Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (202524398)

Decision
Case ID	202524398
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	10 March 2026

Background

The resident and her partner have a joint tenancy with the landlord. It began in late 2024. The family live at the property with their children. It is a 3-bedroom, end-of-terrace house. It has a flat roof. During the tenancy signup process, the resident noted a damp patch on the bathroom ceiling. At that time, she was working for the landlord in its housing section. Her complaint largely relates to leaks and damp that stemmed from the property’s roof.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition on letting.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition on letting.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to concerns about the property’s condition on letting

The landlord identified some delays and failures during its complaints process. It broadly took proportionate steps to address these. However, to date, there is no indication that it has addressed the resident’s related concerns about damaged flooring. It should have signposted her to its damage claims process. The evidence points to a related delay.

Complaint handling

The landlord departed from its policy and the Code at times. Its complaint handling adversely impacted the resident. There is no indication it has acknowledged this or attempted to put things right.

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 a relevant manager. 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 08 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her concerns about the property’s condition. £100 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by 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.	No later than 08 April 2026
3	Update order The landlord must update the resident about the measures it has taken to learn from her complaint. The update should reference the steps it took as part of its internal complaints process, and any recent steps. The landlord must share its update with us.	No later than 08 April 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If the resident has any questions about the landlord’s damage claims process, we recommend that it calls her to discuss these.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 May 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. In summary, she said that the house needed extensive works and these should have been completed before she moved in. She mentioned related disruption and a lack of communication from the landlord. The resident’s other key points were: She had reported a leak after she received the keys to the property. The landlord had completed a temporary repair. Subsequently, 3 further leaks had occurred. Her “newly laid” laminate flooring was damaged. The property needed a new roof. The landlord should provide an action plan for the works. It should also reduce her rent and provide compensation.
25 June 2025	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It accepted that its roof works were delayed. It said this was due to a change in the specification. It apologised and upheld the resident’s complaint. It said its contractor would contact her in due course. The landlord’s other key points were: It had assessed the property’s condition while it was empty. It had not identified any major repairs during this process. The resident could submit a written request for compensation. It would seek to improve its contractor’s communication.
8 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She referred to information that she had acquired about the property (presumably from colleagues at her workplace). For example, she said its previous tenant had raised a legal disrepair claim about the roof. The resident’s other key points were: The property was in disrepair, and she was unable to fully enjoy it. A squirrel had entered the defective roof. There were birds on the landlord’s scaffolding. The wildlife was noisy and adversely impacted the family’s sleep. There were seasonal issues relating to the existing metal roof. In warm weather, it made the property “extremely hot”. When it was cold, the roof had a “huge impact” on the family’s bills.
2 October 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said that delays to the roof works were unavoidable. It also said that the required repairs had begun. It apologised for its level of communication. In total, the landlord awarded the resident £250 in compensation. Its other key points were: The new roof had to be specially designed. It had to approve the relevant costs internally. It had to secure the neighbour’s agreement for the works. It needed the scaffolding for inspections and repairs. The old roof met relevant building standards when it was installed. It was the resident’s responsibility to contact pest control. It would seek to improve its communications around major works.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 8 October 2025 the resident told us the roof works were complete. She felt the landlord had not done enough to address related delays and disruption. In March 2026, she told us that she had previously raised a legal disrepair claim, but she subsequently decided not to pursue this.

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	Response to concerns about the property’s condition on letting
Finding	Service failure

