Eastbourne Borough Council (202418573)

Background

1. The resident raised concerns about the pointing and age of the windows in 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for external repairs.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found service failure in the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s requests for external repairs.
   2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord recognised its poor communication but failed to acknowledge its inadequate record keeping. This failing prevented it from supporting its decisions and providing evidence that it met its repair obligations.
6. It failed to take appropriate steps and seek a second opinion given the differences in the inspection reports between the contractor and its own surveyor.
7. The landlord’s complaint responses were excessively delayed, and it has provided no evidence it sent extension letters to mitigate the impact of this.

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.

What we have not investigated

8. The resident has referred to how her living conditions impacted her health and wellbeing. We do not doubt this. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for the courts to deal with or as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

What we have investigated

9. The landlord does not dispute that it is responsible for maintaining the external structure of the building, including the windows and repointing of external walls. It does not dispute that it is responsible for arranging the replacement of the windows. There is no obligation on the landlord to replace windows due to age or thermal efficiency unless they are beyond repair. This means there is no requirement to replace the windows solely due to being single glazed.
10. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the resident originally reported her concerns with the pointing and windows. This is inappropriate and shows poor record keeping by the landlord. It sent a contractor to inspect the pointing and windows in August 2023, and this was a reasonable response to the concerns raised. However, due to the failure in record keeping, it is unclear if it completed the inspection in a timely manner. The contractor inspected the property and raised extensive concerns with the external walls, stating this could cause damp and mould internally if not addressed quickly.
11. The landlord’s internal surveyor attended in September 2023. It has confirmed it has no record of this survey. In the absence of any inspection notes, we cannot conclude it carried out a reasonable investigation. The resident raised her concerns with this survey, and the landlord said it would only carry out essential health and safety maintenance work. This was an unreasonable response. It failed to consider its commitment to ‘preventative maintenance’ in the leaseholder handbook.
12. The contractor and resident had raised concerns that pointing was a cause of internal damp. The lease also states the landlord will keep the exterior walls in ‘good and substantial repair’ which indicated it should undertake all repairs required. It is unreasonable that the landlord failed to demonstrate it investigated these reports.
13. In October 2023 the landlord confirmed it had previously given the resident incorrect advice. It had reviewed the accounts for the block for 2018/19, and this showed it had not carried out window replacements. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to inspect the windows. This would have allowed it to confirm whether it needed to carry out repairs and that it was meeting its repair obligations.
14. In November 2023 the resident raised her complaint. She had repeatedly chased the landlord and asked for information on the inspections carried out at her property. She felt the repairs it planned to carry out were not adequate. The landlord completed significantly less pointing and brick replacements than the original quote and did not address some of the issues raised within this quote. It replaced the trims round the windows.
15. The landlord’s stage 1 response in December 2023 advised it did not produce inspection reports. This shows poor record keeping. It was unreasonable for the landlord to rely on information on which it had no record. Its failure to maintain accurate records affected its ability to provide a comprehensive and robust response. It said it had completed essential works but agreed it had failed at maintaining regular communication. It was positive that the landlord recognised its poor communication and upheld the complaint. It confirmed there were follow up works still outstanding to the windows. The landlord has provided no evidence it completed these works and the resident confirms they remain outstanding. This was unreasonable and demonstrates either poor record keeping or a failure in its repairs service.
16. The resident escalated her complaint in January 2024 as she wanted the landlord to conduct a full survey to make sure it resolved all issues. Internally, the surveyor suggested a different operative conduct another survey. This was a reasonable suggestion. It could have taken the opportunity to conduct a full investigation to allow it to provide a robust response. It would have been appropriate to conduct a further survey considering the resident’s continued concerns and the original report from its contractor. However, the landlord failed to act on this. It missed the opportunity to be resolution focussed and provide robust evidence it was meeting its repair obligations.
17. The landlord’s May 2024 stage 2 response said it had inspected the windows in 2020 and considered them in good condition. This was an unreasonable response as, in April 2024, it noted the stock condition survey from 2020 had no notes on the condition of the windows. It recorded that it had updated the replacement due date as 2036 in 2021. It would be reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information from the stock condition survey. However, there is no evidence this was inspected and recorded at the time or explanation on why the replacement due date was updated in 2021. This shows a failing to keep adequate records.
18. The landlord said it had completed repointing works in line with its survey and it considered this resolved. It has provided no evidence it carried out a post inspection of these works which would have been appropriate to provide an informed response and reassurance to the resident. Whilst it apologised for the delay and confusion caused by the original contractor’s report, it made no further offer to put things right.
19. Overall, the landlord recognised some failings in its communication but failed to acknowledge its poor record keeping. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to seek a second opinion on the repointing and provide a copy of this to the resident to clarify what repairs were required. It is on this basis we have found service failure. We have made an order for the landlord to conduct a full inspection of the external walls and windows at the property. It must provide a copy of this to the resident. We have also ordered £100 compensation given the uncertainty and inconvenience caused to the resident.

20. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s policy is in line with this.
21. The landlord’s stage 1 response was 17 days late. It reasonably apologised for this delay in its response and referenced staff shortages. It is understandable that staffing levels could affect a complaint investigation on occasion. However, it would have been appropriate to send an extension letter explaining this prior to the stage 1 response deadline. This failure caused the resident time and trouble in continuing to chase a response.
22. The landlord’s stage 2 response was 70 days late. It again apologised for the delay in responding. This delay was unreasonable. It is concerning that it was unable to improve its service since the stage 1 response. This was an excessive delay that likely caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing an answer.
23. It was positive that the landlord took opportunities in both responses to apologise for the delay and explain the cause. However, the reasons remained the same, showing there were no internal improvements to address this in the 6 months since the original complaint. It also missed opportunities to send extension letters. This would have demonstrated it had a robust system to track and manage its complaints and reassured the resident that it was continuing its investigation.
24. We have found there was service failure by the landlord. We have ordered £100 compensation for the time and trouble this caused the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings with a limited impact.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s failure to produce inspection reports demonstrates a clear breakdown in effective knowledge and information management. This reflects poor record‑keeping that the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report identifies as a source of detriment to residents. By not creating, storing, and using essential property data, the landlord hindered its ability to provide an evidence‑based response to the resident’s concerns. This case illustrates why we recommend implementing robust KIM strategies and establishing clear data standards. Without accurate and accessible records, ordinary service requests escalate into avoidable complaints and prevent landlords from making informed decisions or demonstrating accountability.

Communication

26. The landlord acknowledged its poor communication at stage 1 but then failed to improve on this. Vague information and weak inter‑team responses undermined the landlord’s ability to address complaints effectively and meet timescales. This case highlights the need for the landlord to adopt a culture where communication is reliable, proactive, and aligned with service expectations.