Arun District Council (202330314)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330314

Arun District Council

17 March 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 leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs within her property.
2. Concerns about the cladding on the outside of the building.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident was a leaseholder of the landlord at the property until February 2024. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette.
In September 2022 the resident told the landlord that she had 5 separate leaks within the loft at her property. She said the leaks were coming from the damaged roof. The resident also asked the landlord when it was going to repair the cladding to the building as more pieces of it had fallen off. She described how rusty nails were also falling out of the damaged cladding and on to the pavement below.
The landlord agreed to inspect the roof leaks. The landlord also advised the resident that it had approved for the building’s cladding to be repaired as part of its programme of works. The landlord explained that it would take a number of months for this programme of works to start. This was because it needed to follow its section 20 process which included tendering the contract for the works and sending out notice to its residents.
In November 2022, the resident told the landlord that the leaks in her property were increasing and getting worse. She explained that she had spent a lot of money on trying to repair the leak in her lounge that had been caused by the missing cladding. The landlord said it had carried out an inspection of the resident’s property and had asked its contractor to carry out a temporary repair to the cladding during this period.
In January 2023 the resident said she was having to use several buckets in her lounge and the balcony area, due to the ongoing leaks coming from the roof into the property. She reported that at that time she had 9 separate leaks coming from the damaged roof. The resident also said that she had been hit by falling cladding on her way home during this period. The landlord installed scaffolding to the resident’s building as a temporary measure to prevent further cladding falling from the building.
In April 2023 and July 2023 the resident told the landlord that the roof had continued to leak, which had continued to cause damage to the internal aspects of the property. She asked the landlord when it was going to resolve the repairs to the roof. In July 2023 the landlord agreed for its roofing contractor to carry out an inspection of the roof of the building and carry out any identified temporary repairs.
On 16 August 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of the leaks to the roof, and cladding to the building. She said that she had been chasing the landlord for 2 years and that she had reported 20 separate leaks from the roof into the property. The resident explained that there was also damp and mould within the property and that the landlord had not responded to her concerns about the following:
1. The drains and gutters in the building were blocked.
2. The cladding had not been repaired.
3. The roof had still not been fixed, and the landlord had not carried out any temporary repairs as it had promised.
4. The landlord had not updated her about what her proportion of the costs to replace the roof would be.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 September 2023. It accepted that it had taken a long time for the roofing and cladding works to be carried out. It also accepted that it could have communicated better with the resident about these repairs. The landlord apologised and awarded the resident £500 compensation.

The landlord said it would carry out an inspection of the damp and mould within the resident’s property once it had replaced the roof. It asked the resident to provide photographs and receipts of the works she had carried out, which she said had been caused by the leaking roof. The landlord said its management team would then assess her request for it to reimburse these costs.
On 6 September 2023 the landlord’s roofing contractor carried out temporary repairs to the tiles on the roof and cleared the guttering.
On 11 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The resident said she had first raised these repairs to the landlord in December 2020. The resident reported that these repairs had been ongoing for 3 years, and she had had 26 leaks in total by that time. She explained that the leaks from the roof and the cladding had impacted every room in the property other than the bathroom. This included that the resident had been unable to use 2 of her 3 bedrooms for a number of months. The resident said the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted her physical, emotional, and mental health. She also explained that the disrepair was impacting her personal financial situation, as well as her ability to sell the property due to the disrepair.
On 19 October 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord apologised it had not dealt with the concerns raised by the resident. The landlord said it would do the following:
1. Carry out a survey of the damp and mould within the resident’s property.
2. Complete a survey of the drains within the building and that it would cover the cost of any follow-on works.
3. It would shortly issue the section 20 notice with the estimated costs to the resident for its programme of works to repair the roof and the cladding to the building. It said the estimated cost to the resident would be around £26,000.
4. The landlord suggested it should enter mediation with the resident in respect of what costs it would cover in respect of any damage caused to the resident’s property.
In October 2023 the resident reported a number of further leaks from the roof within the property. The landlord’s contractor carried out an inspection of the resident’s property as well as the building. The contractor confirmed that the resident was using water buckets within her property to collect the water coming in from the roof. The contractor also said that the gable end wall of the resident’s property was not watertight. The cladding had rotted, and this was another cause of water coming into the resident’s property.

