North Northamptonshire Council (202319564)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319564

North Northamptonshire Council

27 May 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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the windows.
2. Reports of repairs to the heating system.
3. Request for a kitchen renewal.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 2-bedroom flat, since 2017. The resident resides in the property with her partner and 3 young children.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 16 October 2022. She said:
1. The landlord had informed her that the kitchen would be renewed in 2017 when her tenancy commenced. She had contacted it “multiple” times, but the work was still outstanding.
2. The landlord had also informed her that the property required new windows as they were not working as they should be, and as a result the property was “freezing cold”.
3. The heating in the property “did not work very well”.
4. She had complained to the landlord for 3 years about her neighbour’s garden, but nothing had been done.
5. She had an unresolved bathroom repair that was causing a blockage in the bath.
The resident made a further complaint on 14 December 2022 (and sent an additional email on 16 December 2022). She said:
1. She was unhappy that the landlord had recently informed her that only 2 windows were going to be replaced. She felt this was “not good enough”, as the house was freezing, and her family were poorly as a result.
2. She was frustrated that she had not received an update from the landlord about the kitchen renewal.
3. She wanted the landlord to inspect the heating in the property as she had been informed that it had been “plumbed in backwards”.
On 22 January 2023, the resident made a third complaint. She said:
1. The landlord had attended to assess the windows, but the repair was still outstanding.
2. The landlord had visited the property to assess the heating and confirmed the radiators were getting hot. However, the rooms were still freezing, and it was continuing to affect her children’s health.
3. She had still not received an update from the landlord about the kitchen renewal.
4. She had an active housing application due to the property being overcrowded. She felt like she was not making any progress with getting a move, and as such the outstanding repairs to the property needed completing.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 February 2023. It said:
1. It had ordered the replacement windowpanes and when the materials were in stock, it would contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient appointment for installation.
2. It had attended the property on 8 February 2023 and confirmed that the boiler was working correctly. It had subsequently arranged for a surveyor to carry out a further inspection.
3. It had reviewed the resident’s housing application, and she was in “Band B” for overcrowding. It encouraged her to bid for available properties on a weekly basis.
It is not known what date the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. However, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 July 2023. It said:
1. It apologised for “any miscommunication” about how many windowpanes were due to be replaced. It confirmed that the required works were undertaken on 24 March 2023. It accepted that this was done outside of its usual timescales and explained that measures had since been put in place to improve its service moving forward.
2. It had recently undertaken a heat loss survey in the property. This established that the living room would benefit from an additional radiator. It would contact the resident to arrange an installation date.
3. The kitchen was due for renewal via its 2023–24 planned works programme. It was unable to confirm any further details on the schedule of works at that time. It had undertaken an inspection in July 2023 which confirmed that the kitchen was in “working order”, and as such, it was unable to bring the renewal date forward.

Events after the end of the complaints process

The additional radiator was installed on 10 August 2023 and the kitchen was renewed in June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As mentioned earlier, within the resident’s request to make a formal complaint (on 16 October 2022), she complained about the landlord’s handling of the condition of her neighbour’s garden and an outstanding bathroom repair. We have seen no evidence that the landlord investigated the handling of these issues, as it did not reference its findings in its stage 1 or stage 2 responses. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, we will not assess the landlord’s handling of these issues. However, we will address any complaint handling failings within the relevant section of this report. The resident may refer her complaint regarding the garden and bathroom repair to us for separate investigation once it has completed the landlord’s complaints process.
The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property. The landlord issued a stage 1 response in relation to this in June 2024. Any new issues that the resident has raised since the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response will not be considered as part of this investigation. This is also in accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme. If the resident is unhappy with how the landlord has dealt with such issues, as above, she may then refer this to this Service for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
The resident has described how she feels the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues has negatively impacted her household’s health. While we do not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

