St Albans City and District Council (202501155)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202501155

St Albans City and District Council

24 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 handling of:
1. repairs to the roof of the house.
2. renewal of the loft insulation.
3. repairs to the shed roof.
The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom house with a brick-built shed in the garden. The shed roof is shared with the neighbouring property’s shed. The resident lives with his wife and 2 children. The landlord has physical disabilities recorded for the resident’s wife.
A work order was raised on 18 November 2022 as there was a leak coming from the roof and the chimney cowl had fallen down. On 24 November 2022 the contractor told the landlord the chimney needed repairing or removing. A work order was raised on 31 March 2023 as the shed roof was leaking. On 17 April 2023 the contractor told the landlord the private owner next door would need to be contacted as the shed roof was shared.
Further work orders were raised on 13 June, 14 June and 19 June 2023 for scaffolding and to investigate other roofing and guttering problems. This was because there had been a water leak which had caused damp and mould.
On 17 December 2024 the resident made a complaint. He was dissatisfied that repairs to the chimney, guttering, soffits, soil pipe, shed roof and loft insulation all remained outstanding. The resident mentioned several missed appointments by the contractors. He said scaffolding had already been up for 18 months. This was causing access restrictions for his wife who had disabilities. The resident said for months he had been asking for updates on the work. He said many of his emails were not responded to. The resident asked for an independent roofing company to carry out the roof repairs. Following this, the insulation to be replaced and the ceilings mould washed.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 January 2025. It said it had put up scaffolding due to the size of the works and for access to the chimney. The landlord said when a contractor had inspected the roof, it had also found the soil pipe needed a repair. It said a party wall agreement was needed with the neighbour to repair the shed roof. The landlord stated its communication and that of its contractor had been poor. It apologised for the length of time the repairs had been outstanding. The landlord had asked its contractor to carry out the repairs immediately. The landlord said after the roof works, the insulation would be renewed and the ceilings mould washed and repaired.
On 4 March 2025 the resident escalated his complaint. He was dissatisfied because he had not been contacted by the contractor or given a start date for the works. The resident said the work had not been prioritised. He said he had not been given any explanation as to why the works had not begun.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 April 2025. It confirmed the works remained outstanding. The landlord said this included removal of the chimney stack, fixing the shed roof, renewal of the loft insulation and mould treatments. It apologised that its contractors had not attended, and no dates had been given to the resident. The landlord said the contractor would attend on 14 April 2025 to carry out all the roofing works including the insulation. It said the work would take 4 days. The landlord said after the roof was fixed, it would carry out a mould treatment. It offered the resident £451.98 compensation for delays and inconvenience.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He felt the compensation did not reflect the delays, stress and inconvenience caused. The resident said the household had been unwell which he said was likely caused by the damp and mould. He said the damp and mould was a result of the water leaks caused by the outstanding repairs. The resident told the Ombudsman that the scaffolding had been up for 2 years. This restricted access to the garden and being able to open some windows.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told the Ombudsman that the water leaks and outstanding repairs had affected his and his household’s health and wellbeing. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on the household’s health. Such matters are better suited to a court.
The evidence showed the chimney repair was raised on 18 November 2022. The landlord identified further work was needed to the chimney on 24 November 2022. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise formal complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of the issue arising.
Similarly, the Ombudsman would not normally consider events that have happened more than 12 months prior to them being raised formally with the landlord. However, in this investigation, we have decided to consider the evidence going back to 18 November 2022 when the chimney repair was raised. This is because there were several consistent reports made by the resident which led to his complaint in 2024. Therefore, we believe it would be unfair to exclude these events.

Repairs to the roof of the house.

