Midland Heart Limited (202420380)

Decision
Case ID	202420380
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Midland Heart Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in the property, a 2-bedroom house, with her young daughter. The windows were replaced as part of a planned programme of works in April 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request to have a new bedroom window changed to one of a different style.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to have a new bedroom window changed to one of a different style.
4. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord replaced the bedroom window to suit the resident’s preference, despite having no obligation to do so.
6. There were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. However, it has offered a proportionate remedy to put things right.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £100 compensation it has already offered for its complaint handling failures. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure.
The landlord should consider honouring the offer of £250 compensation made to the resident at the end of the complaints process in May 2025, if it has not already paid this.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 July 2024	Following the installation of a new bedroom window, the resident complained to the landlord that she was dissatisfied with it. She asked for it to be replaced with a top-opening window. She raised concerns about ventilation due to a window restrictor, and the misrepresentation of events in the landlord’s communications.
30   July 2024	In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said the new window had been fitted in in line with current fire safety regulations and was fit for purpose. It therefore found no service failure.
31   July 2024	The resident escalated the complaint, saying that: Communications had been misrepresented by the landlord. She had not been told a window replacement would be at her own cost, and she would not have provided information on what she wanted had she known. She still had concerns about ventilation and this was impacting her own mental health and her child’s physical health.
18 September 2024	In the landlord’s stage 2 response it again found no service failure in relation to the window. It offered £25 compensation for delaying the escalation to stage 2.
28 January 2025	Following the resident’s continued expressions of dissatisfaction, the landlord replaced the bedroom window with one she preferred.
26 February 2025	The resident made a second complaint that other tenants had been given a choice of windows and an easier process. She felt her window replacement was drawn out and poorly handled and that the resulting stress had impacted her health. She asked for £1,000 compensation for the delay and distress.
19   March 2025	In the landlord’s stage 1 response it offered £250 compensation for the impact and inconvenience of having made several visits to replace the window. It said it could not consider medical related issues and explained its process for making a claim to the insurers. It did not address the resident’s concerns about unfair treatment compared with other tenants.
20   March 2025	The resident escalated her complaint, saying that she objected to various inaccuracies in the stage 1 response, including an incorrect reference to her ‘son’. She said the compensation offer was inadequate for the distress and delays.
1 May 2025	The landlord’s stage 2 response said it had found no service failure. However, it increased its compensation offer to £325 (£250 offered at stage 1 plus £75 for complaint handling failures at stage 1).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord had failed to accurately represent her complaint and had disregarded safety concerns. She felt she had been treated unfairly compared with other tenants and there had been poor communication from the landlord. She reported an impact on her health and asked for £1,000 compensation.

 

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.

Complaint	The resident’s request to change a new bedroom window to one of a different style
Finding	No maladministration

7. The landlord’s repairs policy notes its responsibility to maintain the windows, frames and sills of the property. The resident’s tenancy agreement also notes the resident’s right to the landlord’s obligations to repair. Replacement windows must conform to current building regulations in terms of safety standards to allow escape in the event of fire and ventilation standards to allow adequate airflow.
8. New windows and doors were installed as part of planned works in April 2024. The resident was offered a choice on the style of door, but not the windows. Shortly after the windows were fitted, the resident raised her concerns about the new bottom-opening bedroom window. She was concerned about her young daughter’s safety, given that she could climb onto the windowsill, and that she could throw toys out of the window gap.
9. The resident was advised the windows had restrictors fitted which could be adjusted to provide a safe gap, but she was not confident these were adequate. The landlord responded to these concerns by raising a repair to have extra window restrictors fitted. This was a proportionate and logical response to address the resident’s concern about her daughter’s safety and her confidence in the existing restrictors.
10. At the appointment to have the restrictors fitted on 29 April 2024, the resident said she wanted to have the window changed to a top-opening window of the style she had previously. It is not clear if she allowed for additional restrictors to be fitted at this time. She noted her concerns that the new window did not provide adequate ventilation and about her family’s health and wellbeing.
11. The landlord visited the resident promptly the following day to discuss her concerns. In doing so, it demonstrated concern for any possible safety issues affecting the resident and her family by making an in-person visit to have a conversation. The content of the discussion was confirmed in a letter sent on 16 May 2024. The landlord confirmed to her that the new window met current building regulations, which the previous window did not. It said the window would not be changed as it was compliant with building regulations for both fire safety and ventilation and there were no issues with it. However, it expressed a commitment to find a workable solution. This was a positive response as it was not obliged to do anything further. Its responsibility was to ensure the replacement windows were compliant with building regulations, which they were.
12. There was a further visit to the property on 15 May 2024, to fit additional window restrictors. According to the landlord this was an agreed action, but the resident refused on the day. She then contacted the Director of Repairs and Maintenance and he met with her and the Regional Manager at the property on 20 May 2024 to discuss the issue. The fact that senior level staff had become directly involved demonstrates the landlord’s commitment to finding a solution.
13. The landlord said it had taken advice from a specialist window contractor in advance of this meeting to understand all the options. This demonstrates it was taking the matter seriously. The resident and landlord accounts of this meeting differ. The landlord did not offer to replace the window but says it suggested that she could pay for a replacement window herself. She later said she had already made the landlord aware that she could not afford to fund a replacement herself. The landlord also offered a dehumidifier to address concerns about ventilation. In making this suggestion it was trying to offer of suitable alternatives to answer the resident’s concerns, which was reasonable.
14. In July 2024 the resident followed up on the meeting and her communication was taken as a formal complaint. She reiterated her specifications for a new window and said she expected to have been given a choice of window as she had been for the door (which was outside the styles offered).  She expressed her frustration that her request was not being met.
15. The request was refused at the end of the stage 2 process in September 2024, and this was a reasonable position for the landlord to take. The window was not what the resident wanted but it was fit for purpose and met the current building regulations. Therefore, there was no obligation on the landlord to replace it, other than to meet the resident’s personal preference.
16. In December 2024, around 10 months after the window had been fitted, the landlord ultimately agreed to the resident’s request. It arranged for its contractor to agree a suitable replacement window with her, which was then fitted in January 2025. In taking this course of action, the landlord acted over and above its obligations, which provided a positive outcome for the resident.
17. After the window was replaced in January 2025, the resident complained in February 2025 about the landlord’s handling of the replacement. The complaint was about delay, unnecessary inconvenience and distress caused. The complaint also included the point that she had been treated unfairly and inconsistently as she said she was not initially offered a choice of window as other tenants had been.
18. This second complaint was investigated by the landlord and it again found no service failure. Despite this, the landlord offered £250 compensation for delays and inconvenience. While there may have been some difficulties with the window replacement, the fact remains that the landlord was providing a higher level of service by replacing the window at all. It is, therefore, not clear why the compensation was offered in the circumstances. However, in the interests of maintaining a positive relationship between the landlord and resident, a recommendation is made for the landlord consider honouring this offer, if it has not already been paid.  
19. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the bedroom window as there was no obligation on it to do so. It responded promptly to her concerns, suggested reasonable measures to address them, and visited her to discuss options. As the landlord voluntarily agreed to replace the window, outside of any repairing obligations, there are no strict timeframes applicable in this case. Therefore, we do not find that there were undue delays.
20. The resident complained that other tenants had been offered a choice of window and a more straightforward process. As part of this investigation the landlord was asked if other tenants had been offered a choice of windows as part of the same planned window replacement programme. It replied that they were not. Landlords are not required to offer choice on planned works and they may decide what level of choice they are prepared to offer the resident. On this occasion, choice was offered in doors but not windows and the resident was allowed a door she preferred which was not on offer originally. This demonstrated that the landlord was prepared to be flexible where it could be, but did not set a precedent for other planned works.

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaints
Finding	Reasonable redress

21. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. Stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
22. The first complaint was made in July 2024 and concerned the resident’s request for a window replacement. The stage 1 complaint was responded to within policy timescales, and the landlord’s response was clear and accurate.
23. The landlord took 15 days to escalate the complaint to stage 2, outside of its 5-working day timeframe. It apologised and offered £25 compensation for this failing. This was not adequate as the minimum level of compensation for service failure in the landlord’s compensation policy, and our own remedies guidance, is £50.
24. The second complaint was made in February 2025, regarding the landlord’s handling of the window replacement. There were several failures in its handling of this complaint:
    1. It slightly delayed in acknowledging the complaint outside of 5 days.
    2. It made some errors in its stage 1 response.
    3. It failed to acknowledge or respond to part of the complaint (about unfair treatment in respect of choice).
25. The landlord apologised and offered £75 compensation for the service failures it identified in complaint handling across both complaints. Although the landlord did not acknowledge non-consideration of part of the complaint, this did not impact the outcome of the complaint. The landlord’s total offer of £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures was in line with its compensation policy. This allows for payments of between £50 and £100 for minor service failures. 
26. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
27. Considering the limited extent and impact of the complaint handling failures, and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the £100 compensation is considered reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the complaints. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the resident the £100 compensation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure. 

Learning

28. The landlord could consider a policy of allowing choice in the style of replacement windows permitted under planned works, as it already does in the style of replacement doors.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. There was no failure of record keeping identified which impacted on this complaint.

Communication

30. The landlord should ensure that all resident communications are responded to promptly and in line with relevant policy timescales.
31. The landlord was right to take the resident’s concerns seriously and visit the property on several occasions to discuss her concerns.