Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202311991)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311991

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

20 December 2024

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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her reports of faulty windows and doors (including front door and French doors).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom end of terrace house. The resident is an assured tenant and has been living in the property since December 2002. She lives in the property with her two young children, one of whom was born in 2024.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 September 2021 to ask for replacement of her doors and windows, as they had been over 20 years old. The landlord replied in October 2021 to advise the front door was due a condition survey in 2027, while the French doors at the back were due to be surveyed in 2025. It also asked her to send in photos of the windows and the landlord could review these and potentially bring forward the survey date.
The resident sent photos by email on 19 October 2021. She then called several times from October to December 2021 as she did not receive a response, asking for a callback.
The landlord called back on 20 December 2021 to say it could not locate the photos and asked her to resend. The resident did so on the same day.
On 13 January 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the issue and later for a callback. The landlord noted in January 2022 that the uPVC windows and doors were not closing properly and arranged an inspection of the windows and the French doors for 17 February 2022. Later in March 2022 it also arranged a separate inspection of the front door on 17 March 2022.
During the survey on 17 February 2022, the contractor found the French doors should be replaced as ‘mitre joints were split’ and the window handles were ‘all worn and broken’. On 17 March 2022 it further found that the front door was ‘old and needed replacement with new frame’ as the frame was warped.
The resident emailed the landlord several times in March 2022 asking for the survey report from February 2022. She further stated that the locks on all the windows in her property were broken, some windows could not shut properly, and the French doors could not lock properly. She was concerned about the safety of her children as they might open the windows on the upper floor (first floor) and fall out. She again asked when the landlord would be able to replace the doors and windows.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 March 2022 to say it was trying to identify what was wrong with the windows and was waiting for a reply from a staff member who was previously handling the matter.
On 9 April 2022 the resident again asked the landlord to escalate the matter to management as she believed the doors and windows constituted a health and safety hazard.
The landlord’s customer service team provided a reply on 11 April 2022 to share the following:
1. The survey on 17 February 2022 found that the French doors had split mitre joints and the window handles were worn and broken.
2. The survey on 17 March 2022 found the front door was warped and needed a replacement.
3. The landlord had expected the contractor to make an appointment and quote for replacement and repairs.
4. It had flagged this with its own scheduling team and expected to update the resident within 5 working days.
The resident cancelled her direct debit for rent on 25 April 2022 and sent an email to the landlord to say she had had no response by 16 April 2022. She stated the house was unsafe for her young children and she would not continue to pay rent until these issues were fixed.
The landlord sent a reply the next day (26 April 2022) to say:
1. It had asked its own surveyors to review the request to replace the front door and would let the resident know about their decision in due course.
2. The contractor would attend on 5 May 2022 regarding the French doors.
3. It checked its repairs history and ‘could not see anything that had been reported before’ regarding the windows.
4. The window handles and locks would ‘usually fall under the tenant’s responsibility to replace’.
5. It provided the repairs team contact number and stated ‘since the resident said her home was unsafe’, she could dial this number and the landlord could arrange a visit within 24 hours.
6. It would flag to the rents team that the resident was no longer paying rent due to outstanding works.
The resident called the repairs team hotline on 26 April 2022 and the repairs team arranged a priority visit within 24 hours. The purpose of the visit was to ‘make safe’ the upstairs and kitchen window. It is unclear from the records what works were done, however, the landlord later stated in its complaint response that it identified from this visit that 16 window handles were needed.
The resident continued to ask for the survey reports. The landlord replied on 4 May 2022 that it could not provide further information other than what had already been given regarding the surveyor’s findings about the doors and windows.
The contractor cancelled its appointment on 5 May 2022 for unknown reasons and attended on 6 June 2022. It measured the French doors and the living room window on that day and submitted a variation order later.
The resident continued to chase for replacement works. The landlord replied on 22 June 2022 to apologise for the wait and said the repairs team needed to approve the variation order before the scheduling team could go ahead with setting an appointment, and it would be back in touch by 24 June 2022 to confirm how it planned to move forward with the works.
On 23 June 2022 the landlord decided to assign the replacement for the French doors and the living room window to a different contractor and informed the resident accordingly the next day. It said the new contractor would get in touch with the resident over the next few days to arrange an appointment, and once it provided a quote, the landlord would review it and take it forward.
The resident received two warning letters about overdue rent in June 2022 and asked the landlord to make the rents team aware of the situation.
In an email on 27 June 2022 the resident informed the resident she had agreed to an appointment with the contractor on 8 July 2022, however she was concerned that this was the fifth appointment for a survey and no work had been done. She also said she had already reported to the landlord all the window handles were broken, the windows either lacked a safety catch or could not be opened, making them unsafe. She said the contractor had only agreed to look at the living room window and the French doors, but not the kitchen or upstairs windows.
The contractor attended on 8 July 2022 to measure for the French doors and the living room window. The landlord later stated in its email responses to the resident that the contractor had looked at the front door as well, although this was not reflected in the contemporaneous records.
The contractor sent a quote for the French doors on 14 July 2022 to the landlord and further confirmed that the living room window was unsafe and the sliders needed to be removed.
The landlord approved the contractor’s quote and installation date on 5 August 2022. It also booked an inspection on 10 August 2022 for the contractor to inspect the upstairs windows.
The contractor cancelled its appointment on 5 August 2022 due to the engineer falling ill. The replacement of the French doors and the living room window was later completed on 22 August 2022.
The contractor also reported to the landlord around early August 2022 (exact date unclear) that in total, it needed 15 window handles and 9 trickle vents to complete the repairs to the windows, and there was damage to the uPVC window frame in the bathroom. However, the landlord’s own internal records from 22 August 2022 stated it ‘deemed it unnecessary to replace the upstairs windows’.
The landlord had arranged an appointment to do further works on the window handles and vents on 13 September 2022 but this did not go ahead as it said the contractor engineer was signed off work.
The resident asked to raise a formal complaint on 21 September 2022 about the delays and lack of action to replace the front door, upstairs windows, and the kitchen window.
The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 23 September 2022. Prior to issuing the complaint response, its customer service team discussed the matter with the repairs team. The repairs team informed the customer service team that the contractor had inspected the front door and a replacement was ‘not warranted’. They stated they had done all ‘necessary’ replacements on 22 August 2022. They also told the customer service team the resident had requested ‘all internal doors be fixed’ and the team had explained to her it was the resident’s responsibility to do this. There is no other record that the resident had asked for repairs to internal doors.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 7 October 2022, summarised as follows:
1. It apologised for its level of service, poor communication and delays.
2. It said its contractor had done a survey on the front door on 8 July 2022 and found it did not need a replacement, however, if the resident believed the door condition had changed, she should contact the landlord again.
3. It offered to carry out a survey for the kitchen window and all first floor windows on 13 October 2022.
4. It offered to install 15 new window handles and 9 trickle vents for the windows on 22 November 2022.
5. It offered a ‘discretionary offer’ for £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the delays in booking the works and lack of communication.
The resident accepted the compensation offer on 7 October 2022 and confirmed her availability for these dates, but asked the landlord to escalate her complaint as she had not received the survey reports nor any explanation for their absence. She also sought clarification on the survey outcomes as a previous survey in March 2022 had found the front door frame warped and the front door in need of replacement.
The landlord replied on 12 October 2022 to say the surveyor was attending the next day for the windows and asked the resident to wait for the survey outcomes before escalating the complaint. It also said it could not see the resident had previously requested the survey reports.
The surveyor attended on 22 November 2022 to inspect and conduct repairs on the windows. The resident’s account is that they said to her they did not have all the necessary equipment for repairs, but would do what they could. The records are unclear on what works were done on this day.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 8 December 2022, summarised as follows:
1. It acknowledged the resident was seeking copies of the previous survey reports.
2. It acknowledged a previous survey in March 2022 had found the front door had a warped frame, but said the report was unclear and a more recent survey by the new contractor in July 2022 had found the door in fair condition.
3. In acknowledgment of the inconsistency between these findings, it offered a final visit by a surveyor to check the front door had sufficient lifespan to last until the scheduled replacement date (2027) and was in adequate working order. It said it would call to arrange this by 14 December 2022.
4. It said it would not increase the previous compensation offer made at stage 1 (£100) as it believed this was fair.
5. It attached the survey report completed on 22 November 2022.
6. It did not provide a copy of the survey reports done on 17 March 2022 or in July 2022.
The resident replied on the same day to continue to ask for replacement of the remaining windows and the previous survey reports done prior to November 2022.

Events after the completion of the internal complaints process

The landlord arranged a further assessment of the front door on 16 December 2022. This assessment found that the door ‘needed changing, it was bowed and not functioning properly’.
By April 2023 (the records did not show the date) the contractor had attended to measure the front door for replacement, and offered the resident a choice on the colours and handles.
The landlord issued a warning letter to the resident on 21 April 2023 stating it intended to take legal action against the resident for possession, as she was still not paying rent. The resident emailed back on the same day to say there were still outstanding repair issues regarding the windows, and she had not received the survey reports.
The resident was diagnosed with anxiety around early May 2023 and informed the landlord, asking it to contact her by email only.
The landlord issued a notice seeking possession against the resident on 18 May 2023. In subsequent communications over the next few weeks, the resident repeated that the window and door issues were outstanding which was her reason for stopping rent payments. She informed the landlord she had been in touch with FENSA (a government-authorised scheme that monitors building regulation compliance for replacement windows and doors) about her situation. She asked the landlord to provide the name and contact details of the company who installed the windows and doors originally. She had paid the outstanding rent by 25 May 2023.
The landlord cancelled the notice seeking possession on 25 May 2023 as the resident had paid outstanding rent in full. The customer service team stated in subsequent emails to the resident that it would ask the housing team to liaise with the repairs team to resolve the ongoing repairs, however, it later reversed this position and said the landlord could provide no further response and the resident should contact this Service.
The landlord replaced the front door around June to July 2023 (exact date unclear from the records provided).
The resident continued to raise concerns about the upstairs windows malfunctioning, constituting a safety risk for her young children. The landlord raised an emergency repair about this on 19 June 2023 and attended the property on 20 June 2023.
The resident referred this matter to the Ombudsman in July 2023.
On 8 August 2023, during a phone call with this Service, the resident confirmed the landlord had replaced the front door, the French doors, and the living room window. It had also changed the locks and the trickle vents on some of the windows upstairs but not all of the windows. The resident stated the windows had no safety catches. She continued to seek copies of the surveyor reports, and the details of the company who originally installed the windows.
In June 2024, the resident stated to this Service she had a new baby and she remained concerned about the safety of the windows, as the windows on the first floor had not been replaced. She stated she has had to lock all of them for the safety of her children and this was causing high temperatures inside the property. In December 2024, she stated these issues remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This investigation will consider events starting from September 2021 which is when the resident first reported the issues with the doors and windows. The landlord has carried out a near-continuous series of inspections and repair works since October 2021, and given the resident multiple reassurances that it was working to resolve the issue, which was an important factor in considering why the resident did not bring the complaint to this Service earlier.
This investigation will consider events up until June 2024 as the landlord had carried out further repairs and replacements on the doors and windows following the completion of the internal complaints process. These are directly related to the subject matter of the complaint.

Relevant policies and guidance

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has a responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The tenancy agreement confirms this and further details that the landlord must keep the external doors and the windows (including window sills, window catches, window frames and sash cords) in good repair and repair any damage that had not been caused by the resident or someone living with the resident.
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) safety guidance states that landlords have a responsibility to manage the risk of falls from windows by adequately assessing the premises and the service users, including doing a risk assessment. Where the resident is identified as vulnerable to risk of falling from height and a window is large enough for a body to pass through, a restrictor should be fitted so that the window could only open to 10cm or less. The restrictor should be robust enough to resist forceful opening and be secured using tamper-proof fittings so that it cannot be removed. The restrictor can either be fixed in place, or can only be overridden with the use of a special removable key or device.
The Ombudsman’s report on Learning from Severe Maladministration on window-related complaints (August 2024) highlights the importance of the following actions by landlords:
1. conduct thorough risk assessments based on individual household circumstances, ensuring appropriate actions are recognised, responded to, and documented;
2. engage independent surveyors and ensure that responses to their recommendations are reasonable, clear, and consistent;
3. justify decisions to defer repairs or opt for limited repairs not primarily on cost but in line with legal obligations.
The Ombudsman notes that while the report of Learning from Severe Maladministration in window-related complaints was not formally published until August 2024, the recommended actions highlighted above are a formal recognition of what actions the landlord are expected to have done prior to the publication of the report. Landlords are also expected to have observed the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of treating people fairly and following fair processes.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) highlights that a landlord should ensure its databases are easy to interrogate, and that the data can be extracted and used. Staff should be able to easily access the information they require for evidence-based practice and informed decision-making.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aimed to complete any emergency repairs within 24 hours and any general repairs within 10 working days. It stated there were some larger jobs that may require a survey to enable the ordering of materials and the works to be planned in, and this type of work would not be considered part of its repairs and maintenance service. It listed door and window replacement as an example.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that if it identified that it had failed a customer on multiple occasions around the same issue, this may be considered a serious service failure and it may offer a compensation of around £100 to £250 or more in recognition of the impact of distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of faulty windows and doors

Having reviewed the timeline of events, the Ombudsman’s overall view is that there was a failure on the landlord’s part to recognise the urgency of the matter, or take meaningful action to resolve the door and window issues within a reasonable timeframe. The resident’s concern for the safety of her young children over unsafe windows and doors forms the core of this complaint, however, the landlord has not given any recognition to this, nor the ongoing impact of distress this has caused to the resident and her family.
Throughout the lifetime of the case, there is no record to show the landlord conducted any risk assessment on the doors and windows, despite the resident emphasising her concern for the children multiple times. HSE guidance is clear that where there are individuals who may be vulnerable to falling from height, the landlord must do an adequate risk assessment and use this as a tool to inform its follow-up actions, such as installing window restrictors and fixing any outstanding safety issues.
The contractors identified that the French doors and the windows constituted a potential risk to safety on 17 February 2022 due to problems with locks and handles. The resident also articulated her concerns with safety on 11 March 2022 after chasing for replacements since September 2021. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to refer the matter internally to the repairs team to facilitate an emergency or priority inspection, to make safe the windows and doors. At the minimum, the landlord should have signposted the resident to emergency repairs. However, it did not take a proactive approach to manage this risk.
It was only when the resident cancelled her direct debit rent payments in late April 2022 that the landlord shared the contact details of the repairs team and told her to call the number herself to request a priority inspection. The Ombudsman considers this was not a customer-focused or resolution-focused approach to resolving the matter, as the landlord could have referred this internally, particularly as she had already been raising these issues previously for some time. While the landlord did attend the property next day, it remains unclear what were the actions taken at the time to identify or make safe the issues.
It was identified as early as February and March 2022 that the French doors, front door and windows needed replacement, either in part (the window handles being broken meaning they could not open or shut properly, requiring new handles) or in whole (the French doors had split joints and the front door frame was warped meaning it could not open or shut properly and could block exit in a fire). It is unclear why the landlord did not order a survey for all of these facilities at the same time, but split them into two surveys a month apart. The delays give the impression the landlord did not recognise the risk posed by unsafe doors and windows or did not take the matter seriously.
The landlord has not been able to provide copies of these survey reports or photos, which indicate poor documentation and a lack of thoroughness in the survey. There were delays with the landlord’s response to conducting these surveys which exceeded its routine responsive repairs timeframe even though this could have been classified as an emergency repair.
The landlord has told this Service it experienced problems with the previous contractor. After the landlord decided to change its contractors in June 2022, the new contractors re-started the process from the beginning with an inspection on 8 July 2022.
Since the previous contractor had already identified issues with the French doors, front doors and windows (including the living room window, the kitchen window and all upstairs windows), as of July 2022, the landlord could have taken this opportunity to conduct a comprehensive inspection on all of these, create a report to cover all previously identified issues, and follow up accordingly with repairs or replacement. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to create a clear management plan, with a timeframe to set out when it intended to complete repairs or replacement on each of those issues, and share this with the resident.
However, it is unclear what was the scope of the inspection on 8 July 2022. The records appeared inconsistent. The resident was under the impression that the contractors were only there to work on the French doors and the living room window. She wrote to the landlord about this at the time and it did not clarify further. After the resident raised a complaint, it stated that the contractor had inspected the front door around the same time. This was not reflected in the contemporaneous job history records. There was also no formal documentation of the survey done at the time, or any details on what issues the contractors had found. This survey led to a quotation for the French doors and the uPVC living room window, but the landlord did not share its findings with the resident at the time on what condition the front doors and the windows were in.
The records showed that as of 10 August 2022, the contractor had informed the landlord internally that ‘15 window handles and 9 trickle vents’ needed to be replaced. However, when the resident’s complaint was passed to stage 1 in September 2022, the landlord’s response was that all necessary replacements had been done and it was not necessary to replace the upstairs windows. It also stated that the front door was in good condition and not in need of further work.
The resident disputed this and asked the landlord to clarify why the front door survey finding was different from that in February 2022. The landlord conducted another survey of the front door in December 2022 and reversed its position to confirm the front door frame was warped (as already identified in February 2022) and in need of replacement. This brings into question the thoroughness of any front door survey on July 2022, if any had been done at all.
There were also several occasions where the landlord appeared to adopt a dismissive attitude towards the resident, which the Ombudsman finds deeply concerning. In its email of 26 April 2022, the landlord stated that any issues with window locks and handles would typically be the tenant’s responsibility to repair, which was in contradiction to its tenancy agreement. The landlord did not later dispute that it should bear the responsibility for window repairs, including locks and handles.
Further, in its internal discussion of September 2022, after the landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint, the repairs team told the complaint handler that the resident had asked for all internal doors at her property to be fixed. There was no record to support the resident had ever asked for this; the resident had consistently chased for replacement or repairs specifically for her French doors, front doors and windows. It is unclear why the repairs team had given this information to the complaint handler, which had no bearing on the subject complaint and was also inaccurate.
The records also indicate that on several occasions, there were failings with the landlord’s knowledge and information management, further contributing to the excessive delay in progressing the works. These incidents are summarised below:
1. The resident first requested a replacement of her doors and windows in September 2021. The landlord asked the resident to send in photos of the windows so it could consider if it should bring the stock condition survey date forward, which the Ombudsman would consider an appropriate response at the time. However, the landlord subsequently lost track of these photos which the resident sent on 19 October 2021. The landlord did not follow up on the matter and did not ask the resident to resend this until December 2021 when the resident followed up.
2. While the email records show clearly the resident had asked for window replacements as of September 2021 and has consistently chased this up, in its email reply of 26 April 2022, the landlord said it could not see that the resident had reported window issues previously.
3. While the email records show clearly the resident had asked for copies of the door and window survey reports in March 2022 and then consistently chased this up, the landlord appeared to have not recognised this at the time. In its email response of 12 October 2022, it stated it could not see that the resident had requested these survey reports.
4. Despite the resident consistently asking the landlord to share copies of the survey reports, including the ones from 17 February 2022 and 17 March 2022, the landlord has not produced these reports nor provided any explanation for why it was unable to do this. On one occasion (email of 4 May 2022) it briefly stated it could not provide the reports, and had already shared with the resident what findings it could – which was that the front door had split mitre joints and the window handles were worn and broken. It did not address this issue in its formal complaint responses, only stating that if the resident still wanted this, it would share a more recent survey report done in November 2022. It also said that this survey report would only make reference to items that were to be replaced, instead of containing any reference to what was wrong with the doors or the windows.
5. There is no clear documentation on what works had been done on the windows in November 2022. The landlord in its stage 1 complaint response committed to doing a follow-on windows survey on 13 October 2022 and fitting ‘15 window handles and 9 trickle vents’ on 22 November 2022. However, there is no documentation on what were the findings from 13 October 2022, if any further works had been identified, nor which windows were fixed on 22 November 2022. There was no report or post-inspection in the records.
The overall picture is that the landlord did not conduct risk assessments when it should have done so. The documentation of survey findings was poor and there was a lack of transparency or fairness in sharing findings with the resident. There was no comprehensive or consistent management plan to identify all of the issues and outstanding works to enable a clear way forward.
The resident has been left in a position of uncertainty of how and when the issues would be fully resolved, and worry for her children’s safety, for an unacceptable length of time.
The French doors were replaced in August 2022 about a year after the resident reported the issues. The Ombudsman has heard from the resident that the front door was replaced around July 2023. The records show that some of the windows may have had locks and trickle vents replaced around November 2022, but it is possible as of December 2024 still not all of the windows are fully operational or safe.
The excessive delays have caused the resident unnecessary distress, inconvenience and worry for her and her family. The landlord has offered the resident £100. Whilst it is positive that the landlord has considered the matter of compensation, this amount does not adequately recognise the impact of the repeated delays, lack of comprehensive management and overall inaction has caused to the resident.
The resident has shown to this Service images which appear to be windows with no safety catches. She explained that some of the windows at her property remain out of order, or lacked safety catches. In view of the lack of certainty about the condition and safety of these windows, and in the interests of rebuilding trust and confidence between the parties, the landlord should appoint an independent member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) with no prior involvement in this case to conduct a risk assessment and survey of all windows at the property. They should document and share their findings with the resident, and the landlord should action their recommendations for any remedial works. An order has been made below accordingly.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has made a complaint to FENSA and as an additional outcome, would like the landlord to produce details of the company who installed the windows originally. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident seeks this information out of desire for full transparency and holding the original company accountable.
The windows were installed over 20 years ago. The Ombudsman considers obtaining this information would not be a reasonable or proportionate way for the landlord to put things right. In line with our remedies guidance, we would usually recommend the landlord put things right by making a financial compensation offer, a full and sincere apology, or making service improvements. Orders and recommendations have been made below accordingly.
Due to the reasons stated above, there is severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of faulty doors and windows.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident first asked to escalate her complaint in January 2022 and again in April 2022. She also cancelled her rent payments in April 2022 to try to put pressure on the landlord to action replacement works. The landlord repeatedly did not recognise the resident’s correspondence as a complaint or signpost her to any formal complaints process until September 2022.
The stage 1 complaints response of October 2022 provided an incomplete timeline of events but did not identify the failings regarding a lack of risk assessment, nor give any recognition to the safety concerns posed to the resident and her children. It did provide definite dates for further survey and replacement works.
Stage 2 of the complaints process is intended to be an independent review of what had been done up to that point, including the stage 1 complaint response. The landlord did not make use of this opportunity to identify the failings and make meaningful redress, but limited its response to addressing the resident’s request for a copy of the survey reports. There was a lack of empathy or full recognition of the resident’s substantive concerns, and the impact to the resident. Again, the stage 2 complaint response did not acknowledge the safety concerns posed to the resident and her children.
The stage 2 response failed to recognise that the resident had been seeking copies of all the previous surveys, and how important it was for the resident to have full transparency on what was wrong with the doors and windows and what works were needed. Instead, it said if the resident wanted to see a survey report, ‘in the coming days’, it would offer her a copy of the most recent survey which would be limited to what items could be replaced. It gave no explanation as to why it could not share the survey reports or findings from before.
The landlord did arrange a further front door survey to address the inconsistency of previous survey findings, however, it did not acknowledge the continued excessive delays experienced by the resident, nor did it make any further offer of redress when it was clear the delays would continue.
The landlord also did not address the resident’s continued concerns about windows which she repeated when the issue was escalated to stage 2. The landlord could have taken this opportunity to check the outcome of the commitments it made in its stage 1 response, which were to do a window survey on 13 October 2022 and complete window handles and vents replacement on 22 November 2022. It did not make the effort to follow up or review this, leaving uncertainty about the safety of the windows and providing the resident with no reassurance.
Overall, both complaint responses give the impression that the landlord downplayed the resident’s concerns without taking her complaint about safety seriously. The landlord did not use the complaints procedure to effectively cross-examine its own actions against its own policy standards. Nor did it set out clearly what still needed to be done in order to fully resolve problems for the resident.
Due to these reasons, there is maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of faulty doors and windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. A member of the landlord’s senior leadership team must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report and acknowledge the impact its handling of the window and doors issues has had on the resident and her family. The landlord must provide us with a copy of its letter.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £2,100 (inclusive of the £100 which was previously paid). The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears and is comprised of:
  1. £1,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of faulty windows ad doors.
  2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
Within 10 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to have arranged and completed an on-site survey of all windows at the property and a risk assessment which takes into account the household circumstances of the resident’s family. It must appoint an independent RICS member with no prior involvement in the case to do this. The landlord must have shared the full survey report with the resident and agreed a comprehensive works plan with a timeframe to conduct any remedial works recommended by the surveyor. A copy of the survey report and works plan is to be sent to the Ombudsman.
Within 12 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must have done a comprehensive review of its policies and practices in dealing with reports of window and door safety issues. The review must be led by a senior manager and must address the following:
1. Conducting timely risk assessments in response to windows safety issues and mitigation of risks of fall from heights;
2. Ensuring transparency in documenting and sharing window and door survey findings with residents;
3. Consideration of the findings and recommendations in our learning from severe maladministration report on window-related complaints (August 2024);
4. Identification of other reports of concerns over windows and door safety that the landlord has received over the last 12 months;
5. Consideration of the interventions it has made in those cases and how effective they have been in resolving the issues reported. The landlord should consider alternative solutions for cases it has not resolved.
Within 16 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide us with a report which sets out:
1. Its findings and learning from each part of the review set out in paragraph 91 above.
2. Its plan for changes to its policies and practices in response to the findings it has made to prevent similar complaints in the future. The plan should include specific actions it will take and the timescales for completing them.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide relevant staff members with training to ensure they can:
1. Recognise when an expression of dissatisfaction should be treated as a formal complaint.
2. Identify and address the issues raised by the complainant adequately in line with the Complaint Handling Code and the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.