From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Croydon (202419946)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419946

London Borough of Croydon

9 September 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 how the landlord handled the resident’s:
    1. request for rehousing on medical grounds.
    2. reports of:
      1. drafty windows.
      2. a faulty storage heater.
      3. various outstanding repairs.
      4. damage to personal possessions.
  2. This report has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat on the 11th floor of a block, which he has occupied since October 2017. The landlord, which is a local authority, owns and manages the property and let it to the resident under a secure tenancy agreement. The landlord has recorded that the resident has learning difficulties, and lives in the property with his children.
  2. On 14 August 2023 the resident reported that his windows were drafty and allowing water to seep through. He then raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 18 January 2024. He reported a number of repairs he wanted the landlord to address and added that:
    1. he had been waiting for his windows to be replaced for 6 years.
    2. the storage heater in his living room had caught fire and burnt his carpet.
    3. while carrying out previous repairs, operatives had damaged his washing machine.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 29 January 2024 and replied on 9 February 2024. It upheld the complaint and agreed that some of the issues had been outstanding “for some time”. It said it was due to inspect his property on 12 February 2024, and would raise and oversee the repairs to completion. It added that the damage to his carpet “should be covered” by his home contents insurance.
  4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 February 2024. He said he remained unhappy with the “disrepair” in his property and that the landlord had not mentioned the windows in its response. The resident wrote again on 8 April 2024 to say the repair issues were impacting his mental and physical health. He stated that he had taken time off work, only for repairs to be cancelled on the same day without notice. He added that he wanted the landlord to compensate him for the distress and inconvenience it had caused him.
  5. On 16 April 2024, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s continuing dissatisfaction as a stage 2 complaint. It sent him a final response on 4 July 2024 where it:
    1. appreciated the frustration caused when pre-arranged appointments were cancelled at short notice and without notification. It said it had discussed this with its contractor.
    2. stated that, although some repairs remained outstanding, most of them had been completed.
    3. explained his windows had previously been repaired and were “safe”. It acknowledged they were “in a poor condition generally” and would be replaced as part of a future planned maintenance programme.
    4. apologised for the delay in progressing the repairs he reported in January 2024.
    5. acknowledged its service had been poor and offered him compensation of £1,400. This was broken down as:
      1. £300 for delay in progressing repairs.
      2. £100 for delays in responding to complaints.
      3. £200 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
      4. £800 reimbursement for a damaged carpet and washing machine.
  6. On 21 August 2024, the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. He stated that he was dissatisfied with the compensation the landlord had offered. He added that numerous repairs remained outstanding and that he wanted the landlord to repair or replace his windows. We spoke to the resident on 28 August 2025, who told us that the landlord had still not completed several repairs, and that his windows “whistled” and allowed water and insects to enter his property.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for re-housing on medical grounds is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
  4. We are unable to investigate how the local authority handles applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). This includes how it maintains its social housing waiting list and any decisions it makes in line with its allocations policy. Complaints about applications for rehousing fall under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may be able to refer this element of his complaint to the LGSCO for further investigation if he remains dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Scope of complaint

  1. The resident has stated that the landlord’s lack of action in completing repairs has negatively impacted his mental and physical health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  2. The resident state that he had been having issues with the condition of his windows for 6 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords within 12 months of when they were aware of the issue. This is because, over time, evidence may be unavailable. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account, and the availability and reliability of evidence, we have used our discretion to focus on the period from August 2023 onwards. The records indicate that this was the beginning of the recent events that led to the resident raising a formal complaint.

