London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202204415)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204415

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

13 February 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.

Complaint definition

The complaint is regarding the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp in the property.
2. Internal repairs, including cracks on various walls and insulation to prevent rodent infestations.
3. External repairs, including a roof leak, rendering and repointing.
4. The resident’s request for a new bathroom suite.
5. A request for the installation of new windows and secondary glazing.
6. The resident’s reports that scaffolding was left erected outside her property while not in use.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and the level of redress offered.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has lived at the property, a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat in a low-rise block, since 2003.

Summary of events

On 8 June 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. Advising she had raised the issues previously, she stated she wanted to draw the landlord’s attention to “following issues with (her) flat”:
1. Cracks and damp on walls (she did not specify which ones).
2. Rotten window frames and “significant damp coming into flat”.
3. Water stains and lifting wallpaper “due to water coming from roof”.
4. Lack of extractor fan in the bathroom.
5. Outstanding repairs to fill in gaps and insulation around pipes to prevent rodent ingress and external rendering, which had caused water stains on a bedroom wall since 2018.
As a resolution to her complaint, the resident stated she wanted the landlord to go “back to brick” before replastering the walls which were affected by cracks and damp. She also wanted new windows which benefitted from secondary glazing, a new bathroom to be installed and for the “cracks sorted (and) gaps filled in as recommended by environmental services”, who she stated provided the landlord with a report in February 2021, and for repairs to the external rendering to be completed “asap”.
The landlord provided a response to the complaint on 6 August 2021. It noted it had spoken to the resident that afternoon and discussed the following:
1. Brickwork repointing to rear elevation and guttering to the front and rear elevations – it advised orders had been raised for these respective repairs and its contractor would contact her neighbour to obtain access.
2. Damp – it was awaiting a report from its damp specialist contractor and would “endeavour to carry out their recommendations”.
3. Bathroom light – it advised it would attend on 9 August 2021 to replace the casing to the light.
4. Proofing works – it advised a carpentry appointment had been arranged for 25 October 2021 “to carry out the proofing in (her) home”. It clarified that an appointment booked for 9 August 2021 had only been for an electrician to attend, rather than a carpenter.
5. It hoped “the above is in order” and stated it planned to close the complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 June 2022 and asked for her complaint to be escalated. Reasons she gave included:
1. There were outstanding repairs “such as the deep cracks running through one side” of her property.
2. Scaffolding had been erected outside her house since January 2022, but she was not aware of any repairs being carried out to the roof and the property had been damaged when it was put up.
3. Her bathroom was 19 years old and still needed updating, while the windows at her property were “rotting”, rattled when it was windy and let in cold air. She was concerned about increased heating bills as a result.
To resolve the complaint, the resident asked the landlord to do the following:
1. To go “back to brick” on one (unspecified) wall.
2. Install a new bathroom suite.
3. Repair/replace loose roof tiles as she had water stains on her ceiling.
4. “Change” the windows throughout her property and install secondary glazing.
5. Complete repointing work which she stated was raised in 2017.
6. Repair external brickwork adjacent to her kitchen “to stop water stains” coming through the wall.
7. Carry out a further inspection of her bedroom ceiling, which she stated was “bowed” and had previously been looked at in January 2020.
Although the precise date is unclear, the landlord appeared to respond to the resident in June 2022. It both acknowledged the complaint and sought to “confirm (its) decision”, while also advising “what will happen next”. It advised it had arranged for a supervisor to attend the resident’s home on 17 June (the year is unstated but assumed to be 2022) when they would “review the repairs required”. It stated it would keep the complaint open until “all the repairs are completed to (the resident’s) satisfaction”, although the resident was advised she could ask for the complaint to be escalated if she remained dissatisfied. She was also provided this with Service’s contact details.
On 22 August 2022, the landlord sent a further email to the resident. Headed “Stage One complaint update”, it advised it was emailing regarding her complaint of 8 June 2021 regarding “rodents; proofing entry points; internal cracks & plastering; brickwork & roofing; windows & doors” and set out the actions it had taken in response:
1. Its pest control contractors had advised rodents had been “eradicated” on 4 February 2021.
2. A carpenter had attended on 25 October 2021 to block entry holes.
3. Cracks in the hallway walls had been plastered on 9 August 2022. They advised a further day was needed to finish the works, which had been scheduled for 13 February 2023.
4. Roof works were due to be completed by its contractor – it provided a job reference number but no details regarding the nature of the repairs or any timeframe for when they would take place.
5. A referral had been made for the resident’s doors and windows to be added to its renewal programme on 9 June 2021 and it advised this would take place “in the next financial year (2023-2024)”.
6. It noted the resident had asked for her complaint to be escalated on 10 June 2021 (it is assumed this was a typo and meant to refer to 6 June 2022 as the date is 2 days after the original complaint and no correspondence from this date has been seen) but that the “case has not currently been reviewed”. It asked if she “still wished to proceed” with a stage 2 review, otherwise it would “review compensation and finalise this case”.
The resident responded the same day to confirm she wished to continue with the complaint. The landlord acknowledged her email that day and advised the case had now been referred to stage 2 of its procedure.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 February 2023 to ask “what needs to happen for (her complaint) to go to stage 3” of the landlord’s complaint procedure. She raised concerns over her potential heating bill, the fact scaffolding had been erected outside her flat for over 12 months, that a plasterer had attended in August 2022 but only half finished the job and the landlord was carrying out “short term measures” to deal with the reported cracks in her walls which were not long lasting. She requested compensation and for the landlord to escalate her complaint.
The landlord replied the same day. The staff member the resident had emailed advised they no longer worked in complaints, but they copied the relevant team in to their reply and stated they were “sure” they would respond. There is no record of them doing so. The resident advised on 8 March 2023 that she would resort to contacting this Service for assistance which she duly did that day.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 12 April 2023 and asked it to provide a complaint response by 5 May 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 April 2023 to acknowledge the escalation request, set out its understanding of the issues and to advise it would provide a stage 2 response by 12 May 2023.
On 12 May 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It noted the resident raised her complaint in June 2021 regarding the following issues:
1. A reported roof leak into internal areas of her property.
2. Brickwork repointing at the rear of her property.
3. Guttering to the front and rear of her property.
4. Reported damp.
5. Bathroom lights.
6. Proofing works.
7. Window referral works.
8. Internal plastering works required to rectify cracks in walls.
