Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202316659)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316659

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

28 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.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The repairs to the boiler and heating.
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. The repairs to the bathroom light.
4. The removal of the overgrown trees in the garden.
5. The repairs to the broken fence.
6. The repairs to the windows and the doors
7. The associated complaints.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 24 October 2022 and the property is a 3 bedroom house with a garden. The landlord is a housing association. It has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. In January 2023 the resident informed the landlord that she was allergic to mould and pollen. She also said that her children had asthma. The resident informed this service that the landlord was aware of the household’s health concerns prior to them accepting the property.
In October 2022 the landlord repaired the faulty boiler. The resident did not have heating or hot water for 3 days. On 30 October 2022, the landlord provided the resident with temporary heaters for 26 days until it repaired the leaking radiators and reinstated the heating. On 22 October 2022, a leak in the roof damaged the resident’s bathroom light, which the landlord made safe. The resident said that in October 2022, the landlord agreed to remove the trees in her garden as part of the void work.
On 7 December 2022 the resident reported mould in the bathroom. The landlord applied a mould wash on 14 December 2022 and stain blocker on 17 January 2023. On 15 December 2022 the landlord said that it could not replace the bathroom light because the ceiling was still wet from the roof leak but it would provide temporary lighting to the resident.
On 15 January 2023 the resident provided a list of the repairs to the landlord. She reported the bathroom light, issues with condensation within the windowpanes, one window not closing, the back door, the trees removal and a broken fence. She also reported mould growth in the living room and in her daughter’s bedroom.
The resident raised a detailed complaint with the landlord on 23 January 2023. The complaint was about its handling of several repairs in the property. She said:
1. She was without hot water or heating between 21 October 2022 and 11 November 2022.
2. Following the roof leak in October 2022, she had no light in her bathroom and her children had to bathe in the dark. She questioned why the landlord had not provided temporary lighting.
3. The repair to the back door and installation of draught excluders was outstanding. She described there was a gap in the door, which created a cold draft and allowed mice to enter the property.
4. Although the landlord had said it would repair the back door lock once it received the part, it had not resolved the problem.
5. She reported the kitchen door and several windows had condensation within the windowpanes. She acknowledged that the landlord had given her a repair appointment to resolve the problem.
6. There were signs of mould under the window in her child’s bedroom. She also said that the roof leak caused mould to grow in the loft. She requested for a damp specialist to inspect the property.
7. The landlord had not resolved the issue with the overgrown trees in her garden.
8. In November 2022 she reported an issue with mould growth on the living room wall but had not heard back from the landlord after it inspected the problem.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 6 February 2023. It said:
1. It was unable to instal a new bathroom light because the ceiling was still wet from the roof leak. It confirmed it had raised a repair to instal a temporary light in the bathroom. It apologised for the delay and offered to pay the resident £40 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to her.
2. It would seek advice from its inspector about the mould in the loft.
3. It confirmed it contacted its contractor about the back door lock. It explained that once it repaired the door lock, it would address the draught excluders and the gap in the door.
4. It raised the repairs for the broken fence and requested a quote to remove the trees in her garden. It confirmed that a surveyor would attend on 10 February 2023 and inspect the property.
Between February 2023 and April 2023, the landlord remained in communication with the resident and its contractors. It inspected the property on 10 February 2023 and advised the resident on managing the areas affected by mould. On 17 February 2023, it provided temporary bathroom lighting to the resident. In March 2023 the landlord repaired the windows. It carried out a follow up inspection on 13 March 2023 and the resident said she was unhappy with the standard of the repairs. The landlord appointed a new contractor on 24 March 2023. Between March 2023 and May 2023, it also liaised with its contractors about removing the trees and the repairs to the fence.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 21 April 2023. It said:
