Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (202409744)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409744

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

15 April 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of a roof leak to an outhouse.
2. The associated complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy which started in 2013. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
The complaint concerned the roof of a building connected to the house. The resident used the building for storage and both parties referred to this as an “outhouse” and a “shed.” On one side, the outhouse is connected to the resident’s house through the kitchen. The other side of the outhouse is connected to the neighbour’s outhouse – a privately owned property. The outhouse is also accessible via the resident’s garden.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 15 May 2024. He said he had first reported a roof leak within the outhouse in August 2023. He said the roof contained asbestos. The resident explained that the landlord had approved works to fix the roof in March 2024. However, the roof continued to leak throughout this time, and it was now “collapsing, rotten and mouldy”. The resident said this damaged his belongings and the stress of this impacted his health. He noted the landlord had attended on 2 April 2024, but as he had not received prior notice, his belongings were in the outhouse and works could not be completed. The resident asked the landlord to fix the roof and offer compensation for his damaged belongings and impacted health.
On 5 July 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the time taken to address the roof concerns raised in the complaint. It said it would repair the roof on 15 August 2024. It asked the resident to empty the outhouse before this date.
On 2 October 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to the landlord. He had learnt that his complaint had been closed, and he was unhappy that it had not told him about this. He said it had not resolved the roof leak. He was also unhappy with its lack of communication. He repeated that he wished for the landlord to fix the roof and offer compensation.
The resident contacted us as he was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling. On 3 October 2024, we asked the landlord to provide its stage 2 response by 7 November 2024.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 5 November 2024. It acknowledged failings in its communication, its handling of the roof leak and the delays in resolving the issues. It also said it was sorry for the stress and inconvenience caused. It said that asbestos related repairs were more complex, requiring specialist contractors, which caused delays. It said it would complete the roof repairs on 15 November 2024. However, it explained this depended on the cooperation from the private neighbour next door. It said this was because it needed to remove the asbestos roof sheets secured to both outhouses.
The resident escalated his complaint to us. He remained unhappy with the ongoing roof leak and the lack of compensation offered to him. The complaint became one we could investigate on 10 January 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the roof leak impacted his health. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Similarly, the resident asked us to award compensation for his damaged belongings. We cannot make liability decisions and ascertain whether the landlord was responsible for the damage reported. Such decisions may be made via the landlord’s liability insurance (if it has such cover in place), the resident’s own contents insurer, or via the courts. We cannot consider whether the resident should be compensated for damage to his belongings. However, we have assessed how the landlord responded to the concerns raised.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a roof leak to an outhouse.

The resident reported a leak from the roof of the outhouse on 24 August 2023. He also said that the roof contained asbestos. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance leaflet explains what it considers emergency repairs to be. These include reports of disturbed asbestos, collapsing ceilings due to a leak and dangerous structures that could collapse. For such reports, it will inspect this within 24 hours to make it safe.
The landlord has a ‘duty to manage’ asbestos, as specified by regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. It must take reasonable steps to identify, record and have a management plan for asbestos. It also must protect residents from asbestos. This is also in line with the landlord’s asbestos safety policy.
Additionally, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) sets the minimum standard for housing safety. It lists 29 common hazards, the impacts these hazards can have, and the potential causes. This includes asbestos. Under the HHSRS, the landlord must assess any current damage or potential fibre release.
Given the resident’s reports that the leaking roof contained asbestos, it is unclear why the landlord did not inspect this within 24 hours. If it had done so, it could have assessed whether there was any disturbed asbestos, and if it needed to take immediate action to reduce any risks posed to the. It could have also assessed whether the structure itself posed any concerns to them and determined whether any interim repairs were possible. It is a failing that it did not investigate this promptly, in line with its repair timescales.
The landlord completed an asbestos test to the outhouse roof on 22 March 2024. This was nearly 7 months after the resident reported the roof leak and mentioned the asbestos. It is reasonable to expect some delays in arranging specialist asbestos contractors. However, the overall delay to complete the test was not appropriate. The repairs could not progress without the asbestos test and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to try to expedite this accordingly. The delay would have understandably caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
On 22 March 2024, the landlord confirmed that the roof sheets contained asbestos. On the same day, it authorised works to remove the roof sheets to the resident’s 3 sheds and toilet within the outhouse. To do so, it also needed to remove the roof sheets to the private neighbour’s outhouse – as this connected to the resident’s. There is no evidence to show that the landlord provided this information, or any updates, to the resident. By not doing so, the resident was unaware of the findings or what it needed to do. This understandably caused him to question whether it took his concerns seriously.
