London Borough of Newham (202218560)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218560

London Borough of Newham

11 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 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. A banging noise from the roof.
2. Birds nesting in the extractor fan.
3. A roof leak in August 2021.
4. Low water pressure and banging pipes.
We have also investigated the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a council, since 1989. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the tenth (top) floor of the block. There is a flat roof above the property, which has communal pipework running across it. The landlord can access the roof via a hatch from within the block. The landlord is aware the resident has a number of health issues.
The property is managed by a housing association on behalf of the landlord, as part of a private finance initiative (PFI). For the purposes of this report, unless it is necessary to distinguish between them, all actions and decisions of the housing association are referred to as being taken by the landlord.
On 9 August 2021 the resident reported a water leak from above her bathroom. The landlord attended the next day and identified it was coming from the roof. It noted this was repaired the same month.
The landlord inspected the property on 13 August 2021 and told the resident there was no evidence of birds nesting in the extractor fan. It said it had identified the external cover for the vent was missing, which could allow birds access. It confirmed it would clear the duct and fit an external cover. It noted it attended several times to clear the duct in September 2021 and installed the external vent cover in May 2022.
On 1 November 2022 the resident reported a banging noise from the roof. The landlord inspected the roof 2 days later and identified issues with the communal pipes that could be causing it. It completed works to address this in January 2023.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord, via us, on 17 November 2022. She said this was about a roof leak, birds nesting in the extractor fan and a noise from the roof. She advised she had been in contact with the landlord about these issues for a number of years but they were unresolved.
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 1 December 2022 said the complaint was partially upheld. It acknowledged there had been a lack of updates about the repairs and said, despite attempts to resolve the noise from the roof, this remained unresolved.
On 15 December 2022 the resident reported problems with the water pressure to the taps in the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord noted it attended 5 days later and fed back internally that there was an issue with the main pump to the building.
The resident escalated her complaint on 2 October 2023, saying:
1. In addition to the issues raised at stage 1, there were also issues with the water pressure. She explained it was low or at times, there was no water at all. She said she had been told this was because she lived on the top floor. She also reported there were loud banging noises in the pipes every day.
2. She had reported the banging noise from the roof was ongoing after works had been completed, but the landlord had not replied to her.
3. She had been unable to use the extractor fan because of birds nesting in it. She confirmed the landlord had visited several times but said it could not carry out any works because the fan was boxed in.
4. The landlord had fixed the roof leak but the works completed after this were poor quality.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 7 December 2023 said:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding but the complaint was not upheld.
2. It had completed works to the pipes on the roof in January 2023 to address the noise. Following further contact from the resident, it had reinspected the area and no further issues were identified.
3. There was no evidence of birds nesting in the extractor fan ducting. It had fitted a new external cover in May 2022 and overhauled the fan and vent, including cleaning this, in February 2023.
4. It had found and resolved the roof leak and completed making good works.
5. There was an outstanding repair for the kitchen tap, due to be completed that month.
The resident asked us to investigate her complaint the same month. She said she wanted the landlord to move her and pay compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As part of our evidence request to the landlord, we asked it to provide details about the PFI arrangement, including whether repairs are managed in accordance with the landlord’s policies or the housing association’s. The landlord said the housing association manage all repairs for the property, but did not confirm whose policies are applied. Similarly, it did not provide copies of the relevant policies we requested. Therefore, we have assessed the landlord’s handling of the repairs based on industry standards and what is fair and reasonable, rather than on specific policy commitments.
The resident has told us she has had a leak in her kitchen ceiling for the last 10 years, which she has reported to the landlord on multiple occasions. We have seen no evidence that this issue was raised or responded to via the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, we are unable to investigate this matter. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to confirm if she wants to raise this matter as a formal complaint and, if so, progress this in line with its complaints policy.

