Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Oxford City Council (202416790)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416790

Oxford City Council

9 June 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 response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 13 March 2017. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident’s son has Autistic Spectrum Disorder and a blood disorder.
  2. An entry on the landlord’s repair log dated 11 March 2024 noted that the roof felt was in “poor condition” and was hanging down in places.
  3. The resident submitted an online complaint on 8 May 2024 to report that holes in the roof were letting in rain and mould was forming.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 23 May 2024, as follows:
    1. On 28 October 2022 it raised a works order for reported holes in the roof and loft. Its records did not show if the job was attended to and there was no further correspondence until the next entry below.
    2. It raised a further order for the same works on 15 February 2024.
    3. It inspected the property on 11 March 2024. There was no evidence of a roof leak however, the roofing felt was reported to be “poor.” It also noted that the felt was not related to weather proofing and could not be replaced without replacing all the roof tiles.
    4. An internal email dated 12 March 2024 confirmed that the felt was coming away from the underside of the tiles “throughout” but the roof was currently watertight. Advice was sought regarding next steps however, it could not see if the email was acted on for which it apologised.
    5. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 March 2024 to seek an update. It could not confirm if this was provided. It apologised for the “lapse in service.”
    6. There was an outstanding order to clean the gutters at the rear of the property. The contractor had been asked to inspect the roof at the same time.
    7. The complaint was upheld due to the failures identified in its response. It apologised and offered £75 compensation.
    8. To prevent a reoccurrence it would carry out training to staff about record keeping and effective communication.
  5. Having inspected the roof on 16 May 2024 the landlord raised a works order to replace damaged tiles and make good the sealant around the chimney. Works were carried out on 28 May 2024.
  6. On 30 May 2024 the resident submitted an online complaint setting out her dissatisfaction with the work carried out. She said they were only on site for “2 minutes” and did not replace the broken tiles.
  7. On 2 July 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. Its contractor provided photographs of completed works and it carried out its own external inspection. It was satisfied that works were completed as required and did not uphold the complaint. However, it agreed to carry out a further internal inspection of the roof.
  8. The resident emailed us on 26 July 2024 to say she found the landlord dismissive of her issues which had been ongoing for 2 years. She said she was seeking compensation for failure of service because she felt the landlord had “wasted her time.”

Events post internal complaints process.

  1. An internal email dated 20 December 2024 noted that the loft was still leaking. It confirmed it did not attend following its stage 2 response. It said it could not see “any letters” and there were “no notes on the system.”
  2. On 29 May 2025 the landlord emailed us confirmation that works to the roof were carried out on 17 March 2025.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident’s stage 1 complaint set out her dissatisfaction with the delay in carrying out works to clean the gutters. This was in addition to the holes in the roof. However, her stage 2 complaint referred only to the ongoing concerns about the leak from the roof which the landlord responded to accordingly.
  2. In line with our approach set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we can only investigate complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, this investigation has not assessed the landlord’s handling of works to clean the gutters and is focussed on its response to the issues with the roof.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof.

  1. While it was positive that the landlord inspected the roof on 11 March 2024 there is no evidence that it considered other potential reasons for the leak. Considering its conclusion that the roof was watertight this would have been appropriate.
  2. The resident’s stage 1 complaint of 8 May 2024 said she was concerned that the rain coming through the holes in the roof were “causing mould in that area.” She added that she had a “vulnerable child” and was “concerned for his health.”
  3. In the landlord’s response to us dated 10 February 2025 it said the resident did not report damp and mould as part of her complaint. It is recognised that it was not raised again during the resident’s communication with the landlord however, its response was inaccurate. Furthermore, it should have made further enquiries with the resident at that point to establish if it needed to inspect for mould.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 23 May 2024 acknowledged that the resident chased the roof repair on 21 March 2025. However it could not confirm that an update had been provided. The landlord’s evidence shows that it did not provide an update because the resident was caused time and trouble when she chased again on 3 April and 14 May 2024.
  5. An internal email dated 21 May 2024 concluded that replacing the roof felt would not resolve the issues reported by the resident. It confirmed it would reinspect the roof. While this was positive this was over 2 months since it first inspected on 11 March 2024. Considering that the landlord’s repair procedure says it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 working days the delay was unreasonable.
  6. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 23 May 2024 set out events relating to the complaint and acknowledged some of its failures. It provided evidence of learning, apologised and offered compensation to try to put things right.
  7. However, it failed to sufficiently acknowledge that the delay in its response to the original report on 28 October 2022 amounted to 16 months. This exceeded its response times by far, causing distress to the resident.
  8. It is unclear if the landlord considered the replacement of the roof tiles on 28 May 2024 to be a final resolution to the leak.
  9. In the resident’s email to the landlord of 31 May 2024 the resident said she had checked her CCTV and could show the contractor was only on the roof for “2 minutes.”
  10. It said that an internal email dated 5 June 2024 confirmed that the contractor attended on 28 May and that they had replaced the tiles. Following a discussion that day the contractor agreed to visit to take photographs of works. This was actioned the following day.
  11. A further internal email dated 2 July 2024 confirmed that the landlord had carried out its own external inspection on 7 June. The email said “please note” this was an external inspection and an inspection while going to another site visit. The relevance of this is unclear because it has not provided a detailed file note of the inspection which is a record keeping failure. It said that having looked at the photographs again it could confirm that all works were complete.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 2 July 2024 set out the steps it took to satisfy itself that works were completed. It is acknowledged that the landlord took action to investigate the complaint. However, there is no evidence that it offered to view the resident’s footage. This would have been appropriate because it would have reassured her that it had taken her complaint seriously by thoroughly investigating her concerns.
  13. The resident’s frustration was evident in her email to the landlord of 6 July 2024 when she said she was dissatisfied with its stage 2 response. She reiterated that she had video clips to support her complaint however, there was no evidence that the landlord asked to see them.
  14. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requires landlords to track outstanding actions and action them promptly with appropriate updates to the resident. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord committed to carrying out a further inspection of the roof. However, it did not do so which was inappropriate.
  15. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failures it identified in its stage 1 response. This was because it did not reflect the lengthy delay in its initial response. Furthermore, it did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the additional failures identified in this report.
  16. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £400 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £75 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof. The landlord may deduct the £75 it has offered if this has already been paid.
    3. Write to the resident to provide a summary of the staff training undertaken in relation to record keeping and effective communication. This should include when it was carried out, broadly who with and the content. If this has not yet been carried out the landlord should write to the resident to explain why and confirm when it will take place.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.