Charnwood Borough Council (202431637)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431637

Charnwood Borough Council

28 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of repair issues, including insulation, windows, and soffits.
2. Complaints handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom first-floor flat. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. Throughout the period of the complaint, the landlord was aware that the resident has autism and that he had requested advanced notice of any visits. He also had reduced availability for providing access due to his personal commitments.
It is not disputed that the resident experienced a leak into his loft in or around late 2019. Following this, redundant tanks were removed, and some redundant pipes remained. The ceiling boards were also replaced, and it is evident the insulation was disturbed as part of these works. In or around April 2021, the resident also raised repair concerns relating to his windows.
On 21 September 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint about the condition of his soffits and the insulation. He noted that he had trouble heating the property. As a result, he had attempted to lay some insulation himself to improve the heating situation. He further noted that the ceiling boards fitted following the leak were thinner than those removed.
It is evident that the resident continued to chase this issue in December 2022, following which the landlord discussed the issue with its contractor. The contractor disputed that it had altered or removed the insulation. It is not evident that the landlord discussed its position with the resident, and so her continued to chase it for updates throughout 2023.
The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response until 20 March 2024, which included the following:
1. It apologised for failing to respond to the formal complaint.
2. It noted that an insurance claim had previously been settled in relation to the ceiling works. It also noted that the resident had since installed insulation himself. It did not provide any further comment on this issue.
3. It noted that repairs had been completed to the windows and soffits in February 2023. It did not note if anything remained outstanding.
4. It advised the resident to make an insurance claim if he considered any negligence had occurred.
On 13 August 2024, the resident noted that he was unable to make an insurance claim. He also noted his concerns about the insulation had not been addressed and that an extractor fan the landlord had fitted was the wrong size, resulting in further draughts. He further noted that the windows and soffits were still in a poor condition but that he had been informed these would not be addressed until a planned programme of works in the new year.
The landlord provided a new stage 1 response on 14 October 2024, which included the following:
1. It referred to its previous stage 1 dated 20 March 2024 and acknowledged that the advice to make an insurance claim was not correct. It apologised and offered £50 for the inconvenience this had caused.
2. It also acknowledged it had not addressed the resident’s concerns about increased heating costs and offered £75 towards this.
3. It confirmed further inspections would take place and that its contractor would contact him directly.
Following the resident’s dissatisfaction with this response, the landlord provided its “review of stage 1 response” on 1 November 2024, which included the following:
1. Following its inspection on 25 October 2024, it agreed that the insulation was not up to standard. It apologised that this was not initially installed correctly. It confirmed works would be raised and that the resident would be kept updated.
2. It advised it would review how works were handed over in the future to avoid a repeat of this issue.
3. Regarding the windows and soffits, it noted that mastic had been applied as a repair and confirmed that it would include them in its future planned programme of works for 2025-2026.
4. It increased its offer of compensation to £1,054.22, made up of:
  1. £954.22 for loss of amenity, being 10% of his rent for the period between 19 September 2022 and 3 November 2024.
  2. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
  3. This was in addition to the £50 and £75 previously offered.
The resident subsequently escalated his complaint and advised that he did not consider the compensation offered was reflective of the impact the issues had had on him. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 11 November 2024.
It is evident that some appointments were raised in November 2024. An appointment relating to the extractor fan failed due to the contractor not having the correct parts. Other appointments failed as the resident was unable to provide access due to the lack of notice.
On 9 December 2024, the landlord requested further time to provide its stage 2 response. It made a further extension request on 15 January 2025. It provided its stage 2 response on 17 January 2025, which included the following:
1. Following an inspection on 5 November 2024, it acknowledged that the window had been fitted incorrectly, for which it apologised. It provided details for the resident to arrange a repair.
2. It reiterated the soffits would be addressed in the upcoming planned programme of works.
3. It apologised for the repeated visits needed to fix the extractor fan. It noted these works were now completed.
4. It reiterated it was attempting to arrange insulation works.
5. Regarding compensation, it increased its offer to £1,954.22. This was made up of:
  1. Its previous offer of £954.22 for loss of amenity.
  2. Its previous offer of £50 for the incorrect information about an insurance claim.
  3. Its previous offer of £75 for increased heating costs. It requested copies of heating bills if the resident did not consider this offer accurate.
  4. £600 for distress and inconvenience.
  5. £250 for its complaints handling at stage 1.
  6. £25 for the delays to its stage 2 response.
It is evident that in early 2025, the parties sought to arrange a time for further works. Following an inspection, the landlord provided a scope of works and dates on 6 March 2025. This included replacement of the insulation, removal of pipes, and temporary repairs to the soffits.
Following this, there were several instances where contractors showed up despite appointments being cancelled, causing frustration for the resident. There was also some delay caused by the landlord’s initial intention to complete insulation works prior to removing redundant pipes. This approach was later changed following the resident’s concerns that this would lead to the insulation needing to be removed again.
It is also evident that around this time, the resident provided the landlord with copies of his heating bills. The landlord noted that an EPC certificate from 2022 noted no concerns with the insulation. It therefore assessed the period from February 2023 to present. It subsequently increased its offer relating to increased heating costs to £189. The resident disputed that this was reflective of the losses he had incurred and noted that the EPC certificate had only concluded there was insulation because of the partial insulation he himself had laid. It is not evident that the landlord has made any further offers.
In his correspondence with this service as of August 2025, the resident has advised that insulation works and works to increase the thickness of his ceiling boards was completed in or around July 2025. However, works to address draughts caused by the soffits remain ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues he reported, and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted his health.
We are unable to decide that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had an impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriately made by a court who will have the benefit of independent medical experts. Should the resident wish to pursue a personal injury claim, he has the option to seek legal advice.
The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.
Additionally, the resident has noted that during recent conversations with the local authority’s environmental department, he has had concerns about staff behaviour. The local authority’s environmental department form part of the wider functions of the local authority that are outside of the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman. As such, should the resident wish to pursue a complaint regarding staff behaviour, he may wish to raise this with the local authority in the first instance, and then refer it to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman should he remain concerned with their response.