9. Rodent infestations.
10. A bowed ceiling in the bedroom.
11. The renewal of her bathroom.
The landlord advised it had carried out a review of its “stage 1 decision communications…until the email sent to you dated 23 February 2023”, as well as the resident’s complaint escalation request from June 2022. It stated it had reviewed the available case notes, spoken to relevant members of staff and made the following comments and findings:
1. It acknowledged reports had been made in 2021 and 2022 (it did not provide more specific dates) “relating to the below (repair) issues including a suspected roof leak to both the main and flat roof of the property”. It noted that works had been completed “during this period” but it had then received further reports “that the leak was still ongoing”. It stated that scaffolding was erected again, and further works were completed.
2. It noted the resident had “also reported cracks to the hallway of (her) home” as well as other leaks affecting her living toom and kitchen ceiling. It advised that the “reported cracks for this period of property (was) not abnormal” and it had no concerns regarding the structure of the property.
3. However, following “this report” (it is unclear which report the landlord referred to), further inspections took place and a number of follow-on works were raised and completed:
  1. Roof leak – repairs were carried out to the rendering, to renew felt and lead flashing and re-fix roof tiles. It stated works were completed on 24 March 2023.
  2. Brickwork repointing to rear of property – a wall was repointed and a loose airbrick was taken out. Works concluded on 23 February 2023.
  3. Guttering to the front and rear – 13 eaves vents were fitted and some PVC guttering was renewed, along with PVC fascia boards. It stated works had been completed by 2 November 2022.
  4. Reported damp – walls were replastered on the “first and top landing” and a partition wall separating her property from the next flat was renewed. These repairs were completed in April 2022. The resident states that the first landing wall was not fully replastered and cracks remained. The landlord noted a further appointment with its damp specialist contractor had taken place in August 2022.
  5. Bathroom lights – it advised it had inspected this on 16 August 2021 and although it identified a hairline crack, it determined no repair was required and the light was “working fine”.
  6. Plastering to rectify internal cracks – the landlord advised that repairs to an unspecified “wall or ceiling plaster” were, according to its records, completed by 24 February 2023. The resident states that the plastering of the walls did not cover all the cracks. She indicates that, although inspected, the landlord did not take any action with the bowed bedroom ceiling.
  7. Window referral – it noted an inspection had taken place in June 2022 and, following this, a referral was made to its planned/major works team with a recommendation that “new windows to (her) home be installed”. It clarified that the resident’s property was included in its scheduled window replacement programme for 2023/24, and she would be “contacted directly…to update you further in due course”.
  8. Rodent issues, required proofing works, bowed ceiling in bedroom and bathroom renewal request – it advised these issues were “to date either not reported, recorded as complete or (there is) no further action required”. It had therefore booked for one of its Maintenance Supervisors to attend and carry out an inspection at the property on 1 June 2023.
  9. It went on to give further information regarding the above issues, noting that its records showed baiting and proofing works had taken place at the property in February, September, October and November 2021. It noted the resident had made reports regarding a bowed bedroom ceiling in June 2022, but its records did not indicate whether it responded to this, and it had no record of any recommendations or referrals being made regarding a bathroom renewal following any previous inspections.
  10. It also addressed concerns the resident had raised about scaffolding outside her home “attracting homeless people”. It noted that a request to remove the scaffold had been made but it was struggling to get in touch with its tenant on the ground floor so as to gain access to the rear of the building. It advised arrangements to remove the scaffold would be made as soon as this had been done.
  11. It apologised for “any inconvenience experienced during this period”, including the resident’s time “spent regularly chasing the works and requesting updates”, and offered the resident £1500 compensation. This consisted of £500 regarding “delays experienced including to all outstanding…repairs”, £500 “underwrite to repair” (this is assumed to be read as “under right to repair”), £200 to recognise “all service failures including…communications (and) including any incomplete works to date” and £100 each for her “time and effort for bringing this matter” to its attention, the “inconvenience and distress experienced and the “delay in (her) case being reviewed at stage 2”.
  12. It advised that £560 would be offset against the resident’s current rent arrears, while the remainder would be paid to her directly by cheque.
The resident replied to the landlord the same day and made the following comments and requests:
1. She understood the landlord was seeking to “sort” the removal of the scaffolding, but she considered that leaving it erected outside her flat for 14 months, “obscuring (her) view (and) limiting light into the property” had been a “significant service failure”.
2. In her living room, there were water stains on the ceiling and lifting wallpaper in the corner of the room and water stains in her kitchen. She stated, “all will need redecorating” and asked the landlord to carry out “decoration of (the) hallway, living room and kitchen” at its own expense.
3. She did not consider the £1,500 compensation offer to be sufficient. She noted her original report regarding repointing dated back to 2017 and wanted the landlord to acknowledge the 5 year delay in completing the work, while the £100 offered for “time and effort…in reviewing the complaint” was “inadequate” given the effect on her during the past years, including detriment to her mental health and the inability to live comfortably within her own home.
The landlord responded to the resident’s email on 15 May 2023. It advised that, following further internal discussions, it had agreed to increase the final compensation award by £700 (consisting of a further £200 relating to “the delays experienced including to all outstanding required repairs” and £500 relating to “the time and effort spent, inconvenience and distress experienced”) which it hoped showed it had “recognised the additional distress experienced in in this period”. This brought the total amount of compensation offered to £2200. It also provided updates on the following:
1. Regarding the scaffolding, it advised “a date (was)…being discussed” with her neighbour to gain access as necessary and remove the scaffold “within the next few weeks”.
2. An inspection from a maintenance surveyor, originally booked for 1 June 2023 had been rearranged for 6 June 2023 due to staff unavailability. It asked the resident to confirm that date was convenient and clarified they would also be asked to add the resident’s comments regarding decorations to the list of items to be inspected.
Following the conclusion of the complaint procedure, records show the landlord raised an order on 9 June 2023 to wallpaper areas where repairs had been carried out on the first and second floor landings and to stain block water stained ceilings in the living room and kitchen. The repair was marked as “complete” on 13 July 2023 but correspondence between the resident and landlord shows there was disagreement over the work to be carried out, with the resident requesting more substantial works to address the reportedly cracked walls. It remains unclear what work was carried out.
A further order to “reinstate pointing to back wall of property”, raised as damp was identified as “penetrating through pointing” was raised on 1 July 2023 but marked on the landlord’s repair records as having been “cancelled”. From the information available, it is unclear whether the landlord has carried out further repairs or any additional investigation of this issue.

