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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202404585)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404585

Sanctuary Housing Association

31 March 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 response to the resident’s request for it to replace the front door and windows at his property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. His children have vulnerabilities. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman it has no vulnerabilities recorded for him or his household. However, it has stated to the Ombudsman he has mentioned his children have a life-threatening illness. It has said it would be contacting him in January 2025 to update its records.
  2. The resident had been requesting replacement of the windows and doors at the property from May 2021. This was on behalf of his mother who was the tenant at that time. He succeeded the tenancy in March 2022 and continued to request that the landlord resolves the issue.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord in March 2023. He noted he had requested UPVC replacement windows and doors, but it had informed him the property was in a conservation area and would replace them like for like. In April 2023, he informed it other properties in his area had UPVC windows and doors. He added that the condition of the windows and doors was affecting the health of his children due to their medical conditions, and he could not afford to heat his property.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 17 August 2023. He said it had not replaced the windows and door, the health of his children was affected, and he incurred high energy costs.
  5. The landlord issued it stage 1 response on 1 September 2023. It provided a timeline of events since he first raised the issue in May 2021, explained that a wait for quotes had caused delays and assured him it would resolve the issue. It offered £400 compensation.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint on 16 November 2023, stating that the landlord had not replaced the windows and door or considered the effect on the health of his children.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 6 March 2024. It detailed further delays in getting quotes and completing the works. It offered the resident compensation of £350 for its complaint handling failings.
  8. The landlord provided an update to its stage 2 response on 14 May 2024. It acknowledged further delays in it completing the works and that its records showed it would repair rather than replace the windows and door. It offered an additional £250 compensation for the delays and its communication with the resident. This made the total offer regarding the replacement of the windows and front door to £650.
  9. In bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident has said he wants the windows replaced with UPVC windows and not repaired.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

  1. The resident has stated he has been requesting the landlord replace the windows and door at his property for over 3 years. He has informed the Ombudsman he first requested it replace these on behalf of his mother who was the previous tenant in 2021. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. There is no evidence the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord until his complaint of August 2023. This investigation has therefore focused on its handling of his reports in the 12 months prior to him making his complaint.  Any mention of events from 2021 is for contextual purposes.
  2. The resident throughout his contact with the landlord regarding this matter raised the impact the issue was having on his children’s health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the complaint about his children’s health is better dealt with via the court. This investigation has instead looked at whether the landlord considered the resident’s reports about his children’s health issues in its handling of the matter.

Request to replace the front door and windows

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes windows and external doors. It acknowledges this in its repairs policy. Its repairs policy states it aims to complete all appointed repairs within 45 days and major repairs within 90 days.
  2. On 6 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord. He requested an update regarding his request for it to replace the windows and front door in his property. He also queried why it had told him there was a conservation order around his property. He said his neighbours all had UPVC windows, and he had challenged that on several occasions.
  3. The landlord’s records noted it had confirmation from a manager that the property was in a conservation area. It would not be allowed to install UPVC, and the LA (Local Authority) would only accept timber frames like for like. It said that double glazing could be permitted if the window frames were timber. In this instance it confirmed it would not be installing UPVC products. Its records however are not clear what contact it had with the LA especially given the resident’s statement regarding the neighbouring properties.
  4. It is not clear when the landlord next responded to the resident, but he recontacted it on 18 April 2023. He said he was confused by its response and reiterated that many properties in the area had UPVC windows and doors, including his neighbours either side. He asked for it to explain why other neighbours had installed UPVC windows and doors.
  5. In the same correspondence the resident brought to the landlord’s attention the health of his children. He informed it his children had a life-threatening illness that required him to have heating on all day due to the state of the windows and doors. With current energy prices he could not afford to do so. He stated the issue had been ongoing for over 2 years and for it to treat the issue urgently.
  6. It is clear the resident wanted assurance that the landlord would provide UPVC replacements or explain why not. However, despite him making this point on several occasions, there is no evidence it took steps to investigate his statements about neighbouring properties or confirm the involvement, if any, of the LA or whether it required a planning application.
  7. The landlord has also provided no evidence of its response to that request. The resident recontacted it again on 15 August 2023. He said it was almost 4 months, and he had not received a reply. He reiterated his children’s health issues and the associated energy costs. He said it was not taking his pleas seriously.
