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.

Rooftop Housing Association Limited (202327056)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327056

Rooftop Housing Association Limited

11 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 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 leak resulting in damp and mould.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2014. The property is a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat. The resident’s 2 children live with her.
  2. The resident reported a leak from the property above hers on 30 August 2023. She made a formal complaint on 11 October 2023 and said:
    1. Damp and mould had developed in the property following the leak. The landlord’s building inspector visited and recommended replacing all plaster boards, but the job was on hold as the leak continued.
    2. She had sent emails and called but there was no progress, plan, or timescale given for a fix.
    3. The property smelled, and mould was growing despite dehumidifiers being used. The electric meter was ‘going wild’ and she would not be able to continue using these due to higher bills.
    4. She and her children had developed health issues.
  3. In its stage 1 response of 26 January 2024, the landlord said:
    1. It had assigned a building inspector to inspect the damp and mould.
    2. It had attended the upstairs flat on 7 September 2023 following the report. It received a further call from them that there was still an issue. A contractor attended and fully resolved the leak on 8 November 2023.
    3. Follow-on work was raised on 16 November 2023 (details provided). It proposed to complete the works on 18 and 19 March 2024.
    4. It had learnt from the complaint and offered £200 compensation.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 5 February 2024, saying there was still damp and mould and she was awaiting timescales for repairs. She asked if she would be offered temporary accommodation or food vouchers during the repairs. She said the £200 offered did not cover her increased bills. She emailed the landlord on 27 February 2024 with a detailed timeline, pictures, and a copy of an independent inspection report she had instructed. She asked for confirmation of the full schedule of works and expressed her unhappiness with the length of time taken, reiterating the impact on health.
  5. In its stage 2 response of 16 April 2024, the landlord said it had carried out most of the work and was monitoring the outstanding jobs to completion. It set out its findings in detail, but in brief it said:
    1. It had identified that the initial response to the leak was timely but follow-on works were delayed.
    2. Its communication overall about the damp and mould and repairs had been poor. It had not contacted her to confirm its plan of works or to discuss ‘decant’ arrangements.
    3. It had failed to explain that the leak was from a washbasin pipe and not a wastepipe as she thought. This led to unnecessary distress as she was concerned about the property being uninhabitable.
    4. It had implemented learnings from the identified mistakes (setting these out). It recognised the £200 offered was insufficient for its failings. It apologised and offered £1,000 instead (£500 for distress, £100 towards use of energy, and £400 for the inconvenience caused).
  6. The resident referred her complaint to us and said the underlying repairs and issues were resolved but she was unhappy with the communication and time taken. She wanted an apology, higher compensation, and the cost of her bills and the inspection report reimbursed.