Assessment and findings

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, it is not disputed that there were delays in completing certain repairs at the resident’s property. In its stage 2 complaint response, issued in May 2023, while the landlord stressed that repairs had been carried out in 2021 and 2022, it acknowledged the resident had raised further repair issues and advised that a roof leak was “ongoing”. It apologised for “inconvenience experienced” and the time the resident had spent chasing up repairs and asking for updates. After it increased its final offer of compensation to £2,200, the landlord had offered at least £1,300 relating to repair issues (this includes its offer of £200 for “all service failures…including incomplete works to date” which was inappropriately vague, but this investigation considers it reasonable to assume that at least half of this was intended to be attributed to repair issues).
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while the landlord’s offer should have been more specific and outlined which repair delays it identified and it was offering redress for in a more detailed way, its final offer was a reasonable step. It was positive that after the resident requested the landlord review the final amount offered, it promptly took the opportunity to do so and came back to her with a significantly increased final offer. Its final offer was clearly designed to try and put things right for the resident and was in line with its compensation policy and what the Ombudsman would want to see in the circumstances.
It was also appropriate that the landlord provided a breakdown of the actions it had taken regarding all the repairs referred to within the resident’s complaint and escalation request, and that it advised a further inspection had been arranged to ascertain the repair issues that remained unresolved.
However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, while its final offer of compensation was positive, the evidence available indicates that some issues remained outstanding after the conclusion of the complaint procedure when records suggest the resident either experienced further delays, or there is a lack of clarity regarding the status of some repair issues. This investigation will therefore go on to consider whether the landlord’s final offer can be considered reasonable redress in the circumstances or whether there were further failings which need to be addressed.

