Housing Solutions (202414087)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414087

Housing Solutions

18 September 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 handling of:
1. works to improve wall insulation in the property.
2. the resident’s reports of window repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy under an agreement dated March 2007. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom, semi-detached house. It is occupied by the resident and her son. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident; however, the resident informed us that her son has health problems.
In 2015 the landlord said that as part of a government scheme it would install External Wall Insulation (EWI) to the resident’s property to improve its energy efficiency. The scheme then changed, meaning the landlord could no longer carry out the improvements. In 2019, the landlord told the resident that even with improvements, the property would not meet the minimum standard for an energy rating and suggested rehousing the resident.
On 24 November 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident stating it wanted to make her property more energy efficient by improving the insulation and adding solar panels. It said it would carry out a detailed survey for an application for a grant to help with the costs. On 7 March 2024 the resident complained to the landlord after chasing up the improvements and getting no response.
On 17 December 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. it had incorrectly treated the resident’s complaint as a service request. It apologised and awarded £100 compensation for the late response.
2. in March 2018 it installed Internal Wall Insulation (IWI) in her bathroom.
3. in 2019itexplored the installation of EWI, but the local authority denied planning permission because the property was in a conservation area.
4. it contacted the resident in July 2024 wanting to discuss suitable housing options following the issues raised with installing EWI.
5. it carried out an energy efficiency survey in January 2024 which showed that improvements would require planning permission, which it had already explored.
6. it was not possible to improve the energy efficiency of the property any further to reduce heat loss and improve the energy performance rating.
7. it was not feasible for the resident to continue living in the property with its energy rating. It wanted to move her to a property with a suitable rating.
8. it wrote to her in March 2018 advising that a survey had not recommended replacing her windows.
On 5 January 2025 the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
1. the landlord had not complied with its complaints policy.
2. she wanted to know why the landlord had not started other improvements it said it could make to her property.
3. she disputed that the landlord had made a planning application or that the property was in conservation area.
4. she disputed that there was insulation in her bathroom. She wanted the landlord to assess all rooms for IWI.
5. she believed her windows needed replacing. Some windows had condensation, she was unable to see out of one. On most windows, she had used sealant to stop wind entering through gaps and cracks.
6. she wanted her walls insulated, new windows and solar panels installed.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 14 February 2025. It said:
1. in April 2019 it made a pre-application enquiry. The local authority gave various reasons why it would not support installing EWI.
2. the local authority’s response considered the installation of EWI and solar panels to the roof. It was prohibited from installing either.
3. it could install IWI at a reduced thickness to some rooms to improve energy efficiency, giving limited improvement to the property.
4. it requested to discuss this with the resident, but she had declined to meet.
5. it could fully insulate the loft space. This would require access to the upstairs of the property which the resident had previously denied.
6. it wanted to review the current heating arrangements to consider more efficient electrical heating. This would require an inspection.
7. it upgraded windows every 30 years. The resident’s windows were installed in 2000. A survey in January 2024 confirmed the windows were fit for purpose, but likely to be upgraded before 2030.
8. it apologised again for treating the complaint as service request and reoffered the £100 compensation from its stage 1 response.
The resident contacted this Service in July 2024. She said she felt the landlord was ignoring her as she had been asking it to insulate her property since 2015. She said the property felt cold even with the heating on. As an outcome, she wanted the landlord to install EWI and to replace her windows as she felt they were in disrepair and over 30 years old.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident advised that she had requested EWI as far back as 2015. However, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (usually within 12 months) of the matters arising. The historical requests provide contextual background to the current complaint, but this assessment will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s March 2024 complaint.

