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 Newham (202346518)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346518

London Borough of Newham

5 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 leaseholder 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 leaseholder’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a roof leak.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s:
    1. Complaint handling.
    2. Record keeping.

Background

  1. The complainant is a leaseholder of the landlord. The leaseholder rented out the property, which is 3-bedroom maisonette situated within a larger block, to a tenant. This report makes reference to the ‘tenant’ who lived at the property, the ‘leaseholder’ who made the complaint, and the ‘landlord’ which is the freeholder.
  2. The leaseholder reports that there was a previous leak at the block in November 2022. The leaseholder reported to us that throughout 2023 he had been contacting the landlord to enquire if the previous leak had been resolved for insurance purposes, but did not receive a response.
  3. Both parties agree that on 21 November 2023 the leaseholder complained to the landlord. The landlord said that the complaint was ‘regarding a leak into the property’. We do not have a copy of this complaint. The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint from the leaseholder on 8 January 2024. It is not clear if this was a new complaint or the same complaint made previously.
  4. On 23 January 2024 the landlord acknowledged the leaseholder’s complaint. On 26 January 2024 it issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
    1. that works had been completed to clear the rainwater gulleys on the roof and resolve the leak on 17 November 2023.
    2. it was aware that leaks remained ongoing and would inspect on 30 January 2024, with a view to arrange further repairs.
    3. it would contact the leaseholder to share the outcome of the inspection.
  5. The Surveyor attended on 30 January 2024 and inspected multiple properties at the block that were affected, including the leaseholder’s. Issues with the drainage infrastructure on the roof were identified and on 5 February 2024 contractors were invited to provide quotes to ‘cut out parapet walls and form new outlets, to install completely new rainwater stacks to the exterior of the block, and to cap off and seal the existing rainwater stacks that passed through the upper maisonettes’.
  6. On 16 March 2024 the leaseholder informed the landlord that the leak remained ongoing and was causing extensive damage to the property. On 18 March 2024 he asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said that:
    1. leaks had been ongoing since 2022 but remained unresolved.
    2. he had not received an update from the landlord since its stage 1 complaint response.
    3. he wanted to know why it was taking so long to resolve the leak.
  7. On 21 March 2024 the landlord and its chosen contractor inspected the roof of the building. It was decided that the issues were extensive and likely to be complex to resolve. It was decided that this was better suited to a capital works programme, rather than to be carried out as a reactive repair.
  8. On 14 April 2024 the leaseholder emailed the landlord again. He raised the same issues as in his email of 18 March 2024. On 19 April 2024 the landlord acknowledged that it had raised a new stage 1 complaint. It issued a new stage 1 complaint response on 25 April 2024. It said that a recent inspection had been carried out on 15 April 2024 and that it was in the process of arranging a major works programme to resolve the ongoing issues with the roof. On 18 April 2024 the landlord agreed internally that it would renew the roof of the block.
  9. The leaseholder asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 the following day. He said that the leak had been ongoing since 2022 and was ‘perplexed’ as to why it was still not resolved. He repeated his escalation request on 10 May 2024.
  10. On 31 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. that following its inspections, it had decided that the entire roof needed to be renewed.
    2. renewing the roof would require a Section 20 process.
    3. that it was sorry its communication with the leaseholder had been lacking and was ‘below the level of service expected’.
    4. it had wrongly issued a second stage 1 complaint response, rather than a stage 2 complaint response, and that there had also been complaint handling delays.
    5. it had arranged a training programme for all staff in complaint handling.
    6. it offered £1,000 compensation to the leaseholder, made up of:
      1. £400 for delays in dealing with the roof leak.
      2. £250 for its communication failings and the resident’s time and trouble.
      3. £350 for its complaint handling failings.
  11. On 20 June 2024 the leaseholder asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of his reports of a leak. He said that he needed the landlord to acknowledge in writing that there had been intermittent leaks at his property from November 2022 onwards for insurance purposes. On 4 July 2022 he asked us to also investigate the landlord’s handling of the roof leaks from November 2022.
  12. On 5 July 2024 the process to renew the roof was due to begin. On 12 July 2024 works were stopped because the landlord found that its legal department had begun repairs to the roof that it had not been aware of. It is unclear if these repairs were completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The leaseholder asked us to investigate events spanning back to November 2022. We encourage residents and leaseholders to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. From the evidence available, there does not appear to have been any water ingress reported at the property for at least 6 months before the leaseholder’s report that the leak had recurred from 21 November 2023. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on events from September 2023 onwards. Reference to events that occurred prior to this date is included to provide context only.
  2. In his complaint to the landlord and to us, the leaseholder referenced adverse effect caused by the leak on his tenants. We are unable to consider the adverse effect of the leaseholder’s tenants in our assessment of the landlord’s actions. This is because the tenants are not in a direct landlord tenant relationship with the landlord as specified in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

The landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports of a roof leak

  1. The landlord’s repair policy was updated in August 2024, so it is unclear exactly what parts of the policy applied to the resident’s complaint period. The policy states it has 4 categories of repairs. Emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours. Urgent repairs will be completed within 3 to 7 days. Routine repairs will be responded to within 20 working days and planned works within 42 working days. Urgent repairs are defined as repairs that may affect the comfort of residents and may cause damage to the property if not carried out urgently.
  2. Due to a lack of records provided by the landlord, it is reasonable to conclude that the water ingress at the leaseholder’s property returned in November 2023. It is likely that this was the reason for his complaint on 21 November 2023. The evidence available shows the leak was intermittent (depending on the level of rainfall) from 21 November 2023 onwards.
  3. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the leaseholder’s correspondence of 21 November 2023. The repair records show that some works to clear the rainwater gulleys on the roof had already been completed on 17 November 2023 in response to reports of leaks from other residents of the block. However there is no evidence it informed the leaseholder of this. It did not inspect the leaseholder’s property, as would have been appropriate after the works on 17 November 2023 to determine if the leak had been resolved.
  4. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that it will undertake post inspections for a selection of cases, to ensure works are completed to the required specification and quality. There is no criteria set out for choosing which repairs to inspect after completion. However given the repairs history at the block and the nature of the leaks reported by multiple residents and leaseholders, it would have been reasonable to complete one in this instance. That the landlord did not complete an inspection or respond to his reports of 21 November 2023 was a failing.
  5. The extent of the leak from 21 November 2023 to 23 January 2024, when the leaseholder called the landlord to report that the leak was ongoing, is unclear. This is because there is no evidence of any contact between the landlord and leaseholder during this time. The landlord inspected the roof of the building on 30 January 2024, in line with its timescales for urgent repairs. It identified further works, but took a further 42 days to raise quotes. The landlord has not provided any evidence to us to explain this delay or justify why it may have been reasonable. This was a failing.
  6. The landlord decided to renew the roof on 21 March 2024. In making this decision, the evidence shows that the landlord considered the wider repairs history alongside its expert investigation of the current issues. This was appropriate. However the evidence shows that it took a further 106 days until 5 July 2024 until it instructed its relevant departments to begin the required process to renew the roof. Again due to a lack of evidence, the reason for this delay is unclear. The evidence shows that the leaseholder’s property continued to experience water ingress and damage during this period.
  7. These failings were exacerbated because there is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the leaseholder from 21 November 2023 to 18 March 2024, other than in its formal complaint correspondence. The landlord noted on 18 March 2024 that the leaseholder had made only limited contact with the landlord during that time, however the landlord should have been more proactive in updating him about the leak given the ongoing issues at the block. For example, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to make contact with the leaseholder after its inspection on 30 January 2024, or after its further inspection and decision to renew the roof on 21 March 2024.
  8. Our Spotlight Report on Repairs and Maintenance – Repairing Trust, was published in May 2025. It states that effective communication is vital and that poor communication leaves residents (or leaseholders) uninformed. In this case the evidence shows that the landlord’s communication failings caused unnecessary frustration and time and trouble to the leaseholder. Had the landlord communicated effectively with the leaseholder as described in the Spotlight Report, it may have avoided some of this impact. The landlord was right to identify and apologise for this in its stage 2 complaint response.
  9. Beyond this, the adverse effect to the leaseholder was limited because he was not resident at the property during the period assessed. The landlord offered £650 in respect of the leaseholder’s time and trouble, poor communication, and for the delays in repairing the leak. The evidence shows that this was proportionate to the adverse effect described above. Our Remedies Guidance states that where there have been failings which have adversely affected the complainant, compensation up to £600 should be considered. The landlord offered an appropriate amount of compensation therefore at the time of its stage 2 complaint response.
