Octavia Housing (202523976)
|
Case ID |
202523976 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Octavia Housing |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
22 January 2026 |
- The resident lives in a duplex apartment in a low-rise building, with some rooms on the 3rd floor. Since 2024 she has reported that several windows were not closing properly. The resident is dissatisfied that the landlord had not resolved the issues raised. She said the windows pose a health and safety risk, particularly as she has 2 young children, one of whom has autism. The resident also raised queries about her service charges and was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- The window repairs.
- The resident’s service charge queries.
- We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found that:
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the window repairs.
- The landlord offered reasonable redress for the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
- There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The landlord’s handling of the window repairs
- The landlord unreasonably delayed dealing with the resident’s reports. There was a pattern of poor repair management, missed appointments, inadequate record keeping, and lack of communication. The landlord also failed to demonstrate it had considered the risk and impact on the household. It acknowledged some of its failures during the complaint’s procedure and awarded compensation. However, this did not fully put things right, as its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation and the landlord has still not resolved the issues with the windows.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries
- The landlord provided the resident with inaccurate information which led to confusion and it unreasonably delayed responding to her original query. However, it had put this right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint
- The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints 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 |
|
|
The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 23 February 2026 |
|
|
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £900 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of the window repairs. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. |
No later than 23 February 2026 |
|
|
Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the works to the windows are completed during the appointment it has scheduled for 30 January 2026 and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date:
|
No later than 23 February 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to discuss the reported increase in her energy costs due to the windows not closing and consider whether it can offer any contribution towards this. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
20 May 2025 |
The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her concerns regarding safety measures within the building. She said that her children’s bedroom was on the 3rd floor and that the repair appointment scheduled for 13 May 2025 had been missed.
The resident also wished to discuss her service charges. She said the services provided, particularly maintenance, had not met expectations. She also said that the absence of facilities such as a lift or a security receptionist called the fairness of the charges into question. |
|
23 May 2025 |
The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 of its process. It said that it understood the complaint related to:
|
|
3 June 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint and acknowledged that the resident had repeatedly reported window issues since 2024. It accepted it had not responded in a timely manner and apologised for missing the 13 May 2025 appointment. It also acknowledged that it failed to respond to the resident’s 14 April 2024 request for a breakdown of service charges.
The landlord offered the resident £225 compensation made up of:
It confirmed it had arranged another visit on 9 June 2025 to look at the windows. It also confirmed that the tenancy was based on the Affordable Rent scheme which meant that the rent was set at 80% of the market rate (inclusive of service charges), in line with government policy. As a result, it did not issue residents with a detailed breakdown of the charges. |
|
13 June 2025 |
The resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said that:
|
|
18 June 2025 |
The landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint. It noted that the resident was concerned about the safety of the windows because they opened inwards and the restrictors were not working. Regarding the services, it noted she had highlighted that the bin area was often overflowing and messy. |
|
10 July 2025 |
The landlord contacted the resident to extend the deadline for its stage 2 response to 12 August 2025. |
|
7 August 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response and upheld the complaint. It apologised for missing the 9 June 2025 appointment. It said that another contractor visited on 30 July 2025 but could not complete a repair. It confirmed that it was still working to find a solution, which was difficult due to the type of windows, however it would keep the resident updated about progress.
The landlord said that its contractor attempted to contact the resident to arrange temporary repairs but were unable to reach her. It acknowledged confusion about the contractor’s opening hours and said it had arranged another appointment for 11 August 2025. The landlord also explained that any personal injury claims would need to be submitted to its insurers and provided their details.
The landlord reiterated its stage 1 response regarding how it calculated the rent and service charges. It acknowledged it had previously provided a breakdown, but confirmed this was done in error and apologised for any inconvenience caused. It said it had discussed the communal areas with its managing agent, who confirmed that no scheduled services had been missed although it had received concerns about the time allocated. It said it will continue to work with its managing agent to monitor this.
The landlord increased its compensation offer by £350, including £250 for time taken to arrange permanent repairs and £100 for time taken to arrange a temporary fix to the windows. It confirmed that its total offer of compensation was £575. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate the complaint as she was unhappy the issues with the windows had still not been resolved by the landlord. She said that several windows in her home were broken or did not close properly and communication about repairs had been misleading. She said this posed a serious health and safety hazard, particularly for her young child with autism. The resident also told us that her heating costs have increased as a result of the windows not closing properly.
The resident said that the service charges were excessive for the limited communal services provided. She said that when she signed her tenancy, she was told the service charges were separate from the rent. |
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 handling of the window repairs. |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we have not investigated
- The resident told us that the problems with the windows not closing have caused her an injury as she hit her head on corner of one of them. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
What we have investigated
- The landlord confirmed that the property was built in 2022 and the developer had carried out several window repairs, most recently in March 2024. On 25 April 2024 the resident reported further issues with the kitchen and lounge window restrictors. The landlord attended within 4 working days and said that it “overhauled the timber window for repair.” However, it provided no further detail of what it had done or whether it had secured the affected windows temporarily. It repaired the faulty restrictors around 2 months later, on 30 July 2024.
- The landlord’s repairs policy says that it aims to complete routine repairs within 15 working days and urgent repairs within 5 working days. It also says it will update residents if it cannot meet these timescales. Although the landlord attended promptly in response to the report, it failed to complete the repairs within its policy timescales. There is no evidence it provided any updates to the resident during the period of delay. This was not in keeping with its repairs policy.
- On 23 December 2024 the resident reported that the windows in her kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom were not closing properly. She said that the kitchen window restrictor (previously repaired in July 2024) was loose. The landlord’s contractor inspected the property on 27 December 2024 and said the works needed a specialist. There was no further follow up until 28 January 2025, which was already outside of the landlord’s policy timescales, when the contractor confirmed it could not source parts for the window type. The landlord said an operative also attended on 30 January 2025 to “make the windows safe,” but provided no records of this visit or any work completed. This means that we cannot determine whether the landlord made safe all the affected windows and to what extent it left them operational.
- The landlord made no progress on the repair and failed to provide any updates until the resident chased on 28 April 2025. It scheduled a further appointment on 13 May 2025to make the windows safe, but it did not attend. During the complaints process it booked a further inspection for 9 June 2025, but its subcontractor cancelled without notice as they did not cover the area. A later appointment took place on 30 July 2025, but the contractor said the windows could not be repaired.
- After 7 months had passed since the resident’s report in December 2024, including repeated issues following earlier repairs, the landlord had still not progressed matters. Despite having been advised twice in early 2025 by its contractor that the repairs were complex or that parts could not be sourced, the landlord did not appear to consider any alternatives. There is also no evidence it attempted to expedite the appointments, which would have been reasonable in light of the delays. Although the resident raised concerns about the height of her child’s bedroom and told the landlord she had injured herself, the landlord had not shown that it considered the risks or whether the property was safe.
- The landlord said it attempted to contact the resident in July and August 2025 to arrange another appointment to make the windows safe. It explained that it was unable to reach her sooner, which meant it did not attend until 2 September 2025, when it secured the kitchen window. Following this visit, the resident continued to report issues with other windows. The landlord has not provided records of its assessment of the windows from this or any previous visits. There was also evidence of confusion about which windows were affected, as the landlord appeared to rely solely on the resident’s reports and lacked its own records. This was unreasonable and further demonstrated that it did not fully assess the impact on the resident’s household.
- At stage 2 the landlord said it would progress permanent repairs and keep the resident updated, but there is no evidence it did so. It told the resident on 15 August 2025 that it was still trying to find a suitable contractor and then made no further contact until 29 October 2025. At that point, it asked whether the issue had been resolved, despite no evidence that it had arranged any further works to permanently resolve the issues. This showed that it had not progressed repairs or provided updates as it had committed to do in its stage 2 complaint response. However, we understand that a specialist contractor attended in November 2025 to scope the works and is planned to return on 30 January 2026 to complete them.