Windows

The landlord informed this Service that it does not have a repairs policy or procedure. However, its repair timescales are published on its website and are as follows:
1. Emergency repairs are to be carried out within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs are to be carried out within 30 days.
3. Planned works are large scale works that are planned in without an appointment. The resident will be contacted in advance to arrange such works.
On 27 September 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that the repair was “still outstanding regarding the blown windows, and [it] would action this as soon as possible”. The landlord did not provide us with any repair records for the window repairs before this date. As such, it is not clear when the resident first reported the repairs to the landlord. This has made it difficult for us to assess the overall timeliness of the repairs and is a record keeping failure.
Following the resident’s complaint on 16 October 2022 about the outstanding window repairs, the landlord’s repair team contacted the resident 18 working days later (on 9 November 2022) to discuss the repair. Given that she had informed the landlord she felt the poor condition of the windows was affecting the health of her 5-month-old baby, we find the landlord’s response time unreasonable. During the call, the landlord arranged an inspection appointment for 17 November 2022 with the resident.
Within the resident’s second complaint (on 14 December 2022), she said that she was unhappy with the outcome of the window inspection. This was because the landlord had informed her that it would only replace 2 windows, when it had apparently previously informed her that all the windows would be replaced. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it apologised to the resident for “any miscommunication”. However, within its evidence submission it told this Service that it had no evidence that it had previously agreed to replace the windows. Unfortunately, as these are 2 conflicting versions of events, and we have no documentary evidence to support either claim, we are unable to make an assessment of this matter.
Within the resident’s third complaint (on 22 January 2023), she expressed her dissatisfaction that the window repairs were still outstanding. We acknowledge the national glass shortage during this period, which may have caused the landlord difficulty in sourcing the materials. However, during a period of delay we would expect the landlord to keep the resident updated on an interim basis about the repair. As we have seen no evidence that it did so, we find that the landlord acted unreasonably. The importance of effective communication and management of expectations during the repairs process is highlighted.
The appropriateness of the landlord’s stage 1 response in relation to the window repairs will be assessed in the complaint handling section of the report.
On 24 March 2023, the landlord completed the following works:
1. Replaced 2 double glazing units (DGUs) in the front bedroom.
2. Replaced 2 DGUs in the back bedroom.
3. Replaced 1 DGU in the living room.
4. Replaced 2 vents in the living room.
5. Repaired 1 pair of hinges in the back bedroom.
As the evidence shows that the landlord was aware of an issue with the windows in September 2022 (and likely earlier), we find it unreasonable that it took over 6 months to undertake the required repairs. We find this an excessive delay, and at odds with its repair timescales.
The landlord appropriately apologised in its stage 2 response for the delay in completing the repairs. It informed us in May 2025 that it does not have a compensation policy for repairs. However, it provided us with a “financial remedy authorisation form”, which it uses to consider compensation following a complaint. As such, we would have expected the landlord to consider paying the resident compensation for the delays and inconvenience it had caused her.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of windows. This is because:
1. Its communication with the resident was poor.
2. It failed to comply with its repair timescales and took at least 6 months to rectify the window repairs.
3. Its record keeping was poor.
4. While it apologised to the resident for the delays, it did not offer her any compensation to put things right.
The landlord’s website states that a resident can claim compensation if it fails to complete a repair on time with a second visit. It further states that the resident may be entitled to £10 in compensation, with an additional £2 a day for every extra day the repair is not fixed (up to a maximum of £50). However, we find that this would be a disproportionately low offer and would not reflect the impact of its failures. Therefore, our order of compensation has been calculated in accordance with our own remedies guidance.

