Harlow District Council (202432277)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202432277

Harlow District Council

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:
1. roof replacement works at the property and the associated temporary sheeting.
2. damp and mould at the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She has lived in the property since 1996. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor of a low-rise purpose-built block. The resident suffers with both joint and respiratory problems. She has also told us that she was recently diagnosed with lupus.
The landlord uses a repairs management company, which is owned by the local authority. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to this organisation as ‘the repairs management company’.
On 16 November 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the roof. She felt the roof needed replacing and said:
1. it was concerning that the new property officer was not aware that the issue had been going on for 5 years and that there had been multiple attempts to repair the roof. The landlord had previously covered the metal roof in temporary sheeting as roofers and roofing managers said it was beyond repair.
2. eventually it had agreed it needed to replace the roof. However, the temporary sheeting had been there for 2 years, and it was causing further problems. These included:
  1. rainwater pouring off the guttering and down the walls and windows.
  2. the area below the balcony and communal yard being covered in a “thick green moss”.
  3. extensive damp in the living room and bedroom. She said a surveyor confirmed this in a report of January 2023.
  4. the double glazing in the bedroom was “blown” with substantial water trapped between the panes.
  5. the downpipe had become detached from the wall. She said it was swinging loudly against the property in the wind. She had reported this but said it was outstanding.
3. the landlord had not informed her when it would replace the roof. However, she was unhappy as it wanted to attempt another repair.
4. she was using a dehumidifier and central heating to dry out her home which was at her personal expense. She was opening windows and cleaning mould spores from the walls, ceilings, bedding and clothes. She was also receiving treatment for recurrent respiratory and sinus infections.
5. the roofing manager who visited on 3 November 2023 said he could feel the damp on entering the hall. She said he likened it to that of a loft space, and it would need “urgently venting”. The resident added that the roofing manager had also told her that the wet external walls would “take years to dry out”.
6. she wanted the landlord to provide a substantive response as it was not acceptable for it to attempt another repair when it had agreed to replace the roof.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 29 November 2023. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve and complete the roof work. It explained that it had previously advised that it could not repair the roof and it would need replacing. It said this was why it placed temporary sheeting on the roof. It said it would normally pass this information over to the council who would then arrange the replacement works. Instead, the council had requested further evidence. As a result, the roofing team leader would attend to inspect the roof and said it would update the resident with the results.
On 1 December 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She was unhappy with the damage caused by the water ingress and the damage to the communal balcony when the scaffolding was removed. She did not feel reassured about another inspection taking place given two previous housing inspections had concluded the roof needed to be replaced. She said “even more confusingly” the landlord attended on 24 November 2023 and stated that no further repairs could be done and that the roof would be replaced. She was told that it was in progress and that it needed to design the roof.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 December 2023. It again apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve the matter. It said:
1. changes with the roofing team leaders had not helped, but it reassured the resident that each member of staff was fully trained for their position.
2. the surveyor who attended, did so to assess the loft area in the block in preparation for the roof redesign. It said as it was a non-traditional structure it needed a careful approach to redesign it. Therefore, a specialist contractor would attend on 4 January 2024.
3. it would replace the roof. The temporary sheeting would remain until then. It would continue to monitor the condition of the roof and carry out any possible repairs to keep the property watertight.
4. once the roof replacement was completed, the resident could contact it and arrange the repair works required in relation to the damage and damp within her property.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 24 November 2024 as she remained unhappy that the landlord had not replaced the roof. We understand that at the time of this report, the replacement works have yet to commence.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted that there is a long history of reported leaks from the roof by the resident. However, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner 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. This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from November 2022. This period was investigated by the landlord when responding to the resident’s complaint.
The resident said that the landlord’s response to her repairs affected her physical and mental health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance. We will, however, consider the landlord’s actions and omissions in this case and the impact of any failings.
Since the resident made her complaint, she asked to be permanently rehoused. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. If the resident remains unhappy about the landlord’s response to a request to be rehoused, she can refer the matter to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

