Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Stevenage Borough Council (202321733)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321733

Stevenage Borough Council

2 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:
    1. Gutter leak, fascia, soffit, and roof repairs.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. She lives in a 4-bedroom 3–storey town house with her family. The resident’s adult son has disabilities, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. In 2020, the resident reported a leak from a neighbour’s gutter that dripped into her garden when it rained. She also reported the fascia and soffits on the property needed repair. The resident made further reports to the landlord during 2022. On 1 March 2023, the landlord told the resident that a job had been raised in November 2022 for the guttering and the resident would be contacted in due course. The landlord attended on 4 May 2023 to inspect the blocked gutters but was unable to complete the repair because scaffolding was needed. It rescheduled to attend again on 5 June 2023 to inspect the fascias and soffits, and it noted that the resident was worried about a possible leak into the loft.
  3. On 1 June 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She said the landlord had not done anything in the past 3 years to address the gutter leak, fascias, and soffits. She wanted compensation for the delay and inconvenience. She also said she was waiting for work to be done on the garage roof as it flooded. She said she had now contacted solicitors about the lack of repairs being done.
  4. The landlord completed an inspection on 5 September 2023 and raised a works order for repairs needed to the roof, guttering, downpipes, facias, and insulation. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 13 October 2023. It apologised for the delayed repair and lack of communication. It said it had recently appointed new contractors to address its backlog of roof repairs. It said that, on 5 September 2023, the contractor completed a fascia and guttering repair and replaced insulation in the loft. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the delayed repair, £50 compensation for the delay and inconvenience caused and £25 for the complaint delay. The landlord also advised the resident if she wanted to claim for any damage, she should consider a claim on her own insurance, and it also directed her to its insurance information on its website.
  5. The resident was not happy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, and she asked the landlord on 13 October 2023 to escalate her complaint because she said works were still not complete. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 1 February 2024. It stated that, following the erection of scaffolding on 29 January 2024, works were completed including the replacement of roof tiles, downpipes, guttering, and fascia boards. It also replaced some insulation to the loft area. It reviewed and increased the compensation offer to £500 in line with its compensation policy. On 7 February 2024, the resident reported that a drip was still happening at the back of her property and water was gathering on the garage roof. She later reported mould in her bathroom that might have been caused by this. Following an inspection in September 2024, the landlord identified that there was no fault with works completed in February 2024 and it was the neighbour’s blocked guttering causing the drip.
  6. The resident asked us to investigate complaint, as she said her neighbour’s gutter had not been cleared and the compensation did not reflect the delays she had experienced. In October 2024, the landlord offered the resident a further £500 compensation to acknowledge the delays and that the works were not fully complete, however the resident refused this offer.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident also reported that this issue had been ongoing for since 2020. The Ombudsman will usually only investigate issues raised as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of the matters arising, which might be extended for reasons such as the resident only becoming aware of the issues later. This is usually taken to be 12 months. This allows the landlord a fair opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while relevant evidence is still available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. As such, this investigation will focus on events and evidence since June 2022 leading up to the complaint, as this is within 12 months of the resident’s June 2023 complaint. Historical events are included for background and context only.
  2. The resident’s unhappiness with the landlord’s handling of the drip from her neighbour’s blocked guttering, and with mould in her bathroom, from February 2024 onwards is understandable. However, the Ombudsman will not only usually investigate complaints about issues made before completing the landlord’s complaints procedure. This is to allow the landlord a fair opportunity to try and resolve the issues first by using the complaints procedure. As such, this investigation will focus on events and evidence up to February 2024, as this was when the complaints procedure was completed and no evidence was provided that later events did so. Later events are included for background and context only and it is open to the resident to make a new complaint to the landlord about them and then complain to us after completing the complaints procedure.
  3. The resident stated the noise of the ongoing drip has affected her mental health. We do not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her mental health, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation, and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We can consider the landlord’s handling of the gutter leaks as well as any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors in this by the landlord, and the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of gutter leak, fascia, soffit, and roof repairs

  1. In the 12 months leading up to the resident’s complaint (on 1 June 2023) the resident reported concerns related to the guttering, soffits, and fascias on her property on 28 October and 16 November 2022. The job raised on 28 October 2022 was not attended until over 6 months later on 4 May 2023. However, works could not be completed that day as scaffolding was needed.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response (13 October 2023) acknowledged and apologised for its failings. It recognised that there were backlogs with its roof repairs. This was appropriate given the delays to the works to date. However, the stage 1 complaint response also stated that the works were completed on 5 September 2023. The landlord’s repair log does not have a record of works completed on 5 September 2023, however, and only show that it raised follow on works on that date. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 1 February 2024 then confirmed that works detailed in the stage 1 complaint response were not completed until scaffolding was erected on 29 January 2024. This was over 15 months after the resident’s report on 28 October 2022, an excessive delay.
  3. The landlord has a legal obligation under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to complete repairs within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. It is acknowledged that various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as the volume and complexity of the required work, or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should, however, be able to show that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it could to resolve issues appropriately.
  4. At time of the complaint, the landlord said it did not have a repairs policy in place. It is therefore difficult to determine how the landlord monitored its completion of repair tasks against timeframes. Furthermore, the only explanation the landlord gave for the repair delays was a general reference to roof repair “backlogs”, which was not adequate. It did not explain its lack of planning regarding the need for scaffolding and the missed opportunities to complete repairs when it attended on 4 May, 5 June, and 27 September 2023.
  5. There is no evidence of ongoing communication from the landlord to the resident to explain these delays, even though such communication would have been appropriate and necessary to reassure her and manage her expectations. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord considered the effect of the repair delay on the resident and her family. The resident told the landlord about her adult son’s disability, how the water drips from the guttering affected their ability to use the back garden, and the effect of the drip noise during and following rain. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered escalating the repairs so that these were done sooner due to the inconvenience and distress it was causing the resident’s family, including because of her adult son’s disability.
  6. In its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord did not dispute that the resident experienced delays and distress due to the repairs delays. It acknowledged and apologised for this. It also directed the resident to its insurance team with details for her to make a claim for any damage caused as a result of the gutter leak, facia, soffit, and roof repairs. It offered the resident a total of £500 compensation to also include the inconvenience and distress this caused. These were all appropriate steps towards putting things right. 
  7. However, following the 1 February 2024 stage 2 complaint response, on 7 February 2024, the resident told the landlord that a water drip into her back garden was still ongoing. On 21 February 2024, the resident told us that the landlord’s surveyor had said the drip was from a neighbour’s gutter. The landlord’s surveyor nevertheless later completed an inspection on 17 September 2024 that confirmed that the works completed in February 2024 were effective, including works to the garage roof, and it noted that the drip was from the neighbour’s blocked gutter.
  8. The resident had requested that the landlord consider a refund of rent, as the sound of the drip caused disturbance and distress, and it affected the family’s use of the back garden. The landlord’s compensation policy does not consider the garden area as part of the compensation provided for ‘room loss’ or ‘loss of facilities’. It is recognised, however, that the disturbance was intermittent (when it rained) and while the extent of the interference with the family’s use of the back garden has not been determined, it would therefore have likely been occasional. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not consider a refund of rent for this, as its compensation policy did not provide for this.
  9. Following our intervention, however, the landlord offered the resident a further £500 compensation in recognition of the further delays and ongoing inconvenience from the drip issue. This total compensation of £1,000 was appropriate and proportionate to reflect the prolonged delay to effectively resolve the gutter issue. This amount falls within our remedies guidance’s recommended compensation range for failures over a significant period of time, which offers compensation from £1,000. This was therefore appropriate and provided reasonable redress for the landlord’s delayed resolution of the repair issues. This is because the prolonged delay likely added to the resident’s frustration and disturbance.
  10. The landlord offered financial redress to the resident which was proportionate to the multiple failures the resident experienced. This is because this was within with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for such failures that adversely affected the resident, and so it is recommended to contact her to re-offer this. However, it is concerning that she reports it has continued to fail to resolve the drip from the neighbour’s blocked gutter It is therefore recommended to provide the resident with a reasonable timeline of actions for it to address the drip from the neighbour’s blocked gutter.
  11. The resident also raised concerns regarding a drip and potential mould in the loft and, more recently, regarding mould in the bathroom area. It is noted that no mould concerns were noted in the loft area in February 2024, when the landlord replaced some loft insulation and replaced roof tiles to address leak concerns. However, in the interests of completeness the landlord, if it has not already done so, is also recommended to complete a mould survey to determine if the ongoing gutter leak is causing mould in the property.


The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and to provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. It aims to acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and to provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. At either stage, it can request an extension if more time is needed.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s 1 June 2023 complaint on 13 October 2023. Allowing for its 5-working-day acknowledgement period and 10-working-day response period, this was a delay of 81 working days. The landlord did not give a reason for this excessive delay, which was inappropriate. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request of 13 October 2023 11 working days later on 29 October 2023. Although the landlord noted the new complaint was anonymous with no identifying information, so it could not be investigated at the time. However, after acknowledging this, it did not provide its stage 2 complaint response until 1 February 2024. Allowing for its 20-working–day response time, this was a delay of 45 working days.
  3. There is no evidence the landlord kept the resident informed during its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint handling delays, which was a clear communication failing. It was also missed the opportunity to engage with the resident and rebuild trust with her about this.
  4. The landlord offered an apology and £25 compensation for its stage 1 complaint delay, which were appropriate steps to put things right. Although the landlord increased the compensation in its stage 2 complaint response, it did not specify if any element of the compensation offer related to its stage 2 complaint delay. The landlord did not acknowledge the stage 2 complaint delay or give reasons for it in its stage 2 complaint response, which was inappropriate and another missed opportunity to put things right and rebuild trust with the resident about this.
  5. The landlord failed to follow its own complaints policy’s response timescales at both stages of the complaints procedure, and it did not communicate appropriately with the resident about this, which in the circumstances likely further added to the resident’s frustration. While the landlord offered £25 for its stage 1 complaint delay, this was not proportionate to reflect the communication failings and overall complaint delays.
  6. The stage 1 and stage 2 delays in responding to the resident’s complaints without justification were unreasonable and constituted maladministration. The landlord is therefore ordered to apologise to and pay the resident £75 further compensation for this, together with the £25 it previously offered for its stage 1 complaint delay. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation where the landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of gutter leak, fascia, soffit, and roof repairs satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the further complaint handling failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £100 compensation, this is made up of:
      1. £25 previously offered for the stage 1 complaint delay.
      2. £75 for its further complaint handling failings.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Contact the resident to re-offer her the £1,000 total compensation it previously offered to recognise her distress and inconvenience from its delays in resolving the gutter leak, facia, soffit, and roof repairs at her property.
    2. Complete an inspection of the resident’s neighbour’s guttering and provide the resident with a reasonable timeline for it to carry out actions necessary to progress the completion of this repair.
    3. Complete a damp and mould survey to identify whether the ongoing gutter leak is causing mould following the resident’s reports of mould in the property.
  2. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report to provide us with evidence that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendations.