North Kesteven District Council (202319679)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319679

North Kesteven District Council

21 May 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. the windows and doors in his property not retaining heat.
2. the cost of his ground heat pump.
3. damp and mould in the property.
This Service has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. He has lived in the property, a 3-bedroom semi-detached house, since May 2010. The household has known physical health conditions.
In 2021 a ground heat pump was installed at the resident’s property as an alternative to the pre-existing coal fired heating system. This was installed through the landlord’s disability grant adaptation scheme. In July 2022 the resident reported draughts from 2 lounge windows and 1 of the windows upstairs.
On 1 May 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He said:
1. the ground pump the landlord had installed was costing him over £15 per day. He was told by the landlord it would be cheap to run, but it was unaffordable.
2. the seals on the windows in his home were worn and the doors let in the cold. He had reported the windows to the landlord before, but nothing had been done to address this. He said he was told following an inspection some years ago that the windows needed replacing.
3. black mould had started to form upstairs due to the cold.
4. he was registered disabled, and his health problems were worsened by the cold. He said he felt neglected by the landlord.
On 30 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It said it had investigated and found that:
1. the heating system was installed in 2021. The records showed 2 call outs to review the system in 2022, but no further faults had been reported by the resident in 2023. In response to the complaint, the landlord said it would:
  1. arrange a service visit to ensure it was functioning correctly.
  2. arrange for the council’s domestic energy team to contact the resident to check he was on the best value tariff for the heating system.
2. the doors and windows for the property were installed in 2004, with a lifespan of 40 years. In August 2022 the landlord had replaced the mastic on 3 windows. Neither the engineer nor the resident had reported faults since. In response to the complaint, the landlord would arrange an inspection of the doors and windows. It would then decide whether they needed further works or replacement.
3. in respect of the damp and mould, it would contact the resident within the next week to arrange an assessment and subsequently complete any remedial works.
On 31 July 2023 the resident escalated the complaint. He:
1. reiterated his position on each of the 3 complaint aspects.
2. said that the landlord’s employee had not attended to inspect the windows and doors since the stage 1 complaint response. The resident said years ago an inspector arranged by the landlord informed him he would require new windows.
3. said it had taken an unacceptably long time to be contacted by the landlord’s contractor.
4. wanted the following to resolve the complaint:
  1. all the doors and windows to be replaced.
  2. the extractor fan in the bathroom moved from the wall to the ceiling to address the damp and mould.
  3. the black mould removed.
  4. financial assistance to run the heat pump, particularly in winter to address the risk to his health and asthma.
On 7 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. in respect of the doors and windows, the landlord had checked the heating system, but failed to instruct an energy officer to contact the resident. It apologised for the failing and said it had since asked the officer to contact him. It upheld this element of the complaint.
2. it had inspected the windows and doors on 25 May 2023 and raised an order on 1 June 2023. Contractors had attempted to gain access to the property 3 times, but the resident had refused them entry. This element of the complaint was not upheld.
3. there was no reason for the extractor fan to be repositioned to the ceiling. A replacement humidistat fan had been ordered to address the existing fans poor performance. This would ensure continuous circulation. The resident had refused this due to concerns regarding the cost and noise level. No concerns had been raised by other households with humidistat fans. The landlord was satisfied this was the most suitable solution. This element of the complaint was not upheld.
4. it had inspected and identified minimal evidence of damp and mould and the above solution was identified. The landlord had also contracted a service to fit loft insulation to assist with the area of damp and mould identified under the eaves. Due to access issues the contractor had not been able to complete these works. This element of the complaint was not upheld.
5. the contractor visited the resident on 7 June 2023. It did not feel this was an unacceptable length of time. This element of the complaint was not upheld.
The resident asked this Service to investigate the complaint in October 2023. He said that some of the glass in the windows had been replaced and loft insulation completed. He said that works to the windows and doors remained incomplete, and the damp and mould was still visible. He felt he was being failed as a disabled tenant of the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said the issues in the property have posed a risk to his health. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition that has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medical report. This will usually set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
As a result, these matters are better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim and if the resident wishes to pursue this concern, he may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to other issues he had raised with the landlord, including repairs to his kitchen in 2025. The resident has also mentioned surveys conducted, and advice provided by the landlord in 2021.
These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to us and it is unclear whether the resident raised these issues as a separate complaint with the landlord. Additionally, it is not possible for this Service to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of events dating back to 2021. The Ombudsman will only consider complaints which have been raised within a reasonable time of the events occurring.
This investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 1 May 2023. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the windows and doors not retaining heat
The landlord’s repairs and improvements handbook states that when a repair is reported, an appointment will be pre-arranged with the resident to investigate. The resident must provide access to carry out repairs and inspections. It says all emergency repairs must be carried out within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 days and all routine repairs within 20 days. It says it will keep the resident informed of any appointment time changes and monitor when appointments are missed by the contractor. It says that the lifespan for windows and external doors is 40 years.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced under the Housing Act 2004 addresses “Excess Cold” as a major hazard, focusing on the health impact of sub-optimal indoor temperatures. A landlord must ensure a property is adequately heated and insulated to provide a safe and healthy environment.
The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. Although this Service cannot assess whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act, we can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to its duties under the Act
The resident informed the landlord on 1 May 2023, through its complaints webform, that his windows and doors were ineffective at retaining heat. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that landlords must recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint and set this difference out in its complaints policy. The landlord categorised the resident’s contact as a complaint.
Given that this was the resident’s first communication with the landlord about his windows in over 9 months, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered whether to deal with this communication as a service request, and to clarify this with the resident. In logging the correspondence as a complaint, it denied itself the opportunity to try to put things right for the resident before going through its complaints procedure.
The records indicate that the landlord undertook a visit on 25 May 2023 and asked its contractor to inspect and provide a quote for further works on 1 June 2023. This included renewal works to the windows and doors. That the landlord investigated the issue was appropriate and in line with its repairs and improvements handbook. However, the investigation was 24 days after the issue was raised, which was not in line with its repairs timeframes. This was inappropriate.
The landlord responded to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response on 30 May 2023. It said it would attend to inspect the property. This position would have been reasonable, however, the resident responded on 2 June 2023 to advise the landlord that a visit had already taken place in May 2023. He said the landlord’s teams were not communicating with each other. Had the landlord’s internal record keeping and communication with the resident about previous appointments been clearer, it would have identified that an inspection had already taken place. This would have avoided the need for the resident to contact the landlord about the inspection.
On at least 2 occasions between 7 June and 14 July 2023 the resident told the landlord and the contractor that he was refusing them entry to the property. He asked the landlord for clarity on what works were confirmed. He said he refused access because the works were repairs and adjustments rather than replacement of the windows. He said this would not fix the issue and was not acceptable. The landlord reminded the resident about his contractual obligation to allow access for repairs, acknowledged his concerns and reassured him that any works would do what was necessary to ensure the windows were fit for purpose. The landlord was clear and responsive to the resident’s concerns. It acted reasonably in response to the resident’s refusal to allow entry at this stage.
By 14 July 2023, the window glazing contractor had inspected the property. That an inspection was completed by a specialist service and works identified was in line with the landlord’s repairs and improvements handbook. However, it is difficult for this Service to assess whether the landlord adhered to the timescales outlined in its repairs handbook because:
1. the landlord’s record keeping was poor in respect of the attempted inspection dates, its categorisation of repairs and the evidence of works orders. These were record keeping failings by the landlord.
2. the resident’s refusal of entry for repair works. Delays due to a refusal of access cannot be considered a failing by the landlord.
The contractor told the landlord on 14 July 2023 that it had identified the following issues:
1. the front door required new handles and would benefit from new seals.
2. the rear door required new seals. The glazing cassette was damaged, the parts were unavailable, and it was therefore non-repairable.
3. multiple replacement sealed units were needed for the windows in the lounge and all the bedrooms, as there were signs of condensation.
4. the hinges on the majority of the windows were working but not fully effective and may have been causing a draught. It was advisable they were replaced but this was not guaranteed to resolve the issues.
5. the handles on the windows were functioning but would possibly benefit from being replaced.
6. overall, the windows were coming to the end of their serviceable life. Repairs were possible (except for the door parts) but the contractor could not guarantee the repairs would significantly improve the overall function and heat loss/gain of the windows and doors.
The contractor’s conclusion that repairs may not resolve the issue was central to the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs states that whether a full replacement or a repair is required can be a source of dispute between a resident and landlord. In these instances, we would expect to see evidence explaining how the landlord has made its decision including any specialist technical advice.
The landlord decided to replace the glass in the downstairs windows. It approved re-sealant, hinge replacement and re-alignment for the other windows and doors. It did not raise an order to fully replace any of the doors or windows. It told the resident that the contractor had been instructed to do what was necessary to ensure the goods were fit for purpose.
It would have been fair and transparent for the landlord to have discussed the contractor’s concern regarding the impact of the repairs with the resident and explain more clearly its decision not to replace the windows and doors. The landlord was not acting fairly by not clearly explaining its reason to not replace the windows and doors, which was a failing when assessed against our dispute resolution principles.