  8. The landlord called the resident on 17 August 2023. Its records noted he stated its operatives assessed the front door and windows about 2-3 years prior. Since then, he had not had a response or follow up regarding whether it would change the windows and front door to UPVC.  He alleged the risks of it not changing the windows could impact his children’s health, explaining their condition made them more prone to colds. It noted he had documentation from his GP to support his claims. He also repeated his concern about the use of energy in the winter and associated costs.
  9. After this call, the landlord raised the issue as a complaint the same day. Its records noted the resident submitted the complaint due to him reporting the delays with it replacing his windows and doors. There is however again no evidence of it responding to or investigating his points including the effects on his children’s health until it issued its stage 1 response.
  10. On 18 August 2023, the landlord internally agreed to raise an order for repairs to the windows and door. It also noted it was not currently approving capital works, so repairs were its only option. However, on 28 August 2023, its records show it requested quotes to renew the front door and for all new windows.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 September 2023. It gave details of contacts by the resident on the poor condition of the windows and doors in 2021 and its efforts to get quoted for the works. It received a second quote on 25 September 2022. Since then, there was significant delays in having any window replacements approved. It apologised for the delays and inconvenience caused. It would be in contact to have someone attend and repair the issues. It offered the resident compensation of £400 for the delays and inconvenience in having the windows and doors changed.
  12. The landlord’s complaint response did go back to the resident’s initial request and provided him with a summary of the actions it had taken. Despite it referring to events in 2021 and 2022, it did not provide any records of its correspondence during that time. This limited the Ombudsman’s ability to confirm the steps it had taken over that period. However, it is not disputed that he requested the replacements in 2021 or that the works remained outstanding.
  13. This also confirmed his statements that he had been waiting for a significant period. It acknowledged delays in progressing the matter and that those would have caused inconvenience to him. It failed however to acknowledge his statement about the effect of works not taking place on the health of his children, the effect on his energy bills or the confusion over the conservation area regarding installation of UPVC replacements. It did not provide a full complaint response to him.
  14. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 September 2023 after receiving no further contact from it since its stage 1 response. It is also noted that on the same day there was enquiries made by its contractor regarding why it requested quotes for replacements when they had been asked to only provide quotes for repairs.
  15. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident. However, on 18 September 2023 he recontacted it and said 2 contractors had attended to take measurements. He asked for it to expedite the process so that the door and windows installation took place in time for winter.
  16. The landlord clarified to its contractor on 21 September 2023 that it required repairs unless there was evidence of a safety risk or the fixtures being beyond repair. There was however no evidence of it communicating this to the resident.
  17. The landlord received a quote dated 5 October 2023 for the windows and doors from one of its contractors. The quote noted the bedroom windows could be repaired and kitchen, bathroom and living room windows would need replacing. There is again no evidence it provided an update to the resident.
  18. The resident chased the landlord again for the works on 17 October and 8 November 2023 and it responded on 13 November 2023. It informed him its repairs and planning department approved and arranged the appointments and costs. They would directly contact him once it had received the reports. It told him to contact its repairs team if he wanted an update regarding where the process currently was.
  19. The landlord’s response here was not appropriate. It is clear the resident had been waiting a considerable time for an update and had chased it previously. It would have been appropriate for it to have contacted its repairs team before contacting him to provide him with the best status update it could. Asking him to do so, especially given its communication with him to that point, would have caused him more inconvenience and further loss of time.
  20. The resident escalated his complaint on 16 November 2023. He said he was unhappy with the response he had received. He had accepted the compensation offered but was clear it was not monetary compensation he wanted. He wanted the door and windows replaced with UPVC as soon as possible. He had provided it with hospital letters confirming his children’s health. He said its response was slow, lethargic and it appeared to use delaying tactics to avoid replacing the door and windows. he said that when its windows specialist attended, they said the windows were barely holding the glass in place, were beyond repair and required replacing. He noted that every person it sent said the same thing. He asked that to resolve the situation it accept the survey conducted by its contractor in September 2023 and install the door and windows as a matter of urgency.
  21. The landlord acknowledged the escalation of the complaint on 21 November 2023. It informed the resident he would receive a response within 20 working days. However, on 15 December 2023, the day the complaint response was due to be issued, it informed him it was still investigating his complaint. It said it was waiting for information from its contractors and its surveyor. It would aim to respond by 3 January 2024. It apologised for the delay.
  22. The evidence the landlord provided does not show the extent of any contact it was having with its contractor and surveyor. It has not given reasonable cause for the delays in it responding to the complaint.