Banging noise from the roof

The landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance of the roof and the communal pipes on the roof, in accordance with the Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says it is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, which includes the roof and external communal pipes.
The resident says she has reported this issue since 1989. The scope of this investigation covers events that occurred 12 months before she raised her formal complaint in November 2022. Anything that happened before November 2021 is considered for context but not assessed as part of this investigation.
The landlord told the resident on 26 November 2021 that, following an inspection earlier that month, there was no evidence of any noise from the roof. We have seen no record of the landlord’s inspection so it is not clear whether this only included the property or the roof as well. Considering the noise was reported to be coming from the roof, it would have been sensible for the landlord to inspect this area. Due to a lack of records, it is not possible for us to assess whether the landlord’s actions on this occasion were reasonable.
On 7 April 2022 the resident reported a noise from the roof, which she said was disturbing her. The same day the landlord said in an internal update that it had previously completed a roof survey and not heard the noise or identified any issues that could be causing this. While this was a sensible action to take, it is not clear from the evidence provided when this survey was completed. If it had not been done recently, it should have considered completing another one to check for any new issues or changes. Due to the lack of information, it is not possible for us to assess whether the landlord’s lack of action in response to this issue, on this occasion, was reasonable.
Regardless of when the landlord surveyed the roof, there is no evidence that it responded to the resident’s report of 7 April 2022. This meant she was left not knowing what, if anything, it had done. This amounts to maladministration and made her feel the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
When the resident re-reported the issue on 1 November 2022, it was sensible for the landlord to inspect the roof to identify the cause of the noise. It did so 2 days later, which showed it was taking the matter seriously. It subsequently completed the required works 77 days later, on 18 January 2023. Considering the scope of works it was reasonable these took longer than an industry standard routine repair (generally 28 days). As the landlord needed to obtain materials and this was done over the Christmas and New Year period, the timescale for completion was reasonable.
The landlord told the resident once the works were completed, which was appropriate so she could monitor the noise. When she reported the noise was ongoing on 13 February 2023, there is no evidence the landlord responded or took any further action to investigate. The landlord subsequently said in its stage 2 response that it had reinspected the roof after the resident’s report and found no evidence of any movement from the pipes. However, we have seen no record of this inspection and the resident was not told about this at the time.
Due to the lack of evidence, we cannot be satisfied that the landlord took further action as stated. This, along with its failure to follow up with the resident, amounts to maladministration and means she has continued living with this noise for a further 2 years. She has said this affects her sleep and ability to enjoy the property. We order the landlord to arrange an independent inspection of the roof to identify any possible causes of the noise. A written update to be sent to the resident confirming the outcome, including any works it will complete, with a timescale for these to be completed.
The landlord attended the property on 18 November 2022 to investigate this issue. She declined to give access and said she had not been told about the appointment in advance, despite the landlord having her contact number. The landlord investigated this issue and confirmed, due to a misunderstanding, it had not told her about the appointment in advance. This was unreasonable as the landlord should give prior notice of non-emergency repairs. Despite identifying this error, there is no evidence the landlord told the resident this or apologised for its failure. This amounts to maladministration.
The resident then told the landlord she understood it needed to visit and asked it to make appointments in advance via phone. Despite this, in an internal email exchange the same month, the landlord suggested it should not visit and that any future appointments should be arranged in writing. This went against the resident’s specific request to be notified via phone and took no account of her acknowledgement that visits were needed to resolve the issues. This is concerning and suggests the landlord was not listening to the resident.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue. Despite acknowledging failure in the stage 1 response, it did not offer any redress or take action to resolve the issue. This was disappointing for the resident. We order the landlord to apologise and pay £250 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration findings, where the landlord has made no attempt to put things right.
Due to the length of time this, and other issues have been ongoing, the resident has said she wants to move. While we cannot order the landlord to move her, we have made an order for it to write to her confirming her rehousing options and what, if any, support it can give to help her move.