The resident says the landlord was aware of a significant roof defect when it let her the property. The landlord has disputed this. It supplied records of its works and inspections prior to the resident’s tenancy. Overall, we have not seen any compelling evidence to show that it should have reasonably known about a major roof repair at that stage.
For example, the landlord has an internal lettings standards document. It says that before letting a property, the landlord must complete a visual inspection of the roof. It also says that any identified defects must be repaired while the property is empty. In this case, the evidence shows the landlord followed its inspection process. This was appropriate.
The relevant inspection records did not highlight any roof defects. Other records show that the landlord completed extensive works to prepare the property. These included a full rewire, a new kitchen, and a central heating upgrade. Ultimately, the landlord’s works show it invested significant funds in the property before the resident moved in.
On 27 November 2024 the landlord raised a repair order to address a wet patch on the property’s bathroom ceiling. The resident moved in on 2 December 2024. She says the landlord completed a temporary roof repair “at the beginning of December [2024]”. This suggests that it responded to her initial report within a reasonable timeframe.
The property’s repair history does not reflect the above referenced visit. As a result, we were unable to confirm the date this happened, the defect identified, or the repair that was completed. The lack of clarity points to problems with the landlord’s record keeping.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 January 2025. She said the initial leak had got worse. She also said there were further leaks in a toilet and bedroom. She said she was using a bowl to catch dripping water. She also referenced rodents in the roof space and a lack of communication from the landlord. She requested a timescale for the repairs. Her request was understandable. There is no indication the landlord complied with this.
In an internal email on 28 January 2025, the landlord said it would replace the property’s roof. On the same day, it raised an order for a temporary repair. It was reasonable to try and mitigate any leaks. From the landlord’s records, it is unclear what actions it took to resolve the repair order. It is also unclear what information it gave to the resident at this stage. The evidence points to communication and record keeping failures on its part.
The records and correspondence we have seen show the following events occurred later:
1. On 3 March 2025 the resident chased the landlord for an update.
2. On 12 March 2025 scaffolding was installed at the property.
3. In May 2025 the resident complained to the landlord about the roof.
4. On 10 June 2025 the landlord called the resident to update her.
5. In late June 2025 the resident raised a legal disrepair claim about the roof.
6. A disrepair surveyor inspected the property in July 2025.
The survey report said that the property was in a reasonable condition. It identified light decorating works to 3 ceilings. It estimated these would cost about £200. It said the works should be completed after the roof was repaired. It also said the resident did not need a temporary move. Ultimately, the report confirms the related damage was limited.
In its subsequent stage 2 response, the landlord accepted that its lack of communication had adversely impacted the resident. It awarded some compensation to address this. Its calculation referenced an unspecified delay, distress and inconvenience, and decorating vouchers (£50). It was reasonable to compensate the resident given what went wrong.
In its response, the landlord said that unavoidable processes had extended the repair timeline. The evidence supports this assertion. It also points to issues with the landlord’s handling of the required processes. For example, the landlord needed the neighbour’s consent begin the roof works. This is because it needed to alter a partition wall.
The landlord’s correspondence shows it requested the neighbour’s consent in mid-August 2025. This was about 7 months after it had internally confirmed a new roof was required. Following the landlord’s request, the neighbour asked it for more information. Records suggest it took the landlord about 1 month to reach an agreement with them.
It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord could have liaised with the neighbour sooner. It may have missed an opportunity to expedite the works and reduce disruption for the resident. The evidence points to an avoidable delay which lasted for several weeks. From the wording of its stage 2 response, it is not clear that the landlord recognised the full extent of its failures or the related adverse impact to the resident.
Based on the period between 27 November 2024 and 8 October 2025, it took the landlord about 10 months to replace the property’s roof. In her recent update, the resident told us that the scaffolding was removed in early November 2025. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord exceeded any of its relevant policy timescales.
By the time the scaffolding was removed, the landlord had paid the resident £350 in compensation. It ultimately increased its previous award by £100. From the information seen, it is not clear why the landlord did this. Its relevant compensation policy is available on its website. The landlord’s policy includes guidance about proportionate award levels.
A £350 payment was consistent with the ‘moderate impact’ category in the landlord’s guidance. This covers “repeated failures which caused some inconvenience and distress” for a resident. The evidence shows the landlord applied a reasonable category from its guidance. However, there is evidence of a further failure during its complaints process.
This is because the resident referenced water damaged flooring in her initial complaint. Her wording suggests that she felt the landlord was responsible for the damage. The landlord’s website shows the landlord has a process for damage claims. To date, there is no indication it has signposted the resident to this process. It should have reasonably done this. The evidence points to a related delay which adversely impacted the resident.
In her recent update, the resident told us about issues with the landlord’s internal repairs to the property. These were not mentioned in the complaint we have investigated. Landlords must be given a chance to put things right in the first instance. If she has any related concerns, the resident can raise a formal complaint with the landlord about these.
In summary, the landlord identified a number of delays and failures during its internal complaints process. It broadly took reasonable and proportionate steps to address these. However, there is no indication that it addressed the resident’s related concerns about damaged flooring. Given the delay, we have ordered the landlord to pay a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (effective April 2024). The landlord’s relevant complaints policy (effective June 2024) refers to the Code.
On 11 January 2025, the resident told the landlord that she was “very upset and angry”. She referenced the property’s condition and a lack of communication. The Code defines complaints as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made” about a landlord’s standard of service or actions. The resident’s email was consistent with this definition.
It is not clear how the landlord responded to the resident’s email. However, it did not log a formal complaint at this point. It should have at least offered to do this. It has not shown that it adhered to the Code. Its approach may have added to the resident’s distress. She reiterated her concerns around 4 months later. It is likely this was inconvenient.
It took the landlord 30 working days to issue a stage 1 response. The Code shows landlords must respond to complaints within a maximum of 15 working days at stage 1. More time is available providing the resident is kept informed. This should not exceed 10 working days “without good reason”. The landlord’s policy includes a similar provision.
In this case, the landlord kept the resident updated about its progress. For example, on 28 May 2025 it told her that it needed more investigation time. Call records show it also explained the reasons why its response was delayed. Its approach was consistent with the Code. There is no indication the resident was prompted to chase its response.
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 1. It also said she should submit a separate compensation request, and it would review this. The Code says landlords must have processes in place to ensure that a complaint can be remedied at any stage of its complaints process. Similarly, landlords must ensure that appropriate remedies can be provided at any stage of the complaints process without the need for further escalation.
By asking the resident to submit a separate compensation request, the landlord appeared to add an extra stage to its complaints process. This approach involved an additional burden for the resident. It was not consistent with the Code. It may have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling. We note that she subsequently questioned the landlord’s complaint handling in her escalation request.
From the information seen, it is unclear if separate compensation requests are standard practice for the landlord. From April 2024 onwards, we have a legal duty to monitor compliance with the Code. Given the above, we have notified our compliance team about a potential issue with the landlord’s complaint handling practice.
It took the landlord around 62 working days to issue a stage 2 response. The Code shows landlords must respond to complaints within a maximum of 25 working days at stage 2. Extensions should not exceed 20 working days without good reason. In this case, the landlord updated the resident a number of times during the delay period. Again, there is no indication that she was adversely impacted by its related handling.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not confirm whether it had upheld the complaint or not. The Code shows a compliant response must include a clear decision in plain language. A clear outcome (upheld, not upheld) may have helped the resident to understand the landlord’s decision. We note that, from the response wording, it is unclear if the landlord believed it was responsible for any delays.
In summary, the landlord departed from its policy and the Code at times. It was responsible for complaint handling failures which adversely impacted the resident. There is no indication it has acknowledged these or attempted to put things right. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation.

Learning

General learning

The landlord overlooked a damage claim during its complaints process. It also overlooked some complaint handling issues. It could provide related feedback to its staff.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

There were gaps in the landlord’s repair records. It could remind its staff about the importance of good record keeping.

Communication

The landlord missed opportunities to communicate with the resident. It may have missed opportunities to communicate with the neighbour. It could provide feedback to its staff about the importance of effective and timely communication.