The resident refused the contractor entry later in July 2023 and August 2023 because he disagreed with the proposed works. The landlord’s records show that it continued to communicate with the resident to urge him to allow access for works to be completed. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint due to the resident’s continual refusal of access. It is stipulated in the tenancy agreement that the resident must allow access for repairs. Despite the landlord’s failings, it was fair for it to acknowledge the difficulty presented by resident’s refusal to allow the contractors access.
In its stage 2 escalation the resident told the landlord that the contractors had taken too long to contact him to arrange works. The landlord did not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint. It said that the contractor had tried to visit the resident’s property on 7 June 2023, 7 days after the stage 1 complaint response. This was reasonable.
However, the landlord failed to inform the resident, at the time of his complaint or in its response, how it categorised the repairs or when he was expected to be contacted. This was a failing when assessed against the repairs and improvements handbook. Had it provided clarity to the resident on when he was likely to be contacted, it could have better managed the resident’s expectations about the repairs.
Sometime in September 2023 the resident allowed access for the window and door repair works. However, the records do not show exactly when this repair appointment took place, if all proposed works were completed or if the landlord had checked whether the repairs were effective in resolving the resident’s concerns about heat loss in the property. The resident has continued to report significant heat loss from the windows and doors.
The resident has raised his health and vulnerability as one of the key aspects of his complaint. There is no evidence the landlord considered whether any reasonable adjustments could be applied in its response to his concerns. This was unreasonable.
This Service acknowledges that a window glazing contractor undertook an inspection and some repairs were subsequently completed. However, given the resident’s reported vulnerability and his concerns about excess cold, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed an inspection of the insulation of the property in accordance with the HHSRS.
In summary, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his windows and doors not retaining heat because:
1. it failed to consider treating the initial correspondence as a service request.
2. the landlord’s record keeping was poor, and it did not decide on or communicate the repair category to the resident. This meant his expectations about the repairs were not managed.
3. it failed to justify or fairly communicate its decision to repair rather than replace the windows, in light of the contractor’s conclusion that repairs would not guarantee a significant improvement in the heat retention of the property.
4. it did not complete an inspection of the property in accordance with the HHSRS.
5. the landlord has not evidenced that it has considered the resident’s vulnerabilities in its response to his concerns about excess cold.
The resident told this Service that he felt he had been failed by the landlord. He said the living room was warmer, but the property overall was still very cold.
This Service has ordered the landlord to pay the resident £350 in recognition of the distress caused to the resident in its handling of his concerns about the doors and windows. The landlord must also complete an inspection of the property to address the resident’s concerns about the outstanding repairs and the heat loss, and communicate a plan to the resident with timescales for any required works.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the cost of the ground heat pump

The landlord’s repairs and improvements handbook states that issues with the electric meter and supply of electricity are the responsibility of the tenant and utility company. It says it is responsible for repairs to immersion heaters and electric storage heaters, if owned by the landlord. The handbook does not mention the responsibility for maintenance for an air source pump heater.
On 1 May 2023 the resident complained about the cost of running his air source heater. On 20 May 2023 the repair records show that the landlord attended to assess the heat pump. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. This Service cannot assess whether the landlord’s response was within the timescales outlined within its repairs and improvements handbook, because it did not categorise the repair, which was a failing.
As part of its complaint response on 30 May 2023 the landlord said it would arrange a visit to ensure the heat pump was working effectively. The landlord’s records shows that it had already attended the property prior to the complaint response. In line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) it is best practice for landlords to keep up to date repair records which are easily accessible to all staff. The poor communication within the landlord’s teams likely led to frustration for the resident, which was a failing.
In May 2023 the landlord said it would contact him to discuss the best value tariff. However, the landlord did not raise this request until after the stage 2 complaint escalation. To put things right, the landlord acknowledged and apologised this failing in its stage 2 response. However, it did not offer any financial redress to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay.
On 7 September 2023 the landlord’s records show that the landlord contacted the resident and discussed the best solution for an efficient heat supply. The landlord supported the resident to secure the cheapest tariff. The landlord found that the resident’s electricity usage was extremely high. It was reasonable that the landlord contacted the resident and supported him onto a lower tariff.
Overall we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the cost of the ground source heat pump. It took practical steps to support the resident with his payments, it took responsibility for ensuring the pump was working appropriately and visited to ensure this was the case. However, the landlord failed to recognise the impact caused to the resident by the delays in its responses. In addition, the landlord’s record keeping affected its ability to take appropriate and timely action. Accordingly, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its failings.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that when a resident reports damp, mould or excessive condensation, the landlord would contact the resident and discuss the problem. An officer would visit the property to carry out a full assessment within 10 working days of the initial report. The assessment would be undertaken in accordance with the HHSRS. Any visible mould growth would be removed within 5 working days of a request by the Repairs Team.
