London Borough of Hackney (202440700)

Decision
Case ID	202440700
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hackney
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	29 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom property in a 3-storey block. The resident complained of a roof leak that caused damp in the property. They asked us to investigate as they were not satisfied with the landlord’s response.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s report of a roof leak and the subsequent damp, mould and damage in the property.
2. the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a roof leak and the subsequent damp, mould and damage in the property.
2. there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Report of a roof leak and the subsequent damp, mould and damage in the property

We found that the landlord failed to:
1. assess the priority of responding to the roof leak.
2. set out and complete interim measures to mitigate the leak when the issues were raised.
3. proactively update the resident about the roof repairs or provide a timeframe and action plan for completing them.
4. remove the mould in the bedroom, despite agreeing to do so.

Complaint handling

There were delays in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s initial complaint. After this, we found that the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. it has due regard to our apologies guidance.	26 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,280, as offered in its complaint response, to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s report of a roof leak and the subsequent damage. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	26 November 2025
3	Inspection order We have made an inspection order because the landlord told us the works have been completed and it completed a post-inspection, however there is no evidence of this. What the landlord must do The landlord must: contact the resident to arrange an inspection. take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. use a suitably qualified person to complete the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. If an inspection that meets these requirements has already been completed, then evidence of this must be provided to us by the due date.	26 November 2025
4	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	26 November 2025
5	Specific action The landlord must set out in writing to the resident whether it will compensate for property damage that may have been caused due to damp in the property following the delay to complete external repairs. If the landlord does not compensate for this it should explain why in its response. This should include the landlord’s considerations of its compensation policy.	26 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
January 2024	The resident reported a roof leak at the property.
16 February 2024 to 19 April 2024	Between these dates the landlord inspected the roof on at least 2 occasions and found it need to be repaired.
15 October 2024 to 19 November 2024	The resident reported that the roof leak was not repaired and caused damp in the property.
9 January 2025	The resident complained to the landlord that they reported a roof leak a year before and had not been kept up to date. They said this damaged their ceiling, caused damp, and they were unable to use a bedroom.
24 January 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It said it needed more time and would provide its stage 1 response by 7 February 2025.
6 February 2025	The landlord explained to the resident it needed a further extension to respond to the complaint. It said it would respond by 21 February 2025.
13 February 2025	The landlord said in the stage 1 response that it inspected the roof leak in March and April 2024. It found it needed to consult with leaseholders about the repairs. It apologised and offered £770 for the distress and inconvenience caused and for the delay to repair the roof. It referred the resident to its building insurer for any internal damage to the property.
7 March 2025	The resident escalated their complaint. They said the repairs due to take place on 7 March 2025 were cancelled, and they wanted compensation for the loss of use of their second bedroom.
13 April 2025	The resident updated the landlord that they were unhappy with the delay to repair the roof. They wanted £12,600 for the loss of the bedroom, which they based on an average rent rate of £900 per month for a bedroom in their area.
1 May 2025	The landlord provided the resident its stage 2 response. It said it would provide fortnightly updates to the resident until the work was completed. It offered the resident £1,280 for the delay in completing repairs from 14 March 2024 to 28 April 2025, and for the distress and inconvenience caused. It said the resident could pursue an insurance claim for the loss of bedroom rent. It said that it had previously referred the resident to its building insurer for internal property damage but that this was incorrect. It said the resident was responsible for internal property damage.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the compensation amount does not account for the delay to repair the roof leak, the damage caused to the property, and that they were not able to use one of their bedrooms. They said they had stress, anxiety, and were unable to sleep due to the worry caused by the leak. They want greater compensation that spans from February 2024 to August 2025 and want to know when the scaffolding would be removed.
6 July 2025 to 11 July 2025	The landlord’s 30-day consultation with leaseholders about the repair costs were concluded with no observations made.
29 July 2025 to 19 August 2024	The repairs to the roof were completed.

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.

