St Albans City and District Council (202417681)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417681

St Albans City and District Council

20 June 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:
1. handling of repairs to windows and external doors.
2. response to the resident’s request for compensation due to high heating bills.
3. response to the resident’s request for a new kitchen.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. Her tenancy of the property began on 27 November 2023. The property is a one bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has physical disabilities which include mobility issues and a chronic lung condition.
On 22 January 2024 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord (Complaint 1). She complained that her property was “freezing cold” and that this was affecting her health. She suggested this was due to the radiators in the property not heating up as they should, and also because the windows and external doors allowed cold air in. She said that the landlord was aware of these issues but had done nothing to resolve them. She asked it to upgrade the radiators, windows and doors in the property.
A Senior Building Surveyor (Surveyor 1) of the landlord attended the property on 1 February 2024. He tested all the radiators and was satisfied they were working properly. He discussed this with the resident while on site. She explained that once the radiators went off, the property did not retain the heat. Surveyor 1 advised her that the landlord had already agreed to install cavity wall insultation in the property following an inspection in December 2023. He said he would keep her updated on when this work would go ahead. He told her that the landlord would also install a larger radiator in the bedroom and move the thermostat to improve the functionality of the heating system.
Surveyor 1 recorded in his notes of his inspection on 1 February 2024 that he agreed on site with the resident that the landlord could close Complaint 1. Shortly after this, the landlord installed the larger radiator in the bedroom and moved the thermostat.
On 8 February 2024 the resident emailed Surveyor 1 and said she had not yet heard anything from the landlord about repairs to her external doors. She explained the rear patio rear doors were leaking to the extent she had to mop and move furniture out of the way. She said the front door was also letting rain in.
On 12 February 2024 the resident submitted another formal complaint to the landlord (Complaint 2). She explained that a Project Surveyor (Surveyor 2) had just attended her property to inspect the windows and doors. She said it was the fourth time he had been at the property and he had seen the doors were leaking and there was condensation on the windows. However, at the most recent visit he had used a thermal camera and determined that the windows or doors did not need to be upgraded. She said, “I can’t live like this anymore its making me unwell mentally and physically”.
Surveyor 1 and Surveyor 2 attended the property together on 16 February 2024 to inspect the external doors and windows, as well as various other repair issues in the property. This included the cavity wall insultation, bathroom and decorative repairs.
On 6 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to Complaint 2. It said:
1. It had determined from its inspections that the windows and external door issues could be resolved as “day to day” repairs. It could therefore not justify replacing them as they went through a full replacement in 2012. The usual life expectancy of windows and doors was 30 years.
2. The water penetration in the patio doors and front door was because they were not watertight to the building. It was not due to a failure of the doors themselves.
3. Since its last visit to the property, it had:
  1. repaired the patio doors.
  2. installed new extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom which would alleviate condensation forming on the windows.
The landlord also gave an update on the cavity wall insulation within the stage 1 response to Complaint 2. It explained that a survey of the property under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) in 2021 did not identify excess cold as a hazard. However, a borescope survey in December 2023 identified that it could improve the cavity wall insulation. The landlord intended to install this but first needed to complete some remedial works. It said in the stage 1 response it would be in contact with the resident to arrange a further survey prior to this work taking place.
On 10 March 2024 the resident submitted another formal complaint to the landlord (Complaint 3). She complained that the property was not retaining heat and was so cold she could see her breath within 15 to 20 minutes of the radiators switching off. She outlined the impact this had on her health, including that she had suffered from severe chest infections and pneumonia. As an outcome to her complaint she wanted the landlord to complete the insulation works as a matter of urgency. She also said she wanted it to compensate her for the £600 gas bill she had received as a result of the heating issues in the property. She said this had left her in debt and affected her mental health.
On 11 March 2024 the resident emailed Surveyor 1 to advise that a number of repair issues in the property were outstanding, including that doors were not fitted properly. She did not specify if she was referring to internal or external doors. She also reported that the front door and previously repaired patio doors were continuing to leak.