The landlord’s tenancy agreement states it is responsible to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the roof, gutters, pipes and the chimney. The landlord also has these repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
A work order was raised on 18 November 2022. This was following a repair request made by the resident on the previous day. The resident had reported a leak coming from the roof and that the chimney cowl had fallen down. It was unclear from the evidence when the contractor initially attended. A return appointment took place on 24 November 2022. At this appointment a chimney cowl was installed. This was an appropriate response and the landlord carried out the repair request in line with the timescales in its repairs handbook.
At the appointment on 24 November 2022, the contractor also found other parts of the chimney were in “a bad way”. It said further work was needed. The contractor advised the landlord that scaffolding needed to be put up and the chimney removed. However, this work was not carried out until 14 April 2025. It was not clear from the evidence why there was such a delay in carrying out this repair.
From December 2022 until his escalation email on 4 March 2025 the resident regularly chased the landlord and contractor about the chimney work. The resident should not have needed to do this. The repair should have been monitored by the landlord to ensure the contractor was taking the appropriate follow-up action in a timely manner.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on repairs states if a landlord contracts out its repairs service, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. The landlord did not have adequate oversight of its contractors.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that its contractors had not attended and had not made contact as they should have. It took the resident escalating the complaint for the landlord to identify this.
To carry out the work on the chimney, scaffolding needed to be put up. However, the scaffolding was not put up until over 6 months after the repair was identified and the contractor had told the landlord scaffolding was needed. The scaffolding was put up in June 2023.
The landlord did not provide an explanation in its complaint responses as to why there was a delay in putting up the scaffolding. The resident advised the landlord that he had been told the delay was caused because the contractor had not received authorisation from the landlord.
As the landlord did not carry out the repair to the chimney until 14 April 2025, the property had scaffolding up from June 2023 until May 2025. This was an unreasonable length of time for the scaffolding to be in place. The landlord did not acknowledge this in any of its communications or complaint responses. It would have been appropriate to have addressed this as the resident mentioned it in his complaint.
The resident told the Ombudsman that the position of the scaffolding meant his wife was unable to access the patio due to her physical disabilities. As the scaffolding was in place for so long, the resident said his wife was unable to use the patio for nearly 2 years. The resident told the landlord about the access problems his wife was experiencing in his stage 1 complaint.
The resident also told the Ombudsman that for nearly 2 years the household had been unable to open the upstairs windows. This was due to the scaffolding causing an obstruction. The evidence did not show that the resident had told the landlord about this problem.
A contractor attended the property on 15 June 2023. This was because the resident had reported further problems on the roof with the soil pipe and guttering. The contractor said when the scaffolding was put up that these needed to be checked. A work order was raised for this on 19 June 2023.
The contractor attended on 14 August 2023. It was not clear why this appointment did not happen sooner as the scaffolding had been up for a while prior to this date.
The contractor noted further works on the roof were needed. It found there was a leak around the soil pipe. It repaired this during the visit. The notes said the contractor had removed and redressed a lead slate.
There was also a problem with the roof ridges causing a leak. The contractor said a new dry-fix system needed to be installed. The contractor also said 2 vent tiles needed to be fitted to the rear of the property.
However, the new dry-fix system and vent tiles were not installed until 14 April 2025. This was 423 working days later. This was an unreasonable length of time to wait for this repair to be carried out. This greatly exceeded the timescales in the repairs handbook. It was unclear why the landlord took this long to carry out the work. No explanation for this delay was given during the complaint process.
The contractor’s notes from the visit on 14 August 2023 told the landlord that the damp and mould caused by the leaks from the roof was “very bad”. The contractor said a new bathroom extractor fan was needed. The new extractor fan was fitted on 7 September 2023. The extractor fan was installed in line with the timescales in the repairs handbook.
