London Borough of Lambeth (202334817)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat located in a purpose-built block owned by the landlord. In 2023, her flat was damaged by a leak that she said resulted from the landlord’s failure to repair the block’s roof. She also asked the landlord to cover the insurance excess for her claim, explaining that leaks from the roof had been ongoing for several years.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Roof repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of roof repairs

4. The landlord took too long to investigate and resolve the roof leak and did not keep the resident updated. The delays and missed opportunities to act sooner, and the repeated chasing this caused, led us to find maladministration.

The handling of the complaint

5. The landlord issued its complaint responses late, did not keep the resident informed during delays, and missed her escalation request. It also failed to offer redress for the impact of these failings.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The landlord delayed acting in line with its obligation under the lease, which requires it to maintain and repair the roof of the block. Its records show the resident reported renewed leaks in June 2023, but it did not carry out an inspection until November 2023, around 5 months later. The landlord has not provided a policy setting out timescales for communal repairs, but its responsive repairs policy shows emergencies, such as issues that could cause serious health or safety problems or severe damage if not fixed quickly, should be attended to within 24 hours. Based on the resident’s reports of water entering her flat from the roof and damaging her kitchen, the landlord should have treated the repair as urgent and responded far sooner. Its delay in arranging an inspection was not appropriate and caused avoidable distress to the resident.
7. Delays also continued after its inspection. The landlord’s stage 2 response committed to erecting scaffolding to complete repairs to the roof; however, the evidence shows the resident had to chase for updates on 5 separate occasions into late December 2023. The landlord did not act on its commitment or update her, which was not acceptable. This meant the resident spent further time and trouble pursuing the matter while her property continued to deteriorate from water damage.
8. The landlord’s records show this was a longstanding issue, with reports of leaks from the roof recorded in 2021, 2022 and 2023. The evidence confirms the landlord completed major works to the roof in May 2025, which means the underlying issue has now been resolved. While this is a positive, this outcome followed almost 4 years in which the resident lived with repeated leaks from an unsecured roof. The length of time taken to reach a permanent solution caused significant inconvenience and prolonger disruption to the resident.
9. The lease makes the resident responsible for paying the insurance excess on any claim made under the building insurance policy. The resident asked the landlord to cover this because she had already paid an excess for earlier roof damage and had been assured the roof was repaired at the time. The landlord initially said she remained responsible for the excess. However, the evidence shows that in July 2024 it changed its position and confirmed it would reimburse her. This showed it recognised the ongoing nature of the issue and the inconvenience caused by the delays is repairing the roof. While this was a positive and appropriate step, it came after the resident had spent considerable time seeking clarity and after the leak had continued for an extended period.
10. When assessing how a landlord responds to concerns raised in a complaint, we apply the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of acting fairly, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly by accepting in its stage 2 response that the leaks were ongoing and that its service had not met the required standard. However, it did not go far enough to put things right. Reimbursing the insurance excess only addressed the cost of restorative work to return the resident’s home back to the standard it would have been in had the leaks not occurred.
11. We have seen no evidence that the landlord offered compensation for the distress, inconvenience and repeated time and trouble she experienced from June 2023 until her referral to this service. An award of £400 would have been reasonable to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings discussed in this investigation. This would have aligned with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which sets out our approach to resolving disputes. In circumstances where a landlord’s failings have adversely affected the resident, the guidance suggests awards from £100 to £600, to put things right. We have therefore made an order to put this right.
12. In addition, delays and poor communication continued after the stage 2 response, which showed the landlord did not learn from the outcome of the complaint.
13. Considering these factors, we have determined maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a roof leak.

14. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
    1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the Code’s timescales.
    2. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 47 working days after it was raised, which was significantly outside the Code’s target timescale of 10 working days for stage 1 complaints. The Code also requires landlords to agree suitable intervals with residents for keeping them informed when responses will fall outside these timescales. There is no evidence this occurred, so the landlord did not fully meet the Code’s expectations for communication during complaint delays.
    3. Although the landlord apologised for issuing its stage 1 response late, it did not offer any compensation for the time and trouble this may have caused. The Code requires landlords to acknowledge failings and provide redress where appropriate. The resident had already spent considerable time chasing updates about the leak, so compensation would have been reasonable in this circumstance. By not offering compensation, the landlord did not fully meet the Code’s requirements to take practical steps to remedy the impact of its complaint handling.
    4. The landlord also missed the resident’s request to escalate her complaint, which she made a few hours after receiving the stage 1 response on 10 October 2023. The code requires landlords to recognise escalation requests and progress them promptly. Instead, the landlord treated the resident’s further complaint on 3 November 2023 as her escalation request. This delayed the start of the stage 2 investigation and meant its response was not issued within 20 working days of the true escalation date. This was not in line with the Code’s requirements for timely and fair progression of complaints.
    5. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, as referenced above, a financial award of £200 would have been reasonable to reflect the time and trouble the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s delays and the missed escalation request. The landlord did not offer any compensation, so we have made an order to put this right.
15. In light of the observations above, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. The landlord’s repair records generally captured the full repair journey allowing us to conduct a thorough investigation. This level of detail supports transparency. However, the landlord now needs to use its repair records more proactively to track progress and help complete the repair journey more quickly.

Communication

17. The landlord responded to several of the resident’s chasers, but these responses often repeated assurances that it would provide further information without following through. This led the resident to chase for progress on multiple occasions. To improve communication, the landlord needs to ensure it provides clear updates and accurate information without being prompted, and that any commitments made in its responses are followed through promptly.