City of London Corporation (202431587)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431587

City of London Corporation

18 August 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of leaks into the property, and the subsequent damage caused.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder, and they have held the lease since 2013. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette within a wider block of flats. The landlord is a local authority.
Since December 2020 the resident has reported water ingress into a bedroom within the property. The resident has made two previous complaints to the landlord about its handling of this issue. The landlord provided the resident with stage one responses in which it committed to conducting repairs to the roof and exterior of the building. On 5 January 2024 the resident told the landlord they were experiencing water ingress again. They said they were experiencing one to 2 leaks in the property per week and occasional floods.
On 24 March 2024 the resident made an application to the civil court to initiate legal proceedings against the landlord. In this claim the resident said they were seeking costs of £10,000 for the landlord’s failure to address ongoing leaks, the cost of damages to the property, the loss of rental income and for the inconvenience, discomfort and distress they experienced.
On 13 June 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. They said:
1. They had been experiencing leaks into the property for 4 years. The leaks had caused the walls to become soft, wet to the touch and had led to mould growth.
2. The landlord had recently conducted repairs to the roof, but it had not provided an update on this work or any planned future works.
3. Inspections conducted on 13 October 2023 had recommended that the landlord should replace the full overlay on the building’s roof. The resident asked if the landlord could complete this work as a matter of urgency.
In its stage one reply dated 19 July 2024 the landlord said:
1. It had previously upheld complaints the resident made in 2021 and 2023 about leaks and roof repairs.
2. The latest repairs conducted on the roof were on 26 April 2024 where a contractor sealed cracks, repainted affected areas and cleared waste from the guttering. The landlord apologised for not updating the resident of the planned repair and the outcome of this repair.
3. It agreed a permanent solution was needed for the roof. At the time of its stage one the landlord said it was in the process of tendering contractors to complete planned works to the roof. It said it was aiming to begin the works by the end of 2024.
4. It had hired a head of repairs and maintenance who was due to start in post in September 2024, and it was hoped this would lead to improvements.
5. It provided details about the resident claiming for costs on insurance.
6. It had arranged a damp and mould inspection to occur.
7. It upheld the resident’s complaint as the landlord felt it had not adequately communicated with the resident about the planned works to the roof. It offered the resident £50 in compensation for this failing.
On 24 July 2024 the resident escalated their complaint as they felt the landlord was not acting urgently to organise the repairs.
On 8 August 2024 the landlord notified the resident it would not provide a stage 2 response. It said this was because the resident had initiated legal proceedings against the landlord which related to the nature of the resident’s complaint.
On 19 November 2024 the resident brought their complaint to this Service as they felt the landlord had not acted appropriately to address the leaks. The resident said the ongoing leaks had had a significant impact on them, and it had negatively affected their finances.
The landlord told this Service a directions hearing for the resident’s claim occurred on 10 February 2025, and it was anticipating that the court would list an additional directions hearing.
The resident told this Service that, although they are pursuing legal action, they wanted the Ombudsman to make a finding on how the landlord had handled the repairs, on the outstanding works and on financial compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of leaks into the property, and the subsequent damage caused

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 41.c. of the Scheme states:

‘The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given’.

In addition, paragraph 42.e. of the Scheme states:

‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion. concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.’

In this case, the resident has filed an application for costs relating to the landlord’s handling of the leaks and the damage caused to their property. The complaint that they brought to us was about the landlord’s handling of leaks into their property and the resulting damage. We are therefore satisfied that the substantive issue of this complaint – the handling of the leaks – is the same matter that is the subject of the current court proceedings.
The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that are the subject of court proceedings. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 41.c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider the resident’s complaint, as it is not within our jurisdiction to do so.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines the timescales in which it will respond to a complaint. The landlord commits to acknowledging complaints within 5 working days, and to provide its stage one response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If the resident wishes for their complaint to be escalated to a stage 2 complaint, the landlord will acknowledge this request within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an ‘expression of dissatisfaction, however made’.
The landlord’s complaints policy outlines circumstances where it will not consider a resident’s complaint or provide a formal complaint response. Included in this is when there is on-going legal action which relates to the complained of issues.
On 30 May 2024 the resident contacted the landlord citing concerns about the landlord’s handling of leaks into the property. In this email the resident said if they did not receive a satisfactory response within 10 working days they would file a complaint. When assessing the landlord’s definition of a complaint it could have handled this email as a complaint as the resident was dissatisfied and concerned. It would have been helpful for the landlord to consider the email to be a complaint, or for it to ask the resident if they wanted a complaint to be filed.
The landlord did not provide the resident with a substantive update to their email dated 30 May 2024. It responded to the resident’s chaser emails by saying the email had been forwarded onto the appropriate department. On 13 June 2024 the resident made a complaint to the landlord’s dedicated complaints email address. The landlord acknowledged this email 7 working days later on 24 June 2024, this was 2 working days outside of the timescales within the landlord’s complaints policy. While this was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy, the delay the resident experienced was brief.
On 28 June 2024 the landlord asked the resident if it could extend its stage one response time by 10 working days due to staff absences. The resident agreed to this extension. This was reasonable.
The resident escalated their complaint on 24 July 2024, and the landlord acknowledged this on the same day. This was appropriate.
On 8 August 2024 the landlord informed the resident that it would not provide a stage 2 response due to the on-going legal proceedings. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. When considering the landlord’s policy, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s decision to be reasonable and appropriate.
While the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns could have been improved if their email of 30 May 2024 had it been handled as a complaint, the Ombudsman does not consider this to amount to service failure. Therefore, we have made a finding of no maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41.c. of the Scheme the resident’s complaint around the landlord’s handling of leaks into the property, and the subsequent damage caused is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.