Trent & Dove Housing Limited (202347345)

Decision
Case ID	202347345
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Trent & Dove Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 November 2025

Background

1. The resident is vulnerable due to a blood pressure condition the landlord was aware of during the complaint events. He reported concerns about the windows at the property being cold and draughty for several years, and the landlord replaced the double glazing in 2021. It then inspected in 2022 and did not identify a repair need. After the resident reported this again in January 2023, the landlord checked and added insulation, checked seals, surveyed, and in February 2024 sought specialist advice. The resident continued reporting the issues, but the landlord decided the windows were in good working order and it would not replace them.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of draughty lounge and bedroom windows.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of draughty lounge and bedroom windows.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Draughty and misted windows

4. The landlord delayed completing the insulation repair job, then significantly delayed raising the initial inspection. We cannot see it effectively communicated with the resident during the delay. Whilst it proactively engaged a window specialist at stage 1, we have seen indications it did not inspect the bedroom window. We also cannot see evidence it explicitly considered the resident’s vulnerability throughout its handling of this repair.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord responded within the timeframes set out in its policy.

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 05 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £250 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of draughty windows. 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 05 January 2026
3	Other Action The landlord has recently told us it inspected the resident’s windows on 17 November 2025, after we had started investigating. Therefore, we will not order it to re-inspect the windows if it can provide evidence of its inspection. What the landlord must do The landlord must provide us with a copy of its inspection report from 17 November 2025. It must also provide us with evidence it communicated the outcome of this to the resident. In case the landlord cannot provide any evidence of the inspection, it must conduct a comprehensive window inspection and provide a copy of the outcome to us and the resident.	No later than 05 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 January 2024	The resident complained he still felt cold coming from his windows despite the landlord’s repairs. He was concerned that the landlord had said it could not do anything.
26 January 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
5 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had already replaced the double glazing and topped up the insulation to fill in any gaps. It decided to ask a window specialist to come and review the resident’s windows and said it would update the resident afterwards.
29 February 2024	The landlord updated the resident that the specialist found the windows in good working order, with intact seals, no failed units, and no noticeable draught. It said its own surveyor previously found this. The landlord decided it did not need to complete further repair, and under its planned maintenance schedule it would look at reviewing the windows’ condition in the next 2 years.
12 March 2024	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He was unhappy the landlord decided not to replace the windows and because the contractor had not inspected the bedroom window.
18 March 2024	The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation request.
10 April 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said it was not replacing the windows because: Draught was typical in windows this age and all windows needed trickle vents for air circulation that could feel like draught. The local authority housing standards said it was not a serious housing defect. It had already replaced the double glazing, checked and topped up the insulation, filled in gaps and checked seals. Newer windows might offer better heat retention, but the windows were still of a good standard. It said it would review its position based on its cyclical maintenance programme in/around 2030.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred this complaint to us in May 2024. He remained unhappy the landlord had not replaced the windows.

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 landlord’s response to the reports of draughty and misted windows
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

6. In the interests of fairness and the availability of evidence, we have focussed our investigation on events leading up to the formal complaint on 19 January 2024. While the resident says he’s raised the issue from 2019, the evidence we have seen shows he only continuously raised the issue from January 2023, so we have investigated from this point. Historical issues related to the replacement of the double glazing in 2021 were only provided for context.

Handling of reports of draughty and misted lounge and bedroom windows

7. After the resident reported the windows in the lounge on 9 January 2023, the landlord unreasonably delayed and responded to the repair on 8 February 2023. It then delayed completing the repair to the window insulation until 28 February 2023, 23 days after the 28 calendar day routine repair timeframe in its repairs policy.
8. When the resident reported the issue again in both the lounge and the bedroom on 1 March 2023, it appropriately decided its internal surveyor should inspect. However, it significantly delayed raising this inspection which was done on 27 November 2023.This led to it completing the inspection 172 days after its decision to inspect. The landlord’s policy says even for major repairs it should complete both the inspection and repair within 90 days.Both delays were not in line with the timeframes in its policy and this additional time waiting for the landlord’s responses caused him inconvenience and frustration.
9. The landlord did not communicate to the resident during this delay. It did not explain the reasons for its delay; it just offered later appointments. This was unreasonable and led to the resident being unsure when the landlord would respond to his concerns. He described feeling ignored by the landlord. Both the delay and lack of communication were inappropriate. Regular communication is important during delays as it allows the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations as well as keeping them informed and updated.
10. The landlord’s records are unclear about whether it repaired or just checked the seals in January 2024, following its internal inspection from November 2023. As such, we are unable to confirm its specific action at this time.
11. Furthermore, the landlord’s repairs policy says it should inspect all window repairs after completion. We cannot see it considered ordering a further inspection to check the seals had resolved the issue in January 2024. However, it has now told us after our investigation started it inspected recently, and on 17 November 2025.
12. The landlord commissioned an external window specialist at stage 1 following the resident’s complaint and further reports. This was a positive and proactive response to his concerns. It arranged this promptly and the specialist reported the window was in good working order, with no failed units or seals. It did not identify a draught, but noted the glass was cold. It advised that new windows might have better heat retention but wouldn’t necessarily resolve the resident’s perceived draught. It did note under window regulations all windows require a trickle vent which may feel like a draught.
13. The evidence suggests the landlord did not check the specialist inspected both windows. In his stage 2 escalation the resident raised this to the landlord, as he was concerned the specialist had not inspected his bedroom window. We have seen the specialist reported about a ‘window’ to the landlord, rather than ‘windows’. We cannot see the landlord clarified this with the specialist or took any action to resolve this such as inspecting the bedroom window itself or addressing this in its stage 2 response. The landlord could not confirm or evidence that it had considered this aspect of the resident’s concerns, which caused additional frustration and inconvenience for the resident.
14. The landlord decided it did not need to replace the windows. The landlord made a reasonable decision based on specialist advice for the lounge window. We also take into account that the landlord had previously made a reasonable attempt at repair by renewing the double glazing, checking and topping up the insulation. As we cannot see clear evidence it inspected the bedroom window,and it did not address the resident’s concerns about it, we cannot confirm its decision for the bedroom was reasonable at that time.
15. Furthermore, the initial inspection from November 2023 identified that there were draughts from the windows and the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerability since 2013. However, we cannot see it took this into account when making the decision. It has provided evidence showing the resident has a cardiovascular condition meaning his blood pressure needs carefully controlling. The World Health Organisation (WHO) cite research highlighting a link between low room temperatures and high blood pressure.
16. While we have not seen evidence of excessive cold, we have seen the resident reporting inconvenience of using thermal curtains and being cold during winter months. The landlord acknowledged his reports mainly being during the winter months. However, it did not evidence it had considered his vulnerabilities during its complaint process and when making the decision to not replace the windows. While this may not have changed its decision, in these circumstances we would have expected to see it considered his vulnerability.
17. To remedy the distress and inconvenience the landlord caused the resident through its delays, lack of communication, and not considering his vulnerability, we have ordered the landlord pay the resident £250 in compensation.
18. Had the landlord not inspected recently, we would have ordered a new inspection for both windows to remedy the lack of specialist inspection of the bedroom window, and the lack of check after its seal repairs. However, the landlord told us it had recently inspected and had not identified a draught so we will not order this unless it fails to provide us with evidence of this inspection.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

19. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge a complaint and escalation within 5 working days. This says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledged and responded to this complaint in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Learning

20. The landlord should ensure it checks and considers whether residents vulnerabilities are related to the reported issue. It should then consider if there is anything else it can do to mitigate the impact on residents. This will enable it to take informed decisions and actions in line with the resident’s needs.
21. The landlord should ensure it thoroughlyunderstands inspection reports and that it presents the advice it receives accurately to residents. This will improve the quality of its complaints responses and open communication with residents.

Communication

22. The landlord should proactively communicate about any delays with residents. This will help manage the resident’s expectations and keep them updated about their repair.