The resident repeatedly told the landlord about the damp and mould problem that was caused by the leaks and outstanding repairs. The resident first reported mould on 8 March 2023. Then again on 12 May 2023. However, a work order for a mould wash was not raised until 22 August 2023. It was unclear from the evidence why there was a delay in treating the mould.
The delay in treating the mould and carrying out the works to address the root cause of the problem was not appropriate. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould states landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
A landlord internal email dated 29 August 2023 stated the importance of carrying out the repairs to the roof. It said the works were important to tackle the root cause of the mould. The landlord said the mould was affecting the toilet, bathroom and a bedroom.
Despite stating the importance of the repairs, the landlord did not act with urgency to complete the repairs to resolve the mould problem. It did not show a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould that the Ombudsman expects from landlords. The delays carrying out mould washes and the roof repairs left the household living with damp and mould for an extended period.
Mould washes were carried out on 6 September 2023 and 5 January 2024. As the roof repairs remained outstanding, the root cause of the mould was not fixed. Therefore, the resident continued to repeatedly report the mould had reappeared after these treatments.
In both its complaint responses the landlord stated it would get the roof repairs carried out and then carry out a mould wash and ceiling repairs. However, the resident told the Ombudsman that since its stage 2 response, the landlord had not carried out a mould wash or any ceiling repairs. This was not appropriate as the landlord should carry out the remedies it proposed in its complaint responses.
The evidence showed the resident repeatedly had to chase the landlord and contractor to get updates and to get the roof repairs progressed. Often, the resident would not get replies. The landlord acknowledged its poor communication in both its complaint responses. It noted the communication problems in its stage 1 response. However, it did not put things right as the communication problems continued. This contributed to the resident’s decision to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
From 8 March 2023 the resident repeatedly told the landlord that there were vulnerabilities in his household. The evidence showed the resident referenced this matter in 7 different emails to the landlord. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord did not appropriately consider the circumstances of the household.
The landlord offered the resident £451.98 compensation in its stage 2 response. It said this amount was the equivalent of 3 weeks’ rent. The landlord said the compensation was offered for inconvenience and delays. This level of compensation was not proportionate as this was the total amount offered to cover all the outstanding repairs in the resident’s complaint which are detailed in this report.
The resident did not receive this compensation. This was because he had not accepted the landlord’s offer as he did not think it was sufficient.
On 25 September 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman the work to the guttering and soil pipe remained outstanding. It was unclear from the evidence why the landlord and the resident had differing opinions on whether the soil pipe work had been carried out. The landlord recorded that this repair was carried out on 14 August 2023.
Inspecting the guttering was referenced on several work orders and a problem with the guttering on the right side of the property was identified. However, there appeared to be no work orders raised to repair this problem. This would explain why the resident said the guttering work was outstanding.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof of the house. This was because the chimney was not removed until 602 working days after the work was identified. The work on the ridges and vent tiles was not carried out until 423 working days after they were found to need repair.
Due to considerable delays in carrying out the repairs, the scaffolding was up at the property for nearly 2 years. The landlord did not acknowledge the problems this caused the household. It did not respond in a timely manner to the mould at the property. The landlord has also not carried out the mould wash it stated it would in its complaint responses.
To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof of the house, the landlord should award the resident £600 in compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
The landlord must carry out an inspection of the soil pipe and guttering to see if any work is outstanding. It must also carry out a damp and mould inspection. If work is identified in these inspections, the repairs must be carried out.

