We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

West Kent Housing Association (202327097)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327097

West Kent Housing Association

30 July 2025


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests about windows repairs.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord who is a housing association. He lives in the property with his wife. The property is a flat in a block of flats with metal framed windows in a conservation area. The landlord is the leaseholder of the block. The landlord confirmed as per its leasehold agreement with the freeholder it was responsible for the repair and replacement of the resident’s windows.
  2. The resident had been complaining of issues with his windows since 2019 and had made several formal complaints. The landlord completed some work to rectify the issues reported in 2019 and investigated the possibility of double glazing in 2020. The resident chased further repairs throughout 2022 and raised a formal complaint which we have not seen evidence he escalated to stage 2.
  3. The resident raised his recent formal complaint to the landlord on 23 January 2023 stating 2 windows in the property were draughty, letting in water and dust for extended period of time. The landlord called him the following day and sent an acknowledgment letter.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 March 2023 acknowledging it should have done some things differently, including attending his property sooner and not arranging visits without any works being undertaken and apologised. It confirmed the resident had made the same complaint in 2022 and advised him to also refer to a response in July 2022 where it advised him it was trying to appoint a specialist contractor. It offered £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its recent handling of the repairs and inspections. It stated it would further explore repairs and replacement options with specialist windows contractor.
  5. The resident, unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation and a lack of resolution escalated the complaint on 13 June 2023.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 1 August 2023 upholding his complaint. It highlighted its repair actions since 2020 including measuring for double glazing which was not possible as the property was in a conservation area. It said that in 2022 it had established that secondary glazing was not appropriate as he would not be able to fully open the windows. It advised it had asked specialist contractors to survey the windows on 10 March 2023.
  7. The landlord added in its response that it had conducted another survey on 31 May 2023 and the outcome of that was to trial reengineered seals and other recommendations about trickle vents. It stated it would look for other alternatives in case the trial planned for end of August 2023 was unsuccessful. It advised it was escalating its poor complaint handling to management to consider what learning could be taken. It increased the £250 compensation offer at stage 1 for the inconvenience caused by the windows handling to £350. For delays in the window repairs in previous complaints, it offered £200. It acknowledged delays at stage 2 response and offered £100 compensation for its complaint handling. As such, the total compensation offered was £650.
  8. On 8 November 2023 the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the window complaint as he was unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord and its handling of the repair. He also brought new issues to the Service relating to antisocial behaviour (ASB) and damp and mould.
  9. The landlord reconsidered its level of compensation and offered him a total of £1500 compensation on 8 March 2024 and completed some work to the windows in July 2024. The compensation comprising:
    1. £800 for the inconvenience and frustration caused.
    2. £100 for poor complaint handling.
    3. £600 for the delays in resolving the window repairs in previous complaints.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident first reported window repairs in 2019 and raised several formal complaints which he advised had completed the landlord’s process in 2020 and 2021. We have not seen evidence of these complaints being brought to the Service in a timely manner or when the resident had the opportunity. According to our Scheme we may not look at complaints which were not brought to the Service’s attention within a reasonable timeframe which normally is 12 months.
  2. The resident raised a further complaint about his windows with his landlord in July 2022 and he received a stage 1 response that month, which did not exhaust the landlord’s process. We have not seen evidence of the resident’s escalation request at the time within the timeframes of the landlord’s complaints policy (20 days) and evidence of a landlord’s final response. Due to the length of time since these complaints exhausted the landlord’s process or were not progressed and the effect this delay potentially has on the evidence available; we will not look at this period of time.
  3. The resident contacted us initially in relation to his most recent complaint to the landlord in 2023. While the landlord as part of this recent complaint used its discretion to offer a total of £600 compensation for its delays during the previous complaints (between 2019 and 2022), we will not assess the proportionality of this offer. Our investigation will focus on the events leading to the resident’s complaint raised on 23 January 2023, which exhausted the landlord’s process in August 2023. This will include the events following the landlord’s previous response at stage 1 from July 2022. Due to the nature of the complaint related to works, the investigation is likely to consider some events following the end of the internal complaints process.
  4. The resident recently reported ASB and damp and mould issues. We have not seen evidence these issues have exhausted the landlord’s process and as such they will not form part of this investigation. If the resident would like to pursue them and potentially bring them to us for investigation, he should initially raise them with the landlord and exhaust its process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about his windows

  1. It is not in dispute that the landlord is responsible for the windows as stated in its tenancy agreement and in line with Section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, where landlords are responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of buildings which this includes windows. It also requires landlord’s to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. We have seen evidence within the landlord’s file; the landlord had been unclear of its own repair responsibilities in relation to its contract with the freeholder. However in its previous complaint response in July 2022 it took full ownership of the repair and advised him of its intentions to resolve the window issues. It confirmed the options of secondary or double glazing had proven to be unsuitable. It advised it was looking to appoint a specialist contractor to inspect all of the windows within his block. The result of such survey would allow it to inform its future plan of works and that it would keep him updated.
  3. We have not seen any evidence to suggest that the landlord followed up on its promise from July 2022 and inspected the property until January 2023. It is unclear what prompted further inspection but in an email from its contractor dated 11 January 2023 they advised the landlord the windows should be replaced due to being extremely draughty, letting water in and parts were no longer available. The contractor advised that the landlord’s surveyor would need to carry out a survey prior to any replacement due to the nature of the windows.
  4. The landlord followed this advice and it’s surveyor completed its survey on 10 March 2023. This was 2 months from the recommendation of its contractor and 9 months from its previous contact with the resident in July 2022 when it planned this survey. Considering the contents of the inspection and what the resident reported experiencing in the winter months, it would have been appropriate to attempt a responsive repair or investigate at an earlier stage and in line with its policy within 21 days.
  5. The landlord’s surveyor’s report confirmed its contractor’s initial findings, recommended window replacement due to “rotten wood” and “draughty trickle vents, even when closed”. Given the history of the issue and the difficulties the landlord was facing related to replacement of the windows due to being in a conservation area and of a special type, it was reasonable for the landlord to initially consider further investigation of possible solutions, before window replacement. The process of planned works can be lengthy and the consultation with lease holders would add to the time and complexity of the replacement. We have seen the landlord considering these options internally, but no further action was initiated.
  6. The landlord was also aware the windows were 18 years old with a life expectancy of 35 years and secondary glazing was not an option (from previous investigations). Although it was appropriate to continue to attempt temporary repairs, we have seen no evidence it had started a process of consulting the planning department, consulting with the leaseholders or surveying the whole blocks windows (as promised in its response from July 2022).
  7. We have not seen any evidence the landlord fully considered the impact of the issues reported by the resident of the cold, draughts and the water ingress at the time. The landlord as such could not demonstrate it had fully considered the circumstances of the household and provided any interim measures such as heaters. Although the resident asked for a decant on 26 January 2023 and the landlord was responsive and attended on 21 February 2023 to assess, it decided the condition was not severe enough for a decant. There is no evidence of a risk assessment or decision-making process used to decide this and no evidence seen that it recorded or communicated to the resident the reasons for its decision. This was inappropriate and as such the landlord could not manage the resident’s expectations.
  8. On 21 February 2023 the landlord attended with its clerk of works and noted water dripping from the metal windows onto the wooden window ledge. It stated this was due to the trickle vents being closed and taped over. This was presumably done to keep away the draughts from the faulty trickle vents as the landlord noted they needed overhauled or replaced. It was unreasonable the landlord did not take urgent action or any interim measures after the 2 previous reports’ findings and the conditions the resident was living in. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord which caused obvious stress and inconvenience to the resident.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 6 March 2023 it appropriately acknowledged it had made mistakes and that it should have acted sooner and offered £250 compensation. It acknowledged its delay in appointing a specialist contractor which took 3 months and appropriately apologised. We have also seen evidence the landlord was in communication with the resident during this period which it appropriately advised it would continue to review the position regarding repair or replacement of the windows and keep him updated. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided a timescale or offer appropriate, timely solutions at this stage.
  10. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 1 August 2023 it explained the timeline of events. It acknowledged it had followed its stage 1 response and had appointed the contractor. It apologised it took 3 and a half months to do so and acknowledged a further specialist survey had taken place in May 2023 (we have seen evidence of) to explore any interim and repairs action. While this was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord had taken learning from stage 1, this survey was further delayed with 2 months. While we appreciate the difficulties in identifying and appointing such specialist contractor, the overall delays were unreasonable.
  11. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered the survey’s potential proposal for solution which was to trial specialist reengineered seals in another property and if it worked it would fit them to all windows at the resident’s property. We have also seen the landlord appropriately communicated this at the time (26 June 2023) to the resident after the further specialist report. It also proposed to replace the windows if the trial did not work. Although the landlord was attempting a repair it would have been appropriate for it to have explained the process of consulting with the other leaseholders and providing realistic timescales for full replacement.
  12. The landlord offered a total compensation of £350 for inconvenience and frustration caused at stage 2 since the events of the resident’s recent complaint. We appreciate that it offered £200 for its previous complaint failures, but this is not considered as part of this investigation. The £350 was not however proportionate for the length of time of the failures and the impact on the resident.
