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 Ealing (202431561)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431561

London Borough of Ealing

19 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 the resident’s request for compensation following a roof leak.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. In December 2022, the landlord temporarily rehoused the resident and her sons. It did this following a roof leak which caused the ceiling to collapse. At the time of the complaint, the resident remained in temporary accommodation.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 22 May 2024. She asked it to pay her £6,000 compensation towards her damaged belongings which held sentimental value. She felt if the landlord had repaired the roof leak in 2020 when she reported this, it could have prevented the roof collapse which damaged her belongings. She added that the repairs impacted the household’s health, and their sleep as pigeons were accessing the loft area.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 10 June 2024. It said it had replaced the resident’s bedroom furniture, including wardrobes, chest of drawers and a bed. However, it said it could not offer compensation for her damaged belongings. It said it advised all residents to have contents insurance for such matters. It confirmed it would resolve the damp issue once it had repaired the roof. It added that it was not responsible for noise created by pigeons.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 24 June 2024. She asked it again to pay her £6,000 compensation. She reiterated that the landlord could have avoided the roof collapse if it resolved the leak in a timely manner. She felt that its offer to replace the furniture meant it acknowledged it was at fault for the damages. She also repeated her concerns that the pigeons impacted her sleep.
  6. On 25 July 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident. It reiterated its advice about having contents insurance, explaining that it was not responsible for damage to belongings. It said that the damaged roof allowed pigeons to access the loft space. It acknowledged this would have created a nuisance for her at the time. It explained the noise would stop after repairing the roof as the pigeons would no longer be able to access it. It apologised for the time taken to repair her property.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to us. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision to not offer her compensation for her damaged belongings. The complaint became one we could investigate on 13 June 2025.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord needed to temporarily rehouse the resident following the roof leak. In January 2023, it sourced new bedroom furniture for the temporary property. This was good practice given her own furniture was damaged.
  2. Within the complaint, the resident said she was unhappy with the damage caused to her belongings following the roof leak and collapse. The landlord explained it was not responsible for the damages. It said it encouraged residents to have contents insurance to cover damage to belongings. The landlord’s position and advice was correct in line with its repairs policy.
  3. While this was appropriate, the landlord failed to provide advice about how to escalate the concerns to its insurers. Both the landlord and this Service cannot make liability decisions. We therefore cannot assess whether the landlord was responsible for the damages and if it should pay £6,000 as requested.
  4. However, the landlord was aware that the resident felt it was liable for the cost of her damaged belongings. In particular, she considered it had failed to complete repairs which could have avoided the roof collapse and the damage to her belongings. It is therefore unclear why it did not signpost her to its insurers given her liability concerns. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to allow an independent investigation into her concerns. This was a failing.
  5. After the complaints process ended, the landlord updated its complaints policy. It now clarifies that it will refer requests for compensation to its insurers. This is good practice and will hopefully improve the process for residents going forward.
  6. The landlord also did not address the resident’s concerns that the damp impacted the household’s health. In line with its complaints policy, it should have signposted her to its insurers to investigate her claim. However, it did not do so. By not responding to this matter, it therefore did not act appropriately in line with its policy. The resident would have understandably felt that it did not take her concerns seriously. This was a failing.
  7. Within the resident’s complaint, she explained the impact caused to her by the property condition. She said pigeons had accessed her loft space and caused noise which disrupted her sleep. The landlord’s initial response was understandably disappointing for the resident. It did not investigate why this occurred and instead said it was unable to control pigeon noises. This was a poor response to her concerns.
  8. However, at stage 2, the landlord investigated this further. It said the noises would stop after repairing the roof as the pigeons would not be able to access the loft space. The landlord therefore put this right by answering the resident’s concerns appropriately within the final stage of its complaints process. This was appropriate. Additionally, it explained it would also resolve the damp issues internally after it had repaired the roof. It was good practice for it to confirm that it was committed to resolving the outstanding repairs for her.
  9. In summary, the landlord provided appropriate advice about making a claim through the resident’s contents insurance for her damaged belongings. However, it failed to signpost her to its insurers. Had it done so, the resident could have pursued an insurance claim at an earlier opportunity in relation to her health and her belongings. Additionally, it could have prevented further distress and inconvenience caused by her having to escalate her complaint to us.
  10. Considering this, the landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation. This is to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her request for compensation. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which impacted the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following a roof leak.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation. This is for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her request for compensation. It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account.
    3. Provide details of how to make a claim to its liability insurer for her damaged belongings and her health. If the insurer declines to consider the claim because of the time that has passed, it should reconsider her request for compensation.
  2. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.