On 20 March 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 2 to stage 2. She asked it to reconsider its decision not to replace the windows and external doors. She said they were allowing heat to escape and that the front door did not close properly.
On the same day, 20 March 2024, Surveyor 1 attended the property with a cavity wall insultation contractor. Surveyor 1 returned to the property on 26 March 2024 with the contractor who would be carrying out the remedial works that were required before the insultation was installed. During both visits Surveyor 1 and the contractors scoped out the extent of the works required and discussed this on site with the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to Complaint 3 on 2 April 2024. It said:
1. The remedial works it intended to carry out prior to installing the cavity wall insulation, involved installing French drains around the property. This would ensure rainwater coming from external walls ran away from the property.
2. The cost of the drainage work required it to initiate a statutory ‘section 20’ consultation with a leaseholder in an upstairs flat. Once this process was complete, its contractor would install the drains within 28 working days.
3. It anticipated it would install the cavity wall insultation in June 2024.
4. The Energy Performance Certificate for the property was graded a ‘C’ which was the category the “vast majority” of its housing stock fell under. It believed the gas bills incurred by the resident fell within what would be expected for a property with a ‘C’ grading. It therefore would not offer her compensation for her heating bills. It hoped the French drains and cavity wall insultation would assist with the efficiency of the property going forward.
On 3 April 2024 the resident requested a stage 2 review of Complaint 3. She asked the landlord to reconsider its decision not to compensate her for heating bills as she said they were high due to “inadequate insulation” in the property.
On 3 April 2024 and 7 May 2024 the resident emailed Surveyor 1 again to express the same concerns outlined in her email of 11 March 2024 about doors not being properly fitted. The Surveyor responded on 7 May 2024 and told her he would look at the doors again as he was already due to attend the property to look at adaptations required in the bathroom.
In June 2024 the landlord installed the cavity wall insulation in the property. The resident raised a further formal complaint (Complaint 4) on 5 June 2024 while the insulation work was ongoing. She complained about the short notice it had given her before starting the work, the disruption it was causing, that holes had been drilled internally and that the dust this created could impact her health.
The landlord attended the property on 19 June 2024 to inspect the insultation work that had been carried out. It was satisfied with the work but identified there was some minor repairs required to drill holes inside the property. It issued its stage 1 response to Complaint 4 on 20 June 2024 and apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident while the insulation work had been ongoing.
Prior to issuing its stage 2 response to Complaint 2 (windows and external doors) and Complaint 3 (heating bills), the investigating officer (an Asset Manager) along with other relevant staff members attended the property on 3 July and 23 July 2024. The purpose of their visits was twofold. Firstly, it was to speak to the resident about Complaint 2 and Complaint 3. Secondly, it was to assess a number of other repairs and adaptations required in the property. The adaptations included modifications to the kitchen and utility room to make them more accessible to the resident.
Following the 23 July 2024 visit, the resident on the same day raised a further formal complaint with the landlord (Complaint 5). She said the Asset Manager told her during the 3 July 2024 visit that the landlord would fit a new kitchen as part of the adaptation works. However, he told her during the visit on 23 July 2024 that the landlord would make changes to the kitchen but would not replace it. She asked the landlord to reconsider this decision.
On 30 July 2024 the landlord issued a complaint response letter that combined the stage 2 response to Complaint 2 and Complaint 3, and the stage 1 response to Complaint 5. It responded as follows in relation to each:
1. Complaint 2 (stage 2) – it had agreed following its 2 visits to the property earlier that month to replace the front door and carry out some repairs to the exterior of the windows.
2. Complaint 3 (stage 2) – it would not compensate the resident for her heating bills. It was satisfied the property had sufficient heating and insultation for the property type.
3. Complaint 5 (stage 1) – it would only fully replace a kitchen if it was at the end of its life expectancy or was unsafe to use. It was satisfied the resident’s kitchen was in good working. It therefore would not replace it when carrying out the adaptation work in the kitchen and utility room.
