London Borough of Camden Council (202438005)

Background

1. The complainant is a leaseholder who rents the property to subtenants. On 28 September 2023 he reported that a roof leak was affecting 4 rooms in the property when it rained. As of the date of this report, the leaseholder says the leak has not been resolved.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to:
   1. A roof leak.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The roof leak.
   2. The associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. 4. There were avoidable delays throughout the repairs process. While the landlord acknowledged the delays, it did not learn from them and put things right. Over 2 years after the leaseholder reported the roof leak, it has not been repaired. The landlord’s communication with the leaseholder was inadequate. Its records were incomplete.
   5. The landlord did not escalate the leaseholder’s complaint appropriately. The updates it gave in its complaints responses were not timebound or specific.  It did not recognise its complaints handling failures, or take steps to put things right for the leaseholder.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The repair to the leaseholder’s roof was unusually complex. It required scaffolding and appropriate testing and handling of the roof tiles, which contained a low-risk form of asbestos. Because the landlord decided to pursue a full roof refurbishment, it was also required to get three quotes from contractors and complete a leasehold consultation process. These complexities will have necessarily extended the timescale of the repair.
7. However, the leaseholder told us that, as of December 2025, the roof has not been repaired. There is still water ingress into 4 rooms of the property whenever it rains. This is over 2 years after the roof began leaking. This is an unacceptable timescale that cannot be fully explained by the complexity of the repair.
8. During the complaints process, the landlord accepted that there were avoidable delays in its handling of the repair, and in particular around the scaffolding. While this was positive, the landlord should have taken learning from this, putting steps in place to ensure the repair was completed as quickly as possible. However, after the leaseholder’s complaint exhausted the complaints process there were further delays. For example:
   1. The landlord’s procurement process meant it needed to ask 3 contractors for quotes to replace the roof. It asked for the quotes over a 6-week period. The landlord has not explained why it did not ask for all 3 quotes at the same time. This will have delayed progress on the repair.
   2. The landlord did not receive all of the quotes it had requested until June 2025. This was 4 months after they were requested. It could have followed up the quotes with its contractors when their response was delayed. This may have enabled it to appoint one before the end of the leaseholder consultation period, so it could start the repair as soon as possible. We have not seen any evidence that it did so.
   3. The leaseholder consultation process finished on the 16 June 2025. In September 2025, the landlord told the Ombudsman it was waiting for its roofing contractor to give a start date for the works. It has not explained why it took another 3 months to get a date for the repairs, so we conclude this was another unreasonable delay.
9. The landlord is responsible for actions contractors take on its behalf. It needs to have robust processes in place to ensure that it has oversight of any repairs it asks them to do. In this case the landlord did not always appear to have adequate oversight of the repairs. For example:
   1. The landlord’s rope access contractors recommended an asbestos survey on 3 February 2024. In June 2024 the landlord sent another repair request to the same contractor, although it had not done the survey. This will have caused an avoidable delay in doing the repair.
   2. The landlord knew in February 2024 that it needed scaffolding for the asbestos survey, but it was not put up for 7 months. The landlord said that this was due to a scheduling issue with its contractor. It said it followed up with the contractor, but it did not respond. As the landlord accepted that the contractor’s actions had resulted in delays to the repairs, it should have highlighted the case at a contract management meeting. There was no indication it did so.
10. The landlord’s communication with the leaseholder was inadequate. For example, in February 2025 the leaseholder said that he had not heard anything about the repairs since the previous year. This was a communication gap of at least 2 months, which will have caused the leaseholder frustration and inconvenience.
11. There were examples of inconsistency in the information the landlord gave the leaseholder. For example:
    1. It told the leaseholder in a complaint response that there was an appointment at the property on 1 June 2024. It later said it had attended on 28 May 2024. It is not clear why the landlord changed the appointment or how it told the leaseholder.
    2. The leaseholder complained that when he called the landlord to follow up the roof repair, it told him the repair was closed. The landlord did not dispute this. It appears the repair was passed to the major works team and was recorded as closed only on the landlord’s day-to-day repair log. The landlord should have been clearer about this to avoid confusion.
    3. The leaseholder complained that the landlord told him it needed to put up scaffolding but then sent a rope access team to the property. The landlord is entitled to decide how best to do a repair, but it should communicate changes with residents.
    4. The leaseholder complained that the landlord told him the repairs would start on 1 August 2024. The landlord did not dispute this. If there was a change to the repairs schedule the landlord should have explained this.
12. The landlord did not tell the leaseholder the outcome of the asbestos survey. While it was not required to do this, the leaseholder had expressed worry about asbestos in the property. The landlord could have explained to the leaseholder that it had found low risk asbestos in the roof tiles and explained that it would remove it during the roof refurbishment. This may have reassured the leaseholder.
13. The landlord also said it would hand deliver letters about the leaseholder consultation process to the leaseholder. However, the landlord was aware that the leaseholder does not live at the address. As such the landlord should either ensure it sends correspondence to the leaseholder by email, or to any correspondence address it holds for him. There was no evidence it considered this. This may have caused the leaseholder inconvenience and frustration.
14. The landlord and its contractors should keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail, including details of appointments, any contact with the leaseholder, and the landlord’s decision making.
15. The repair records the landlord has provided to the Ombudsman are inadequate. The landlord told us in September 2025 that there were no outstanding repairs. In the same email it told us it was waiting for a date for scaffolding to go up at the property. This information was contradictory and suggested either that the landlord did not have clear records of the status of the repair, or that relevant staff could not access them.
16. There was also evidence that the landlord had several open repairs for the leaseholder’s roof concurrently, or that it logged new repairs when the leaseholder contacted it to report the ongoing leak. This is a record keeping failure which could cause duplication.
17. In its correspondence with us, the landlord said its repairs team would not have records of information it had sent the leaseholder about the repair. It would only have records if the leaseholder had contacted it. This is a further record keeping failure. The landlord should keep leaseholders updated about repairs and have clear records of all contact. The landlord should consider reviewing its repairs processes to ensure its record keeping practices are adequate.
18. Leaseholders are usually liable for carrying out redecoration and repair in their individual properties, but there are some circumstances where landlords may be responsible for repairing damage in a leasehold property. This is usually where a landlord has failed to meet its repairing obligations.
19. The leaseholder asked for compensation for damage to his property caused by the leak. The landlord told the leaseholder in its complaint response that he could make a claim against its liability insurer. This was appropriate. Insurance policies help landlords to manage their financial resources effectively and the landlord was not obliged to pay a claim outside the insurance process.
20. The landlord told us that the leaseholder has not made a claim against its insurance. We recommend that it provides him with the details of its insurer again, so that he can consider making a claim.
21. The leaseholder also asked the landlord to reimburse him for travel costs, hotel costs and loss of earnings. The landlord said that it did not offer reimbursement for these costs as leaseholders are expected to arrange access for repairs appointments. This was reasonable, being in line with its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation, set out in our remedies guidance.
22. Overall, we found significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the repairs which amounted to maladministration. The landlord offered the leaseholder £100 in compensation for the inconvenience, distress and frustration caused by the delay to the repairs. This award was not enough to recognise the detriment caused to the leaseholder over a long period.
23. The leaseholder does not live at the property. If he did, the impact on him would have been greater and our award would have been higher. However, the landlord’s handling of the repair has still had a negative impact on the leaseholder. It has caused him inconvenience and frustration. To recognise this, we have ordered the landlord to pay the leaseholder £500 in compensation for its failures, in addition to the offer it has already made. This is in line with our remedies guidance (available on our website).
24. The leaseholder rents the property to tenants. While the repairs will have caused them inconvenience and distress, we are not considering this in our investigation. The landlord would not be expected to pay compensation for any distress and inconvenience which the leaseholder’s tenants experienced. This is because it does not have a contractual relationship with the tenants, so it does not have any responsibilities towards them.
25. The landlord has also been ordered to begin the refurbishment to the leaseholder’s roof. If it cannot do so by the date set, it must explain why not and set an estimated timescale for the repair.

26. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. The landlord met or nearly met its complaints policy timescales at both stages of the complaints process.
27. The leaseholder first complained to the landlord about its response to the roof leak on 30 April 2024. He made a second complaint on 11 September 2024. In its complaints policy the landlord says it will only escalate a complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process if the leaseholder requests this within one month of its stage 1 complaint response, or within 1 month of the completion date of any agreed actions.
28. Although it was over 1 month since it had responded to the leaseholder at stage 1 of its complaints process, it should have considered the leaseholder’s second complaint as a complaint escalation request. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 4 May 2024 did not give clear timescales for the work, but it did say that it intended to put up scaffolding at the property. When the leaseholder complained in September 2024, the scaffolding was not up. As such, we find that the landlord’s agreed actions had not been completed. Given this, escalating the complaint would have aligned with the landlord’s complaints policy. It would also have sped up the complaints process for the leaseholder, enabling him to ask the Ombudsman to investigate sooner. 
29. Landlords’ complaints teams should make sure they give complainants clear, accurate, up-to-date information, and ‘next steps’ with specific times and dates. This shows that they are taking the complaint seriously and putting things right. The landlord did not do this. For example:
    1. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that the leaseholder had reported the leaking roof in May 2024 and described its actions from this date onwards. As this was 8 months after he reported the repair, this will have been frustrating for the leaseholder, who may have felt the full circumstances of the case were not being considered.
    2. The landlord did not give the leaseholder any appointment dates or times in its complaint responses, other than one appointment in June 2024. On this occasion it did not tell him what the purpose of the appointment was.
    3. The landlord told the leaseholder that either its repairs team or its contractor would update him on the repair. It should have got the updates before sending its responses. This would have been more meaningful and shown it was taking ownership of the complaint.
    4. The language and phrasing used by the landlord was not always easy for a layperson to understand. For example, in its stage 1 response, sent on 5 May 2024, it gave an unnecessary level of detail about the repair carried out, including naming specific types of sealant. This may have been confusing for the leaseholder.
30. In the circumstances of the case, the landlord’s failure to give timebound updates was a significant, as it had acknowledged unacceptable delays in the repairs. By giving inadequate updates, the landlord did not progress the repairs or put things right for the leaseholder.
31. Identifying learning is a key part of effective complaint handling, and one of the Ombudsman’s effective dispute resolution principles. While the landlord acknowledged failures, it did not identify learning it could take from the leaseholder’s complaint. This may have led the leaseholder to feel his complaint was not being taken seriously.
32. Overall, the errors described above amount to maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. They will have caused the leaseholder inconvenience, time, and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
33. To put things right for the leaseholder, the landlord has been ordered to pay £200 in compensation. Awards in this range align with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is explained above.

Learning

34. The landlord should ensure its complaints responses give meaningful timebound updates about upcoming repairs appointments.
35. Where complaints are upheld, landlords should identify learning, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
36. The landlord should consider its record keeping practices around repairs to ensure these are robust and fit-for-purpose.