London Borough of Camden Council (202437616)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202437616

Camden Council

30 June 2025

Amended 9 July 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 resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about roof leaks resulting in loss of electrics and damp and mould, the condition of his skylight, ivy growth and a loose gas pipe.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupied his flat under a long lease with the landlord. He had purchased the lease in 1993. It was a 2-bedroom flat situated in a Victorian property which had been converted into 2 flats. A tenant of the landlord occupied the flat on the basement and ground floor. The resident’s flat was on the first and second floors with his bedroom into the second floor, which was the converted roof space. The bedroom had a dormer window with a flat roof behind it. The transfer of the lease to the resident was registered with the Land Registry on 23 December 1993.
Under the lease, the landlord’s obligations are to:
1. Repair redecorate review amend, clean, repoint, paint …and colour the structure of the building in particular the roofs, the window frames, chimney stacks, gutters and rainwater and soil pipes, the gas pipes. This was subject to the resident paying service charges and ground rent.
The landlord’s records show that:
1. On 18 March 2023 the landlord identified “mild” mould.
2. On 12 July 2023 it raised a job to carry out a mould wash.
3. On 25 July 2023 the resident cancelled the job.
A transcript of resident’s calls to the landlord show:
1. On 11 December 2023 the resident reported roof leaks. The landlord offered an appointment with a roofer for 25 January 2024. The resident asked that a surveyor attends, given issues with damp and mould, and his windows. The call handler’s response was that the roofer should attend first. The resident explained they were separate issues. He felt this was a long wait for a dripping ceiling. The call handler said that was the earliest appointment.
2. On 19 December 2023, the resident reported overgrown ivy, a loose gas pipe, and roof leaks. The call handler wanted to send different operatives while the resident felt the property needed an inspection. He ended the call and said he would put the matter in writing. Internally, the landlord noted that the resident reported a gas pipe coming away from the wall. After the resident sent a photograph, the landlord offered an appointment for 22 December 2023 for the gas pipe but the gas engineer did not attend.
On 11 December 2023 the resident made a complaint as follows:
1. He had reported plants growing up the side of the building and blocking the gas flue/intake, but nothing happened.
2. He reported damp on the end of the terrace wall which was maybe caused by plants but “more likely” to be structural. The damp and mould team attended and a job was raised with a contractor. Nothing happened. The case had been closed with no action taken.
3. That day, he had reported a different leak (or “maybe” two). He was given an appointment for 25 January 2024. The landlord would not reopen the damp problem until the leak was fixed.
4. He reported that a roofer of the landlord refused to work on the roof because the sky light needed to be fixed first.
5. This amounted to 3 wasted appointment slots.
6. He asked if a building supervisor could look at the problems. He also suggested he carry out repairs himself but the call handler ended the call.
According to its repair logs and internal emails, the landlord carried out a site visit on 9 January 2024 and a damp and mould inspection on 17 January 2024. On 30 January 2024, it inspected the windows.
On 17 January 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord as a formal “notice” as follows:
1. He considered that an external redecoration carried out many years previously had not been fully completed.
2. The existing capping tiles were too small, cracked, and porous and without overhang. Two broken roof tiles and chimney stack bricks needed to be replaced. Mortar had cracked and fallen off. Repointing in several areas was required.
3. Ivy was growing up the end terrace wall, damaging the pointing and brickwork. This may be contributing to the dampness mentioned above, but the damp problems predated this. The ivy had pulled the main gas supply line feeding the flat below which was a risk.
4. The flat roof had “failed” on the west side but was temporarily repaired and was leaking on the east side.
5. He had a leak in the kitchen ceiling due to the condition of the roof.
6. A wooden roof light (or skylight) had not been painted and had rotted away. It was affecting the ventilation to his WC. Water was dripping from it.