Assessment and findings

Leak resulting in damp and mould

  1. The resident has said the matters complained of have negatively affected her family’s health. It is beyond our remit to decide whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and any ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her family’s health was affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the family experienced because of any failure by the landlord.
  2. We do not ordinarily order the landlord to reimburse residents for damage to belongings. It is not within our remit to establish when or how the belongings were damaged. The cost of damaged belongings arising from the landlord’s actions are more appropriately claimed via its insurance. Therefore, this is not addressed further in this report. Instead, we have considered whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures in its handling of the resident’s reports. She may wish to consider seeking advice on making an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurer.
  3. The landlord has accepted its service failures in its complaint responses, apologised, and offered compensation. Therefore, the question before us is whether those failures amount to maladministration and, if so, whether proper redress was offered to put things right.
  4. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord was responsible for repairing the leak. The landlord’s repair policy categorises repairs and gives associated response times as; emergency (24 hours), routine (28 calendar days), and ‘P4’ (larger or more complex) works (90 calendar days). The resident’s report met the definition of emergency and routine repairs.
  5. The landlord attended the upstairs flat the day the report was made. The following day, a job was booked for the work it identified, which was then attended within 7 calendar days. It also attended the second report from the upstairs flat on the same day. These were handled in line with its policy.
  6. However, there were delays in the landlord’s overall handling of the repairs and poor communication with the resident. The landlord has acknowledged these in its complaint responses. There is nothing further we can usefully add to that.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the running cost of the dehumidifier and the landlord has reimbursed this. We asked her to clarify if she had incurred costs higher than the award made by the landlord and, if so, to provide evidence of this. As the resident has not responded to this request, it is not possible for us to conclude a higher award is warranted.
  8. The resident has also asked to be reimbursed for the cost of the inspection report she obtained. Given the delays in the repairs and the lack of information it is understandable why she felt she needed to act. However, we have not seen evidence that the resident discussed or agreed this with the landlord before she instructed the report. This is what we would expect. It had done its own inspections and booked jobs to carry out the recommended work. Even if detailed information about the jobs had not been shared, she had been given the dates the work would start. We have not seen that the landlord had refused to carry out work.
  9. Further, the resident has not provided us with evidence of the cost she incurred. Our own investigation established that the firm she used does not usually offer services to tenants. Its website states it is aimed at private rental landlords and agents. The landlord is a social housing provider and is accountable for its public expenditure (which is not on the same scale as the private sector). Given this and the above, it is not possible for us to conclude that the cost she incurred was reasonable and should be reimbursed by the landlord.
  10. Evidence shows a recommendation was made internally by the landlord to consider reimbursement for the report. However, this does not appear to have been taken further. It has not explained why that was to us or the resident. It should have addressed the resident’s claim for this cost and provided an explanation for the decision it made.
  11. The landlord has accepted its failings, sincerely apologised, and offered £1,000 compensation. This sum is higher than our own remedies guidance for mid-level maladministration. These actions demonstrate that the landlord took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  12. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  13. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and in consultation with our remedies guidance; the £1,000 compensation offered is considered reasonable. While our investigation has identified a minor failing, given the level of compensation already offered, no further award is made. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the leak resulting in damp and mould.
  14. The landlord is, however, recommended to write to the resident to explain its reasons for not accepting her claim for the cost of the inspection report. A recommendation is made for it to pay the £1,000 offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy applicable at the time defined a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by it, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’. It set out a 2-stage complaint process. It set out timeframes; 3 days to acknowledge the complaint and 10 to 20 days for a full response at both stages.
  2. The resident made her complaint on 11 October 2023 via an online form. This was acknowledged on 23 October 2023, 9 working days later. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response on 26 January 2024. This was 75 working days later and outside its policy timeframes.
  3. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response on 5 February 2024, but the landlord did not treat this as an escalation. Instead, it progressed the complaint to stage 2 only after the resident contacted it again on 27 February 2024. Its stage 2 response was then issued on 16 April 2024, 51 working days later, and outside its policy timeframes.
  4. We have identified maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It is ordered to write to the resident with an apology and to pay £150 compensation for the upset, inconvenience, and confusion caused by its complaint handling failures, in line with our remedies guidance.
  5. On 8 February 2024 we issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in policy and practice. The Code applied from 1 April 2024 and we have a duty to monitor compliance with it. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. As a result, no specific order is made on this case with regard to the landlord’s compliance with the Code, and the contents of its policies and procedures in that regard.
  6. However, an order is made for the landlord to review its handling of the complaint in this case, alongside the provisions of the Code in order to: understand how the failings occurred; identify areas for improvement; and note where current practices may be at odds with the requirements of the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s report of a leak resulting in damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Written to the resident with an apology (with reference to our remedies guidance to ensure the apology is sincere and appropriate) for its failures in complaint handling.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any rent arrears) £150 compensation for its failures in complaint handling.
    3. Reviewed the complaint handling failures highlighted in this investigation alongside the provisions of the Code.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Pay the £1,000 offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid.
    2. Write to the resident to explain its reasons for not accepting her claim for the cost of the inspection report.