- When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
- The landlord acted fairly by apologising for the missed appointments, delays and poor communication. It offered the resident £575 compensation, including an element for the service charges complaint. It told us that £200 of the compensation it offered was for inconvenience caused by both complaints therefore we assume that £475 related to the window failings. However, the landlord did not follow through on the commitments made in its stage 2 response and the repairs remain outstanding. We also found that the landlord failed to demonstrate it had assessed the risks to the resident’s household or that its actions made the windows appropriately safe, while awaiting a permanent solution.
- The level of failings we have identified in the landlord’s handling would typically lead to a determination of severe maladministration. However, the landlord acted in part in line with the dispute resolution principles, as the compensation it offered went some way towards putting things right and it has arranged further repairs. That said, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £900 for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its failings, which is an increase of £425. This is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there were failures which had a significant impact on the resident.
- The resident also said that her heating costs had increased because the windows were not closing properly. We have not seen evidence that this formed part of her original complaint. As a result, this issue has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process and did not form part of our investigation. However, we have recommended that the landlord consider this.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries. |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- Part of the resident’s complaint was that the service charges were excessive for the level of services and amenities provided in the building. We may not consider complaints concerning the level of rent or service charge or level of increase. This means our investigation focused on whether the landlord handled the resident’s queries fairly and reasonably in the circumstances of the case. If the resident remains unhappy with the level of her service charges or rent, she may wish to seek independent advice.
- The landlord explained that under the Affordable Rent scheme, the rent it charges is up to 80% of the market rate, inclusive of any service charges. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord may include charges for services within the rent, meaning there is no separate service charge amount. However, the letter the landlord issued alongside the tenancy agreement when the resident moved in, and a further letter it sent her in February 2024, provided 2 separate amounts and an overall total. It also included a service charge schedule. This created an expectation that the resident would continue to receive a breakdown of her charges and contributed to her queries.
- The resident first queried her service charges on 14 April 2024. The landlord did not respond, which it acknowledged as a failing at stage 1 and apologised. It also provided a further explanation as to how the rent was calculated. At stage 2, the landlord accepted that it had caused confusion by referring to the rent and service charges as separate amounts in earlier correspondence. It explained this was an error, apologised, and amended its records. Its most recent correspondence to the resident showed a single combined rent amount.
- Regarding the resident’s concerns about maintenance, the landlord confirmed that it had raised this with the managing agents who confirmed no scheduled services had been missed. However, it said it had increased the frequency of inspections and committed to ensuring the services were provided to the required standard going forward. These actions were reasonable.
- In summary, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings and apologising to the resident. It had put things right by:
- providing a clear explanation of how it calculated the rent
- committing to monitor the maintenance provided
- offering £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, which was in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there were failings which had an adverse impact on the resident
- Additionally, the landlord had demonstrated it had learnt from the outcomes of the complaint by correcting its records and ensuring that future correspondence provided accurate information. The landlord has supplied evidence that it had already paid the resident the compensation it offered.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint in the Complaints Handling Code published in April 2024 (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaints at both stages within reasonable timescales and notified the resident when it needed additional time at stage 2, in line with its policy.
Learning
- The landlord did not manage the window repairs effectively. There were long periods with no progress, missed opportunities to escalate, and no clear ownership of the repair. The landlord has not demonstrated that it carried out risk assessments to consider the health and security of the household or their individual circumstances. This was especially important as young children were present, one of whom has autism. The landlord has not shown that it assessed or understood the impact of this. Our Learning from severe maladministration report published in August 2025 highlights the importance of risk assessment in cases of faulty windows. The landlord may wish to review this report, if it had not done so already.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord did not provide records of its inspections, findings from visits, or repairs carried out. The absence of clear and complete records made it difficult to understand what actions had been taken or why certain decisions were made. Our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management emphasises the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail. The landlord recently told us it has integrated its systems so that all staff working at customer sites can log repairs with photographs. This is a positive step towards ensuring it has an adequate record of repair activity.
Communication
- The landlord’s communication with its contractors was not effective, which contributed to delays. The landlord also lacked proactive communication with the resident about the progress of the repair and the next steps. Proactive communication is particularly important where there are health and safety concerns, as it can reduce distress and ensures the landlord has an up‑to‑date understanding of the situation. This also enables the landlord to determine whether it needs to reassess the risk or put further mitigations in place.