The landlord set out within the 30 July 2024 complaint response a list of other repairs and adaptations it had agreed to carry out. The repairs included external works such as clearing guttering and repairing a path, and internal works to flooring, decoration and minor electrical repairs. The adaptations included a full replacement of the bathroom and works to the outside patio and paving areas.
The landlord said in the complaint response that the Asset Manager had spoken to her on the phone the previous day to discuss all the pending works. It said it would arrange for her to have a single point of contact for the repair works and another for the adaptation works. It apologised for the inconvenience all the required works had caused her. It said that once the works were completed, the Asset Manager would visit her again, but that she could contact him at any time if she wanted to discuss anything further.
Upon receiving the 30 July 2024 complaint response, the resident immediately emailed the landlord back to advise she did not agree with its decision not to replace the kitchen. She said she would refer the matter to the Ombudsman if it did not change its mind. She said an external side door also needed to be replaced as it was leaking. There then followed some email correspondence back and forth between the resident and landlord over the next 2 weeks about both issues. The landlord advised her that it would inspect the side door but that it would not replace the kitchen.
The resident subsequently referred her complaints to the Ombudsman for investigation. She told us the main outcome she sought was for the landlord to replace the kitchen and to complete all outstanding repairs and adaptations in the property. The complaint became one we could investigate on 4 April 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s remit is to investigate complaints that have completed the landlord’s complaints process. In other words, complaints to which the landlord has issued a stage 2 response. We will usually only consider complaints that have not completed both stages of the landlord’s internal process if there is evidence of a complaint handling failure by the landlord. For example, if the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response or asked for a review, but the landlord failed to escalate it to stage 2.
Throughout 2024 the resident was in regular contact by email and telephone with the landlord about a wide range of repair issues and adaptations. Various operatives and contractors of the landlord attended the property throughout the year to carry out inspections and some works. During this time the resident raised at least 6 formal complaints with the landlord. She also raised some concerns through email correspondence, rather than as a formal complaint, about the progress of the repairs and adaptations.
While we recognise the resident was inconvenienced and frustrated by the landlord’s approach to the wider scheme of works required in the property, our investigation is limited to:
1. Windows and external door repairs (as raised in Complaint 2) and compensation for heating bills (as raised in Complaint 3). Complaints 2 and 3 are the only complaints that the landlord investigated and responded to at stage 2.
2. Complaint 5 (kitchen replacement) as we have found within our complaint handling assessment, set out below, the landlord ought to have escalated this to stage 2. That it did not do so was a complaint handling failure. We are therefore able to investigate this complaint despite the landlord not issuing a stage 2 response.
We have also seen no evidence that the resident asked to escalate any of her other complaints and the landlord failed to issue a stage 2 response. We also have seen no evidence that she asked to formally complain about any of her other concerns relating to the adaptations and wider repair works. Therefore our investigation is limited to assessing the landlord’s response to the issues raised by the resident in Complaints 2, 3 and 5.
The landlord recently advised us that it has put on hold the adaptation works. It told us this was at the resident’s request as she is now on its transfer list for a move to a property that would better suit her needs. While we note this, we would advise the resident to continue reporting any repair issues arising within her current property to the landlord. Although the adaptation works may be on hold, the landlord’s repair obligations continue while the resident remains in the property. If the resident has any concerns about its response to any reported repair issues, she may raise further formal complaints with it.

Handling of repairs to windows and external doors

The landlord is required by section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes windows and external doors.
The landlord’s repairs handbook requires it to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and other repairs at the “resident’s convenience”. The handbook states that this will normally be within 28 days unless there are “exceptional circumstances”.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 4 January 2024 in which she advised it that the windows and patio doors in the property were letting cold air in. She also said that the patio doors were leaking when it rained. She raised the same issues again, including that the front door was leaking also, within Complaint 1 which she submitted on 22 January 2024.
The landlord closed Complaint 1 off as having been “informally resolved” following its inspection of the property on 1 February 2024. However, its records suggest its discussion with the resident at that inspection focussed only on the radiators and insultation in the property. It therefore had not resolved her concerns about the windows and doors and prematurely closed her complaint. We have considered this further below within our complaint handling assessment.
This led to the resident contacting the landlord again by email on 6 February 2024 to ask what it intended to do about the windows, patio doors and front door. The landlord then arranged a further visit to the property. We have not seen records of this visit but it appears to have advised the resident following its inspection that it would repair, rather than replace, the windows and external doors. This led to her submitting Complaint 2 on 12 February 2024 in which she asked the landlord to reconsider its decision not to replace them.
By the time the landlord issued its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 on 6 March 2023, it had carried out a repair to the rear patio doors. However, based on the records it provided, it had not yet raised any works orders in relation to the front door or windows.
It was reasonable for the landlord to suggest in the stage 1 response that it could resolve the issues with the front door and windows as “day to day” repairs rather than replace these. It based that decision on its inspection findings. It explained that the windows and doors were only 12 years old and had not reached the end of their life expectancy. This was in line with the Decent Homes Standard which suggests the usual life expectancy of windows and doors is 30 years. However, it was unreasonable that it did not acknowledge it had delayed in raising works orders and completing the repairs given the resident had first reported the issues over 2 months previously. It had failed to complete the repairs within 28 days as set out in its repairs handbook.
There was then a gap of over 4 months before the landlord issued the stage 2 response to Complaint 2 on 30 July 2024. Given it had committed to carry out repairs in the stage 1 response, we would have expected it to have completed all the work by the time of the stage 2 response. However, according to its repair records it raised no works order relating to the windows or front door during this time. This was a further failing to comply the timescales as set out in its repairs handbook.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 11 March 2024 in which she reported that doors were not fitted properly. It is unclear if she was referring to internal or external doors. However, within the email she also reported that the front door and previously repaired rear patio doors were continuing to leak. We have seen no evidence the landlord acknowledged or responded to this email. This was inappropriate. The resident sent 2 further emails to the landlord on 3 April 2024 and 7 May 2024 in which she said doors were not fitted properly. It responded to the 7 May 2024 email and suggested it would look at the doors again when it was visiting the property to look at adaptation works.
From the records the landlord provided, it appears to have delayed in carrying out this further inspection. It visited the property on 19 June 2024 but that was to inspect the insulation work which it had completed that month. Its records suggest it was 3 July 2024 before it attended the property with the specific purpose of discussing Complaint 2. This was an unreasonable delay of a further 3 months in responding to her reports of ongoing issues with the windows, front door and a failed repair to the patio doors.
The landlord advised the resident in its stage 2 response to Complaint 2 on 30 July 2024 that it would replace the front door and carry out some repairs to the exterior of the windows. It reasonably suggested that the resident would have a single point of contact who would coordinate this work along with other repairs detailed in the response letter. It appropriately apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused to her while it attended to all the repairs. However, it failed to:
1. Acknowledge that it had delayed far beyond the 28 day timeframe set out in its repairs handbook for completing the work to the windows and front door.
2. Address the resident’s reports that the previous repair to the rear patio doors had not been successful and that it was still leaking.
Overall, we find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to windows and external doors. The resident reported the windows were allowing cold air into the property, and that the patio doors and front door were leaking, in early January 2024. By the time of its stage 2 response to her complaint over 6 months later in July 2024, the landlord had still not resolved these issues. This was an excessive delay in addressing what it described as “day to day” repairs.
It is evident from the resident’s communications with the landlord during this time that the lack of a resolution, and repeated inspections, caused her distress and inconvenience. She spent unnecessary time and trouble chasing it for updates on the repairs. Given this, and in line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its maladministration.
We note that following its stage 2 response, the landlord followed through with the window repairs and it replaced the front door on 30 August 2024. The resident had by then also raised concerns that a side door in the property was also leaking. The landlord replaced the side door on 13 February 2025. The landlord advised us recently that it intends to carry out further repairs to the patio doors at the rear of the property. Given this, we make no orders in relation to window or door repairs. However, if the resident is concerned that any repairs remain outstanding, she should discuss this with the landlord. If she is unhappy with its response, she may raise a further complaint.

