West Northamptonshire Council (202445059)

Decision
Case ID	202445059
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	West Northamptonshire Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	18 November 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house with her family.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s response to the reports of roof leaks and the associated remedial works.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of roof leaks and the associated remedial works.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the reports of roof leaks and the associated remedial works.

There was an excessive and unreasonable delay in the landlord carrying out any meaningful action to resolve the water ingress and the associated remedial works. The offer of the inspection by the surveyor should also have been considered at a much earlier stage given the repeated report of a roof leak. Despite upholding the resident’s complaint, it failed to offer compensation in line with its policy, which would have been appropriate considering the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.

The complaint handling

The landlord failed to escalate the complaint promptly when the resident remained dissatisfied, missed the stage 2 response timescale, and did not address or signpost the additional issues raised during escalation. It also failed to demonstrate that it carried out a thorough investigation into the roof leak concerns.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 16 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 made up as follows: £550 for its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated remedial works. £150 for its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 16 December 2025
3	Starting the works The landlord to provide a timebound action plan based on its recent inspection report. To provide a schedule of the work it will complete, when it will commence work and when it will complete it by. To provide the resident with a single, named point of contact for the above works.	No later than 16 December 2025

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord includes repair timeframes in relevant policies when they are next updated. In the meantime, it should consider publishing the timeframes within the repairs section of its website.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 July 2023	The resident reported a leak coming from the roof and affecting both the bedroom and bathroom.
23 May 2024	The resident raised a complaint with her landlord stating that her partner and son inspected the loft due to leaks. She said water damage led to her daughter’s bedroom ceiling collapsing, soaking the mattress and electric blanket. The loft and insulation were saturated, and the plaster was deteriorating. She stated previous repairs focused on ventilation, but the real issue was holes in the roof and felt. Repairs were incomplete, and leaks continued in the bedroom and bathroom. Emergency jobs were raised, and she was sent a liability claim form and contact details to submit photos.
31 May 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint stating that the resident would receive a complaint response by 6 June 2024.
3 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response, stating: It upheld the complaint based on evidence from its repair logs. It acknowledged that the number and timing of appointments were unacceptable and below its service standards. Following the roof inspection, it raised additional works. Scaffolding would be required and was to be organised. Once roof works were completed, it would arrange a visit to assess internal damage and raise any further repairs. It identified the need to monitor properties with roofing issues more closely, especially where there were long delays to completion.
28 November 2024	The resident informed her landlord that she had been waiting months for roof repairs. A contractor advised her that a new roof was needed. She contacted the landlord on 23 September 2024 but received no response. Her daughter’s new bed was leaked on again, and her point of contact was not replying. She said the situation was affecting her family and requested a same-day call.
20 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, stating: It had replaced broken tiles, re-pinned lifted felt, and installed 4 square metres of new felt following the resident’s report of a leaking roof. The resident reported that the repair was inadequate and the leak persisted. The landlord attended with its contractor to reassess the roof and plan next steps. It ordered works to renew all felt and battens, which would require scaffolding. It confirmed it would provide an update on when the works would begin. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the delays and frustration caused. It stated that it would contact the resident and oversee the works to completion.
7 February 2025 Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident escalated her complaint to this Service, stating that roof repairs had been ongoing for 6 to 7 years. She explained that she had emails, videos, and photographs showing the damage and leaks. Although the landlord visited the property on 21 January 2025, the resident reported that she had not received any further communication since that visit.
11 August 2025	The landlord carried out an inspection and produced a condition survey report. The report provided detailed findings regarding water penetration through the front elevation of the main roof, affecting a bedroom, hallway and the bathroom. On 20 October 2025, the resident informed this Service that the roof was still leaking and the associated remedial works remained outstanding.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the reports of roof leaks and the associated remedial works
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not looked at

Record shows the resident reported roof repair issues at the property far back as 2017. She raised a formal complaint in May 2024 and escalated it to this Service on 7 February 2025. Residents are expected to raise complaints with the landlord within 12 months of the issue arising and bring them to this Service within 12 months of the landlord’s final response. Given these factors, any events that occurred before July 2023 are out of scope of this report.

