Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) is a new government policy that came into force on 1 October 2026, find out more.

Great Places Housing Group Limited (202427507)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427507

Great Places Housing Association

1 October 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for window replacement.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, with the tenancy commencing in 2013. The property is a 3-bedroom house occupied by the resident and her family. The resident’s son represented her during the complaint process, and for the purposes of this report both he and his mother will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
  2. The repair log shows that repairs were carried out to the windows between April and October 2023. On 27 October 2023, the repair log details an entry which said “measure up for windows. Checked windows and measured up”. A further entry for 30 October 2023 said that the windows in both bedrooms were inspected.
  3. On 30 April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to report that she was still awaiting updates regarding the first-floor window replacement, which she stated had been ongoing for several years. She mentioned that in January 2024, she was told the windows would be replaced as part of a larger scheme, with further clarification expected by April 2024. However, she said despite repeated follow-up messages, no updates had been received. She sent an additional email on 24 May 2024 requesting a response.
  4. On 18 June 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to formally acknowledge her complaint regarding “the windows”. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued on 16 July 2024 and sent to the resident via email on 23 August 2024. The response outlined the actions taken, including that a contractor visited the property on 16 November 2023 and concluded that “some of the windows may need replacing”. It also mentioned that the matter was referred to a manager, but there was a delay in progressing it. The response stated that the head of repairs had raised a work order for a contractor to attend and measure for the necessary window replacements. It advised the resident to contact the landlord if she had not been contacted by 28 July 2024. Additionally, the landlord offered the resident £250 as compensation for the delay.
  5. The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 29 August 2024. She said that:
    1. She had not been contacted by the landlord by the deadline of 28 July 2024 provided in its stage 1 response.
    2. The dates provided in the stage 1 response did not accurately reflect the communication timeline.
    3. In May 2023, an inspection of the windows was carried out and she was assured they would be replaced.
    4. She was unhappy with the landlord’s ongoing poor communication, unfulfilled promise to arrange a contractor, and continued lack of timely action.
    5. The offer of £250 did not reflect the years of inconvenience and unfulfilled promises, as it did not even cover half a month’s rent.
  6. On 4 September 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to ask whether she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2, and the resident confirmed she did.
  7. A survey was then conducted regarding the windows. The inspection notes indicated that the primary window examined, located on the first floor, showed no current signs of damp or condensation. The inspection notes also said the hinges exhibited minor lateral movement but remained within acceptable tolerances, and the seals appeared intact. The report also noted that a CCTV electrical wire passing through the window frame could allow water to bypass the seals, especially during rain, potentially causing the resident’s reported water penetration and mould growth. Overall, it said the windows were in good condition and did not require replacement at this time. However, the wire breach was considered problematic. The contractor recommended a re-inspection during the winter months and after the wire removal.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 September 2024, stating that the property’s windows, installed in 2010, remained within their expected lifespan and recent inspections found no faults or operational issues. It said the main concern was identified as electrical wires breaching the window seals when closed, which could have contributed to water ingress. Its contractor advised to remove the wires, including satellite dish cables, and to carry out a re-inspection during winter.
  9. The resident responded on the same day, expressing frustration over the nearly 10-month delay in providing responses and disputing the accuracy of the findings. She stated that the water ingress issue was unrelated to the electrical wires. She also noted that, despite previous assurances that the windows would be replaced in 2024/25, the recent response indicated this might no longer be the case. Additionally, she raised concerns that her questions regarding compensation had not been addressed.
  10. The landlord discussed the resident’s response of 30 September 2024 internally, stating that there was nothing further to add. An internal email mentioned that 3 managers had given the same response, and the windows would not be replaced as long as they functioned properly. The landlord also offered to revisit the property, and reiterated the plan to re-inspect during the winter months.
  11. The resident contacted the landlord again on 16 October 2024, expressing that she had not received a response concerning her question about the level of compensation offered during stage 1.
  12. During recent communication with the resident, she told us that there had been no independent inspection of the windows and that she felt the stage 2 complaint had not been investigated independently.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether or not the resident’s windows required replacement. Rather, the role of this Service is to consider whether the landlord took appropriate steps, in line with its relevant policies and procedures, to address the resident’s reports of problems with the windows.
  2. The resident said that she had been reporting issues with the windows for several years. While we do not dispute this, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise unresolved complaints to this Service in a timely manner so that any failure by the landlord can be addressed promptly. As issues become historical, evidence become difficult to obtain and authenticate. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the events surrounding the resident’s formal complaint in relation to the windows. This is in line with paragraph 42 of the Scheme and the landlord’s customer feedback policy.

The resident’s request for window replacement

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says that:
    1. Emergency repairs will be addressed within 24 hours. These are urgent repairs that pose immediate risk to health or safety, such as gas leaks, major water leaks, or dangerous electrical faults.
    2. Routine repairs will be addressed within 20 working days. These are less urgent repairs, such as minor plumbing issues, broken tiles, or defective appliances.
    3. Major repairs are where more extensive work is required following the initial routine repair, including major component replacements or structural repairs. Depending on the urgency and nature of the work, repairs may be carried out promptly or scheduled alongside other planned investment works, with timescales communicated to the customer.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord carried out repairs to the windows between 19 April 2023 and 27 October 2023. The works were carried out within 15 working days, which aligned with the landlord’s repair policy timescale. This was appropriate. It is also noted in the repair records that during an inspection of 27 October 2023 the windows were “measured up”.
  3. On 30 April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord saying she was still waiting for the windows to be replaced on the first floor. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 24 May 2024. The landlord contacted the resident on 18 June 2024, saying it was acknowledging her complaint at stage 1. No further details were provided as to what had been discussed in relation to the formal complaint. Clear and accurate records would have provided an audit trail of the action the landlord took. The notes in relation to this were not comprehensive and demonstrate a recording keeping failure.
  4. The same day, the landlord liaised internally regarding when the resident’s windows were likely to be replaced. Further correspondence suggested they were not due for replacement until 2041. While it was appropriate for the landlord to clarify its position in relation to the replacement of the windows, it was unreasonable that it took over 7 months to do so. It had taken measurements of the windows in October 2023, and it was reasonable for the resident to assume that they were going to be replaced. It was for the landlord to provide the resident with a prompt response as to its decision, which in turn would have managed her expectations. It is evident from the resident’s communication that the uncertainty caused her distress and inconvenience.
  5. An internal email of 8 July 2024 said that the landlord would “raise a job and measure up for the front window” but it was not necessary to replace all the windows. There were no records to indicate if this was followed up or any additional action taken at that time, which was not appropriate.
  6. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that an inspection was carried out on 16 November 2023, during which the contractor determined that “some of the windows may need replacing”. Details of this inspection did not appear to be recorded in the repair records provided to this Service, which is another record keeping failure. A recommendation has been made in relation to this.
  7. The landlord also stated that, although the contractor had indicated the issue would be escalated to a manager, no further action was taken. It advised the resident to get in touch if she had not received any communication by 28 July 2024. However, it was unreasonable to place the onus on the resident to initiate contact, especially since the landlord acknowledged that the matter had previously been delayed. Additionally, evidence shows that the resident did not receive the stage 1 response until 23 August 2024, which was well after the advised deadline of 28 July 2024. It did, however, “sincerely apologise” and offered her £250 compensation for the delay in getting the issue raised to the appropriate contactor and for any misinformation she was given. This was a positive step by the landlord to put things right.
  8. On 21 August 2024, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to the window replacement. The landlord’s case notes for the same day say that the member of staff dealing with the matter had moved teams and the case had not been reassigned. It was unreasonable that the resident’s case was not progressed due to staffing issues. In order to provide good customer service, a landlord should have sufficient measures in place so that residents are not disadvantaged due to staff absence. This was especially relevant in the resident’s case as she had already raised a formal complaint.
  9. The resident’s complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 29 August 2024. She said she had not been contacted by 28 July 2024 as promised in the landlord’s stage 1 response. She also disagreed with the timeline of events provided by the landlord, clarifying that the inspection took place in May 2023, not September 2023, and that she was advised at that time that the windows would be replaced. Although the evidence does not suggest the landlord was going to replace the windows, it does show that an inspection was carried out on 2 May 2023, which indicated that the issue was raised before September 2023. Consequently, its response was not factually correct. The landlord would presumably have identified this had it fully investigated the complaint and kept accurate records.
  10. A survey was conducted on 18 September 2024, which concluded that the windows were generally in acceptable condition and did not require replacement. The primary recommendation was to remove the wires servicing the CCTV and satellite dishes that breached the window seals and to conduct a re-inspection during the winter months. It was an appropriate and a proactive step by the landlord to re-inspect the windows following the resident’s concerns, and to suggest a further inspection in winter, when conditions are typically worse. This was a sensible and solution-focused approach given the resident’s reports.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 September 2024. In the response, it stated that discussions with the asset team confirmed the windows were still within their expected lifespan, and the contractor’s report found no faults. It also mentioned that, following further concerns raised by the resident, the project manager had confirmed the windows were fit for purpose. The resident replied on the same day, stating that she was visited in May 2023, during which it was determined that the windows needed replacing. She also noted that previous repair attempts had been unsuccessful and that several contractors had also advised that the windows required replacement.
  12. On 30 September 2024, the resident contacted the contractor who had conducted the inspection on 18 September 2024 directly, to seek clarification. The resident stated that the report “differs significantly from what was discussed on site”. She further mentioned that the contractor acknowledged the poor quality of the window frames and their misalignment and clarified that the wire issue was unrelated to water ingress. While it is not our role to determine whether the contractor’s statements were as described, we will assess whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and whether its actions were fair and reasonable, considering all relevant circumstances. There was no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns following her email of 30 September 2024. This lack of response was not appropriate and did not demonstrate that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. This was unfair to her as she had experienced uncertainty over the replacement windows for nearly 11 months.
  13. While it was reasonable for the landlord to follow the recommendations of its contractor not to replace the windows, it is concerning that the resident’s ongoing concerns – particularly in light of previous advice recommending replacement – were not adequately addressed after the most recent inspection. I appreciate that the surveyor did indicate once the wiring is removed, the windows should be reinspected. As such, the landlord needs to communicate with the resident, to confirm the wiring has been removed in order for the re-inspection to take place.

Summary and conclusion

  1. Based on the evidence, it is clear that the landlord’s handling of the window repairs and replacement was inconsistent. While initial repairs were completed within the timeframe specified in the landlord’s policy, significant delays and poor record keeping compromised the transparency and effectiveness of the process. The failure to provide clear and timely communication about the potential for replacement, especially after measurements were taken, caused unnecessary distress and uncertainty for the resident. Furthermore, the landlord’s internal mismanagement such as staff moving teams without the case being reassigned put the resident at a disadvantage and delayed a resolution for her. The landlord took some positive steps, such as offering compensation and conducting a survey, but these actions were overshadowed by its failure to respond promptly and accurately to the resident’s concerns.
  2. Therefore we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for window replacement. As a result, £500 has been awarded to her. This is in line with the landlord’s remedies and resolution policy for circumstances where there has been misinformation, such as giving contradictory advice and poor communication, in the medium term. It also reflects our remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process under which it is required to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s customer feedback policy defines a complaint as, an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents. It also says it has a dedicated customer feedback team which will review, investigate, and respond to complaints.
  3. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with how her case was handled on 30 April 2024. She followed up on the matter on 24 May 2024. The landlord contacted the resident on 18 June 2024 to discuss her concerns and acknowledged her complaint at stage 1. This was 33 working days later and not appropriate, as the landlord failed to recognise the need to raise a formal complaint in the first instance. The landlord’s stage 1 response was dated 16 July 2024, but the evidence appears to show it was not sent to the resident until 23 August 2023. This was 47 working days after its acknowledgement, significantly exceeding its policy timescale. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until after she prompted it. Although it then provided acknowledgement within 4 working days, the final response was provided 37 working days beyond the policy deadline. This was not appropriate.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 29 August 2024. She also said she was unhappy with the level of compensation she was offered stating it did not “adequately reflect the years of inconvenience and poor communication”. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 September 2024, which was 22 working days later. This exceeded the policy timescale by 2 days, and also it failed to acknowledge the escalated complaint within the required 5 working days. On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord, stating that her concerns regarding the level of compensation awarded at stage 1 had not been addressed. A stage 2 complaint is the landlord’s final opportunity to review both the handling of the key issues, and the complaint process itself, with the aim of putting things right for the resident. However, we found that the landlord did not adequately evaluate its response to the complaint, resulting in a missed opportunity to fully respond to the resident’s concerns, which was unfair to her.
  5. The stage 2 response was also investigated and provided by the head of the repairs teams. Specifically, they said that they “would like to confirm the findings of my investigation and my offer of resolution”. This was contrary to the landlord’s policy, which says it has a dedicated team that will review, investigate, and respond to complaints. Additionally, this does not align with our complaint handling code, which says a complaint handler must act independently. Having a dedicated independent complaint handling team ensures that complaint handling remains impartial and consistent, and the landlord should utilise its team to ensure best practice.

Summary and conclusion

  1. In summary, the landlord did not adhere to its established complaints procedure and fully respond to the resident’s concerns. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint within the required 5 working days at both stages, requiring her to chase for a response. Furthermore, it did not provide responses within the specified timescales – exceeding the deadline by 10 days at stage 1 and by 2 days at stage 2. These delays reflect a failure to comply with the landlord’s own policy, impacting a timely resolution for the resident. The landlord did not offer any compensation for the failures in complaint handling, which was a missed opportunity to put things right, and failed to evidence it investigated the complaint in line with its policy.
  2. Therefore we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. As a result, £200 has been awarded to her. This is in line with the landlord’s remedies and resolution policy for circumstances where it failed to meet service standards relating to actions and responses in the short term.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for window replacement.
    2. Associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £700, made up of:
      1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her in relation to its handling of her request for window replacements. This can be reduced by the landlord’s offer of £250 if already paid.
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its complaint handling failures.
    3. Once the resident has confirmed the removal of the wiring, the landlord should re-inspect the windows during the winter months of 2025 as per the contractor’s recommendations. The inspection should be undertaken by a suitably qualified member of staff, who has not been previously involved with the property or previous investigations. The resulting inspection report must be shared with the resident and this Service, and should provide details on the conditions of the windows and any decisions made in relation to their replacement. Evidence of compliance should be provided by 31 December 2025.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM). It should consider self-assessing against this report, if it has not done so recently, and any training needs of its staff in these areas.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord arranges for relevant frontline staff involved in complaint handing to complete this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently.