London Borough of Enfield (202347217)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347217

London Borough of Enfield

31 July 2025


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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of his requests to replace his windows.

Background

  1. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor of a block. The resident started living in the flat as an introductory tenant in February 2023. According to the tenancy agreement after the initial 12 months without breach of tenancy condition he is currently a secure tenant of the landlord. He has reported mental health conditions and is receiving support from the local mental health team.
  2. It is not in dispute that the property has single glazed window panes which are less effective at heat insulation than double glazed windows. The resident has requested the landlord replace his windows with double glazed panes since March 2023 and had called multiple times on this issue.
  3. On 31 January 2024 the resident made a complaint that the landlord had not acted to replace his windows. He stated he was experiencing extreme cold and noise disturbance through the windows and wanted the windows to be replaced for his safety.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 13 February 2024 summarised as follows:
    1. It apologised that no one had communicated an update to the resident following the various enquiries he had made throughout 2023.
    2. It confirmed the resident’s property had been included on the windows replacement programme. It was going through the procurement procedure to find a contractor to replace the single-glazed windows in the resident’s block, who would then provide a ‘rough programme’.
    3. Its repairs team had tried to contact the resident to book in a window inspection to identify what temporary repairs could be done. They would try again on 14 February 2024.
    4. It offered £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the lack of communication and updates.
  5. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 14 February 2024. The landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s windows on 16 February 2024.
  6. The parties disagreed on what was said during the inspection. The landlord’s records showed that the resident refused the landlord’s offer of installing draught strips to the windows as he wanted the windows to be replaced entirely, rather than temporary fixes being done.
  7. The resident has explained to us that the contractor told him the draught strips would not be a long-term effective solution and therefore he declined the work. He said the landlord did not take into account his mental health status at the time. He stated he then hired private workers at his own costs to apply more sealing to the windows but that did not help. He believes the landlord’s offer of draught strips would not have been effective in any case.
  8. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 13 March 2024 summarised as follows:
    1. It repeated its previous apology that it did not communicate well with the resident in 2023 or provide him with updates.
    2. It repeated its offer of £350 and offered again to do temporary repairs. It urged the resident to engage with the repairs team.
  9. The resident sought help from this Service in March 2024. He stated the compensation offered by the landlord did not adequately reflect his loss. He said he had to pay additional heating costs and had been forced to stay in hostels to avoid the cold. He said he had lost personal relationships due to the impact on his mental health. He quantified his total loss at about £10,480.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord again on this issue in July 2024 and the landlord arranged for a contractor to measure his windows on 19 July 2024 with a view to replace them. The resident however was unable to be present on that day and this appointment did not go ahead. During these communications, the resident informed the landlord that he had experienced mental health issues.
  11. The landlord internally asked a Resident Relationship Officer to actively reach out to the resident to evaluate the situation and offer wellbeing support. The records do not show if the landlord later conducted any wellbeing assessment, however it is known that the Resident Relationship Officer has been in contact with him.
  12. As of July 2025 the resident informed this Service he had not received any notice from the landlord about when he could expect the window replacement to go ahead. He said he had previously declined the landlord’s compensation offer of £350 due to concerns it would prevent him from pursuing his complaint further.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns that the lack of insulation on the single-glazed window panes have caused his physical and mental health to deteriorate. While the Ombudsman acknowledges this must be distressing for the resident, we are not able to determine the cause of his physical and mental health symptoms. This type of claim is better suited to the courts, where the judge would benefit from an independent medical expert confirming the diagnosis, cause and prognosis of the injury or illness. It is usually only the courts that can say if legal liability arises. The Ombudsman can, however, consider if the resident was likely to have been caused distress and inconvenience by the landlord’s actions or omissions.

Relevant policies and guidance

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property which would include windows. The tenancy agreement confirms this.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, it should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and then respond to the complaint within 10 working days; at stage 2 (the final stage) it should respond within 20 working days. These timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which member landlords are expected to adhere to.
  3. The landlord’s compensation guidance states on identifying service failings it would consider awarding compensation in cases where avoidable distress and inconvenience have occurred. For cases where maladministration adversely affected the resident but with no permanent impact, it would offer compensation in the range of £100 to £600.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for window replacement

  1. There is no dispute that the landlord should have provided the resident with explanations and updates sooner when he first raised his requests in March 2023, but it did not do so until February 2024 when the resident made a complaint. The landlord has already apologised for this.
  2. At the time of the final complaint response (March 2024) the landlord gave reassurance to the resident that it was aware of the problem and his windows would be replaced. It provided an update that it was progressing the procurement process and finding a contractor to provide this service.
  3. We acknowledge that local authorities face considerable budget constraints and must prioritise resources for major works where they can see best value for money. It was not possible at the time for the landlord to tell the resident when he could expect the replacement to go ahead. We consider the landlord’s explanation was reasonable in the circumstances at the time. However given the time that has passed since then, It would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with an updates on the window replacement programme and to progress this work in a timely manner. We have accordingly made an order below.
  4. The landlord acted appropriately in offering an inspection and temporary repairs pending the replacement works. We understand that the resident felt the temporary solution offered by the landlord (draught prevention strips) would not have helped and he declined the repairs. It was nevertheless reasonable for the landlord to make this offer. The landlord has since then re-made the offer and encouraged the resident to engage with its repairs team, and this was also appropriate.
  5. In light of the resident’s reports of his mental health being very significantly affected by the situation, it was also appropriate for the landlord to arrange for a Resident Relationship Officer to reach out and assess.
  6. Overall, the only significant service failing was the landlord’s failure to communicate and respond to the resident earlier in 2023. It has apologised and offered £350 to recognise the impact of distress and inconvenience caused to him through the poor communication. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for maladministration with no permanent impact. While we understand the resident does not agree this was sufficient, we consider the amount offered was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance.
  7. The resident has reported experiencing ‘extreme cold’ and noise disturbance because the windows were single-glazed. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to respond along the lines of window replacement as that was the outcome sought by the resident, for best practice and a more customer-focused approach, the landlord could have offered to investigate the indoors temperature in winter and checked the heating system was in adequate working order. We have accordingly made a recommendation below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s requests for window replacement.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to pay £350 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by distress and inconvenience for the lack of updates on window replacement (which the resident had not accepted previously). The landlord is to provide evidence of payment to us.
  2. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to write to the resident (with copy to this Service) to provide an update as to the status of its window replacement programme for the building and when the resident could expect the replacement to go ahead.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should re-make the offer of conducting an inspection to identify any issues of draught or lack of sealing, and then follow up where appropriate with offers to do temporary repairs to mitigate the issues.
  2. The landlord should offer to carry out an inspection of the property during winter months to assess the interior temperatures and the heating system to ensure all space heating facilities are functioning satisfactorily and there are no other repair issues which may be contributing to the reportedly cold conditions.