City of London Corporation (202423204)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423204

City of London Corporation

30 April 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident lives in the property with her partner. They are secure tenants. The property is a 1 bedroom third floor flat. They have been tenants in the property for 14 years.
The resident has been reporting a leak in the roof from the property since 2017. The landlord has undertaken repairs, but the leak has returned.
On 2 August 2023, the resident reported that there was water ingress in the property from the bedroom and kitchen ceiling, and the landlord recorded that a roofer should inspect the property. It recorded a 20-day target timescale for completion.
The resident reported the roof leak three times between 13 and 31 October 2023. A roofer attended on 31 October 2023 but said that they could not access the gutters, and they needed to erect scaffolding.
The landlord arranged a new inspection in November 2023, and it ordered works in December 2023, to undertake external repairs to the roof and render. However, the resident reported on 2 January 2024 that the landlord had not resolved the leak and there had been another flood in the flat. The resident said that she did not want a temporary or permanent move from the property.
The resident chased the repairs a further 3 times in January 2024, and the landlord followed it up with contractors. On 22 January 2024, the contractors said that they were having difficulties getting access to the property during the day due to the resident’s availability. The landlord raised a stage 1 complaint and told the resident that it would respond within 10 working days, by 14 February 2024. On 1 March 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that:
1. There had been systemic communication failures between the landlord and its contractors.
2. Its contractors had not obtained approval for further works including putting up scaffolding.
3. It had processed the new order, and it had completed the second repair on 15 January 2024.
4. It had instructed its contractors to implement further training for operatives and to conduct a review of the procedures followed by the finance team when quoting on works orders.
On 16 July 2024, the resident reported a further leak from the roof into their bedroom and expressed frustration and disappointment with how landlord had managed the repair. The landlord treated this as a request to escalate the complaint and told the resident that it would respond within 20 working days.
On 22 July 2024, the landlord raised works to repair the parapet wall, the box gutter and to inspect the roof. Following this, the landlord instructed its contractors to undertake remedial works to the damaged bedroom and kitchen. It later made enquiries of its planned works team as to whether a roof replacement was on its planned works schedule.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 August 2024. It said that it had raised works to complete repairs to the roof and guttering and to the interior of the resident’s flat. It said that it was aiming to undertake an estate wide roof repair programme soon, and it offered the resident £250 for her distress and inconvenience.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response as she felt that there was no guarantee that the works undertaken would resolve the problem permanently and she felt that the compensation was insufficient, given the length of time that they had been reporting the leak. The resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint.

Post complaint

Contractors undertook repairs to the roof in October 2024. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 November 2024 to confirm that it had completed some of the works, and it was waiting to review whether the roof remained watertight after heavy rain before going ahead with the remaining external and internal remedial works. The resident has advised that some of the agreed repairs are outstanding. The landlord has since informed this Service that it has completed all works and it has provisionally scheduled an external works programme for the roof for 2027/8, subject to funding approval.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has informed this Service that the problem has been ongoing for 10 years. this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from August 2023 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords promptly so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof

The resident’s tenancy agreement says that it will repair and maintain the structure and exterior of the resident’s property. This mirrors the landlord’s legal responsibilities in s11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord did not provide a responsive repairs policy following our request for information, and instead it provided a document detailing its priorities for repairs. This said that it will prioritise repairs depending on their urgency. Emergency repairs should be addressed within 24 hours, it should complete urgent repairs within 3 to 5 days and non-urgent repairs within 20 days. The policy says that “a severe leak through the roof” would be categorised as an emergency repair. Since accepting this complaint for investigation, the landlord has published a comprehensive repairs policy on its website dated November 2024.
The landlord did not meet its published timescales for response, as it recorded this repair as a non-urgent repair on its repairs log when the resident reported it in August 2023 and with a response timescale of 20 days, instead of 24 hours. However, the landlord did not inspect the property until 31 October 2023, which was 70 days outside its published timescales, even for non-urgent repairs.
It was reasonable for the landlord to have offered the resident a decant and to discuss the choice of a permanent move with the resident, if it considered that the works would be intrusive. The resident declined a decant and chose to stay in the property, as she did not wish to leave her home.
Following the roof inspection there was a further delay in the landlord raising the works. There was evidence of ineffective communication between the landlord, contractors, and subcontractors. This led to the landlord not raising works promptly. The landlord has acknowledged that the delays were due to its finance team sourcing quotes, and the contractors and sub-contractors not sharing information. There was a lack of oversight by the landlord. Consequently, it overlooked steps in the process, for example the erection of scaffolding, leading to further delays.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was also unsatisfactory. She spent time and effort in reporting the leak on several occasions both in person and in writing, and having to raise a complaint for works to begin. The landlord did not update her with the outcome of inspections or provide an estimate of timescales to complete the works, which was unreasonable.
The landlord has not provided records to show what the outcome of its inspections were and what works it had then raised. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and accessible records to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its repairs policy.
In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report and to incorporate them into its practices going forward.
Given that patch repairs to the roof had proven unsuccessful in the past, there was a missed opportunity for the landlord to arrange for a specialist to undertake a full roof survey to find the cause of the problem and undertake works to address it. There was no evidence of attempts in this case to thoroughly discuss the issues with the resident, evaluate the situation, bring specialist contractors together or to approach the repair in a collaborative and purposeful way. This short-term focus left the repairs unresolved for a significant amount of time, resulting in further damage to the property.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that there had been “systemic communication failure(s)” leading to “unacceptable” delays in repairs. It said that it would be raising these issues with its contractors during its monthly meetings. It offered the resident £250 in compensation for her distress and inconvenience.
We do not consider that the compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the impact on the resident and her partner. The leak has been ongoing for a significant period. This had a prolonged impact on the resident, leading to unnecessary stress and inconvenience and resulting in the resident and her partner having to sleep in the living room because of the leak in the bedroom.
There were unreasonable delays in the landlord raising the works, and the resident has confirmed that both external and internal works to the property remain outstanding. There was a failure to communicate effectively with the resident. The resident has spent time and effort reporting this to the landlord to progress the works, causing frustration and further damaging the landlord and tenant relationship.
For this reason, we make a finding of maladministration and order the landlord to pay the resident the amount of £550 in compensation for her distress and inconvenience, in addition to the £250 previously offered. This award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the resident’s request for it to escalate a complaint. It also says that where it offers a remedy, it will set out what it intends to do and the timescales for doing so.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint was issued 12 days outside of its published response timescales. While this delay was not excessive, the evidence provided does not show that the landlord notified the resident in advance of the delay or acknowledged the delay in its stage 1 complaint response, which was unreasonable.
The landlord did issue its stage 2 complaint response within its published timescales; however, the response did not follow the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (“The Code”) or its own policy. This is because it did not confirm the outcome of the review of its stage 1 decision, and the reasons for this. Neither did it outline the timescales in which it proposed to complete the works.
For this reason, we find service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling and order the landlord to pay the resident the amount of £80 in compensation for her time and effort in pursuing her complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak from her roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Arrange for a senior officer to write a letter of apology to the resident for the failings outlined in this report.
2. Pay the resident the amount of £880 in compensation, which includes:
  1. £550 the resident’s distress and inconvenience because of the delays with the repairs.
  2. £250 that it had previously offered to the resident if it has not already paid this.
  3. £80 for the resident’s time and trouble, distress, and inconvenience due to the landlord’s complaint handling failings.
Within 2 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should contact the resident to enquire whether the roof is still watertight.
1. If so, within 6 weeks of the date of this report it should plan to complete the outstanding external and internal works to the property and provide this Service and the resident with an estimated timescale for this.
2. If there is still water ingress, within 6 weeks of the date of this report:
  1. the landlord should arrange a new surveyor’s inspection and thereafter confirm with this Service and the resident the outcome of the inspection and provide a schedule of all external and internal works.
  2. The landlord should consult with its planned works team to enquire whether the roof replacement scheduled for 2027/8 could be brought forward.

Recommendation

The landlord may wish to consider undertaking a stock condition survey of the property.