Drafty windows

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has a responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord must keep windows, including sills, catches and frames in good repair.
  2. The landlord’s Repair Guide for Tenants commits to responding to urgent repairs within 24 hours. These are repairs that must be carried out quickly to remove danger, or a health and safety risk.
  3. According to the landlord’s records, the resident’s most recent reports of faulty windows was on 14 August 2023. He stated that they were drafty and let water seep through. The repair log shows the landlord raised an inspection on the same day. However, there is no evidence it took any further action.
  4. The landlord inspected the property on 12 February 2024, which was over 4 months after the resident first reported the issue. The landlord’s lack of action and poor communication would likely have caused the resident ongoing distress and inconvenience. This would also  have contributed to the delay the resident experienced
  5. The inspection raised work to overhaul and replace the mechanisms to the PVC tilt and turn windows. In an internal note dated 6 March 2024, the surveyor stated they did not think the repair would be successful and that the windows needed to be replaced. They went on to say that the “style of window” was unsuitable for a tower block as it could be fully opened. They added that they believed it was “only a matter of time” before there was a fall from one of the blocks. It is unclear whether the landlord had shared this information with the resident.
  6. Insecure windows are a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Furthermore, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) safety guidance states that landlords have a responsibility to manage the risk of falls from windows by adequately assessing the premises and the service users, including doing a risk assessment. Where the resident is identified as vulnerable to risk of falling from a height, and a window is large enough for a body to pass through, a restrictor should be fitted. This is so that the window could only open to 10cm or less.
  7. The Ombudsman’s report on Learning from Severe Maladministration on window-related complaints (August 2024) states that the risk to the residents safety should be a priority and landlords should make sure this is adequately assessed. It highlights the importance of undertaking timely inspections of homes where there is a report of window safety. If it is decided to replace windows as part of major works, landlords should consider what temporary repairs can be done. This includes fitting window restrictors if necessary. The report was not formally published until August 2024. However, the recommended actions highlight the good practice we would have expected landlords to follow prior to the publication of the report.
  8. There is no evidence the landlord acted on the surveyor’s concerns, or that it took any steps to assess or minimise any possible risks. It ought to have reasonably considered any temporary repairs to make the windows safe, such as fitting window restrictors.
  9. We note that, despite recommending works in February 2024 to overhaul the windows, it was not until July 2024 that contractors attended. This was around 5 months after the works were raised, and is further evidence of excessive delays, and poor repair management.
  10. There is a report from an inspection the landlord carried out on 12 July 2024. It stated that it had looked at the windows and found no faults with the locks and hinges. It said that the seals had previously been replaced and reported that it was not able to feel any drafts. The landlord is entitled to rely on the technical advice of its contractors about the condition of the windows. However, it missed an opportunity to reasonably consider the safety issues raised in its February 2024 inspection. It ought to have considered whether the installation of restrictors was required to mitigate the safety concerns it was already aware of. The landlord made no further assessment of the windows for 5 months. This was a failing.
  11. Given the seriousness of its failure to act appropriately in response to a potential safety hazard and delays in completing repairs, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration.

Faulty storage heater

  1. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Act 2004 to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. As previously mentioned in this report, this is informed by the HHSRS. These include electrical and fire hazards. It recommends that landlord carry out visual inspection of the electrical system and fixed appliances to identify obvious hazards. Where there appear to be deficiencies that increase risk above average, a full inspection and test by a qualified electrician may be necessary.
  2. As part of his stage 1 complaint on 18 January 2024, the resident reported that the storage heater in his living room caught fire, and burnt his carpet. In response to this, the landlord inspected the property 17 working days later, on 12 February 2024. It then raised a non-urgent repair to replace the storage heaters, which is completed on 12 June 2024.
  3. It is unclear why it did not raise an emergency repair in order to carry out safety checks. Given the nature of the concerns raised, and in line with its repairs policy, the landlord ought to have prioritised the mater as urgent. It did not arrange for a qualified electrician to inspect the electric heaters, and to ensure there were no further risks to the household. Its failure to do so was concerning to note given there were children living in the property.
  4. Furthermore, the landlord did not replace the heaters until over 3 months after the resident had reported the incident. The landlord has not offered any explanation of why it took it so long to carry out this work.
  5. Given the seriousness of the landlord’s failure to act appropriately in response to a potential safety hazard, and its lack of acknowledgement for this failing, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration. This also takes into account the landlord’s excessive delay in carrying out work to replace the existing storage heaters.

Various outstanding repairs

  1. As part of his stage 1 complaint, the resident reported a number of repairs including to the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans, shower, water cylinder and toilet.
  2. It took the landlord 63 working days to complete a number of those repairs, while others remained outstanding when the landlord issued its stage 2 response. The excessive delays represent a significant departure from its repairs policy, which commits to completing non-urgent repairs within 15 working days.
  3. Internal correspondence shows that some delays were caused by the need for additional parts, or the contractor ordering the wrong parts. There is no evidence the landlord explained this to the resident. We could not be satisfied therefore that it reasonably engaged with the resident about the delays.
  4. There is no evidence of effective contract monitoring by the landlord to ensure its contractors were providing a service that was in line with its repairs policy for completing repairs.
  5. It is not disputed by the landlord that its contractors had cancelled appointments at short notice, without informing the resident. This caused him avoidable disruption and inconvenience, particularly as he had to take time off work to allow access to operatives.
  6. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the time it had taken to progress the repairs. In addition, it offered him £350 in recognition of the delays, and £200 for distress and inconvenience, and for the resident’s time and trouble (total £550). This is in line with the levels of discretionary compensation outlined in its complaints policy. Furthermore, it acknowledged the cancellation of appointments has caused distress and inconvenience and told him it had discussed the issue with its contractor.
  7. We note the landlord’s efforts to put things right. However, there was no evidence the landlord had learnt from the complaint. Further, some of the repairs remained outstanding at the conclusion of the complaints process. While we will not order further redress, we have made a finding of service failure.

