London Borough of Camden Council (202430722)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202430722

London Borough of Camden Council

30 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

The complaint is about the landlords handling of:
1. A bathroom window repair.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident lives alone and is elderly.
On 14 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that his bathroom window had been broken during a storm. On 16 January 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended, removed the remaining glass, and boarded up the bathroom window.
On 19 June 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord which the landlord acknowledged that same day. He said he had not had an update about the when the glass would be replaced in the bathroom window. He said:
1. The contractor had measured for a new window and told him the landlord would replace the glass.
2. The contractor also removed the frame because it was rotten.
3. The landlord had told him on 3 occasions that it would replace the glass and but then cancelled the repair.
4. Rain had swollen the bathroom window frame, and the window was not closing properly. It was unfair to expect him to pay for the window repair.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 June 2023. It did not uphold his complaint. It said the window was made safe on 28 April 2023 which was all it could do and if the resident wanted the landlord to replace the glass, he would have to pay for this. It also said he should have reported the window not closing.
The resident was unhappy with this response and on 7 July 2023 asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said no one had attended on 28 April 2023. He stated the window frame swelling was a seasonal occurrence and the window fell out because the frame was rotten. He said he had been assured by the contractor that the window would be replaced and the whole frame had been removed but he had no communication about the repair from the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 19 March 2024.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 8 May 2024. It did not uphold his complaint and confirmed that it had made the window safe and if he wanted the window replaced the landlord would recharge him for the cost of the replacing the window.
The resident asked us to investigate the complaint on his behalf as he felt that the landlord’s decision to not replace the window was unfair.

Assessment and findings

Legal and policy framework

Under the Section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords are responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of buildings and this includes windows. It also requires landlord to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe, considering household vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s tenancy conditions recommends that residents have home contents insurance to cover accidental damage including windows. It also states if the landlord is responsible for any damage the resident can claim compensation from it directly.
The landlord’s repair policy states that residents are responsible for broken windows, unless there is a crime reference number. It states repairs to window frames will be addressed as routine repairs and that if it is the landlord’s responsibility it will replace glass in boarded up windows as an urgent repair. It states that accidental damage or neglect related repairs will be treated as rechargeable repairs and the resident will be required to pay for the repair.
The landlord’s recharge policy provides examples of repairs that are the resident’s responsibility, including broken windows. If the landlord completes these repairs, it asks the resident to pay for it, which is known as a recharge. It allows the landlord to exercise discretion to complete repairs that are residents’ responsibility at no cost if the resident is 65 years old and lives alone or is in receipt of a care package.
The landlord has a remedies policy which details a range of circumstances where the landlord can provide compensation including where the resident has experienced delay, time and trouble, or the landlord has failed to provide service.

