Southern Housing (202532876)

Background

1. The resident lives in a first-floor flat. His 2 front windows are designated fire escape windows. During December 2024 the landlord carried out repairs to the fire escape window handles. However, the resident was dissatisfied with the standard of the landlord’s repairs and fitted new handles himself.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the fire escape window handles.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the fire escape window handles.

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

Reasons

4. Under section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords are responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of buildings, including windows. The Building and Fire Safety Regulations 2010 state that habitable upper-floor rooms must have windows that serve as a means of escape. The regulations detail necessary measurements for unobstructed opening areas for such windows.
5. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s obligation to keep the structure and outside of the property in a reasonable state of repair and in proper working order. The landlord’s repairs policy says breaches of security to outside doors and windows are emergency repairs and it will respond to make safe within 6 hours. If other repairs are needed to complete the job, the landlord will arrange more appointments with the resident. It aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 20 working days.
6. Records show the resident requested an inspection of his windows on 24 November 2024. The landlord attended on 16 December 2024 and completed window handle repairs. The resident told the landlord that day that he was unhappy with the repairs because he could not open the windows. He said he told the contractor to use the window manufacturer’s handles. He again contacted the landlord on 6 January 2025 to chase the repair. He said the replacement window handle broke in his hand in front of its contractor on 16 December 2024. The landlord did not provide a response to either of the resident’s contacts. This was inappropriate, particularly because of its legal obligation to provide a means of escape via the windows.
7. The landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response that it attended on 16 January 2025 to carry out further repairs. Records show that a works order was raised on 18 February 2025 which noted that the window handles could be sourced from the manufacturer. The resident then cancelled the repair appointment scheduled for 26 February 2025.
8. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that it attended in March 2025 to fit replacement window handles that had been purchased by the resident. It reported that the handles later failed. However, the landlord did not specify when this occurred. It is also unclear whether the failure resulted from the handles being unsuitable or from poor installation. It is nonetheless accepted that, for a period, the resident was again without functioning fire escape windows. The resident chased the outstanding works in July 2025. On 7 August 2025, he declined further repairs by the landlord, and he completed the repair himself that month. The landlord’s repairs information was unclear and hindered a clear assessment of events. This represents a record keeping failure.
9. The landlord’s total repair response time of over 8 months significantly exceeded its timescale for both emergency and non-emergency repairs. This was particularly inappropriate considering the potential risk this posed to the resident’s health and safety. Furthermore, there’s no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment or considered putting temporary measures in place until works were completed. This demonstrated a lack of regard for the resident’s safety.
10. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the contractor lacked the necessary skills to complete the window repairs. This was a breach of its fire safety policy, which requires that all fire safety related repairs are completed by suitably competent personnel. The landlord’s failure to ensure compliance with its policy in these circumstances is concerning and caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
11. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said the resident had declined its offer on 24 October 2025 to complete an inspection of the windows. The resident said he declined because he had lost trust in the quality of its repairs. Nevertheless, the landlord has an ongoing obligation to ensure compliance with all fire safety requirements. Its failure to act and satisfy itself that the resident’s fire escape windows were fit for purpose was contrary to its fire safety obligations. The resident’s tenancy agreement required him to provide access for necessary inspections and repairs. The landlord has powers to take reasonable and appropriate action to secure access where required to meet its statutory and safety-related responsibilities. However, there’s no evidence that it considered doing so, which was inappropriate.
12. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised and offered the resident a total of £955 compensation. This was made up £850 for the prolonged exposure to a potential safety hazard, £30 for communication failings, £25 for delays, and £50 for inconvenience, time and trouble. This amount, which the resident accepted, is in line with our compensation guidance where the circumstances for maladministration apply and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. These were positive steps towards putting things right.
13. However, this does not prevent an adverse finding because the landlord has not taken steps to ensure that the fire escape windows meet fire safety standards. An order has been made for the landlord to instruct an independent specialist to complete an inspection of the fire escape windows. In addition, further learning from the complaint is required to prevent a recurrence. This has been addressed in our orders.

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.