7. The front and rear gardens were “a mess” with junk wood and metal.
8. He would have to redecorate due to the resulting leaks causing mould.
9. He had paid for the outstanding repairs.
10. He had reported these issues a number of times.
11. He referred to 3 previous complaints, of which two had been mishandled and one upheld.
12. The issues had caused him mental health issues and financial difficulty. He used a CPAP machine at night to alleviate breathing difficulties, so not being able to heat his flat, and the dampness and mould growing on his bedroom wall was “not helping”. The situation was impacting him financially due to the loss of value of the property for a number of reasons.
13. He wanted a schedule of works by specified date.
On 18 January 2024 the landlord provided its Stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint of 11 December 2023 as follows:
1. It upheld the complaint and “awarded” £50 for the inconvenience caused.
2. The resident had reported leaks in February 2022. A roofer was due to attend on 15 February 2022. Due to the rain, the roofer was unable to carry out a full assessment or repairs; however, he cleared the roof area to the dormer.
3. On 17 February 2022, repairs to the roof were carried out to the edges, flashings and lead work. It had noted that the skylight required a repair or replacement. The roofer recommended a carpenter attend, which was booked for 29 March 2022. The carpenter was asked to look at the storm-proof casement window in the bedroom and subsequently ordered a replacement. The skylight was noted to have been screwed shut by the roofers. The carpenter was to return on 12 May 2022. This did not go ahead because the joinery/window was not ready at that time.
4. In the meantime, the resident reported a recurrence of the roof leaking, and a roofer was assigned to attend on 11 March 2022. The dormer was repaired during the visit, but the leak continued. On 14 March 2022, an appointment was arranged for 1 April 2022. The dormer was due to be replaced on 12 May 2022 so they would wait for the work to be carried out.
5. The landlord appointed a sub-contractor (“Contractor A”)to address the leaks. They installed a storm-proof window on 28 June 2022 and fitted a hardwood pelmet to the skylight. Contractor A assessed the roof but failed to submit their recommendations.
6. “Around” mid-December 2023, the resident reported further leaks from the roof and an appointment was arranged for 25 January 2024. On 5 January 2024, it spoke to the resident. It arranged an appointment for a property inspection, which took place on 9 January 2024. From the front elevation and internally, the repairs manager identified areas of the roof that required attention along with the consequential internal damage to his home. The major repairs team would progress the works through to completion. The repairs manager had noted that further works and those “observed” by Contractor A were required. This could result in further deterioration.
7. An additional assessment, including the damp the resident was experiencing, would be needed, and, possibly, a final validation would be required once the scaffolding has been put up. The works would likely require a section 20 leasehold consultation. The work would be managed by the major repairs manager. (“PM”).
8. It had reviewed the transcript with the repairs service and confirmed that the chat ended when the resident asked whether he could carry out the work to effect the repairs. This was likely to have been “a mistake”, as this question was posed at the end. The resident was not entitled to carry out the works in accordance with the terms of his lease.
On 6 August 2024, the resident made a further complaint as follows:
1. The repair issues arose from works carried out 8 years previously. The issues included:
  1. Damp end of the terrace.
  2. Ivy on the neighbouring property which had caused damage.
  3. Leak in the kitchen ceiling.
  4. The rotted “roof light”. It was the ventilation to his WC. Water was also dripping from it.
  5. Mess in the garden.
  6. He had made previous complaints regarding the exterior painting, damp and roof light. (this is understood to be a skylight).
  7. He had rainwater running from his kitchen ceiling and 2 other locations. There was structural dampness in 5 unrelated locations.
  8. He had no lighting in the kitchen, hall, WC, and study. The fire and heat alarms were not working.
  9. Water was running down a wall, tiles had fallen off and guttering. There were leaks in a dormer due to “mistakes”. A membrane did not overlap the edges. The contractors had cracked a tile. The sealing or patchwork had not resolved the issues.
  10. The contractor was seeking a replacement tile but this would not resolve the damp.
  11. The landlord’s contractors did “very little”.
2. He set out what he considered to be the solution.
3. He had to redecorate due to the damp, leaks and mould.
4. The situation had impacted his mental and physical health. It had incurred him in costs and had impacted the value of the property.
