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.

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202451158)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202451158

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

28 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents:
    1. Reports of a leak from the roof.
    2. Concerns about the firewall in the attic.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy for a 3 bed house which began in July 2024.
  2. The landlord is aware of the vulnerabilities within the household. The resident’s son has ADHD and autism and suffers from severe allergies and asthma.
  3. As part of the pre-tenancy inspection process the resident raised concerns that some roof tiles were missing. She also said the neighbour had said her roof was leaking. It is unclear what works were completed, but the landlord carried out repairs to the roof in June and July 2024 while the property was void.
  4. On 15 September 2024 the resident reported her roof was leaking.
  5. On 2 October 2024 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said:
    1. The landlord attended to inspect the roof but could not gain access. No one had contacted her since.
    2. The leak was now affecting her daughter’s bedroom and the bathroom.
    3. She said she had raised concerns over the condition of the roof and damp and mould before moving in. She was assured that works had been carried out to resolve the issues.
    4. She had redecorated the property, which was now damaged by the leak.
    5. She was concerned about the impact on her children’s health.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 October 2024. It said:
    1. No issues were identified with the roof during the void inspection on 21 May 2024.
    2. It could not inspect the roof in September 2024 due to the works the resident was carrying out to the rear garden.
    3. On 4 October 2024 it replaced some broken tiles which resolved the leak.
    4. The damp and mould issues around the chimney had not gotten worse and as the roof had been repaired the area needed painting.
    5. The property did not require a firewall.
    6. It would award £50 for decorating costs as the resident said she did not want men carrying out internal repairs.
  7. On 25 November 2024 the resident escalated her complaint as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said she was told she would get £150 to redecorate her home.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 December 2024. It said it agreed with the stage 1 decision. However, it increased the offer of compensation to £175. This was broken down as:
    1. £10 as it asked the resident to check the attic.
    2. £10 for the delay in it removing items from the attic.
    3. £80 for decorating costs.
    4. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  9. In January and March 2025 the resident reported her roof was leaking.
  10. In July 2025 the landlord replaced the roof felt, the chimney flue, and repaired the gutters and fire wall in the attic.
  11. The resident has asked us to investigate her complaint as she feels the landlord did not listen to her concerns about the roof or fire wall, which put her and her family at risk. She said the landlord has not contacted her about rectifying the internal damage caused by the roof leak.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns about the impact of the leak, damp and mould on her and her family’s health. We can consider whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action has caused any distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family. However, we are unable to establish whether their health and wellbeing was impacted. This would be down to a court to decide.
  2. The resident has reported the water ingress as a recurring issue that has caused distress and inconvenience for a year. Our assessment will focus on events from June 2024, when the resident reported the issue, up to the end of the landlord complaints procedure in December 2024. Although this report refers to leaks that occurred after December 2024 for context, we have not investigated these events. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to a complaint before the Ombudsman can consider it. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint.

Roof leaks

  1. We recognise that experiencing leaks in her home would have caused great distress to the resident. The purpose of this investigation is to determine if the landlord’s actions, once alerted to the leaks, were reasonable in the circumstances. We find reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof. The reasons for our findings are below.
  2. The landlord did not provide us with the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement. However, under section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the roof. The landlord’s repair policy states it will respond to roof repairs within 20 working days.
  3. The resident raised concerns to the landlord about the condition of the roof in June 2024 before she moved in. The landlord inspected the roof on 4 June 2024 and competed repairs in June and July 2024 when the property was void. It is unclear from the evidence provided what issues were found or what repairs were completed. However, on 3 July 2024 the landlord told the resident the roof issues had been resolved and she could move in.
  4. On 15 September 2024 the resident reported her roof was leaking. She raised concerns about the quality of work carried out by the landlord’s contractor in June 2024. The landlord acted reasonably by agreeing to use a different contractor for future works. The evidence shows the landlord did investigate the resident’s concerns about the previous repairs. Its repairs team told it the September 2024 leak was a new issue. It was reasonable that the landlord relied on this information and considered the resident’s September reports as a separate and new issue compared to the issues it had identified before the tenancy began.
  5. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when it inspected the roof. However, its records state it could not gain access to the roof in September 2024. This was due to the resident completing extensive works to the rear garden. The landlord has been unable to evidence that it communicated this delay to the resident or that it provided new timescales. On 4 October 2024 the landlord replaced broken roof tiles and repaired a leak near the boiler flue. This was in line with its repair timescales. In its complaint responses the landlord told the resident the repairs had resolved the leak.
  6. On 4 October 2024 the landlord requested a drone survey to ensure all the roof works were completed and the leak was resolved. The landlord has not provided evidence to show this was completed. If the landlord had provided the resident with the outcome of a post inspection, it may have assured her that it had taken all necessary steps to resolve the roof leak at that time.
  7. The landlord told the resident it would repair the internal damage caused by the leak. This included painting over the water stains on two bedroom ceilings and the chimney breast. The resident told it she did not want workers entering her property due to the impact this would have on her son’s wellbeing. She said she would do the decorating herself and wanted to use specialist paint due to her son’s allergies. The landlord acted reasonably by offering her a contribution of £80 towards the decorating costs. Although the resident requested £150, this was not an unreasonable offer.
  8. The resident told the landlord she was concerned about the impact of the roof leak and subsequent damp and mould on her children’s health. No evidence was seen that the landlord responded with empathy or communicated with the resident about any potential risks. There was also no evidence it considered interim measures such as providing dehumidifiers or signposting to local support services. Given the household had vulnerabilities the landlord could have risk assessed the case which would have led to better informed decision making and provided reassurance to the resident.
  9. After the landlord’s complaints procedure had ended the resident reported further roof leaks in January and March 2025. On both occasions the landlord investigated the issues, which included a drone survey. Its contractor told the landlord it found no issues with the roof. It said there could be a condensation issue and recommended that the roof felt was replaced. The works were completed on 30 June 2025.
  10. As requested by the resident, the landlord sought a second opinion on the recommended works. It also sought to find a permanent resolution through a wider programme of cyclical works, however, was told that the roof was not due to be replaced until 2056. It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. It was reasonable for the landlord to exhaust all options to repair the roof before replacing it.
  11. It is recognised that the roof leaks caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience for a year. It is not clear from the evidence provided whether the leaks were on-going or were in fact new issues. It is accepted that it can be difficult to identify the cause of roof leaks and in some cases repeated efforts may be needed before the matter is fully resolved. As such this alone would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord.
  12. Landlords are required to create and maintain adequate records to be able to demonstrate that they have complied with their policies and procedures. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. There was a failure in this case to record information about the outcome of its investigations and what repairs were recommended and completed. It also did not record all its communication with internal staff and contractors. This affected the landlord’s ability to manage the repairs and the resident’s complaint.
  13. In summary the landlord investigated the resident’s reports of roof leaks and carried out repairs within its agreed timescales. It sought advice from specialist contractors and it was reasonable that it acted on their advice. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping, and the landlord failed to show it considered all options available to it to support the resident and her family. The landlord recognised the distress and inconvenience caused by the leak and offered the resident £75 compensation. It also offered £80 towards the decorating costs. This was appropriate redress for the failings identified in this case.

Firewall

  1. We find service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the fire wall in the attic. The reasons for our findings are below.
  2. As part of her complaint in October 2024 the resident raised fire-safety concerns with the condition of the wall in her loft. She told the landlord there were holes in the wall and she could see through into her neighbour’s loft.
  3. The landlord sought advice from its senior technical inspector who stated the resident’s property pre-dated building regulations or legislation. In its stage 2 response the landlord told the resident that it was not required to install a fire wall. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information from an expert there was no evidence it inspected the existing fire wall. This was unreasonable as the landlord has not demonstrated that it took steps to satisfy itself, or the resident, that the wall was safe or not. Its failure to do so meant that it did not take the resident’s concerns seriously which caused her distress.
  4. When the landlord provided evidence to us it said it would inspect the firewall on 30 June 2025 once the roof had been removed. The resident told us that the landlord carried out repairs to the fire wall on this date. This was 8 months after the resident first raised her concerns. This was a significant delay.
  5. In summary the landlord failed to investigate the resident’s concerns within a reasonable timescale. It failed to acknowledge this failure within its complaints procedure and therefore did not show it had learnt from the complaint. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £100 compensation. This amount is in line with our remedy’s guidance and reflects the distress caused to the resident.

Complaints handling

  1. We find no maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint. The reasons for our findings are below.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 2 October 2024. The landlord contacted the resident on 18 October 2024 to discuss the complaint. It failed to acknowledge the complaint in writing. However, there did not seem to be any detriment caused to the resident.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 October 2024. This was outside its target timescale of 10 working days. However, the landlord contacted the resident on 22 October 2024 to inform her of the delay.It agreed to extend its response timescale and confirmed this in writing.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 25November 2024. The landlord acknowledged this in writing the same day.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 December 2024, this was within its target timescale of 20 working days. Its response addressed all the residents complaint issues.
  7. In summary the landlord communicated well with the resident. It listened to the resident’s concerns and investigated all the complaint issues. Although there was a delay in the landlord issuing its stage 1 response, it explained the reasons for this to the resident and agreed an alternative timescale for its response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the firewall in the attic.
  3. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for the distress caused to the resident by the landlords handling of her concerns about the firewall in the attic. This compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not paid onto their rent account unless this is requested.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £175 compensation offered in its stage 2 response if this has not already been paid.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident and discuss whether it is completing works to rectify the internal damage caused by the leaks. The landlord should discuss a plan of works, including timescales for the completion of any works.