The resident’s reports of damp in the property

The landlord’s repair records indicate the resident raised concerns regarding damp in the property in or around June 2021. The landlord appeared to respond appropriately, arranging for its damp specialist contractor to carry out a Healthy Homes report in July 2021, in line with the steps it committed to within its damp and mould self-assessment. During their inspection, the contractor recommended the roof be inspected as there were “signs of water leaks” on the living room and kitchen ceilings and the partition wall. It assessed the condition of the gutters, down pipes, pointing and Damp Proof Course as being “satisfactory”. It noted that a mould wash was carried out at that time and, from the information available, its initial response appears to have been reasonable. However, as noted below, it is unclear from the landlord’s records what roof repairs took place and when, which means it is difficult to determine whether it progressed the relevant repairs in a prompt and appropriate fashion.
The repair records do include reference to follow-on works being raised following the contractor’s inspection regarding “cracks to wall on landing”. These were raised on 8 September 2021 but do not appear to have been completed until April 2022. There is no evidence within the information provided as to why 7 months elapsed without these works being completed which indicates an avoidable and unreasonable delay. In addition, the resident indicates that the replastering to the first landing wall was only partially completed and cracks remained following the visit.
In its final complaint response, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns regarding damp by advising it replastered walls on the first and top landing and partition wall in April 2022. In the absence of any other references to these works within its repair records, it is assumed this relates to the follow-on works following the July 2021 damp survey and it did not provide any explanation as to why these had taken so long to complete. Its final response also advised that a further appointment had been arranged with its damp specialist contractor for August 2022 which indicates it understood concerns over damp and/or cracks in the property remained. This is supported by the resident noting that not all cracks were replastered in April 2022. However, its repair records do not contain any further information regarding an August 2022 inspection, so it is unclear what the findings were or if any further recommendations were made. This is not appropriate and again raises concerns about the quality of the landlord’s record keeping.
From the information available, the landlord took some appropriate actions to address damp reports the resident made. However, there appeared to be a clear delay in completing some of the repairs recommended by the damp contractor following their July 2021 survey, a lack of clarity regarding when roof inspections took place, and it is concerning that there are no details regarding the further survey it apparently arranged for August 2022. The Ombudsman considered making a finding of maladministration regarding the delayed repairs and lack of clarity as to whether the landlord took action following reports receiving in and around August 2022, which were not addressed within its final complaint response. However, given the landlord’s offer of compensation was a positive step towards putting things right for the resident, a finding of service failure has been made. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to pay the resident an additional amount of compensation.

The landlord’s handling of internal repairs, including cracks on various walls and insulation to prevent rodent infestations

In her June 2021 complaint, the resident stated there were outstanding repairs (filling in gaps and adding insulation around pipework) to prevent rodent access. However, the landlord’s records do not contain any reference to works raised prior to the resident’s complaint. While its stage 1 response and stage 1 “update” a year later referred to pest controllers having attended in February 2021 to “eradicate” rodents and its stage 2 response advised “baiting and proofing works (were) recorded as completed” in February, September, October and November 2021 and a carpentry appointment carried out on 25 October 2021, there is again no reference to the majority of these attendances within the information provided to this investigation. This is not appropriate and means its records do not properly evidence the steps it appears to have taken to resolve the issue. This raises concerns regarding its record keeping.
The landlord’s repair records do contain evidence that pest controllers attended in August 2021. This appears to have been arranged following the resident’s complaint and indicates that, following receipt of the complaint, the landlord responded appropriately, arranging a contractor visit in a timely manner. Although not included within the repair records, as noted above, an apparent follow-on order to block holes was also completed within a reasonable timeframe in October 2021. This investigation has not seen evidence the resident made further reports regarding rodent issues after this point which suggests the landlord’s actions may have resolved the issue successfully.
Regarding plastering in the property, it is noted that the resident and landlord disagree about the nature and extent of repairs required. Evidence shows the landlord has attended on a number of occasions to plaster over cracks in the walls, but the resident has voiced concerns to the landlord and this Service that the repairs are only makeshift in nature and the cracks keep reoccurring. Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised it had “been advised that the reported cracks for this period of property is not abnormal” and did not indicate any “structural concern(s)”.
However, it is unclear when this was determined as this Service has not seen evidence of any specific report or assessment regarding the cracks in the walls other than to identify them as possible conduits of water/damp ingress. While the landlord may have been trying to put the resident’s mind at ease regarding any more serious concerns over the cracks, it should have provided more detail regarding when this assessment was made. The landlord also does not appear to have addressed the resident’s concern that the repairs may not be providing a long term solution. In this Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not appropriate, and the landlord should have done more to address the concerns raised.
Records show the landlord attended the property to carry out replastering work to the hallway walls in August 2022, but the attending operative advised they required a further day to complete the works. A follow-on appointment was therefore scheduled for 13 February 2023. It is unclear from the information available why the next appointment was booked 6 months later, meaning the resident was left with unfinished plastering work in her hallway for half a year. In the absence of any explanation for this hiatus, even within its final complaint response, the Ombudsman considers this was an unreasonable delay which would have caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman also notes that, after the conclusion of the complaint procedure, further plastering repairs were booked for July 2023. These appear to have been left incomplete due to a disagreement between the resident and operative over the scale of the works required. The resident has provided photo and video evidence of what she states are the cracks to the walls and ceilings in various rooms of the property, which she states the landlord is treating via “cosmetic” repairs. The Ombudsman is limited as to how much weight can be placed upon video and photographic evidence and, in this case, it not able to make any assessment regarding the nature or severity of the cracks shown. It is also clear that the landlord has made attempts to complete repairs to the cracked walls, even if the resident remains dissatisfied at how it has done so.
However, given the delays identified above, the appearance of the footage seen and the length of time the resident has been raising concerns over the issues, the Ombudsman has decided to order the landlord to arrange an inspection and assessment of the cracked walls within the resident’s property. This should be carried out by a professionally qualified surveyor who has not previously been involved in this case and the landlord should commit to completing any recommended actions.
Regarding the reportedly bowed bedroom ceiling, records indicate this was raised with the landlord in June 2022. However, it is unclear what actions it took. While its complaint responses acknowledged it had no records of how it responded, this was inappropriate. The resident has indicated that an inspection has taken place, but there is no written record of the landlord’s observations and no evidence it considered remedial action. While its final stage complaint response advised an inspection had been booked for June 2023 to investigate outstanding repairs, which included the reportedly bowed ceiling, this Service has not seen any evidence regarding the outcome of that inspection or whether any steps have been taken to assess or resolve the issue. This is unreasonable and is evidence of a service failure which cannot be said to have been resolved via the landlord’s offer of redress in its final complaint response.
Based on the failings identified above, a finding of maladministration has been made regarding the landlord’s handling of internal repairs. Orders have been made to pay the resident further compensation regarding its failure to address her reports of a bowed ceiling and for a survey to be carried out as above.

