Octavia Housing (202512700)

Decision
Case ID	202512700
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Octavia Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	22 December 2025

Background

The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette on the ground and first floor of a scheme built in 2020. The defects period for the scheme ended on 30 November 2023. The resident’s tenancy began in April 2023 and he reported window issues the following month. The developer visited on 31 May 2023. The evidence suggests the developer completed some repairs. However, the resident contacted the landlord in September and October 2023 to chase further repairs.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of window repairs.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window repairs.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of window repairs

The landlord’s failure to monitor the window repairs and quotes, poor communication with the resident and contractors, and gaps in record keeping has protracted the issue for the resident. The 3 windows have still not been replaced, over a year after the formal complaint was raised.

Complaint handling

The evidence shows the landlord took 5 months to issue a stage 1 complaint response. This was significantly over the policy timeframe and delayed resolving the issues for the resident at the earliest opportunity.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 19 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident an additional £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.	No later than 19 January 2026
3	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident and provide its position on the window repairs if it has not done so already. An action plan should be provided to us which confirms when the windows will be installed.	No later than 19 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider ways it can improve its record keeping and repairs monitoring.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 November 2024 to 1 May 2025	The resident raised a formal complaint in November 2024 and chased for a response the following month. Internal emails showed the landlord discussed the complaint in January 2025, but there was no evidence a response was sent. The evidence suggests the resident complained again in April 2025. On 1 May 2025 another internal landlord email said the complaint was a duplicate of a previous complaint.
2 May 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response, where it upheld the complaint. It said: An end of defects period inspection was scheduled for the end of November 2023. But due to record keeping gaps, it was unable to establish the inspection outcome, or if window repairs were raised. Its contractor visited on 6 December 2024 but was unable to complete repairs so a sub-contractor attended 5 days later. The sub-contractor told the landlord it was unable to source mechanisms needed to complete window repairs on 6 March 2025. A further work order was raised with an alternative sub-contractor. It approved a repairs quote from the alternative sub-contractor on 30 April 2025 who would contact the resident to arrange repairs. It apologised for its poor communication between December 2024 and March 2025. It offered £400 compensation. This was made up of £150 for repair delays, £50 for complaint handling delays, £100 for distress and inconvenience and £100 for poor record keeping and communication.
23 May 2025	The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 18 May 2025 following an unsuccessful sub-contractor repair appointment 2 days earlier. The landlord sent its stage 2 response 5 days later, in which it said: It could have done more to monitor the situation and update the resident. It had confirmed a repair appointment had been scheduled for 2 days earlier. And would contact the resident by 30 May 2025 to ensure all repairs were completed. It increased the compensation offered by £75 made up of £50 for further repair delays and £25 for continued poor communication. This took the total compensation to £475.
30 June 2025	The resident contacted us and said the window repairs had not been completed. We contacted the landlord in September 2025.
9 October 2025	Following the escalation to us, the landlord wrote to the resident again. It said: Its contractors had ordered 3 windows. The lead time for this was 4-5 weeks and it would contact the resident to arrange an appointment for the windows replacement. It had completed an urgent repair to the second bedroom window on 3 October 2025. It offered an additional £1,750 compensation. This was made up of £750 for the delays in getting the windows repaired/replaced, £600 towards energy bills (as the resident was not able to fully close some windows), and £400 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delays.
4 December 2025	In a call with us, the resident said his windows had still not been replaced. He said the sub-contractor that attended said the windows ordered were the wrong tint.

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 did not consider

The events of May to October 2023 are noted above for context, but there is no evidence of a formal complaint being made until November 2024. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising. This is so the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and while the evidence is available to properly investigate. Therefore, we will consider events from November 2023 onwards (12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint). The end date of this investigation is 9 October 2025 when the landlord offered additional compensation.

Complaint	Landlord’s handling of window repairs
Finding	Maladministration

The resident’s tenancy agreement says:
1. The landlord will keep in good repair the structure and outside of the property. This includes window catches, window frames and glass.
2. The resident will make good damage caused… [which] includes replacing broken windows. If the landlord has to carry out any of this work [the resident] agrees to repay costs.
The landlord’s repair policy says:
1. Emergency repairs, including to make the property secure, will be attended within 24 hours if possible.
2. Urgent repairs will be completed within 5 working days.
3. Routine repairs will be completed within 15 working days.
4. On occasions, work may not be completed within these times, for example when replacement parts or materials need to be ordered.
After chasing at least twice in the previous 2 months, the resident emailed the landlord on 15 November 2023 and said he was waiting for window repairs. The landlord responded promptly the same day. It said:
1. The developer closed the repair as it had visited twice.
2. The window issues were caused by the resident’s curtain fittings.

The resident emailed the following day and said:

The curtain fittings could not have damaged the windows.
He had children in the property and demanded the window be fixed.

In response, the landlord said it would complete an end of defects inspection with the developer on 27 November 2023. We acknowledge the scheme was still within its defects period at this point. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect the windows given there were children at the property. The landlord could also have considered a rechargeable repair as per its policy. There was no evidence it did either, which was unreasonable.

