Rooftop Housing Association Limited (202414098)

Decision
Case ID	202414098
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Rooftop Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	3 February 2026

Background

1. The resident moved into the 3-bedroom property with her three young children in August 2022. The property has a bath and separate shower cubicle. The landlord already knew that the bath panel was broken and needed replacement. The resident complained about delays to this repair. She said water leaking around the bath was damaging the bathroom and kitchen ceiling and light below. The resident raised further concerns about the quality of work after the bath was replaced. The resident also complained about delays to a separate kitchen leak repair, and said the leak caused damage to her flooring.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of:
   1. Bathroom repairs, including the bathroom flooring, tiling and bath panel.
   2. A leak in the kitchen.
   3. Kitchen light fitting repair.
   4. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of bathroom repairs, including the bathroom flooring, tiling and bath panel.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leak in the kitchen.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of kitchen light fitting repair.
   4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of reports of bathroom repairs, including the bathroom flooring, tiling and bath panel.

4. The landlord’s handling of the bathroom repairs was poor and caused avoidable delay. The delays increased the scope of work needed, and the poor-quality repairs added to the issues. The landlord accepted these failings and offered redress to put matters right. However, the compensation was not proportionate to the failings we identified.

Handling of reports of leak in the kitchen

5. The landlord delayed resolving the leak, which caused damage to the resident’s floor. It later offered reimbursement for the flooring as an attempt to put matters right. However, the wider offer of redress for all repairs, including the bathroom, was not proportionate to the failings we identified. It did not address the detriment to the resident.

Landlord’s handling of reports of kitchen light fitting repair

6. The landlord unreasonably delayed in arranging repairs to the kitchen light and ceiling. Its offer of redress intended to cover delays across all repairs was proportionate to address this issue.

Landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord did not respond to the initial complaints received. It did not respond to complaints in a timely manner and failed to address all the concerns raised. It has not acknowledged any failures in its complaint handling or taken steps 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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £400 (in addition to the £250 already offered). Made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience experienced due to the failures relating to the bathroom repairs. £150 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by delays due to the failures relating to the kitchen leak. £150 for the distress and inconvenience experienced due to the failures in 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 03 March 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 May – 6 July 2023	On 30 May 2023, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that her son had injured himself on the bath that had outstanding repairs (from August 2022). She also said that the matter had worsened due to the bath having come away, and water was leaking and staining the kitchen ceiling below. The landlord attempted to contact her by phone and email between 21 June and 6 July 2023 but was unable to reach her.
24 August 2023	The resident complained about delays to repairs to the bathroom and kitchen. She said the 11‑month delay repairing the bath resulted in: Cracks worsening and trapping the children’s fingers, and caused an injury to her sons’ torso, leaving a scar. Water leaking into the kitchen below, causing damp stains to the ceiling and the light to fail. Damage to bathroom flooring. A requirement for further remedial works after the bath was replaced to a poor standard of workmanship, including large gaps, mismatched tiles, and inadequate sealing.   In relation to the kitchen leak reported on 1 August 2023, the resident said the outstanding leak repair was getting much worse, and complained that: The contractor did not attempt to stop the leak when they attended. A further visit was arranged for a whole month later and leak was getting worse. The contractor arrived before the agreed appointment time, meaning it was missed and could not secure another appointment before 12 September 2023. The leak was causing damage to the one-year-old flooring. The smell was unbearable, with black stagnant water under vinyl and perished grout where the floor was tiled.  The resident sought compensation and said the issues were causing stress and impacting existing mental health issues.
19 September – 20 October 2023	The resident complained again about the same issues on 19 September 2023 – the landlord logged and acknowledged it that same day. She displayed dissatisfaction that the initial complaints had been ignored. On 5 October 2032, the landlord extended the stage 1 response until 17 October 2023. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 20 October 2023.
20 October 2023	In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised that seasonal contractor absences had affected all non-emergency repair timescales and appointment availability. To summarise, the landlord provided the following information: Bathroom works took longer because skilled contractors were not available. It had chased the flooring works, and a subcontractor would contact the resident directly. It apologised for the delay and for not keeping the resident informed. It inspected the tiling and resealing around the new bath and identified follow‑on works. It raised new job requests with a different contractor for works on 22 December 2023. It apologised that the work did not meet the expected standard and for the further delay. Job for the light fitting in kitchen was scheduled for 13 November 2023. Once completed, follow on works for replastering around light would be ordered. Kitchen leak was attended to within the 24-hour emergency work. It apologised that the follow-on work took longer than expected but was completed by 20 October 2023. It advised it was the resident’s responsibility to provide floor coverings and to check their own house contents insurance if it covered replacement flooring in the kitchen.
17 November 2023	The resident requested escalation to stage 2, and the landlord immediately accepted and acknowledged this. In summary, the resident believed the landlord had ignored her original complaints, and wanted to pursue compensation for: Personal injury claim for her son and that her bathroom was left unsafe. 11-month delay in replacing bath and the inconvenience of taking time off work for multiple visits with contractors turning up to repeatedly due to lost measurements and bringing incorrect parts. Damage caused to kitchen flooring due to negligence of not stopping the leak sooner.
8 December 2023	In its stage 2 response, the landlord agreed they should have considered compensation. Based on the delays and the resident inconvenienced taking time off work. It offered £100 compensation. The resident immediately refused this offer, stating that it did not cover all the issues raised.
1 -13 March 2024	At the resident’s request, the landlord reviewed the compensation and increased it to £250. It accepted liability for the damage to the kitchen floor and offered to pay replacement costs, subject to receiving quotes from the resident. After receiving quotes, it agreed on 13 March 2023 to pay the resident £730, consisting of £480 for the new floor and the £250 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us on 7 July 2024.