The landlord’s handling of external repairs, including a roof leak and repointing

Landlord records show it received several reports regarding roof leaks in 2021 and 2022. While repair records confirm inspections took place and scaffolding was erected, the lack of detail contained within the records makes it hard to determine what repairs took place and when. An inspection report from 9 June 2022 noted that “roof repairs are still outstanding” and were required at the back of the property, while there was also a “suspected roof leak into (the resident’s) kitchen”. It also noted scaffolding had been in place outside the property since January 2022 but was “not inspected since”. It is unclear what happened after the survey took place. This is not appropriate and raises concerns over the landlord’s oversight of the repairs and its record keeping.
In its final complaint response, the landlord referred to “a suspected roof leak to the both the main and flat roof of the property” and that “works were completed during this period”, although it did not provide any further details. This is again not appropriate and means the landlord is unable to properly demonstrate the steps it took to address the reported issues in 2021 and 2022. It noted that, following the repairs referred to above, the resident reported the leak had reoccurred and it therefore reinstated the scaffolding and carried out further repairs. It advised that works to repair “renew felt, renew lead flashing, remove and re-fix tiles” were completed by 24 March 2023. Records show these orders were raised on 23 February 2023, which suggests that, once the order was raised, the landlord completed repairs in a timely manner. However, it is unclear when the resident raised concerns that the leak had returned so it is not possible to determine whether the repairs were ordered promptly.
The landlord also advised that repointing works were also completed by 23 February 2023, in which it repointed an external wall and removed a loose airbrick. However, there is no reference to these repairs within the repair records, so it is again unclear when they were raised and whether the landlord completed them in a timely manner.
The references to repointing that have been identified in the landlord’s repair records date back to 2020 and 2021 when it was noted that access was required to “repoint brickwork allowing water penetration in (the resident’s) bedroom”. The same repair appears to have been re-raised on at least 3 occasions, but it is unclear when, or if, it was completed. The lack of clarity and detail within the landlord’s repair records again means it is unable to demonstrate the steps it took in response to the resident’s reports – and the works it had identified as being required – and how it progressed the repair.
Having first been noted in January 2020, the only completed repair that this Service has identified took place in February 2023, over 3 years later. In the absence of any further evidence regarding repairs the landlord undertook during this period, this appears to be an unacceptable delay in progressing and completing a repair. This is inappropriate.
While the Ombudsman considers there were failings within the landlord’s overall handling of the external repairs, it is noted that the landlord’s final compensation offer contained redress for the delayed repairs and the impact this had on the resident. For this reason, despite the landlord’s poor handling of the external repairs at the property, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s compensation offer constituted reasonable redress in the circumstances.