Repairs – Insulation

The landlord has not provided this service with its repairs policy; however, it has a portal on its website which sets out its repair timeframes. This says that ‘urgent’ works (where there is no risk but where there is inconvenience caused) will be completed within 5 calendar days. ‘Routine’ works will be completed within 28 calendar days.
It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for ensuring the property has the correct insulation. The resident reported concerns about the adequacy of the insulation in or around September 2022. He explained his concerns that the insulation had been altered by the contractors who addressed an earlier ceiling repair. He also noted that he was struggling to heat the property. It is not evident that the landlord immediately responded to this report. Given that the resident clearly articulated the inconvenience he was experiencing, it would have been helpful had the landlord explained its position on what category of repair it considered this to be. However, no such explanation was given.
In such circumstances, it is reasonable for a landlord to conduct an investigation to determine its repair responsibility. In this case, it is evident that the landlord made enquiries with its contractor, who denied altering the insulation in any way. However, given the detail of the resident’s reports, specifically that the new ceiling boards were insufficient, which he had measured and found were different to those removed, it would also have been appropriate to have conducted an inspection of the property. Even if the landlord had records to satisfy itself that there was no issue with the insulation, the resident had also reported issues with heating the property, which alone should have warranted further investigation. However, it is not evident the landlord completed any inspections within the timeframes of its policy. This led the resident to have to expend time and trouble chasing the issue for over a year before resorting to raising a formal complaint.
Additionally, the resident advised the landlord that he had laid insulation himself in an attempt to improve his situation. Given that the resident was clear he was not a professional, this should also have been a trigger for the landlord to investigate to ensure the insulation was adequate. However, in its formal response dated 20 March 2024, the landlord merely noted the resident had laid insulation and provided no further comment about whether this satisfied its repair responsibility. This response was insufficient and demonstrated a poor complaint investigation. Had the landlord completed a reasonable investigation of the reported issues, either at the time they were reported or at any time prior to its response, it may have avoided the further delays that occurred.
It was only in October 2024, some 2 years after the resident had raised the issue, that the landlord completed an inspection and agreed that the insulation was insufficient. This delay was significant and caused considerable distress and inconvenience for the resident over a prolonged period. In its formal response dated 1 November 2024, the landlord appropriately acknowledged this failing. It also identified learning to ensure this issue did not reoccur. At this time, it made an offer of compensation and recognised the impact this had on heating the property, both of which have been considered further below.
Having resolved to complete insulation works, it is evident that there were further delays. These were in part due to a discussion between the parties about how to approach the works. The parties mutually agreed that it was best to address the pipes before addressing the insulation to avoid having to take the insulation up again. While this approach was practical, it was still reasonable for the landlord to have proposed to do the insulation works first to ensure the issues with heat loss were addressed as soon as possible. The additional delay as a result of mutual agreement between the parties was therefore reasonable.
That said, it is evident that the works relating to insulation were not finalised until July 2025. This was some 7 months after its resolution to complete the works made in its stage 2 response. Not all of this delay can be attributed to the parties’ mutual agreement as to the approach. This further delay would have caused ongoing distress for the resident and demonstrates an overall lack of urgency, despite the significant delays which have come before, and the resident’s repeated concerns about how the lack of insulation had impacted him.