1. On 19 October 2022 it found a fault with the boiler. It provided the timeline of the repairs and said that it restored the heating on 27 October 2022.
2. It acknowledged that in October 2022, the roof leak damaged the bathroom light. It said that it only provided temporary lighting to the resident in February 2023 and apologised for not doing it sooner.
3. It inspected the windows and stated they did not need replacing. On 24 March 2023, it renewed the glass in all the windows with condensation issues. It acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with the repairs and confirmed it would inspect the property on 28 April 2023.
4. It apologised for the delay in repairing the broken fence, which she reported on 6 February 2023. It confirmed the contractor who visited the resident on 24 March 2023, would complete the repairs.
5. The tree surgeon would inspect the trees on 4 May 2023 and 5 May 2023.
6. It inspected the areas affected by mould and concluded this was not a severe issue. It recommended to control the mould with anti mould sprays.
7. It had failed to respond to her complaint in October 2022. It explained that its focus had been on resolving the repairs and apologised for not providing a formal response to her complaint. It also apologised for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response.
8. It apologised for its failings and offered to pay £1064.33 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact on her. This was in relation to its handling of several repairs, some of which the resident did not raise with us. The compensation it offered which related to elements considered by our investigation was equivalent to:
  1. £54.33 for the loss of heating between 24 October 2022 and 27 October 2022, and 30 October 2022 to 19 November 2022. It provided an explanation for its calculations.
  2. £150 for the delay in replacing the leaking radiator and the issues with heating this caused.
  3. £100 for the delay in fitting the temporary light in the bathroom.
  4. £100 for the delays in dealing with the window repairs.
  5. £100 for the delay in dealing with the overgrown trees.
  6. £250 for the inconvenience and distress caused by the leak and connected repairs.
  7. £100 for the lack of response to the resident’s complaint in October 2022.
  8. £50 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint.
Between April 2023 and August 2023, it carried out recalled repairs to the windows, the back door lock and repaired the fence. On 9 August 2023 it tried the replace the bathroom light but there was some confusion on whether an electric check should be done prior to starting the work. On 23 August 2023 the resident raised concerns about the standard of the repairs.
On 4 August 2023 the resident made a further complaint to the landlord about the delays and standards of the repairs. She referred the landlord to the schedule of work previously agreed. She said:
1. She reported the issue to the back door lock in October 2022. The repairs completed on 1 August 2023, were inadequate and unsafe.
2. The landlord did not complete the repairs to the windows in August 2023. She said the contractor only applied seals around the interior of the windows but not the exterior. It did not address that the previous contractor had installed incorrect size glass in the windows. She also pointed out that the contractor drilled a hole in the window frame, which caused water ingress.
3. The landlord had said it would test the electric before starting the repair on the bathroom light and did not.
4. She described the impact and inconvenience of the missed appointments, the delays, poor workmanship and the recalls. She said that despite several appointments the landlord had not resolved the scheduled repairs. She explained her reasons for refusing to provide access to 2 of the landlord’s contractors.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s further complaint on 16 August 2023 and responded on 26 August 2023. It said:
1. It was yet to complete the repairs to the fence, the windows, the bathroom light, the front door and the garden. Whilst there had been issues with the standard of work from previous contractors, it had appointed a new contractor to complete the repairs.
2. It understood the resident was unhappy with the new contractor but it assured her that they would complete the repairs to good standard. It asked for the resident to allow them access and said that it would carry out post repair inspections to check the standard of the works and rectify any issues.
3. It requested the contractor to renew the bathroom light. It acknowledged the resident’s comment about the electric test and said that it asked the contractor for further information and waited for their response.
4. It recognised there had been delays and failings in completing the repairs. It said that it would consider compensation once it had completed all the repairs.
On 4 September 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She reiterated her reasons for refusing access to the landlord’s contractors dealing with the windows, the doors and the bathroom light. She requested the landlord inspect the repairs completed on 1 August 2023.