The resident’s request for a new bathroom suite

Records show the resident contacted the landlord in June 2022 to report that her bathroom was in “disrepair”. She also clearly requested that her bathroom be replaced in her complaint escalation request, made at the same time. Landlord repair records show an inspection took place promptly and its report stated a “component renewal referral was submitted”. However, it is unclear whether this referred to the bathroom or the windows – its stage one complaint update indicates the referral related to “windows and doors” – and there is no indication this referral was progressed. This was not appropriate and meant the resident would have been left in the dark as to whether her bathroom had been added to a replacement programme or not.
Indeed, the landlord’s final complaint response, issued in June 2023, suggests it too was unclear of the status of the referral as it advised the issue was either “not reported…complete or (there is) no further action required”. While a survey report dated 6 June 2023 indicated that “component referral submitted for bathroom to be renewed”, no further records have been seen by this Service to indicate the referral was accepted or progressed. Additionally, in internal landlord correspondence regarding its submissions to this investigation, on 18 April 2024 the landlord noted it still needed to clarify with its Asset Team “whether the bathroom will be added to a (renewal) programme”.
It was unreasonable that it was unable to give the resident a clear answer regarding the status of any referral within its final complaint response and it is of further concern that 10 months later and almost 2 years after the resident’s initial request, there still appeared to be a lack of clarity as to whether a decision had been made regarding the bathroom renewal. This does not indicate the landlord properly managed the process of referring the resident’s bathroom to its renewal programme and meant that a significant and unjustifiable length of time passed without a clear decision being made which would have caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
As a result of the above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord regarding the resident’s request for a new bathroom suite. Orders have been made for the landlord to compensate the resident for this failure and for it to confirm the status of the referral. If the bathroom has been added to its renewal programme, it should provide the resident with a timeframe for the replacement to take place.

A request for the installation of new windows and secondary glazing

Records show the resident raised concerns regarding “rotten windows” at her property in her complaint of June 2021. However, there is no evidence the landlord took any action to inspect this or address her concerns following this. Indeed, it failed to even respond to this aspect of her complaint within its stage 1 response, issued in August 2021.
Repair records show an inspection was raised in June 2022, after the resident sought to escalate her complaint, but it should not have taken this to prompt the landlord into action. Its failure to respond until this point was not appropriate and meant a year passed without it providing any kind of response to the resident or carrying out any investigation of the repair issue, which she had advised could be contributing to increased heating bills and potential damp ingress. This was an avoidable delay over a significant length of time, for which the landlord has not provided an explanation, and which would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
Once the resident had escalated her complaint, records show an inspection took place a few days later. It was appropriate that the landlord responded promptly and that it made a referral to its Asset Team for replacement of the windows, noting that they did “not retain heating…(were) very old and draughty” and that the resident advised they rattled when traffic went past. In its stage 1 update of August 2022, the landlord advised the resident the windows had been added to its renewal programme for the next financial year (2023/2024).
Given that a year had passed before the landlord inspected the windows, it would have been preferable had it added the resident’s window replacement to the renewal programme sooner given the delay she had already experienced, the fact it acknowledged the windows were draughty and that there was still 8 months remaining of that financial year. However, the Ombudsman understands it is not always possible to arrange planned repairs of this nature on a more flexible basis given the need to balance budgets from year to year.
It would therefore have been helpful had the landlord given the resident more information regarding potential wait times, since it knew she could have been waiting almost another 2 years for the windows to be replaced. It should also have considered whether any interim repairs were required in the meantime that could have improved the condition of the windows temporarily, particularly given that the resident raised concerns about their condition resulting in increased heating bills. However, there is no evidence it did either of these.
The resident and the landlord have confirmed that all work related to the windows was not completed until the end of October 2024. This is a period of 40 months from the date that the resident first raised a concern about the windows.
The Ombudsman’s investigations in 2023 and 2024 highlighted a number of cases where landlords did not adequately address complaints about window-related repairs. One of the common themes was delays in conducting repairs, often postponed due to cost considerations, and planned cyclical works. As a result, the Ombudsman wrote to all landlords in July 2024 highlighting our concerns with the handling of some cases involving windows. We encouraged landlords to review their own window-related complaints proactively and to implement the following core lessons:
1. conduct thorough risk assessments based on individual household circumstances, ensuring appropriate actions are recognised, responded to, and documented.
2. engage independent surveyors and ensure that responses to their recommendations are reasonable, clear, and consistent.
3. justify decisions to defer repairs or opt for limited repairs not primarily on cost but in line with legal obligations.
4. provide clear, comprehensive, and accessible information to residents regarding the operation of new windows.
5. throughout these core themes strong knowledge and information management is essential – landlords should reference the Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management published and its recommendations.
On this occasion, the landlord informed the resident in August 2022 that the window replacement would take place ‘in the next financial year (2023-2024)’. Effectively, this means that the expectation was that the windows would be installed by 5 April 2024. In May 2023, the landlord stated that the resident was included in its 2023/24 window replacement program. It is not clear whether this program also worked to the financial year calendar or the usual calendar (i.e. 31 December 2024). It was reasonable for the resident to assume the expected completion date was still 5 April 2024.
The resident has confirmed that the new windows were measured in January 2024 and she was told to expect installation within 3 months, but the work was not completed until the end of October 2024. The landlord has failed to explain why it chose to defer the window repairs or consider the option of interim repairs. It is acknowledged that landlords must seek to balance stretched resources; however, this must also be balanced with its obligation to provide timely responsive repairs. On this occasion, the repairs were deferred for an unreasonable period because of an initial 12-month delay in inspecting the windows, then waiting for planned cyclical works and finally delays in arranging the installation which went well beyond the original planned completion date.
The landlord has also failed to acknowledge that the resident has experienced unreasonable delays waiting for the windows to be inspected and replaced. No apology has been provided. I have therefore ordered the landlord to provide this to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not acknowledge any failing in relation to its handling of the window inspection and the landlord did not foresee replacing the windows until as late 11 months’ time. As such, the compensation offer from May 2023 did not relate to its failings in relation to its window inspection and replacement. For that reason, the landlord has not appropriately redressed its failings in relation to the windows.
We order landlords to pay compensation in cases where there has been avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or other unfair impact of the maladministration that we have found. We recognise that the impact of a landlord’s actions or inactions cannot simply be remedied by a financial payment, but we order a landlord to make a payment in recognition of that impact and to acknowledge how the resident has been affected. However, our remedies are never intended to be punitive or to act as a deterrent and should not be viewed as a punishment for landlord failings. Instead, they are a means by which the Ombudsman ensures that matters are put right.
It is ordered that the landlord should pay an additional compensation amount of £600. This is intended to compensate the resident for the stress, anxiety, frustration, raised expectations and delays identified in this case in relation to the window repairs. Specifically, the resident experienced a 12-month delay waiting for the windows to be inspected and a further delay of about 7 months (beyond the financial year deadline) waiting for the windows to be installed. In addition, the landlord failed to justify the reason for deferring the repairs and did not show that it considered an interim repair. The resident was left with draughty windows, increased heating bills and potential increased risk of damp for longer than was necessary.

