Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

London Borough of Camden Council (202431629)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431629

London Borough of Camden Council

15 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that it repaint the property’s hallway following a roof leak.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, which is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. On 14 October 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to report a leak into her property from the roof. The landlord’s operative attended the property on 14 October 2024. It applied mastic to the lead flashing, unblocked the gutter, and sealed the overflow pipe to resolve the leak.
  3. On 18 October 2024, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said that she had contacted its repairs team to ask it to repaint areas of the property affected by the leak, but the landlord had refused due to decoration being the resident’s responsibility. The resident said that the operative that had fixed the leak had told her the reason for it was due to poor installation of the roof. The resident said that because the leak was the landlord’s fault, she believed it was responsible for redecorating the damaged areas.
  4. The landlord sent a response at stage 1 of its complaints process on 30 October 2024. It said that it had attended on the same day of the report and completed works to resolve the issue. The landlord confirmed it was not within its policy to carry out redecoration works following a leak. It advised that the resident could claim the cost of redecoration via her home contents insurance, or submit a damages claim to the landlord’s insurer. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience but did not uphold the complaint, as it had not found any service failure.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 30 October 2024. She disagreed with the landlord’s stage 1 response and repeated that it should repaint the damaged areas because the roof had been incorrectly installed. The landlord provided a final response at stage 2 of its complaints process on 19 November 2024. It said that as it had installed the roof in November 2021, it was not able to investigate concerns about the quality of workmanship from that time. It further reiterated its stage 1 response.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to us on 19 November 2024. She told us that she wanted the landlord to repaint the areas affected by the leak and to provide compensation for the length of time the decoration work had been outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that the roof leak was due to poor quality of workmanship when the roof had been initially installed in 2021. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine negligence, liability or compensation claims in the same way as the courts, or to order damages. Only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision. We also do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award redress for damage that should be covered by insurance. Our investigation will assess whether the landlord appropriately considered the matters raised, responded reasonably, applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation, and followed good practice.

Response to redecoration request

  1. The landlord’s Housing Repairs Service policy confirms its obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to maintain the structure of the building. This includes “roof repairs” and “clearance of rainwater goods where damage is being caused.” A roof repair is classed as “urgent” under the landlord’s policy and will be completed within 5 working days. The policy says that tenants are responsible for decoration, and the landlord will only decorate in “exceptional circumstances.”
  2. When the resident first reported the leak on 14 October 2024 the landlord offered an appointment on 4 November 2024, which was 3 weeks away. The landlord apologised that it could not attend sooner but said that as the leak was caused by rain, which would eventually stop, it would not be classed as an emergency. This advice does not reflect the landlord’s policy, which says that roof leaks are classed as urgent and will be attended within 5 working days. The resident should not have had to escalate her concerns to the Head of Repairs for the landlord to act in line with its published repairs timescales, but the landlord did respond appropriately by attending sooner (on the day of the report) to complete the repair.
  3. The landlord did not admit liability for damage caused by the leak, although it accepted that it was responsible for completing the repair. It said in its complaint response that it would not investigate the quality of the roof installation in 2021 via its complaints process. This was a reasonable response given the length of time that had passed. We would not expect a landlord to investigate matters that had occurred over 12 months before the complaint. Instead, we would expect the landlord’s complaint responses to focus on its actions after the leak was reported and whether there was anything it should do to put things right for the resident.
  4. There was no dispute that the leak was resolved in a timely manner. However, the resident disputed the landlord’s position it was her responsibility to repaint. The resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s policies did not impose an obligation to redecorate in all circumstances. The landlord correctly advised the resident that it was not responsible for internal redecoration. This was reasonable because there is no evidence that the resident indicated, or that the landlord was aware of, any exceptional circumstances that would mean it should have made an exception to its policy. The cause of the leak was not clear and as the landlord’s complaints process was not the right place to investigate liability, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to pursue an insurance claim, where liability would be considered by the insurer.
  5. In its complaint responses, the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to the relevant forms to make a liability claim, or to claim on its buildings insurance, via a link to its website. It also suggested that she could make a claim on her own home contents insurance, which was appropriate in the circumstances, as the leak was unforeseen and damage to decorations may be covered under her policy. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably and, by providing advice on how to contact its insurers, the resident was not left without a remedy to pursue compensation for the damaged decorations.
  6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it repaint the property’s hallway following the roof leak. It acted in line with its policy and procedure, provided the correct information about its repairs obligations, and appropriately advised on making a claim.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to repaint the hallway following a leak.