or repairs, after expressly stating that it would do so, is likely to have undermined the landlord and tenant relationship further.
The delays, inadequacy of repairs undertaken, and failure to complete further interim repairs have led to the draughts from the resident’s windows continuing for a number of years. The resident has reported to the landlord on several occasions that she has been unable to afford to heat her home, as the draughts mean the heating would need to be on constantly. This has had a serious impact on the resident, who has reported purchasing and using an oil filled radiator to heat only one room, her bedroom, for most of the time. The landlord was aware of this problem and should have investigated and acted sooner to carry out an appropriate and effective repair to the windows in the property.
From 17 January 2022 onwards, repairs have been an interim measure, pending planned works to replace windows in the resident’s block. The Ombudsman recognises that it is reasonable for landlords to schedule major works such as window replacements in advance, and to have a programme of such works so that multiple properties can be renovated at the same time.
It has been acknowledged by the landlord in this case that planned works to replace the windows have been delayed due to budgetary pressures and reallocation of resources to more urgent works. In these circumstances, the landlord had a duty to ensure the resident was not unduly affected by the delay to the works at her property in the meantime. Landlords would be expected to carry out major works such as window replacements outside such major works programmes, if it was necessary to do so based on the condition of that particular property.
The Ombudsman notes that in response to its independent adjudicator’s question about whether replacing the windows had been considered, the landlord confirmed that it would not consider replacing windows in individual blocks on an ad hoc basis due to the scale of works and resources required.
The Ombudsman has requested copies of any assessments undertaken by the landlord’s repairs and major works departments, but has not been provided with evidence that any such assessments have taken place since 17 January 2022. Without any assessment of the windows in the property, the landlord was unable to fairly justify its position to refuse to consider replacing the windows outside the major works programme.
It is also apparent that the landlord’s communication regarding the scheduled major works to replace the windows has not been adequate in this case.
The resident was notified in the stage 1 complaint response in August 2022 that the landlord would be carrying out the works in approximately July 2023. Further information in the independent adjudicator’s file notes that the works were moved to the 2024/2025 financial year due to resources being reallocated to ensure other essential building safety works were completed.
The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep residents updated on the progress of planned works of which they have been notified, and update them if and when the planned works are delayed, giving an alternative start date. From the information provided, it appears that the planned works to replace the windows at the property are still outstanding, and that the resident has not been updated or informed when these are likely to take place. This failure to update the resident and provide adequate information would have been frustrating for the resident.
In consideration of all the facts in the case, the Ombudsman concludes that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the windows.
An order is set out below that the landlord should commission a surveyor to establish whether the resident’s windows can be effectively repaired as an interim measure pending the planned works to replace the windows.
If effective repairs are possible, then the landlord should undertake the repairs within 8 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should also update the resident on the anticipated date for when the windows will be replaced under the major works programme.
If the surveyor determines that effective interim repairs are not possible, then the landlord should arrange to replace the windows at the resident’s property within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman considers it is appropriate that the landlord also awards compensation to the resident for the distress, time and trouble, and inconvenience she experienced due to its handling of this matter. An order is therefore set out below that the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £600. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which specifies awards of between £100 and £600 where was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.
The resident has also raised the issue of additional costs she has incurred during this period. These include the purchase of an oil filled electric radiator and draught excluding tape. To enable the landlord to determine the extent of these costs, it needs to be given details of the purchases. A recommendation is therefore set out below for the landlord to request this information from the resident and consider making an offer of compensation following receipt.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out what good complaint handling looks like, and all landlords are expected to comply with this.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a three stage complaints policy:
1. Stage 1 – where a written response will be issued within 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 – where a written response will be issued within 20 working days.
3. Stage 3 – where the complaint is seen by an independent adjudicator and a written response will be issued within 20 working days.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code advises that ‘two stage complaint procedures are ideal. This ensures that the complaint process is not unduly long’. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy and from 1 February 2024 no longer uses three stages. However, until 1 February 2024 stage 3 was a mandatory part of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
On 29 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord noting that she had been trying to find out when the works were happening since August 2020. The resident stated that she was unable to afford to heat her home due to the fact that the windows were so draughty that they let all the heat out, and noted that this was her final attempt to seek a reply about when the windows would be replaced before contacting her MP.
On 26 January 2022, the landlord responded to the complaint from the resident about the windows at the property. The email response from the landlord appropriately apologised for the difficulties the resident had experienced in getting through to the landlord on the telephone and for the ongoing problems with the windows at her home. The landlord offered a £50 gift voucher as a gesture of goodwill in recognition of the delay. The landlord reassured the resident that it would arrange for its contractor to attend the property to undertake repairs and draught proofing. The landlord’s response confirmed that the resident had agreed to withdraw her complaint in recognition of the resolution offered by the landlord.