  13. We have seen communication where the landlord explained to the resident its plan to resolve the issues with the windows since December 2023. Due to the resident refusal to accept the works, it only got access and completed them in July 2024 (7 months later). While this is understandable given his previous experience, we cannot hold the landlord responsible for the full period of 7 months given it made attempts to complete the repairs and explain it was necessary to complete them. However, the repair took 2 years since the landlord agreed to explore the issue with specialist contractor which was a considerable delay.
  14. The resident remained unhappy with the work to the windows after it was completed and communicated this to the landlord in September 2024. The landlord has recently provided to this Service evidence of post repair email dated 9 September 2024 from the contractor who completed the trial works that stated the trickle vents “opened and closed as they should, even although they may be missing some parts”.
  15. This update from the contractors did not fully confirm the issue was resolved. Additionally, this was not in line with the previous surveyor’s reports, which stated parts were no longer available and the windows required to be replaced. The work undertaken as per the landlord’s notes did not appear to have rectified the rotten wood. As there is contradictory evidence, we have made an order for the windows to have a full comprehensive survey carried out.
  16. The landlord offered further compensation to a total of £800 in March 2024 which was 7 months after the end of its complaints process for the handling of the repairs to the windows part of this complaint investigation. The amount offered was in the high end of the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance to respond to failures of maladministration and severe maladministration. Its level is sufficient to also acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident having to chase and accommodate multiple appointments for a prolonged period of time. However, this was offered prior to the works being completed. As stated above some works were completed in July 2024 which was further delayed by 5 months from this point.
  17. While the compensation was reasonable at the time of the review offer, there was a missed opportunity to offer suitable redress within its complaints process and acknowledge the impact on the resident at the time of the complaint’s events. Although it is positive the landlord acknowledged the delays and mistakes in repairs handling it was unable to show learning or take steps to ensure it did not happen again. The repairs took a further 6 months following the review. It also could not demonstrate that it had permanently or fully resolved the windows issues. For all of these reasons the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about his windows.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will speak with the resident within 2 working days and send the resident a summary of the complaint within 5 days. It will respond to stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days with a possible 10-day extension at either stage. It also states that the resident must escalate any complaints to stage 2 within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s file shows the resident made his complaint on 23 January 2023. The landlord asked for an extension twice on 6 February and on 20 February 2023. While the landlord kept the resident updated, it extended the period of the response twice. The 2 extensions delayed its complaint response and were not clearly explained and acknowledged in its responses.
  3. The resident escalated his complaint on 13 June 2023. The file shows that the landlord’s stage 2 response (1 August 2023) took 28 working days. This was 8 days over the 20 days stipulate in the Code and the landlord’s own policy.
  4. The landlord’s delay was unreasonable. Its own policy states it may request more time to investigate. However, we have seen no evidence it did this at stage 2, which delayed a resolution to the resident’s complaint, causing unnecessary stress and inconvenience.
  5. The landlord did however identify its delay at stage 2 was unreasonable. Its further steps were appropriate to apologise and offer £100 compensation for its poor complaint handling. It recognised that it should have done some things differently, and that it was feeding the poor complaint handling experienced by the resident, to management to see what learning could be taken from his complaint.
  6. The compensation offered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failure where there was no considerable or lengthy impact on the resident. Additionally, this compensation is appropriate to recognise the inconvenience of the delays caused to the resident identified in this investigation.
  7. The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s steps taken to take learning, its apology and offer of £100 was a proportionate and reasonable redress for its delays at both stages of its process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests about windows repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress, which resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1000 compensation (this includes the £800 offered prior to this investigation if it has not paid already) for inconvenience and distress caused by its windows repairs failures.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the Ombudsman orders the landlord to instruct an independent survey of the property’s windows by a suitably qualified expert. The landlord must share the results of the survey with the resident and this Service within 2 weeks of the date of the survey along with a timeline of any schedule of works identified for the window repair, replacement or other measures as the landlord sees fit.
  3. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange a senior management case review with focus on the issues identified in this report. These should include the landlord’s handling of complex repairs and its communication with contractors and residents, its understanding of its repair responsibilities under service agreements and as a follow up on survey recommendations, staff training and service improvement in relation to those issues. The landlord to provide a copy of the review to the Ombudsman.
  4. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders in their respective timeframes.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident and re-offers him £100 compensation (if not paid already) for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contact’s the resident and re-offers compensation of £600 previously offered for delays in resolving the window repairs from previous complaints. Although we have not assessed this, the landlord did use its discretion to offer this and therefore we have made this recommendation in the interest of fairness to both parties.