Renewal of the loft insulation.

On 6 December 2023 a work order was raised to upgrade the loft insulation to 270mm. It noted there was missing insulation in the loft above the bathroom. The contractor attended on 5 January 2024 which was within a reasonable timeframe for the nature of the work.
The contractor upgraded the insulation in the area where it was missing. However, the resident was under the impression that all the insulation was to be replaced due to mould spores all over. He contacted the landlord about this on the same day the appointment took place. The resident was also concerned that the new patch of insulation was just put on top of the old mouldy insulation.
The landlord agreed to renew the loft insulation. However, this was initially delayed as the contractor attending on 5 January 2024 noticed evidence of rats and wasps in the loft. The contractor advised the landlord that an “environmental clean” was needed. The resident also contacted the landlord about the pest problem on the same day.
Despite the pest problem being identified on 5 January 2024, a work order was not created for pest control work until 26 March 2024. This was 81 calendar days later. This was not a timely response which the matter required. It was not in line with the timescales in the repairs handbook.
Before the pest control work order was raised, the evidenced showed that the resident chased the landlord about the insulation work 5 times. He also repeatedly told the landlord about the pest problem.
It appeared that the pest control work order was only raised in response to the resident’s emails. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have ensured the relevant follow-on work was raised after the contractor’s visit on 5 January 2024. The resident should not have needed to repeatedly chase the landlord for the pest control work order to be raised.
The landlord told the resident it would raise a work order for the outstanding insulation after the pest control work had been carried out. It was unclear when the pest control visits took place. The evidence showed the required actions were completed by pest control before the end of April 2024.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 May 2024 to chase up the outstanding insulation work. He said it had been a few weeks since the pest control contractor’s last visit. The resident asked what date the insulation works would be carried out.
The landlord raised a work order for the insulation on 7 May 2024. Again, a work order was only raised because the resident chased the landlord. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have had oversight of the jobs. It should have coordinated any follow-on work without the resident needing to drive the repair’s progression.
Six identical work orders were raised for the insulation work between 7 May 2024 and the resident raising his complaint in December 2024. The resident listed in his complaint the dates that 5 appointments had been arranged for. He said all 5 times the contractor had failed to attend. This was unreasonable and unfair.
The resident said he had to use annual leave to be in for when the contractors were due to attend. He said repeated days off for missed appointments had affected how much time off he could have with his children during school holidays.
The resident repeatedly contacted the landlord when the contractor failed to turn up for appointments. However, this made no difference. The landlord did not contact the contractor about these repeated missed appointments until 7 October 2024. This was a missed opportunity to put things right.
The landlord should have contacted the contractor sooner about this matter. Despite the landlord’s contact, the contractor failed to attend again on 19 November 2024. The landlord did not have adequate oversight of its contractor. It did not hold it to account for the repeated missed appointments.
The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that the insulation work would be carried out during a 4-day period of work at the property. This was due to start on 14 April 2025. This work was logged which was created on the same date the stage 2 response was issued. However, the work order notes showed that “renew loft insulation” which was listed, was not carried out.
The operative’s notes listed what work had been carried out, but this did not include the insulation, despite this being part of the work order. Again, the landlord did not have appropriate oversight of its contractor and the work being carried out.
In both its complaint responses the landlord committed to carrying out the insulation renewal. However, on 25 September 2025 the resident told the Ombudsman that the insulation work was still outstanding. This was 352 working days after the landlord had raised the job when the pest control work was complete. This considerably exceeded the timescales in the landlord’s repairs handbook.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the renewal of the loft insulation. This is because the work has still not been completed despite the work order being raised on 7 May 2024. The landlord did not have adequate oversight of its contractor. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for the work orders to be raised. He also experienced 5 missed appointments.
To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the renewal of the loft insulation, the landlord should award the resident £400 in compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord must complete the renewal of the loft insulation.

Repairs to the shed roof

On 31 March 2023 a work order was raised because the resident reported the brick-built shed roof was leaking. An initial appointment was made for 3 April 2023. The resident asked to rearrange this appointment. A landlord cannot be responsible for any delay caused by a resident rescheduling an appointment.
A new appointment was made for 17 April 2023. At this appointment, the contractor identified that the shed shared a roof with the neighbouring property’s shed. This property was privately owned so there were no contact details for the neighbour. The work order notes said the contractor would contact the neighbour.
However, the neighbour was not written to until 29 August 2023. It was not clear why this was not carried out when the issue was originally identified. Writing to the neighbour on this date appeared to have been prompted by the relevant department being contacted by the complaints team about a historical complaint that the resident had made. The landlord or its contractor should have taken the appropriate follow-on action after the initial appointment. It should not have needed to be prompted about this matter 93 working days later.
Prior to raising his complaint, the resident chased the landlord about the outstanding repair to the shed roof. The resident’s emails were not successful in getting the repair progressed.
In its stage 1 response dated 3 January 2025, the landlord told the resident that a party wall agreement with the neighbour would be required to carry out the shed roof repair. It acknowledged that the resident had not been told about this matter. However, the landlord did not tell the resident how it intended to proceed. It did not state what had happened since 29 August 2023 when it had initially contacted the neighbour about the matter.
Despite not having a party wall agreement in place, the landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it would ask the contractor for the work to be carried out immediately. This statement did not appropriately manage the resident’s expectations.
In its stage 2 response the landlord made no reference to a party wall agreement. It said the work to the shed roof would take one day. The landlord stated this would be carried out during a 4-day period of work at the property which would start on 14 April 2025.
Landlords cannot be held responsible for any difficulties in getting the neighbour to sign a party wall agreement. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any records relating to any contact with the neighbour. Therefore, we are unable to establish if the landlord has taken the appropriate steps in regards to the party wall agreement, or whether the landlord has chased this matter up or taken the appropriate steps, if the neighbour has not been responsive.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 25 September 2025 that the shed roof repair remained outstanding. He said he had not been kept updated about the matter.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the shed roof. This is because the repair remains outstanding since it was reported on 31 March 2023. This was 2 and a half years ago. The landlord took 93 working days to initially contact the neighbour about the matter. It said the repair would be carried out during April 2025, but it was not. The resident has not been kept updated.
To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the shed roof, the landlord should award the resident £100 in compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord must create an action plan to identify what steps it will take, and by when, to be able to complete this repair.

The resident’s complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 stages to its complaints process. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The Code explains that a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. Whenever a resident expresses dissatisfaction landlords must give them the choice to make a complaint. There were many occasions when the resident was expressing clear dissatisfaction but at no point did the landlord give him the choice to make a complaint.
In one of his many emails, the resident even said he was at a loss and asked what he should do now, apart from issuing proceedings. He was not advised about the complaint procedure. This was a missed opportunity.
On 25 November 2024 the resident sent an email expressing dissatisfaction to the complaints team and a surveyor. He stated repairs being outstanding for 2 years and failings caused stress and inconvenience. The resident did not receive a reply. This was inappropriate. He contacted the complaints team again on 16 December 2024 asking the landlord to acknowledge his “complaint”.
The landlord replied on 17 December 2024 stating the resident’s email was not an actual complaint. This was contrary to the Code as the resident had very clearly expressed dissatisfaction.
The landlord told the resident he needed to make a complaint via the council’s portal on the website. This is contrary to the Code which states landlords must make it easy for residents to complain by providing different channels to make a complaint.
The Code also states residents must be able to raise their complaints in any way and with any member of staff. The landlord told the resident that his email had not been seen as a complaint because it had also been sent to a surveyor. The landlord was clearly reluctant to take the complaint forward which was not in line with the sentiment of the Code.
Following the landlord’s direction, the resident completed the complaint form on the landlord’s website on 17 December 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 January 2025. This was 10 working days later, in line with the Code.
The resident experienced similar problems in escalating his complaint as he did in making it. On 4 February 2025 the resident contacted the landlord stating the deadline for being able to make a stage 2 complaint was near. He said he had not been contacted by the contractor. He was in the dark about the progress of the works and had not received a date for when the works were to begin. The resident did not receive a response. This was not appropriate or in line with the Code.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 27 February 2025. He said he had not received an acknowledgement that the complaint had been taken to stage 2. He said it was now 2 months since the stage 1 response, and the works were still outstanding.
The landlord replied on 28 February 2025. It said it had not received a formal request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. This was not reasonable. If there had been any uncertainty regarding the resident’s email of 4 February 2025, the landlord should have clarified this with him.
The landlord told the resident for his complaint to be escalated he needed to state which aspects of the stage 1 response he was not satisfied with. This was contrary to the Code which states residents are not required to explain their reasons for taking their complaint to stage 2. The Code says landlords are expected to make reasonable efforts to understand why a resident remains unhappy as part of its stage 2 response.
Following the landlord’s direction, the resident sent the landlord an email on 4 March 2025 stating why he was still dissatisfied. The landlord logged this as his escalation. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 April 2025. This was 21 working days after the landlord acknowledged his escalation. This was just outside the 20 working days stated in the Code.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because of the delays and difficulties the resident experienced in making and escalating his complaint. There were also missed opportunities to give the resident the choice to make a complaint.
To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord should award the resident £100 in compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of roof repairs to the house.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the renewal of the loft insulation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the shed roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord must pay the resident £1,200 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. The compensation is comprised of:
1. £600 in respect of roof repairs to the house.
2. £400 in respect of the renewal of the loft insulation.
3. £100 in respect of repairs to the shed roof.
4. £100 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to his rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to the Ombudsman.
The landlord must, within 4 weeks of this determination:
1. carry out an inspection of the soil pipe and guttering.
2. set out any works that need completing to us and the resident following the inspection.
3. undertake to completing the works in line with its repairs policy timescales.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must carry out a damp and mould inspection. It must provide a copy of the report to us and the resident. The report must explain what works it will complete and when it will complete them by. The landlord must provide the resident and us with confirmation it will complete any works and when it will complete them by.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must send the Ombudsman and the resident a copy of a post-inspection report which evidences that the renewal of the loft insulation has been completed.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must send the Ombudsman and the resident a copy of an action plan to identify the steps it will take, and by when, to be able to complete the shed roof repair.