Heating system

The landlord provided this Service with records for the boiler and heating related repairs in the property. We have seen no evidence that the resident had raised any issues with the landlord about the effectiveness of the heating system in the 12 months prior to 16 October 2022 (when she made her first formal complaint).
Within her correspondence (on 16 October 2022), the resident said that “the heating doesn’t work that great as it is”. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. We accept that it is not clear if the resident intended to report a repair to the landlord or to make a passive comment. Regardless, we find that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to ask her if she would like it to arrange an appointment to investigate her concerns further.
On 16 December 2022, the resident mentioned the heating system again to the landlord. The landlord appropriately responded to her concerns 2 working days later (on 20 December 2022) and raised a repair. The landlord’s internal records stated that the radiators “needed sorting as the system was plumbed in backwards, [the resident] couldn’t feel the heat when it was turned on and was wasting gas that [she] couldn’t afford”. We have seen no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with an appointment. This was inappropriate, as its website states that it will carry out a repair within 1 working day if the heating is not working between October and May.
On 17 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the repair. The landlord appropriately attended the property following day (18 January 2023). However, the repair records do not show what work was undertaken during the appointment. This is a further record keeping failure.
On 22 January 2023 (within the resident’s request to make a third complaint), she expressed her dissatisfaction that the issue was still unresolved, and said the property was still cold. We find the landlord’s lack of correspondence and clarity with the resident following the appointment on 18 January 2023 unreasonable. We find that it should have explained to her what steps it was going to take to address the issue further. It should also have considered interim measures, such as providing her with electric heaters, in the meantime.
The landlord attended the property again on 8 February 2023. The repair records show that the heating was “working fine”, but a surveyor was required to inspect the property as the resident said it was not warm enough. This was appropriate and showed that the landlord was taking her concerns seriously. However, we have seen no evidence that it arranged an inspection appointment with the resident. This was inappropriate.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 March 2023 and asked it for an update on the inspection appointment. On 20 June 2023, 65 working days later, the landlord left the resident a voicemail to arrange an inspection and followed up with an email. We find its delay excessive and note that it caused the resident further unnecessary inconvenience.
We have not seen any evidence of the resident’s response, which is a further record keeping failure. However, it is reasonable to assume that she did respond, as an inspection was undertaken by the landlord on 6 July 2023.
Following a heat loss survey of the property, the landlord concluded that due to the position of the living room radiator, it needed to install a second radiator on the opposite side of the room to “balance the heat”. The evidence suggests that the resident agreed with the proposals.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response (31 July 2023), it said that it would contact the resident once the materials to install the radiator were available. The appropriateness of the landlord’s complaint responses in relation this issue will be assessed in the complaint handling section of this report.
The landlord installed the additional radiator on 10 August 2023. This was approximately 8 months after the resident had raised the issue with the landlord.
Overall, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the heating system. This is because:
1. It failed to comply with its repair timescales.
2. Its communication with the resident was lacking.
3. It failed to arrange a surveyor inspection within a reasonable timeframe.
4. Its record keeping in relation to the repairs was poor.
5. It failed to apologise to the resident and to put things right by offering an appropriate amount of compensation.
Therefore, an order of compensation has been made in recognition of the failures identified in this report. This has been calculated in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (as explained in the previous section).

