Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202427886)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427886

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

22 August 2025

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. reports of roof leaks
    2. associated complaint

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of 2 adjoined flats. The resident lives in one property (flat A) with 4 other adults and 3 children. She sublets the second property (flat B). The landlord, a local council, is the freeholder of both properties. Several household members have vulnerabilities which include respiratory problems, asthma, and cancer.
  2. In December 2023 the resident reported a leak was coming through the ceiling of flat A. On 4 June 2024 she raised a formal complaint as the leak was ongoing and had caused damage to both flats. The landlord responded on 18 June 2024 at stage 1 of its complaint process, it said:
    1. it raised a repair for the roof leak in December 2023 – scaffolding was required to complete the required repair work
    2. scaffolding was erected in April 2024, and the repairs were completed on 18 April 2024
    3. a ‘recall order’ was raised on 6 June 2024 following the resident’s complaint and it was established the roof could benefit from major works
    4. an inspection had been arranged between the roofing contractor and the landlord’s maintenance surveyor to decide an approach
    5. it apologised the repair was not completed first time and it would make every effort to permanently resolve the issue
  3. On 1 August 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She told the landlord that both flats continued to sustain damage, and the situation was worsening due to delays. She explained the tenants she was subletting to wanted to leave and were seeking compensation. She also said its contractors had damaged her property when erecting scaffolding. On 16 October 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, it said:
    1. the complaint was upheld due to the time taken to complete repairs
    2. scaffolding was erected on 8 October 2024 and work was due to commence on 21 October 2024
    3. if she believed there to be damage caused by the scaffolding then she could claim through the landlord’s insurance process
    4. it could not compensate for damages or loss of rental income to the internal parts of the flats, but the resident could claim through any insurance policy she held
    5. it apologised for the failings and offered compensation totalling £685, broken down as:
      1. £330 for the delays between December 2023 and April 2024 (calculated at £30 per week excluding a reasonable turnaround time of 10 weeks)
      2. £330 for the delays between June and October 2024 (calculated at £30 per week excluding a reasonable turnaround time of 10 weeks)
      3. £25 for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint
  4. On 1 November 2024 the landlord completed the relevant work to renew the felt on the roof and clear debris.
  5. The resident referred her case to us on 23 November 2024. At the time she requested the landlord:
    1. compensate her for a loss of rent, the damage to both flats and the distress and inconvenience caused
    2. pay 8% statutory interest on any financial losses
    3. conduct an independent assessment on the completed works
  6. The resident reported in January 2025 that the leak had returned. She raised a new complaint about the landlord’s handling of this leak which was responded to at stage 2 of its complaint process on 31 March 2025. A post inspection was completed on 20 March 2025 for the latest roof repair which determined that all roof works had been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told us that she and her family have worsening health conditions because of the landlord’s inaction and delays. We cannot say if the landlord’s action or inaction has directly caused a detrimental impact on health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court where medical experts can provide independent evidence. We can look at whether the landlord considered the resident and her family’s vulnerabilities, and the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings.
  2. We understand that the resident raised a new complaint about issues with the roof in February 2025, this followed a new roof repair report from January 2025. We have considered if this new complaint could be included as part of this investigation. However, this was a new repair and was not linked to the earlier roof issue. The landlord had already completed major works to the roof and conducted a post inspection before this new report. Therefore, the focus on this investigation will be the period between 4 December 2023 (the first roof repair report) to 1 November 2024 (the date the major roof work was completed).
  3. Similarly, the resident has mentioned she has an ongoing complaint about an overcrowding issue. Should the resident remain unhappy following the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process, then it is likely the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman will be the best place to refer the complaint.

Roof leaks

  1. The resident initially reported a leak was entering her property on 4 December 2023. The landlord completed the repair on 18 April 2024. Its leaks policy says that ‘normal’ leaks will be responded to and completed within 20 working days. The landlord did not rectify this for 94 working days. This was an unreasonable delay in completing the work which caused distress to the resident.
  2. As part of our request for evidence we asked the landlord for all updates provided to the resident for this repair, any explanation sent to the resident for the delay, and copies of communication between itself and the contractor. The landlord has been unable to provide any evidence of communication.
  3. In the resident’s formal complaint raised on 4 June 2024 she said that she made many phone calls and reports during this initial period. The landlord’s leak procedure says that it is “important to maintain regular contact”. The onus is on the landlord to provide evidence that it maintained regular contact and kept the resident updated about this repair. Based on the lack of evidence provided it is fair to infer the landlord failed to follow its policy and keep the resident updated. This was unreasonable and added to the distress the resident felt.
  4. Following the resident’s complaint the landlord raised a new repair on 6 June 2024 stating the leak had not been resolved. The landlord updated the resident on 7 and 10 June 2024 about the repair and said an inspection had been arranged for 13 June 2024. This was reasonable and in line with its leaks policy which says, if there has been a leak from the same source in the previous 12 months it will arrange for its repairs inspector to conduct a joint inspection with the contractor.
  5. The landlord arranged for contractors to complete the following work after the June 2024 inspection:
    1. 1 July 2024 – conducted an environmental clean of the roof so a further joint visit could be conducted
    2. 16 July 2024 – joint visit between contractor and maintenance surveyor to agree works
    3. 8 October 2024 – scaffolding erected for roof work
    4. 22 October 2024 – work to unblock roof as it was flooded
    5. 1 November 2024 – completed major works to re felt the roof
  6. While it was positive that the landlord identified appropriate roof works, it took 106 working days to complete the works from the date of the new report. This was outside of its policy time and the time taken caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  7. The landlord kept the resident updated on the repair progress between 6 June and 29 July 2024. In total, the landlord provided 8 different updates on the progress of the repairs. This was reasonable and aligned with its policy on keeping residents updated.
  8. However, the landlord failed to provide any updates to the resident between 1 August and 29 September 2024. There where no updates provided in this 8-week period and that is likely to have increased the level of distress felt by the resident. This is shown by the resident’s actions as she chased the landlord on multiple occasions throughout this time.
  9. The landlord’s communication improved between October and November 2024. The evidence shows that it updated the resident at least 4 times leading up to the completion of the roof work on 1 November 2024. This was reasonable and in line with its leaks policy.
  10. Throughout the resident’s communication with the landlord she highlighted the concerns that the leak was causing damage to both flats. This included damp and mould. The resident explained to the landlord on various occasions that she and her family’s health was being impacted by the property condition. She outlined medical conditions such as asthma, being a cancer patient, and chronic pain conditions.
  11. Despite these concerns being raised the landlord has provided no evidence to show it considered these vulnerabilities as part of its decision making. For example, on 29 July 2024 the landlord said that scaffolding was planned to be erected in the week commencing 7 October 2024. It stated that the delay was due to health and safety regulations which limited the number of scaffolding that could be erected at the same time.
  12. However, we have not been provided with any evidence to show the landlord considered the vulnerability of the resident’s when discussing the delays in completing the roof work. By failing to consider the residents vulnerabilities the landlord missed an opportunity to offer extra support or options such as a different contractor which may have helped to mitigate any distress or upset. This failure to consider the vulnerabilities of the resident and her family members when deciding on an approach was unfair and increased the distress felt by the resident.
  13. As part of the resident’s complaint and repair reports, she set out the internal damage to both flats and her personal belongings. She asked the landlord to provide reimbursement or compensation for these damages. She also asked that the landlord cover the cost of lost rent and associated agency fees, as her sub-tenants had decided to move out due to the roof leak.
  14. The landlord explained to the resident in its complaint responses that it would not cover the cost of damages or lost rent. This decision aligns with its compensation policy and was reasonable. The landlord’s leasehold information pack sets out that any internal works are the leaseholders responsibility.
  15. The landlord also provided details of how the resident could make an insurance claim if she felt it was responsible for any losses or damage. It was fair and reasonable for the landlord to provide this information to the resident, and showed the landlord had a good understanding of its repair responsibilities.
  16. In summary, the landlord failed to follow its own leaks policy. It did not complete the repairs within its policy times and its communication often fell below a reasonable standard. There was also a failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities in its decision making. Taking all the circumstances into account, this amounts to maladministration.
  17. In recognition of the time taken to resolve the roof leak and the distress and inconvenience this caused, the landlord offered £660 in compensation. This is set out in more detail in paragraph 4 of this report.
  18. We have considered whether £660 fairly recognises the impact caused to the resident because of the failings identified in this report. The landlord’s own calculation was that it would pay £30 per week excluding a reasonable turnaround time of 10 weeks, for the impact of its failings.
  19. The landlord’s own leaks policy says that leak repairs should be completed within 20 working days (approximately 4 weeks). Therefore, the landlord’s calculation of a ‘reasonable turnaround time’, does not align with its own leaks policy. The landlord took 94 working days (approximately 19 weeks) to complete the first repair, and 106 working days (approximately 21 weeks) to complete the second repair.
  20. Additionally, the impact on the resident was increased as the issue affected 2 of her leasehold properties. The resident also took the time and effort to chase the landlord for updates quite frequently. Based on the landlord’s own calculations and the additional impacts, we consider that a fair figure of compensation would be £960, broken down as:
    1. £450 for the impact relating to the first repair (£30 for 15 weeks, excluding a 4-week reasonable turnaround time)
    2. £510 for the impact relating to the second repair (£30 for 17 weeks, excluding a 4-week reasonable turnaround time)
  21. This figure of £960 is inclusive of the £660 already offered. It falls within our remedies guidance for failures that have a significant physical or emotional impact on a resident. We consider this to be a fair level of compensation that appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this report.
  22. The resident has told us that there were related financial losses that she believes the landlord is responsible for, she listed these as:
    1. loss of rental income
    2. inability to pay a mortgage
    3. damage to a credit record
    4. loss of long-term sub-tenants
    5. additional agency fees
  23. We understand that the resident’s view that the landlord’s action or inaction caused these losses. However, as the property was primarily used as a business in the private rented sector to generate an income, it would be open to the resident to insure her potential rental losses. For example, with specialist landlord-insurance or a business interruption policy or incorporate to prevent business losses affecting her personal financial standing and credit file. There is no evidence to say these financial losses were directly caused by the landlord’s failures. We do not consider it would be fair in all the circumstances to say the landlord should be responsible for these losses based on the evidence we have seen in this case. However, it is open to the landlord to provide details of its legal liability insurer to the resident for her to make a claim for these losses.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says it:
    1. will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 2 working days and no later than 5 working days
    2. it will respond at stage 1 of its process within 10 working days
    3. it will respond at stage 2 of its process within 20 working days
    4. if it requires additional time, it will contact the resident and provide a new date
  2. The resident raised her formal complaint on 4 June 2024. At stage 1 of its process the landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint within its policy timeframes.
  3. On 1 August 2024 the resident requested an escalation of her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. The resident chased the landlord on:
    1. 8 August 2024
    2. 15 August 2024
    3. 20 August 2024
    4. 21 August 2024
  4. The complaint was acknowledged on 23 August 2024 which was 16 working days after the escalation was requested. This was unreasonable as it was outside of its policy timeframes. This caused the resident further unnecessary distress at what was already a distressing time.
  5. The resident chased for a response to her complaint 7 further times between 10 September and 2 October 2024. On 2 October 2024 the landlord responded and said that it was sorry for the delays, and its plan was to monitor works and then provide a response.
  6. The decision to wait to provide a response does not align with the Complaint Handling Code and was unreasonable. The Complaint Handling Code says, “A complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed.” This failure continued to increase the distress felt by the resident.
  7. The stage 2 complaint response was sent on 17 October 2024 this was 55 working days after the escalation was requested. This was outside of its policy times. Additionally, the landlord’s complaint policy says that an extension of 20 working days can be agreed – but the landlord will ensure the Housing Ombudsman’s details are provided alongside the extension request. The landlord failed to do this, which was unreasonable and continued the theme of poor communication already identified in this report. Taking all the circumstances into account, this was maladministration.
  8. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered £25 for the time taken to issue the stage 2 complaint response. While this falls within the landlord’s compensation guidelines (£10 – £50 per month for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble), we do not consider this figure proportionately recognises the impact of the failing.
  9. Our guidance says that where there has been a failing which adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact a payment of between £100 to £600 is fair. Given the failure to follow the Complaint Handling Code and the failure to follow its own complaint policy we consider a payment of £200, inclusive of the £25 already offered, fairly recognises the impact caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. reports of roof leaks
    2. associated complaint

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. write an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report
    2. pay the resident compensation totalling £1,160 inclusive of the £685 already offered, broken down as:
      1. £960 (inclusive of £660 already offered) for the impact of the failings related to the roof leaks
      2. £200 (inclusive of the £25 already offered) for the impact of the complaint handling failures

Recommendations

  1. The landlord may wish to give the resident details of its legal liability insurer if it has not already to consider the financial losses.