From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Camden Council (202446702)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446702

London Borough of Camden Council

12 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a roof leak.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette. The complaint has been brought to this Service on the resident’s behalf by her son, who also lives in the property. For clarity, this report will refer to only to resident throughout.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 10 December 2024 as she was unhappy it had failed to carry out roof repairs. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 18 December 2024, in which it said:
    1. it had carried out previous roof repairs in January 2023 following reports of a leak in December 2022
    2. a new job was raised on 10 October 2024 when the resident reported that the roof was leaking again
    3. an operative attended on 2 December 2024, who found that scaffolding was required and access to a neighbouring garden was needed
    4. the neighbour had refused access and so scaffolding had not yet been erected – it had now escalated this matter to attempt to obtain access
    5. once the external leak was repaired it would carry out internal repairs
    6. it offered £150 compensation to recognise delays
  3. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 5 January 2025. She said that the issues had worsened with recent rain and she wanted a definitive date for scaffolding to be erected.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 21 February 2025, in which it said:
    1. scaffolding was not erected, but work did take place in September 2023
    2. four other residents reported water ingress between April 2024 and September 2024 – scaffolding was noted as being required but again was not erected
    3. the neighbour’s refusal to allow scaffolding was a breach of their tenancy and it should have enforced this much earlier
    4. it would take all possible steps to arrange the scaffolding without further delay
    5. it offered further compensation of £510, broken down as follows:
      1. £360 for an 18-month delay to repairs
      2. £150 for time and trouble
  5. The resident remained unhappy with this response and contacted us on 19 February 2025 to ask us to investigate the complaint. She told us in May 2025 that repairs still had not taken place and the property had incurred further damage.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident raised a complaint about a previous roof leak in June 2023. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 13 June 2023 and a stage 2 response on 9 August 2023. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint. However, this investigation has primarily focused on issues that have occurred since August 2023.
  2. This is because in accordance with the Scheme, residents are expected to bring complaints to the Ombudsman’s attention within 12 months of exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. This is so that we can consider the issues while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
  3. The resident has raised concerns about her family’s health and the impact on this by the issues raised. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages.
  4. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Roof leak

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building, including roof repairs. It sets out the following repairs priorities and timescales:
    1. emergency (out of hours) – attend within 2 hours
    2. emergency (daytime) – attend before 8pm the same day
    3. right to repair (urgent) – complete within 3 working days
    4. urgent – complete within 5 working days
    5. routine – complete within 20 working days
  2. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 9 August 2023 to the resident’s previous complaint it said it would complete repairs between 30 August and 4 September 2023. Its repairs records show it started work on 1 September 2023 and completed it on 4 September 2023. The resident felt the landlord rushed the work, as it was completed in only a few hours. The landlord’s records indicate that there were 2 full days of work, totalling 14.5 hours.
  3. We have not seen evidence that the resident contacted the landlord again about a leak until 1 October 2024. However, the landlord’s records state that other residents did report issues with the roof between April 2024 and September 2024. This investigation has not considered the landlord’s handling of other resident’s reports. However, it is important to note that the landlord was aware of a wider problem with the roof before the resident’s report in October 2024.
  4. The resident has provided correspondence with her neighbour, who told her that they were not happy for the landlord to put scaffolding in their garden. They told the resident that the previous contractors had caused damage to their garden and they did not receive reimbursement for this. The resident asked the neighbour to communicate this to the landlord. We have not seen anything which shows the neighbour did communicate this to the landlord.
  5. On 10 December 2024, the resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint as no repairs had been carried out to the roof. She said it needed to explore alternative options for scaffolding if it was unable to erect it in the neighbour’s garden.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 18 December 2024. It said it had raised a work order on 1 October 2024 following the resident’s report, with an appointment scheduled for 2 December 2024. It is not clear what priority the landlord considered this repair to be, but this appointment was not line with any of its repairs timescales. Its actions at that time were not appropriate and unnecessarily delayed it getting to the root of the problem.
  7. The landlord said that during the visit on 2 December 2024 it was found that scaffolding was needed in the neighbour’s garden. This had not yet been arranged as the neighbour was refusing access. It told the resident it had escalated this matter internally and would escalate it further if necessary. It did not provide any further detail about what the escalation would look like, or a timeline for this, which was not appropriate.
  8. The landlord acknowledged there was internal damage to the property due to the leak. It said that once the external repairs were complete it would carry out internal work. It offered the resident £150 compensation for the delay since the leak was reported on 1 October 2024, which was reasonable at that time.
  9. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 5 January 2025 as she still did not have a date for scaffolding to be erected and the issue was getting worse. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 21 February 205, in which it said it had experienced ongoing issues with erecting scaffolding in the neighbour’s garden. It said its records did not show what, if any, enforcement action had been taken, which was not appropriate.
  10. The landlord said that other tenants had reported water ingress in April, May, and September 2024, but its records do not show that it took any steps to engage with the neighbour to gain access for the scaffolding. It said it should have taken tenancy action sooner and would be taking all possible steps without further delay. It offered additional compensation totalling £510 – £150 for time and trouble and £360 for 18 months of delays.
  11. While the landlord’s stage 2 response was reasonable at the time, we have seen no evidence that it followed through with its commitment to enforce the access for scaffolding. The resident contacted the landlord several times July 2025 via webchat and was told there was still no date for scaffolding to be erected. This was 4 months after it had promised to take urgent action, which represented an unreasonable delay.
  12. On 20 July 2025, the resident raised an urgent repair following a heavy rain downpour. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day and placed a support beam to prevent the ceiling from collapsing. The resident has told us this bedroom has been unliveable since then as she does not feel it is safe. She said she has offered for the scaffolding to be put in her garden at the front of the property, but the landlord told her is not possible due to the slope of the roof.
  13. We asked the landlord for evidence to show why this option was unsuitable, and whether it had considered alternative solutions. It has told us that it in July 2025 it proposed to use a contractor it had used previously to carry out repairs. This would involve abseiling down the property to carry out the inspection and repairs. The landlord said the resident declined this option as previous repairs by this contractor were unsuccessful.
  14. The landlord said it now intends to get a quote for scaffolding to carry out the work. It has not provided an explanation for it not having done this as agreed in its stage 2 response, or why it did not take any action in relation to the neighbour’s refusal to access their garden, which was not appropriate.
  15. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak. It has failed to carry out repairs in line with its repairs policy and has not followed through with commitments made during its internal complaints process. It was aware of the need to erect scaffolding in the neighbour’s garden no later than 2 December 2024. The resident has asked the landlord to consider an alternative to this scaffolding, but it has maintained that this is the only option. Despite this, it has still not taken appropriate action to gain access to do this.
  16. The landlord did recognise failings in its complaint responses and offered the resident compensation. However, the repair work remains outstanding. While it has recently offered to carry out the work without scaffolding, this was not in line with the commitments it made in its stage 2 response. Its lack of action has caused further unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident as well as further damage to the inside of the property. This led it to have to take steps to stop a ceiling from collapsing.
  17. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident further compensation of £600 to recognise the ongoing distress and inconvenience caused by its ongoing failure to carry out repairs. This award has been made with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind and brings the total compensation of this issue to £1,260.

Complaint handling

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means a landlord can fix problems quickly, learn from its mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. At stage 2 it will acknowledge the escalation request within 5 working days and sends its response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. At both stages it may extend the deadlines by 10 working days by writing to the resident with an explanation.
  3. The resident raised the complaint on 10 December 2024. The landlord has not provided evidence it acknowledged the complaint in line with its policy. However, it sent its stage 1 response 6 working days after the resident raised the complaint, which was reasonable.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response says the resident asked it to escalate the complaint on 5 January 2025, but we have not seen a copy of this request. We have also not seen any evidence that the landlord acknowledged the request, which was not in line with its policy.
  5. The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 21 February 2025, more than 20 working days after the resident asked it to escalate matters. This was not in line with its policy and was therefore not reasonable, especially considering the landlord’s lack of acknowledgement or updates.
  6. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It failed to acknowledge the complaint at either stage, and did not issue its stage 2 response in line with its policy. It should have kept the resident updated when it was unable to send its response on time. It also failed to acknowledge this delay in its response, which would have been appropriate.
  7. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 to recognise its complaint handling failures. This award has been made with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to a roof leak
    2. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report the landlord to carry out the following actions and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
    1. pay the resident total compensation of £1,310, broken down as follows:
      1. £1,260 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings relating to the roof leak
      2. £50 for its complaint handling failures
    2. arrange for a senior manager to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified within this report
    3. provide the resident and this Service with an action plan to include the following:
      1. its plan to access the roof, including consideration of alternative options to putting scaffolding in the neighbour’s garden, or the steps it will take to urgently gain access to the garden
      2. a schedule of roof repair works, including a timescale for completion
      3. a risk assessment and identify what actions it needs to take to reduce risk to the resident and her family while repairs are carried out
      4. a single point of contact to consult with the resident during repair work
    4. arrange an internal inspection of the property to assess the damage caused by the water ingress
    5. provide the resident and this Service with a schedule of internal work to be completed following the roof repairs, including an expected timescale for completion
  2. Within 12 weeks of this report the landlord to carry out a review into its tenancy management processes to understand why no action was taken in this case to gain access to the neighbour’s garden. A copy of this review should be provided to this Service.