The roof replacement works and the associated temporary sheeting

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords must “keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house”. This includes roofs and gutters. The landlord’s tenancy agreement and repairs policy further enforces these obligations.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its categorisation of roofing repairs. It deems the following as urgent repairs, which should be completed within 5 working days:
1. A property that is not watertight,
2. Gutter repair or renewal,
3. Down pipe repair or renewal,
4. Repairs to chimney stacks,
5. Repairs to fascia and soffits.
The policy states, “Temporary works may be required with full replacements on planned programme”.Provision has also been made for vulnerable residents – in such circumstances, the landlord will attend to urgent repairs within 3 working days.
The evidence shows that there have been issues with the roof since at least 2019. The resident explained that she initially reported issues in September 2018, and the landlord covered the roof in temporary sheeting in 2020. After that period, she waited for the landlord to replace the roof. While we are not assessing the landlord’s action during this period, we have included this information in this report to provide context to later events.
The landlord refixed the sheeting on 16 January 2023 following an inspection on around 4 January 2023. It is not clear what prompted it to carry out the inspection and it has not provided us with a copy of it. While it refixed the sheeting, it is unclear whether any further observations or recommendations were made in relation to repairs or replacement works.
The landlord received an enquiry from the resident’s member of parliament (MP). This prompted it to look into the matter in more detail in November 2023. After doing so, it identified that it had not referred the roof replacement to the relevant team internally for consideration. The landlord’s property surveyor explained it had placed the work as “low priority” due to a lack of information from the repairs management company. It is not clear what information it needed. However, the latest update was from February 2023. Within this, the repairs management company advised it could not repair the roof because it was made from metal.
If the landlord felt it needed further information, it should reasonably have sought this in February 2023. Or soon thereafter. Alternatively, given the comments that the roof could not be repaired, the landlord should reasonably have taken steps to assess the situation further or to instruct another roofing company to consider whether any repairs could be carried out. It is unclear why no action was taken by the landlord, despite it being put on notice that there was an outstanding repair. Its failure to take any action was inappropriate.
On 29 November 2023 the landlord, in its stage 1 complaint response, stated that the council had asked for further evidence that the roof could not be repaired. While this request was beyond the landlord’s control, it did not include this information in its response to the MP on 22 November 2023, where it said it was due to replace the roof on the block in 2025/2026. It was understandable that the resident was frustrated and surprised to learn that the roof replacement was still not authorised as such. It is another failing which demonstrates the landlord’s communication with the resident about the roof replacement was poor and lacking in transparency.
On 6 December 2023 the repairs management company carried out its inspection of the roof to gather the additional information needed. The works order noted that the roof needed renewing front and back and the repairs management company submitted its referral for a roof replacement. The landlord has not provided the roof inspection report to us. However, in its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed it would replace the roof.
Although it is acknowledged that the landlord needed the council’s approval, the resident stated the sheeting was first installed in 2020. It is therefore unclear why it took approximately 3 years to confirm with certainty whether or not it was going to replace the roof. The landlord has not demonstrated that it was proactive in ensuring that a lasting repair could be completed or that roof replacement works could be carried out without undue delay. Given its repair obligations, this was wholly inappropriate.
The resident’s complaint referred to the downpipe being insecure and banging loudly in the wind. It is unclear when the issue was first reported. However, we have seen no evidence to suggest that the resident raised the matter prior to her formal complaint. As such, we have taken the date of notification as 16 November 2023. The evidence shows that the repairs management company completed the repair on 6 February 2024. This was 55 days after the resident raised complaint was raised and therefore not in accordance with the landlord’s policy timescales.
The resident also raised the issue of balcony damage caused by previous scaffolders in her escalation request. Again, it is not clear when she first reported this, however we have taken the date of notification to be 1 December 2023. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response it would respond to this repair after it completed the roof replacement work. While this may have been disappointing for the resident to learn, it was a reasonable approach by the landlord. Future roof work would likely involve more scaffolding, and as the damage was aesthetic in nature, it was therefore not unreasonable for the landlord to agree to review this at a later date.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it had not dealt with the roof replacement in a timely manner. At this point it would have been appropriate for it to consider whether compensation was warranted as a remedy. Its complaints policy states that if it upholds the complaint, it will say what it has done to put things right. That it did not do so, was another failing.
Roof replacement works are often major in nature and the process of agreeing the scope of works can be a lengthy process. However, from the evidence that is available the landlord’s handling of the matter was inappropriate, and it failed to respond proactively in the circumstances. Overall, the landlord:
1. Delayed in considering further repairs or progressing roof replacement works after it attached temporary sheeting in 2020.
2. Failed to obtain the additional information the council needed in a timely manner, delaying the replacement by a further 9 months.
3. Failed to follow its policies for the downpipe repair.
4. Failed to adequately to take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities.
5. Failed to keep the resident updated about the progress of the roof replacement work.
As a result, we have found severe maladministration of its handling of the roof replacement.
We order the landlord to pay £800 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This is a proportionate amount in line with our remedies guidance for failings which adversely impacted the resident. We have also ordered the landlord to consider making a further award of compensation once the roof replacement works are complete.
The landlord confirmed with us that:
1. Tenders for the roof replacement works went out in November 2024.
2. A re-tender exercise was done in April 2025 as only one compliant bid was received.

