City of Doncaster Council (202529246)

Decision
Case ID	202529246
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Doncaster Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	31 March 2026

Background

The resident’s property is a 2-bedroom top floor flat in a low-rise block with a pitched roof. She lives in the property with her partner and child. She raised concerns with the landlord about the condition of the roof. Dissatisfied with the landlord’s assessment that the condition of the roof did not warrant replacement, she referred her complaint to us.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports about the condition of and repairs to the roof.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that the landlord responsible for:
1. Maladministration in its handling of the reports about the condition of and repairs to the roof.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord took reasonable steps to meet its repair obligation in respect of the roof. It also explained why it would not replace the felt membrane at that time. However, it delayed in responding to the resident’s reports, both in completing works in the first instance, then in completing another inspection. It also did not address the resident’s report of ongoing leaks to the bedroom and that she had laid boards to mitigate the effect of water ingress.
The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and procedures.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 30 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and failure to address the resident’s report about the bedroom ceiling and the boards she had laid. 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 30 April 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the bedroom the resident states is affected by leaks and the boards she laid down to mitigate the effect of water ingress of the property. The surveyor must then produce a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. Whether there is any damp and mould and the most likely cause. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve any issues identified together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to any issues identified (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 30 April 2026
4	Case Review The landlord must carry out a case‑specific review in which it considers why there were delays in the completion of the repairs identified and the re–inspection of the resident’s roof. The report must be shared with the resident and this Service.	No later than 30 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 July 2025	The resident submitted a complaint and said the following: a roofer had said there were no broken tiles and the roof was in good repair when in fact there were holes and daylight could be seen her housing officer had chased repairs in June 2025; however, they were showing as completed and there had been no response from the repairs team since outstanding repair jobs had affected her and her husband’s mental health
18 July 2025	The landlord sent the stage 1 response. It said the following: the roofer repaired roof tiles on 9 May 2025 then reattended on 12 May to complete works round the hopper it had agreed on 4 June 2025 to complete another inspection but failed to raise the job it had now raised an inspection by a second contractor for 21 July 2025
13 August 2025	The resident escalated her complaint and said the following: the stage 1 response referred to repairs to tiles; however, the issue was the lack of a membrane, which was letting in water when it rained water entered the bedroom she had put in boards to catch the rain; however, this only reduced the damage and was not a solution the last roofer had recommended the roof be removed and replaced her partner was worried about what would happen in winter. They wanted the roof replaced before then
28 August 2025	The landlord sent the stage 2 response. It said the following: the second opinion of 21 July 2025 confirmed that daylight could be seen between roof tiles; this was due to the pitch of the roof and how the tiles interlocked and sat this did not mean that water could enter. Tiles overlapped to prevent water running uphill against gravity and entering the roof space the felt was not in good condition; however, this was a secondary barrier of protection on 21 July 2025, the roofer confirmed no issue with the tiles. It apologised for not raising this appointment in June when requested it would only consider a full roof replacement when the roof was beyond repair. In the resident’s case, the roof tiles were intact and functioned as the primary barrier against water ingress. The worn felt did not compromise the overall performance
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 12 December 2025, and said the following: there were no leaks at that time, but water was in the loft the landlord would not do anything as the tiles were fine; however, the majority of membrane had fallen down. Debris came in the flat was cold her son had asthma and her partner had poor mental health she wanted the landlord to replace the roof membrane / felt

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	Reports about the condition of and repairs to the roof
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that “A Routine repair does not immediately affect the health and safety or security of the tenant but may do so if not attended to within a short space of time.” The landlord “will aim to complete urgent repairs within 5 working days, excluding the day the repair is reported, Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays. Routine repairs include, but not limited to…Leaking roofs”.
On 19 December 2024, the resident reported that when it rained, it leaked into her property. The landlord raised a repair to remedy missing tiles which allowed daylight to be seen in the loft. The landlord’s Repair Policy states it should have responded within 5 working days, and the landlord’s repair note which states a target date of 3 January 2025 confirms this. The landlord did not meet this timeframe. In fact, the resident on 6 January 2025 requested that the landlord bring an appointment forward as she thought water potentially was coming through holes in the roof and causing a wet patch in the ceiling in a bedroom.
The landlord did not attend the resident’s property to repair roof tiles until 9 May 2025, according to its repair records. This was over 4 months after the resident’s report which was an unreasonable delay.
On 3 June 2025, the resident, through her housing officer, enquired with the repairs team why it had closed her repair request as she thought no works had been completed. The landlord’s complaint response confirms that on 4 June 2025, it decided to conduct another roof inspection; however, it did not raise an order for its contractor. The landlord did not raise the order until 17 July 2025, 6 weeks later, and only as a result of the resident’s complaint. This indicates that it lost oversight of the agreed actions identified in response to the resident’s query.
Another roofing contractor attended on 21 July 2025. It was prudent that the landlord commissioned another contractor given that the resident’s concern that the first contractor had not completed works. On 21 July 2025, the second contractor advised the landlord that all the felt membrane had perished. The contractor also said it could not fix this as no tiles were broken. The resident has advised us that the contractor told her verbally the roof needed to be replaced. In the absence of corroborative evidence, we cannot confirm that it said this. Ultimately, the contractor did not formally make this recommendation to the landlord.
The landlord in the stage 2 response explained its view that while daylight could be seen between roof tiles, there would not necessarily be water ingress in the roof space. It advised that the felt was only a secondary barrier of protection, and its condition did not compromise the roof’s performance in stopping water ingress. It also confirmed the circumstances when it would replace the felt by stating it could conduct a full roof replacement when the roof was beyond repair.
However, in her stage 2 complaint, the resident was insistent that the rainwater reached a bedroom. She also said she had laid boards to mitigate the effect of water ingress. The landlord has a responsibility to investigate reports of damp and mould. In focusing on the condition of the roof, and whether it needed to complete works to the roof, it overlooked the resident’s report of water ingress. Given the resident’s complaint, it would have been reasonable to inspect the bedroom and the boards that she referred to.
In summary, the landlord in response to the resident’s report of water ingress in the roof carried out repairs, then re-inspected the roof. It thereby took reasonable steps to meet its repair obligation in respect of the roof. It also explained why it would not replace the felt membrane at that time. However, it delayed in responding to the resident’s reports, both in completing works in the first instance, then in completing the re-inspection. It also did not address the resident’s complaint that there were still leaks to the bedroom and that she had laid boards to mitigate the effect of water ingress. Given its acceptance that the membrane, as secondary protection, required repairs, it was important that the landlord investigate further. For this reason, we find that there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint. We award the resident £150 compensation. In making this award, we have considered the range of compensation in our remedies guidance for cases of maladministration arising from the failure identified.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 16 July 2025, within 5 working days. It acknowledged the stage 2 complaint although the copy provided to us contains an inaccurate date. However, it provided a formal response at both stages of the process within the timescales set out within its policy and our Complaint Handling Code. There is therefore no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Communication and Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
1. let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
2. gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
In this case, the records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs and inspections. The resident’s complaint as opposed to oversight of works led to a review of progress. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs team had followed our spotlight report recommendations.