Complaint	Handling of the roof leak and the subsequent damp, mould and damage in the property
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s records in this case did not indicate when the resident reported the roof leak. This was unreasonable. However, the resident confirmed reporting it in January 2024.
On 16 February 2024 the landlord arranged a roof inspection for 14 March 2024 and confirmed the appointment with the resident. It found it needed a specialist to inspect the roof. This happened on 19 April 2024. It was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the roof for repairs it may have needed to complete, as set out in the lease and its leaseholder rules and regulation guidance (leaseholder guidance).
However, the landlord had not assessed the issue to decide the priority to respond to the roof leak in line with its leaseholder guidance that would have given it up to 20 working days for normal repairs. This delayed the next steps needed to remedy it.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed interim measures to mitigate the leak and prevent possible damage to the property when it inspected the issue or soon after. However, there is no evidence it had done this.
The resident felt they had to contact the landlord for an update about the issue on 9 May 2024. It had not proactively updated the resident about its investigation into the repair and how long it expected it would take. This was unreasonable.
On 8 and 10 October 2024 the landlord internally recorded that the roof repair required consultation with leaseholders. This was appropriate as its leaseholder guidance sets out to consult with leaseholders where individual costs for major repairs is more than £250. However, the 10-month delay to determine this as the next step was unreasonable.
On 15 October 2024 the resident reported that the leak had spread and caused damp. They contacted the landlord about this again on 19 November 2024. There is no evidence the landlord assessed the damp within 5 working days of it being reported as set out in its damp and mould action plan. This was inappropriate.
Considering the resident was not responsible for the roof repair, the landlord could have used their further report of the leak to set out temporary measures to mitigate it. The fact it had not done so was a missed opportunity and unreasonable.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on 3 and 18 December 2024. The lack of proactive updates and delay to put in place interim measures and complete a full repair to the roof leak was unreasonable.
On 6 February 2025 the resident reported mould in the bedroom. The landlord agreed to clean the mould on 12 February 2025. It was appropriate to set out interim measures to treat the mould. However, the resident reported that this did not happen as the room was too wet. There is no evidence the landlord had oversight of this to ensure the mould was removed as it had agreed to do as an interim measure. This was unreasonable.
On 10 March 2025 the landlord arranged a further roof inspection and provided an update to the resident. It said the resident could make a claim through its building insurance for property damage. It was appropriate it provided an update about the issue.
The landlord later explained that the resident was responsible for property damage and could claim through their own insurance. It said it would not repair the damage. This was in line with the lease. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate the damage at the time and, if it found it was responsible, apply its compensation policy which considers compensation for leaseholders in cases where internal repairs are disputed due to external works.
The resident confirmed the contractor inspected the roof on 14 March 2025. The landlord sent the scope of work to its roofing team on 28 March 2025. This was appropriate.
The resident told the landlord on 13 April 2025 that they found it “shocking and disgraceful” that there had been no repair to the roof for approximately 14 months.
In the landlord’s final response, it set out compensation for the delay completing the roof repair and the distress and inconvenience caused. However, it did not recognise the failures as set out in the summary of reasons.
When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is our role to consider if the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. We consider if its offer of redress and commitments to remedy issues, have been in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
We found that the landlord’s offer was in line with what we would have ordered for the overall failings found in this report. However, it had not set out any learnings from the failures identified in the summary of reasons. There are other steps needed to put things right for the resident as set out in the order section of this report.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 24 January 2025, 11 working days after the complaint was made. This was inappropriate and not in line with the Code timescales to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
On the same day the landlord acknowledged the complaint, it informed the resident that it required an extension to provide its stage 1 response. However, this was already after the complaint was acknowledged late. The landlord should have considered the complaint, provided the acknowledgement in time and communicated its need for an extension sooner to the resident. The fact it did not do this was unreasonable. This left the resident without assurance their complaint had been received and when the landlord expected to provide the stage 1 response. The landlord had not acknowledged this in its complaint responses.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 13 February 2025. The resident escalated the complaint for a final response on 7 March 2025. The landlord acknowledged the escalation within 5 working days, on 17 March 2025. These actions complied with the Code and were appropriate.
On 14 April 2025 and again on 25 April 2025, the landlord informed the resident that it needed an extension to provide its final response. It said it would respond by 1 May 2025 and met that date. These actions complied with the Code and were appropriate.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report recommends that landlords should keep clear records, monitor progress, and update the resident about the repairs. Landlords who keep accurate records can meet their repair obligations and provide us with the necessary information for a thorough investigation.
The landlord had not provided evidence of all records with the resident about the issue, such as when it was first raised and what was explained about the roof leak at that time. At times, this has impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

The landlord failed to communicate proactively with the resident. The resident had to initiate contact and make a complaint due to the absence of updates about the landlord’s inspection plans and leaseholder consultation. However, the landlord did take a positive step by confirming inspection appointments with the resident once they were arranged.