Raven Housing Trust Limited (202332085)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332085

Raven Housing Trust Limited

1 October 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 reports of a roof leak and associated bathroom and downstairs toilet (WC) repairs.

Background

2. The resident first reported a roof leak affecting the upstairs bathroom and WC on 17 November 2022. The landlord has recorded that the roof works order was completed in February 2023, and the internal repairs were completed in June 2023.
3. On 21 August 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said she was dissatisfied with the level of communication during the completion of the repairs, the quality of the works, and the recurrence of the roof leak.
4. On 12 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said it had raised a recall order with its external contractor to resolve the internal repair issues. It said it had not identified any signs that the roof leak remained unresolved. It offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience and delays in completing the repairs. It also said it would raise a works order for issues affecting the WC toilet itself.
5. On 6 October 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. She said she had a negative experience with the external contractors, which resulted in her asking them to leave before the repairs were completed. She said the repairs remained unfinished, the roof leak was ongoing, and she was dissatisfied with the quality of the completed repairs.
6. On 30 October 2023, the landlord issued its final complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It committed to meeting with the external contractor to discuss her experience and said it would provide feedback to her afterwards. It also said it would raise further works orders to resolve the outstanding issues relating to the roof leak and internal repairs.
7. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £375, replacing its earlier offer. This consisted of:
   1.        £250 for the repair delays and inconvenience caused.
   2.        £100 as an apology for the distress caused by the experience with its contractors.
   3.         £25 for not raising a further works order relating to issues affecting the WC toilet as it said it would in its stage 1 complaint response.
   4.        Total compensation: £375.

Events after the landlord’s final complaint response

8. In December 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation. She said she was upset about how she had been treated and felt frustrated that the issues remained unresolved, despite the commitments the landlord had made in its stage 2 complaint response.
9. We contacted the landlord in July 2024, requesting evidence for our investigation. In response, the landlord told us it had identified that the repairs remained unresolved as it had failed to complete the actions it said it would do in its final complaint response. The landlord told us it had raised further orders to complete the repairs, and it would consider offering the resident a further £450 in compensation for the additional delays, distress and inconvenience caused. We do not have evidence that the landlord advised the resident of this additional offer of compensation.
10. The landlord and resident have both confirmed the roof repairs were completed. The landlord has said the roof was repaired in October 2024 and the internal repairs were completed around February 2025.

Assessment and findings

The roof leak

11. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property. This includes repairs to the roof and ensuring the property is weathertight.
12. Within 3 days of the resident reporting the roof leak, the landlord raised a works order for a leak trace. However, this was subsequently cancelled, and no explanation has been provided to us. The landlord raised a further works order on 23 November 2022. Although evidence indicates that the landlord scheduled a contractor to attend on the same day, we cannot determine whether they attended for the roof leak or for other unrelated matters, which we know had also been reported around the same time. We have also been unable to determine if, or when, a leak trace was completed.
13. The landlord’s records show it completed the works order for the roof on 20 February 2023, 95 days after initially raising it. This prolonged period likely caused the resident distress while the roof leak remained unresolved. The landlord also failed to document how it categorised this repair and what timescales it should have completed the repairs within, as per its repair policy expectations.
14. While delays do not always constitute failure, landlords must demonstrate that they proactively managed the repair, completed it as soon as possible and kept the resident updated throughout. Without detailed records, we cannot assess whether the landlord appropriately handled the initial reports of the roof leak. Therefore, we can only conclude that the landlord acted unreasonably.
15. It is essential that landlords maintain accurate and detailed records which provide an understandable audit trail. Our 2023 spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights the importance of effective record-keeping, which enables landlords to deliver accountable and customer-focused services. In this case, the landlord’s records fall short of these standards. We have therefore recommended the landlord review its record-keeping practices with respect to repairs.
16. In August 2023, the resident reported the roof leak had recurred. This indicates the completed repairs did not effectively resolve the issue. The landlord inspected the property on 31 August 2023, which was appropriate in response to the resident’s concerns. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it had not identified signs of the leak recurring during the inspection.
17. The resident escalated her complaint in October 2023, reiterating that the leak had recurred and was causing further damage to the bathroom and WC. We acknowledge that complex issues such as roof leaks may take multiple attempts to resolve effectively. However, the landlord must proactively manage the repair, complete it as soon as possible, and ensure it makes reasonable efforts to do so effectively. It must also update the resident and manage their expectations until it has resolved the issues.
18. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and committed to raising a works order for another roof inspection and for any necessary repairs to resolve the leak to be completed. However, in July 2024, the landlord told us it had failed to do this. This was a significant failure, which meant the resident’s reports of the recurring leak were left unattended to for over 8 months. This delay likely caused the resident distress.
19. In correspondence with us, the landlord explained that the member of staff who said it would carry out the repairs had left its organisation and therefore it could not discuss any commitments they had made with them. This response lacks accountability and demonstrates further record-keeping failures. Had detailed records been maintained, the landlord should still have been able to monitor and ensure the completion of the actions regardless of staff changes. The landlord’s ability to deliver on commitments should not be dependent on individual staff members. This failure risks undermining the resident’s confidence in its complaint handling and commitment to putting things right.
20. The landlord told us the roof repairs were completed around October 2024. While this was a further delay, it said this was caused by the resident requesting that the works be postponed because of other unrelated issues she was experiencing at the time, which the landlord was aware of. While we accept the resident had legitimate reasons for postponing the repairs, we do not consider these subsequent delays were because of additional failures by the landlord. However, this does not minimise the failings identified above. The landlord must pay compensation for these failings, as detailed below in this report.