Between March 2023 and September 2023, the landlord liaised with the resident and the tree surgeon. The tree surgeon removed the trees on 7 September 2023. The resident informed the landlord she was not happy with the work and the tree surgeon had refused to cut the 2 biggest trees. The resident made a complaint to the landlord about it. landlord responded to her complaint at the stage 1 of its complain process and clarified its reasons for not cutting the 2 remaining trees. The resident did not escalate this complaint to stage 2.
On 5 October 2023 the landlord replaced one window. On 10 November 2023 the landlord inspected the property and agreed a schedule of work. It then requested quotes from its contractors and agreed suitable dates with the resident for the repairs.
The landlord explained to the resident on 27 October 2023 that it needed more time to respond to her complaint. It said it would respond by 30 November 2023. It issued its stage 2 response on 6 December 2023 and said:
1. It reiterated its position about the new contractor it appointed to repair the windows and the door. It confirmed that following its inspection on 10 November 2023, its surveyor had instructed the contractor to complete the works. It understood that the resident and the contractor were to schedule an appointment to go ahead. It also reiterated that it would inspect the repairs once completed.
2. It did not need to carry out a full electric check before replacing the bathroom light. It confirmed that the new contractor would schedule an appointment with the resident to replace the light.
3. Some repairs depended on the completion of others and because of this the repairs to the door, fence and the trees were outstanding. It shared a detailed work schedule with the resident.
4. It explained the reasons for the delays but acknowledged that it took longer than it should have to complete the repairs. It offered to pay £750 compensation to the resident for its handling of the repairs, some of which were not part of the resident’s complaint to this service. The compensation it offered which related to elements considered by our investigation was equivalent to:
  1. £150 for the delay in repairing the bathroom light.
  2. £150 for the delay in repairing the windows.
  3. £50 for the delay of fencing work.
  4. £150 for the inconvenience the delays caused the resident.
  5. £150 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint.
Between January 2024 and March 2024, it liaised with the resident and its newly appointed contractor to replace the bathroom light and repair the fence. In May 2024 it was liaising with the resident trying to book a date to replace the bathroom light and repair the fence. The resident said the landlord replaced the light in August 2024.
The resident informed this service that the landlord had not completed all the repairs to her satisfaction. She said one side of the fence needed replacing. She explained that the landlord had not replaced the windows, her front door or resolved the damp and mould issues. As a resolution to her complaint, she is looking for the landlord to replace her windows and her front door and carry out a damp and mould inspection. She is also seeking a review of the compensation offered by her landlord because she feels it did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to her and her family.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman recognises that the repairs and presence of mould at the property has caused the resident inconvenience and distress. She expressed concerns about the potential impact on her and her children’s health. She also reported an injury to her foot, which she said happened because of poor workmanship. We sympathise with her situation. However, unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot comment on what caused a health issue or find liability and award damages. A personal injury claim to the court or insurers would usually deal with this.
We understand that the resident raised issues with repairs, delays and standard of work several times with the landlord. Between January 2023 and October 2023, she made 4 formal complaints to the landlord about it. The evidence shows that the resident did not escalate 2 of her complaints to stage 2. For example, she complained to the landlord about its failings to remove 2 of the trees, it provided an explanation for its decisions and the resident did not raise the issue at stage 2. While those provide context, in keeping with the Scheme, this investigation will only consider the resident’s complaints which exhausted the landlord’s complaint process.
Our role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and reports by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident. We will decide whether the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where the Ombudsman has found failures on the landlord’s part, we can also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Policies and procedures

The landlord repairs policy says it considers reports of flooding, major electrical fault and issues with heating during the winter months as emergencies. It explains that it will attend within 6 hours and when possible, it will complete the necessary remedial repairs within 24 hours. It says that it would complete routine repairs within 20 working days of receiving a report.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The Ombudsman also recommends for landlords to consider residents’ vulnerabilities when responding to reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s overall communication during its handling of the repairs

We recognise that between October 2022 and January 2024, the landlord acted on the resident’s reports. It also remained in regular contacts with the resident and its contractors about the repairs. We recognised it understood that the resident works and could not take time off, which limited her availability for repairs appointments. In keeping with its repairs policy, it worked with the resident and the contractors to organise the repairs at times that were suitable to her. This was reasonable from the landlord, it showed that it considered the resident’s needs and made sure its contractors knew of the resident’s availability.
From its own admission, the landlord failed to complete some of the repairs within a reasonable timeframe, which we consider below in this report. However, we also recognise that the landlord kept the resident updated and continued to work with her and its contractors to resolve the problems. It also showed that it remained in communication with its contractors and challenged their standard of work, once the resident reported a problem. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord, it showed it was committed in resolving the issues to the resident’s satisfaction.

Repairs to the boiler and heating

We acknowledge that the landlord acted promptly once it found an issue with the boiler and the heating. It repaired the boiler within 3 days of the resident moving in. We understand that when it shut the heating off because of the leaky radiators, the resident did not have heating for approximately 26 days. It is understandable that having no heating would have caused inconvenience to the resident. Whilst we understand the impact of having no heating on the resident, the landlord delivered temporary heaters the day after it switched the heating off. It also completed the repairs within its published timeframe. This was reasonable, the landlord showed it took reasonable steps to resolve the problem and minimise the impact on the resident.
Additionally, the landlord recognised the impact of having no heating for several days and offered to pay the resident £54.33 compensation for the loss of heating. It also offered £150 for the delays in replacing a radiator. We understand the resident did not feel the compensation reflected the impact on her. The evidence shows that the landlord explained to the resident how it calculated the level of compensation. The landlord also offered £250 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused to her across its handling of several repairs, including the repairs to the boiler and the heating system.
In this case our opinion is that the level of compensation offered for the loss of heating was reasonable. It reflected the impact on the resident and considered that the landlord took prompt actions in resolving the matter and providing temporary heaters to the resident. The landlord’s total offer reflected the failings identified and was in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy. Therefore, we determine that the level of compensation amounts to reasonable redress.

Reports of damp and mould

In this case, the resident reported mould in her bathroom in December 2022.The landlord applied mould wash and stain blocker within it published timeframe to complete such repairs within 20 working days. this was reasonable from the landlord it showed it acted promptly with a sense of urgency.
On 15 January 2023, she reported mould growth in the living room and her daughter’s bedroom. The landlord inspected the property on 10 February 2023. It recommended the resident use mould spray to manage the affected areas. It also applied mould treatment and repainted a small area affected by mould in the living room. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord. Its actions were in keeping with its damp and mould policy to inspect the property and complete the repairs within 20 working days.
Although the resident informed us that the landlord had not resolve the mould in her daughter’s bedroom, we have not seen evidence that this was raised with the landlord after the recommendations it made in February 2023. While we do not disbelieve the resident, we are an impartial service and can only make our decisions based on evidence. In this case, the evidence shows that without reports that the issue remained, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to assume the recommendations it made in February 2023, had resolved the matter.
The resident also informed us that an engineer told her there was water ingress at the back of her property. She acknowledged that she did not know if the information was shared with the landlord. Without evidence that the landlord knew about the issue and failed to act, we cannot find service failure by the landlord. In this case, we did not see evidence that the landlord knew of possible water ingress or unresolved damp and mould after April 2023. Therefore, we cannot determine there was a failure by the landlord. Nevertheless, we recommend that it assessed the issue reported by the resident and complete remedial repairs if needed.
We understand that the resident has reported a severe mould and pollen allergy. She also said that her children have asthma. The evidence did not show that the landlord assessed the problem or considered whether it required to make reasonable adjustments while addressing the report of mould in the property. We cannot say whether the landlord should have made reasonable adjustments in its handling of the repairs. However, we would have expected the landlord to discuss this with her as recommended in the Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould, especially as she reported having a severe mould allergy. We acknowledge there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s failings to have this discussion impacted on the overall outcome for the resident.
After considering the evidence of the case, we determine that there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Overall, the landlord’s actions were in keeping with what we would expect from a landlord in such cases. It showed that once it knew about the issue, it acted promptly in keeping with the Ombudsman Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould. However, it failed to show that it considered the resident’s health issues while responding to her reports of mould.
In accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident an additional £75 in compensation. This is to reflect its failings to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when dealing with her repairs reports.
Additionally, we understand that the resident has identified 2 current issues of damp and mould in the property, however we did not see evidence that the landlord knew about those. We recommend that the resident liaise with the landlord about this.

Repairs to the bathroom light

In October 2022, the roof leak damaged the bathroom light. Whilst the landlord attended and made the area safe, it only provided the resident with temporary lighting in February 2023. This was unreasonable from the landlord, its failings to act sooner left the family with no light in the bathroom for 4 months.
We understand there were delays in repairing the bathroom light because the landlord could not fix it when the ceiling was still wet. However, it was ready to proceed with the repairs on 8 August 2023. The resident informed us that the landlord replaced the bathroom light in August 2024. This was approximately 1 year after it said it could proceed with the repairs. We understand there were delays because of the work stopping and appointing a new contractor. However, when this contributed to the delays, the landlord did not explain the delay of 12 months in resolving the problem. Those were unreasonable delays in completing such repairs.
In summary, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the bathroom light repairs. We acknowledge that it could not fix the light until the ceiling had dried out. We also recognise that it acted to remedy the issues with the contractors as soon as it became aware of a problem. However, while those issues caused delays, the landlord failed to complete the repairs within its published timeframe once it could proceed with the repairs. The evidence shows there were significant delays in completing the repairs to the bathroom light. This caused inconvenience to the resident who spent time and effort seeking a resolution to the problems.
During the ICP, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings. It also made 2 offers of compensation to the resident for its handling of the repairs, some of which were not part of the resident’s complaint to this service. In our opinion the landlord’s total offer compensation offered to the resident up to December 2023, was reasonable and reflected the impact of the landlord’s failings on her. It was equivalent to:
1. In April 2023, it offered to pay £100 compensation to the resident for the delay in providing temporary lighting. It also offered £250 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused to her across its handling of several repairs, including the delays relating to the bathroom light.
2. In December 2023 it made an additional offer of £150 compensation for the delay in resolving the bathroom light. It also offered £150 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused to her across its handling of several repairs, including the delays relating to the bathroom light.
However, we cannot determine that the landlord’s actions and offers amounted to reasonable redress because of the delays in completing the final repairs after December 2023. Therefore, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the bathroom light.
We understand the additional delays happened after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. However, in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord provided a work schedule to the resident. It said that it would complete the repairs to the bathroom light within a reasonable timeframe. However, the evidence shows there were further delays in completing the repair. Therefore, it is reasonable to review the landlord’s compensation offer to reflect those additional delays.
In accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident an additional £150 in compensation. This is to reflect the delays in resolving the repairs to the bathroom light after December 2023. The compensation also reflects the accumulation of failings over time, which added to the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Removal of the trees in the garden

The resident said that in October 2022, the landlord agreed to cut the trees in her garden. She recognises that this was a verbal agreement and she could not provide evidence of the conversation. We are an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. Where there are conflicting accounts, we cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to take action to put right this failure
In January 2023 she reiterated her request and asked the landlord to cut the overgrown trees. The evidence shows that once the landlord knew about the problem with the trees, it took it approximately 2 months to request a quote. This was unreasonable from the landlord, while some delays were out of its control, this was not. The landlord did not show that it provided a reasonable explanation to the resident for the delays, which was unreasonable.
We understand that there was an additional delay of approximately 4 months in completing the work. The evidence shows that the landlord, resident and contractor were actively working together to complete the repair. We understand that it took time to resolve removing the garden waste and find a time suitable to all parties to complete the work. Those delays were out of the landlord’s control.
In April 2023 the landlord acknowledged its failings in cutting the overgrown trees within a reasonable timeframe. It offered £100 compensation to the resident. This was a reasonable offer from the landlord, it reflected the impact of its failings on the resident. Whilst we recognise it took another 4 months to complete the work, those delays were outside the landlord’s control. It is therefore our opinion that the landlord’s compensation offer reflected the failings identified. Therefore, we determine that, in all circumstances of the case, the level of compensation amounts to reasonable redress.

Repairs to the broken fence

In January 2023, the resident reported a broken fence. The landlord admitted that it took a long time to complete the repair. We recognise that some delays were out of the landlord’s control. For example, In March 2023 it was chasing quotes from its contractors. In August 2023, the resident requested for the repairs to stop because she was unhappy with the work. It appointed a new contractor in 2024. Nevertheless, while some delays were out of its control, the landlord is responsible for completing repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The evidence shows that it inspected the property 26 days later after the resident reported the problem and agreed to repair the fence. The landlord did not explain the delay of nearly a month to inspect the fence. This was unreasonable from the landlord.
We understand the landlord was in the process of appointing a new contractor. Whilst we understand this would have caused some delay, there were additional delays in in agreeing the full scope of the works with the contractors. For example, whilst the landlord instructed the contractor in March 2023, the contractor was still seeking clarification from the landlord on the details of the job a month later. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have clearly communicated the scope of the repair sooner, especially as it knew about the repair since January 2023. This was unreasonable from the landlord and its failing to promptly communicate the scope of the work contributed to the delays in completing the work.
It inspected the property in October 2023 and agreed with the resident that additional panels needed replacing. It then took several weeks to establish who was responsible for maintaining the fencing between the properties. The evidence shows that between November 2023 and January 2024, the landlord was discussing the best approach to resolve the problem. In January 2024, it decided to repair all the damaged fence panels as a good will gesture and regardless of who was responsible for maintaining the fence. Whilst this was reasonable from the landlord, it took over 2 months to make the decision. It should have made the decision sooner.
We understand the resident believes the landlord should have replaced additional panels. The landlord inspected the property in October 2023 and agreed a work schedule with the resident and its contractor prior to starting the repairs. The landlord showed its surveyor inspected the job before deciding on the repairs. Whilst we understand the resident would like the landlord to replace additional panels, the landlord is allowed to follow its expert’s recommendations. In this case, we saw no evidence that it did not follow its surveyor’s recommendations or refused to replace some of the panels. The landlord showed that it assessed the job before taking actions to resolve the matter, which was reasonable.
Overall, we recognise the landlord acted on the resident’s reports and completed the repairs. However, the landlord failed to complete the repairs within a reasonable time frame. Therefore, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the fence.
In its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint in December 2023, the landlord recognised its failings in repairing the fence sooner. It offered £50 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident. It is our opinion that the landlord’s offer is too low and does not reflect the failings identified. In accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 in compensation. This is to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident, who had to raise the issue as a complaint.

Repairs to the windows and the doors

The resident first reported the issues in January 2023. We understand that some delays in completing the repairs within 20 days were out of the landlord’s control. For example, getting quotes from contractors and waiting for parts such as the windowpanes and the door lock. We recognise that the landlord inspected the property in February 2023 and carried out some repairs in March 2023, August 2023, October 2023 and August 2024. We understand that once the landlord knew its contractors had not completed the repairs to standard, it took actions to remedy the problems. While this was reasonable from the landlord, it is responsible for its contractor’s actions and for completing the repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
In this case, the evidence shows there were significant delays in completing the repairs to the windows and the doors. It took several contractors, several recall repairs and over 8 months to carry out most of the repairs, which was unreasonable. Especially the repairs to the daughter’s bedroom window which did not close and it repaired 16 months after the resident reported the problem. The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the windows and doors caused significant inconvenience to the resident. The delays in resolving the problems and the number of recall repairs were unreasonable.
The resident informed this service in January 2025, that she remained dissatisfied because the landlord did not replace her windows and front door. Landlords are responsible for renewing the windows and doors within their properties. It is often necessary for landlords to balance resident’s wishes against their obligations as landlords, what is necessary and budget restrictions.
In this case, the landlord inspected the windows and doors in February 2023, April 2023 and engaged a windows specialist in June 2023. In April 2023 it informed the resident that it did not need to replace the windows or doors because it could repair them, apart from one which it replaced in October 2023. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord. It inspected the windows and made its position clear to the resident.
During the ICP, the landlord recognised its failings to repair the windows and doors in keeping with its repairs policy. It offered compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on her. In total it offered to pay £250 compensation to the resident. It also offered £400 compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident for its handling of several repairs, including the repairs to the windows and doors. The landlord’s offer was reasonable, it reflected the impact of its failings on the resident. It was also in keeping with its compensation policy.
We understand that in 2024, the landlord carried out further repairs to the windows and doors. The landlord explained that it appointed a new contractor in 2024 and it was difficult to organise repair appointments that suited all parties. We understand this would have contributed to the delays. Nevertheless, the landlord only agreed the quote and work schedule with the contractor in April 2024. This was 4 months after saying in December 2023, that it would complete the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. It then took several weeks before agreeing a suitable time to complete the repairs. Whilst it is unclear when the landlord completed the repairs, the evidence shows that after December 2023, the resident experienced further delays before the landlord resolved the problems. This was unreasonable.
We recognise the landlord offered a reasonable level of compensation for its handling of the repairs up to December 2023. However, we cannot determine that the landlord’s actions and offers amounted to reasonable redress because of the delays in completing the final repairs after December 2023. Therefore, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the windows and doors.
We understand the delays in completing the repairs after December 2023 happened after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. However, in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord provided a work schedule to the resident. It said that it would complete the repairs to the windows and doors within a reasonable timeframe. However, the evidence shows there were further delays in completing those repairs. Therefore, it is reasonable to review the landlord’s compensation offer to reflect those.
In accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £200 in compensation. This is to reflect the delays in resolving the repairs to the windows and doors after December 2023. The compensation also reflects the accumulation of failings over time, which added to the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

The Code sets the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. In keeping with the Code, the landlord has a 2 stage complaint policy. It states that it will acknowledge residents’ complaints within 2 working days, respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. It also states that if its needs longer to respond, it will contact the resident to explain the reasons for the delay and provide a new date to respond to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord logged a complaint from the resident on 21 October 2022. It explained it then worked with the resident to address the repairs she reported. It acknowledged in its stage 2 response to her complaint that it had failed to provide a formal response to her complaint in October 2022. Whilst it was positive that the landlord acted to resolve the issues raised by the resident in her complaint, it should have also provided a formal response to her complaint in keeping with the Code and its complaint policy. Its failings caused inconvenience to the resident because she had to raise a new complaint about the issues in January 2023.
We understand that the landlord recognised and apologised to the resident for its complaint handling failings. It apologised for not responding to the resident’s complaint in October 2022 and the short delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint in April 2023. It recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident and offered to pay her £150 compensation. Its offer was in keeping with its compensation policy. It was reasonable and reflected the impact on the resident.
The resident made a new formal complaint in August 2023 and there were short delays in providing her with a stage 1 response to her complaint. Whilst we understand those were short delays and did not impact on the resident’s overall outcome, the landlord should have responded within its published timeframe.
Additionally, there was a delay of 39 days for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. We understand that the landlord informed the resident it needed more time to respond, however, this was approximately 20 days after its complaint response was due. Furthermore, the landlord issued its stage 2 response approximately a week after the date it said it would respond by. We understand those were short delays, nevertheless the landlord should have handled the resident’s complaint in keeping with its complaint policy and the Code.
In December 2023, the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered to pay £150 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on her. This was a reasonable offer from the landlord, it was in keeping with its compensation policy and reflected the inconvenience caused to the resident.
From its own admission, the landlord failed to handle the residents’ complaints in keeping with the Code and its complaint policy. It acknowledged its complaint handling failings and apologised to the resident. It also offered to pay £300 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of the delay on her. After considering the evidence of the case, it is our opinion that the landlord’s total offer reflected the failings identified. Therefore, we determine that, in all circumstances of the case, the level of compensation amounts to reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident in relation to its handling the repairs to the boiler and heating prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This results in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the bathroom light.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident in relation to its handling the removal of the trees prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This results in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the broken fence.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the windows and the doors
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident in relation to its handling of her complaints prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This results in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the delays in completing the repairs within a reasonable timeframe after December 2023.
2. Pay £525 in compensation directly to the resident (this is in addition to the offers made by the landlord during the complaint process). This is equivalent to:
  1. £75 for its failings to consider the household vulnerabilities when dealing with the reports of damp and mould.
  2. £150 for the impact of the delays in resolving the bathroom light.
  3. £100 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in repairing the fence.
  4. £200 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by the additional delays in repairing the windows and doors.
3. Arrange and carry out a damp and mould inspection at the property. The landlord is to share its findings with us and the resident and provide a time specific work schedule for any remedial work identified.
4. Discuss the household vulnerabilities with the resident and update its housing management system accordingly.

Recommendations

The landlord is to make good on its offers to pay the resident £1064.33 and £750 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to her by its handling of the repairs and her associated complaints.