As such we make a further order below in relation to the ongoing roof replacement work.

Damp and mould in the property

The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Landlords are required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in their properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The resident explained that while waiting for the roof replacement, there was water ingress which led to damp in the property. The evidence shows that she also reported a leak in 2021. Internal communications demonstrated that the landlord was aware of the potential for damp issues if the temporary sheeting was covering the gutters.
In her complaint, the resident stated that a chartered surveyor inspected the property in January 2023. She said that the surveyor found “extensive” damp especially in the living room and the bedrooms. We asked the landlord for this report, however it failed to provide us with a copy. As such it has not been possible for us to review the inspection report and findings as part of our investigation. Furthermore, it is unclear from the other evidence what was identified during the inspection, including any remedial action. On the basis of the evidence we have been provided with, there is nothing to demonstrate that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s report.
It is unclear whether the landlord no longer has a copy of the inspection report, or if it has simply failed to provide it in response to our request. Nevertheless, it is a failing that the evidence relating to the resident’s complaint and the conditions within the property is unavailable. Our 2023 Spotlight report on “Knowledge and Information Management” states “good records assist housing providers to offer efficient and effective services by ensuring that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information.” The evidence suggests that landlord’s failure to keep an audit trail of the inspection, likely impacted its handling of the damp issue.
In November 2023, after the MP enquiry was made the landlord asked the repairs management company to check that the guttering was not covered by the temporary sheeting. The repairs management company confirmed that it would look into this. The works order confirms it completed this repair on 7 February 2024. Within its response to the MP, the landlord provided an assurance that until it replaced the roof, it would ensure the block remained watertight. It said it would remove the temporary sheeting that was covering the guttering by 30 November 2023. It also said it would inspect and decide what repairs were required to improve the living conditions within the property. However, the repair was not timely as the evidence shows it was done in February 2024.
The resident noted in her complaint that the landlord’s roofing manager attended on the 3 November 2023. There is no corresponding inspection report or reference to this visit in the evidence. Despite, asking for this evidence, the landlord has not provided it and as such it has not been possible to assess what was recorded on that visit, what action, if any, was taken and whether its response was reasonable.
However, the resident said the roofing manager commented that he could feel the damp immediately upon entering the hall. Given this comment, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange for a damp and mould inspection by an appropriately qualified member of staff. This would have allowed it to investigate the severity of the situation and/or to satisfy itself that the conditions did not pose a hazard.
Throughout the complaint correspondence and the numerous communications with the landlord, the resident raised concerns about the impact of the damp on her health. She explained that her asthma had deteriorated and felt it was due to the damp or the stress or a combination of both. Given this, the landlord should have also considered whether it was appropriate to expedite a damp and mould inspection. It should have also considered whether a risk assessment was necessary to ensure that the conditions within the property did not pose a hazard to the resident. That it did not do so was another failing.
The landlord carried a self assessment against the recommendations made in our 2021 Spotlight report on damp and mould. It indicated in that assessment that it had updated business processes to “ensure proactive intervention”. While we welcome this, it is vital that the landlord promptly follows up reports of damp. The evidence shows that it did not attempt to arrange a damp and mould inspection at the property until after the stage 2 response in mid 2024. Given that the resident had first reported a leak affecting the property in 2021 and damp in early 2023, the time taken for the landlord to arrange the damp inspection was inappropriate.
Overall, the landlord:
1. Delayed in dealing with the initial reports of damp, which date back to 2023.
2. Failed to monitor and action concerns of damp in the property.
3. Failed to complete associated repairs in a timely manner.
4. Failed to appropriately consider the resident’s vulnerabilities.
5. Failed to identify these failings when it reviewed its handling of the issues.
As such we have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
We order the landlord to pay £600 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This is an appropriate amount in line with our remedies guidance for failings which had a significant physical impact on the resident.

The associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will address the issues raised. It will say what it has done to address the matter if fault is found and give a clear outcome as to whether it will uphold the complaint. It sets out that it will acknowledge complaints withing 3 working days. It will provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response in 20 working days.
Our 2022 Complaint Handling Code (the Code), outlines that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. Under our complaint handling principles. complaint handlers must consider all information and evidence carefully.
The resident in her complaint raised a number of issues which the landlord failed to adequately address in the stage 1 nor the stage 2 complaint responses in line with the Code and its own policy. These included:
1. a balcony and communal yard covered in a thick green moss.
2. extensive damp found by a chartered surveyor in January 2023 and a roofing manager in November 2023.
3. double glazing with moisture trapped between the panes.
4. guttering downpipe had become detached.
5. her initial complaint had been downgraded as an enquiry.
6. her use of a dehumidifier and the associated costs.
The resident raised specific concerns about the presence of damp in her property. The landlord’s position in relation to this was an assurance to revisit the matter once it completed the roof replacement work. Given that the problems within the property were likely being caused by, or exacerbated by, the roof repair this was not a wholly unreasonable solution. However, as the resident had raised specific concerns, the landlord should reasonably have assessed its response and considered whether any interim solutions, including carrying mould washes, should reasonably have been explored.
In her escalation request, the resident explained the negative impact of the issue on her physical health. The landlord did not address this in its stage 2 response either. This was not appropriate and was a missed opportunity for the landlord to ask further questions of the resident or consider carrying out a risk assessment. It should have also provided her with details of its liability insurers so she could pursue a personal injury claim when it responded to her complaint. The lack of action taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns was poor.
The landlord having been put on notice as to what the resident’s specific concerns were, it had the opportunity to investigate the matter thoroughly and respond to the concerns raised in line with its responsibilities under its policy and the Code. It failed to engage with all the concerns appropriately and failed to show the resident that it had taken her concerns seriously.
The landlord upheld the complaint in its stage 2 response, acknowledging there had been delays with its handling of the roof replacement. At that point, it should have considered offering compensation, as its policy states it must explain how it will put things right when a complaint is upheld. It is unclear why the landlord departed from its complaints policy and did not consider whether compensation was warranted.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the complaint was not in line with its responsibilities and obligations set out in the Code and its own policy. As a result, we have made a finding of maladministration. In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
We identified several instances in this report where the landlord did not follow the requirements of the Code at the time of the complaint. We have since released a new statutory Complaint Handling Code in April 2024, which all social and local authority landlords are required to follow. As this new Code has replaced the Code that was in place at the time of the complaint, and the landlord has completed a self-assessment for the requirements of the new Code, this report will not issue any orders in relation to Code compliance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof replacement works and the associated temporary sheeting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for the failings identified by this investigation, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on making apologies.
2. pay the resident £1,600 compensation caused by the identified failings. This is comprised of:
  1. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the roof replacement work.
  2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account.

create a schedule of works for when and how it intends to update the resident about the impending roof replacement work. It should provide us with a copy of the same.
arrange to meet with the resident to discuss the damp and mould in the property to:
1. assess whether it should carry out a risk assessment.
2. determine whether interim remedial work such as mould washes are needed.
3. consider reimbursing her for the increased cost of running a dehumidifier on production of suitable evidence from the resident (e.g. energy bills showing increased costs) due to delays in completing the roof replacement work.
4. provide the resident with details of its liability insurers so she can make a personal injury claim if she wishes to.

It should confirm in writing with the resident what its proposed plan of action is in relation to the above and whether or not any further work is required. It should provide us with a copy of the same.

Once the roof replacement works are complete, the landlord must consider whether any further delays have been encountered from the date of this report until completion. If so, the landlord should assess whether it is appropriate to award the resident further compensation. Within 4 weeks, it must write to us to confirm its commitment to do this and at the appropriate stage write to the resident explaining its decision and associated calculation, as necessary.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should review the failures identified in this report to set out what went wrong and what it will do differently. A copy of the review should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman.