Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202339693)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339693

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

20 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak to the outhouse roof.
   2. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of a 3-bedroom house. The landlord, a local council, owns the property.
3. The resident complained to the landlord on 19 November 2023. He was dissatisfied that it had failed to resolve the leak to his outhouse roof. He said that he reported the issue in May and October 2023 but it failed to complete any repairs. He added that the situation had “worsened considerably” and asked for confirmation of what action it was taking to resolve this.
4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 4 December 2023. It apologised for any inconvenience and its lack of communication. It said that several repairs had been ordered in the past but the roof required re-felting. It said it was unable to complete the work in the current financial year.
5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 7 December 2023. He disputed that it had completed any previous repairs and asked for a timeframe to repair the roof. He added that its communication had been poor and it had taken a formal complaint to get an update on his repair.
6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 2 February 2024. It acknowledged that it had not completed repairs and provided details of its repairs history. It again apologised for its lack of communication. It repeated that it was unable to complete the work in that financial year but could offer a temporary repair.
7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He wants compensation for his damaged belongings and for the landlord to complete the roof repair.

Assessment and findings

Reports of a leak to the outhouse roof

8. The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to this case which has affected our ability to effectively assess the timeline of events. Our investigation has, therefore, relied on the available evidence.
9. The resident told us that the outhouse is connected to the back of his home. He describes it as a pantry/outhouse which connects his kitchen and garden. He said he uses the room for storage and to enter and exit his home from the garden.
10. In the resident’s complaint he said that he reported the roof leak in May and October 2023. He stated that the repairs remained outstanding and were worsening. He asked for written confirmation of the actions the landlord would take to resolve this and for regular updates until resolution.
11. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 24 November 2024 and asked for a photograph to attach to his complaint. It is reasonable to assume that the resident spoke with the landlord as it also acknowledged his claim that his belongings were damaged and his request for compensation. This included a kitchen unit which was stored in the outhouse.
12. The evidence shows that the landlord discussed the matter internally between 27 and 29 November 2023. It said that there was nothing it could do with the concrete roof other than re-roof it with glass reinforced plastic. It also stated that it spoke with another surveyor who confirmed that it could apply a waterproofing compound which would be the quickest and most cost-effective method. It queried if this would be a temporary repair and whether it would still require a new roof. It concluded that it was classed as a proper repair, and if it worked, would not require further work.
13. The landlord’s discussions demonstrated that it was seeking a resolution to the roof leak. Its records show that it raised an order on 30 November 2023 to apply the waterproofing compound to the outhouse concrete roof. However, the record show that this was cancelled as “not required by the resident”. It is not known if this is the case and is concerning, given he had repeatedly requested the repair.
14. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 4 December 2023, it apologised for any inconvenience caused and for its lack of communication. It said that it could see that it previously applied the waterproofing compound to the roof but it still required re-felting. Its repairs team did not have the capacity to complete large repairs to flat roofs. It had passed the repair to its asset team to progress. It assured the resident that the work would be done but not during that financial year. It would provide an update when it was in a position to do so.
15. The landlord’s apology was appropriate given the resident reported his concerns initially in May 2023. While we appreciate that large scale works must be planned in accordance with the landlord’s programmes and budgets, it failed to offer any temporary solution in the meantime. It should also have been aware from its own records, that the waterproofing work was not undertaken.
16. The landlord also stated that it had checked the resident’s tenancy account and could not locate any documents that showed he had permission to remove a unit from the kitchen. It was unable to guarantee that he would not be recharged for this if ever he left the property. It added that it would send an insurance form separately for him to make a claim for his damaged belongings as a result of the leak. Its response was reasonable and provided him an opportunity to claim for any damaged items.
17. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint 3 days later. He said that it was disconcerting that several repairs had allegedly been carried out including the application of the waterproofing compound. He asked for confirmation of when this had taken place as he had been a resident for over 16 years and had no knowledge of this. He also asked for an explanation for the delays and its communication breakdown. He added that it was the landlord’s joiner who removed the kitchen unit to accommodate a dishwasher. He was advised to store it in the event he ever left the property. He said that the fact it could not locate any paperwork supporting this was frustrating and unfair.
18. The evidence shows that the landlord continued to communicate internally about the repair on 25 January 2024. Its records state that it visited the property and the area of the outhouse where the resident kept his appliances was dry and weather tight. But the second part where he was storing belongings had obvious signs of rain coming through. It said it had no policy regarding outhouses and needed to review this given the large amount of requests and complaints. It was unable to provide a solution to outhouse buildings as these were not priority or habitable spaces.
19. We appreciate that landlords must prioritise repairs based on risk and within the constraints of its budgets. While the affected area of the outhouse would not be considered a habitable space, it is connected to the resident’s home and provides access to his garden, a space he would have to walk through.
20. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 2 February 2024, it acknowledged that the resident’s assertion, that it had not applied the waterproofing compound to the roof, was correct. It explained it had raised an order for the work but this was later cancelled by the resident. As stated previously, this is concerning given his attempts to get his repair done.
21. The landlord apologised for its lack of communication. It said it had taken additional steps to ensure all residents did not continue to receive inadequate communication. It was working with its communications team to put further processes in place to provide updates on the position with repairs and expected completion. Its apology was appropriate in recognising its communication failings and demonstrates some learning from the complaint. However, it failed to offer any redress.
22. The landlord apologised for the frustration caused and explained the work had been allocated to its asset team. This was because its in-house maintenance team did not have the capacity to complete the work. It said it was prioritising jobs which were a serious risk to life and health. It was procuring additional contractors to support the delivery of outstanding work which it would prioritise. It said it visited his home on 24 January 2024 and rated his repair as amber, essential but not life threatening. It raised a repair during stage 1 but this was cancelled. It could request a temporary repair while the permanent repair was programmed into future work. It asked the resident to contact its quality liaison officer if he wanted it to complete a temporary repair.
23. The landlord appropriately explained its position in relation to the roof repair. However, while it offered a temporary solution, it was not reasonable for it to ask the resident to request the repair again given he had been asking for this for 9 months. It had also discussed 2 temporary solutions in November 2023, 2 months prior but failed to undertake any work.
24. The landlord stated that having reviewed the resident’s housing account, it found no reference to the removal of a kitchen unit. While it found no rationale for why this happened, it confirmed it would not hold the resident accountable for the replacement unit. It apologised for the additional frustration. Its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
25. Following the landlord’s final response, it wrote to the resident on 18 July 2025 apologising for its delay in providing an update. It said it had programmed the replacement of the roof before the end of March 2028. It said if the condition worsened or was no longer safe, secure, or useable in the meantime to contact its repairs service as normal. Once it had a specific replacement date it would be in touch to discuss next steps. It apologised for any stress and inconvenience.
26. In summary, while it was appropriate for the landlord to plan major works, it failed to provide a temporary solution to the ongoing leak or offer any redress for its communication failings. As the area is not a habitable space, we do not consider the detriment to be at a high level but have ordered compensation for the identified failings within the range of our remedies guidance.

Associated complaint

27. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days and responds at stage 1 and 2 within 10 and 20 working days respectively. Any agreed extension will not exceed 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the code).
28. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days and responded at stage 1 within 10 working days. This was in line with its complaint policy timescale.
29. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 7 December 2023, however, the landlord’s records of 13 December 2023 show that it had not picked this up due to staff shortages. It contacted him that day and apologised for its delay. While this was a positive approach to take, this was only 4 working days later and in line with its complaint policy timescale of 5 working days to acknowledge a complaint.
30. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 2 February 2024, 18 working days later than its complaint policy timescale. However, in its stage 2 response it thanked the resident for agreeing to an extension to this date. While we have seen no evidence of its request for an extension, it acted in line with its complaint policy extension timescale. It therefore responded appropriately in line with its complaint policy timescale.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak to the outhouse roof.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

33. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of its compliance:
    1. Pay to the resident the sum of £100 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience, for its communication failings and failing to provide a temporary repair solution.
    2. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    3. Arrange a temporary repair to the resident’s outhouse roof within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

34. The landlord should consider how it will manage similar repairs and update its policies to reflect this.