Overall, the landlord’s repair records lack detail. Its records show the date of the report and the target date to complete repairs by. However, only some of the logs include appointment dates, details of the works required, and the outcome of the appointments. Due to this, we cannot clearly establish whether it completed the works needed at each appointment. Additionally, it is difficult to assess the time taken to complete the repairs because of the landlord’s poor record keeping.
Despite the landlord initially raising works to investigate the roof leak in August 2023, it later cancelled the job. It is unclear when it cancelled this or why it did so. Nevertheless, it was a significant failing that it failed to investigate the resident’s reports. Instead, it left him with an outhouse which he could not use. This would have understandably caused further distress and inconvenience to him. Especially given the resident said the roof leaks caused damage to his belongings.
On 1 March 2024, the landlord raised a new repair job to complete the roof repairs “as per [the] variation order.” It is unclear what prompted it to raise the new job. It is also unclear what the variation was for, or what it varied from. The records do not show any appointments related to this repair. Therefore, it is unclear what action the landlord took.
Within the resident’s complaint, he referred to a failed appointment on 2 April 2024. He said the landlord had not notified him of the appointment, and so it could not complete any works because the outhouse was full of his belongings. There is no reference to this appointment within the landlord’s repair records. However, the landlord did not dispute this had occurred. The landlord’s poor record keeping therefore impacted its handling of the repairs and caused further delays. This meant it missed opportunities to investigate and resolve the issues sooner, causing the resident avoidable distress.
In the landlord’s initial complaint response, it said it would complete the roof repairs on 15 August 2024. The landlord’s repair records do not show this repair appointment. The resident later told us that the landlord’s contractors attended as planned but could not complete works on that date because of the asbestos.
The landlord was already aware of the asbestos, from the resident’s report in August 2023 – and from the testing completed in March 2024. It is a significant concern that the landlord had not factored this into the repairs This suggests further delays caused by its poor record keeping and management of the repairs. The resident also said it promised to contact him “soon” about the works, but he told us that he had not received any further updates.
Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping, there is no evidence to show what occurred at the appointment or whether it arranged any follow-on works. There is also no evidence to show that it provided any updates to the resident after the appointment. This is a further failing.
The available evidence shows that the landlord later deleted this job from its repairs system on 25 September 2024. The evidence shows that it only acted to raise the appointment again following internal discussions about the resident’s complaint escalation.
Within internal emails, the landlord also noted it was unclear why it had closed the job given it had promised to complete the works. This suggests that it did not proactively manage or monitor the repair. During this time, it also left the resident with an unusable room, with no evidence that it considered the safety of the household. This understandably caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. This was not appropriate.
On 28 October 2024, the landlord raised a new repair job to complete the roof repairs. Within its final complaint response, it said it would complete the roof repair on 15 November 2024. However, it also explained that doing so depended on the cooperation of the private neighbour next door. This was because it needed to remove the asbestos roof sheets across the roof of both the resident’s and the neighbour’s outhouse.
The landlord’s complaint response also noted it may need to arrange a party wall agreement about removing the roof sheets with the neighbour. This is a legally binding document for neighbours to agree works to a shared wall. Despite this, the landlord later attended the appointment, but it noted it could not complete the works. This was because it did not have the neighbour’s consent to remove their roof sheets. The landlord was already aware of this issue, and so it is unclear why it repeated steps which it knew the neighbour had not consented to. This understandably caused raised expectations which the landlord could not meet. Again this is further evidence of poor repairs management.
While we note repairs involving third party consent can be complex, we would expect the landlord to explore all viable options to complete the repair. The landlord instructed its party wall surveyors to inspect the outhouse. However, it is concerning that it only confirmed it had done so on 5 December 2024. Given that it had identified this as a potential issue during the complaints process, it is a concern why it took a further month to arrange this. It is unclear what the outcome of this was.
Additionally, there is no evidence to show whether the landlord sought legal advice about the issue. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the tenancy agreement, it must maintain and repair the structure and exterior of the property. Due to the difficulty in agreeing the repairs with the private neighbour, it should have reasonably explored options to progress this, as it is obligated to. It is a significant failing that it cannot evidence that it has explored and considered legal action to resolve the ongoing repairs.
Nevertheless, at the time of our investigation, the landlord has not yet completed the roof repairs. This is over 19 months since the resident first reported the issues. It is a failing that the landlord cannot evidence that it took proactive and meaningful steps to complete the repair during this time. This understandably caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience with an unusable outhouse.
There is also no evidence to show whether the landlord considered the impact to the household’s health. During the complaints process, the resident noted concerns about the condition of the asbestos roof sheets. He also noted the impact caused to his health due to the stress of the situation. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it completed a risk assessment about the safety of the household. The landlord has a duty to consider this under the HHSRS and Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.
The landlord acknowledged failings in how it responded to the roof repair. Within its final complaint response, it apologised for its poor communication, lack of updates, and the delay in resolving the ongoing repairs. It was appropriate for it to do so. However, it did not consider the overall impact caused by its failings as it did not offer him any compensation. It also failed to resolve the issues in a timely manner as the repairs currently remain outstanding. As such, it failed to put things right and to learn from its mistakes.
Considering the above, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a roof leak to the outhouse. The landlord should pay the resident £450 compensation. This is to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused by the outstanding repairs and its poor communication. This is an appropriate order in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely impacted the resident. We have also made a relevant order about progressing the roof repairs below.

The associated complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy stated it would acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days. It should then respond within a further 10 working days. Its policy explained that if it needed more time, it would update the resident of when to expect the response. At stage 2, it would acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days. It would then respond within a further 10 working days. The landlord has since updated its policy to be in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident complained to the landlord on 15 May 2024. There is no evidence to show that the landlord acknowledged the complaint. This was not in line with its policy. It is also unclear when it provided its stage 1 response. The landlord dated the response as 12 June 2024. However, the landlord told us that it believes the letter had an incorrect date and it instead sent the response on 5 July 2024. It therefore took a total of 36 working days to respond to the complaint. This was not appropriate. The delay and its lack of acknowledgement at the time would have understandably caused distress to the resident.
On 2 October 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to the landlord. The resident also contacted us as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. We then wrote to the landlord on 3 October 2024 and asked it to respond to the complaint within 25 working days, by 7 November 2024. The landlord later provided its stage 2 response on 5 November 2024. While this was not in line with its policy timescales, it is acknowledged that the landlord responded before the deadline that we had set.
Within the resident’s escalation request, he said he was unhappy that the landlord closed the complaint without his knowledge. He said it had not resolved the issues raised. We understand that the resident was concerned about this. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to close the complaint after issuing its initial response in the absence of an escalation request from the resident. We have found no failing regarding this concern.
Part of the resident’s complaint also included his concerns about his damaged belongings. He also said the outstanding repairs, and the landlord’s handling of this, impacted his health. He asked the landlord to pay compensation to him for the impact caused to his belongings and his health.
The landlord apologised for the stress caused by the delays and the ongoing issues, and for the impact caused to the resident. However, it did not offer any advice about how to submit a claim for such compensation. In line with its compensation and redress scheme policy, its insurance officer responds to any liability and personal injury claims. It reasonably should have provided such information to the resident and given him information of how to do this. It was a failing that it did not do so.
Overall, the landlord failed to follow its complaint policy by not acknowledging or responding to the initial complaint in line with its timescales. It also did not offer appropriate advice and support to the resident about his concerns with his health and belongings. The landlord should therefore pay the resident £75 compensation. This is to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for minor failings which have had no long-term impact to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a roof leak to an outhouse.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. This should include specific examples.
2. Pay £525 compensation to the resident. It should pay this directly to the resident and not his rent account. This consists of:
  1. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of a roof leak to an outhouse.
  2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Provide the resident with details of how to make a liability claim to its insurance team. This is for both the reported impact to his health and for his damaged belongings. It should provide support to him in doing so, if requested.
4. Consult with its legal team or department to establish appropriate next steps to complete the roof repairs. It should provide a summary of the outcome of this to us.
The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.