Birds nesting in the extractor fan

We have not seen any evidence that the landlord is responsible for dealing with bird infestations. However, considering the nature of the resident’s report and that the landlord is aware she has health issues, it was reasonable that it accepted responsibility for investigating and resolving this issue.
Following the landlord’s inspection in August 2021, it attended in September and October 2021 to investigate and clear the ducting. Despite attending on at least 3 occasions, the landlord did not clear the ducting and noted it could not do so as the area was boxed in. As it had already inspected, it was aware of this and so should have ensured the correct works were ordered so the ducting could be cleared. Instead, the landlord raised multiple works orders, which resulted in several ineffective visits, for which the resident had to give access. This amounts to maladministration and was disappointing for the resident.
During one of the visits on 27 September 2021, the landlord’s pest control contractor confirmed it heard noises from within the ducting, which confirmed some form of activity in there. Despite this, in the stage 2 response, the landlord said pest control had visited on a number of occasions and confirmed there was no evidence of birds nesting in the ventilation ducting. This was incorrect and suggests the landlord had not properly reviewed its records. This amounts to maladministration and was upsetting for the resident.
It was sensible for the landlord to suggest installing a new external vent cover when it identified this was missing. It identified this in August 2021, but did not install a new cover until 9 months later, in May 2022. It appears the landlord needed to install covers for a number of properties in the block and, as this is a 10 storey block, this work required abseilers.
In light of this, it is reasonable that the work took longer than an industry standard routine repair (generally 28 days), but the overall time taken was too long. Particularly considering the landlord had confirmed there was activity in the duct. This delay amounts to maladministration and the landlord should have done more to install the missing vent cover sooner.
During this period of delay, there is evidence of only 1 update to the resident, via email on 26 November 2021. The landlord said it intended to complete the work to prevent birds from accessing the duct, but did not give an estimated timescale for this to be done. This was disappointing for the resident and left her not knowing what the landlord was doing, or when the work would be completed. This amounts to maladministration.
On 2 November 2022, the resident told the landlord she was not using the extractor fan because she believed there was something inside the ducting. The landlord said this had been inspected using an endoscope and nothing was in there. It said it had offered to remove the ducting to check but the resident declined. The resident has told us she declined because she believed there were birds in there. We have seen no formal record of this visitand so cannot make an assessment of this.
The landlord asked for a works order to be raised on 9 November 2022 for the ducting to be removed and checked, but we have seen no evidence this happened. Similarly, following contact with the resident on 10 February 2023, the landlord said it had asked for a job to be raised to overhaul the fan and vent, including cleaning it. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that this was done the same month.
However, the resident has disputed this and the landlord has not provided any evidence to show it was completed. It has provided an email exchange with the contractor, which said the job was “all done and completed”, but we have seen no evidence of a works order being raised, when the job was completed, photos of the works carried out or attendance notes following the visit. The lack of evidence means we cannot be satisfied this job went ahead as stated, in light of the resident disputing it. This amounts to maladministration.
The resident has confirmed since the new vent cover was fitted in May 2022, birds can no longer access the vent. However, as there were birds previously nesting in there, the duct needs to be cleaned. She has said the debris left in the duct has caused a bad smell and this has meant she has not been able to use the extractor fan for several years. She feels this has led to damp and mould in the property. This is a particular concern as the landlord is aware the resident has multiple health conditions. We order the landlord to check and clean the extractor fan, including the vent and the duct. As this is boxed in, the job will require removal of the boxing.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue. It acknowledged failure in its stage 1 response, but did not apologise or offer any other redress. This was in contravention of our Dispute Resolution Principle to put things right. There were further failures in its handling of this matter and the stage 2 response was inaccurate. This caused the resident to lose faith in the landlord and its complaints process. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £350 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made no attempt to put things right.

Roof leak in August 2021

The landlord is responsible for roof repairs in line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says it must repair the structure and exterior of the property, which includes the roof. When the resident reported a leak from above on 9 August 2021, she said there was water running down the bathroom walls. The landlord should have treated this as an emergency repair, which has an industry standard response time of 24 hours. While the landlord incorrectly raised this as a routine repair, it attended the next day, within the 24 hour timescale.
The landlord could not complete the repair as the leak was coming from the roof. While frustrating for the resident, this was not a failure by the landlord. Once the landlord identified the leak was coming from the roof, it should have taken immediate action to investigate this. However, it did not take action until nearly 2 weeks later, on 23 August 2021, when it raised a further works order to inspect the roof. It was then a further 8 days before it attended and completed the repair, on 31 August 2021.
In total, it took the landlord 23 days to complete the roof repair. While the block is 10 storeys high, the landlord can access the roof via a hatch, meaning scaffolding was not required for the repair. Therefore, it should have treated this as an urgent repair, which has an industry standard response time of around 7 days. The landlord failed to do so and took too long to complete the repair.
The landlord completed associated redecoration works in September and October 2021. On 26 November 2021, following an inspection earlier that month, it told the resident these works had not been done to the expected standard, and said it would recall the job. This was sensible to ensure the works were done to the required standard.
However, we have seen no evidence it followed through on this and the resident has said it never happened. This means there is still damage to the property more than 3 years later. This amounts to maladministration and has left the resident feeling let down. We order the landlord to inspect the bathroom to identify works required. A written update to be sent to the resident confirming the outcome of the inspection and what works it will complete, including a timescale.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue. Despite acknowledging failure in the stage 1 response, it failed to offer redress or put things right for the resident. We have made orders for the landlord to apologise and pay her £200 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made no attempt to put things right.