The landlord’s response to the reports of roof leaks and the associated remedial works

While the landlord did not provide its own repairs policy, under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, it was responsible for repairing and keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord raised a work order on 17 July 2023 for a roof leak affecting the bathroom and bedroom but provided no evidence of completed works. Although it later apologised in June 2024 for a missed August 2023 appointment, it was unclear if the repair remained outstanding, indicating poor record keeping.
On 23 May 2024, the resident reported a further roof leak that caused her bedroom ceiling to collapse and damaged belongings. The landlord attended within 24 hours, advised scaffolding was needed, and appropriately raised follow-on works on 3 June 2024.
Between June 2024 and July 2024, the landlord attended the property on several occasions to carry out roof repairs, including plastering works to the bedroom ceiling. However, the resident later reported that the issue persisted, contacting the landlord several times between July 2024 and November 2024 saying that the repairs had not resolved the leak. She explained that water continued to enter the property and her daughter was unable to sleep in her bedroom because of the ongoing problem.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 January 2025, it apologised for the issues the resident faced and for the level of frustration caused by the delays in resolving the matter. It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged these issues, as this demonstrated an understanding of the resident’s experience and an attempt to make things right.
The stage 2 response also stated that, following a reassessment with its contractor, it had ordered full felt and batten renewal and would oversee the works to completion.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, outlines that landlords should “Agree actions and timescales for responding in line with its obligations, and confirm these in writing. Inform the resident of any delays and explain why these are necessary.” It also recommends that landlord should “where complex or extensive work is required, acknowledge that there are outstanding repairs and explain what action will be taken and provide time scales, even if these are provisional.
While the landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged the resident’s concerns and confirmed that further works had been ordered, it did not provide any clear timescales for completion or explain the reasons for previous delays. This is a shortcoming on the landlord’s part.
The resident repeatedly told the landlord that her daughter was unable to stay in the bedroom due to the leak. However, whilst this Service does not doubt the resident’s account, there is no independent evidence to corroborate the residents claim. Therefore, it is not possible for this investigation to make a determination on this point.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was consistently poor. It did not provide the resident with reassurance that it was addressing the leak. Instead, the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates, which she should not have been expected to do. The lack of communication and ongoing uncertainty contributed to the resident’s distress during an already difficult time for her and her family. An order has been made in respect of this.
The landlord’s compensation policy recognise that financial redress may be appropriate where there has been a major avoidable delay in completing a repair and the resident has spent time and effort chasing progress.
There is no evidence the landlord considered awarding compensation during the complaints procedure. As it did not, we cannot conclude that it took appropriate steps to put things right. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance suggests that a payment of around £550 is a reasonable financial remedy for service failure of this nature.
Given the above reasons, we have found maladministration in its handling of the roof repair and the associated remedial works.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024).
The landlord had a published complaints policy at the time of the complaint which complied with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The resident raised her complaint on 23 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 31 May 2024, 5 working days later and provided its stage 1 response on 3 June 2024, the next working day. Therefore, the landlord acted in line with its complaint policy and the Code.
The resident reported ongoing concerns with the roof leak between June 2024 (after the stage 1 response) and September 2024. However, the landlord did not treat her dissatisfaction as an escalation request until 28 November 2024. In accordance with the Code, if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. Therefore, the landlord did not act in line with the Code.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 28 November 2024 and issued its stage 2 response on 20 January 2024, 34 working days later, which was outside the required timescale of 20 working days. Therefore, the landlord did not act in line with its policy or the Code.
In the resident’s escalation request, she again raised concerns that her daughter’s bedroom ceiling had leaked again and that she received no response to her email sent to the landlord on 23 September 2024.
In accordance with the Code, when residents raise additional complaints during an investigation and the stage 1 response has already been issued, any new issues that are unrelated to those being investigated, or would unreasonably delay the response, must be logged as a new complaint. While the landlord outlined these concerns in its stage 2 response, it failed to address them within that response. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord offered to raise a new complaint. Therefore, the landlord did not act in line with the Code.
In line with the Code, where something has gone wrong, a landlord must acknowledge this and set out actions to put things right, including providing a financial remedy. In this case, the landlord did not offer a financial remedy for the failings in its complaint handling.
Given the above reasons, we have found maladministration in its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

This Service would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of inspections, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail.

Communication

The landlord was not proactive in communicating with the resident. There were several instances where the resident emailed the landlord chasing updates.
On 5 June 2024, the landlord emailed the resident stating it had tried to call to discuss the roofing complaint and was sending an email before the complaint response arrived by letter. However, the response had already been emailed to the resident on 3 June 2024, showing poor coordination and inaccurate communication.
The landlord should ensure accurate record keeping and consistent communication to avoid confusion.