London Borough of Lambeth (202346734)

Background

1. In July 2023, the resident reported that her windows were in poor condition and letting in air. Following this, the landlord arranged 3 separate visits to her home between July and December 2023. The windows were replaced in May 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Window replacement works.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:

a.    There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window replacement works.

b.    There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord took significantly longer than its policy timescale to replace the windows. This was partly due to it needing to carry out a consultation and wait for the windows to be manufactured. However, there were further unreasonable delays which it has not accounted for. Its offer of £100 compensation was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
5. The landlord delayed its complaint responses without explanation or apology and failed to offer redress for the distress and inconvenience.

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.

6. After the final response to the resident’s complaint was issued, she raised concerns with the landlord about the impact the delays had on her health and the increase in her energy bills. As the landlord did not have an opportunity to respond to these specific points in its final response of 22 January 2024, the scope of this investigation only considers the overall delay in replacing the windows. However, the resident may raise a separate complaint with the landlord about these issues, if necessary.
7. The landlord’s repairs manual says that routine repairs will be carried out in either 7 days or 28 working days, depending on the type of repair and it aims to complete planned repairs (major repairs) within 90 days.
8. The landlord raised a repair work order for the windows on 11 July 2023 after the resident reported that they were in poor condition. It logged this as a routine repair to be completed within 28 working days. A contractor attended 10 working days later and recommended renewing the windows. This inspection was carried out within the landlord’s expected timeframe for a routine repair.
9. On 17 August 2023, the landlord arranged for a different contractor to attend and provide a quote for the works, which the contractor sent to the landlord the same day. We have not seen evidence that the landlord clearly explained the process to the resident at that time, or why a further inspection by a different contractor was required. This caused the resident some confusion, especially when she was then told that a third visit would also be needed.
10. In December 2023, the landlord sent a senior surveyor to inspect the windows and approve the quote. The landlord has not explained why there was a 4 month delay in arranging this. It also shows that the landlord failed to take a proactive approach in keeping the resident updated with clear timescales for next actions, which resulted in the resident frequently calling to chase updates.
11. The landlord explained that following the surveyor’s visit in December 2023, a section 20 consultation of all leaseholders was necessary and would take up to 30 days. The landlord was legally obliged to carry out this consultation due to the cost of the work. Therefore, this was a reasonable delay and the landlord adequately explained what action it was taking and how long it should take.
12. The landlord said within its final response that the consultation would finish in mid-January 2024. In correspondence with the resident after the final response letter, this changed to 6 March 2024 with no explanation. In April 2024, it advised the resident that it would take 4-6 weeks to manufacture the windows. The windows were replaced in May 2024 which significantly exceeded the landlord’s 90 day timeframe for planned repairs to be completed.
13. The landlord took 6 months longer than its expected timeframe to complete the works after it was recommended that the windows be renewed. However, 30 days of the delay can be attributed to the consultation period and 6 weeks to manufacturing the windows. These delays were reasonable and unavoidable. After deducting the unavoidable delays, overall there was an unreasonable delay of 3 and a half months.
14. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered £100 as a gesture of goodwill. However, its offer was not proportionate redress for the failings identified. It did not explain the reasons for some of the delays or show that it had considered the impact of the delays or the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, including her time and trouble in chasing updates. In line with our compensations guidance when an offer is not proportionate to the failings identified, which have adversely affected a resident with no permanent impact, the landlord must increase its offer to £300.

15. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) March 2022, which applied at the time of this complaint, required landlords to respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. We have relied on the policy provided to us by the landlord on this case, which did not comply with the timescales set out in the Code. However, we are aware the landlord’s policy was updated to be compliant in April 2024.
16. The landlord took 32 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1and 25 working days to respond at stage 2. It did not acknowledge or apologise for these delays in its complaint handling or show that it had taken any learning to prevent future delays. Additionally, it failed to provide any explanation for the delays or offer redress for the inconvenience caused.
17. Considering this, the landlord must pay £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays, which is in line with our compensation guidance for minor delays in complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. We are aware that in March 2025, the landlord introduced a Knowledge and Information (KIM) Strategy. The strategy is underpinned by the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on KIM and acknowledges several areas for improvement. As such, we have made no orders that will duplicate the commitments made as part of its strategy.

Communication

19. Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. Updates were often unclear or inconsistent and the resident regularly had to chase for information. Providing timely and clear updates would reduce unnecessary contact and help build trust.