Low water pressure and banging pipes

The landlord is responsible for repairs to water pipes in the property and communal areas in line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says it will repair installations for the supply of water to the property, which includes water service pipes.
This issue was not raised or responded to as part of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. However, she included it in her escalation request. At that point, the landlord could have declined to accept this as part of the stage 2 complaint and told the resident to raise a new stage 1 complaint. It did not do this. Neither did it specifically address her concerns in the stage 2 response. As the landlord was given the opportunity to respond to this concern, but failed to do so, we have included it within our investigation.
When the resident reported that the water pressure was intermittent in December 2022, the landlord raised a routine works order to investigate. This was reasonable because the resident had said the pressure was intermittent and had not indicated that she did not have access to water at that time. The landlord attended 5 days later, which was within the 28 working day industry standard response time for routine repairs.
The operative fed back that there was an issue with the building’s main pump. It said this did not seem to be powerful enough to supply water to the tenth floor, if other people in the block were using water. Despite this, and the resident reporting the issue again on 13 January 2023, there is no evidence that any further action has been taken to investigate or resolve it. This amounts to maladministration and means the resident has been left with an intermittent water supply for several years.
The resident has told us the intermittent water pressure is an ongoing problem. Therefore, we order the landlord to investigate her reports, including an inspection and test of the building’s main water pump. A written update to be sent to the resident confirming the outcome, including any actions it will take to resolve this, with a timescale for completion.
Following the landlord’s inspection in November 2021, it told the resident there was no evidence of a water hammer (which could cause banging in the pipes). It confirmed it had inspected the boiler, checked the pressure and run the hot and cold taps, but no issues were identified. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s actions to investigate this were reasonable.
The resident re-reported this in November 2022 and the landlord asked for a job to be raised for a specialist contractor to investigate. This was a sensible action to suggest, but there is no evidence of it being progressed or of any further investigations taking place. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling let down.
Similarly, when the resident raised this as part of her stage 2 complaint in October 2023, the landlord did not address it within its stage 2 response or take any action to investigate. This caused further disappointment for the resident and left her feeling ignored. We order the landlord to send a specialist contractor to investigate the resident’s reports of banging pipes. A written update to be sent to her confirming the outcome, including action it will take, with a timescale for these to be completed.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue. The lack of a specific response at stage 2 indicates the landlord did not properly investigate this matter. This was a missed opportunity for it to put things right for the resident sooner. We have made orders for it to apologise and pay her £300 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge these or put things right.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. We have seen no evidence that it formally acknowledged the stage 1 complaint. While it acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 23 October 2023; this was 15 working days after the resident asked to escalate the complaint. This was not in line with the committed timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 10 working days. This was in line with the 10 working day committed response time set out in its complaints policy. It sent the stage 2 response in 34 working days. This was over the 20 working day committed response time set out in its policy.
The landlord told the resident the stage 2 response was delayed on 28 November 2023. However, it failed to give a revised deadline for when it would respond, and only said it would send the response as soon as possible. This left the resident uncertain on when she would receive the response and resulted in her expending time and trouble chasing it, via us, in December 2023. While the landlord acknowledged the delay in the stage 2 response and apologised, it did not offer any other redress for this failure. This was unreasonable.
The stage 1 response acknowledged failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs, particularly in respect of its communication. It also recognised the resident’s health issues and said it wanted to ensure contact was kept to a minimum because of this. While important that the landlord considered the resident’s individual circumstances as part of its handling of the repairs, it was unreasonable for the landlord to suggest this was the reason it had not provided updates to her. Particularly as there is no record the resident ever asked the landlord not to contact her. This response was insensitive and caused upset to the resident.
In the stage 1 response the landlord committed to contact the resident by 5 December 2022 with an appointment for the repairs. However, there is no evidence the landlord contacted her by this date. This broken promise caused her to lose faith in the landlord’s complaints process.
The landlord’s stage 1 response lacked detail about the individual issues raised. While it acknowledged failure, it did not offer any redress. Similarly, the stage 2 response contained inaccuracies and did not acknowledge failure, when there was evidence of this. The poor handling of the complaint amounts to maladministration and, not only did it fail to put things right for the resident, it further damaged the landlord/tenant relationship. We order the landlord to apologise and pay £150 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and reflects the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she experienced because of the failures.

Record keeping

Throughout this investigation we have identified gaps in the landlord’s records. This has affected our ability to fully investigate and determine the resident’s complaint. We recognise the PFI arrangement may have contributed to this, but it is vital the landlord has access to contemporaneous records of all actions and decisions taken by it, or on its behalf.
This is particularly important where the landlord has to reply to a complaint as it can use the records to gain a full understanding of what has happened and account for its actions to residents and, where required, us. From our investigation, we can see that has not happened in this case.
It is imperative that the landlord ensures there is an improvement in the record keeping of the housing association managing properties on its behalf. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to work with the housing association to identify the record keeping failures highlighted in this investigation and review the record keeping arrangements in respect of these. A written report to be provided to us and the resident confirming how it has, or will, improve its record keeping practices going forward, to ensure similar failures do not happen again.
In response to our requests for copies of relevant policies, the landlord gave some repair timescale details, but it was not clear which organisation these were for. When we sought further clarity and requested the documents again, the landlord’s response was vague and it did not provide the requested documents within the given timeframe. This means we have been unable to assess the landlord’s handling of repairs in accordance with the relevant policy.
It is concerning that the landlord does not have this information readily to hand, as it should have this to properly monitor its actions and the actions of the housing association. This is particularly important for complaints and for contract management. We have made an order for the landlord to review its management arrangement in respect of this PFI and confirm it has the relevant policy documents available in order to robustly manage repairs performance going forward.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the:
1. Reports of a banging noise from the roof.
2. Reports of birds nesting in the extractor fan.
3. Reports of a roof leak in August 2021.
4. Reports of low water pressure and banging pipes in the property.
5. Formal complaint.
6. Record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Arranged for an independent inspection of the roof to identify any possible causes of the noise. A written update to be sent to the resident confirming the outcome, including any works it will complete, with a timescale for these to be completed.
2. Checked and cleaned the extractor fan, including the vent and the duct. As this is boxed in, the job will require removal of the boxing.
3. Apologised to the resident for its response to the issues detailed at points 65.a – e above.
4. Paid the resident £1,250 compensation, made up of:
  1. £250 for its response to her reports of a banging noise from the roof.
  2. £350 for its response to her reports of birds nesting in the extractor fan.
  3. £200 for its response to her report of a roof leak in August 2021.
  4. £300 for is response to her reports of low water pressure and banging pipes in the property.
  5. £150 for its complaint handling.
5. Written to the resident confirming her rehousing options and what, if any, support it can give to help her move.
6. Inspected the bathroom to identify works required to address damage from the roof leak. A written update to be sent to the resident confirming the outcome of the inspection and what works it will complete, including a timescale.
7. Investigated the intermittent low water pressure in the property, including an inspection and test of the main water pump in the building. A written update to be sent to the resident confirming the outcome of this and actions it will take to resolve this, including a timescale for these to be completed.
8. Sent a specialist contractor to investigate the resident’s reports of banging pipes in the property. A written update to be sent to her confirming the outcome, including actions it will take with a timescale for these to be completed.
Within 12 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Worked jointly with the housing association to identify the record keeping failures highlighted in this investigation and review the record keeping arrangements in respect of these. A written report to be provided to us and the resident confirming how it has or will improve its record keeping practices going forward, to ensure similar failures do not happen in the future.
2. Reviewed its management arrangement in respect of the PFI and confirmed it has the relevant policy documents available in order to robustly manage repairs performance going forward.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to confirm if she wants to raise her reports of a kitchen ceiling leak as a formal complaint. If so, the landlord should progress this in line with its complaints policy.