  10. The evidence shows that the roof renewal the landlord had promised in its stage 2 complaint response did not go ahead as planned. The landlord instead opted to proceed with repairs to the roof which had been organised by another of its internal departments. It is unclear if these repairs were ever completed. This happened after the stage 2 complaint response and so we have not investigated this to consider if it was reasonable. However, as the status of the roof leak is related to this investigation, we have ordered the landlord to provide an update on the progress of the roof repairs and any outstanding actions it intends to take, to the leaseholder.
  11. Our Dispute Resolution Principles are to be fair, to put things right, and to learn from outcomes. Although the landlord used its complaints process to be fair and put things right, there is no evidence that it sought to learn from its failings in its handling of the roof leak. It also failed to manage the promises made in its complaint responses. Therefore there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports of a roof leak.
  12. On 1 September 2025 we determined 202415480. This case related to the landlord’s handling of the roof leaks at the block on behalf of another resident. In this case we made comprehensive orders to ensure that the landlord learns from the failings highlighted. We have not ordered any further learning in this case therefore.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that it must ‘assess and acknowledge’ complaints and escalation requests within 2 days of being received. It says that it will respond to Stage 1 complaint responses within a further 10 working days and Stage 2 responses within a further 20, in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The leaseholder complained on 21 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on 23 January 2024, which was a delay of 61 days. It said that it issued this acknowledgement in respect of a complaint received on 8 January 2024, but we have seen no evidence of this. In either event, there was a significant delay and the leaseholder’s complaint of 21 November 2023 was not handled appropriately. It issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 January 2024 resulting in a delay of 34 working days overall.
  3. The leaseholder asked to escalate his complaint on 18 March 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this, which was a failing. The leaseholder submitted his complaint again on 14 April 2024. As the same issues had been raised, the landlord should have escalated his complaint to stage 2, but instead it raised a new stage 1 complaint. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 31 May 2024, which was a delay of 51 working days. This delay was a failing. The reason for the delay is unclear.
  4. The Code states that landlords must respond to all elements of a complaint unless there are circumstances where it is fair and reasonable not to. The Code states that it is sometimes acceptable not to consider complaints about matters which happened over 12 months before the complaint was made. If it decides not to accept a complaint, an explanation must be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process. At the time of the complaint, it was not a statutory requirement for the landlord to handle complaints in exact accordance with the Code.
  5. In the leaseholder’s complaint he said that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of previous roof leaks that had occurred ‘since November 2022’. The landlord did not respond to this. Although it may have been acceptable for the landlord not to respond to matters which took place over 12 months before the leaseholder’s initial complaint, it was shortcoming that it did not clearly communicate with him about why it did not do so, as specified in the Code. It also would have been good practice to consider if it may be reasonable to consider his complaint to an earlier date.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it apologised for its delays in complaint handling and offered £350. This was appropriate because the delay likely caused frustration and disappointment to the leaseholder. The leaseholder also went to the time and trouble of sending a further complaint on 14 April 2024 and of going through additional, unnecessary stage 1 complaint process. This amount is proportionate to the likely adverse effect experienced by the leaseholder due to the landlord’s complaint handling failings, therefore no further compensation has been awarded. As a result, the landlord made an offer which constitutes reasonable redress with regard to its complaint handling.
  7. The landlord also said that it had conducted complaint handling training for its staff as part of its stage 2 complaint response. This was appropriate and the landlord demonstrated its ability to learn from outcomes.

