London Borough of Croydon (202504858)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the top floor of a block, which has 2 water tanks in the loft space. The leaseholder rents the property out and the local authority is the freeholder of the block. For this report, “the tenant” refers to the person(s) residing in the property, not the leaseholder himself.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak

6. The landlord acknowledged its failings however the compensation offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord delayed in sending both complaint responses. It could also have used its complaints process to put things right for the leaseholder at the earliest opportunity. This could have been done by raising and monitoring the roof repairs more effectively.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

What we have not considered

The leaseholder told us about the impact the condition of the property had on his tenants’ health. However, we cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions/lack of action may have contributed to or exacerbated any physical and/or mental health issues. These are legal aspects better suited to an insurance claim or court.

The leaseholder said he had been reporting a loft leak for over 2 years when he raised his formal complaint. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising. This is so the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and while the evidence is available to properly investigate. We can consider events from 7 February 2024 onwards (12 months prior to the formal complaint) to 8 August 2025, when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response.

8. The landlord’s repairs policy says:
   1. Leaseholders are responsible for repairs to all elements of the property which are demised to them under the terms of the lease agreement.
   2. Repair inspections will be attended within 10 working days.
   3. Major works will be attended to within a maximum of 90 working days.
9. The lease agreement says:
   1. The landlord shall:
      1. Keep in repair the structure and exterior of the [property] and the building in which it is situated.
      2. Make good any defect affecting the structure.
   2. The [leaseholder] must:
      1. Keep the interior of the [property] in good repair (including decorative repair).
      2. Shall pay to the landlord an annual service charge comprising any cost incurred by the landlord in carrying out any works of maintenance or repair. The service charge includes a cost for the landlord’s cost of management and the insurance of the property.
10. The communal repair records for the block show a roof inspection was raised in July 2024. However, this was prompted by contact from residents in another property in the block. There was no record of the leaseholder raising any issues with the property between 7 February 2024 and 7 January 2025.
11. After the leaseholder reported water running down the walls of the property on 7 January 2025, the landlord raised an inspection the same day, which was reasonable. The repair records suggest the landlord took some action on 13 January 2025, although it was unclear exactly what it did. It then requested a scaffolding quote the next day. The landlord noted a Section 20 (S20) notice was required as it was a leasehold property. It was unclear whether the S20 notice was issued, or whether the leaseholder was updated. This caused the leaseholder to chase on 17 January 2025, which caused inconvenience. The landlord updated the leaseholder and said its contractor was waiting for approval for scaffolding. This was in relation to a quote provided the previous day.
12. The leaseholder chased again on 31 January 2025, but it was unclear if the landlord provided an update. The lack of action or update prompted the formal complaint a week later. In response, the landlord raised another inspection, which was reasonable. However, this was not until 10 days after the complaint was raised, which was a delay. It noted the leak “isn’t due to gutters… could be a water tank… need to look in the loft.” This suggests the landlord had visited the block on 13 January 2025, although there was no record of this.
13. The landlord’s surveyor then visited on 24 February 2025, which was in line with its repairs policy timescale. This was a positive step to investigate the cause of the water running down the walls. However, the inspection could have been completed sooner had it been raised the day of the formal complaint. The landlord could also have considered inspecting the loft when it first visited the block on 13 January 2025. The surveyor’s report:
    1. Said:
       1. Repairs were required to the roof verges at the front of the block.
       2. There were consistent signs of mould and blown plaster directly below the roof verge at the front of the block.
       3. The loft space area was dry with some resting water. And there was a slight smell of mould.
       4. There were blocked gutters which could contribute to water ingress observed on the kitchen wall.
    2. Had a photograph showing water stains on a bedroom ceiling in the property.
    3. Had photographs showing water stains and mould on the kitchen ceiling of the property.
14. Following the inspection, there was no evidence the leaseholder was updated or any repairs were raised, which were failings. This caused the leaseholder to chase again on 5 March 2025. The evidence showed the landlord chased its surveyor who said:
    1. Scaffolding will be required “once rainwater is visible.”
    2. There were “no signs of water”, so it was unable to proceed with repairs at this stage.

The landlord updated the resident the same day, which was positive. However, the surveyor’s comments were confusing given the issues identified in his report. At the very least, repairs should have been raised for the roof verges and gutters. This was a significant failing, and not in line with the landlord’s obligations under the lease agreement.

15. The leaseholder chased again 2 days later and said it was the landlord’s responsibility to keep the gutters and roof in good repair. There was no evidence of a response until 17 March 2025, another 10 days later, which was a delay. The landlord’s email response was confusing. After the leaseholder chased clarity, the surveyor said:
    1. “Scaffolding would be erected once it received plans from its contractor” and it would be “reviewing this closely.” It was unclear from the records what happened with the scaffolding quote provided 2 months earlier, on 16 January 2025.
    2. He “did not find any leaks in the loft when he inspected the property.” However, the report said there was a smell of mould and he found some resting water. It would have been reasonable to conduct further investigation.

The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response the same day. The complaint response was another missed opportunity to raise repairs identified by the surveyor, and chase the scaffolding, which were failings.

16. The evidence showed the landlord’s contractor emailed the surveyor the next day. The contractor asked if the roofing repairs had been allocated and said a scaffolding plan was needed. The repair records showed roof verge and brickwork repairs were raised on 2 April 2025, just over 2 weeks later. However, this was now over 5 weeks after the surveyor’s visit, which was a delay. Further to this, the repairs raised did not include a scaffolding cost, which meant the landlord had to chase a variation for the work order the day the repairs were raised.
17. After no response, the landlord emailed its contractor again on 7 April 2025 to chase the cost variation to include scaffolding. After that, there was no evidence this was chased again for over a month. During this time, there was no evidence the leaseholder was updated. This led him to contact us on 7 May 2025 and escalate the complaint with the landlord to stage 2. The landlord said it would update the leaseholder in an email sent on 24 June 2025. However, there was no evidence it did so until 16 July 2025, over 3 weeks later. There was then no evidence of any update or further action until 29 July 2025 when the landlord chased its contractors for a scaffolding update, which was a further delay.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 response said the scaffolding had been erected but the date for works to be commenced would be confirmed. It was positive the leaseholder was updated. But given the delays and poor communication, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to use the stage 2 complaint response to say it would monitor the repairs. It failed to do so, which led to further delays after the stage 2 response. The evidence showed delays between the stage 2 response and 7 October 2025 in the landlord getting confirmation the scaffolding was safe to use. And another month delay before the landlord’s roofing contractor completed the repairs on 5 November 2025. This was 10 months after the resident had reported the issues, which was a significant delay.
19. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the reports of a leak was poor. As outlined in the lease the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the roof. The evidence showed the landlord:
    1. Delayed in completing the roof repairs. It:
       1. Could have completed a thorough inspection which included the loft space/water tanks sooner.
       2. Failed to raise repairs after the surveyor inspection and during the complaints process.
       3. Failed to monitor the repairs effectively. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the leaseholder) is ultimately responsible for the repairs, regardless of whether it outsources the work to contractors.
       4. Failed to consider whether remedial work was necessary at the property given the water damage caused by its failings to maintain the roof.
    2. Was poor in its communication with both the resident and its contractors.
20. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
21. Given the leaseholder does not live at the property, the distress and inconvenience caused directly to him is lessened. We have also considered the fact that available historic weather data for Croydon only shows 3 days of heavy rain between January and November 2025. But nevertheless, overall, the landlord’s handling of the leak has been poor. The compensation offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. There was therefore maladministration and orders have been made for the landlord to put things right. This includes a further £200 compensation, and an inspection where the landlord will confirm its position in relation to repairs required to the property due to its delays maintaining the roof.

22. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2 stage formal complaints process. This states that it will:
    1. acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days.
    2. respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
    3. respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
23. It also states that, if a complaint is likely to take longer to resolve it will set and agree a revised timescale of no more than 10 (or 20 in the case of stage 2) working days as an extension. It will also keep the resident up to date on its progress. This is broadly in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
24. It was unclear exactly when the landlord acknowledged the leaseholder’s stage 1 complaint. However, it wrote to the leaseholder on 21 February 2025 and said it had hoped to respond that day but required more time. It said it expected to respond by 7 March 2025. While this was in line with the Code, the stage 1 response was not issued until 17 March 2025, another 10 days later, which was a delay. However, it was positive the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered £50 compensation, which was reasonable.
25. It was also positive the landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation to stage 2 within policy timeframe. However, the landlord also delayed the stage 2 response and wrote and extended the timeframe twice on 16 July 2025 and 6 August 2025. It would have been reasonable for the landlord’s emails to provide a timeframe when the leaseholder could expect to receive a stage 2 response. However, they did not do so. Overall, the stage 2 complaint response took 2 months (47 working days) to send. This was outside of the landlord’s timeframe for a stage 2 response, and was a failing.
26. The Code says landlords can act if there has been a delay – and can follow any proposed remedy through to completion. The stage 2 complaint response was an opportunity for the landlord to take responsibility for the repairs and monitor them. However, it did not do so. Overall, the landlord’s compensation offer is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. There was therefore service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, and the landlord should pay an additional £100 compensation.

Learning

27. It was positive the landlord demonstrated how it had learnt from the complaint in its stage 1 response.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. Landlord’s should keep good records. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. Neither we, nor the landlord can properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records. The lack of detailed records mean that it has not been possible to fully understand what the landlord did or why at every stage of the reports of the leak. This has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation of this issue.

Communication

29. As mentioned in the report, the landlord’s communication with the leaseholder was poor with the leaseholder regularly chasing for updates. The lack of updates ultimately led to the formal complaint.