Octavia Housing (202441046)

Background

1. The resident and her 2 children (aged 12 and 18) lived in a 2 bedroom top floor flat. She reported a leak through the bathroom ceiling on 31 March 2023. She alleged the problem started the previous year following cyclical roofing works in April 2022.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from above.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from above.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord failed to act on the advice and recommendations provided by its contractor.
   2. Once initial patch repairs failed to resolve the leak, the landlord did not proactively appoint a contractor that could address the root cause.
   3. The landlord failed to appropriately investigate and provide a resolution through the complaint process. It did not mitigate the impact caused to the resident throughout the timeline.
   4. The landlord acknowledged poor record keeping contributed to its ability to provide a prompt and permanent resolution.
   5. The landlord appropriately recognised its failures and offered an appropriate level of compensation for these but failed to resolve the leak so has not put things right.
   6. The landlord delayed in logging, and responding to, the resident’s complaint but awarded proportionate compensation for this. It has applied learnings from this case and implemented improvements in its processes.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident has described how the alleged leak impacted the health of both her and her children. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to landlord failings.
8. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident raised the issue of a leak on 31 March 2023. The landlord completed initial repairs in April 2023. These were almost 2 years before the complaints procedure began. The resident reported from January 2024 that the leak had returned. We have considered the events from 2023 for context but focused our investigation on the landlord’s actions between January 2024 and November 2025.

What we did investigate

9. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes the roof, walls, windows, and external doors. The landlord is required to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
10. Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, the landlord must ensure the property is fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. It must also ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 of the Decent Homes Standard says the landlord should ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould are listed as a potential category 1 hazards.
11. The resident renewed reports of a leak through her ceiling on 2 January 2024. She said the leak was now affecting several rooms in the flat and had also caused black mould. She stated a surveyor was due to visit in November 2023 but had left a card advising the resident had not answered the door. Since that time, she had not received any response when trying to rebook the appointment. Following this report to the landlord, she contacted its contractor directly to rearrange the inspection.
12. The contractor attended within 4 working days and advised it would appoint a specialist roofing contractor to attend. This was an appropriate response by the contractor where a specialist repair is required and it attended within the landlord’s urgent repair timescales. The records show the sub-contractor attended on 8 February 2024 and completed repairs to the roof and adjoining wall. Both of these responses were within the timescales stated in the landlord’s repairs policy.
13. Between 16 February 2024 and 25 October 2024, the records show the resident reported leaks on 3 further occasions. In response, the landlord arranged a total of 6 appointments to do mould washes, redecorating and repairs. However, the evidence shows that for 4 of these, no access was gained or they were cancelled by the resident. The repeat attempts indicate the landlord was committed to re–arranging failed appointments.
14. Following further patch repairs by the contractor on 22 March 2024 and 25 October 2024, they reported back to the landlord on 28 October 2024 that they believed the fault was the gutter box which formed condensation during cold weather. They recommended installing insulation to the box but said this was not something they could undertake.
15. The repair records are then silent until 21 March 2025 when the landlord issued its stage 1 response. The response acknowledged that, due to poor record keeping, it was unable to confirm any actions taken to contact the resident or what repairs were completed during the repair visits. It acknowledged that a breakdown in communication between it and the contractor had prolonged the repair process. In order to address the issue, it had arranged for its building inspector to complete a further inspection along with a damp and mould survey along with its contractor.
16. However, the landlord has made no reference to the 25 October 2024 survey which cited the gutter box as the cause of the leak. It also failed to act upon an email from its contractor sent on 21 March 2025, advising they required permission to remove the ceiling to access the gutter box. The acknowledged failure by the landlord to keep accurate records prevented it being able to apply a permanent resolution for the resident. This failure caused the resident additional time and trouble in pursuit of her complaint.
17. The resident responded, stating the root cause was already identified, the problem had been ongoing for 26 months and she sought clarity on why it could not complete the work required. She questioned why the same contractor was attending when they had advised her they could not undertake the work required.
18. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that following an inspection on 8 April 2025, it would need to access the ceiling in order to address the root cause. It advised it was arranging to get the work approved. It acknowledged the missed opportunities to resolve the issue, which had caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It offered £1,200 compensation, which comprise of:
    1. £600 for delays in delivering a service.
    2. £200 for poor record keeping.
    3. £200 for distress and inconvenience.
    4. £200 for poor communication.
19. It was positive that the landlord offered an appropriate level of compensation that is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for significant failings that had a severe long-term impact. However, it failed to provide any details regarding an action plan for further works. It also failed to proactively address the damp and mould which the resident had reported throughout the timeline.
20. The records show no further action by the landlord until 7 November 2025. This indicates that unreasonable delay continued beyond the end of the complaints process and the landlord failed to learn lessons from the outcome of the complaint. This was despite it previously acknowledging the resident had experienced these concerns since at least 2023 and its awareness of how her living conditions were impacted.
21. Its building surveyor completed a damp and mould inspection on 7 November 2025, noting the presence of mould in multiple rooms including the living room and bathroom. The records show they found the mould had become embedded in multiple areas, indicating prolonged exposure to moisture. The inspector observed water pooling around previous repair patches. The report highlighted evidence that a slow leak was still present. They concluded that this, combined with condensation forming on the gutter box, was the cause of the leak, damp and mould. The rooms requiring repairs included the living room, both bedrooms and the bathroom. Given the range of rooms affected, the works required and the already long-term impact, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider a decant at this point.
22. The landlord sent 2 additional responses following its stage 2 response in April 2025. The first on 9 May 2025 acknowledged its failure to provide an outcome within the stage 2. It apologised and offered an additional £25 compensation as a gesture of goodwill. The second was issued on 11 November 2025, following the resident’s contact with us. It apologised for its continued poor communication and acknowledged the distress and inconvenience this had caused. It advised it had arranged for an additional survey with a specialist contractor to address the water ingress. It had also scheduled a mould wash for 12 November 2025. It reviewed the timeline and recalculated compensation. It offered an additional £550, consisting of:
    1. £200 for poor communication regarding the recommended repair to the gutter box.
    2. £350 for the further repair delays to the gutter box insulation.
23. While this was another positive response by the landlord in recognising its failures, it is unclear if this action would have happened had the resident not approached the Ombudsman. Throughout the timeline, the landlord missed opportunities to appropriately address and resolve the issues reported. Despite first being alerted to the gutter box fault in October 2024, this remains unaddressed. The landlord has advised us on 4 December 2025 that a decant will take place and has also provided a list of the work required. It is unclear if this has now happened. As such, an order has been made.
24. Overall, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak from above. While it was positive the landlord arranged for surveys from specialists, it failed to pro-actively act on the advice given. These failures caused the resident additional time and trouble in pursuit of a resolution. Its total offer of £1750 compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure that has had a severe long-term impact so we have not ordered any further amount. However, the landlord has not put right the substantive issue despite its acknowledged failings so we have still found maladministration.

25. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If a complaint is escalated to stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. These timescales align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
26. The resident raised a complaint on 5 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 11 November 2024, with an extension requested on 26 November 2024. Its stage 1 response was not issued until 21 March 2025. This was considerably outside of the timescale for a stage 1 complaint.
27. The resident escalated her complaint on 27 March 2025. The landlord acknowledged this on 2 April 2025 with its stage 2 being issued 19 working days later on 30 April 2025. These responses were within the timescale stated in its policy albeit it later acknowledged it had not given a clear decision so had to complete a follow up response in May 2025 (for which it offered another £25 compensation).
28. The landlord issued another follow on response on 11 November 2025. It acknowledged the resident’s comments regarding it not responding to previous complaint requests. It confirmed she had made previous requests in both August 2023 and January 2024. It apologised and offered an additional £200. This brought the total complaint handling compensation to £275. This was an appropriate offer of compensation that is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failings that had an adverse impact on a resident.
29. Overall, the Ombudsman finds there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. While there were delays in it acknowledging its earlier failures and at stage 1 of the complaints process, it apologised and compensated for these appropriately. It advised that it had applied learnings taken from its review of the case and made improvements to mitigate potential reoccurrences.

Learning

30. Recognising a complaint quickly and acting on it in line with the organisation’s policy and the Complaint Handling Code is essential for a fair and transparent service. It is essential for a landlord to fully investigate complaints and provide comprehensive responses. Whilst the landlord did acknowledge and compensate for failings identified, it failed to provide an action plan on how it intended to resolve the substantive issue.
31. Where specialist opinions have been sought, the landlord should act upon these in order to reduce the impact to the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. Effective knowledge and information management is essential to ensure that landlords can manage repairs accurately and efficiently. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged its poor record keeping as a limiting factor in diagnosing and investigating the leak. The landlord must use its systems and processes to apply permanent corrective measures and monitor ongoing complex repairs.

Communication

33. Clear and timely communication is critical when managing repairs. The landlord should always ensure it maintains communication with the resident where repair appointments have failed. This may reduce the risk of further repairs being required. Consistent communication builds trust and prevents unnecessary inconvenience.