London Borough of Lambeth (202342503)

Background

1. In 2022, the resident reported on several occasions that his sash windows were draughty and not opening and closing correctly. He requested that the windows be replaced. The landlord approved the window replacement works in January 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for replacement windows.
   2. Complaint.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement windows.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. There was an unexplained 14 month delay in responding to the resident’s request for replacement windows. Although the landlord apologised, this was not proportionate redress for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
7. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in August 2022, and there were minor delays in responding to his later complaint in 2023 at both stages with no explanation. It also did not address the resident’s concerns about missed call-backs, explain the timeframe it investigated, show any learnings or offer redress for any distress and inconvenience caused.
8. The landlord failed to provide clear and accurate records for our investigation, with key repair and complaint records missing and unexplained gaps. However, it has since taken steps to improve this, so we have made no orders.

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.

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. There is evidence that the issues with the windows have been ongoing issues since 2017.However, as there is a gap in the landlord’s records about the matter from August 2018 till June 2022, it is reasonable that the scope of this investigation covers matters from when the resident reported issues again in June 2022 up until the date the final response was issued in January 2024.
10. In his referral to this Service, the resident said he was seeking compensation for his increased energy costs due to the condition of the windows. We cannot consider this specific point, as it was not raised as part of this complaint to the landlord. We have, however, considered the general distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
11. The landlord’s repairs manual says that routine repairs will be carried out in either 7 days or 28 working days, depending on the type of repair, and that planned works (major repairs) would be completed within 90 days.
12. On 6 June 2022, the resident reported that the windows were draughty and not opening and closing correctly. The landlord’s repair history shows that it attended within 6 days. It is not clear how it prioritised this repair, but its response time was in line with its policy for routine repairs. It said all windows were opening and closing fine and recommended carrying out a mould wash, but we have seen no evidence that it did so.
13. On 20 July 2022, the resident reported the same concerns with the windows. The repairs history shows the landlord attended on 9 August, within 14 working days. Again, it is not clear how this repair was prioritised, but its response time was line with its policy for routine repairs. During this visit, it said that the cold may be because the windows were not double glazed and it noted that the resident wanted them to be replaced. The resident chased his request on 16 August and again in December 2022 and we’ve not seen any evidence that the landlord provided its position on this.
14. There is an unexplained gap in the landlord’s records until the resident called to ask about the window replacements again in September 2023. Following this call, the landlord’s records show that its contractors sent a quote for approval in October 2023. The landlord then arranged for a survey to inspect the windows in November 2023.
15. The landlord has not provided an explanation as to why it took 14 months after his request in August 2022 until October 2023, to take any action. This shows it did not take a proactive approach to responding to the resident’s request or keeping him updated with clear timescales for next steps.
16. There is conflicting information about the survey. The landlord’s stage 1 response says a survey was arranged for 29 November 2023. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response says that a surveyor attended the resident’s home with no access on 22 November and then surveyed it on 6 December 2023. We have not seen evidence of the completed survey, but the landlord said it needed further authorisation due to the cost of replacing the windows, which was approved on 16 January 2024.
17. In January 2024, the landlord’s repair history shows that the resident called 4 times to chase updates. The repair history does not clearly note which specific repair he was chasing each time, but the window replacement works were still outstanding at that time.
18. After the replacement works were approved in January 2024, neither the landlord nor the resident can say exactly when the windows were replaced. The landlord’s records indicate that it was done sometime before June 2024 and after the final response to the complaint was issued. Therefore, we cannot determine exactly how much the landlord exceeded the 90-day timeframe for planned works
19. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay in resolving the resident’s concerns about replacing the windows in its complaint responses but did not offer any compensation. An apology alone was not proportionate for the failings we have identified and it did not explain the reasons for the 14 month delay in assessing whether the windows required renewal. Nor did it show that it had considered the impact of this delay, including the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, and his time and trouble in chasing updates.
20. In line with our compensation’s guidance for cases where a landlord’s failings have had a significant impact on the resident, and the landlord has failed to address the detriment caused, the landlord must pay the resident £600 compensation.

21. The landlord did not provide the basic repair records we would expect such as repairs logs, inspection notes, contractor reports or surveys or the date the windows were replaced. Instead, it provided a brief combined summary of the repair and contact history which had large unexplained gaps. It is not clear whether the landlord did not have the information to provide, but these are standard records that it is expected to keep and provide to assist with our investigations.
22. The repairs history it did provide was not sufficient for us to understand how it prioritised any repairs, when the property was attended, by whom, and what exact works were carried out. The landlord also provided undated inspection photos which had a job number related to a repair in October 2024. As this repair was after this complaint, it was not relevant to this case.
23. The repairs history noted a complaint raised by the resident in August 2022. The landlord did not provide any further detail about this, despite our request for information about any complaints the resident made before this one about windows. Instead, it provided information about a later complaint about guttering, which was not relevant.
24. We are aware that in March 2025, the landlord introduced a Knowledge and Information (KIM) Strategy. The strategy is underpinned by the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on KIM and acknowledges several areas for improvement. As such, we have made no orders that will duplicate the commitments made as part of its strategy.

25. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) March 2022 which applied at the time of this complaint, required landlords to respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. We have relied on the policy provided to us by the landlord on this case which did not comply with the timescales set out in the Code. However, we are aware the landlord’s policy was updated to be compliant in April 2024.
26. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it responded to the complaint made on 5 August 2022, and it did not address this in its final response in January 2024. The resident had raised concerns that the landlord had not responded to complaints he made, so the landlord should have addressed this point.
27. The resident complained again in October 2023. The landlord took 23 working days to respond at stage 1 and 26 working days to respond at stage 2. The landlord did not acknowledge or explain the reasons for the delays in its handling of the complaint. Nor did it offer any redress for the inconvenience caused by the delay.
28. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did not specifically address the call-back issue raised by the resident and focused on the delay only. In addition, it did not clearly explain what time frame it was considering in respect of the acknowledged delays and why. It would have been appropriate for it to do so, as it referenced an outstanding recommendation from 2018but its response only detailed events from 2023. Its failure to do this would have caused unnecessary confusion to the resident and lacked transparency about its decision making process.
29. The landlord’s complaint responses did not detail any learnings it had taken from the complaint or explain what action it would take to improve its repair handling or complaint responses in future.
30. For the delays and the impact from the lack of clarity in its response, the landlord must pay £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our compensation guidance for a complaint handling failure which has adversely affected the resident and which the landlord has failed to acknowledge.

Learning

31. In January 2024, the Housing Ombudsman investigated the landlord’s complaint handling. That investigation highlighted similar issues with learning as found in this report. As such, we have not made any learning orders which would duplicate the landlord’s commitment. A copy of the report can be found here: Lambeth Council to tackle cause of complaints | Housing Ombuds.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. As set out in this report, the landlord’s record keeping fell short of what is expected. Good record keeping is essential for managing repairs and complaints. Our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM 2022) explains that landlords must keep clear and accurate records so they can manage properties safely, make informed decisions and be accountable for their actions.

Communication

33. Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. The landlord did not provide updates and did not make timeframes for next steps clear, so the resident regularly had to chase for information. Providing timely and clear updates would reduce unnecessary contact and help build trust.