London Borough of Barnet (202439737)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202439737

London Borough of Barnet

29 September 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 concerns about a roof leak.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in 2013. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 24 September 2024 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint in summary he said:
1. A year had passed since he had first reported a leak from his roof. The landlord told him that it had repaired his roof in May 2024. No one had visited his property,so he was not aware that the roof had been fixed.
2. The landlord’s contractor visited him again asking him if his roof was still leaking. The contractor advised him that as it had not leaked since May 2024 the roof had been fixed.
3. He was tired of hearing that the roof was under a warranty as it still continued to leak. He had made numerous phone calls and sent emails to the landlord to try to get the matter resolved. He wanted the landlord to repair the roof and provide compensation for the delays.
On 11 October 2024 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. The repair was raised by the resident on 21 September 2023. It attended on 30 October 2024 but was unable to ascertain where the leak was coming from. Its roofing contractor attended on 1 February 2024 and identified a small leak. It could not see where the leak was coming from but advised that the roof was under warranty. The leak became uncontainable. The resident reported the leak again on 8 February 2024. It attended on the same day and inspected the ceiling. It concluded that the roof was defective and raised an urgent repair.
2. Its contractor attended in August 2024. The resident said that the roof had not leaked since May 2024. As there had been heavy rain since this date it concluded that, as per its previous inspection, there were no defects. It advised the resident to contact it again if he had any further leaks.
3. Its surveyor determined that the leak was still occurring in October 2024. Its roofing contractor attended again and confirmed that a leak was present. It said that the issue would need to be raised with the original contractors under warranty. It had now escalated this to the original contractor who was due to contact the resident to arrange an appointment to inspect and rectify the issue with the roof.
4. It upheld the resident’s complaint because, although it had responded to the resident’s reports, there had been a significant delay in rectifying the issue with the roof. It apologised for this failing. It offered £50 for its delay in service.
The resident responded on the same day. He said he was unhappy with the compensation amount. He did not consider it reflected the amount of time the issue had been going on for. He asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 25 November 2024. It said that a response would be issued by 23 December 2024.
On 23 December 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. Its original roof contractor visited the resident on 7 November 2024. During the visit it sealed loose laps on the roof and those on the neighbouring property. Its contactor said that the water ingress was due to the neighbouring roofs which required renewal. It did not manage the neighbouring properties but had contacted them by letter asking them to resolve the matter.
2. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint as it had responded to the resident’s reports. It understood the delays had caused significant frustration and inconvenience. It offered £150 compensation for the delays and its poor communication.
In June 2025 the resident informed us that the leak was continuing. Each time it leaked he said he had to use buckets and towels and move furniture. He considered the landlord had not taken full responsibility for all the failings. The leak had continued for 2 years, and it was causing structural and cosmetic damage. The resident would like the leak fixed and for the landlord to apologise for the length of time it has taken.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that it is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property which includes the roof. The landlord’s repair policy states that following a report of a roof leak, a roofing inspection will be raised to establish the cause of the leak and works required. The roof inspection must be completed by suitably competent contractors. Following inspection, repairs will be delivered within the appropriate repairs priority timescales.
The landlord was made aware that the roof was leaking on 21 September 2023. The leak was intermittent and was worse when there was heavy rainfall. In accordance with its policy, the landlord arranged a roof inspection for 25 October 2023. On 25 October its contractor called the resident and said it would attend the next day.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 October 2023 to say that no one had attended on either day as advised, despite him waiting in. The records do not show the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the missed appointments. The landlord did however attend that day to make safe the electrics and determined that the roof was under warranty. Following this the resident chased the landlord in November and December 2023 for an update. The records do not show that the landlord responded. This was inappropriate and a failing.
The repair records in December 2023 state that planned works were being scheduled for the roof. In January 2024 the landlord attended to inspect the roof and found debris in the gully which it cleared. The records do not show whether the resident was kept updated about what works the landlord was doing.
The landlord attended twice at the beginning of February 2024 following further reports of leaks from the resident. It concluded that the roof was the cause, that it was under warranty and it recommended an urgent repair. It attended again on 14 February 2024 and found that there was no water ingress despite heavy rainfall. It found no issues with the seals or the waterproofing system. It concluded the issue might be due to the neighbouring properties’ roofs. The records do not show that its findings were communicated to the resident at this point.