  23. On 2 January 2024, the landlord informed the resident it was in the process of reviewing the information provided to it by its contractors and surveyor. It said it needed further time to complete its investigations. It aimed to respond to his complaint by 17 January 2024. It apologised for the further delay. As with the previous extension request, there is no evidence of any contact between the landlord, its contractor, and its surveyor during that time.
  24. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 January 2024. He said he had not received contact from it and noted its previous extensions of his complaint. It replied to him the same day and said it was not able to respond to his complaint and aimed to respond by 31 January 2024. Although it again apologised to him, it did not provide a reason for the further delay.
  25. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident by 31 January 2024. On 15 February 2024 it wrote to him. It said it was not yet able to provide him with an update on a start date for the works. It was waiting for a response from its surveyor regarding the 2 quotes from the 2 contractors it had received. It expected to provide a further update in 10 working days.
  26. On 29 February 2024, the landlord informed the resident it had spoken to its surveyor who confirmed it had received 1 quote from an external contractor but was waiting for a second quote to compare. It hoped to have a further update in the next 10 working days.
  27. On the same day however, the landlord’s records show its surveyor could not approve the quotation it had received but provided no context to the decision.
  28. In its stage 2 response on 6 March 2024 the landlord apologised for any inconvenience the resident experienced. It repeated the timeline of events from the stage 1 response. It said there were multiple delays in obtaining the required quotations from the contractor. Its repairs team chased the quotes on multiple occasions as did the surveyor. Following his complaint, one of the landlord’s senior surveyors advised that due to the time that had passed since it obtained the previous quotation, it required a new appointment. It issued 2 orders to external contractors to attend and review the doors and windows for replacement. It confirmed it had received 1 of the quotes but was still waiting for the second quote. It would continue to follow the works to completion and keep him updated. It would be chasing the contractor for the additional quotations needed every few days to move forward and complete the works.
  29. The landlord upheld the complaint based on multiple delays in obtaining the initial quotes in 2021 and the further quotes requested in 2023. It apologised for the delays in issuing a response to his stage 2 complaint. It offered an additional £350 consisting of £175 for significant delays in providing a response at stage 2 and £175 for a poor-quality response offered at stage 1.
  30. As with the stage 1 response the landlord again failed to address the resident’s 2 main concerns regarding the effect on the health of his children and its decision that it could not install UPVC windows and doors due to being in a conservation area. Although it did acknowledge the delays in obtaining the quotes, the explanation offered did not go far enough for him to understand the reasoning for the significant length of the delays. At the end of the stage 2 response, it had not yet been able to confirm it had received all the quotes required to make a decision. This is despite it acknowledging it had been dealing with the issue since May 2021, a period of over 2 and a half years.
  31. Based on its own categorisation of the compensation, the £350 offered by the landlord was for its complaint handling. For the failures it identified in its handling of the complaint including significant delays and communication the amount offered was reasonable and falls within the range the Ombudsman would order for such failings.
  32. There was no compensation offered of its handling of the windows and doors. The landlord had offered £400 in its stage1 response for the delays. Given the continued delays in progressing the works and the lack of communication to the resident, it should have considered an increased offer of compensation for the continuation of those failures.
  33. The resident responded to the stage 2 response the next day. He expressed his confusion about the landlord’s communication on the quotes as he assumed it already had both. The resident’s response to the landlord demonstrated the misunderstanding it had created by not providing regular updates or full and detailed responses to him.
  34. The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 April 2024. It said it had received the follow on works and quotes and had sent that to the relevant team for approval. Its internal notes of 16 April 2024 indicate that it would only agree to replacement where there was a health and safety risk. It further noted on 1 May 2024 that a quote it received from its contractor was too high when compared to the photographs of the windows it had received. It said it required a report stating what was wrong for each window. It concluded that it could grant approval for repairs but not replacements.
  35. On 2 May 2024, the resident emailed the landlord. He said on 24 April 2024, he received a call from it explaining it had received a repair quote which was going through approval stage. He had asked for clarification whether it meant replacement and not repair of the windows and front door. It confirmed that it was for repairs. He said it was more than 8 months since the latest contractors had surveyed his windows. He said all the surveyors had categorically stated that the windows needed replacing but it was however insisting on repairs rather than replacement.
  36. The resident’s email evidences the poor communication from the landlord continued beyond the stage 2 response and was providing further confusion and lack of clarity to him. Its evidence provided has not demonstrated the extent of the inspections it or its contractors took to determine if the windows and doors required repairing or replacements.
