Kingston upon Hull City Council (202504255)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property with his wife and 3 children. In November 2024 he reported that his windows were letting in water and his home was damp and draughty. He is unhappy with the landlord’s actions to resolve this and the impact it has had on him and his family.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s request for a transfer
   2. the resident’s request for repairs
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his request for a transfer is outside our jurisdiction
   2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs
   3. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s request for a transfer

5. We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease or a social housing tenancy. In this case, the council was not acting in this capacity because its actions relate to its housing allocation, bidding, banding and the housing register. As such, we have no power to investigate the complaint about its handling of the resident’s request for a transfer. The resident may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Repairs

6. The landlord did not carry out repairs in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy and has failed to demonstrate that its original decision to not replace windows was based recommendations from a suitably qualified expert.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint and failed to send its stage 1 response in line with its complaint policy timescale.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

9. Complaints about the local authority’s housing allocation are outside of our remit. The resident would need to raise any concerns about his request for a transfer to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

What we have not considered

10. We understand that the landlord has recently replaced all the windows in the property. The resident has told us there is still a problem with damp and he suspects rising and/or penetrating damp. The landlord recently carried out a damp and mould survey and it has identified further repairs. The resident is unhappy the landlord’s repairs did not fully resolve the damp and mould issue.
11. As the landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate these issues as a formal complaint, we have not investigated these. If the resident remains unhappy with this, he will need to raise a new complaint with the landlord to allow it to investigate this. The resident has also raised concerns about the landlord’s response to a previous complaint about his windows in 2015. Due to the passage of time, we have not investigated this. Our investigation has focussed on the events from 2024 onwards.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

12. On 11 September 2024 the resident reported that windows in the property were draughty and letting water in. The landlord inspected these the following day, and its repair notes said there were no faults with the seals. The records do not demonstrate that it did any further investigation into how the windows were allowing water in, which was not appropriate.
13. On 2 October 2024 the resident contacted the landlord asking for a surveyor to inspect the windows. Its internal records indicate that it did not consider this matter to be important, as it noted that the resident was looking for a mutual exchange and may be moving. It was not appropriate for the landlord to allow the resident’s desire to move to influence its handling of repairs. The landlord would need to carry out necessary repairs regardless of who its tenant was, and the resident could be waiting for a suitable mutual exchange property for a long time. The resident also asserted the landlord’s contractor informed him during the appointment on 2 October 2024 that the landlord had been aware of the window issues for years, however there is no evidence to support this.
14. The resident raised his complaint on 21 November 2024, as he was unhappy that he had contacted the landlord asking it to inspect the windows 4 times and had no response. He again told the landlord that water was entering the property through gaps around the windows.
15. The landlord carried out an inspection on 10 December 2024. The resident has told us the landlord’s contractor told him the windows were beyond economical repair and that replacement parts were no longer available. The brief notes we have seen for this inspection say that all window gaskets were to be renewed and various holes in mortar needed to be repointed. However, the landlord has failed to provide us with a copy of a detailed inspection report. It has not demonstrated that a suitably qualified expert assessed the condition of the windows.
16. The landlord wrote the resident on 11 December 2024, confirming it had raised a repair to renew the gaskets and it had booked an appointment for 29 January 2025. This was not in line with its repairs policy, which says it aims to complete all non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days from the date of the repair report. The resident has told us that the landlord had an issue with obtaining the gaskets and had to arrange for these to be 3D printed. While this may have contributed to the delay, it took the landlord 3 months to carry out the initial inspection, which was not reasonable. The resident confirmed the gaskets were first replaced on 24 January 2025.
17. In its stage 1 response of 16 December 2024 the landlord apologised for delays in responding to his previous enquiries about windows as it said these were sent to the wrong department. It would have been appropriate for it to offer some compensation for its failing, but it did not. It confirmed that as well as renewing the window gaskets it would be repointing various holes within the mortar on all sides of the property. Its records are not clear as to when it had identified that repointing was needed.
18. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 December 2024 to ask it to escalate the complaint. He felt it should have offered compensation, and he was unhappy it was not replacing the windows.
19. The landlord carried out a further survey of the windows on 28 January 2025 but has not provided us with a copy of a report. Its contractor renewed the window gaskets on 29 January 2025. The resident contacted it the same day as he said there were still issues with the windows that it had not resolved by changing the gaskets and the repointing remained outstanding. The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 February 2025 to say it had booked in further repairs for 17 February 2025.
20. In its stage 2 response of 7 February 2025 the landlord said it had agreed to carry out a further survey and confirmed that it had booked in additional repairs. It offered him compensation of £250 for time and trouble due to the additional repairs. As we have not seen copies of surveys showing the windows did not require replacement, we cannot say whether this compensation offer was fair.
21. The landlord’s contractors carried out further repairs to the windows and repointing work on 3 April 2025. However, the repair notes say it needed to carry out further work as it did not complete the repointing. It did not complete these repairs in line with its policy. The landlord has since confirmed it finished the repointing work.
22. On 6 May 2025 the landlord emailed the resident to say that following a stock condition survey it had raised further repairs to the windows, including a replacement of one bedroom window. On 25 September 2025 the landlord visited the property again and said it now needed to replace all rear windows in the property. The resident confirmed the first six windows were fitted in September 2025. In November 2025 it also replaced the front windows.
23. We cannot say with certainty that because the landlord has since decided to replace all windows in the property that it should have done so at the time it investigated the complaint. However, it has failed to provide evidence that it carried out thorough inspections and that a suitably qualified expert recommended that the issues the resident was experiencing could be resolved by repairing the existing windows.
24. The landlord was aware that the resident has a health condition, and he has told us the damp and draughty conditions have impacted his and his family’s health. He has said the property was so cold that his children had to wear coats inside during the last winter, which was stressful and uncomfortable.
25. 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.
26. The landlord has not demonstrated that it considered the impact on the health of the resident and his family in its actions relating to repairs. It was clear in his escalation request that this was his primary concern and the landlord’s actions do not show it considered this or took action to mitigate the risks. It did not carry out a risk assessment in relation to the windows or address his concerns about the temperature within the property, which was not reasonable.
27. While the landlord did carry out many repairs, it did not do these in line with its policy timescale. It is not evident that these repairs were the correct course of action, as the landlord ultimately decided to replace all the windows. The landlord’s actions delayed a resolution to the cold and damp problems, causing additional distress and inconvenience.
28. Our order for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in it resolving issues with the windows was made with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind. Its policy says it will pay up to £500 where inconvenience and/or distress has been caused due to maladministration, but there is no permanent impact on the resident.

29. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord sent its stage 1 response 17 working days after the complaint was raised (21 November to 16 December 2024) – which was not in line with its policy timescale of 10 working days.
    2. while the landlord’s records state it tried unsuccessful to call the resident to discuss the complaint on 25 November 2024, we have seen record of a written acknowledgement however this was undated, and therefore unclear when it was issued to the resident.
    3. the landlord updated the resident within 20 working days of the escalation request with a holding letter requesting an extension on 5 December 2024, and responded within the extended deadline.
    4. the landlord sent its stage 2 response 34 working days after the escalation request (18 December 2024 to 7 February 2025).
30. The landlord updated the resident with a holding letter requesting an extension on 5 December 2024,however the correspondence did not provide any reasoning beyond stating that additional time was required due to the complexity of the case. The Complaint Handling Code requires landlords to provide clear and adequate reasoning when requesting an extension, and that the reason must be clearly explained to the resident. In this instance, the landlord did not provide adequate reasoning for the extension.
31. The landlord updated the resident with its need for more time to investigate at stage 2 in a holding letter dated 10 January 2025, in this instance although the landlord confirmed due to the complexity of the issues it would not be able to respond to the timescale in its acknowledgement, further detail was incorporated, namely explaining the attendance of a meeting on 10 January 2025, which the Ombudsman accepts would have warranted further time.
32. Although an acknowledgement of the resident’s initial complaint was provided, this was undated and the landlord’s extension request at stage one did not provide adequate reasoning to the resident.
33. Our order for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 has been made with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind. This says it will award up to £100 where minimal inconvenience or distress has been caused.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord’s records in relation to the repairs considered in this investigation do not appear to be complete. Its failure to keep robust records contributed to the delays in completing repairs. Its records in relation to the complaint also appear to be incomplete. The landlord should consider whether its processes are sufficient to have robust oversight of repairs and complaints.

Communication

35. The landlord’s communication in this case was poor. There were several instances of the resident sending multiple emails and receiving no response, which likely contributed to the failures identified in this report. The landlord should ensure that it processes allow for accountability and responsibility for monitoring communication it receives, regardless of the department that received the email, to allow it to respond in an appropriate and timely manner.