The policy states that following the inspection, any remedial works needed will be ordered and the priority for the work will be triaged based on the severity of the damp and mould and the specific vulnerability of the occupants of the property. All inspections would be recorded on a survey sheet. Findings would be discussed with the resident and the inspecting officer. It says the resident would receive a follow up 3, 6, 12 and 24 months from date of works to ensure they were successful.
The resident reported damp and mould as part of his initial correspondence on 1 May 2023. The landlord visited the property on the 25 May 2023 but there is no evidence this visit included an assessment in accordance with the HHSRS. In its complaint response on 30 May 2023, the landlord said it would arrange a visit to assess and complete remedial works afterwards if required. The landlord did not carry out a full assessment within 10 days of the initial report. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with its damp and mould policy.
On 1 June 2023 the landlord asked its contractor to check the loft insulation above the bathroom and all the bedrooms. It was concerned that cold spots caused by missing insulation were causing damp and mould. It was positive that the landlord was taking action to address the issue. However, it did not adhere to the steps outlined in its damp and mould policy, which was a failing.
In the resident’s stage 2 escalation on 31 July 2023, he reported that black mould had continued to develop on the ceiling and bathroom walls. He said he was worried about the risk to his health, particularly as he had asthma. He wanted the extractor fan in his bathroom to be moved from the wall to the ceiling. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint in respect of the damp and mould. On 9 September 2023 it said:
1. it had inspected and identified minimal evidence of damp and mould in the property.
2. it was unable to complete a cavity wall inspection due to the resident’s refusal to allow the landlord access. These delays cannot be attributed to the landlord.
3. it had identified the most suitable solution and arranged for a humidistat fan to be installed which would ensure circulation. It said the resident had refused this due to concerns around the noise it could produce and the cost. It said these concerns were not an issue with other residents and that the energy officer could allay his fears about costs.
There were attempts by the landlord to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould. However, when assessed against its own damp and mould policy, the landlord:
1. did not carry out an inspection within 10 days of the report.
2. failed to undertake an inspection in accordance with the HHSRS.
3. did not remove the mould growth it identified.
4. failed to prioritise its response in accordance with the specific vulnerability of the resident, despite the resident raising this as part of his complaint.
5. did not record the inspection on a survey sheet or discuss the findings with the resident and agree an action plan.
In December 2023 the landlord installed a fan in the resident’s bathroom. The landlord also completed some loft insulation works. However, the resident told this Service that there is still damp and mould still evident in the property. He said the landlord had not checked the cavity insulation. He has reported concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on his health.
In summary, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in his property for the above outlined reasons.
Given the concerns raised by the resident, we have ordered the landlord to undertake an inspection of the damp and mould in accordance with its own damp and mould procedure. It must send the resident and this Service a copy of the survey and timescales for agreed actions, if any are identified. The landlord must also pay the resident £400 compensation in recognition of the distress cause because of its failings.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s customer feedback policy says that stage 1 complaints would be acknowledged within 4 working days, and a complaint response would be issued within 15 days from the point it acknowledged the complaint. It stated that a stage 2 response would be provided within 15 working days of a complaint escalation. The policy at the time of the complaint was not compliant with the Code, which says the landlord must respond at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord has since updated its customer feedback policy to be compliant with the Code.
The complaint was raised on 1 May 2023. The acknowledgement was not sent until 12 May 2023, which was 8 working days later. This was outside the policy timeframe of 4 working days.
The landlord issued a deadline of 26 May 2023 for the investigation, which was 10 working days from acknowledgement. It did not provide a response until 30 May 2023, which was 1 working day later than agreed.
The resident escalated his request to stage 2 on 31 July 2023. The complaint was acknowledged on 5 September 2023, which was a delay outside the policy. The landlord said it would respond by 11 September 2023 and issued its response on 7 September 2023, which was reasonable.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord has updated its customer feedback policy since the complaint. However, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint because:
1. there were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. these delays were not communicated to the resident, nor acknowledged in its responses.
3. there was no evidence of learning from its failures or trying to put things right for the resident.
In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the windows and doors in his property not retaining heat.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the cost of the ground heat pump.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £950 in replacement of the offer made during the complaint procedure. This is comprised of:
  1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about the windows and doors not retaining heat.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about the cost of the ground heat pump.
  3. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould throughout the property.
  4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. contact the resident to arrange and undertake an inspection of the property in accordance with the HHSRS to:
  1. assess the resident’s reports of excess cold, with a focus on the heat retention by the windows and doors.
  2. assess the resident’s reports of damp and mould and then undertake any necessary works as outlined in its policy.
The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman and the resident within 14 days of the inspection, which must set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales to complete any repairs that are found to be outstanding.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the orders above within the specified timescales.