NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited (202444126)

Decision
Case ID	202444126
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	10 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a house. The resident complained to the landlord that it had not dealt with issues with the property’s rear patio doors. The landlord said it would replace the doors’ locking mechanism but later decided to replace the doors. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final offer of compensation. She said it did not reflect the stress and inconvenience she had experienced or adequately compensate her for increased gas bills.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. handling of repairs to the property’s rear patio doors.
   2. handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of repairs to the property’s rear doors.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of repairs to the rear doors

5. The landlord completed timely, temporary repairs to the rear doors but there was an unreasonable delay in finding a permanent solution. Despite identifying that the doors needed replacing, the landlord did not follow-up within a reasonable timeframe and it took 9 months for the doors to be replaced. Poor record keeping and communication meant that the resident had to chase progress while she continued to experience security concerns and draughts. The landlord acknowledged its failings during the complaints process, committed to replace the doors, and offered £500 compensation, which was an appropriate resolution to the complaint.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was delayed and it did not acknowledge or explain this during its complaints process. It did not offer an apology or consider redress for this. The landlord did not document the escalation of the complaint and, although the stage 2 response was on time, it did not address the resident’s request for compensation for increased heating costs. The landlord asked for evidence of increased costs but it did not explain if/how this was used in its calculation of compensation.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order   The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 08 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaints handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 08 December 2025
3	Considering compensation for heating costs The landlord must invite the resident to provide any additional evidence it needs to consider compensation for increased heating costs, in line with its policies and procedures, and our remedies guidance. This order is made in addition to the £500 already offered in its final complaint response for the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced. It should consider this evidence and write to the resident to explain its decision by the due date. If the landlord decides compensation should be paid, it should arrange for this to be paid within 2 weeks of its decision.	No later than 08 December 2025

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord review its record keeping processes, to make sure that its contractors record adequate details of the outcome of all repairs appointments, and that all complaint correspondence is retained.
We recommend that the landlord re-offer the resident the £500 compensation offered in its final complaint response, if this has not already been paid to her.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 May 2024 to 23 May 2024	The resident reported that the property’s rear patio doors were not locking, and the property was not secure. She said she had experienced issues with the doors since moving into the property and that the developer was due to replace them, but this did not happen. The landlord completed a temporary repair, but the resident later reported that the glass had smashed because she now had to slam the door shut. The landlord raised a job to replace the back doors.
2 September 2024	The resident called to chase the patio door replacement. The landlord told her it had cancelled the job because it could not replace that type of door. The landlord advised the resident not to use the doors if possible while it considered a solution.
21 October 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about its failure to repair or replace the patio doors. The resident said the doors were draughty and asked for compensation for increased gas bills to heat the property. She was also concerned about safety because of the cracked glass.
11 December 2024	The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. It said that it had scheduled fitting the new lock mechanism and glass on 9 December 2024. The landlord said it believed the developer had dealt with the historical issues with the patio doors. It said it had noted the need to improve its communication, both with customers and internally, and to provide updates. It offered the resident £75 compensation.
12 December 2024	The resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the offer of £75 compensation.
10 January 2025	The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process. It said the resident requested new rear patio doors and around £3,000 compensation for increased heating costs. It confirmed it would replace the rear doors and increased its offer of compensation to £500.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She does not feel that its offer of compensation reflects the stress and inconvenience she experienced, or the time and trouble she spent chasing the issue. She also wants the landlord to compensate her for increased fuel costs because of draughts from the ill-fitting doors.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of repairs to the rear doors
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not looked at

7. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident told us that she has had problems with the rear doors since moving into the property in March 2020. The landlord’s first record of a report of issues with the doors is from 3 July 2021. The resident raised a formal complaint on 21 October 2024. We have focused our investigation on the events since 21 October 2023, as there is no evidence that the resident raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when she became aware of the issue. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. The earlier history of issues with the doors provides relevant context and we have mentioned this when assessing how the landlord responded for context.

Landlord’s handling of repairs to the rear doors

8. The resident reported that the rear patio doors were not locking on 17 May 2024. The landlord arranged a same day appointment to complete a temporary repair. This was in line with its repairs policy, which says that, where there is a risk to the security of the property, the landlord will attend within 24 hours.
9. On 20 May 2024, the resident reported that the glass in the rear doors had smashed, and an operative attended an out of hours appointment the same day. They recorded that the doors should be replaced. The landlord took appropriate action when the resident first reported the issue. It attended within the timescales in its repairs policy and identified further works to permanently resolve the issue.
10. The landlord contacted the resident on 23 May 2024 to confirm what works its operative completed at the out of hours appointment and whether the glass was still smashed. The resident said the glass had not been repaired but the operative had replaced the lock. The landlord should have adequate processes in place to make sure that its operatives and contractors record the outcome of appointments and any follow-up actions. Although it acted appropriately to confirm whether a temporary repair was needed, it would not have needed to do this if its records had been adequate.
11. Where a repair will not resolve the issue and the landlord needs to replace an item, we would expect the landlord to act on the advice of its operative, to record the action it was taking, and to monitor the progress of the repair. The landlord should complete the works within a reasonable time and keep the resident informed.
12. Jobs raised on 17 May 2024 and 20 May 2024 to measure up for replacement rear doors were both cancelled. There is no evidence that the landlord revisited the job until August 2024, when it discussed whether this was a wider issue involving other properties and referred the matter to its “complex and development team”. Although it was reasonable to consider involving the developer, given their previous involvement, the resident was not updated. The door repair was the responsibility of the landlord under the terms of the tenancy agreement. There is no evidence that it took the necessary action to progress a permanent repair, or to replace the doors, after the appointment of 20 May 2024.
13. When the resident called to follow up on the repair on 2 September 2024, she said she had to use force to close the doors, and she repeated concerns about the broken glass. It was not appropriate that the landlord advised her to avoid using the doors and then did nothing to progress the repair. The landlord should have considered re-inspecting or taken steps to repair or replace the doors at that time.
14. The landlord did not re-inspect until 2 December 2024, which was 3 months later and after the resident made a complaint on 21 October 2024. This was unreasonable. The operative concluded that the doors could be repaired, and the landlord ordered a new locking mechanism and replacement glass. The inspection was over 6 months after the landlord was made aware of the broken glass in May 2024, which is far outside its repairs timeframe of 7 working days for “urgent” repairs that may become a security risk.
15. The landlord could have better managed the resident’s expectations about how it would deal with the repair. The landlord must make cost-effective choices, and it is entitled to rely on the advice of its operatives, but the delayed decision not to replace the doors caused the resident frustration and disappointment. There is no evidence that the landlord explained the decision to her, which would have been appropriate given that she had been trying to organise the replacement since 2021.
16. The resident thought that an operative would attend to fit a new locking mechanism and glass on 9 December 2024. The operative could not complete the repair at that appointment, as they needed to measure up and order supplies. This caused the resident more disappointment and inconvenience.
17. The landlord scheduled the repair for 19 December 2024, but it is not clear from the landlord’s records whether the appointment went ahead. The landlord must keep full and accurate records of all repairs appointments.
18. On 23 December 2024, the landlord requested that its contractor replace the doors because the resident was still experiencing draughts and excess cold after multiple repairs. The resident first raised concerns about draughts and the effect on her gas bill on 20 May 2024. She mentioned this again in the formal complaint of 21 October 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed the draughts and took this into consideration in its decision about whether to repair or replace the doors.
19. In total, there was a delay of 9 months between the landlord identifying that the door needed replacing on 17 May 2024 and the completion of the repair on 25 February 2025. The landlord did arrange temporary repairs, and we acknowledge that it received conflicting advice from operatives about whether a replacement was needed. Overall, the landlord did not do enough to resolve the issue within a reasonable timeframe, and it failed to consider the resident’s reports of draughts when considering what action to take.
20. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response of 11 December 2024 that its communication with the resident was poor. In its final response of 10 January 2025, it said it had decided to replace the doors. This shows that the landlord was open to learning from the complaint and to findings a solution that would be acceptable to the resident.
21. The landlord also apologised and offered the resident £500 compensation. This amount is in line with the range of compensation suggested in our remedies guidance, where the landlord’s failings have negatively affected a resident over a period of time. We are satisfied that the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident that satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of repairs to the rear doors. This sum is in line with what we would award to recognise the stress and inconvenience the resident experienced, and the time and trouble she took to pursue the issue. We have therefore recommended that the landlord re-offer the resident the £500 compensation offered in its final complaint response, if this has not already been paid to her. We have considered the resident’s request for compensation for increased gas bills in the complaints handling section below.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

22. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It has not provided a copy of its complaints procedure, but its policy says this is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code says that landlords should acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days. The landlord should provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
23. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 21 October 2024 the same day. The landlord did not provide a stage 1 complaint response until 11 December 2024, which was 37 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This was an unreasonable and unexplained delay of 27 working days beyond the Code’s 10-working day timescale. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay or provide any specific redress for this.
24. It is unclear when the resident escalated her complaint, and we have not seen an escalation acknowledgment. The resident told the landlord she was likely to escalate the complaint in a call on 12 December 2024. The landlord should have recorded the escalation on the date it was received and provided an acknowledgment. The landlord must keep full and accurate records of all complaint correspondence. The landlord provided its stage 2 response within the Code’s 20-working day timeframe after the above call on 10 January 2025.
25. The stage 1 complaint acknowledgment and the complaint summaries in both the stage 1 and 2 responses referred to the resident’s request for compensation for increased heating costs. We can see that, on 4 December 2024, the landlord asked the resident to provide her gas bills for the last 12 months on 4 December 2024. The landlord has not evidenced if/how it considered the evidence provided by the resident. The landlord should have explained whether the final offer of £500 included compensation for increased bills, or alternatively, it should have explained why it did not believe compensation should be paid. The landlord could have requested further information if needed, but here is no evidence that it did so.
26. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint because it did not respond in line with its published timescales at stage 1, it failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay, and it did not show it considered the remedy the resident had requested for increased gas bills.
27. The landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay the resident £100 compensation to recognise the stress and inconvenience she experienced from its poor complaints handling. This sum is in line with the amount suggested in our remedies guidance where a resident has been adversely affected by the landlord’s failings and it has not done enough to put things right. The landlord is also ordered to contact the resident to request evidence of increased gas bills between 17 May 2024 and 25 February 2025. It should consider whether additional compensation should be paid, in line with its policies and procedures, and our remedies guidance, and write to the resident to explain its decision.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s record keeping could have been better. There is missing information about some repair appointments, and the evidence shows that the outcome of some repair appointments was not recorded in full. This contributed to the delay in resolving the issues and further inconvenienced the resident. The landlord has not provided a full record of all complaint correspondence. It is reminded of the need to keep full, accurate, sufficiently detailed, and accessible records. We have therefore recommended that the landlord review its record keeping processes, to make sure that its contractors record adequate details of the outcome of all repairs appointments, and that all complaint correspondence is retained.

Communication

29. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the repair was poor. It did not provide timely updates and it did not explain its decisions. The resident had to chase progress and make a complaint before the landlord organised a permanent repair. Having suggested that it would replace the door, it then decided to complete a further repair, which proved ineffective. The landlord failed to communicate effectively about how the repair would be completed and in what timeframe. It should have explained that it would need to attend multiple appointments to inspect, measure up, and order supplies before completing the repair.