Kitchen renewal

In accordance with the Decent Homes Standard guidance, the expected lifespan of a kitchen is 30 years, and a kitchen less than 20 years old is considered “reasonably modern”. If a kitchen is damaged before that period and cannot be economically repaired, a renewal may be required at an earlier date. As such, when a resident requests the renewal of a kitchen due to its condition, the landlord would be expected to arrange an inspection of the kitchen to assess whether any damage can be economically repaired, or if the kitchen needs to be renewed.
The landlord informed us that the kitchen in the resident’s property was installed in 1993, before her tenancy commenced. However, it was unable to provide any record of this as “paper records were lost during the merge of councils and the moving of offices in 2021”. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s services may not be operating effectively.
Within the resident’s request to make a complaint on 16 October 2022, she stated that the landlord had promised her a kitchen renewal when her tenancy commenced (in 2017). The landlord has not provided any evidence that shows it had discussed the kitchen with her before October 2022. In this instance, given the resident’s concerns, we would expect to see evidence that the landlord had undertaken a “void inspection” or any records during the sign-up process, which would identify any outstanding repair work before a tenancy commenced. The landlord’s failure to provide this type of evidence is a further record keeping failure.
During a telephone conversation with this Service in May 2025, the resident confirmed that the discussions with the landlord about the kitchen pre-October 2022 were primarily done face–to–face and via telephone. While we do not dispute the resident’s claims that the landlord had led her to believe her kitchen would be renewed, we have been unable to make an assessment on this matter. This is because our findings must be supported by documentary evidence.
On 16 October 2022, when the resident told the landlord she had concerns that the kitchen was beyond repair, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange an inspection to assess the condition of the kitchen. Its failure to do so gave the impression that it was not taking her concerns seriously and was at odds with the guidance outlined in the Decent Homes Standard.
The resident mentioned the kitchen renewal again on 14 December 2022 and 22 January 2023 (within her second and third complaint requests). Again, we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to her. This was inappropriate. The landlord’s complaint responses in relation to the kitchen renewal will be assessed in the complaint handling section of this report.
On 20 June 2023, the landlord stated within an internal email that the property was on the 2023–24 planned works programme for a kitchen renewal. It further stated that the programme had not yet started as it was awaiting approval from its procurement department for the budget, and the resident’s property was “currently last on the list”. We have seen no communication in which it informed the resident of this and/or then attempted to arrange an inspection. However, the evidence suggests that it did, as the landlord inspected the kitchen on 11 July 2023. This is a further record keeping failure.
Following the landlord’s visit to the property on 11 July 2023, it stated within an internal email (on the same day) that it recommended that the kitchen was replaced. It made the following observations:
1. The kitchen was a “very old type” as it had plastic runners on the drawers.
2. The cooker being situated “on the end”, as per fire regulations, was “not allowed and non-compliant”.
3. The worktop space was “pretty much non-existent” to prepare meals for a family of 5.
4. The worktops were “very worn and unhygienic, and beyond cleaning”.
5. The sink was loose and coming away from the wall, causing water ingress at the rear of the unit.
6. The extractor fan was “really old”, and it “doubted it was doing much extraction”.
Less than 1 hour after the landlord sent this information internally, it sent a further email stating that “the kitchen is in working order and can wait until the [planned works] programme carries out the work”. This unexplained change of direction is concerning.
On 31 July 2023 (within the landlord’s stage 2 response), it informed the resident that following the inspection, the kitchen was “not in a bad enough condition to bring the [renewal] date forward”. Nevertheless, it appropriately reassured her that it would be replaced within the 2023–24 financial year.
Annex A in section 3 of the Decent Home Standard states that the definition of ‘poor condition’ in relation to a kitchen is where there is a major repair needed or where there is a need to replace 3 or more items out of 6 (cold water drinking supply, hot water, sink, cooking provision, cupboards, worktop). It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the resident’s kitchen was in need of renewal. Instead, we can assess whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a renewal was reasonable based on the evidence available to it, taking into account its policies and good industry practice. Therefore, based on the available evidence, we find the landlord’s decision making on the kitchen renewal questionable. It is also concerning that it apparently overlooked its own safety concerns about the cooker location.
The landlord informed us that the kitchen was not replaced until June 2024. It said that this was due to “the number of kitchens already on the kitchen programme”. We accept that planning and budget restraints can sometimes impact the timescales of planned work programmes. However, in instances such as this, we would expect landlords to inform the resident at the earliest opportunity about the expected delays. As such, we asked the landlord to provide any evidence of it updating the resident about the delays to the kitchen installation into the next financial year. However, it did not do so. Without documentary evidence, we cannot reasonably conclude that it kept the resident updated.
Overall, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen renewal. This is because:
1. It failed to adhere to the relevant guidelines outlined in the Decent Homes Standard.
2. Its communication with the resident was inadequate.
3. It failed to apologise to the resident and to put things right by offering an appropriate amount of compensation.
The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident compensation in recognition of the failings identified. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not provide us with a copy of its complaints policy that was applicable at the time of the resident’s complaint. Therefore, our assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling will be made against the applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). Stage 1 complaints were to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Stage 2 complaints were to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. At both stages, the landlord should not have exceeded a further 10 working days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days was required, both parties should have agreed this. The complaint information currently available on the landlord’s website aligns with the timescales.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 16 October 2022. The complaint was forwarded to the relevant team on 24 October 2022 and the complaints team stated that it had already acknowledged the complaint with the resident. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so. This is a record keeping failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This is because the Code stipulates that all records of correspondence with the resident regarding the complaint must be kept.