Following this the resident contacted the landlord several times as the leak was continuing. On 28 February 2024 the landlord informed the resident that the issue might be linked to neighbouring properties. It advised him that it would look into it further and get back to him. In April 2024 the landlord’s records state that the roof was under warranty and the issue was being referred back to the original contractor. There are no records to show that the resident had been informed.
. The landlord visited the resident on 3 September 2024. It confirmed with the resident that the roof had not leaked since May 2024. It assessed the damages caused in the bedroom. It provided decorating vouchers for the bedroom and the hall. This was appropriate in the circumstances. However, the records show that on 18 September 2024 the resident reported that the leak was still continuing. On 23 September 2024 he reported it was leaking through his light. The landlord responded and made safe the electrics, which was appropriate. This then led to the resident raising his stage 1 complaint.
The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that it had attended several times in October 2024 and concluded that the matter needed to be escalated to the original contractor as the roof was under warranty. The landlord was already aware of this in April 2024. The landlord did not explain why it had not referred the issue to the original contractor at that point. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The landlord did however provide a point of contact for the resident within its stage 1 complaint response which was appropriate.
The landlord’s original contractor attended in November 2024 and completed some remedial works. The original contractor confirmed the landlord’s earlier findings that the neighbours’ roofs remained an underlying issue. It explained that as the properties were not owned by the landlord it was the responsibility of the neighbours to fix. To resolve the matter the landlord said it had sent letters to both property owners asking them to resolve the matter. This was appropriate in the circumstances. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to set out what action it could take should the issue continue. An order has been made for the landlord to do this below.
In summary it took the landlord a year to refer the issue to its original contractor to carry out the necessary works under warranty. The landlord provided no explanation as to why this was delayed. Its failure to refer contributed to the majority of the delays in this case. We acknowledge that there appeared to be a period of approximately 3 months where the roof had not leaked. However, it is unclear whether the landlord was actively monitoring this or whether it was just because no issues were raised during this period.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was also poor. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this within its complaint response. The landlord’s failings caused the resident further time and effort having to chase for updates. He was also put to the inconvenience of facilitating access on multiple occasions without being adequately informed of what work the landlord was doing. Furthermore, he was left with containing the leak each time it occurred and living with the uncertainty of when it would be resolved.
It is acknowledged that the landlord offered £150 for the delays and its poor communication. We consider the amount to be disproportionately low. Particularly considering the failings identified above and the length of time it took to resolve. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that £350 would provide adequate redress for the failures identified. This is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. We have also made orders below for the landlord to consider how it can improve its communication with residents and to ensure that follow up repair actions are monitored and completed.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It then took 15 working days to provide its full response. Its policy states it will respond within 10 working days. Its policy also states it will respond within 20 working days at stage 2. The stage 2 response was issued 74 working days after the resident’s request to escalate. The landlord’s complaint responses were not therefore provided within its own timescales which was a failing.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint responses evidenced it had investigated the issues raised. The landlord apologised for its mistakes and sought to put things right by offering compensation. The responses did however lack any evidence of learning outcomes which should have been considered relative to its delays and communication.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling shortfalls in this were minimal. It failed to adhere to its timeframe at stage 1 and 2. It then missed an opportunity to fully explain the reasons for its delays and consider learning from its failings. The failings amount to service failure. This is because the failing was minimal and did not affect the overall outcome for the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay £50 for the distress and inconvenience likely incurred.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a roof leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. A senior member of staff to apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £400 compensation. The £150 compensation previously offered by the landlord can be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience likely caused in its response to the resident’s concerns about a roof leak.
  2. £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its complaint handling.
The landlord should within 8 weeks write to the resident setting out what action it may be able to take in respect of the neighbouring properties should the leak continue. A copy of this should be provided to us also within 8 weeks.
The landlord should within 8 weeks complete a review into the failings identified in this investigation to identify how it can prevent similar happening again. The review should be undertaken by officers who were not involved in the original complaint, with a particular focus on:
1. How it monitors its repairs to ensure that follow up action is completed in a timely manner.
2. That there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping the resident updated and recording the communication.
The landlord must share the outcome of its review with this Service, also within 8 weeks.