Gateway Housing Association Limited (202445270)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202445270

Gateway Housing Association Limited

30 July 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 handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.

Background

The resident has been a shared-ownership leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association, since December 2023. The property is a 2-bedroom, first floor flat, in a 3-storey block. There is a gap in the block between the first and second floors, which means there is a flat roof directly above the property.
When the resident bought the property it was a new build under a defect period, which ended in August 2024. The property was built by a third-party builder and the landlord took handover of the property from the builder, before selling it to the resident.
In December 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that there was a leak into her bedroom from above. She reported this reoccurred in March 2024. On both occasions, the landlord referred the matter to the builder. In July, August and September 2024 the resident told the builder the leak was ongoing.
The resident complained to the landlord in early November 2024. She said the leak was ongoing despite the builder attempting to resolve it on multiple occasions. She believed this had caused black mould in the roof cavity, which had made her asthma worse and meant the bedroom was uninhabitable. She asked the landlord to suspend her rent from when the leak began, and to pay compensation for damaged items, distress and inconvenience.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 20 November 2024. It said the complaint was not upheld as the builder had resolved the original leak in December 2023. It said since the resident had reported this was ongoing, the builder had tried to revisit, but she had declined.
The next day the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She said she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 outcome and felt the landlord had not properly addressed all the issues.
On 22 November 2024 the landlord inspected the property and noted there was evidence of a water leak with visible damp patches. Two weeks later the builder visited and took moisture readings in the bedroom. It told the resident and the landlord there was no presence of moisture and concluded there had not been a further leak since September 2024. It identified that staining on the ceiling was due to a poor drying out process after the previous leak and a poor standard of decoration.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 December 2024. It agreed with the stage 1 outcome and confirmed the complaint was not upheld. It said the builder had taken action to resolve the leak. It said they had acknowledged the decoration works did not meet the usual standards and had arranged to put this right. It declined to suspend her rent or pay compensation.
The resident asked us to investigate her complaint in May 2025. She said the leak was ongoing and the landlord had not responded to her recent contacts. She wanted it to fix the leak and pay compensation.