On 1 June 2022 the resident raised a further complaint about the replacement of the windows at the property.
After receiving the resident’s complaint by email on 1 June 2022, the landlord responded and acknowledged the complaint on 6 June 2022, and on 7 June 2022 asked the resident if she wanted her email to be forwarded to the complaints team. The complaints team then acknowledged the complaint on 4 July 2022 which was 21 working days after the resident’s initial email. At that stage, the landlord asked for details of the resident’s earlier complaint and the resident responded the same day giving details of her previous complaint and stating that she wished to escalate the complaint further.
The landlord responded again on 29 July to confirm that it had checked its records, and that as the resident’s previous complaint had been withdrawn, it would now investigate the matter formally at stage 1 and respond by 12 August 2022.
In its response on 10 August 2022 the landlord appropriately apologised for the failure to send the resident the £50 gift voucher previously offered to her and confirmed this would be paid, with her agreement, directly into her rent account. However, the landlord failed to appropriately acknowledge or apologise for the delay in providing its stage 1 response to her current complaint, which was provided 39 days after the 10 working day deadline specified in its complaints policy. This caused unnecessarily delay to the resident being able to progress her complaint.
After the window seals installed by the landlord’s contractor fell out in October and December 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 14 December 2022. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s request within 5 working days on 21 December 2022 and confirmed it would provide its stage 2 response on 23 January 2023. This was 25 working days after the resident’s escalation request and therefore in excess of the 20-working day timescale specified in its policy. However, it is noted that the altered timescale had been appropriately notified to the resident in advance, and therefore the impact of the short delay is likely to have been limited.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 January 23 and appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns regarding the works previously undertaken, confirming that it would arrange for its contractor to attend and carry out a further inspection and arrange any further repair. The landlord also appropriately apologised for the poor customer service experienced by the resident when contacting the landlord’s repairs contact centre.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 January 2023 noting she was still dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and was concerned about the same contractor attending. The resident did not make contact directly with the landlord’s independent adjudicator, as instructed in the stage 2 response. However, the Ombudsman considers that upon receipt of the resident’s email on 24 January 2023, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to either confirm to the resident that it would escalate her complaint to stage 3 of its process, or provide the resident with the reasons why it would not be escalating the complaint to the next stage, in line with its complaint procedure. The landlord did not do so, and the resident’s complaint was not escalated at this stage.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 March 2023 to ask for an update, and the landlord confirmed with the resident that she was happy for the previous contractor to attend. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint further.
After contacting the Ombudsman in November 2023, the resident made a further request to the landlord to escalate her complaint on 8 December 2023.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged the request on 11 December 2023 and confirmed that it would respond by 17 January 2024. While the Ombudsman notes that the landlord notified the resident in advance of an anticipated delay, and explained that it was due to the landlord’s adjudicator being away on leave, the landlord then went on to fail to comply with the revised timescale it had provided. In fact, the landlord’s response was on 23 January 2024, 29 working days after the escalation request. The landlord appropriately apologised for this further short delay in its stage 3 response.
The landlord’s stage 3 response appropriately confirmed it would send its contractors to carry out any necessary repairs. However, it failed to address the resident’s concerns about the quality of the interim repairs which had been carried out previously by the contractor, or the fact that the landlord’s contractor had not attended to assess and carry out any interim works as promised after the stage 2 response. This was not appropriate, and an apology for this failure to follow up on the previous action should have been offered, along with consideration of an offer of compensation in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
Overall, there has been a significant delay in the resident being able to pursue her complaint and bring it to the Ombudsman, and she has had to spend unnecessary time and effort in pursuing this.
In light of the delays and failures to apply its complaints policy outlined above, the Ombudsman concludes that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
It is appropriate that the landlord should pay compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her complaint. An order is set out below that the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience and additional time and effort required in order to pursue her complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s request to replace the windows
2. the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report
2. Pay the resident £750 made up of:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the windows
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint
3. Arrange for a surveyor to assess the windows at the property
4. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
1. If the surveyor determines that effective interim repairs to the windows at the property are possible, then the landlord must undertake those repairs and provide the resident with an update on the anticipated date for the planned major works programme to replace the windows
2. If the surveyor determines that effective interim repairs to the windows at the property are not possible, then the landlord must replace the windows at the property
3. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the surveyor’s report and confirmation of the action the landlord has taken at the property.

Recommendation

The landlord should contact the resident and ask for evidence of any additional costs incurred by the resident such as for purchasing an oil filled radiator and draught excluding tape and consider providing reimbursement if appropriate.