Response to the resident’s request for compensation due to high heating bills

The resident suggested that the landlord should compensate her for her heating bills as they were high because the house would not retain heat. She said she was in debt as a result and her mental health had been affected. She raised this in both Complaint 3 in March 2024.
The landlord explained in its stage 1 response to Complaint 3 that the cavity wall insulation would help with heat retention. It had decided it would install this in the property following a survey in December 2023. It completed the work 6 months later in June 2024. This was a reasonable timeframe for the completion of the works which were a ‘planned improvement’ in line with its repairs policy rather than a responsive repair.
The reason it took the landlord 6 months to install the insulation was because it was first trying to resolve issues with drainage away from the walls of the property. It made practical sense to resolve this prior to filling the walls with insultation that could become compromised by damp. It explained this in its response to Complaint 3.
We note that during the 6 months the resident was awaiting the insultation being installed, the landlord also tested and checked all radiators in the property were working. It installed a new larger radiator in the bedroom and moved the thermostat to improve the functionality of the heating system. It was appropriate it completed this work promptly given the resident’s known health conditions and concerns about cold.
We are therefore satisfied that there was not a delay in the landlord fulfilling a repair obligation that could be directly attributable to the larger heating bills. That it had not yet installed the cavity wall insultation by the time the resident raised Complaint 3 in March 2024 was not a failing. It was under no obligation to compensate her for the heating bills but it still considered her requests. It reasonably explained in its complaint responses that the gas bills for the property were what it would expect for a property graded as a ‘C’ by an Energy Performance Certificate. It said that most of its housing stock had a ‘C’ grading. It therefore reasonably concluded that it would not compensate the resident for her heating bills.
We note that the landlord also emailed the resident details of a local support scheme that supported residents facing an immediate financial crisis. It sent her this information the day after it received Complaint 3 in which she first raised her financial concerns. That it provided this signposting information immediately, rather than awaiting 2 weeks and providing it within the stage 1 response to Complaint 3, was good practice and demonstrated empathy.
Overall, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation due to high heating bills. It was not obliged to compensate her and clearly explained the reasoning for its decision not to do so in its complaint responses.

Response to the resident’s request for a new kitchen

The statutory repairing obligation under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 does not extend to kitchen units. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not specify that the landlord will keep the units in repair. However, its repairs handbook suggests that residents are only responsible for white goods and minor repairs within the kitchen such as handles. This implies that the landlord is responsible for keeping the units in repair.
In line with the Decent Homes Standard, kitchens should have adequate space and layout, and be “reasonably modern”. The Standard defines this as being 20 years old or less.
The landlord agreed with the resident during visits to her property on 3 and 23 July 2024 that it would adapt her kitchen and utility room to improve their accessibility. This was based on recommendations it received from an occupational therapist. The kitchen adaptations involved removing a base unit and part of the worktop to allow greater movement within the room, as well as replacement flooring and redecoration.
During the landlord’s visit to the property on 23 July 2024, it informed the resident it would not be replacing all the old units with new units when carrying out the adaptation work. The resident submitted a formal complaint about that decision later that same day (Complaint 5).
In its stage 1 response to Complaint 5, the landlord explained that it would only carry out a full kitchen refurbishment if it was at the end of its life expectancy or was unsafe. It said it had inspected her kitchen and was satisfied it was in good working order. This was a reasonable response. The landlord was not obliged to replace the units if they were in a decent state of repair and had not reached the end of their life expectancy as defined by the Decent Homes Standard.
When the resident received the stage 1 response to Complaint 5, she emailed the landlord and asked it to reconsider its decision. She said she did not accept she had a “safe kitchen” on the basis there was mould behind the units which had been caused by previous leaks in the sink area. The landlord responded informally by email rather than escalating the complaint to stage 2. It advised the resident that it accepted there was discolouration in the wall behind the units due to the leak. It said it would address any issues such as this when it was carrying out the adaptation work in the kitchen.
That the landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 was a complaint handling failure which we have assessed in the next section below. However, in relation to the substantive issue of the kitchen, that it maintained its position that it would not replace it was, in our view, reasonable at that time.
While the resident was of the view there was mould behind the units, and the landlord was of the view it was discolouration only, neither issue obliged the landlord to replace the kitchen. The landlord instead reasonably suggested that it would carry out further investigations and resolve any issues when completing the adaptation work.
Overall, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new kitchen. It was satisfied, having carried out 2 inspections, that the kitchen units were in good working order and that there was no justification for it to carry out a full refurbishment. This was a reasonable decision made in the context of it being a social housing landlord with a limited budget and resources.
If the resident remains concerned there are any ongoing issues with damp or mould behind her kitchen units, she should continue to report this to the landlord. If she is unhappy with its response, she may raise a further complaint.

Complaint handling

Based on our assessment of Complaints 2, 3 and 5, we have found the following complaint handling failures:
1. Complaint 2 concerned repairs to windows and doors. The resident raised these same issues in Complaint 1 which she submitted on 22 January 2024. Complaint 1 also included the resident’s concerns that her radiators were not effective. The landlord attempted to informally resolve Complaint 1 by attending the resident’s property and agreeing remedial action. However, based on its records of the inspection, its discussion with the resident and actions agreed appear to have centred on the radiator issue, with no mention of the windows or doors. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord closed Complaint 1 off as having been informally resolved when it had not addressed all aspects of it. It also failed to confirm to the resident in writing that it considered the complaint had been informally resolved. This caused the resident time and trouble as it led to her having to raise a further complaint about windows and doors (Complaint 2).
2. The resident asked to escalate Complaint 2 on 20 March 2024 and Complaint 3 on 3 April 2024. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 response to both for over 4 months until 30 July 2024. This far exceeded the 20 working day timeframe within which it ought to have responded in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). We have seen no evidence it told the resident during this time its response would be delayed. It did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in the stage 2 response.
3. The landlord combined within one letter its stage 1 response to Complaint 5 and its stage 2 responses to Complaints 2 and 3. The combined response was issued on 30 July 2024. While this was acceptable, the letter concluded by explaining that the internal complaints process was concluded and the resident could refer her complaints to the Ombudsman. That was only true in relation to Complaints 2 and 3. The landlord failed to clarify that if the resident was unhappy with its response to Complaint 5, she could ask for a stage 2 review of it.
The lack of clarity about next steps within the 30 July 2024 complaint response appears to have created confusion for both the resident and the landlord. She emailed it 3 days after receiving the letter. She told it she did not agree with its response to Complaint 5 and asked it to review its decision not to replace the kitchen. She said that she would refer the matter to the Ombudsman if it did not change its mind.
The same officer who issued the stage 1 response to Complaint 5 on 30 July 2024 replied to the resident informally by email. He told her the landlord’s decision regarding the kitchen was final. This was not in compliance with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code which require it to operate a 2 stage complaints process, with a different investigating officer at each stage. That the landlord did not escalate Complaint 5 to stage 2 when the resident clearly asked it to reconsider its stage 1 decision was a further complaint handling failure.
The landlord received numerous complaints with overlapping issues from the resident within a short space of time. With the exception of the issues identified above, we acknowledge that it appropriately accepted and responded to each complaint within the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. However, overall we have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling due to the number of failures we have identified.
The resident spent time and trouble raising 2 complaints with the landlord about windows and doors (Complaint 1 and Complaint 2). This was due to it inappropriately closing Complaint 1 off as having been informally resolved. She also spent time and trouble chasing it for updates about the window and door repairs and heating bills during the 4 month period in which it delayed issuing its stage 2 response to Complaints 2 and 3. Had it issued its stage 2 response sooner, this may have reduced the number of times she felt compelled to seek updates. We therefore order it to pay her £200 compensation in line with our remedies guidance for her time and trouble.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to windows and external doors.
2. No maladaministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation due to high heating bills.
3. No maladaministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new kitchen.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £500 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £300 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble due to the maladministration in its handling of repairs to windows and external doors.
  2. £200 for her time and trouble due to the maladministration in its complaint handling.