  37. The landlord’s contractors informed it on 10 May 2024 that they attended the resident’s property. They said he would not let anyone in if the works were only going to be repairs as its surveyor promised him new windows. The contractor’s surveyor said in their opinion there was 2 to 3 windows that would require replacing and it could repair the rest.
  38. The landlord issued a further update to the stage 2 complaint on 14 May 2024. It acknowledged the delays to the works and further delays in deciding what work it would conduct. Ultimately, it had found that the property did not need a full replacement and that it could complete repairs. It was aware that the resident had refused the repairs. It recognised that there had been miscommunication, delays, and an overall poor handling of the repairs. It apologised to him. It was committed to completing the repairs required to his windows but would not be completing a full replacement at that time. It offered a further £250 for unanswered emails and further miscommunication. It said the total settlement awarded at stage 2 of the complaint was £600.
  39. As £350 of the offer of compensation at stage 2 was for the handling of his complaint, the landlord’s further offer of £250 relating specifically to the windows and door delays brought the total amount offered during the stage 1 and stage 2 responses for its handling of the repairs to £650. The offer of £250 was the first amount offered since the stage 1 response for the windows and doors separate from the complaint handling. At that time, it had been 8 months since its stage 1 response. Given the continued delays, miscommunication and lack of clarity or responses to the resident’s concerns, it was not an appropriate offer of redress.
  40. Following the landlord’s final response, its records noted the resident was refusing for the repairs to take place. He insisted on replacements. It noted on 4 June 2024 that it would offer replacement of 3 windows, but this would need to be like for like due to the conservation area. It would repair the remaining windows. Its records noted the resident refused. On 18 December 2024, its records noted it had conducted a further inspection of the property. The rear door had been replaced and the front door required draft proofing. Its assessment of the windows remained the same.
  41. On 9 January 2025, the landlord concluded that it would be replacing the windows to the whole of the property as the windows that required replacement were circa 75% and the others required repairing. It was more cost effective to replace them all. It required quotes from contractors. It restated the property was within the conservation area and would need to replace the window with double glazed timber windows on a like for like basis. At the time of this investigation the resident and landlord have confirmed the works remain outstanding. This is due to the resident requesting UPVC replacements.
  42. In summary it is unreasonable that following the resident succeeding the tenancy, his continuous requests to the landlord and its final response to his complaint it had not progressed the works. Despite it having responsibility for maintaining and repairing the windows and door there is no evidence to show that it took appropriate action to repair or replace them within an appropriate period or within the timescales of its repairs policy. It has not evidenced the extent of investigations it took in establishing the need for repair or replacement.
  43. It is noted that as the resident’s property is in a conservation area, the requirements for windows and doors to be replaced like-for-like could have reasonably led to some delay. However, the amount of time taken by the landlord in progressing the works was excessive.
  44. The landlord advised the resident that it could not fit UPVC windows and front door as his property was within a conservation area. There was no evidence provided by it that it sought further advice from the local authority to confirm this. He had informed it his and neighbouring streets had UPVC windows and doors installed. The Ombudsman notes that there may be properties in the area which do not have timber frames, but this would not mean that the conservation area rules do not apply. There may be several reasons why not all properties have wooden doors and windows such as the rules changing over time and exceptions for medical reasons. The landlord however would be expected to make such enquiries.
  45. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the delays. This included time and trouble in continuing to report the matter to the landlord and chasing it requesting it complete the works. Its failure to provide clarity regarding if it was completing repairs or replacement and it not providing responses to his concerns regarding the health impact on his children and energy costs were further failings. For the failures identified its offer of redress was not sufficient and a finding of maladministration has been made.
  46. It must be clarified that this Service has not ordered the landlord to install UPVC windows and doors to the property. This decision will be dependent on the works required and any planning requirements in place at the location of the property.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request it replaces the front door and windows at his property.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the total sum of £800 comprising of the £650 compensation it has offered in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses plus an additional £150 for its failures in its handling of the resident’s request it replace the front door and windows at his property.
    3. Provide the resident with a report on the works it will be conducting to his windows and front door. This report must include details of any findings for the works required, its contact with the LA regarding his conservation area concerns and a timetable for it to complete the works identified.
    4. Contact the resident, confirm what vulnerabilities are in the household, and ensure its records are updated.
    5. Provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders.