Southwark Council (202536773)

Decision
Case ID	202536773
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southwark Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	9 April 2026

Background

The resident raised concerns about the condition of the windows in her property in December 2024. She said they were single-glazed and in a poor state of repair, resulting in significant condensation and heat loss. The landlord arranged several inspections before concluding the windows were in an acceptable condition and did not require repair or replacement. The landlord said it would not repair or replace windows due to poor thermal performance.

What the complaint is about

The resident complained about the landlord’s response to her request for replacement windows, including delays, communication, and record-keeping.
We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for replacement windows.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the request for replacement windows

The landlord has offered reasonable compensation for the delays and poor communication. However, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to support its position that the windows are in a satisfactory condition. We have made a finding of maladministration and have ordered the landlord to arrange a further inspection of the windows.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord handled the complaint fairly, reasonably and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. We have made a finding of no maladministration.

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 07 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation made up as follows: £50 previously offered for any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays £50 previously offered for any time and trouble caused by the landlord’s poor communication This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 07 May 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person who has not previously inspected the windows. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: inspects the condition of all windows in the property and produces a written report, with photographs, setting out the findings Following the survey, the landlord must set out: whether the windows are in a good state of repair whether there is any damage to the windows the likely timescales to commence and complete any work required whether temporary accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works required	No later than 21 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If the landlord finds the windows require repair or replacement during the ordered inspection, we recommend it considers offering the resident compensation for this in line with its compensation policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 April 2025	The resident complained, stating she had waited several months for the landlord to decide how it intended to resolve issues with the windows.
16 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had raised a work order on 4 December 2024 for faulty windows and condensation. It said it had difficulty contacting the resident. However, after she contacted it on 15 January 2025 the landlord scheduled an inspection from a specialist contractor on 20 January 2025. The landlord said its contractor advised the windows were affected by condensation, but no repairs could be done. So, the landlord asked its damp and mould team to arrange an inspection. The landlord said the resident requested an update on 3 February 2025, and on 8 April 2025 it scheduled an appointment for 17 April 2025. It said following this it would submit a report with recommendations. The landlord said it had delayed booking the damp and mould inspection. It offered the resident £50 compensation for any inconvenience caused.
4 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. She said the landlord had misunderstood her complaint by focusing on the delayed inspection, rather than the process for replacing the windows. She said since its stage 1 response the landlord had confirmed it would not replace windows due to poor thermal performance. She said the landlord had acted inconsistently, as it had granted permission for a neighbour to replace their windows due to thermal performance.
1 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said a Technical Quality Officer (TQO) attended on 17 April 2025 to inspect condensation, but the resident asked for the visit to be cancelled, saying a damp and mould inspection was unnecessary and that she instead wanted to discuss window replacement with the leaseholder team. On 22 April 2025 the resident raised concerns about the inspection and sought compensation for her time. The landlord attempted to call her on 24 April 2025 but could not reach her. On 2 May 2025 it asked its damp and mould team to rebook the cancelled inspection. On 8 May 2026 The resident asked to reschedule, which the landlord arranged for 22 May 2026. On 13 May the landlord told the resident an inspection was required before any works could be considered. It said window repairs would be attempted first and, if not possible, a further inspection would be needed. It confirmed no compensation would be paid for the missed April appointment. The may inspection found no damp and mould, but it noted this could be an issue during the winter. The landlord said the installation of double-glazed windows would enhance thermal efficiency. It said the freeholder would need to grant permission for the resident to replace the windows. A further inspection was booked for 18 June 2025 with its TQO. This found the windows were in satisfactory condition. The landlord said the resident could apply for permission to alter the property and gave details on how to do so. However, it said it was unlikely this would be granted as the property forms part of a block. It said the resident would also need planning permission as the property is in a conservation area. It said that due to The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) it could not comment on works carried out on other properties. The landlord said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint as she only requested advice on how to progress the window replacement after the stage 1 response. However, it said at times its communication had been poor, and it had not always responded to the resident. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the time and trouble caused.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said the specialist contractor who initially inspected the windows recommended they be replaced. However, the landlord had refused to do so. She said the landlord had not provided a copy of the contractor’s report. Nor had it shared its policy or standard to support its decision to not replace the windows. She said the landlord only provided a brief note to demonstrate the findings of its inspection in June 2025, and this was not adequate. She said the landlord had been inconsistent, and a neighbour had been granted permission to replace their windows due to thermal performance. She also complained the landlord had not responded to requests for inspection reports and internal notes. Instead, it asked the resident to submit a Freedom of Information request which caused further delays.

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 landlord’s response to the request for replacement windows, including delays, communication, and record-keeping.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident has raised issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of a Subject Access Request (SAR)directly with the landlord. Additionally, even if the resident raised such a complaint, this matter would be for the Information Commissioner’s Office, rather than our Service. Therefore, we have no power to investigate the landlord’s handling of the SAR.
The resident told us the condition of the property has impacted her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

The delays and communication

The resident has said the landlord caused delays and its communication was poor. The landlord has apologised and offered compensation for this. As this matter is not in dispute, we have considered whether the redress is appropriate.
Under its repair policy the landlord had 20-working days to complete an inspection into the damp. The landlord’s specialist contractor reported condensation on 24 January 2025. The landlord completed its inspection on 17 April 2025. This was 59 working days in total, and 39-working days or about 5 and a half weeks outside of the landlord’s repair timeframe.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay £5 per week for a low-impact delay. The landlord has paid £50 compensation. This would be appropriate for a 10-week delay which had a minor impact on the resident. We have not been provided evidence to show the resident experienced an adverse impact that would justify further compensation. So, we are satisfied the £50 offered for the delay was fair and reasonable.
The landlord failed to respond to an email in April 2025 and return a telephone call in June 2025. As a result, the resident had to spend some additional time contacting the landlord for a response.
Under its compensation policy the landlord may pay between £50 and £250 compensation for time and trouble. We’ve not been provided evidence to suggest the resident was caused a level of time and trouble that would justify increasing the compensation the landlord has already offered. We are satisfied the £50 offer was fair and reasonable.

The windows

The resident has told us that a neighbour received planning permission to make changes to their windows, and this potentially indicates inconsistencies in the landlord’s approach. We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as a landlord under a licence, lease, or social housing tenancy. In this case, the council was not acting in this capacity because its role in deciding planning applications is carried out under its statutory duties as a local council, not in its capacity as a landlord. As such we have no power to investigate this matter. The resident may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, if necessary.
The landlord’s repair obligations are set out in the leasehold agreement. This says the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property and the building. The landlord’s leaseholder guide confirms this includes external window frames and glass.
The landlord has said the windows are in a satisfactory condition and to replace them to improve thermal performance would be an improvement rather than a repair. Replacing windows to improve performance would usually be considered an improvement. However, we are not satisfied the landlord has shown the windows are in a good state of repair.
On 25 January 2025 a specialist window repair contractor inspected the windows on behalf of the landlord. The landlord has not provided us a copy of the contractor’s report. It is unclear whether the landlord does not have this or has chosen not to provide it. This is a record keeping failure and means the landlord has failed to provide evidence supporting its decision making. The landlord should maintain clear records to show it has acted fairly and reasonably. It should also share such records with our Service, when requested to do so.
There is further evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord. On 17 July 2025 the landlord emailed the resident to check if an inspection scheduled in June 2025 had gone ahead. This indicates the landlord could not effectively track inspections using its own records. Additionally, an email dated 10 April 2025 shows the landlord held outdated contact information, resulting in it incorrectly contacting a previous leaseholder to book the damp and mould inspection.
While it has not provided a report, the landlord has provided comments from the specialist window contractor. The contractor said they had inspected all windows throughout the property and found they were beyond repair and required replacement. They also said the windows contributed to condensation in the property.
The landlord has said the contractor advised the windows could not be repaired because a repair alone would not improve their thermal performance. However, this is not clear from the contractor’s comments. The contractor explicitly stated that some windows do not open or close properly and this could not be improved due to the type and age of the existing windows. They also said that thermal performance could not be improved without replacing the windows.
The landlord’s TQO completed a further inspection of the windows on 18 June 2025. The landlord has said it does not produce a report following this type of inspection. However, it has provided the TQO’s comments on their findings. The TQO said the windows opened/closed correctly. They said the windows could be slightly warped, but they were in good condition, apart from being single-glazed, and did not need to be replaced.
Both the landlord and the resident have provided photos to show the condition of the windows. However, it is not our role to determine whether the windows are in a good state of repair. This is for the landlord to establish.
The findings of the TQO do not appear to align with those of the specialist window contractor. We have not been provided sufficient evidence to establish what findings are more reliable. Most importantly, we are not satisfied the landlord has shown the windows are in a good state of repair. So, we simply cannot conclude its response to the resident’s request for replacement windows was fair and reasonable.
Taking the above into account, we have made a finding of maladministration. This recognises the poor record keeping and that we cannot be satisfied the landlord has shown the windows to be in a good state of repair. To resolve matters, we have ordered the landlord to arrange a further inspection to establish the condition of the windows. We have also ordered the landlord to pay the resident the £100 total compensation it offered in its complaint responses, if it has not already done so.
We have not ordered the landlord to pay further compensation for its handling of the window repairs. This is because at present it is unclear whether the windows are in a poor state of repair. The overall issue we have found is the lack of evidence provided by the landlord to support its decision making. The inspection we have ordered may demonstrate the landlord’s position to be correct. However, if the inspection does identify a repair or replacement is needed, we recommend the landlord consider awarding compensation for this, in line with its policy.
We recognise the resident would like compensation for the time she set aside for the damp and mould inspection, as she does not consider this to have been necessary. However, the landlord does not award compensation for this under its policy. Additionally, under the leasehold agreement, when notice is given, the resident must allow the landlord access to inspect areas of the property it is responsible for. We are satisfied it was fair and reasonable for the landlord to arrange the damp and mould inspection. We have not ordered it to pay compensation for this.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord must respond to complaints in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This sets the standards and best practices landlords must follow.
Under the Code, the landlord must operate a 2-stage complaint process. It must acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5-working days. It must respond to complaints at stage 1 in 10-working days of acknowledgment, and in 20-working days at stage 2. In this case the landlord responded to the complaint at both stages within the required timeframes.
The Code says a landlord must address all points raised in the complaint. Through its complaint process the landlord adequately addressed all concerns raised. Where the landlord felt it could not provide information, such as details concerning other properties, it sufficiently explained the reasons for this.
We are satisfied the landlord handled the complaint fairly and reasonably. We have found no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was poor. To improve matters, the landlord may wish to review the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management published in May 2023.

Communication

The landlord’s communication was poor. To improve matters, the landlord may wish to review the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance, published in May 2025.