Damage to personal possessions

  1. The resident reported on 18 January 2024 that a faulty storage heater had burnt his carpet. In addition, he stated that during previous works, the landlord had damaged his washing machine. He asked it to reimburse him for the cost of those items.
  2. In its stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident that he should claim for those damages through his home contents insurance. It ought to have provided details of its own insurer, and information on how he could make a claim. This would have been reasonable as the resident felt the landlord had been liable for the damage. That it did not do so was a shortcoming.
  3. However, the landlord acted appropriately by exercising its discretion and offering the resident £800 at stage 2 to reimburse him for the damaged carpet and washing machine. This would have avoided any inconvenience to him of having to make an insurance claim. For this reason, we are satisfied the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2 stage formal complaints process. This states that it will:
    1. acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days.
    2. respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
    3. respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. It also states that, if a complaint is likely to take longer to resolve it will set and agree a revised timescale of no more than 10 (or 20 in the case of stage 2) working days as an extension. It will also keep the resident up to date on its progress. This is broadly in line with the Code.
  3. The landlord took 16 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. Furthermore, it took 45 working days to acknowledge his escalation request, and a further 55 working days to issue its stage 2 response. This demonstrates excessive and protracted complaint handling, and a departure from both its own complaints policy and the Code.
  4. The Code expects landlords to communicate and engage with residents through the complaints process. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to inform him there would be delays, provide a reason or to agree any revised timescales.
  5. Furthermore, the landlord failed to properly recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response, that he expressed on 12 February 2024. It ought to have asked him if he wished to escalate his complaint. Instead, the landlord advised him to raise the matter through its complaints team. By putting the onus on the resident to re-direct his complaint, the landlord demonstrated a lack of customer focus.
  6. The Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and address all aspects of a complaint. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about his windows in its stage 1 response. This was a departure from the Code. The records indicate that it had later sent him an amended response, which included a response regarding the windows. However, it has not provided us with a copy of its revised response.
  7. There is evidence the landlord had not properly checked its stage 1 response prior to issuing it. It stated that it had an appointment on Monday 12 January 2024 to inspect the property. This should have been 12 February 2024.
  8. The landlord offered the resident £100 in its stage 2 response in recognition of its delayed complaint handling. However, it did not properly acknowledge its failure to acknowledge the escalation request. Furthermore, it did not give any details of how it had learnt from the outcome of the complaint, or measures it would take to demonstrate it had addressed its failings. For this reason, we have made a finding of service failure and will order that the landlord to pay further redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about how the landlord handled the resident’s request for rehousing on medical grounds is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of drafty windows.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a faulty storage heater.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of various outstanding repairs.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses how it handled the resident’s reports of damage to personal possessions.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 7 working days of receiving this report, the landlord must inspect the windows in the property. It must evaluate any risks in line with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) safety guidance, and fit restrictors if necessary. The landlord must write to the Ombudsman within this timescale to confirm it has done this.
  2. Within 4 weeks of receiving this report, the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident, in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance. The apology should be made in writing and by a senior manager.
    2. Pay the resident the revised compensation amount of £1,850, which is calculated as follows:
      1. £500 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to respond to potential risks from unsafe windows, and delays in following up on recommendations to ‘overhaul’ them.
      2. £500 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to replace the storage heaters.
      3. £550 it had offered in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in progressing outstanding repairs, plus an additional £100.
      4. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
      5. this replaces the offer it made as part of its stage 2 response, and is in addition to the £800 it offered as reimbursement for damaged items. It should offset any monies already paid against the total compensation ordered by us.
    3. confirm to us whether it has completed all the works it had raised following its inspection on 12 February 2024. If not, the landlord must write to the resident with specific dates on which it will complete each of those remaining repairs. It must send the Ombudsman a copy of its letter within the above mentioned timescale.
  3. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must carry out a review of how it responds to reports of potential safety risks to its residents and its properties. It should consider whether it needs to take any measures to ensure hazards are responded to promptly and appropriately, and that any potential hazards are removed or minimised. Particular attention should be taken to how it responds to safety issues relating to windows, and electrical faults. The landlord may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s report on Learning from Severe Maladministration on window-related complaints, and HHSRS guidance as part of its review. It must write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of the review within the 10 weeks of receiving this report.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £800 it offered at stage 2 as reimbursement for the damaged carpet and washing machine. It should do this within 4 weeks of receiving this report.