Assessment and findings

In accordance with the lease agreement, the resident is responsible for repairs to the property. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the building and the common parts, including the roof.
As the property was built by a third-party builder, it was responsible for resolving defects, rather than the landlord. We cannot assess the actions of the builder as it is not a member of our Scheme. The landlord had a responsibility to support the resident during the defect period; despite being limited in what it could do to resolve any defect issues.
The builder was ultimately responsible for resolving the leak as this first occurred, and was reported, during the defect period. While we cannot assess the builder’s handling of the issue, including decisions made or works carried out, we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and how it engaged with the builder about them.
When the resident reported the leak in December 2023 and March 2024, the landlord raised this with the builder. This was reasonable as the property was still in the defect period, so the majority of repairs were the builder’s responsibility. As the landlord raised the reports with the builder in a timely manner on both occasions, its responses were reasonable.
As the builder was ultimately responsible for resolving the leak, it was understandable that the resident and builder were in direct contact from July 2024 onwards. As the landlord was not party to the resident’s ongoing reports between July and September 2024, there could be no expectation it would take further action in response to them.
Following the resident’s complaint in November 2024, the builder put forward a plan of action to investigate the leak, which included completing a more intrusive survey. It said this involved opening up part of the bedroom ceiling. The resident raised concerns about this and asked the builder to arrange an independent survey and consider rehousing her while it undertook further investigations.
The landlord was copied in to this communication. Following this, and an enquiry from the council’s environmental health officer (EHO), the landlord arranged to inspect on 22 November 2024. This was sensible considering the length of time this had been ongoing and because the resident had told it the condition of the property had negatively affected her health. Therefore, it was important the landlord investigated and identified any actions needed so it could liaise with the builder to ensure any risk was managed and properly respond to the resident’s concerns.
The day after the inspection, the landlord told the builder there was evidence of an ongoing leak. It asked the builder to adjust its action plan to minimise the disruption to the resident. This showed it had listened to her concerns and was trying to support her to resolve the situation with as minimal disruption as possible. The landlord’s intervention resulted in the builder revising its action plan and agreeing to carry out meter readings of the ceiling to assess the level of damp, rather than opening up the ceiling, as initially suggested.
On 26 November 2024 the EHO confirmed to the landlord that there was evidence of a leak coming through the bedroom ceiling, but said there was no evidence of black mould. It advised there was no action it could take. Three days later it told the resident it had not identified any category 1 hazards in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Therefore, while it would have been inconvenient for the resident to live in the property with an ongoing leak, it was reasonable that the landlord did not deem the property to be uninhabitable and subsequently declined to offer temporary rehousing to the resident.
Following its inspection on 6 December 2024, the builder said the ceiling was dry, with no signs of a leak. This was significantly different to the feedback from the landlord and EHO following their inspection 2 weeks earlier. The builder concluded that there had been no further leak since September 2024. However, the landlord knew this was incorrect as it had confirmed there was evidence of a leak with visible damp patches 2 weeks earlier, on 22 November 2024.
Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord queried this with the builder or sought a second opinion to be reassured that the leak was not ongoing. This would have been sensible considering the conflicting outcomes. We cannot conclusively say that the builder’s assessment was incorrect. However, in light of the conflicting outcomes, the landlord should have done more to reassure itself, and the resident, that the leak was not ongoing. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
On 24 December 2024 and 22 January 2025 the resident reported the leak was unresolved and said the damp meter reader used by the builder during its inspection was faulty. Considering this, in conjunction with the conflicting outcomes of the 2 inspections, it was reasonable that the landlord made further enquiries with the builder, on 23 January 2025.
The builder replied and said the meter was working correctly. It advised it had contacted the resident on 2 occasions in January 2025 to ask if the leak was ongoing. It said she had responded to the first contact but not its second contact of 15 January 2025. This was incorrect as we have seen an email from the resident to the builder dated 17 January 2025, where she reported new wet patches had appeared in the same place, indicating the leak was ongoing.
The landlord was copied into this email and so when the builder told it the resident had not responded, it should have highlighted that she had to ensure further action was taken. We have seen no evidence that the landlord did this. In addition, there is no evidence it fed back to the resident following the builder’s response, which meant her concerns raised on 24 December 2024 and 22 January 2025 went unanswered. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling ignored.
On 4 March 2025 the resident made further contact with the landlord and reported again that the leak was ongoing. While the landlord made further enquiries with the builder the following month, there is no evidence it responded to her or took any action to investigate her reports that the leak was ongoing. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
In April 2025 the builder told the landlord the matter was discharged. In light of this, and because the defect period is now over, if there is an ongoing leak, this will be for the landlord to investigate and resolve. The resident has told us that the landlord has recently inspected the property and committed to carry out an external building survey, which is positive. However, it has not confirmed anything in writing to her, and she has told us she feels the landlord is still not taking this seriously. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to confirm in writing the outcome of the inspection and what further actions it will take to investigate and resolve the leak, with a timescale for completion.
The resident asked the landlord to suspend her rent because of the leak. We cannot order the landlord to suspend a resident’s rent. However, we can consider whether compensation is required for loss of use of all or part of the property, and if so, this is calculated based on the rental amount. In this case, as the property had not been deemed to be uninhabitable, it was reasonable that the landlord declined to suspend the rent and we would not award compensation for loss of use of the property.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. While it was ultimately the builder’s responsibility to resolve the leak, the landlord should have done more from December 2024 onwards to support the resident in raising this with the builder to ensure progress was made. Its failure to do so means the leak has continued for a further 7 months, and the resident has told us she is worried the bedroom ceiling will collapse, so has been sleeping on the sofa in the living room. We have made an order for the landlord to review this matter to establish why the failures identified occurred, and confirm in writing to the resident and us what actions and/or improvements it will take to prevent similar failings in the future.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £350 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance and is reflective of the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its failures. As we cannot assess the builder’s actions, we cannot say whether there was failure in its handling of the leak. Therefore, we cannot order compensation in that regard.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Confirmed in writing the outcome of the recent inspection and what further actions it will take to investigate and resolve the leak, with a timescale for these to be completed.
2. Reviewed this matter to establish why the failures identified occurred, and confirm in writing to the resident and us what actions and/ or improvements it will take to prevent similar failures in the future.
3. Apologised to the resident for its handling of her reports of a leak.
4. Paid the resident £350 compensation for its handling of her reports of a leak.