An internal landlord email dated 9 January 2024 in relation to end of defects inspection said:
1. A kitchen window restrictor had been attached.
2. The bathroom window restrictor was adjusted.
3. The metal catch for bedroom 2 (the resident’s daughter’s room) was damaged. But it had not accepted the defect as the cause related to damage.

It was positive minor repairs were completed, although it was unclear exactly when repairs were completed, or whether this was within policy timeframe.

There was no evidence of any further action until the resident chased when the windows would be repaired or replaced on 22 November 2024, 10 months later. This was prompted by the failure of another window mechanism. The resident said this let a draught in and was a security risk. In response, the landlord arranged a repair appointment for 29 November 2024. While this was a reasonable approach to take, this was outside the landlord’s timescales for both emergency and urgent repairs, which was a failing.
The resident raised a formal complaint and copied his MP in after the contractor cancelled the appointment by text on the day, rescheduling it for 20 December – 3 weeks later. The cancelled appointment caused the resident inconvenience as he had taken the day off work. Further, a 3 week delay for the rescheduled appointment was unreasonable given the time of year and security risk. In response to the complaint, the landlord brought the appointment forward to 6 December 2024, which was reasonable. The contractor noted 3 windows were faulty, but it could not complete repairs. It arranged for a sub-contractor to attend 5 days later, which was reasonable. The sub-contractor took photos to try and source parts required to fix the windows. While this was positive, this was a missed opportunity to complete temporary window repairs, which was a failing.
The resident chased a complaint response on 23 December 2024. The landlord wrote to the resident’s MP on 31 December 2024. It said:
1. Its contractor had visited on 6 December 2024.
2. This was the first time window issues had been reported by the resident to the contractor.
3. It had no other window repair jobs on its system for the resident.

While it was positive the landlord wrote to the residents MP, it was unclear whether it contacted the resident at this point. Further, while the landlord was correct there had been no previous window repairs on its system, the resident had reported window issues during the defects period dating back to May 2023. This was over a year and 7 months earlier. The landlord should have had records of this.

The resident chased for an update on 14 January 2025. The landlord acted promptly and contacted its contractor, who in turn advised it was still waiting for an update from its sub-contractor. The landlord chased its contractor again on 30 January and 4 February 2025 for updates. While this was positive, this was 7 weeks after the sub-contractor’s visit to the property. The landlord could have been more pro-active in chasing. And there was no evidence the resident was updated throughout this period, which was a failing.
The contractor responded on 6 February 2025 and said it was unable to obtain the window mechanisms. Again, there was no evidence the resident was updated. The lack of updates led the resident to stop paying rent around this time in an attempt to get the window issue resolved.
An internal landlord email dated 13 February 2025 said “one of the bedroom windows where [the resident’s] children sleep is completely broken, does not shut and is letting in cold air, posing a health and safety hazard.” There was no evidence any action was taken. This was a failing and further missed opportunity to consider inspecting the windows or completing temporary repairs.
On 12 March 2025 the landlord said its contractors raised a work order for a second sub-contractor to visit on 27 March 2025. There was no record to confirm if the appointment went ahead. But this appointment was 7 weeks after the landlord was aware its first sub-contractor was unable to source the mechanisms to repair the windows. The lack of action between 6 February 2025 and 12 March 2025 was a failing.
The resident’s MP emailed the landlord again on 7 April 2025 and said neither the contractor or sub-contractor had been in contact. This prompted the landlord to chase for updates on 8 and 17 April 2025. The evidence suggests the resident then either chased the original complaint or raised a new complaint around 25 April 2025. The landlord spoke to the resident on 29 April 2025 and chased the contractor again for the window repair quote the same day, which was positive. The contractor provided the quote to ‘renew a tilt and turn window’ which was approved promptly the same day. Internal landlord emails the following day showed it sought clarification whether all 3 windows would be fixed, as the quote from the sub-contractor was only for 1 window. The response suggested work to repair all 3 windows would be completed. However, there was no evidence the landlord clarified this with the contractor or sub-contractor.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 after a scheduled appointment for 16 May 2025 had not gone ahead. The landlord chased its contractor on 21 May 2025 who called the resident to confirm it would attend that afternoon. While this was short notice, it was positive the landlord had acted to progress the repairs. The evidence showed the sub-contractor did attend. But while on site, the resident said there were issues with 2 other windows at the property. Further delays completing window repairs could have been avoided had the landlord’s communication with its contractors, and general oversight of the repairs, been better.
The contractor emailed the landlord on 22 May 2025 and said:
1. The other 2 windows required replacement parts which were unavailable in the UK.
2. It could replace all 3 windows, but the quote would need to be updated to account for the 3 windows.

This was over 3 weeks after the landlord had identified clarification was needed in relation to whether all 3 windows would be fixed, which was a further delay.

The contractor chased the landlord on 28 May 2025 and 17 and 18 June 2025 after no response to its email of 22 May 2025. The landlord responded on 26 June 2025, over a month after its initial email. This was slow. It asked for a copy of the quote which the contractor provided the same day. After no response, the contractor emailed the landlord 3 days later and said it had closed the repair because the quote to replace 3 windows had not been approved. There was then no further action for 2.5 months when the contractor sent the quote through again on 16 September 2025. The quote was approved the same day. While this was prompt, this was almost 10 months after the resident had raised the complaint. The sub-contractor ordered the windows on 24 September 2025.
The landlord and its contractor inspected the property on 2 October 2025 and wrote to the resident a week later with further compensation. The inspection only appeared prompted by the complaint escalation to us. It should not have taken a complaint to be escalated to us for the landlord to take action, which was a failing. The inspection found:
1. The ground floor kitchen window latch mechanism had failed and the window could only be operated in fully-closed or fully-open position. This limited the resident’s ability to safely ventilate the space. A restrictor should be installed.
2. The first floor parents bedroom had the same issue as the kitchen. The latch mechanism had failed which prevented the window from remaining partially open. A restrictor should be installed.
3. The front children’s bedroom window had a severe mechanical failure and the window could no longer be securely closed. This window should be replaced.

The landlord completed a temporary repair to the children’s bedroom promptly the following day. While it was positive the inspection took place and temporary repair was completed, the landlord had missed multiple opportunities to inspect the windows, which was a failing.

Overall, the landlord’s handling of window repairs was poor. We would have expected the landlord to accept responsibility, monitor the repairs and ensure they were completed in accordance with its policies. Instead:
1. It was left to the contractor to manage:
  1. The repairs.
  2. Its sub-contractors.
2. The landlord missed opportunities to inspect the window condition in at least November 2023, January 2024, and February and May 2025.
3. The landlord’s communication with the resident and its contractor was poor. The evidence showed the resident chased for updates in at least November 2023, November and December 2024, January, April and May 2025 after no evidence of an update provided by the landlord.
4. The lack of oversight and poor communication led to missed/failed appointments on 29 November 2024, 20 December 2024, 2 January 2025, 16 May 2025.
5. The landlord was reactive rather than proactive in dealing with the window repairs. There were delays where there was little to no action between:
  1. 11 December 2024 and 14 January 2025 – action prompted by the resident chasing.
  2. 6 Feb 2025 and 12 March 2025.
  3. 27 March 2025 and 8 April 2025 – action prompted by MP contact.
  4. 17 April and 25 April 2025 – action prompted by the complaint.
  5. 22 May 2025 and 26 June 2025.
  6. 29 June 2025 and 16 September 2025.

This totals approximately 6.5 months of little to no action unless prompted by the resident or his MP, which was unreasonable.

The resident has had £2,175 compensation in relation to the landlord’s handling of the window repairs. However, £1,750 of this was not as part of the landlord’s complaints procedure. We therefore cannot make a finding of reasonable redress. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the repairs, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. With that in mind, the landlord should have done more to follow up with both the resident and its contractors rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates. A finding of maladministration is made. However, the compensation offered is in line with what we would expect, so no further compensation will be ordered.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says:
1. Stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged.
2. Stage 2 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged.
3. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint about the snapped window mechanism on 6 December 2024 using a reference of CRM:0143494. This was 5 working days after the complaint was raised, which was in line with the Code. However, the resident chased the complaint on 23 December 2024. This was a missed opportunity to progress the complaint. There was no evidence a complaint response was sent, which was a failing.
It was unclear whether the resident chased the complaint or raised a second complaint around 25 April 2025. However, an internal landlord email dated 1 May 2025 said the complaint was a duplicate of another complaint, which was “out of service level agreement.” The complaint references quoted in the internal email were CAS-3281457-M7V0L7 and CAS-3278713-R8T0M0, which are different from the reference given in the acknowledgement sent in December 2024. It was therefore unclear whether the resident raised, 1, 2 or 3 complaints in an effort to get the window issues resolved.
The landlord said its contractor would contact the resident to arrange the repairs in the stage 1 response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to monitor this and follow-up. Failing to do this led to another failed appointment on 16 May 2025 which caused further delays and inconvenience. It was unclear if the landlord followed up with the resident by 30 May 2025 as it said it would in its stage 2 response.
We welcome and encourage landlords to proactively revisit opportunities for the resolution of a complaint after the stage 2 response and a landlord is entitled to review its position. It was positive the landlord did so and offered further compensation to the resident.
The landlord also acknowledged the complaint handling delays in its stage 1 response and offered compensation, which was positive. However, it failed to acknowledge all its failings, and the offer was not proportionate for a 5 month delay waiting for a stage 1 response. There was therefore maladministration and an order of an additional £200 compensation is made.

Learning

A recommendation has been made to improve repairs monitoring.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

A landlord should keep good records. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. Neither the landlord nor the Ombudsman can properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records and this could result in unfairness to the resident. The record keeping in this case was overall of a good standard, but there were a number of gaps for example:
1. No record of repairs completed in the defects period.
2. No record of end of defects inspection or if window repairs were raised in November 2023.
3. No record of when the end of defects period repairs were completed.

The poor record keeping caused further confusion as an internal landlord email on 7 January 2025 showed the landlord planned to booked a repair in with its contractor. However, the contractor had already visited a month earlier.

Communication

As outlined in the report, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor.