Rooftop Housing Association Limited (202441313)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441313

Rooftop Housing Association 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp, mould, and associated repairs.
2. Request for compensation for damaged belongings.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord at the property since 25 October 2004. The property is a 2-bedroom first floor flat. The resident lives with her husband who is diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The resident is diagnosed with an autoimmune disease. The landlord’s records show that the resident’s husband has agoraphobia and respiratory conditions and that there is a medical disability within the household.
There is evidence that the resident has been reporting issues with damp at the property since 2017, although she has advised this Service that the issues date back 17 years.
The resident complained on 9 January 2024 via telephone. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 February 2024. It said that its understanding of the complaint was that:
1. The resident had reported issues with damp and mould throughout the property for 10 years.
2. During this time, she had disposed of clothing, curtains, and bedding which had been damaged by the mould.
3. Water was currently running down the bedroom wall.
4. The resident thought the issues were caused by loss of heating throughout the property although the heating system was working.
5. The landlord had told her previously that her windows needed to be replaced.
6. She was frustrated and upset in the way that an inspector that attended during summer 2023 spoke to her and the comments they made.
The landlord responded on 11 March 2024 and said:
1. It apologised that she felt that the service provided had not met her expectations and for any upset or inconvenience this had caused.
2. It understood that as a resolution to her complaint she would like:
  1. The landlord to rectify the damp and mould problem.
  2. To increase the temperature within the property.
  3. The building inspector that visited the property to be spoken to about the way he communicated with her.
3. The complaints handler had visited the property with a building inspector and agreed the following work. This was in addition to over boarding the ceiling rakes to the bathroom and main bedroom which had already been ordered:
  1. Installation of positive input ventilation system (already completed).
  2. Replacement of bathroom and kitchen extractor fans.
  3. Fitting thermal boarding to internal walls.
  4. Fitting thermal boarding to the kitchen ceiling, then plastering, and redecorating.
  5. Fitting thermal boarding to external walls of bedrooms.
  6. Checking roof insulation in roof space and upgrading as required.
  7. Resealing all windows to external brickwork.
  8. Redecoration of both bedrooms after over boarding (resident to have choice of paint colour).
  9. Redecoration of bathroom walls and ceilings.
On 22 March 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said that she thought the landlord should also replace the windows.
On 11 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and asked it to cancel all the repair jobs raised as part of the stage 1 complaint.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 10 May 2024 and said that:
1. It had arranged for an external company to complete a full damp and mould survey.
2. It had arranged for the property to have replacement windows installed by December 2024.
3. It had not instructed contractors to complete any work recommended by the damp survey yet because it wanted to know if the resident wanted the windows fitted first.
4. The resident had cancelled the 7 jobs ordered as part of the stage 1 complaint response, but it could re-order these now or after it had fitted the replacement windows. It asked the resident to advise on her preference for this.
5. It had checked the list of items she had advised had been damaged against the compensation policy and was awaiting approval to proceed.
6. It upheld her complaint and would share learning with relevant team members and would also speak to building inspectors in their team meeting.
The landlord updated the resident on 14 May 2024. It said that a contractor had attended the previous day and identified that the following work should be carried out:
1. Installing 8 roof tile vents.
2. Fitting insulated plaster board to exposed roof rafters within storage cupboards in the kitchen and lounge.
3. Removing wet loft insulation and topping up existing to ensure equal depth throughout.
4. Repairs to damaged felt.

It had also chased another company for an appointment to check the cavity wall insulation.

The landlord paid the resident £2,500 for “damaged goods/items” damaged by mould on 31 May 2024.
We spoke to the resident in August 2025. She advised us that damp and mould was still an issue in the property. The landlord told us on 21 August 2025 that it had written to the resident the previous day to update her on the work it intended to carry out at the property and that its intention was for the household to be decanted to another property while a contractor completed this work. It said that it was also considering the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident complained about her landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould over the previous 10 years. Given the lapse of time, we would not be able to make robust findings or provide a worthwhile outcome for this full period. This is in accordance with the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider issues which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. We have therefore started our investigation from her reports in December 2022, prior to the formal complaint in January 2024.
During the complaint journey, the resident told the landlord about the impact the ongoing issue had on her and her partners health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this. However, we are unable to decide about the causal link between the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and the residents’ health. We will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the residents’ health is more appropriate for the courts and she may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.
The Scheme states that we will not investigate complaints which in our opinion “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.” This means it is not within our authority or expertise to determine cause, liability, or negligence for damage to the resident’s possessions. However, we can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.

Damp

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the premises including:
1. Drains, gutters, and external pipes.
2. The roof.
3. Outside walls.
4. Internal walls, floors, and ceilings.
5. Chimneys and chimney stacks.
6. Plasterwork.
The landlord’s repairs policy, introduced in March 2023, says that all damp, mould, and condensation cases will follow the approved process for triage, investigation, and rectification works. It says that it will complete all non-emergency repairs within a target of 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy, introduced in August 2022, says that the landlord is:
1. Committed to ensuring that people living within its homes are safe and free from damp, condensation, and mould.
2. Adopting a zero-tolerance approach to instances of damp, condensation, and mould that are found within its homes.
3. Maintaining homes to avoid penetrating and rising damp and for undertaking remedial works if these occur.
4. Offering support to the customer during this stressful time including a dedicated repairs officer to ensure the customer is kept informed.
5. Where the situation requires major remedial works customers will be offered temporary accommodation until the situation is resolved and all works are completed.
There is evidence that the resident reported damp and mould issues on 8 December 2022. She told the landlord the issue had been ongoing and needed urgent attention. She also responded to a damp and mould survey on 21 December 2022 and said that water was running down the walls of both bedrooms.
The landlord advised us that it attended and rectified a leak at this time, but we have seen no evidence of this from the repair log for the property. It did, however, log a repairs job to clean out the gutters on 30 January 2023 which an operative completed on 2 March 2023. The delay in responding to the residents reports of water running down the walls was unacceptable and not in line with the landlord’s policies. This would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience, especially considering her and her partners medical conditions.
Clearing the gutters did not rectify the problem and the resident emailed the landlord again on 21 and 24 April 2023. She said that she had complained about the damp and mould for years and provided photographs of the water running down the bedroom walls from the ceiling. She told the landlord that she had an autoimmune disease which made her vulnerable to illness. She addressed the second email to the landlord’s chief executive.
A building inspector attended the property on 25 April 2023, which was an appropriate action for the landlord to take. They ordered various repairs. An operative completed thermal boarding to the rear of the eaves on 2 June 2023, and a damp and mould treatment was applied to the bedrooms on 30 May 2023. On 8 August 2023 an operative fitted PVC eaves protectors to the gutters. Considering that scaffolding was required, this was completed within a reasonable timeframe. However, we have seen no evidence that a dedicated repairs officer kept the resident updated during this period, as the landlord says it will do in its damp and mould policy. This meant that she emailed the landlord for updates on 2 June 2023 and contacted it again on 10 July 2023 and 16 August 2023, which cost her time and trouble.
On 10 July 2023, following a stock condition survey, the landlord logged that there was a housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) category 2 hazard at the property. It contacted the resident regarding this on 18 August 2023. However, the landlord noted that the resident asked it to inspect again in the autumn. It also noted that it called the resident on 24 October 2023 to arrange an inspection on 31 October 2023 but the resident advised it that the inspection should take place when the weather was colder as the mould, damp and condensation was not currently present. Despite the residents request the landlord should have considered its obligation to fulfil its repairs responsibility. Particularly as it had identified a hazard. It could have also re-engaged with the resident regarding previously identified repairs. However, the landlord did not contact the resident again and she called it on 30 November 2023 to ask when the damp inspection would take place. This cost her further time and trouble.
On 7 December 2023 the landlord attended the property and completed another damp inspection report. This confirmed that there was black mould in the kitchen, bathroom, and both bedrooms. It recommended thermal boarding the eaves in the roof space off the kitchen, and in the bathroom and 2 bedrooms. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord raised any repairs jobs until 2 January 2024 when it logged a job to “insulate between rafter and plasterboard over in roof space”. As there had already been a long delay in the damp inspection it would have been appropriate for the landlord to prioritise the completion of the work, but this was not the case. This caused further distress to the resident and cost her further time and trouble because she then complained.
An operative completed thermal boarding in the bedrooms on 10 January 2024 but noted that the resident had not had enough notice to move her belongings so that the work could be completed in the lounge and kitchen. When an operative attended the property on 12 March 2024 to skim over the thermal boarding in the bedrooms, they noted that moisture was still running down from where the eaves had been boarded and therefore skimming would not resolve the issue. They said that in their opinion all the external walls needed to be thermal boarded and skimmed.
The landlord agreed to further thermal boarding as part of the stage 1 complaint. However, the resident cancelled all the jobs it had ordered on 11 April 2024 because she thought that they would not fully resolve the issues. This was the resident’s decision, however, as the landlord is responsible for completing repairs at the property, if it felt necessary, it could have considered action to gain access. Following this the landlord swiftly contacted the resident and arranged for an external company to complete a damp survey on 19 April 2024, therefore the delay caused by the resident cancelling the jobs was minimal. This survey concluded that the landlord should check all the external wall insulation, and that there were areas where daylight was visible through the ceiling and the roof tiles. It also identified that none of the windows had trickle vents.
The landlord has completed a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould which recommends that landlords should identify where they should use an independent suitably qualified surveyor to diagnose issues. Prior to March 2024 the landlord identified in its self-assessment, that it was trying to reduce its use of third-party surveyors. However, had it used an external company sooner the resident may have had to live with damp and mould for less time which would have alleviated her distress.
Immediately following the stage 2 complaint response the landlord updated the resident and arranged for window replacements and a cavity wall insulation upgrade. However, the repairs manager dealing with the complaint then left the organisation and the resident had to call the landlord several times for an update. We have listened to a recording of a call she made in which the advisor she speaks to cannot find evidence of her complaint at all against the property address, which understandably caused her further distress and inconvenience. Eventually the advisor located the complaint under the resident’s husband’s name, although he is not a tenant of the landlord.
In summary, there has been an unacceptable delay in the landlord identifying the cause of damp and mould at the property and the issue is still outstanding. This has caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience because she has lived with damp issues including water coming down her bedroom walls for several winters. Although the delay was affected by the resident cancelling repairs jobs and requesting a delay in an inspection due to the seasonal aspect of the issue, the landlord is ultimately responsible for ensuring that it fulfils its repairs obligations and most of the delays were avoidable. The landlord failed to follow its policies to provide oversight of the issue to put things right. It has also failed to communicate well with the resident. It upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of the complaints process but did not offer any compensation despite its compensation policy saying that it can make discretionary compensation payments when an apology is not sufficient.
We have also seen no evidence that the landlord considered the household’s known vulnerabilities throughout the process, particularly as her partner has a respiratory disease which can be affected by damp conditions which is especially concerning as both bedrooms are affected. The landlord has carried out some work including replacement windows, installation of a PIV, mould washes, replacement cavity wall insulation and some thermal boarding. However, the damp issue remains, considerable work is outstanding and the resident has had a reduced enjoyment of her home, throughout the winter months over an extended period. Furthermore, the landlord has not demonstrated that it has resolved the HHSRS category 2 hazard it identified.
Therefore, there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damp, mould, and associated repairs. We have ordered it to pay her £1,853 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its failings. This equates to 15% of the rent from the date the landlord discovered a category 2 hazard at the property and takes into account the number of rooms affected by black mould and the seasonal variation in the impact of the issue.
The landlord has arranged for a contractor to attend in September 2025 to complete a schedule of works with 36 issues identified including thermal boarding of rooms. It is unclear whether it has completed all the work recommended in the independent damp survey such as fitting insulated plasterboard to exposed roof rafters, repairs to damaged roof felt, and fitting of 8 roof tile vents. Therefore, we have ordered it to review this survey and provide an update.

Damaged belongings

The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may pay compensation where it has failed to take reasonable care, for example when there is damage to personal property during repair work. It says if a compensation claim is linked to a complaint, it will be dealt with in line with the complaints policy and procedure. However, we have seen no specific guidance within these documents on how staff should respond to claims made for damage to belongings.
Insurance protects a landlord’s financial standing by the insurer paying compensation claims as opposed to this coming from the landlord’s finances. So, when a complainant requests compensation for damaged belongings it would be appropriate for a landlord to consider if it should refer the matter to its insurers.
There is evidence that the resident told the landlord about damaged belongings in January 2024 as part of her stage 1 complaint. The landlord acknowledged that she had requested compensation for damaged belongings in its response and said that it would need to make an “assessment about possessions lost or damaged due to the damp and mould”. However, it offered no information about how it would deal with this or how the resident could progress the request. Therefore, it took the resident avoidable time and trouble in escalating her complaint.
Four months later, as part of the stage 2 investigation, the landlord asked the resident for a list of damaged items. She provided the list which had a total value of £5,119. The landlord has told us that it decided to pay £2,500 compensation for damage to belongings because the resident did not provide any evidence of damage or receipts. However, it is not clear if it fully communicated its reasoning for this decision to the resident at the time, and what policy it relied on to make the decision. Furthermore, there was a delay of 5 months from the resident’s request to when the landlord provided payment.
The landlord’s compensation policy also says that if claims are made outside of the complaints policy it will acknowledge them within 3 working days and will not usually take more than 20 working days to assess them. The resident has since advised the landlord that, as the damp and mould issue is ongoing, more of her belongings have been damaged. However, she told us that it has said that it will not pay the full price for replacements and that it will consider her request after work is completed to the property, despite items possibly being put in storage or moved to a decant property in the meantime.
In summary, there was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s first request for compensation and it is unclear how it decided how much compensation it would award. It would have been reasonable for it to consider referring the resident to its insurance company for an independent decision, but we have seen no evidence that it did so, or that it gave a reason why it would not do this. The resident has since told it that more belongings are damaged and the landlord did not acknowledge this request until 20 August 2025 when it said that it will delay considering it until after work is completed to the property. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation and we have ordered it to pay £200 compensation to the resident to reflect the time and trouble this has caused her. We have also recommended that it considers referring the new request to its insurance company.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of by the organisation, its employees or those acting on its behalf. It says that a customer does not need to use the word complaint for it to be treated as such.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction on several occasions prior to the landlord logging the stage 1 complaint. These included emails directed to the chief executive in which she clearly expressed her frustration at the number of times she had raised the issues of damp and mould and how the situation was affecting her. However, the landlord did not log a complaint for a further 6 months. This delay in logging the complaint cost the resident time and trouble because she continued to contact the landlord. It delayed a formal investigation and response, a potentially earlier remedy, and also delayed access to an investigation by this Service.
The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will acknowledge all dissatisfaction and complaints within 3 working days. However, the landlord took 23 working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. This unacceptable delay prolonged the complaints handling process, causing the resident distress.
The landlord’s complaint policy also states that no investigation period should be extended beyond 20 days and that any complaints that are extended beyond this will be reported to the relevant executive director. In this case the stage 1 complaint investigation took a further 23 working days and the stage 2 complaint investigation took 33 working days. We have seen no evidence that this was reported to the relevant director and, if so, what the outcome of this was. These further unacceptable delays and failure to follow the policy meant that the resident was waiting longer for a resolution which caused her further distress and inconvenience. It also further delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
The landlord’s complaint policy also says that when it delivers services that fail to meet its customers and its own service expectations it will consider awarding compensation for the time, trouble, and stress the resident has experienced. However, despite it upholding the resident’s complaint at stage 2, it did not offer any compensation. This was a missed opportunity to offer redress to help put things right and try to rebuild the landlord and tenant relationship.
The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
At stage 1 of the complaints process the landlord identified that the resident was concerned about the way that a building inspector had spoken to her and that to rectify her complaint she wanted the landlord to speak to the inspector. However, the stage 1 complaint handler did not provide an answer to this part of the resident’s complaint at all. This left the resident with unanswered questions and meant that the landlord did not use the complaints process to investigate and put things right if necessary.
The Code also says that the landlord should follow any remedies offered to residents through to completion.
In this case the complaint handler continued to work with the resident following the stage 2 complaint response which resulted in it ordering more work to rectify the damp and mould. However, when the complaint handler left the organisation, the resident had to spend time and trouble chasing the outstanding work, and damp and mould issues are still ongoing 15 months after the stage 2 complaint response. Recorded telephone conversations confirm that when the resident called the landlord to chase the outstanding repairs it could not find the complaint at all and then said it had been closed. The landlord’s failure to follow remedies through to completion has caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience and cost her further time and trouble chasing repairs.
In summary, the landlord delayed logging and responding to the complaint. It failed to consider compensation in line with its policy. It also did not answer all the complaints raised or follow the remedies offered through to completion. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint. We have ordered it to pay the resident £250 compensation to reflect the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience this caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for compensation for damaged belongings.
2. Complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report a senior manager must apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident directly £ 2,303 compensation comprising:
1. £1,853 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of her reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
2. £200 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of her requests for compensation for damaged belongings.
3. £250 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of her complaint.
The landlord must review the external damp and mould survey completed in April 2024 to ensure that it has either completed all work recommended in the report, or it is included in the schedule of works for completion commencing September 2025. It should provide us with an update regarding this within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Any additional identified works must be added to the schedule of works. When all work is completed, the landlord must commit to post inspecting the property using moisture meters to ensure the damp and mould has been resolved.
A senior manager unconnected with the services complained of must carry out an independent review of this case to understand and explain why the failings occurred and consider if they were limited to this case. A report should be provided to the resident, Ombudsman and the landlord’s governance body regarding the findings within 12 weeks of the date of this report. The review should include the following and provide a timed implementation plan for any identified service changes or improvements:
1. Why the complaint was not considered at an earlier stage considering the dissatisfaction expressed by the resident on several occasions.
2. Why it did not consider commissioning an external damp survey at an earlier stage.
3. Whether it followed its damp and mould policy and provided a dedicated repairs officer to oversee repairs.
4. Why, despite several attempts to complete repairs to rectify the damp and mould, the problem still remains.
5. An assessment of training needs for complaint handlers and how it will address these.
As part of the above review, the landlord must also consider whether it should review its compensation policy to decide if it needs to:
1. Give further clarity to staff on when claims should be referred to its insurance company.
2. Give further clarity to residents about how it calculates compensation requests due to damaged belongings.
3. Provide further guidance for staff regarding claims for damage to belongings. This must ensure that staff give clarity to residents regarding the expectation for goods receipts.
4. The landlord must communicate the outcome of this review to the Ombudsman in writing within 12 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.

Recommendations

The landlord should review whether it should refer the resident’s new request for compensation for damaged belongings to its insurance company.
A manager should review the residents request for a management transfer as a matter of urgency and provide a response to the resident.
A manager should review the landlord’s offer of a decant while it completes the proposed work, including any assistance that can be provided with packing, moving costs, and storage as appropriate. They should contact the resident to discuss this as a matter of urgency and no later than one week from the provision of a proposed works timetable.