Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (202316705)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316705

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

20 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to repair the living room windows and not replace them.
  2. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. At the time of this complaint the resident was a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in March 2009. The property is a 2 bedroom, first floor flat. The resident moved out of his flat in August 2024. He is no longer a resident of the landlord.
  2. The resident made the landlord aware of an issue with his living room window in October 2022. He said he could hear noise through it, even though it was double glazed. The landlord completed an inspection of the window on 31 October 2022, although it could not assess the window properly without removing the trims. The landlord raised a joinery repair to remove the trims and further investigate the issue. The repair completion date was 22 January 2023. However, the resident cancelled the repair on 11 January 2023. He said he wanted a new window, rather than a repair to his existing window. He also raised a formal complaint.
  3. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 24 January 2023. It said it had taken steps to try to inspect the window but the resident had cancelled the appointment. It said it had made a new appointment for the work to be completed on 13 February 2023. It confirmed it had not upheld his complaint.
  4. The landlord’s contractor completed the work to the window on 13 February 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 May 2023, as he was not happy with the work done to his window. He also reported a gap in his other living room window. The landlord logged a separate stage 1 complaint and asked its contractor to respond. It also raised a service request to fill the gap.
  5. The landlord’s contractor sent the resident a stage 1 response on 2 June 2023. It said it had undertaken the work on 13 February 2023, as instructed by the landlord. It said it had completed the work to a satisfactory standard. However, it would ask the landlord’s technical officer to inspect the work to ensure it was satisfied.
  6. The resident informed the landlord on 6 June 2023, that he was unhappy with the stage 1 response. The landlord sent the resident a further stage 1 response on 14 June 2023. It said it had attended the resident’s property on 8 June 2023 to inspect both living room windows. It said it found the window repair to be satisfactory. It said it would not replace the window as it was in a good state of repair. It said it would be happy to complete the same work to the second window.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 27 June 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 31 July 2023. It said qualified trade persons had carried out the repairs to the windows. It said its “suitably trained” technical officers had undertaken inspections of the standard of work. It said it had told the resident that his windows were suitably sized, and the gap around the windows was to accommodate the installation of the cladding. It concluded that there were no issues with the installation of the windows, or the standard of the work carried out by its contractors. It also confirmed it would not be replacing the windows.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision to repair the living room windows and not replace them.

  1. The windows were in the property when the resident moved in. The resident says he became aware of the gap above his living room window following damage caused by an operative/ contractor during external works to his property. The landlord disputes this and says the gap became visible to the resident when it undertook works to replace the cladding on the building. It is unclear from the evidence provided exactly when the cladding work took place. Although it appears to be at some point in the 12 months before the resident’s request for a window repair/replacement.
  2. The resident reported an issue with his living room window sometime in October 2022. He told the landlord that although his windows were double glazed, he could still hear noise through them. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 31 October 2022. However, it was unable to carry out a full assessment without taking the trims off the windows.
  3. The landlord raised a joinery referral. It asked its repairs contractor to take off the plastic trim, inspect around the frame, fill and seal any gaps, and refit the trim. The date the work was meant to take place was by 22 January 2023. However, the resident cancelled the job on 11 January 2023 as he wanted the landlord to replace the window, not repair it.
  4. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says a landlord “must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house”. This means a landlord is responsible for repairs to the windows. However, the law says a landlord does not have to replace an item where it is possible to complete a repair. Social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these responsibly for the benefit of all their residents. Where there is more than one way to address a concern/complete a repair, a landlord can choose the cheaper option. Therefore, in the circumstances, it was reasonable of the landlord to consider repairing the resident’s windows to address his concerns, rather than replacing them.
  5. The resident also raised a formal complaint on 11 January 2023. He said approximately 12 months ago the landlord’s contractors damaged his window frame during work to his property. The damage exposed the frame, and he said he could see that the frame was not the right size. He said the landlord completed a repair, but he did not believe it had been done properly. He said he wanted the window replacing with the correct sized window.
  6. On 19 January 2023 the landlord raised a new appointment for the work to the resident’s window to be completed on 13 February 2023.
  7. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 24 January 2023. It said it tried to assess the window frame on 31 October 2022 but the trim strips had prevented a detailed inspection. It said it had made an appointment for its contractors to remove the trims and address any defects with the fit of the window. However, the resident had cancelled the appointment. It said it had rescheduled the appointment to take place on 13 February 2023. It said it had asked its contractors to take photographs and check whether the window was the correct size when they attended. It also confirmed it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint, as there had been no service failures.
  8. The landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property on 13 February 2023. They completed the work to the living room window as planned.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 May 2023 as he was unhappy with the work to his window. He also said he thought there was a similar gap behind the trims on his other living room window, as he could also hear a lot of noise from that window.
  10. The landlord raised a job to complete the same work to the second living room window. It also raised a new stage 1 complaint in relation to the work carried out and it re-assigned the complaint to its contractor. It is unclear from the evidence provided why the landlord did not raise a stage 2 complaint in the circumstances, as the resident’s complaint was about the same issue it had dealt with at stage 1. This aspect of the complaint will be considered in more detail within the complaint handling section of this report.
  11. The landlord’s contractor sent the resident a stage 1 response on 2 June 2023. They said they completed the work to the window as instructed by the landlord. They said they would ask the landlord to send a technical officer to inspect the work completed in February 2023, and the work they were about to undertake on the second window. They did not uphold the resident’s complaint as there were no identified service failures.
  12. The resident cancelled the job raised for repairs to the second living room window on 5 June 2023. He told the landlord that he was not willing to have the same work done. The resident contacted the landlord again on 6 June 2023 as he was unhappy with the stage 1 response from the landlord’s contractor.
  13. The landlord’s technical officer visited the resident on 8 June 2023 to inspect the windows. They said the windows were in a satisfactory condition, apart from a damaged handle. They said the windows had been fitted with a gap to accommodate the external cladding. They concluded that the windows did not need to be replaced. The resident would not accept the technical officer’s opinion and insisted that the landlord replace his windows.
  14. Despite the resident’s concerns, it was reasonable of the landlord to base its decision not to replace the windows on the advice of its technical officer. This is because a landlord is entitled to rely on the observations and conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In addition, the landlord had completed work to one of the windows to address the noise issue by filling the gap with foam. It had also offered to complete the same work to the other window.
  15. The landlord raised a repair to replace the broken handle. However, the resident cancelled the job on 12 June 2023, as he wanted the window replacing, not the handle.
  16. The landlord sent the resident a further stage 1 response on 14 June 2023. It maintained its position that there had been no failures in its service. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 27 June 2023 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said he wanted the landlord to replace his windows, not repair them.
  17. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 31 July 2023. It said it would not replace his living room windows. This was because it had inspected the windows and found no issues with the installation, or the standard of work carried out to address the noise issues. As it had not found any service failure, it said it could not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  18. In summary, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports in relation to his windows. It arranged for an inspection and for follow up works to improve the fit of the windows to address the resident’s concerns of noise. When the resident raised further concerns, it arranged for a further inspection by its technical officer to ensure the windows were in a satisfactory condition. It also offered to complete the same work to the second window. As a result, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Complaint handling

  1. At the time of this complaint the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints process. This has since been updated to reflect the requirements of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. Its complaints policy said it would respond to stage 1 complaints with 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Stage 3 was an optional appeal stage.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 11 January 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 24 January 2023. This was within the timeframe of 10 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 May 2023. He said he was unhappy with the work done to his windows following his stage 1 complaint, as it had not fixed the issue. In response, the landlord logged a new stage 1 complaint and asked its contractors to respond. This was on the basis that the resident was complaining about the quality of the work, rather than the chosen method of repair.
  5. The Code (1 April 2022) says at paragraph 5.9 “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure, unless an exclusion ground now applies”. Therefore, as the resident was complaining about the remedy, rather than the quality of repair, it was inappropriate of the landlord to log a new stage 1 complaint.
  6. The landlord’s contractor sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 2 June 2023. This was within the timeframe of 10 working days set within the complaints policy.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord again on 6 June 2023 as he was unhappy with the stage 1 response. Instead of escalating the complaint to stage 2, the landlord sent a further stage 1 complaint response on 14 June 2023. This was inappropriate and not in line with the Code.
  8. The resident made further contact with the landlord on 27 June 2023 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s further response. The landlord escalated his complaint to stage 2 and sent a stage 2 response on 31 July 2023. This was 24 working days from the date of escalation and outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. This was inappropriate in the circumstances as the process had already taken much longer than it should have. The landlord did not recognise its complaint handling failures within its response.
  9. In summary, the landlord’s complaint process was confusing. It caused unnecessary delays due to the multiple complaint responses. It did not comply with the timeframes set within its complaints policy. It did not act in line with the Code and it did not recognise its complaint handling failures within its stage 2 response. As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when it made its decision to repair the living room windows and not replace them.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £150 in recognition of the complaint handling failures and the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.