Bernicia Group (202422631)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422631

Bernicia Group

11 February 2026

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her front and back doors and windows.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant.
On 22 November 2023, the resident reported that she was experiencing draughts from her front door and windows. She also said the front door would “blow open” if left unlocked. An operative first attended the property on 25 March 2024. The operative confirmed the front door needed replacement and raised an order the same day. The operative also raised a request for a window inspection.
On 23 May 2024, a job was raised for an operative to replace the handle on a bedroom window and adjusted the lounge windows to improve the seal. There is no evidence showing that the repair was completed.
On 13 June 2024, the resident made a stage 1 complaint about door and window repair delays, with specific reference to ongoing issues with a bedroom window. She also raised concerns about the security of a back door.
On 24 June 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the repair delays and any impact caused. It also confirmed that on 3 July 2024, an operative would complete window repairs and inspect the back door.
On 25 June 2024, the resident asked that her complaint be “reopened”. She said the windows were old and were unrepairable, and the back door did not meet security standards. She also raised concerns about “really bad” mould around a bedroom window.
On 3 July 2024, an operative attended the resident’s property. They reported to the landlord that the windows were “very old”, with gaps around the seals and mould above a bedroom window. The operative took photos of the window and back door, although they did not give specific observations about the door.
On 5 July 2024, the landlord spoke with the resident by phone. During the call, it explained its decision to try repairs before considering replacement works. The landlord agreed to consider whether to complete a survey of the windows and doors. The landlord also shared the operative’s photos with the resident. On this basis, the complaint was not escalated further.
The landlord decided to complete repairs. If unsuccessful, it would arrange a survey to consider replacements of the windows and doors. The resident disagreed with the decision and said she would not agree to the repairs.
On 19 July 2024, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its process because:
1. She was dissatisfied with the decision to repair rather than replace the windows.
2. There had been no response to her security concerns of the back door.
3. She had not received all the photos taken by the operative (including those showing cracks and other damage).
4. There was ongoing mould on a window.
5. She had concerns about mould exposure and the impact on her grandson when he stayed over.
On 6 August 2024, the landlord called the resident to explain its decision to complete repairs rather than replacements. It offered to keep the complaint open while it oversaw the completion of repairs. The resident declined and reiterated her request for replacements.
On the same day, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed that remedial works were appropriate, as its policy is to try repairs before considering replacements. It stated that if the resident changed her mind, she should notify the landlord.
The resident brought her complaint to this Service, as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to repair rather than replace the back door and windows, and because of the associated issues that she was experiencing with mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has told us that she has been reporting issues with her windows and the associated mould for some years. We asked the landlord to provide any relevant repair logs. The landlord has told us that the resident has only reported the repair once. It has also said that it first became aware of the mould during the period covered by this investigation, from November 2023 onwards. Where there is a dispute of fact and no available definitive evidence, the Ombudsman cannot determine what did or did not happen. Therefore our investigation has focused on the period from November 2023 onwards, where there is evidence that the resident was reporting door and window issues and mould to the landlord.
The resident also told this Service that she suffers from hay fever and asthma, which she said were exacerbated by the window draughts. The landlord has said that it has no record of being informed of any vulnerabilities by the resident. However, the resident has told this Service that she had told the landlord. She also raised concerns about the impact of mould on her grandson. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s statements about her health and the concerns about her grandson. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can pose a risk to health. The Ombudsman can consider the general risk as well as any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors. However, it is outside our remit to consider the specific impact on health from any action or inaction by the landlord. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to consideration by a court or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one).

Policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the exterior doors and windows.
The landlord’s repairs policy says:
1. Where there is a serious or immediate risk to the tenant’s health and safety, or to the security of their home, the issue will be treated as an emergency repair. In such cases, the landlord will aim to attend within 24 hours.
2. All other repairs will be scheduled for the next available appointment, as agreed with the tenant.
3. If a follow-up visit is needed, the landlord will aim to complete the repair within 3 days if it falls under the tenant’s right to repair. For non-urgent follow-on work, the target is to complete it within 30 days.

