London Borough of Camden Council (202532561)

Decision
Case ID	202532561
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Camden Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 May 2026

Background

In July 2025, the resident reported that her window frames were cracked and allowing water ingress. The landlord attended on 3 September 2025 but did not fully complete the repair, and the resident later had to request an update. She also asked the landlord to arrange a survey due to concerns about the condition of the windows, which the landlord declined following a review of photographs.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
1. Resident’s concerns about her windows.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about her windows.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord did not complete either of the repairs to the windows within its timescales. The resident had to chase for the second repair to be booked. The landlord relied on the opinion of its experts to deny the survey. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and complaint escalation within the required timescales.

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 16 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about her 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 16 June 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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

16 June 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about her 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

16 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 September 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She was unhappy as the landlord had not finished repairing her windows.
29 September 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: Its operative had not completed the job because they had identified a bigger ladder was needed to access some windows safely. It had booked the work for 3 November 2025, the earliest available appointment. The resident had requested a surveyor assess the condition of the frames, so the landlord asked her to provide photographs for review. It was upholding the resident’s complaint due to a delay in repairing the windows.
1 October 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She was unhappy as the landlord had said it would not send a surveyor based on the pictures provided. She also expressed dissatisfaction about the delayed repair.
17 October 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said it: Had followed its own process in assessing the windows. Had reviewed the pictures sent and decided that no further action was necessary. Accepted there was a delay in the repair. Apologised for the frustration caused to the resident.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy at the landlord’s response. She told us she would like the landlord to repair or replace any defective 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 resident’s concerns about the windows
Finding	Service failure

The landlord said it had 35 days to complete the window repair. This timeframe appears on its website and in its current repairs policy. However, the policy provided to us states the landlord should complete repairs within 20 working days. The landlord confirmed this was the policy in place at the time. We have therefore assessed the landlord’s actions against that timescale.
The resident reported that her windows were cracked and allowing water in on 16 July 2025. The landlord completed the repair 35 working days after it was reported, on 3 September 2025, which was 15 working days late.
The landlord identified that a larger ladder was required to complete the repair. It arranged a further repair for 3 November 2025, but only after the resident contacted it to request an update. This appointment was 43 working days after 3 September 2025, when it knew further work was needed, which was 23 working days outside its 20 working day timescale.
The resident asked the landlord to arrange a survey of the windows and provided photographs at the landlord’s request. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained a specialist officer had reviewed the images. It had decided no further action was needed beyond the ongoing repair. The landlord also noted that the operative who attended on 3 September 2025 did not identify any need for additional work to the windows. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its experts when deciding that a survey was not required.
The resident experienced frustration due to the delays in completing the window repairs. She had to chase the landlord to arrange the follow-up appointment. Once the landlord’s operative identified that the work could not be completed in a single visit, a further appointment should have been arranged. The resident should not have needed to chase the landlord to do this. The landlord did not acknowledge this failing in its complaint responses. It therefore cannot demonstrate learning.
The landlord should apologise for the failings identified in this investigation. The landlord did not meet its timescales twice and provided the incorrect timescales to the resident. The landlord did not monitor the repair, which led to the resident having to chase to arrange it. In line with our compensation guidance, the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation. This recognises the inconvenience of the delays. It also recognises the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing the repair.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
The landlord has provided evidence of that it acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint in a phone call. It has provided no evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s escalation to stage 2. The landlord should be mindful it acknowledges complaints appropriately and in line with its policy and the Code.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in 9 working days. It responding to the stage 2 escalation in 12 working days. The landlord adhered to its timescales and the Code on both occasions.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not acknowledge what the correct repair timescale should have been. However, it stated consistent and agreed timeframes while also recognising there were delays. Although there is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 escalation, it still responded to the escalation within its timescales. Therefore, the way the landlord handled the complaint caused minimal detriment to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records were detailed and showed good practice. They captured the full repair journey. This level of detail supports transparency and is a positive from the landlord.

Communication

The landlord largely communicated appropriately with the resident throughout the dispute and the complaint. We have noted the issue with quoting the correct timescale in the above report. When the resident requested a repair, the landlord provided a date for when the repair would take place. Although the appointment fell outside the landlord’s timescales, it communicated clearly with the resident about when the repair would take place. This helped manage expectations about the timing of the works.