5. If the landlord did not carry out the works, he would do so himself.
6. He requested a plan and for a manager to inspect the property.
On 7 August 2024, the landlord wrote that the internal works would be carried out at a later date. The brickwork on the chimney was still sealed so no repair was warranted. The brick had not been removed. It was adapted when the TV aerial was installed so it was not raised as a leak concern but again once the works were complete, it would inspect.
On 13 August 2024, the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response as follows:
1. A contractor (“Contractor B”) had carried out the necessary roof repairs. The work was nearly complete, except for the ridge tile, which was currently out of stock and should be available within the next few days. The repairs being undertaken were specifically focused on addressing the roof leak.
2. On 8 August 2024, the landlord had sent an email detailing the specifications provided by the roofers, which included repairs to both the flat roof and the Velux window.
3. It had not identified any issues regarding missing chimney bricks. The brick had been reshaped to accommodate the strapping rather than removed. The PM would “personally” inspect the chimney and ensure that any necessary repairs were carried out.
4. The PM was “confident” the dampness on the ivy wall would gradually dry out after its removal. No damage had been reported to the brickwork or pointing on that side of the building.
5. The responsibility for the dampness of the stairwell was the resident’s responsibility. It referred the resident to his insurance.
6. The PM was to inspect the ongoing leak the following week.
7. Leaseholders were liable to pay towards the repairs and maintenance costs to their block/estate.
8. It was his neighbour’s responsibility to address scrap wood and metal in their garden.
9. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience the situation had caused. It was committed to resolving these issues promptly and efficiently.
10. It did not uphold the complaint, as there was no evidence of service failure. Its contractors was currently addressing the roof repairs. The PM would contact the resident the following week to assess the damage to your property.
On 26 August 2024, the resident asked to escalate his complaint and stated as follows:
1. His complaint referred to his letter of 17 January 2024 and had not been addressed.
2. He had noted a copy of contractor B’s works order and that the ridge tile had been replaced.
3. The landlord had disconnected the kitchen light fitting which had “broken” the whole circuit. This had affected his lights and fire and heat sensors. They could not be reconnected due to the waterlogged light fitting.
4. The skylight had been sealed shut and was leaking.
5. The stairwell and north east corner of the bedroom were damp.
6. Bricks had been removed from the end terrace wall.
7. The guttering was dislodged when the landlord removed the ivy.
8. There was a damaged gas pipe.
9. He made various suggestions on the landlord’s approach.
10. He was unable to live in the property or rent or sell it.
On 9 October 2024, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. It apologised for the late response.
2. It agreed that charges should be limited to £250 as a Section 20 statutory consultation had not been carried out. This was because of insufficient communication between the Repairs Service and Leaseholder Services. It apologised that he was not consulted and acknowledged the stress and uncertainty this had caused.
3. The PM confirmed he visited the property on a number of occasions. There was no need for another manager to attend the property.
4. The landlord had responded to the ongoing issues although “things could have progressed more quickly”. It apologised. Some of the delays were caused by difficulty sourcing materials and accessing a neighbouring flat.
5. It did not uphold this aspect of his complaint. There were outstanding issues. It was unable to give further updates. The PM was updating him.
6. The repairs to the roof were being finalised.
7. It was unable to give “cast iron guarantees” about dates when works would be finalised or about future works. This is because there were a number of variables that can affect timescales and the its ability to carry out works.
8. The resident and not the landlord was responsible for the dampness on the ceiling of the (internal) stairwell. However, he could make an insurance claim.
9. It was unable to find a record of poor quality external decorations from eight years ago.
10. His notice had been passed on to the relevant services, repairs and the legal team. It had not been able to adhere to the timescales. However, the landlord had been working to resolve the issues. He would be able to decorate once the leaks had stopped and the dampness dried out. It was sorry to hear his health had suffered as a result of the damp and mould. It hoped the damp and mould issues would be resolved after the necessary repairs were completed.
11. The Council Tax team would inspect the property as to whether it was uninhabitable.
12. It had taken into account the amount of time and effort, and inconvenience he had been caused trying to resolve the ongoing issues and the stress caused by the uncertainty around delays and rechargeable costs. It had also considered the inconvenience while works were being carried out.
13. It offered £300 compensation. This consisted of £100 for his time and effort and £200 for his stress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

The resident reported his health and well-being were affected by the issues raised in this complaint. Whilst we have noted this as context, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident
The resident attributed the repair issues to external works not having been carried out property 10 years previously. We are unable to investigate so far back. We would expect residents to raise complaints within a reasonable period, usually 12 months. There may be difficulty with records going so far back. Moreover, there may have been a number of intervening factors in that period.
The complaint response of January 2024 showed the issues the resident’s complaint was about had arisen in 2022. There is a clear connection between the reports he made in 2022, his complaint of 11 December 2023, his letter of 17 January 2024 and his complaint of 6 August 2024. In his request to escalate the later complaint, he stated that the complaint related to his letter of 17 January 2024. In the circumstances, we consider it would be fair to investigate the history of this complaint from February 2022.
We have considered events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints process, where they are closely linked to the complaint. That is because it would be good practice and in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code for the landlord to monitor that the resident’s complaint reached a resolution including monitoring the actions by the landlord. Our complaint handling code states that “any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion”. The landlord stated at the end of the Stage 2 that the repairs were nearly completed. We have therefore considered the further relevant events.

The complaint about roof leaks resulting in loss of electrics and damp and mould, the condition of his skylight, ivy growth and a loose gas pipe.

Although works were raised in early 2022, there was no evidence of all the works having been carried out. According to the complaint response of 18 January 2024, the landlord carried out a temporary repair to the skylight in early 2022. This repair proved to be an obstruction to the roof repairs in 2024, as well as impacting on the ventilation in the resident’s toilet. The dormer window was replaced with a delay of 3 months. If this was the same as the bedroom window, the works were unsatisfactory as the resident reported a gap.
Contractor A produced repair recommendations and a cost estimate on 19 June 2023. There is no evidence those works were carried out. It was unreasonable that the landlord’s explanation was it had not received the contractors’ recommendations. The evidence indicates that the issues raised in 2022 and in the contractor’s estimate of 19 June 2023 were the same. In January 2024, the landlord having attended, the issues identified were virtually the same and had not progressed. The Stage 1 complaint response noted the works “observed” by Contractor A were outstanding.
Contractor A’s estimate of 19 June 2023 was as follows:
1. Carry out repairs to chimney stack pointing “etc..”
2. Change broken slates and lead work if needed.
3. Coat the render to make it watertight.
4. Remove ivy that was growing onto the roof.
5. The estimate also referred to:
  1. garden debris.
  2. renew hanging slate.
  3. render wall.
  4. renew flashing.
A report of the site visit of 9 January 2024 and subsequent emails showed as follows:
1. Poor lead work.
2. A leaking roof.
3. Loose and missing ridge tiles
4. Incorrect overlap to slate tiles.
5. Skylight was not painted and now rotten and leaking and was not repaired or replaced as part of the works. A carpenter has put pieces of wood over it as a safe measure but, areas of the roof nearby are also leaking which, the roofers cannot get to because of the wood surrounding the skylight. The skylight needed replacing before roof works can be carried out.
6. Damp across the end of terrace.
7. Plant growing up the side of the property from another property and blocking flue terminals of the flats.
8. Flat roof above dormer window leaking in 3 places and affecting the kitchen ceiling.
9. Putty falling out of windows “etc..”
10. Broken roof tiles.
11. According to an internal email of 18 January 2024, previous works had not been completed.
This showed the landlord had failed to follow up its inspections and jobs raised. It did not post-inspect works at the time. It did not ensure that the contractor provided its recommendations in a timely manner. When the contractor did provide these in June 2023, the works were not carried out, either to completion or at all. The landlord had failed to monitor the situation. This was unreasonable and inappropriate given the landlord’s obligations under the lease.
We noted the resident’s conversations with the various teams of the landlord. In December 2023, the resident tried to explain through the webchat that these were multiple issues that had been raised before, that the damp in the property was not connected to the roof issue but the call handler was insistent the roof would need to be inspected first. Once the resident made a complaint, the landlord cancelled the inspection of 25 January 2024 and attended to the issue sooner on 9 January 2024. While this was reasonable, it should not have required the resident to make a complaint. We appreciate that call handlers will not be experts in the various sectors they have to deal with and they are following a process. However, this was frustrating for the resident.
In March 2024, when the resident chased up the ivy clearance, the leasehold team referred the resident to the grounds maintenance team, which in the meantime had said it could not assist. This was also frustrating for the resident. The leasehold team did however refer the case to other relevant teams and offered to follow this up, if required.
The landlord acted reasonably in not only attending on 9 January 2024 but also considering and re-raising works as follows:
1. After the site visit of 9 January 2024, there followed an internal email discussion about whether to carry out a section 20 consultation before carrying out the works or treat the works as urgent. It decided not to wait for a consultation under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. (“section 20 consultation”).This meant the process would be expedited which was reasonable. The internal emails indicated this was out of concern that the complaint would be escalated to our service. We are concerned if landlord treat residents who have made complaints and escalate to our Service, or who issue legal claims than those who do not. All residents should be treated fairly.
2. On 25 January 2024, it instructed another contractor to remove ivy from coping stones and apply tape to the broken coping stones. This appeared to have been a temporary repair.
3. On 7 February 2024 a works order was raised with Contractor B to replace the skylight, carry out works to damp end of terrace, the ivy, window leaks, and missing roof tiles. This was in accordance with internal emails of January 2025.
4. On 8 March 2024 Contractor B provided a quote to the landlord. On 10 March 2024, the landlord approved the works. We have not seen this quotation but from the resident’s email of 27 October 2024, our understanding is that the landlord sent the resident the works order of 7 February 2024. On 11 March 2024, the landlord instructed Contractor B to erect scaffolding for investigation work.
5. On or around 11 April 2024 contractors removed some of the ivy, unblocking air bricks. They was unable to remove all the ivy as it was on a neighbour’s property and the landlord required their cooperation.
6. By 16 April 2024 scaffolding was in place and on 23 April 2024, Contractor B was seeking access from the downstairs flat to carry out an investigation.
7. On 11 May 2024, the resident reported the ivy had been removed. He had also contacted the neighbour. The landlord had secured the necessary permissions and arranged to remove the ivy from the neighbour’s property.
8. Contractor B sent a quote for works, it having completed “enabling” works.
9. According to an email exchange between the landlord and contractor from 31 July 2024 to 15 August 2024, works were completed except for 2 replacing tiles which were collected on 15 August 2024.
However, in the meantime, there were further delays.
1. According to a transcript of the resident’s calls to the landlord, a contractor did not attend on 19 March 2024.
2. The ivy was not removed until May 2024. The landlord explained to the resident on 27 March 2024 that the landlord had to “jump through hoops” and there had been issues with access. We appreciate the complexities given the ivy was growing from a neighbouring property. However, the job had been raised in January 2024. This was unreasonable length of time, even given the obstacles
3. According to email exchanges between the landlord and contractor on 23 April 2024 and from 6 June to 30 July 2024, the landlord had access issues with the flat below. During that period, Contractor B caried out preparatory works. Finally, the neighbour gave access at the end of July 2024.
4. On 18 September 2024, the repairs to the flat roof and window had been authorised and Contractor B was to install a new Velux window. The resident continued to report leaks into his property. According to an email from the landlord to the resident, the skylight window would be delivered on 17 October 2024 and installation was arranged for 21 October. However, according to the resident, the contractor had attended with the wrong size window. It carried out a temporary repair. We have not seen evidence to support or contradict the resident’s report. Either way, the skylight was not replaced till December 2024/January 2025 when, according to the resident the “skylight was finished”. While there had been further difficulty with getting access to the downstairs neighbour’s property, this did not explain the delay of a year from January 2024. The delay was unreasonable.
5. The resident expressed concerns throughout about the condition of the front and back chimney stacks. On 9 January 2025 the PM wrote to another contractor (“Contractor C”) that there seemed to be bricks missing from the front chimney stack. Contractor C carried out works later in January 2025. These included repointing the chimney, replacing damaged slate, and cleaning rainwater goods. This was a further significant delay to a report the resident had made a number of times but had been told was not an issue.
In February 2025, the resident reported water ingress. It was reasonable that the landlord arranged a leak detection test by Contractor A. This took place on 17 March 2025
The landlord’s evidence as follows indicated that works had been carried out:
1. The report of the leak inspection 17 March 2025 stated:
  1. There were no water pipes within the area at all. There was staining from a roof leak which it considered to be historical.
  2. There was some mould forming on the wall(but did not specify which wall) which it attributed to there not being enough ventilation. It suggested cleaning the airbrick and checking the window trickle vents, installing a dehumidifier and decorating.
  3. Water was coming from underneath the window in the hallway. There was historic staining under a window from water ingress. It suggested stain block and decoration. The window itself was “watertight”.
2. On 27 March 2025, Contractor B wrote that “all works have been carried out fully and (the roof) was watertight”. The works had included, according to an email and invoice dated 3 March 2025, the following:
  1. Rebedded parapet wall ridge tiles and replaced 2 broken.
  2. Re-rendered parapet wall.
  3. Renewed soakers and renewed flashing to the parapet wall.
  4. Liquid coated the flat roof
  5. Fitted new Georgian glazed window to the existing upstand.
  6. The soakers were “fine”.
  7. Fitted a lead piece where a cut slate letting water in.
  8. Applied mastic under the sill on the dormer window to rear elevation.
On 17 June 2025 the landlord told us that windows were to be reviewed for potential replacement the following year. In the meantime, it had arranged for another contractor to repair the resident’s rear window as a “goodwill gesture to help alleviate concerns”. This repair falls under the landlord’s obligation. It is therefore not clear what it meant by a “goodwill gesture”. We will make an order that it follows through this promise.
The Stage 2 explanation for the lack of a section 20 consultation was a lack of internal communication. This was honest but also showed a lack of internal coordination. The effect was that the resident was not charged for the works beyond a limit of £250. This benefitted the resident as it was a significant costs saving. At the same time, the resident complaint was that he was not consulted what works would be carried out. The principal purpose of a Section 20 consultation is that a landlord obtains estimates and agreements as to choice of contractor and expenditure and to ensure the works and costs are reasonable.
However, while the resident would not have been entitled to input on to how the works were carried out, except to make initial observations, it meant he did not have a schedule of works. This was frustrating for the resident and meant that he did not know what to expect.
According to the landlord’s Stage 1 response, it sent the resident Contractor B’s specification of works on 8 August 2024. It is not clear what specification this referred to. However this would have addressed at least partially, but belatedly, the resident’s request for information. Nevertheless, it was frustrating for the resident that he did not have enough information about what steps were being taken. This was unreasonable.
The landlord had stated that it could not give “case iron guarantees” due to the uncertainties that works can result in. However, the landlord could have set out the works it planned to undertake with an estimated timescale. This would have given the resident some clarity and also reassurance what works were being carried out.
In terms of impact on the resident, we note that he told us the following:
1. He was unable to live in the property because of his health and he was unable to rent it out or sell because of its condition. We note that although the resident reported he lived away from the property because of its condition, while he was not there he did not undergo the direct impact of the damp and mould. We cannot make decisions about financial losses. This is because it involves issues of negligence which is a legal concept. We do not make findings in law. This would be for a court to assess and decide. However, we can consider the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
2. The leaks affected his electrics including the fire and heat detection. This caused him distress and inconvenience.
3. He was unable to use his boiler as he was concerned the flue was blocked by the ivy. He did not have heating or hot water for 8 months. He did not turn it on or call a plumber because he felt the system would be condemned. The landlord arranged to remove the ivy where it had permission to and liaised with the relevant house owner who ivy it was. There had, however, been delay doing so. Given the resident turned the system off and did not call a plumber, we are unable to make a finding that the issue caused the loss of hot water and heating. However, we recognise that the delay in cutting the ivy impacted the resident by causing him distress and inconvenience and worry about the safety of the system.
We find there was an unreasonable delay from February 2022 to January 2024 in carrying out the works raised in 2022. There were further delays to the works being carried out in 2024 and early 2025. The delays were only partially explained by the landlord. We cannot make a definitive finding as to whether there is a causal link between the roof leaks and the damp and mould. It was not disputed that the landlord offered a mould wash and the resident cancelled it, thinking it better to wait for the leaks to be resolved. However, the leaks and the poor condition of the skylight and windows, as well as the delays and lack of information, caused the resident frustration, significant inconvenience, as well as concerns about his health. The landlord did not show sufficient regard for the impact on his health. We therefore find maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
We do not find that the landlord sufficiently recognised the impact on the resident. The compensation offered totalling £350 was not proportionate to the delays and lack of communication or the resident’s time, distress and inconvenience. Furthermore, we consider it fair to consider compensation from the time the issues arose in February 2022. The evidence showed that there was a continuous line of events starting from February 2022. The landlord should have taken the resident’s complaint of December 2023 and letter of 17 January 2024 into account of the landlord’s complaint process and undertaken a review once the works were, in the landlord’s view, completed. We will therefore make an order for further compensation.

Next steps

On 13, 16 and 19 June 2025 the resident told us that while there was only one active leak, he had several concerns which, we understand, he has raised with the landlord, including on 27 May 2025.
The issues raised indicate that the leaks may not be resolved. In the circumstances, we will make an order for inspection and recommendations. Those issues include that new leak had developed in his kitchen and a ceiling corner was damp. He also raised issues he thought had not been addressed by the works which included a broken roof tile, ridge tiles having little or no overhang and the skylight not painted and was therefore unprotected.
The cause of damp in his stairwell was disputed. However, we did not see evidence that the landlord had inspected it in order to assess the cause of dampness. We will therefore make an order in this regard.
There is a gap in his bedroom window which is currently “sealed” by a plastic bag. We understand that the landlord has agreed to repair the window, if the same window. We will make an order as we would expect the landlord to follow through its assurances.
The landlord did not address the following issues in its complaint responses. This was unreasonable.
1. The gas pipe remains unsecured. The gas pipe did not directly impact the resident but he expressed safety concerns. We will make an orders accordingly.
2. The fire and heat detections systems were not functioning but have been “partially solved”. There is no mains power to the kitchen. It is likely these were affected by the leaks. In the circumstances we will make an order that the electrics are assessed.
We will also make orders and recommendation about the following:
1. The landlord had stated that it would consider the internal condition of the property once the repairs had been carried out. We did not see evidence that the landlord followed this up. This was unreasonable.
2. While it stated that the mess in the garden was the neighbour’s responsibility, it did not evidence whether it considered taking steps in relation to its tenant of the downstairs property.
3. Following the works Contractor C carried out in January 2025, it made the following recommendations:
  1. The windows on the roof were in poor condition and required cleaning and painting.
  2. The vegetation had likely contributed to moisture retention and minor structural damage.
  3. It recommended inspecting the section of the chimney for signs of continued leaks, especially during heavy rainfall. If issues persisted, to assess the chimney ventilation system for defects This was reported by the resident in 2022 and were subject to the estimate of June 2023.
Given the works have been completed, we understand the resident no longer has an effective point of contact. On 3 March 2025, the PM told the resident major works were no longer involved and he was handing over to another team. On 5 June 2025, leasehold services told him to contact the major works team or the PM directly. The resident has told us he has tried to contact the PM but the PM has not responded. We therefore consider it fair and reasonable that the landlord provides a specific point of contact. Given his experience in December 2023, it would be unreasonable for him to have to start again by raising reports with the call centre. We will therefore make an order that he has a specific point of contact in relation in relation to our orders and recommendations.

The landlord’s complaint handling

This investigation has highlighted a number of issues that were not addressed in his complaint response. In his complaint escalation request, the resident asked the landlord to repeat verbatim the points he raised in the hope of avoiding this. While the landlord summarised his complaint, it did not address all points in the Stage 2 response, including the electrics and gas pipe. Moreover, while the resident’s complaint was specific, the responses lacked detail. While we appreciate landlords cannot always provide strict timescales, the responses lacked a clear plan. It did not explain why it considered the damp in the stairwell to be the resident’s responsibility rather than due to the leaks. This was inappropriate. It did not provide a satisfactory resolution, in accordance with our dispute resolution principles: to be fair, puts things right, and learn from outcomes. According to the landlord’s complaint policy, the “high quality response” it aimed for would “resolve any issues and find a suitable outcome”.
Our Complaint Handling Code states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction. It was therefore unreasonable not to treat the resident’s letter of 17 January 2024 as part of the complaint process, particularly given the resident’s request to do so in his escalation request, to treat to as part of his complaint of 6 August 2024. The landlord missed an opportunity to address the resident’s complaint sooner or comprehensively. This also increased the frustration of the resident.
We are also not satisfied that the landlord learnt from this complaint as set out in both the landlord’s policy and our Complaint Handling Code. We consider that the landlord should have reviewed this complaint after the works were, in the view of the landlord, completed.
We therefore find maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about roof leaks resulting in loss of electrics and damp and mould, the condition of his skylight, ivy growth and a loose gas pipe.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should offer the resident a specific point of contact to deal with the following orders and recommendations and any further related and consequential steps.
2. Within 4 weeks of this report, it should also make a fresh offer of a mould wash.
3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £1,600 in addition to the £350 offered in the landlord’s responses of 18 January 2024 and October 2024 and consisting as follows:
  1. £1,000 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience for the period February 2022 to February 2025 consisting of £500 for the roof leaks, £300 for the ivy and £200 for the condition of this skylight while recognising that issues were addressed at different times.
  2. £400 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the repairs consisting of £100 per item of complaint, including the gas pipe.
  3. £200 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. Within 8 weeks, the landlord should replace the rear window as promised by the landlord.
5. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should arrange an inspection by its PM, repairs manager and Contractor B or suitable alternative of the following:
  1. The stairwell to assess whether the damage is internal or was caused by a leak.
  2. The ridge tiles having no overhang.
  3. Check any broken tile in the SE corner and slipped tile on the mezzanine roof.
  4. Whether the skylight has been painted and is therefore unprotected.
  5. The gap in his bedroom window which is currently “sealed” by a plastic bag, unless this is the rear window the landlord has stated it is replacing.
  6. Whether the gas pipe is safe. A gas engineer may be required.
  7. Whether the fire and heat detections systems and electrics are safe and functioning. A suitably qualified electrician is likely to be required for this.
  8. The recommendations Contractor C in January 2025 following the works they carried out.
  9. An inspection of the internal of the property.
6. Prior to the inspection, the landlord should obtain from the resident a list of his issues so that it understands his specific concerns.
7. Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord should write to the resident with its itemised account of its findings. Where, in its opinion, damage has been caused by the leaks, it should offer to rectify the damage, bearing in mind its assurance it would consider the interior of this property. Where there further works to the structure are required, it should provide a schedule of works with reasonable timescales, including a Section 20 consultation timetabled, if so required.
8. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord should review the findings in this report and set out learning points. In that review, the landlord is asked to consider the Ombudsman’s recent special investigation Camden special investigation report | Housing Ombudsman and report which focused on leasehold properties. Learning from Severe Maladministration and the learning landlords extracted from our findings. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with a copy of that review.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4, 6 and 8 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendation:
1. If the downstairs garden is still full of debris, the landlord should write to the neighbour downstairs requiring them to remove it.
The landlord is asked to feedback on this recommendation within 4 weeks.