From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Newham (202415480)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415480

London Borough of Newham

1 September 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 leaseholder 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 leaseholder’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a roof leak.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s:
    1. Complaint handling.
    2. Record keeping.

Background

  1. The complainant is a leaseholder of the landlord. The leaseholder rented out the property, which is a flat situated within a larger block, to a tenant. This report makes reference to the ‘tenant’ who lived at the property, the ‘leaseholder’ who made the complaint, and the ‘landlord’ which is the freeholder. The leaseholder reports that there have been intermittent issues with water ingress at the block since 2020.
  2. On 21 September 2023 the leaseholder reported that water was leaking intermittently from the roof into the property. The landlord inspected on 2 November 2023. It identified several ‘blocked rainwater gulleys and stack pipes’. The landlord cleared the blockages on 17 November 2023.
  3. On 11 January 2024 the leaseholder asked the landlord for an update. He provided a quote from his own contractor to address the leaks to the roof. On 12 January 2024 the leaseholder complained to the landlord by email. He said that the leak had been unresolved for over 3 years. He said that the damage to his property was getting worse, that there was damp and mould, and that ‘the gas supply at the property was affected’. He complained again by email on 18 January 2024.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the leaseholder’s complaint on 24 January 2024 and issued its stage 1 response on 29 January 2024. It said that it was aware of the roof leak and that its Surveyor would inspect the next day.
  5. The Surveyor attended on 30 January 2024 and inspected multiple properties at the block that were affected, including the leaseholder’s. Issues with the drainage infrastructure on the roof were identified and on 5 February 2024 contractors were invited to provide quotes to carry out the required works to the roof and exterior of the block and its drainage infrastructure.
  6. On 13 March 2024 the leaseholder asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. On 20 March 2024 a quote was accepted by the landlord and the works were booked. The leaseholder’s stage 2 complaint was acknowledged on the same day the quote was accepted.
  7. On 21 March 2024 the landlord and its chosen contractor inspected the roof of the property. It was decided that the issues were extensive and likely to be complex to resolve. It was decided that this was better suited to a capital works programme, rather than being carried out as a reactive repair. On 17 April 2024 the leaseholder emailed the landlord to ask for an update. On 18 April 2024 the landlord agreed internally that it would renew the roof of the block.
  8. On 31 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. that following its inspections, it had decided that the entire roof needed to be renewed.
    2. renewing the roof would require a Section 20 process. It explained the process to the leaseholder.
    3. that it was sorry its communication with the leaseholder had been lacking and was ‘below the level of service expected’.
    4. there had been a delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response. It was in the process of arranging a complaint handling training programme for all of its staff.
    5. it offered the leaseholder £600 compensation, made up of:
      1. £250 for delays in dealing with the roof leak.
      2. £150 for the leaseholder’s time and trouble.
      3. £200 for its complaint handling.
  9. On 5 July 2024 the process to renew the roof was due to begin. On 12 July 2024 works were stopped because the landlord found that its legal department had begun repairs to the roof that it had not been aware of. It is unclear if these repairs were completed.
  10. On 17 July 2024 the leaseholder contacted us. He said that the leaks had been ongoing intermittently for several years and had caused damage to the property. He wanted the roof to be repaired and damage to the interior of the building to be rectified by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The leaseholder asked us to investigate events spanning back to 2020. We encourage residents and leaseholders to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. From the evidence available, there does not appear to have been any water ingress reported at the property for at least 6 months before the leaseholder’s report that the leak had recurred from 21 September 2023. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period 21 September 2023 onwards. Reference to events that occurred prior to this date is included to provide context only.
  2. On 6 February 2025 and 4 March 2025 the leaseholder contacted us to ask us to investigate several issues which had taken place after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 31 May 2024. This included its handling of a new leak into the property and a request for the landlord to reimburse his lost rental income after his tenants stopped paying rent. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint. It is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by us. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
  3. In his complaint to the landlord and to us, the leaseholder referenced adverse effect caused by the leak on his tenants. We are unable to consider the adverse effect of the leaseholder’s tenants in our assessment of the landlord’s actions. This is because the tenants are not in a direct landlord tenant relationship with the landlord as specified in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Handling of the leaseholder’s reports of a roof leak

  1. The landlord’s repair policy was updated in August 2024, so it is unclear exactly what parts of the policy applied to the leaseholder’s complaint period. The policy states it has 4 categories of repairs. Emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours. Urgent repairs will be completed within 3 to 7 days. Routine repairs will be responded to within 20 working days and planned works within 42 working days. Urgent repairs are defined as repairs that may affect the comfort of residents and may cause damage to the property if not carried out urgently.
  2. The policy states that leaseholders are responsible for the repair and maintenance of everything inside their home, while the landlord is responsible for the structure, exterior and communal parts, including roofs, communal pipework and drainage systems.
  3. Following the leaseholder’s report of a leak on 21 September 2023 the landlord raised an ‘urgent’ inspection, noting that multiple properties were affected. This was in line with the landlord’s Repairs Policy because the leaseholder reported that the leak was causing damage inside. It should have attended within 7 days, but it did not attend until 2 November 2023, 42 days later. An internal email from the landlord’s Principle Surveyor on 24 March 2025 said that 2 visits were cancelled during this time due to ‘inclement weather conditions’. An internal email from the same staff member on 30 October 2023 however stated that the visit had been cancelled due to ‘adverse traffic conditions’.
  4. The landlord did not provide us with any evidence relating to any of these visits. We have only internal emails to rely upon to confirm that these appointments were booked in, and so we have been unable to verify the cause of the delay. In any event, the landlord should have rearranged the appointment promptly. The 42 days taken was significantly beyond the landlord’s expected response times set out for urgent repairs, and was a failing.
  5. We have not seen evidence of the inspection that took place. The landlord reported that works to clear the rainwater gulleys were identified as being required and subsequently completed on 17 November 2023. This took a further 15 days and again exceeded the timescale for an urgent repair. It is unclear if this repair had any impact on the water ingress at the property, because the leaseholder did not make any further contact with the landlord until 12 January 2024, when a water leak was reported.
  6. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that it will undertake post inspections for a selection of cases, to ensure works are completed to the required specification and quality. There is no criteria set out for choosing which repairs to inspect after completion. However given the repairs history at the block and the nature of the leaks reported by multiple residents and leaseholders, it would have been reasonable to complete one in this instance.
  7. There is no evidence to suggest how the landlord categorised the repair that was reported on 12 January 2024. Given the description of the leak to the landlord and the concern that the leak may ‘affect the gas supply’ alongside causing other damage to the property, it is reasonable that it should have been categorised as an urgent repair. Its inspection of 30 January 2024 was 18 days after the leaseholder’s report and again exceed this timescale. It identified further works, but took a further 42 days to raise quotes. The landlord has not provided any evidence to us to explain this delay or justify why it may have been reasonable.
  8. The landlord decided to renew the roof on 21 March 2024. In making this decision, the evidence shows that the landlord considered the wider repairs history alongside its expert investigation of the current issues. This was appropriate. However the evidence shows that it took a further 106 days until 5 July 2024 until it instructed its relevant departments to begin the section 20 process required to renew the roof. Again due to a lack of evidence, the reason for this delay is unclear. The evidence shows that the leaseholder’s property continued to experience water ingress and damage during this period.
  9. These failings were exacerbated because there is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the leaseholder from 21 September 2023 to 31 May 2024, other than in its formal complaint correspondence. The evidence shows that the leaseholder contacted the landlord for updates on several occasions between its complaint responses, but there is no evidence the landlord responded. There were multiple occasions where it would have been appropriate for the landlord to make contact with the leaseholder, such as following any of its inspections on 2 November 2023, 30 January 2024, or 21 March 2024.
  10. Our Spotlight Report on Repairs and Maintenance – Repairing Trust, was published in May 2025. It states that effective communication is vital and that poor communication leaves residents (or leaseholders) uninformed. In this case the evidence shows that the landlord’s communication failings caused unnecessary frustration and time and trouble to the leaseholder. Had the landlord communicated effectively with the leaseholder as described in the Spotlight Report, it may have avoided some of this impact. The landlord was right to identify and apologise for this in its stage 2 complaint response.
  11. Beyond this, the adverse effect to the leaseholder was limited because he was not resident at the property during the period assessed. The landlord offered £400 in respect of the leaseholder’s time and trouble, and for the delays in repairing the leak. Our Remedies Guidance states that where there have been failings which have adversely affected the complainant, compensation of up to £600 should be considered. The landlord offered an appropriate amount of compensation therefore at the time of its stage 2 complaint response.
  12. The leaseholder told the landlord that its failings over a 4 year period had caused damage at the property. The leaseholder felt the landlord should bear the cost of repairs the interior of the property as a result. The evidence shows that the landlord signposted the leaseholder to its website in its stage 1 complaint response, where he could make an insurance claim. The landlord was within its rights to advise the leaseholder to make a claim against its insurance. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance as a means of managing the cost of negligence claims and the landlord would not be obliged to pay compensation for negligence outside the insurance process.
  13. The evidence shows that the roof renewal the landlord had promised in its stage 2 complaint response did not go ahead as planned. The landlord instead opted to proceed with repairs to the roof which had been organised by another of its internal departments. It is unclear if these repairs were ever completed. This happened after the stage 2 complaint response and so we have not investigated this to consider if it was reasonable. However, as the status of the roof leak is related to this investigation, we have ordered the landlord to provide an update on the progress of the roof repairs and any outstanding actions it intends to take, to the leaseholder.
  14. We have also ordered the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation in respect of the further time and trouble gone to by the leaseholder, due its failure to manage the promises made in its complaint responses. This takes the total compensation for this element of the complaint to £500, which replaces the offer that has already been made. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance.
  15. Our Dispute Resolution Principles are to ‘be fair’, to ‘put things right’, and to ‘learn from outcomes’. Although the landlord paid an appropriate amount of compensation, there is no evidence that it conducted any learning in relation to its handling of the roof leak or its communications with the leaseholder. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports of a roof leak.
  16. The landlord is ordered to complete a senior management review of the repair and communication failings highlighted in this case. It should set out what went wrong and why. It should clearly outline what steps it will take to ensure these areas of its service delivery improve. It should demonstrate that it has considered as a minimum:
    1. The delays in arranging inspections and subsequent repairs.
    2. How it communicates with leaseholders and residents about repairs.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that it must ‘assess and acknowledge’ complaints and escalation requests within 2 days of being received. It says that it will respond to Stage 1 complaint responses within a further 10 working days and Stage 2 responses within a further 20, in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The leaseholder complained on 12 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on 24 January 2024, which was a delay of 10 days. It issued its stage 1 complaint response on29 January 2024 resulting in a delay of 5 days overall. The leaseholder asked to escalate his complaint on 13 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 20 March 2024, a delay of 5 days. However it did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 31 May 2024, which was 54 working days later. This delay was a failing. The reason for the delay is unclear.
  3. The Code states that landlords must respond to all elements of a complaint unless there are circumstances where it is fair and reasonable not to. The Code states that it is sometimes acceptable not to consider complaints about matters which happened over 12 months before the complaint was made. If it decides not to accept a complaint, an explanation must be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process. At the time of the complaint, it was not a statutory requirement for the landlord to handle complaints in exact accordance with the Code.
  4. In the leaseholder’s complaint he said that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of previous roof leaks that had occurred over a ‘3 year period’. The landlord did not respond to this. Although it may have been acceptable for the landlord not to respond to matters which took place over 12 months before the leaseholder’s initial complaint, it was shortcoming that it did not clearly communicate with him about why it did not do so, as specified in the Code. It also would have been good practice to consider if it may be reasonable to consider his complaint to an earlier date.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it apologised for its delays in complaint handling and offered £200. This was appropriate because the delay likely caused frustration and disappointment to the leaseholder. The leaseholder also went to the time and trouble of sending a further email requesting an update on 17 April 2024. This amount is proportionate to the likely adverse effect experienced by the leaseholder due to the landlord’s complaint handling failings, therefore no further compensation has been awarded. As a result, the landlord made an offer which constitutes reasonable redress with regard to its complaint handling.
  6. The landlord also said that it had conducted complaint handling training for its staff as part of its stage 2 complaint response. This was appropriate and the landlord demonstrated its ability to learn from outcomes.