On 9 November 2022, the landlord’s complaint handler contacted to the resident about her complaint. This was 18 working days after the resident had made her complaint. Therefore, we find that the landlord’s actions were at odds with the timescales outlined in the Code.
Following the call (on 9 November 2022), the complaint handler informed the complaints team of the action they had agreed with the resident. The following day (10 November 2022), the landlord closed the complaint, stating that the resident was “happy with the telephone call”. This was inappropriate because we have seen no evidence that it discussed or agreed closure of the resident’s complaint without providing her with a formal response first.
As mentioned earlier in the report, as the landlord failed to provide the resident with a response to this complaint, it subsequently did not provide any formal response to her concerns about its handling of the condition of the neighbour’s garden and an outstanding bathroom repair. This is at odds with the Code, which states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and may only exclude complaints where there is a valid reason to do so.
The evidence submitted to this Service by the landlord shows that the resident requested to make a second complaint on 14 December 2022. She also sent a further email on 16 December 2022, adding further details about her complaint. However, as we had seen no evidence that the landlord had responded to the resident’s complaint, we requested further information from the landlord in May 2025. The landlord responded to advise that it “had not received a stage 1 complaint” from the resident in December 2022. Given that it had provided us with the initial evidence, this is concerning and further evidence of poor record keeping in its complaint handling. Additionally, as the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s complaint, we find that it acted inappropriately.
The resident made a third complaint on 22 January 2023. The complaint was forwarded to the relevant team on 25 January 2023, and the complaints team stated that it had already acknowledged the complaint with the resident. Again, we have seen no evidence that it did so, which is a further record keeping failure.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 February 2023 to request an update on her complaint. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident, which was inappropriate. The importance of effective communication during the complaints process is highlighted.
The Code states that at each stage of the complaints process, the landlord’s complaint handlers must give the resident a fair chance to set out their position. It is good practice for landlords to contact complainants to discuss the issues raised, and the outcomes sought. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord did so at stage 1 of its complaint process, which was inappropriate.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 February 2023. We find its response inappropriate for the following reasons:
1. It did not explicitly state that it was a stage 1 response. This is at odds with the Code, which states that at completion of the complaint investigation, landlords must confirm in writing the complaint stage.
2. The landlord said that it was writing to the resident in response to her email dated 1 February 2023. As we had not had sight of this email, we requested it from the landlord in May 2025. It confirmed that the wording was incorrect in the letter. Although this error is likely to have had minimal impact on the resident, the landlord should ensure that it checks its records and correspondence for accuracy before it issues a formal complaint response.
3. It overlooked the resident’s dissatisfaction about the kitchen renewal and therefore failed to provide her with a response.
4. It failed to appropriately investigate the landlord’s handling of the other substantive issues (windows and heating system). Although not obligated to do so, it is good practice for landlords to provide a timeline of events within formal complaint responses. This allows them to demonstrate that they have undertaken a comprehensive investigation and considered all the facts within the case. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to explain how it had responded to the resident’s reports of repairs in line with its legal and policy obligations.
5. It failed to provide the resident with a decision on the complaint (ie that it had upheld or not upheld it), and therefore did not provide any details of any remedy to put things right.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 occasions between 24 April 2023 and 6 July 2023. She told it that she wanted to refer her complaint to our Service, but to do so, she required a reference number from the landlord for her complaint. The landlord’s internal records show that it said its complaints team would email the resident the reference number and ask her if she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so, which is a further record keeping failure.
The landlord has not provided evidence of the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. This is a further record keeping failure. It has also made it difficult for us to assess the timeliness of its stage 2 response (issued on 31 July 2023). However, as it apologised within its response for its complaint handling delays, it is reasonable to assume that it did not adhere to the timescales outlined in the Code.
Overall, we find the landlord’s stage 2 response was poor. This is because it failed to identify and apologise for its complaint handling failings (aside from its delay in issuing the stage 2 response) or to offer at stage 2 the level of redress it ultimately considered was due.
Taking the above in account, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident compensation in recognition of the failings identified. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the heating system.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen renewal.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,400 compensation. This must be paid directly to her and is made up as follows:
  1. £400 for its handling of her reports of repairs to the windows.
  2. £350 for its handling of her reports of repairs to the heating system.
  3. £400 for its handling of her request for a kitchen renewal.
  4. £250 for its handling of her complaint.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Familiarises itself with the Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), if it has not already done so. It should use the recommendations in the report to inform its future record keeping practices to aid service delivery.
2. Arranges training for relevant staff involved in complaint handling via the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution e-learning, if it has not recently done so. This should be done with the aim of ensuring that:
  1. Complaints are acknowledged and responded to within the timescales outlined in the Code.
  2. Complaint investigations include a comprehensive review of all relevant records.
  3. Compensation is offered to residents in accordance with its own processes and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.