North London Muslim Housing Association Limited (202219364)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219364

North London Muslim Housing Association Limited

11 August 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. This investigation considers the landlord’s response to the reports of leaks, damp and mould, in the resident’s home.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured non-shorthold weekly tenant and occupies a 2-bedroom flat on the second floor of a block. The landlord is itself a leaseholder of a different housing organisation (the freeholder), who owns the building. Because of this arrangement the landlord is broadly responsible for repair issues within the resident’s home, and the freeholder is responsible for repair issues in all areas of the building outside her flat.
3. Several times in 2021 the resident reported a leak on the walkway outside of her property. This continued over the next 2 years, until early 2023 when the freeholder attempted a temporary fix. The leaks continued until January 2024 when further temporary fixes were tried.
4. The resident raised her complaint to the Ombudsman on 22 November 2022, about outstanding repairs within the property. These included leaks and flooding, rotten door frames, damp, and mould. We passed her complaint to the landlord and asked it to respond.
5. On 13 December 2022, the landlord replied to the complaint. It explained that the resident’s concerns related to the freeholder, rather than the landlord. Nonetheless, it explained the actions it was taking to have the freeholder act on the problems she was experiencing. It said it would investigate what interim repairs it could try if the freeholder did not act. The landlord promised to keep the resident updated.
6. Evidence shows that throughout 2023, there was ongoing correspondence between the landlord and the freeholder. A survey and inspection were conducted, and remedial work was carried out to stop the leak on 10 February 2023.
7. The resident reported to the landlord on 16 May 2023 as although work had been done to address the leak it was still an issue when it rained.
8. The landlord undertook a further inspection with the freeholder which confirmed the leak outside the property and none inside. Nonetheless, water damage was evident inside. The freeholder agreed to do further work.
9. The resident returned to the Service and on her behalf, we asked the landlord in January 2024 to escalate her complaint.
10. On 8 February 2024, the landlord responded to the escalated complaint. It explained again the limits of its repair responsibilities but set out the steps it had taken to resolve the issues in the resident’s home. It said it understood from her discussions with its officers that the problems had been resolved.
11. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She explained that the landlord had only been able to make temporary repairs because of delays by the freeholder. She said there was no longer any damp and mould in her home, but there was unresolved leak damage. She sought resolution of the leaks and repair to damage inside the building, as well as compensation for the inconvenience and frustration she had experienced from the freeholder.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

12. The resident has told us that she appreciates the different responsibilities of the landlord and freeholder, and understands the freeholder is responsible for many, if not all the repair and maintenance issues she has experienced and is still concerned about.
13. However, the Ombudsman can only consider complaints from a tenant about the actions of their landlord. In this case, that means we cannot investigate the freeholder’s actions or inaction which are at the heart of the resident’s complaint. Instead, this investigation considers what the landlord has done in response to her complaints, within the limits of its responsibilities. The Ombudsman cannot investigate or make findings about the freeholder’s actions.
14. The resident has told us that there is currently damage in her home due to the ongoing leaks in the communal areas. Damage in her home is something the landlord is responsible for. However, as this is a current issue, the resident needs to ensure she has reported it to the landlord. She then has the option to make a new complaint to the landlord about its actions (as opposed to a complaint about the freeholder’s actions) and ask the Ombudsman to investigate the new issue if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in the resident’s home

15. The resident has been reporting and raising complaints to the landlord since approximately spring 2021 about a persistent leak from the walkway outside her flat. This leak has caused puddling and flooding outside of her home, as well as damage to the exterior walls. Scaffolding was erected to address the issue and has stayed in place.
16. In response to the resident’s complaint about the ongoing problems she was experiencing, the landlord explained the situation regarding responsibility for the repairs. It made clear the issue was not one which it could directly resolve, and that the freeholder was already working to address the repair. It explained that it had been and would continue to work with the freeholder and would consider interim repairs or solutions where possible if the overarching problem could not be resolved in reasonable timescale.
17. In its final complaint response, the landlord reiterated this situation and explained the actions it had already taken.
18. The evidence seen in this investigation supports the landlord’s explanations. It confirms the nature of the property management situation and that the freeholder is responsible for the leak issue outside the resident’s home. It shows ongoing efforts by the landlord in 2023 and 2024 to liaise and work with the freeholder, jointly inspect the property, and the freeholder’s attempts to implement short-term fixes. These included pipe and guttering fixes, and alterations to a walkway over the resident’s flat. The landlord worked to communicate these efforts to the resident and find out from her their effectiveness, which it then fed back to the freeholder.
19. The evidence also shows that the resident’s leak was part of wider roof problems which the freeholder was making long-term and large-scale efforts to resolve. The freeholder, assisted by the landlord, had held online meetings and issued newsletters about these works, their nature and scale, and the length of time they would need.
20. In that context the time taken to fully resolve the work appears to be more related to its circumstances than any clear or specific failings. It may also explain why there is no evidence of the landlord exploring the possibility of legal action to get the freeholder to address the repairs – an option open to any leaseholder when a freeholder has unreasonably failed to do repairs. In this case such action would appear potentially disproportionate at the time of the resident’s complaint.
21. Overall, the freeholder is responsible for maintaining the building, including repairs to the roof and any external damage to communal areas. These repairs were outside the landlord’s direct control. The resident confirmed there were no ongoing issues with damp, mould, or the front door, to her home so the landlord had no specific repair obligations. Nonetheless, the landlord took reasonable and appropriate steps to support the resident and communicate with her and the freeholder about the short-term and long-term work needed to resolve the leak problem.

Determination (decision)

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding the complaint.