Front door

Although the landlord’s repair policy does not specify a particular period for routine repairs, the Ombudsman would expect routine repairs to be completed within 28 days, in line with industry best practice. Therefore, it was unreasonable that it took 4 months before an operative attended for the first time.
On 25 March 2024, an operative attended the resident’s property and appropriately determined the need for a replacement front door. The Ombudsman acknowledges that external door replacements typically take up to 12 weeks due to manufacturing and installation timelines, which may exceed standard repair timescales. However, once the landlord raised the order, it should have monitored the replacement to avoid any unnecessary delay.
We have been unable to confirm when the door was replaced because the landlord has provided limited completion details. In March 2025, the landlord said in an internal email that the contractor had marked the job as complete on 1 May 2024. But it also suggested the contractor might have finished the job earlier than this. On 13 June 2024, the resident reported that the door was due to be replaced the next day. Given these conflicting accounts and in the absence of definitive evidence, the Ombudsman cannot determine the exact timeline. This lack of clarity highlights deficiencies in the landlord’s record-keeping and oversight of contractor performance. However, if the repair was completed on 14 June 2024, as the resident said it would be, then it would be a few days outside the usual timescale of 12 weeks. Therefore, it does not seem there was an unreasonable delay from the date when the operative confirmed the door needed to be replaced.
Landlords must keep comprehensive and accurate repair records to ensure proper oversight of repair completions. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review its monitoring processes and requests further evidence from the contractor to confirm the completion date of the front door replacement so its records are kept up to date. Such evidence is vital not only for complaint resolution, but also for ensuring that works are completed to the required standard and within reasonable timescales.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delays and the inconvenience caused. When landlords acknowledge failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to evaluate whether the landlord’s offer of redress adequately resolves the complaint in line with our dispute resolution principles:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
Although the landlord issued an apology, this alone did not fully address the inconvenience caused by the initial 4 month delay before the landlord agreed to replace the door. Considering the failings identified above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
Our remedies guidance (which is published on our website) sets out that for findings of maladministration we may make an order of compensation between £100 and £600 to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors, but there may be no permanent impact. We have determined an order for £100 compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident.

Back door and windows

15 working days after the operative raised an inspection request, the landlord arranged an inspection of the back door and windows. It has not explained the delay in doing so, which created further delays. The landlord later rearranged the appointment at the resident’s request, which was reasonable.
The landlord’s records from the appointment on 23 May 2024 show that an operative replaced a bedroom window handle and adjusted the lounge window seals. However, there is no evidence that the operative inspected all the windows as per the resident’s request. As a result, the landlord missed the opportunity to gather a full condition report and create a single, coordinated schedule of works. The absence of such a report led to additional visits, prolonging resolution and increasing the inconvenience for the resident.
The landlord has explained that it did agree to the repairs to the handle and the lounge window however you did not want it to carry out repairs and instead wanted replacements. It explained it was confident that these issues could be resolved with repairs. It is reasonable for the landlord to suggest a repair before determining a replacement if its repairs contractors have advised that a repair can take place.
On 13 June 2024, the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint. She said that the back door was unsafe and did not meet minimum security standards. Initially, the landlord scheduled an appointment for window repairs for 16 August 2024 but later rescheduled it for 3 July 2024. It also instructed the operative to inspect the back door and report back with findings, which the landlord referenced in its stage 1 response. While bringing forward the appointment helped reduce the impact of the delay to some extent, it did not address the inefficiency in not identifying the repairs at earlier opportunities.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it will complete inspections to decide the extent of the required work. While we acknowledge the resident’s dissatisfaction with this approach, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging an inspection. During the inspection, an operative photographed the windows and the back door. In their email to the landlord, they described the windows as “very old”, noted gaps around the seals, and found mould above a bedroom window. Although the operative provided an image of the back door, they did not include observations about it in their communication to the landlord.
Based on these findings, on 10 July 2024, the landlord decided that repairs were appropriate. The landlord concluded that the evidence did not support replacements at that time and that it would conduct a survey if the repairs proved ineffective. The Ombudsman considers this a logical approach by the landlord to manage its finite resources. Landlords are entitled to carry out repairs rather than replacing items where it is possible to do so.
The landlord has informed this Service that it expects to resolve the mould issue by completing the window repairs as it understands it to be “isolated” to a window area. It has also said that if the repairs do not resolve the problem, it will arrange a damp inspection. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for declining the repairs to the windows and back door. However, the landlord was not responsible for delays after the resident refused to allow access for the repairs.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord tried to address the draught reports, it did not directly respond to the resident’s security concerns about the back door. This lack of response may have caused the resident to feel that the landlord ignored her concerns. This does not align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which sets out our expectations of landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code requires landlords to address all complaint issues raised.
Landlords must ensure homes are free from hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), including ensuring that homes are free from entry by intruders. However, there are no specific requirements for exterior door locking mechanisms to meet this obligation. Therefore, the landlord was not obliged to replace the lock in view of the resident’s security concerns.
If the resident wishes to replace it at her own expense, the landlord must not refuse the request without reasonable justification. The landlord must take the same approach if the resident requests to install additional reasonable security measures at her own cost.
Given the above failings, we have determined there was maladministration for the for the initial delays in responding to the resident’s report of window draughts and the subsequent delays before the landlord completed an inspection and determined a scope of works. In line with our remedies guidance, as set out above, we order the landlord to pay £100 compensation to put things right for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her front and back doors and windows.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must pay the resident £200 in compensation and provide evidence to this Service that it has done so.
Re-attend the property to confirm to this Service whether the repairs to the window seals and bedroom window handle are required, or whether replacements are needed.
Within four weeks of the finalised review, the landlord should confirm that it has arranged for any necessary works to the window seals and the bedroom window handle to be completed.

Recommendations

The landlord should review how it monitors repair completions by its contractors to ensure proper oversight and record keeping.
The landlord should contact the resident to offer to complete the repairs to the back door and windows. If the resident declines, the landlord should confirm the decision in writing to the resident and the implications of this.