 

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	Landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs, including the bathroom flooring, tiling and bath panel.
Finding	Maladministration

8. The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s obligations, including to keep in good repair and working order any installations it provides. Amongst other things, this includes basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes. It is not responsible for flooring and general redecoration unless its negligence, such as delays in repairs, causes the damage.
9. There were clear delays in the handling of the bathroom repairs. The landlord’s records on 28 June 2022 show it was already aware of the damaged bath panel before the resident moved into the property(in August 2022). The resident also reported the repair after moving in and a job was raised on 7 September 2022. A repair was not completed within the 28-daytimescale set out in the landlord’s policy for non-emergency repairs, which meant the resident was inconvenienced by having to repeatedly chase the matter.
10. The resident described the situation of the unsafe bath being stressful and inconvenient as she had three young children to bath. We note the landlord recorded she had separate cubicle shower, so it was useful this was available at this inconvenient time. She reported the matter worsening, stating the bath had dropped and was causing damage surrounding the bath and floor, also the ceiling and light in the kitchen below. On 30 May 2023 the resident asked this was a matter of urgency and reported that her three-year-old son had injured himself on the sharp-edged bath.
11. Internal emails on 30 May 2023 record that contractors had previously visited the property between seven to eight times (exact dates not recorded), but they could not get a bath panel to fit the curved bath. The landlord eventually agreed to replace the whole bath, which was fitted early July 2023 (exact date unclear). The photographs, the resident’s reports, and the landlord’s acknowledgement show that the works were not completed to a reasonable standard. The contractor fitted tiles that did not match and left gaps in areas that needed proper sealing. The resident went on to complain about the quality of work, the delays, the injury to her son, and the outstanding works to the bathroom floor. The resident described how the inconvenience of the delays and having to chase was affecting her existing mental health and interfering with her life as a single parent of three young children.
12. The landlord’s complaint responses apologised for delays and said this was down to seasonal contractor availability. It also apologised for the poor quality of work fitting the bath and arranged a different contractor to carry out correction works on 22 December 2023.
13. In its later review of the stage 2 response of 1 March 2024, the landlord paid an increased compensation of £250. This amount was to cover inconvenience caused due to delays of all repairs (including the kitchen repairs which we have assessed separately below). This response also said the contractor would contact the resident about the outstanding bathroom floor repair, but it did not take reasonable steps to ensure this happened within a reasonable time. Limited records show the resident further chased the landlord and works were arranged for 17 July 2024. It is unclear why the works did not proceed. However, the contractor later told the landlord they could not contact the resident, so a new job was raised in September 2024. The resident chased again in October 2024, and the repair was finally completed on 4 February 2025. The further delays were unreasonable and amounted to a further service failure.
14. We consider both the events that led to the complaint and how the landlord responded. We also look at whether the landlord recognised any failings and took reasonable steps to put things right. In this case, taking account of all the circumstances and the further delays, the £250 compensation paid is not proportionate when compared with our remedies guidance. We therefore order the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation.

Complaint	Landlord’s handling of reports of a leak in the kitchen.
Finding	Maladministration

15. On 1 August 2023, the resident reported a leak from the kitchen waste pipes. The landlord attended within 24 hours, in line with its emergency repair policy. However, the initial visit did not stop the leak. The resident immediately raised concerns that the contractor placed a bucket under the leak and did not attempt a temporary fix. The resident also said the damage was worsening. Follow on works were raised for 30 August 2023, but after the resident chased the matter, these were brought forward to 18 August 2023. It was unreasonable that the resident had to chase the landlord to get the leak stopped.
16. On the arranged date, the contractor left a card saying the appointment was missed. The resident said her doorbell footage showed the contractor arrived earlier than planned and wrote a later time on the card. This meant no one was home and works were delayed. The resident chased for a new appointment, but the contractor had no availability until 8 September 2023. The leak was finally stopped on that date. This was an unreasonable delay, being over a month after the initial reported leak. During which time the resident had complained on 24 August 2023.
17. The resident continued to complain that delays caused damage. She said the flooring might have been saved if the leak had been stopped when it was first reported. She described the inconvenience of living with the unbearable black and stagnant water smell. She also said all this with three young children was causing stress and impacting on her mental health.
18. Follow on works, including damp and mould wash were completed on 20 October 2023. Then all remaining works were completed by 13 November 2023. This was a further unreasonable delay, being over three months since the initial reported leak. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays, saying these were due to seasonal contractor availability. The resident continued to raise concerns about the damage resulting from the delay, but the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses did not address this. It delayed in accepting liability to the damage to the flooring. This meant the resident lived without adequate floor covering until the landlord reviewed the stage 2 complaint on 1 March 2024. This was when it agreed to pay for the replacement vinyl flooring arranged by the resident. Although delayed, this was appropriate action having accepted liability.
19. Given the stress and inconvenience reported by the resident, caused by the kitchen leak alone, the £250 compensation amount offered to cover all repair issues was not adequate when considering against our remedies guidance. It did not reflect the impact of both kitchen and bathroom delays. We therefore order the landlord to pay an additional £150 compensation for this aspect of the complaint.

Complaint	Landlord’s handling of reports of kitchen light fitting repair.
Finding	Reasonable redress

20. The resident reported a blown kitchen downlight and damp around it on 8 September 2022. The water came from the unsealed bath above. It was reasonable for the landlord to wait for the bathroom repairs before raising the kitchen job, however, delays to the bathroom also delayed this work. The resident said the issue got worse in May 2023.
21. The bath was replaced in July 2023, but the landlord still delayed the kitchen light repair. The resident raised this in complaints during August and September 2023.
22. The landlord did not complete the kitchen light work on 11 November 2023 as promised in its stage 1 response. Bathroom repairs were done that day instead. The landlord said the delay was due to contractor availability. It increased compensation to £250 in March 2024 to cover delays to all repairs.
23. The landlord regularly asked for updates of outstanding work with the contractor, but there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed. The contractor later told the landlord that it had booked the kitchen light job for 9 January 2024, but said the resident missed the appointment. This was an extensive delay to arrange the works, considering that the resident first reported the issue in September 2022. The repair was later completed in June 2024. The repair involved one kitchen downlight and surrounding plaster. From the photographs in evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that there were other working downlights in the kitchen. Although it may have meant a lower level of lighting, it would not have left the resident without other working lights. The impact was therefore limited, but the delay remained unreasonable.
24. To summarise, the landlord unreasonably delayed arranging the kitchen light and ceiling repair. The resident therefore, was inconvenienced by spending unnecessary time chasing. Considering the case, and aligning with our remedies guidance, we consider the landlords compensation offer of £250 was sufficient to also cover this repair.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

25. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the timescales.
26. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was unsatisfactory. After receiving the resident’s expressed dissatisfaction on 30 May 2023, the landlord should have logged and investigated it as a complaint, as set out in the code. Then it did not acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint of 24 August 2023. The resident had to spend unnecessary time chasing this.
27. Once the complaint was acknowledged on 19 September 2023, the landlord did not respond within the 10 working days prescribed by the code and its own policy. It contacted the resident two days after the deadline and extended the due date to 17 October 2023. The landlord did not meet this new deadline, and the resident had to chase again. Then the response issued on 20 October 2023 did not address all the concerns raised.
28. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 2 complaint on time. It was commendable that the landlord reviewed its stage 2 response and increased the compensation. This shows it listened to the resident when she remained dissatisfied, and it made efforts to resolve issues to her satisfaction. However, the review was delayed. Although the resident missed the appointment for discussion on 14 December 2023, and the landlord made attempts to contact her the following day. We note that the landlord held the previous complaints, which were very detailed and should have contained enough information to complete the review. The resident started to chase again in February 2024, and the review was finally completed on 1 March 2024.
29. The complaint at each stage included concerns about personal injury. We acknowledge the resident’s concern about the injury to her son. However, we do not have remit to assess personal injury claims. Our role is to consider whether the landlord acted reasonably in response to the issues raised. The landlord’s complaint policy states personal injury claims are dealt with under its insurance process. It also says the landlord should consult the Head of Risk and Assurance if a complaint may require notification to its insurers. There is no evidence that the landlord did this. It was not reasonable that the landlord failed to respond to this issue, despite the resident raising it repeatedly.
30. To summarise, there were several service failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not respond to the resident’s initial complaints, and it delayed issuing its stage 1 and reviewing the stage 2 complaint. The resident did not receive responses to all the issues raised. The earlier compensation paid covered distress and inconvenience caused by delays to the repairs and did not cover the failings in complaint handling. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay an additional £150 compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. Some of the landlord’s repair records are unclear and do not detail the nature or outcome of the works completed. At times, this has affected our ability to assess its actions. It would be useful for the landlord to review its record-keeping processes. To ensure inspection reports, communications, and repair updates for unresolved issues are stored securely and remain accessible for a reasonable period. This will help the landlord demonstrate compliance and respond effectively to future complaints.

Communication and complaint handling

32. The landlord should ensure staff are familiar with the requirements of the Code, particularly the importance of acknowledging complaints and responding within the prescribed timescales.
33. There is no evidence that the landlord followed its policy to consult the Head of Risk and Assurance, even though the complaint may have required insurer notification. The landlord should ensure staff understand the issues raised in a complaint and consult the correct personnel or department. This will help ensure the resident receives an appropriate response to the matters raised.
34. There were periods when the landlord did not keep in contact with the resident or provide updates on when it would carry out repairs. This lack of communication contributed to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and is reflected in the compensation order.