The landlords handling of the window repair

Under the landlord’s tenancy conditions, it is the landlord’s responsibility to make safe broken windows, which involves removing broken glass and boarding the window. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord attended on 16 January 2023 to do so. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, residents are however responsible for replacing broken glass(unless the window was broken as the result of a crime) and the landlord advises itsresidents to have relevant insurance to cover the cost of replacing broken glass if needed. When a window is broken due to accidental damage and a resident asks the landlord to replace the broken glass, it is therefore generally reasonable for the landlord to charge the resident for the cost of replacement glass as set out in the landlord’s recharge policy.
The landlord’s recharge policy states if a resident lives alone and is over 65 it can exercise its discretion and not charge residents for such repairs. The resident in this case lives alone and is 76 years old. The landlord could therefore have agreed to complete the window repair in line with its policy. This would have been appropriate given the resident’s age; however, it is not evident it considered its recharge policy and missed an opportunity to provide timely resolution and show a customer focussed approach.
The policy also says it will tell a resident as soon as possible if it considers a repair to be a rechargeable repair. There is no evidence the landlord initially informed the resident that it considered the bathroom window repair to be a rechargeable repair following its operative’s visit. The landlord’s failure to apply its own policy and lack of communication left the resident unclear what was happening and having to chase the landlord for an update which was a source of inconvenience and frustration for him.
However,the resident’s complaint included information that suggested that the broken window was not simply due to accidental storm related damage. He stated thatthe woodenbathroom window frame was rotten which contributed to the window breaking.He reported that when the contractor attended on 16 January 2023,they removed the window frame as well as any remaining glass. We do not dispute the resident’s account of what occurred during the contractor’s attendance; however,the landlord’s repair logs do not provide details of the contractors visit to board the window on 16 January 2024. It would,however, be reasonable to assume that the removal of the frame would have only occurred because it was rotten as it is not a standard action when boarding a broken window.
As part of its complaint investigation, the landlord should have completed an inspection of the window frame to determine if the condition of the window frame contributed to the window breaking. Additionally, it could have made enquiries with its contractor. Yet the landlord failed to address the resident’s reports that the window frame was rotten in its stage 1 complaint response, which was unreasonable.
The resident also stated at the time of the storm, the window would not close properly as the wooden frame had swollen due to rain. The landlord did address this point in its stage 1 complaint response by stating that the resident should have reported that. The landlord was correct to advise that residents have a responsibility to report repairs; however, once made aware of the repair issue, the landlord should have acted in accordance with its repairs policy and raised a repair task to investigate yet there is no evidence it did so. This lack of action was unacceptable.
Under its repairs policy,the landlord is responsible for window frames. This policy also details its lettable standard for windows which is that “windows will be safe, wind and watertight, and will open and close freely. The frame and glazing will be secure, and locks and latches will work.” In addition,under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords are responsible for the exteriors of property including the upkeep of windows. The resident told the landlord the window frame was rotten, and it had not been closing properly.The resident has stated that the windows have not been replaced during his tenancy, this means the wooden framed windows could be at least 33 years old. The landlord failed in its duty to assess the window frames and complete any necessary repairs which showed a disregard for its repair obligations and the tenant’s right to have windows that functioned effectively.
The landlord’s remedies policy states when investigating complaints, it will identify any issues or faults and find out how they occurred. However, there is no evidence the landlord took any of these steps. Instead, it applied a blanket approach to it rechargeable policy.
Furthermore, the landlord failed to consider how the resident could replace the glass if indeed the frame was rotten and had been removed (as the resident had advised) which showed a lack of proper consideration of the issue the resident had raised. Under its repairs policy, replacement of the window is the landlord’s responsibility when it is linked to a repair it is responsible for, in this case the window frame. In such circumstances, under its policy, the window should be replaced as an urgent repair and done so within 5 days. This is a further example of the landlord failing to apply its own policy.
The landlord’s repair logs show that an inspection of the bathroom window frame was completed on 23 October 2023, and it requested a copy of its findings. This shows an effort to by the landlord to assess the window frame; however, a copy of the inspection report was not on file and there is no evidence the landlord communicated the findings to the resident, nor took action following the outcome.
Unfortunately, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response (issued in May 2024) also failed to fully assess the resident’s complaint and simply re-stated that the repair is a rechargeable repair. It did not consider the residents report that the window frame was rotten and that the window was not closing properly. It also did not address the lack of communication with the resident. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code (the code) states that at each stage of the complaint process, complaint handlers must act independently, and have an open mind consider all relevant information and evidence carefully. Had it done so, all elements of the resident’s complaint would have been reconsidered providing the landlord an opportunity to ‘put things right’ in a timely manner. By failing to do so, the resident was denied a thorough and fair investigation. Instead, the resident had to escalate his complaint to this Service which further added to the resident’s frustration.
By ignoring a key aspect and repair responsibility it left the resident in limbo and unable to act. At the time of writing this report, the resident’s bathroom window has still not been replaced. This means that for 2 years and 6 months the resident has been without an opening bathroom window. The boarded window has blocked natural light and reduced ventilation. The resident stated he has experienced increased electricity costs due to increased use of the bathroom light and that he has taken time and effort to prevent mould due to the reduced ventilation.
Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords are required to complete repairs in a reasonable time frame and where delay occurs it need to provide reasons why they were unavoidable. In this case the landlord missed multiple opportunities to complete the repair in a timely manner and has no valid reason for the delays other than its failure to comply with its own procedures. The landlord failed to act on warnings about the window frame, which raises concerns about how thoroughly it reviewed and responded to the resident’s repair requests.
In summary, the landlord failed to take appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and instead applied a blanket approach to the recharge policy. While the resident has retained the use of his bathroom throughout, the issue has understandably caused the resident unnecessary and prolonged inconvenience and frustration which would have been avoidable had the landlord correctly applied its policies at the outset.
It is therefore the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of the bathroom window repair. The landlord is ordered apologise to and pay the resident £800 to reflect the prolonged period of inconvenience, time, and trouble. This amount is in the higher range of compensation for maladministration which is proportionate given the multiple failings identified. It is also in line with our remedy’s guidance where “the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right.”
In addition, the landlord is ordered to fully repair the bathroom window to ensure it meets its lettable standards and to replace the glass in the bathroom window.