The associated bathroom and WC repairs

21. The resident reported that the roof leak had also caused damage to her bathroom and WC. The landlord accepted responsibility for these repairs, including redecorating the affected areas.
22. The landlord has not disputed that there were repair delays. In its stage 1 complaint response, it acknowledged that there had been a 59-day delay between the external contractor assessing the works and submitting them for approval. While it appropriately acknowledged the delay, it provided no explanation for its cause. The landlord’s repair policy says it will maintain oversight of repairs. However, this delay indicates it failed to do so, which likely added to the resident’s distress.
23. In her complaint, the resident reported discrepancies between what repairs the surveyor said would be completed and the final scope of works. As we have not been provided with evidence of any related discussions, we cannot determine what was or was not said. However, we have seen that the resident contacted the landlord around May 2023 requesting to speak with the surveyor. Although an “urgent call back” was raised, there is no evidence that it was actioned. This likely caused avoidable distress and reflects a failure by the landlord to deliver a resident-focused service.
24. While the works were completed around June 2023, the resident reported in August 2023 that there were various issues with the quality. The landlord was entitled to rely on the external contractor to complete the works to a reasonable standard. However, when it became aware of the issues, it acted appropriately by assessing the works as part of the inspection it completed (as mentioned above).
25. In its stage 1 response, it acknowledged the works had not met expected standards. As a result, the landlord raised a recall order on 1 September 2023 to address the identified issues, including removing paint splashes, preparing the WC walls for wallpapering, and completing outstanding bathroom works. It explained an extractor fan that had been installed was a standard fitting for where there are damp and mould concerns, which we consider reasonable to proactively reduce damp and mould issues from occurring after the leak.
26. On 7 September 2023, the external contractor attended the resident’s property to complete the recall order. However, the resident asked them to leave, stating they were rude and accused her of delaying the repairs, which caused her distress. Consequently, the works were not fully completed. The landlord recorded that the resident made it aware of this experience on the same day and noted she was upset when she made contact.
27. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported experience with the contractors was disappointing. There is no evidence it took immediate action to investigate what happened. When escalating her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process, she highlighted that the landlord had not contacted her about her experience. It is understandable that this may have caused her to feel ignored and that the landlord had dismissed her lived experience.
28. In its stage 2 response, the landlord committed to meeting with the external contractor to discuss the resident’s experience and said it would provide her with an update afterwards. The landlord also committed to raising further works orders for the unfinished internal works. However, in July 2024, it told us it had not followed through on these commitments. Our Complaint Handling Code sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. All landlords who are members of our Scheme are expected to follow the Code. The Code expects landlords to deliver on the commitments made in their complaint responses. By not doing so, the landlord failed to put things right for the resident, which may have further undermined her confidence in the landlord and added to her distress.
29. The landlord raised a new schedule of works in July 2024. This included decorating the WC using the resident’s choice of paint and wallpaper and replacing and painting the bathroom ceiling. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer to do this, but it should have done so sooner. We understand these repairs were not completed until around February 2025. However, the landlord told us that the resident also requested to postpone these repairs, which explains the further delay.
30. Based on the identified failures in this report, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the roof leak and the associated bathroom and WC repairs.

Compensation

31. The landlord offered the resident £375 compensation during the complaints process for its failures and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. However, in July 2024, the landlord told us it was considering increasing the compensation by an additional £450 for the further delays and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Had it made this payment, the total compensation offered by the landlord for the identified failures would have totalled £825. However, the landlord has provided no evidence that it made this later offer to the resident.
32. It is our role to assess landlords’ handling of complaints through their formal complaint processes. We will still make a finding of maladministration if the landlord only made a reasonable offer after the end of the complaints process, as it did not do enough to resolve the complaint through its complaints process.
33. Our remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. It states that orders between £600 and £1,000 may be appropriate to put things right where there was a failure by the landlord which had a significant, potentially long-term impact on the resident. In line with our remedies guidance, we consider the increased amount proposed by the landlord adequate to put things right. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident the total £825 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the above failures. It may deduct any amounts it has already paid from this total.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and associated bathroom and downstairs toilet (WC) repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

35. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £825 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this report. The landlord may deduct any amount already paid for these failures.

Recommendations

36. The landlord should review its record-keeping practices to ensure all repair records are detailed, accurate, and provide clear audit trails. Records must enable the landlord to effectively monitor repairs, review completed works, and track the commitments made to residents.