Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202402930)

Decision
Case ID	202402930
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	3 March 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a top floor flat in a sheltered scheme. He complained about how the landlord responded to his reports of a leak from the roof and its delays in completing repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a roof leak and delays completing repairs.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and delays completing repairs.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a roof leak and delays completing repairs

4. The landlord delayed resolving the leak and fixing the roof. It failed to consider any detriment the leak had on the resident and did not keep him updated. It failed to offer any redress during its 2-stage complaint process.

Complaint

5. The landlord did not respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint. It failed to identify its complaint handling delays, apologise, or offer any redress.

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

Landlord’s 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 senior 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 31 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,150 made up as follows: £1,000 offered in September 2024 for the inconvenience and distress due to the roof leak. This can be deducted if already paid £150 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for its complaint handling failures   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 31 March 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. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the roof of the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: The condition of the roof, and whether it requires replacement under its planned programme or via insurance A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective solution to the issue where repairs are identified The likely timescales to commence and complete any work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during any identified works Following the survey, the landlord must share the report findings with us and the resident.	No later than 28 April 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 July 2023	A member of the landlord’s staff raised a complaint on behalf of the resident. She said that following heavy rain there was substantial water damage to the resident’s ceiling and walls. She said that before he moved in, it knew about the leak but did not undertake any work to repair it. She said he had been told that the roof needed replacing and that he was angry and frustrated having spent money on decorating his home.
31 July 2023	The resident contacted the landlord asking why it had allowed him to move into a property that was not watertight. He said that the leak was ruining his decorating and furnishings. It acknowledged the complaint the same day.
08 September 2023	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It said there were issues with the roof structure of the building and gave a plan of action for resolving the issue. It said it would discuss redecoration once the roof repair was complete.
08 November 2023	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 because the landlord had not completed the promised works. He reported he still had water coming into his living room and bedroom and no one was updating him. It acknowledged the escalation request the same day.
04 December 2023	The landlord told the resident that to allow a full and thorough investigation it needed to extend the deadline for the stage 2 response to 11 December 2023.
21 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that the need for a bat survey had delayed the roof repair. It apologised for its poor communication and confirmed it had sent him an insurance claim form to claim decoration costs. It said it would complete internal repairs after it had repaired the roof. It said that now the roof work could go ahead, it would let him know when the work would start.
23 September 2024	The landlord reviewed the complaint. It offered the resident £1,000 for the impact the roof repair delays had on him.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and brought the complaint to us. He wanted the landlord to repair the roof, apologise and demonstrate learning.

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 of a roof leak and delays completing repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

6. The resident said that the situation and delays completing repairs affected his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any ill health caused. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any ill health and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s response to repairing the roof. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) 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.
8. Two weeks after moving into the property in March 2023, the resident reported a leak coming through his ceiling. He said he was told that the water was due to condensation.  Four months later, in July 2023, he reported the leak again.
9. The repair records provided by the landlord for both reports do not show when it attended or the outcome of any visits. This has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events or whether it responded in line with its repairs policy timescales. There are also no records to show that it took any steps to mitigate the effect the leak was having on the resident and his home at the time. This demonstrates a record keeping failure.
10. In the resident’s complaint he asked why the landlord allowed him to move into a property that was not watertight. It did not respond to this element of the complaint in its responses. The evidence shows that during the complaint investigation it stated that the roof “has been an issue since the building was built but no budget to replace”. It is concerning that it was aware of the need to repair the roof and this was not addressed prior to the resident moving in.
11. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained how it was going to repair the roof but did not give a timescale. This did not manage the resident’s expectations as he did not know when he could expect it to complete the repair. It said it would discuss the internal damage after the repair was complete which was reasonable. While it apologised for the stress and inconvenience, it failed to offer any redress or demonstrate what measures it was taking to mitigate the water ingress at this point.
12. While the landlord considered the possibility of alternative temporary accommodation, we saw no evidence that it made an offer. It needs to ensure its records detail clearly all contact made and actions taken. It did, however, provide a dehumidifier, which was an appropriate step to take to alleviate the effects the damp was having on the resident. It also appropriately directed him to its liability insurer for damage to his internal decoration and furnishings.
13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the delay to the roof repair was because it needed to complete a bat survey. We acknowledge that this need would have been outside its control as bats are protected under the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside act 1981. However, it was aware in September 2023 that there might be a colony of bats in the loft space but failed to commission the survey until December 2023, 3 months later. It is unclear whether it took any action during this time to mitigate the water ingress to the resident’s home.
14. The landlord did not demonstrate that it keptthe resident informed throughout the process of the repair.It told the resident it was going to temporarily fix the leak with tarpaulin instead of the repair promised in its stage 1 response. It did not explain to the resident why.Its communication shortcomings are likely to have added to the resident’s frustration given the delay of 7 months. It apologised for this in its stage 2 response but did not improve its communication or offer any redress.
15. The records show the landlord fixed the roof and resolved the leak in June 2024, a further 4 months after its stage 2 complaint response. Eleven months is a significant delay in completing the roof repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord considered its planned work programme or insurance to complete a lasting repair.
16. Following the landlord’s final response, 8 months later it completed a review of the complaint and offered the resident £1,000 compensation. Although these actions can be said to have put things right for the resident, the landlord did not identify its failings during its complaint process and until the complaint was brought to us. Our guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined under such circumstances. This is particularly the case where the landlord has not demonstrated any specific learning points to ensure similar failings do not occur in future.
17. That said, the landlord’s compensation offer was reasonable and within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident. We have, therefore, not ordered any additional compensation.
18. The resident has told us that following the landlord’s final response the roof started leaking again. This suggests it failed to provide a lasting solution. He has told us that he has concerns over the quality of repair work that was undertaken. Due to this we have made an order for the landlord to reinspect the roof and confirm whether any additional repairs are required.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Maladministration

19. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
20. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and his escalation request within 5 working days in line with its policy.
21. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses were both delayed. Its stage 1 response was 29 working days late and its stage 2 response 73 working days late. This was not in line with its policy timescales of 10 and 20 working days.
22. At both stages the landlord failed torespond toall points of the resident’s complaint, as discussed above.It did not acknowledge its delays, apologise or offer any redress. It also failed to demonstrate any learning. This likely caused the resident to feel unheard and unsupported. We have, therefore, made a failure finding and order to reflect this.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord should consider reviewing its record keeping arrangements to ensure these are robust. This is to ensure it keeps and collates accurate and accessible records, both of actions completed and of residents’ contact. It may wish to refer to our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

24. Meaningful communication with the resident was limited, and there was little evidence to show it kept him updated about its actions. It is important that a landlord keeps residents informed of any delays and how it intends to mitigate the impact of these.