Thurrock Council (202336412)

Background

1. The resident has a joint tenancy with his wife. The property is a 4-bedroom house. The resident lives on the ground floor and receives support from carers due to his disabilities. He is unable to control his body temperature and raised concerns about the condition of the windows and the cost of heating the house. The landlord is aware of the resident’s health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. Water ingress through the front and rear doors.
   2. Heat loss through the property’s windows.
   3. Condensation and mould around the property’s windows.
   4. A suspected roof leak causing damp in the property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of:
      1. water ingress through the front and rear doors
      2. heat loss through the property’s windows
      3. condensation and mould around the property’s windows
      4. a suspected roof leak causing damp in the property
      5. the resident’s complaint

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The Ombudsman found that the landlord responded to each of the resident’s repairs in line with its repairs policy and response times. It raised follow-on work and additional inspections when the resident remained dissatisfied.

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 investigation

The complaint procedure

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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. Urgent repairs within 5 working days. And routine repairs within 20 working days.
7. The landlord raised and completed inspections and remedial repairs on 3 November 2023. The evidence shows it replaced the door seals and locks. The landlord completed the work within its routine repair time of 20 working days. While it did not replace the resident’s doors, its contractor did not consider this necessary.
8. Following the resident’s complaint on 15 November 2023, the landlord arranged another inspection. It also inspected the roof to check for routes of water ingress.
9. The landlord informed the resident about its plans to erect scaffolding and explained the actions its contractor would take. It completed these steps within its stated repair response times. This showed that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. However, it did not identify any issues with the doors that it was unable to repair.
10. After receiving the resident’s escalation request and his reports of further water ingress, the landlord arranged another inspection. It completed the inspection within its routine repair response time. The landlord’s contractor reported that it remained satisfied with the condition of the resident’s doors. It also said it did not identify any evidence of water ingress through them after its repairs.
11. While we note the resident sought for the landlord to renew his windows and doors, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its contractor. The landlord demonstrated acting on each of the resident’s concerns, completed remedial repairs to improve their condition and security, and communicated its findings. As the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policies, we find no maladministration.
12. On 28 October 2025 the resident said he had a recurring issue with his front door, including seeing daylight around it. He believed this contributed to heat loss. During our conversation, he confirmed he had not reported this to the landlord since its stage 2 response. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to arrange to inspect and remedy this issue.

13. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of heat loss within its routine repair response times. It carried out an inspection on 18 October 2023 and remained satisfied with the glazing condition and performance. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its staff and contractors at this time.
14. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) aims to identify and minimize hazards in residential properties. Landlords are responsible for ensuring homes are free from Category 1 hazards, which include excess cold. Given the resident’s reported difficulties to regulate his body temperature, his reports of cold required investigation.
15. The landlord showed it acted on the resident’s ongoing reports by arranging a heat loss survey. This showed it gave due regard to its obligation to assess potential hazards. As it did not identify any glazing defects which it could not repair, it was reasonable for it not to replace the existing double glazing at this stage.
16. The resident disputed the landlord’s assessment and said he experienced difficulty maintaining temperatures above 16 degrees Celsius in the downstairs living space. He reported taking his own temperature readings. However, we have not seen evidence that the landlord recorded similar low temperatures or failed to respond to the resident’s concerns.
17. The landlord also provided the resident with information about external support services that may offer fuel grants. By offering support, the landlord recognised the resident’s concerns about rising heating costs. This showed the landlord gave due regard to the resident’s concerns and his individual health vulnerabilities.
18. Based on the evidence of how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, we find no maladministration with its handling of this matter.
19. On 28 October 2025 the resident told us he had paid for removable secondary glazing. He said this was necessary because he continued to experience difficulty maintaining heat in his living space. He also said this resulted in a significant improvement in warmth.
20. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, we have recommended that the landlord inspects the windows again. We recommend the landlord assess whether it can take any action to assist with the resident’s heat loss concerns. This recommendation includes that it provides the resident with information on any remedial works identified, along with details of any future plans to replace the property’s windows.

21. The landlord attended to the resident’s concerns in line with its repair policy response times.
22. It was satisfied that the cause of the identified mould was cold spotting and condensation. While we note the resident believed new double glazing would remove these issues, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its contractor that replacements were not necessary. It acted responsibly by informing the resident how to manage these issues in the future.
23. To further satisfy itself and reassure the resident, the landlord also arranged an inspection of the property’s heating. The evidence shows that it did not identify any issues that required remedial action.
24. Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter.

25. The landlord does not dispute it fixed slipped and damaged tiles on the resident’s roof in September and October 2023. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord did not meet its repair response times.
26. In November 2023 the evidence shows the landlord arranged follow-on work to inspect the roof again following the resident’s reports of damp in an upstairs room. The landlord demonstrated effective communication with the resident regarding the need for scaffolding and appointment dates.
27. The landlord completed another roof inspection in November 2023. It returned in December 2023 and checked the property’s external render. It found no evidence of any damage to the roof or render which may have caused the internal damp patch.
28. The landlord met with the resident in December 2023 to explain its findings and to arrange remedial repairs. It completed these actions within its repair times and demonstrated effective communication. It was satisfied that it had addressed the reported damp patch and encouraged the resident to report any recurrence. There is no evidence of other reports after the repair.
29. While the cause of water ingress can be difficult to identify, the landlord acted on the resident’s concerns. It explored multiple options and relied on the expert opinion of its contractors and staff. Although we cannot say what may have caused the issue, the landlord took steps to resolve matters within its complaints process and acted when informed of concerns. Therefore, we find no maladministration.

30. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It also required landlords to respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
31. The landlord called the resident to correctly determine his complaint. It also sent its stage 1 acknowledgement on time. This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to engage with the resident and understand his concerns.
32. The landlord’s stage 1 response was 2 working days late. The dates suggest the landlord may have issued its response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement, rather than when the resident logged his complaint. The Code has since changed, and the landlord has demonstrated compliance with the statutory requirements. We consider this a learning matter as the detriment of this delay is likely to have been minimal.
33. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on time. Its complaint handling demonstrated good levels of communication, a thorough investigation, and explanations of its decisions and outcomes. It also directed the resident to external support to help him with the effects of the increased cost of living. This demonstrates the landlord gave due regard to the resident’s circumstances.
34. Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord’s record keeping was generally good in this case. It should also ensure it records timely complaint acknowledgements and responses in line with the statutory Code.
36. The landlord may benefit from ensuring is records accurately reflect the resident’s current circumstances and ensures it has considered the household vulnerabilities.

Communication

37. The evidence shows the landlord communicated effectively with the resident about the repairs. This also included efforts to direct him to external support.