The landlord’s handling of works to improve wall insulation in the property

The Decent Homes Standard (DHS) states that social rented homes must provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. Homes should have efficient heating and effective insulation that protects tenants from excess cold.
Socially rented homes are not currently required to meet a minimum Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) standard, and current requirements are roughly equivalent to an EPC ‘F’ rating. The government’s proposal for energy efficiency in social housing is for all properties to achieve an EPC Band C by 2030.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for the structure of the building including foundations, walls, windows, external doors and chimney stacks. It facilitates grant-funded major adaptations by the local authority and directly funds minor adaptations.
The policy states that it carries out planned maintenance repairs following a responsive repair or based on information from a survey. Its investment programmes are based upon pre-determined lifecycles and building fabric repairs identified by stock condition surveys. The pre-determined lifecycle for windows is 30 years.
The policy states that responsive repairs fall under 3 categories:
1. emergency: 4-hour response.
2. urgent: 3-day response.
3. a suitable appointment within 21 days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that the landlord is unable to consider claims for compensation where circumstances are beyond its control.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 November 2023. It said it was applying for a grant to carry out works to improve her property’s energy rating. It said it would arrange a survey to collate details for the application. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 December 2023 stating that she had not heard anything since the letter. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to the resident’s email from 29 December 2023. The landlord’s lack of communication likely caused the resident distress, which was unreasonable.
On 7 March 2024 the resident raised a complaint. She was unhappy that she had chased the landlord for information on the improvements twice in February 2024 and received no response. The landlord replied to the resident on 11 March 2024 apologising for the lack of response. The records show that it carried out a survey of the resident’s property on 29 May 2023, however there is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated the survey results to the resident at the time. This was unreasonable.
The results of the survey summarised that:
1. the landlord could not install EWI because the property was in a conservation area and the local authority would not grant planning permission.
2. IWI was impractical as it would make the property even smaller inside and the galley kitchen would become unusable.
3. the landlord had made attempts to rehouse the resident. This seemed to be the only viable option.
On 17 December 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the late response and explained that it was not possible to improve the property’s energy efficiency and not feasible for the resident to continue living there. It wanted to discuss other available suitable housing options with the resident.
The records show that an energy performance certificate (EPC) completed in June 2017 rated the property at ‘G’. The landlord said it would work with the resident to move her to a property with a suitable energy performance rating. The landlord’s response was fair and reasonable.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord outlined the actions it had taken to resolve the insulation issue. It said in 2018 it installed IWI in the resident’s bathroom. In 2019 it explored the installation of EWI, however the local authority denied planning permission due to the property being in a conservation area. An energy efficiency survey carried out on 30 January 2024 suggested the only way to improve the energy rating was to carry out works that required planning permission, which the landlord said had been refused.
The resident’s request for insulation did not fall under the landlord’s repair obligations. Instead, it was an improvement which the landlord was not obligated to provide. Whilst we recognise the frustration this may have caused the resident, the landlord demonstrated that it had considered the issue.
Furthermore, the records show that the landlord provided the resident with a complaint response in 2019 for the same issue, in which it stated that even with improvements, it would be unable to achieve the minimum standard energy rating at the resident’s property and encouraged the resident to consider being rehoused. It is positive that despite its 2019 response, the landlord continued to look for ways to improve the energy efficiency in the resident’s property.
On 5 January 2025 the resident escalated her complaint. She disputed that the landlord had made a planning application for EWI, or that the property was situated in a conservation area. She also stated that although EWI could not be installed at the front of the property, she believed there was no issue with installation on the side and rear.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 14 February 2025, the landlord clarified that in March 2019, it had submitted a ‘pre-application enquiry’ to the local authority to gage the likelihood of planning permission being granted. It said that the local authority advised it would not support the proposals for various reasons and indicated that a full application would be unsuccessful.
The evidence shows that the local authority’s response to the pre-planning application considered the impact on the Green Belt area and raised concerns that alterations to the front and roof of the property would unbalance the appearance of the resident’s and neighbouring properties. It would also appear overly dominant on the street. It did not state that the property was in a conservation area or raise concerns about installations to the side or rear. The landlord’s response did not accurately communicate the local authority’s position, which was unreasonable.
The resident also asked why the landlord had not started other improvements it said it could make. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that its pre-planning application and the local authority’s response had considered EWI as well as solar panels on the roof and that it was prohibited from installing either.
The evidence shows that the local authority’s response stated that solar panels were considered acceptable, however, the design, appearance, colour and extent of the panels on the roof slopes on the front part of the house would need careful consideration. It said that solar panels would not require planning permission if they were installed on the existing roof slopes and did not extend more than 200mm beyond the roof slope. The landlord’s response did not accurately communicate the local authority’s position, which was unreasonable.
In the resident’s escalation request, she disputed that there was insulation in her bathroom and said that she wanted the landlord to assess other rooms for IWI. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that it could install IWI of a reduced thickness to some rooms to improve the energy efficiency and comfort, giving limited improvement to her home.
The landlord stated that it could also ensure that the resident’s loft was fully insulated, however this would mean allowing it to access the upstairs of the property which the resident had previously denied. The landlord offered to review the heating arrangements to consider more efficient electrical heating. This was a fair response from the landlord.

Post internal complaints procedure

Following the stage 2 response, on 24 February 2025 the resident told the landlord she wanted EWI on the sides and rear of her property, and solar panels on the roof. She also wanted improved bathroom insulation. The landlord responded on 12 March 2025 stating it would further inspect the property. It said it had not ruled out applying for planning permission for improvements in the future, and although previous surveys had identified challenges to installing effective IWI within the property, it would conduct a detailed on-site review of options available.
The records show that the landlord booked an inspection for 10 April 2025. Following that, the landlord wrote to the resident on 19 June 2025 stating that although it was unable to install EWI and solar panels, it was committed to installing IWI in the resident’s property by 30 September 2025. It would also insulate the loft. This was reasonable.

Conclusion

In summary, there was no obligation on the landlord to carry out the improvements it explored, as it was only required to maintain its properties. It was positive that the landlord offered to install IWI considering its preference was to rehouse the resident.
However, the landlord’s communication to the resident was, at times, unreasonable and there were some delays in it responding to the resident in November 2023 and March 2024. This is further evidenced by the resident’s requests for clarification on the reasons why the landlord could not install EWI. The poor communication likely caused the resident some confusion and distress. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of works to improve wall insulation in the property.
After carefully considering the distress to the resident and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order for the landlord to pay the resident £50 has been made. We have also ordered the landlord to write to the resident, apologising for its poor communication.
Additionally, we have made an order that the landlord writes to the resident to clarify its reasoning for not installing EWI, making specific reference to the resident’s concerns about the local authority’s response to the pre-planning application.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of window repairs

There is no specific legislation dictating the exact replacement frequency for social housing windows, but landlords are legally obligated to maintain them in a safe and functional state under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Windows should be replaced when they are no longer safe, functional, or fit for purpose due to wear and tear.
It is not clear when the resident reported repairs to her windows to the landlord or what issues were raised. On 17 December 2024 the landlord addressed the windows in its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had told the resident in March 2018 that a stock condition survey had not recommended the replacement of her windows.
We are unable to determine whether the resident reported disrepair or queried the replacement timescale prior to this response. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explored if the resident had concerns that might have required an inspection. That it did not was a failure in service.
In the resident’s escalation on 5 January 2025, she asked the landlord to replace her windows. She reported that there was condensation between some of the window panes, she was unable to see out of one window, and she had used sealant on most windows to stop wind entering through gaps and cracks.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 14 February 2025, the landlord explained that its policy was to upgrade windows every 30 years. It said that the resident’s windows were installed in 2000 and due for replacement around 2030. Any works outside this would be subject to a survey confirming repairs were needed. The landlord stated that a survey from January 2024 had confirmed that her windows were fit for purpose but likely to be upgraded before 2030.
It is good practice for landlords to schedule major works such as window replacements in advance and to have a programme of such works so that multiple properties can be renovated at the same time. However, it was the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the windows and ensure they were safe, functional, and fit for purpose. As the resident had reported disrepair, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged a new inspection of the windows outside such major works programmes if necessary to do so based on the condition of that particular property. The landlord’s response was inappropriate, and not in line with its obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Post internal complaints procedure

Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, on 24 February 2025 the resident disputed the installation dates of her windows, believing they were installed earlier. The landlord responded to the resident on 12 March 2025 stating that it would reassess the age and condition of the windows. Following an inspection, the landlord confirmed to the resident on 19 June 2025 that it would complete repairs to a leaking window by 30 July 2025. In correspondence with this Service in September 2025, the resident stated that the landlord had not carried out any window repairs.

Conclusion

In summary, whilst the landlord did eventually inspect the windows, it failed to respond to the resident’s reports in line with its obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of window repairs.
The landlord’s failures likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. After carefully considering the distress to the resident and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation.
We have also made an order for the landlord to contact the resident to arrange the repair to the leaking window if this has not been done already.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure, which states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint response times mirror the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out good practice for a landlord’s complaint handling practices.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days.
The resident raised her complaint to the landlord on 7 March 2024. Although the landlord responded to the resident on 11 March 2024, it failed to formally acknowledge the complaint. This was unreasonable.
On 10 December 2024 this Service contacted the landlord asking it to provide a complaint response to the resident. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 December 2024, 200 working days after the resident raised her complaint. The landlord identified its failure and apologised for the late response. It explained that as the resident had requested to speak to a specific member of staff, it had treated the complaint as a service request in error. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation. This was reasonable.
On 5 January 2025 the resident escalated her complaint. After the resident received no acknowledgement of her escalation, this Service contacted the landlord on 13 January 2025 asking it to issue an acknowledgement or a stage 2 response by 20 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 20 January 2025.That the landlord failed to acknowledge the escalation in line with its own policy was unreasonable.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 14 February 2025. This was 19 working days after it had acknowledged the resident’s escalation. Whilst the landlord provided its stage 2 response in line with its policy, the overall response time to the escalation took 29 working days. In the stage 2 response, the landlord re-offered the £100 compensation for its delayed stage 1 response but failed to address the delay in acknowledging the escalation. This was unreasonable.
In summary, the landlord recognised its failure to respond to the resident’s complaint in a reasonable time and attempted to put things right. However, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation without involvement from this Service, which subsequently delayed the stage 2 complaint response. This suggests that the landlord did not learn lessons from its late stage 1 response. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord’s failures likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. After carefully considering the distress to the resident and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100, making a total of £200 compensation for its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of works to improve wall insulation in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of window repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident apologising for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £450 compensation, comprising of:
  1. £50 for any distress and inconvenience likely caused by its handling of works to improve wall insulation in the property.
  2. £200 for any distress and inconvenience likely caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of window repairs.
  3. £200 for any distress and inconvenience likely caused by its complaint handling. The landlord may deduct the £100 offered for its late stage 1 response if this has already been paid.
3. write to the resident to clarify its reasoning for not installing EWI, making specific reference to the resident’s concerns about the local authority’s response to the landlord’s pre-planning application.
4. contact the resident to arrange the repair to the leaking window if this has not been done already.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord updates its records to reflect the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household.