The resident’s reports that scaffolding had been left erected outside her property

Records show the landlord’s contractor erected scaffolding outside the property in January 2022 to assess the reported roof leaks. After this point, there were occasions when the scaffold was left unused for extended periods, with the landlord recognising this within its own inspection reports (noting during a June 2022 inspection that the scaffold had apparently been unused for 6 months). The resident was caused time and trouble in chasing the landlord for updates regarding when it would be removed, and ultimately led to her adding the issue to her complaint in June 2022, stating it was blocking light from her property.
Further to this, having reinstated the scaffold when the resident reported further leaks to the property, once roof repairs were completed in March 2023, according to the landlord’s records, the scaffold was not dismantled until September 2023, some 6 months later. Records indicate that it was not until 4 May 2023 that the landlord first sought to arrange the dismantling of the scaffold, 2 months after repairs had reportedly been completed.
In its final complaint response, the landlord advised that it had “struggled” to gain access to the rear of the building, which was required. It was reasonable that it provided an update and advised the resident it would make arrangements for removal as soon as it had made contact. Records show it arranged an appointment to dismantle the scaffold on 31 May 2023, although it is clear this did not take place. A further entry from 27 July 2023 was marked as “no access”, although it is unclear if this related to the 31 May appointment or a further one that had been arranged. There is no evidence within the landlord’s records of the attempts it, or its contractor, made to arrange access and progress the dismantling of the scaffolding. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this indicates a failing by the landlord and that there was an avoidable delay in removing the scaffold from outside the resident’s property.
Although its final response partially addressed her concerns about homeless people sheltering under the scaffold, it did not give any consideration to how the resident would have been inconvenienced by the scaffolding remaining outside her property for a long period of time, how light may have been prevented from entering her home, or how its presence would have been particularly frustrating when it was not in use. Nor was there any explanation regarding the lengthy period it had apparently been left unused between January and July 2022. This was not appropriate and meant the resident would have felt her concerns were not taken seriously. A finding of service failure has been made regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that scaffolding had been left outside her property. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation to better reflect the level of inconvenience she was caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and the level of redress offered

Records show the resident submitted a clear complaint escalation request in June 2022 and this was acknowledged by the landlord. However, rather than progress the request straight away, while providing an update regarding the repair issues she had raised in August 2022, the landlord asked whether the resident still wanted to pursue the complaint to stage 2, otherwise it would “finalise the case”. This was not appropriate, nor was it in line with the landlord’s complaint policy and had the effect of unreasonably extending the complaint process. The resident’s request to escalate the complaint was unambiguous and there is no reason the landlord could not have provided her with updates regarding the repairs while still escalating the complaint as requested. Its failure to do both simultaneously caused an avoidable 2 month delay in progressing the complaint through its procedures.
Having established that the resident did wish to pursue the complaint to stage 2, the landlord then failed to provide a stage 2 (final) response until May 2023. This meant that 11 months had passed since the resident first asked for her complaint to be reviewed and progressed to stage 2. This was a completely unacceptable length of time for the landlord to take to progress the complaint.
Although it apologised for this delay and offered the resident £100 compensation to reflect this failing, the landlord does not appear to have provided any explanation as to why such a significant period elapsed without it progressing the complaint and then providing a response. Its complaints policy states it will provide stage 2 responses within 20 working days, or it will explain why it had not been able to do so within a further 10 working days. However, having first acknowledged the escalation request in June 2022, there is again no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident to explain there would be any delay in providing a response, or why this was.
Additionally, there was a lack of clarity within the landlord’s original complaint response, sent in August 2021. While its email provided updates regarding the repair issues it had reportedly discussed with the resident, it merely listed details of repair orders that had subsequently been raised, rather than give any insight into whether it had investigated concerns regarding any reported delays or previous failures to respond to repair reports. This was not reasonable and meant the landlord cannot be said to have responded appropriately.
While the landlord referred to its intention to “finalise (her) complaint” and advised she could make contact if she had any further concerns, it failed to make any reference to stage its response had been issued at, failed to advise the resident of her escalation rights under its complaints policy and failed to provide her with this Service’s details should she need any advice. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord’s response was not issued in line with its own policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
Regarding the level of redress offered, it was positive that the landlord made a reasonable attempt to put things right for the resident and that it also promptly reviewed its final offer after the resident had asked it to do so. As there had already been significant delays in providing a final response and accompanying offer of compensation, when the resident responded to its stage 2 decision with further requests, it was important the landlord responded promptly, and it was positive that it did so.
However, aspects of its final compensation offer were vague and while it was positive that it provided a breakdown of the total award, this should have been more detailed still and included greater clarity regarding which repairs it was compensating the resident for, and what this was for. In particular, it is unclear what the £500 “underwrite to repair” was specifically awarded for, and its £200 offer relating to “all service failures including…communications (and) including any incomplete works to date” appears to conflate more than one issue. While the landlord’s overall award of compensation was reasonable, in future it should ensure there is more clarity when explaining what each component of the award if meant to address.
Overall, while the landlord’s apology and compensation offer for its complaint handling was positive, the level of compensation did not adequately reflect the very significant delay in providing its final response (almost 10 months outside of its stated target) or the details omitted in its stage 1 response and cannot be considered to be reasonable redress. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint. An order has been made for the landlord to pay an increased amount of compensation that better reflects the level of failings identified above.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure regarding the resident’s reports of damp in the property.
2. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of internal repairs, including cracks on various walls and insulation to prevent rodent infestations.
3. Maladministration regarding the resident’s request for a new bathroom suite.
4. Maladministration regarding the resident’s request for the installation of new windows and secondary glazing.
5. Service failure regarding the resident’s reports that scaffolding had been left erected outside her property while not in use.
6. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and the level of redress offered.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress prior to this investigation regarding its handling of external repairs, including a roof leak, rendering and repointing.

Reasons

The landlord’s repair records lack detail and this has meant that, at times, it was unable to evidence the steps it took to address repair issues, both internal and external, during the period under investigation. Where it has taken action, it is often unclear when inspections took place or works were completed. There were delays with completing repairs both internally and externally, some of which were acknowledged within its complaint responses, but others were not.
There were lengthy periods where scaffolding was left unused outside the resident’s property, with no explanation provided to the resident within or without the complaints procedure or any recognition of the impact this reportedly had on her.
Its handling of the referral processes for both new windows and bathroom renewal was inappropriate, with delays occurring without explanation, a lack of consideration of what a potential lengthy wait for new windows would mean for the resident. There remained, at the point of providing this investigation with the requested evidence, a lack of clarity as to whether the resident’s bathroom renewal had even been approved or not.
The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint appropriately, which caused an unreasonable delay. Once it had acknowledged the request, there was a further significant delay in providing a stage 2 response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings identified in the report. This should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies.
2. Pay the resident further compensation of £1,650, consisting of:
  1. £600 regarding the resident’s request for the installation of new windows and secondary glazing.
  2. £150 regarding the resident’s reports of damp in the property.
  3. £325 regarding the landlord’s handling of internal repairs.
  4. £225 regarding the resident’s request for a new bathroom suite.
  5. £150 regarding scaffolding left erected outside her property.
  6. £200 regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord is also ordered to, within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Arrange for a qualified surveyor not previously involved in the case to carry out a survey of the reported cracks on the walls and ceilings of the resident’s property (the scope of the inspection should be discussed with the resident in advance). The landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the surveyor’s report and produce an action plan regarding any repairs that are identified as being required, with a timeframe for their completion.
2. Carry out a review of the case which considers its handling of the repairs, the failings identified and what, if any, lessons can be learned from this investigation. It should provide this Service with a copy of the review.

Recommendations

The landlord is to:
1. Provide the resident with a copy of the loss adjuster’s report following their visit in October 2024. The landlord should also confirm what action it intends to take in relation to the loss adjuster’s findings.
2. Arrange for the scaffolding at the property to be taken down or explain to the resident why it should remain erected and provide an expected date that it will be removed.