Repairs – Windows and soffits

Regarding the windows, it is evident that the resident had reported this issue in at least 2021, which the landlord has acknowledged in its formal responses. He also raised concerns about the soffits in at least September 2022. However, as per its stage 1 response dated 20 March 2024, the landlord did not complete repairs until February 2023. This was significantly outside of the timeframes for its repair responses. It also did not detail what work it had completed. Given that it later determined that further interim repairs were needed to the soffits, namely taping over any gaps, its lack of clarity as to what it considered to have been done previously meant the resident was unclear as to what to highlight as still outstanding. It was not until November 2024 that it confirmed what repair works had been completed. This meant that the resolution to this issue was delayed for longer than was necessary.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident continued to raise concerns about the windows; however, following a further inspection, the landlord’s surveyor identified that, while one rubber seal had perished, it was a secondary seal which did not impact the overall functionality of the window. It is not evident, however, that the landlord kept the resident informed of this finding. While it may have been reasonable to defer replacement of the windows and soffits given its findings and interim repairs, this was a missed opportunity for the landlord to ensure the resident fully understood its position.
The Ombudsman understands that landlords have finite resources, and where an item remains functional albeit in worn condition, it can be reasonable to defer replacement until a planned programme of works. The landlord advised it would request that these items be included in the 2025/2026 programme of works; however, it is not evident it has since given a firm commitment on their replacement.
Furthermore, where interim works are completed, it is reasonable to arrange a follow up inspection to ensure they have been effective. It is not evident that the landlord did this, which ultimately led the resident to expend further time and trouble chasing additional repairs given that the issue remained.
Given the ongoing issues and lack of clarity regarding any planned programme of works, an order has been made below for the landlord to provide an update on the planned programme of works and an indicative timeframe for any further interim works required.

Repairs – Other

In addition to the windows and insulation, the resident also raised concerns about an extractor fan. It is not disputed that the fan was installed incorrectly, causing draughts in the property. While the landlord appropriately arranged for a repair, it is evident that the contractors attended without the correct equipment resulting in the need for further visits. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have robust systems and records in place to ensure that contractors are informed about what is required. The failed visits in this case point to a record keeping failure and caused additional inconvenience and distress for the resident. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the landlord apologised for these errors and noted it was seeking to improve its handover process, which was appropriate and demonstrated its attempts to learn from outcomes.
The resident informed the landlord on multiple occasions of his autism requirements, including the need for notice of any appointments. This was not only so he had time to consider the appointments, but also so he could ensure the property was ready for a visit. Across the multiple appointments throughout the period of this complaint, it is evident that some were arranged with short notice. This resulted in the appointments being declined by the resident and causing a delay as they would need to be rebooked. There were also instances where, despite cancelling the appointments, the contractors showed up anyway. This caused additional distress and inconvenience for the resident.
It is evident from the landlord’s internal communications that it sought to learn from these concerns. It raised the issues with its contractors and ensured they understood the resident’s contact preferences. This was a further demonstration of the landlord seeking to learn from outcomes and improve its service delivery.
Additionally, the resident made it clear that he was unable to accommodate visits during school run hours. He requested specific times for visits, rather than windows of several hours. The landlord appropriately explained that its service contract with its contractors did not allow for it to guarantee specific times. However, it is evident it offered windows of time that avoided school runs where possible. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. It also provided narrower time slots for other external contractors where possible.
In its formal response dated 14 October 2024, the landlord appropriately recognised the impact that the inability to heat the property had on the resident. It offered £75 in recognition of his increased heating costs. It is not clear how it arrived at this amount, and it did not provide a timeframe for which it was intended to cover. While it was positive that it sought to put things right, this lack of clarity surrounding the offer made it difficult for the resident to know what he was accepting.
It was appropriate, therefore, that it later asked for copies of the resident’s energy bills so it could make a full calculation. It arrived at the figure of £189 covering the period from February 2023 to present. This was based on an EPC certificate concluding there were no heating concerns as of February 2023. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s position that the EPC inspection was substandard and does not dispute his account of the quality of the inspection. He has advised that the inspector did not adequately inspect the insulation, despite him offering to lift it. However, there is no evidence that this was raised at the time, nor is there any evidence to show what took place during the inspection. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the conclusions noted in this official document produced by an appropriately qualified professional to base its calculations upon. Its offer relating to the energy bills was therefore reasonable in the circumstances based on the evidence available.
There are instances where it is appropriate to refer a resident to make an insurance claim, such as where there has been damage to personal items. However, in its initial response, the landlord was not specific about why it was providing details for its insurers other than if the resident considered there to have been “negligence.” Given that the resident’s complaint centred on damage to the insulation and windows, which the landlord was responsible for, it would have caused confusion and unnecessary delay to refer him to its insurers. It was appropriate, therefore, that the landlord recognised this error, apologised, and offered £50 compensation, which was proportionate in the circumstances.

Repairs – Summary

In summary, there were significant delays in the landlord taking action, despite multiple opportunities to do so and despite the resident expressing the impact the issues were having on him. There were also periods of poor communication and unnecessary visits which caused disruption for the resident. As such, a finding of maladministration has been made.
The landlord appropriately recognised there had been an impact on the resident and identified learning to improve its service in the future. It also offered compensation throughout its formal responses, and appropriately revisited its offers following further discussions with the resident and following further developments. In its stage 2 response, it offered a total of £954.22 for the loss of amenity between 19 September 2022 and 3 November 2024, and £600 for distress and inconvenience. These calculations covered all of the repair issues discussed above, some of which were addressed by the time of the stage 2 response. However, it is evident that the matter was not resolved in a timely way following the stage 2 response. While some of this can be attributed to the resident rescheduling works, this only amounted to a few weeks’ additional delay. It therefore cannot be said that the landlord’s offer as of December 2024 fully reflects the distress and inconvenience the delays to the works have caused the resident.
The landlord’s total offer for this element of the complaint, taking into account loss of amenity, distress and inconvenience, heating, and incorrect advice regarding insurance, was £1,793.22. Given the further delays, however, further compensation is appropriate to reflect the overall distress and inconvenience. An additional amount of compensation is also appropriate to reflect the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
An order has therefore been made for compensation of £2,393.22 (an additional £600). This replaces the landlord’s offer of £1,793.22, and is made up of the following:
1. £954.22 for loss of amenity.
2. £50 for the incorrect information about an insurance claim.
3. £189 for increased heating costs.
4. £800 for distress and inconvenience.
5. £400 for the resident’s time and trouble.
This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for instances where there have been serious failings which have had a detrimental impact on the resident but also recognises that the landlord has acknowledged some failings and made some attempt to put things right.

Complaints handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord had a 3-stage complaints process. This included a ‘stage 0’, during which the landlord would attempt to informally resolve a complaint without a formal investigation. It would seek to do so within 10 working days. If this is unsuccessful, it would then provide a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. It would provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an escalation.
It is not disputed that the resident raised a complaint on 21 September 2022. It is evident that following this, the landlord started taking action and making enquiries with its contractors to investigate the issue. However, it did not provide him with any correspondence within 10 working days indicating its intention to resolve the issue at stage 0. Nor did it provide any confirmation as to whether the complaint would be moved to stage 1. This caused the resident to have to expend time and trouble chasing the matter.
It was not until 20 March 2024 that the landlord provided a stage 1 response. This was 126 working days after the initial complaint. While the landlord appropriately apologised for the oversight leading to its delayed response, it did not offer any compensation at this time, which was a missed opportunity to provide redress for its identified failing.
The resident continued to express concerns, which led to the landlord providing a new stage 1 response on 14 October 2024. While it may have been reasonable to provide a new stage 1 given that the issues had developed further and over 6 months had passed since its earlier stage 1, it would nevertheless have been helpful for it to have explained its approach and explained why a stage 2 response was not appropriate.
Following further dissatisfaction from the resident, the landlord issued a “review of stage 1 response” on 1 November 2024. Neither the landlord’s policy nor the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which was in place at this time, allows for an interim stage, and so it was unreasonable that it did not escalate the complaint to stage 2. This ‘stage 1.5’ artificially delayed the resolution of the complaint and the resident’s ability to escalate the complaint to this service.
The resident escalated his complaint in November 2024, which the landlord acknowledged on 11 November 2024. It is not evident exactly when the resident requested the escalation, and it appears that the landlord interpreted his dissatisfaction with the compensation as an escalation request, which was reasonable. From the date of its acknowledgement, the landlord should have provided its stage 2 response by 9 December 2024. On this date, the landlord made a request for further time. Given that this request was made within the timeframes for its response, this was reasonable. While it made a further request for more time on 15 January 2025, this did not add a significant further delay, as it provided its stage 2 response on 17 January 2025.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately reflected on its complaints handling failures and delays. It acknowledged the impact this would have caused and apologised. It also identified learning and resolved to improve training within its complaints team. Finally, it offered a total of £275 compensation to reflect the issues across all stages. Given the failures identified above, these steps were appropriate and in line with this service’s dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. Its offer of compensation was also in line with this service’s remedies guidance for such circumstances. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress has been made. A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to reiterate its offer of compensation if it is yet to have been accepted.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to the resident’s reports of repair issues, including his insulation, window, and soffits.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must pay compensation of £2,393.22 to the resident for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings relating to the repairs. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £1,793.22. The ordered amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Confirm its position on any outstanding works.
2. Provide an update regarding any upcoming planned programme of works for the windows and soffits.
3. If any works are identified as outstanding, provide a scope of works to the resident and suggest times for the works that take into account the resident’s requirements.

Recommendations

The landlord is to reiterate its offer of £275 in relation to its complaint handling failures, if this is yet to have been accepted.