 

Record keeping

  1. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to this Service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and fittings of a building or property. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents. It also enables the landlord to satisfy itself that it has fulfilled all of its repair obligations.
  2. The landlord has limited records available prior to September 2023. Although the landlord submitted some repair records for the building, these are vague and lack key information. The evidence shows that this prevented the landlord from building a clear picture of the history of the leaks at the building, the causes, and what had been done to attempt repairs. This was demonstrated in internal emails from September 2023, which concluded that after significant time investigating its records, the landlord had found ‘no explanation on why the problem remains unresolved and [found that] many notes [relating to the repairs] were never uploaded’.
  3. These emails also show that important information such as which properties were affected by the leaks, which residents had reported leaks, and information about what repairs had been attempted, had not been recorded at the time. It is unclear if this contributed to the landlord’s inability to resolve the leaks quickly after September 2023, because we do not know if the missing information could have assisted the landlord in locating or resolving any issues sooner than it did.
  4. There is no evidence that the landlord’s record keeping practices improved after the leaseholder’s reports of leaks in September 2023. The landlord did not provide detailed records of the repairs completed for this investigation. Most of the repairs referred to in this report are based on descriptions sent by email from the landlord, or a written account given by the staff member who attended.
  5. This information was provided by relevant staff members when asked for, but do not appear to have been held centrally. For example on 26 September 2023 a staff member reported that he had ‘instructed a roofing contractor’, but no other evidence to support this is available. This means that there is no evidence to support that the investigations or subsequent works done were appropriate, of sufficient quality, or completed as described. In this case, we note that there is no reason to doubt on the accuracy of any of the email reports seen during this investigation.

 

  1. Our Spotlight Report on Complaints About Repairs was published in March 2019. It states that it is ‘vital landlord’s keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records’. We expanded on this principle in our Spotlight Report on Repairs and Maintenance – repairing trust, which was published in May 2025. This report mentions ‘incomplete or inaccessible data’ and the issues this can cause, particularly when analysing repeat repairs or working with external contractors. The report notes that centralising repair records can be an effective solution to this. Had the landlord taken steps to ensure its record keeping practices were more closely aligned with out Spotlight Reports, it may have prevented some failings across this area of its service delivery.
  2. The evidence shows that there is other important information relating to this case missing, such as correspondence between the leaseholder and the landlord. This includes leaseholder’s original complaint from 12 January 2024, that was only provided for this investigation by the leaseholder. There are more examples of this, such as that the landlord and leaseholder both acknowledge that the leaseholder contacted it on 30 January 2024 for an update on the repairs, we have seen no evidence of this. It is likely that this played a part in the landlord’s communication failings assessed earlier in this report.
  3. Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) was published in May 2023. It states that ‘failing to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify failings, and contributes to inadequate communication and redress’. Both were reflected clearly in this case.
  4. In conclusion, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. On 19 December 2024 we determined case 202343454. In it we noted that the repair records provided by the landlord lacked sufficient detail. On 8 April 2025 we determined 202421897. In it we found the landlord had again not kept adequate records in respect of what action it had taken in response to reports of damp and mould. We recommended that the landlord complete a review of its record keeping practices.
  5. To ensure the landlord now takes effective steps to resolve these themes of inadequate record keeping, we have ordered the landlord to complete a senior management review of its record keeping in this case. The landlord should clearly set out what has gone wrong and why. It should outline the steps it will take to improve its record keeping practices going forward.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports of a roof leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must provide us with evidence that it has:

Paid the resident £500 compensation for its handling of the roof leak. This replaces the £400 already offered.

  1. Written to the resident clearly setting out what it has done to resolve the roof leaks since 31 May 2024, the current progress of the roof repairs, and the details of any further steps it intends to take. If any steps remain outstanding, it should provide a clear timescale in which it will complete these steps.
  1. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide us with evidence that it has:
    1. Completed a senior management review of the repairs and communication failings highlighted in this case. It must set out what went wrong and why. It should clearly outline what steps it will take to ensure these areas of its service delivery improve. It should demonstrate that it has considered as a minimum:
      1. The delays in arranging inspections and subsequent repairs.
      2. How it communicates with leaseholders and residents about repairs.
    2. Completed a senior management review of the record keeping failings highlighted in this case. It must set out what went wrong and why. It may choose to refer to other cases we have determined that also highlight concerns in the landlord’s record keeping, to build a more complete picture of this issues. The landlord should clearly outline what steps it will take to ensure its record keeping practices improve. It should demonstrate that it has considered as a minimum:
      1. Its record keeping practices relating to repairs to the roof from 2020 to September 2023.
      2. Its record keeping practices relating to repairs to and inspections of the roof of the block and individual properties within it between 21 September 2023 and May 2024.
      3. How it records communications such as calls with residents and leaseholders.

Recommendations

  1. A finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis that the £200 offered for complaint handling has been paid.