Connexus Homes Limited (202311346)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311346

Connexus Homes Limited

16 April 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of unsafe windows in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2 bedroom, first floor flat where she lived with her 2 children. Her tenancy started in May 2020.
On 8 June 2022, the resident called the landlord to raise concerns about the low windows, none of which had restrictors or safety catches. The landlord raised a job to fit restrictors to the living room and bedroom windows after a “near miss”, and its repair records show they were installed 2 days later.
Despite this, on 14 July 2022, the resident’s eldest son accidently fell from a first floor window. He was taken to hospital, assessed and recovered.
The resident raised a complaint on 17 August 2022. She said the bottom windows in the living room and main bedroom were unsafe as there was no way to lock or restrict them from being opened wide. She said windows should be restricted to 100mm but the living room window was restricted to 150mm (although no evidence has been provided of this) and restrictors should only be able to be released with a key, which hers did not have. The records are not clear how it did so, but the landlord contacted the resident and arranged an inspection.
The landlord visited on 19 August 2022 and said the windows were unable to be adapted to make them lockable due to the style, and the only solution would be to change the hinges, to hinges with restrictors attached. An internal landlord email noted the resident said she had been in the garden putting washing out and the window restrictor had still been on when her son fell, which it found “a little confusing” as it had found the restrictor only allowed the window to open 90mm.
The landlord confirmed its findings in an email to the resident on 1 September 2022, in which it said:
1. The living room window had restrictors in place that allowed the window to open 90mm, which were installed before the accidental fall.
2. The window frames were aluminium, so it recommended fitting friction hinges with integrated restrictors with buttons that need to be pressed at the same time to release the window fully, and there was no way a small child would be able to open.
3. The resident had agreed with its findings, so it scheduled work to install friction hinges to the living room and bedroom window on 8 September 2022.
The landlord attempted to call the resident on 5 September 2022 to discuss the complaint, but was unsuccessful, so it emailed to ask when it would be convenient to call. The resident replied shortly after and said her youngest child was in hospital and agreed it could have an extension to investigate the complaint until after the hinges had been installed. The scheduled work was rearranged, at the resident’s request, to 15 September 2022.
On 13 September 2022 the landlord emailed the resident a reminder of the appointment and a conversation in relation to her complaint scheduled for later in the week. The resident replied by email the same day to cancel the call and repairs appointment as her son was still in hospital. The landlord said it would cancel the scheduled work “for now” and close the complaint “temporarily” until she was home from hospital.
The resident contacted the landlord several weeks later, and again in November 2022 in relation to other matters, but there does not appear to be further contact in relation to the windows or complaint until 12 December 2022. At that time, the resident’s father called the landlord in relation to the windows, and the resident emailed her MP and said:
1. The landlord had attended and said it would fit new hinges with integrated restrictors, but [the windows] would still open the same amount, so this would not solve the issue, and until the windows were lockable there was a safety risk.
2. The work was cancelled as her son had been in hospital.
3. She had contacted the council to ask to be re-banded so she could move home.
The MP forwarded the email to the landlord the following day and asked if it could visit the property and address the window safety issue.
The landlord’s contact notes said, after a number of calls with the resident’s father, it re-scheduled the window work to 6 January 2023. It is not clear why, but the email from the MP does not appear on the landlord’s contact notes until 22 December 2022, 9 days after it was sent.
The landlord attended on 6 January 2023 and installed the restricted hinges. An internal landlord email said the living room window had a gap of 100mm, and the child’s bedroom window had a gap of 80mm, it said both windows were completely restricted, no child would be able to fully open them, and the resident was shown how to lock the windows. It said nothing further could be done apart from renewal of the windows.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 January 2023, in which it said:
1. It had temporarily closed the complaint and postponed the work on 13 September 2022 as the resident’s son was in hospital, and it had been agreed the resident would contact it when she could allow access to complete the work.
2. It re-opened the complaint following MP correspondence and re-scheduled the work.
3. The windows had been fitted with restrictors attached to the hinges, which made it difficult for a child to open, and it had shown her how to lock the windows.
It is not clear when the local authority environmental health team were contacted, or by whom, but the landlord spoke to them by phone the following day and sent an email with photographs that confirmed the width the windows could open with restrictors.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 January 2023 unhappy with the stage 1 response. She said even though the hinges had restrictors, the issue was the window could still be opened above the legal limit, and the handles could be opened by a child “with ease”. There is no evidence of the call, but she also said even though the windows could be locked, the landlord had told her in a phone call permanently locked windows could be a fire hazard and reduce air circulation which could cause other problems. The landlord acknowledged the request to escalate to stage 2 the following day.
The local authority emailed the landlord and said it had spoken to the resident on 30 January 2023 as she said the windows can be pushed open further than the restrictors allowed. The local authority and landlord agreed a joint visit on 1 February 2023. No evidence has been provided, but the resident submits the council said there is “play” in the windows, that could allow them to be pushed past the legal limit, and both the local authority and landlord would discuss a possible solution.
The landlord chased the local authority for its inspection report on 6 February 2023 and called the resident the following day. The resident said she felt the windows were still unsafe for children and wanted them made safe or renewed.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 February 2023 after a visit that morning. It said it had carried out further investigation and found a handle with a push-button lock which would fit her windows, and it was happy to order and fit these as a complaint resolution. The resident replied and said the previous 6 months had been difficult, and if she was honest, expected the windows to “just be changed”. She acknowledged a push-button would be harder for a child to open and there was nothing that could be done to reduce the amount the windows could open, but she had anxiety around her children being able to open the windows and fall out.
The resident then said, if the landlord could not change the windows, could it assist her with a move, as living in the property impacted her mental health when she thought about what had happened. The landlord replied by email the same day and said it was not able to influence the local authority’s decision in relation to her desire to move, and said the windows were not due to be replaced until 2048.
The local authority emailed the landlord on 17 February 2023 to ask if the window handles had been changed. The landlord replied and said the resident declined the window handles, and wanted to move. In the local authority’s response of 20 February 2023 it acknowledged that the landlord had made an offer which would resolve the issue and would therefore not take any further action.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 February 2023 to request an extension to issue its stage 2 response until 28 February 2023, as it wanted to check if there were any other options. The resident then called for an update on 1 March 2023 as she had expected a response
The landlord issued its stage 2 response later that day in which it:
1. Said it had met requirements in relation to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) window opening/restrictions, but had fitted new restrictors in January 2023.
2. Said it had offered to fit push-button lockable handles to minimise the risk of a child being able to push the window open, but she had not accepted the offer and would prefer to move home. As a final offer, it would fit additional restrictors to the windows and lockable handles.
3. Provided details of the steps she would need to take if she wished to move home.
4. Provided referral details to this Service.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident emailed the landlord on 2 March 2023 and said she could not keep the windows locked as this could be a fire hazard, and she needed to be able to open the windows for adequate ventilation. She said she originally declined the handles to be fitted because she did not think it would solve the issue of how far the windows could open.
The landlord attended on 3 March 2023 and fitted additional window restrictors, and again on 16 March 2023 to fit the lockable handles.
The resident provided her notice to leave the property on 25 August 2023 and moved out in September 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of unsafe windows

The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for windows and window catches. It says it will fully comply with the requirements of the HHSRS, which says catches which restrict the distance a window can be opened to 100mm should be fitted to windows above ground floor level to reduce the possibility of an accident involving a child, but any opening restrictor should be easy to over-ride by an adult in the event of fire.
There is no evidence the resident raised any issue relating to the windows in the first 2 years she lived at the property, with the windows only becoming an issue when her son (born around July 2020) became increasingly mobile. It is not clear what the landlord regarded as a “near miss” in relation to the living and bedroom windows in July 2022, however it rightly acted with urgency and fitted safety catches to the windows shortly after the resident reported the issue. However, there is no evidence to confirm whether the living window was restricted to 90mm or 150mm.
Following the landlord’s inspection, it promptly scheduled work to provide further restrictions in line with its routine repairs policy, which says it will complete work in 1-20 working days. Following the cancelled appointments, the landlord said it was agreed the resident would contact it to arrange access and reschedule the appointment. No evidence of the resident saying this has been provided, but the resident acknowledged in her complaint to this Service it was “probably her fault [it] had dragged out so long.”
The evidence shows the resident was in contact with the landlord between September and December 2022, but did not refer to the windows or associated complaint at that time. While it is not possible to say with any certainty why this was, it does suggest that the resident did not consider the windows to be a pressing issue during that period. Landlords are expected to respond to repair requests and complaints in a timely manner, but residents are also expected to use reasonable efforts to pursue such matters and maintain ownership where they consider there to be undue delays.
In the circumstances, it would be reasonable for the landlord to deduce that the resident was no longer concerned with the windows or the complaint, given that she was in contact with it and did not raise them as outstanding issues. However, in terms of best practice, and considering the landlord had been aware of her concerns previously, it could have taken a more proactive approach to clarifying the position with her, rather than leaving the onus on the resident.
The resident said once the hinges had been installed, the windows could still open past the (100mm) legal limit. It is not clear if she meant the windows could open further than 100mm with the restrictors in use, or once overridden, but the landlord provided photographs with a tape measure which confirmed when the restrictors were used, the windows would not open further than 100mm.
In line with the HHSRS, restrictors need to be easy for an adult to override in case of fire, so there should always be the option of opening them fully. With that in mind, it should be noted that the landlord is not responsible for the day-to-day use of windows by individuals and, particularly where children are present, residents should take steps to ensure opportunities do not arise for windows to be misused or unlocked/overridden without due cause.
Once the windows had the catches installed in June 2022, the landlord had fulfilled its obligations in line with the HHSRS. However, it then worked with the local authority and carried out further research into additional options for the windows which was good practice. It found another potential solution and offered to install handles with push-button locks, which the resident initially declined.
The landlord has a limited budget and a responsibility to manage its resources effectively, so it is common practice for windows to be repaired rather than replaced wherever possible. Whilst it could have researched and offered to install push-button lock handles earlier, this would still not have satisfied the resident, as the windows could still be opened further than 100mm once the catches were overridden.
Overall the landlord did all it could to resolve the resident’s concerns. There were delays fitting the hinges with restrictors, but the landlord was expecting the resident to contact it and the evidence suggests she did not take the opportunity to do so. This Service finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of unsafe windows in the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says it hopes most issues can be settled quickly, but should a resident remain dissatisfied, it has a 2 stage complaint process. It says its response time for a stage 1 complaint is within 10 working days, and its response time for a stage 2 complaint review is 20 working days.
In line with its policy, the evidence suggests that, rather than investigate the complaint, the landlord wanted to wait until work had been completed to resolve the complaint before investigating. The evidence suggests it did not call the resident to discuss the complaint specifically until 13 working days after the complaint was raised, and ultimately did not issue its stage 1 response until 5 months after the complaint was logged.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the circumstances which led to this delay, and the landlord does make reference to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in its policy. However, in line with the Code, the landlord should have issued a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint, which was a failing.
The stage 1 response said it was agreed the resident would contact the landlord once she was in a position to allow access for the work and, as stated above, there was a period when the resident was in contact with the landlord and did not pursue the complaint. Despite this, it should not have required MP correspondence for the landlord to re-open the complaint and it should have been more proactive in reviewing the ‘temporary closure’ of the complaint to ensure this was still appropriate.
Even when the complaint was re-opened, the response was sent outside of the landlord’s policy timescales (22 working days if the MP email was received on 13 December 2022 as the evidence suggests, or 15 working days if the MP email was received on 22 December 2022), which was a failing.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response 25 working days after the resident escalated the complaint. The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord did contact the resident to request the extension, but she still had to chase for an update as the response was not issued by the extension date it had given. This caused further inconvenience to the resident, and was a failing.
As such, and due to the effect on the resident, a finding of maladministration is made. Having considered the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, our guidance on remedies and the landlord’s Compensation Policy, an amount of £150 compensation is considered appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of unsafe windows in the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in relation to its complaint handling.
2. Pay the resident £150 compensation to recognise the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused by its failings in its complaint handling.
3. Consider the learning from this case, and advise this Service of its plans and actions, including timescales, to ensure that its complaint handling practices fully align with the principles of the updated Code.
4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.