Record keeping

  1. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to this Service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and fittings of a building or property. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents. It also enables the landlord to satisfy itself that it has fulfilled all of its repair obligations.
  2. Although the landlord submitted some repair records for the building, these lack key information. The evidence shows that this prevented the landlord from building a clear picture of the history of the leaks at the building, the causes, and what had been done to attempt repairs. This was demonstrated in internal emails from September 2023 when the landlord was investigating the leak to the building. The emails concluded that after significant time investigating its records, the landlord had found ‘no explanation on why the problem remains unresolved and [found that] many notes [relating to the repairs] were never uploaded’.
  3. These emails also show that important information such as which properties were affected by the leaks, which residents had reported leaks, and information about what repairs had been attempted, had not been recorded at the time. It is unclear if this contributed to the landlord’s inability to resolve the leaks at the block before it spread to the leaseholder’s property on 21 November 2023, because we do not know if the missing information could have assisted the landlord in locating or resolving any issues sooner than it did.
  4. There is no evidence that the landlord’s record keeping practices improved after the leaseholder’s reports of leaks in November 2023. The landlord did not provide detailed records of the repairs completed for this investigation. Most of the repairs referred to in this report are based on descriptions sent by email from the landlord, or a written account given by the staff member who attended.
  5. This information was provided by relevant staff members when asked for, but does not appear to have been held centrally. For example on 15 April 2024 an internal email noted that there had been an inspection, but no other evidence to support this is available. This means that there is no evidence to support that the investigations or subsequent works done were appropriate, of sufficient quality, or completed as described. In this case, we note that there is no reason to doubt on the accuracy of any of the email reports seen during this investigation.
  6. Our Spotlight Report on Complaints About Repairs was published in March 2019. It states that it is ‘vital landlord’s keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records’. We expanded on this principle in our Spotlight Report on Repairs and Maintenance – repairing trust, which was published in May 2025. This report mentions ‘incomplete or inaccessible data’ and the issues this can cause, particularly when analysing repeat repairs or working with external contractors. The report notes that centralising repair records can be an effective solution to this. Had the landlord taken steps to ensure its record keeping practices were more closely aligned with out Spotlight Reports, it may have prevented some failings across this area of its service delivery.
  7. The evidence shows that there is other important information relating to this case missing, such as correspondence between the leaseholder and the landlord. This includes leaseholder’s original complaint from 21 November 2023. It is likely that this played a part in the landlord’s communication failings assessed earlier in this report.
  8. Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) was published in May 2023. It states that ‘failing to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify failings, and contributes to inadequate communication and redress’. Both were reflected clearly in this case.
  9. In conclusion, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. On 19 December 2024 we determined case 202343454. In it we noted that the repair records provided by the landlord lacked sufficient detail. On 8 April 2025 we determined 202421897. In it we found the landlord had again not kept adequate records in respect of what action it had taken in response to reports of damp and mould. We recommended that the landlord complete a review of its record keeping practices.
  10. On 1 September 2025 we determined 202415480, which found the same failings in the landlord’s record keeping practices with regard to repairs to the leak in this block. As a result we have not ordered any further learning in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports of a roof leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must provide us with evidence that it has:
    1. Paid the leaseholder the £650 compensation already offered in respect of its handling of his reports of a roof leak.
    2. Written to the leaseholder clearly setting out what it has done to resolve the roof leaks since 31 May 2024, the current progress of the roof repairs, and the details of any further steps it intends to take. If any steps remain outstanding, it should provide a clear timescale in which it will complete these steps.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the resident the £350 offered during the complaints process if this has not already been paid. Our finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis that this compensation is paid.