The landlords handling of the associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It states its stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 10 working days of acknowledgement. At the time of the stage 2 complaint investigation, the landlords Stage 2 complaints policy stated stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 25 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord’s policy stated if it needs longer to investigate a complaint, it will agree an extension with the complainant. The landlord updated its complaint policy in July 2024 and changed its stage 2 response time to 20 days which is in compliance with the code.
The landlord’s file shows the resident made a complaint on 19 June 2023 and it was acknowledged by the landlord that same day, 19 June 2023. This was appropriate and in line with its 5-day acknowledgement response time in its complaints policy. It stage 1 complaint response was issued on 20 June 2023. This was appropriate and within its 10-day response time in its complaints policy.
The resident’s stage 2 escalation request of 7 July 2023 was not acknowledged by the landlord until 19 March 2024. Allowing for its 2-day acknowledgement response period this was an excessive delay of 176 working days. The landlord failed to request a 20-day stage 2 extension as detailed in its complaints policy and the Code. This was a further missed opportunity to appropriately keep the resident informed. There is no explanation for this delay, and it is concerning that there is no evidence of communication to the resident during this time.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was not issued until 8 May 2024. Allowing for the 25-day response period this response was 184 working days late. The Code states “where a response to a complaint will fall outside the timescales set out in this Code the landlord must agree with the resident suitable intervals for keeping them informed about their complaint.” There is again no evidence of any communication with the resident during this time which was a clear communication failure and further missed opportunity to rebuild trust with the resident.
Furthermore, the stage 2 complaint response lacked reasons for its decision. The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy. In both complaint responses the landlord did not provide the relevant sections of the recharge policy it relied upon or reasons as to why it failed to apply its discretion under its recharge policy. It also failed to provide reasons why it did not investigate the disrepair reports. The resident was therefore denied a transparent and informed decision to which he was entitled.
The landlord’s remedies policy allows for compensation where the landlord’s actions have caused delay, distress, time, and trouble. Compensation would have been appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to ‘put things right’ and to acknowledge the considerable delay to its complaint response. This would have gone some way to acknowledge any time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience experienced by the resident because of the delayed response. The failure to do so was a missed opportunity by the landlord to demonstrate accountability.
‘Putting things right,’ in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles can also include a range of measures such as acknowledging the issue, offering an apology, and identifying learning to help prevent future occurrences. The landlord failed to demonstrate any of these steps in this case and overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor.
Considering the multiple failings identified the landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of the associated complaint. The landlord is therefore ordered to apologise to and pay the resident £200 compensation, which is in line with the range of compensation recommended by our remedy’s guidance where “the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right.”
The Ombudsman’s special investigation report previously recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its policy and practice in relation to complaint handling and compensation. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous recommendations and so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in handling of the window repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the delays, poor communication, and complaint handling failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,000 compensation, this is made up of:
  1. £800 for the prolonged period of inconvenience experienced due to the landlord’s failure to effectively identify and resolve the window repair.
  2. £200 for its complaint handling failings.
3. Complete an inspection of the bathroom window and provide the resident and this service with a reasonable timeline for completion of all necessary bathroom window repairs, including replacement of the glass.
The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report to provide us with evidence that it has complied with the above orders.