The contractor said that the damp problems caused to the building, including inside the resident’s property were as a direct link of the landlord’s repair regime to the point of the current failure. The contractor reported that works were urgently needed to weatherproof the building and the resident’s property.
In November 2023 the landlord carried out temporary repairs to the broken roof tiles of the building. The resident said that this had not stopped all of the leaks into her property. On 29 November 2023 the landlord awarded the resident £2,997.50. It said this amount represented 50 percent of the costs she submitted for the repairs she had carried out to her property caused by the leaks. The landlord said this amount included its award of £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused to her.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaint. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman stating she wanted the landlord to pay the full costs of the damage caused to her property by the leaks. She also wanted an increase in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her. The resident has said she would like the landlord to carry out the outstanding works to the roof, and cladding of the building as this would likely to be affecting other residents. She also wanted the landlord to apologise, improve its repairs processes and learn from its failings in this case.
The landlord updated the Ombudsman that there was a further delay in its programme of works to replace the roof and repair the cladding to the building. It said these works were scheduled to start in the financial year of 2024 to 2025. We understand that these works remain outstanding as of the date of this report.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’

Scope of investigation

Section 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident has said that she first reported the incidents relating to the roof, and the cladding to the building in December 2020. The Ombudsman does not doubt what the resident has said. However, in line with the Scheme, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of these repairs between August 2022 to the landlord’s final response on 19 October 2023.
Section 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she disputed having to pay for charges relating to the repairs to the roof, in addition to her portion of the costs of its full replacement. The Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge, including whether the charges represent good value for money, as this falls outside the jurisdiction of this service. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) can establish whether service charges were reasonable or payable. The Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s communication in relation to the charges and whether it responded to any questions about the service charge appropriately in line with its legal obligations, its internal policies and industry best practice.
Paragraph 42.f Of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states we may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, or other tribunal procedure.
The Ombudsman was sorry to learn of the cladding falling on to the resident and we note her account that her health had been impacted by the damp and mould in her property. We understand this has been a difficult time for her. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can cause damage to health, particularly for those with respiratory problems or a weakened immune system. However, we are unable to comment on the specific impact of any action or inaction by the landlord on the resident’s health. This is because these are legal matters which are better suited to a court or liability insurer to assess.

However, consideration has been given to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that she had been hit by the falling cladding, the reported effect on her health, as well as her reports that her property had been damaged due to a repair issue.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs handbook states that it is responsible for roofs, fascia and soffit boards, gutters, and downpipes. The landlord defines major repairs and planned maintenance as repairs that are complicated, high value, or require scaffolding to be erected. The timescales for major works will depend on the nature of the works involved. It gives an example which include works that need consultation with leaseholders or other landlords.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that whilst carrying out works there may be unavoidable damage to a resident’s decorations or fixtures. It states that where damage is caused as a result of it carrying out works it will offer the resident a choice to rectify the damage or be paid an allowance to carry out the work themselves. It states that this policy does not apply to claims that are covered by its liability insurance or claims that should be covered by a resident’s home contents insurance policy.

The resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.

On 6 September 2022, the resident reported that she had 5 leaks in the loft space of the property. She said this was due to water coming through the damaged roof of the building. On 4 November 2022 the landlord has said it carried out an inspection of the resident’s property. This was 60 days later. This was not appropriate because we would expect the landlord to have carried out an inspection of the leaking roof at the resident’s property within 28 days of the resident raising this repair. The landlord has not explained the reasons for the delay.
We have not seen any correspondence or any record of what happened during the landlord’s inspection on 4 November 2022. Based on the information reviewed there is no evidence this inspection took place or that the landlord carried out any repairs to the roof during this period. This is evidence of poor handling of its repairs. The landlord should have carried out the inspection and then it should have set out a schedule of works that were required. We would expect these to be carried out within a reasonable timescale. It is accepted the repairs to a roof can be subject to weather conditions and therefor may take longer than a standard repair of 28 days. However, we would expect the landlord to keep the resident updated and work with her, setting out a timescale that is reasonable and in line with industry best practice.
Between November 2022 and January 2023, the resident advised the landlord that the leaks in her property were getting worse and increasing. The resident said she had redecorated the property after some of the previous leaks from the roof. However, due to the further continued leaks that this redecoration would need to be carried out again. She also suspected there was significant damage to the ceiling in the lounge. The landlord advised the resident to claim on her contents insurance. This was not an appropriate response. This was because the landlord should have advised the resident to contact its liability insurer to make a liability claim if she believed that the damage had been caused to her property due to its own negligence in handling the repair to the roof. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the actions of the landlord, and we would therefore not comment on its insurer or the likely outcome of an insurance claim if one was made. However, the landlord should have advised that this option was available to the resident.
During this same period, we have also not seen any correspondence, or records that show that the landlord carried out any actions in respect of the resident’s further reports of leaks in the property. The landlord should have inspected and carried out repairs to the roof of the building within a reasonable timescale, in line with its repairs handbook.
In January 2023, the landlord’s surveyor sent a section 20 notice in which it advised all residents in the building that it would be replacing the roof. It said the contract to carry out the works had been sent out to tender. The landlord said it expected the works to replace the roof to start in April 2023. It was appropriate that the landlord identified the need for it to replace the roof and that it was starting the process. However, the works did not start in April 2023, and we have seen no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident about this during this time. Where the landlord set a preliminary timescale and was unable to achieve this, we would expect the landlord to communicate any changes in its timescales and any reasons for doing so with the resident. This is evidence of poor communication.
Between April 2023 and July 2023 the resident reported that she was experiencing further leaks in her property coming from the roof. In July 2023 the landlord agreed to carry out an inspection of the roof in order to carry out the required temporary repairs. However, we have not been provided with any records that show that the landlord carried out any inspections or repairs to the roof during this period. The landlord should have responded to each of the resident’s separate leaks as reported. It should then have carried out these works in line with industry best practice, by working with its roofing contractor to complete these necessary repairs to make the roof watertight while it was awaiting replacement.
We understand that the landlord’s lack of communication in addition to the deterioration of the roof, had significantly increased the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident at that time.
On 16 August 2023 the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the roof of the building. She said that as a result of the landlord failing to act, she had experienced 20 leaks from the roof, and her property was suffering with damp and mould as a result. She also said the drains and gutters were blocked. Between 31 August 2023 and 6 September 2023 the landlord’s roofing contractor carried out the following:
1. Altered the existing scaffolding that was around the building so the contractors could use this to access the roof.
2. Cleared the guttering.
3. Carried out temporary repairs to the broken tiles in the roof.
It was appropriate that the landlord carried out these works. However, it should have not taken 11 months for it to carry out the temporary repairs to the roof. This was also 5 months after the landlord had erected the scaffolding which its contractors should have been able to use as a way of gaining access to the roof much sooner. This is evidence of poor handling of its repairs.
In the landlord stage 1 complaint response on 6 September 2023, it said its surveyor had apologised that the resident felt ignored but this was not intentional. The landlord said its surveyor had an enormous workload, and it accepted that that it had been too optimistic on when it would be able to replace the roof of the building. It was right the landlord apologised for its poor communication with the resident, as well as its delays in handling the replacement of the roof. However, we would expect a landlord to have adequate resources in order for it to carry out its functions as a landlord.
The landlord said it could not find the results of a survey it had previously carried out at the resident’s property for damp and mould. The landlord said it would inspect any damage in the resident’s property, including damp and mould once it had replaced the roof. This was not appropriate because the landlord did not know when it was going to replace the roof. The landlord should have carried out a survey of the resident’s property in respect of the damp and mould within 28 days of the resident making this report.

The landlord asked the resident for her receipts and photos of the internal works she had carried out to rectify the damage caused to her property by the leaking roof. It was appropriate the landlord requested these. However, this was a further opportunity for the landlord to refer the resident to its liability insurer or consider her claim itself, because she was claiming the internal works were as a result of the landlord failing to repair the roof.
The landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint on 19 October 2023. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised that it had not dealt with the resident’s concerns and for its poor communication. It was also positive that the landlord agreed to carry out the surveys in respect of the damp and mould, and the blocked drains at the resident’s property.
A month later, the landlord said it disagreed with the resident’s claim that she spent £8,000 on the repairs caused by the leaks from the roof. The landlord said that the receipts it received totalled £4,995. The landlord said that if the resident submitted further information on how she came to £8,000, that it would review its compensation again. It was appropriate the landlord explained its understanding of the resident’s receipts and that it gave the resident the opportunity to explain the discrepancy. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord agreed to pay half of the cost of the damage caused. This is because where the landlord has suggested it pay half; it appears to be accepting liability. If the landlord were accepting liability, it was not appropriate that it would only cover half of these costs. We will make an order that the landlord revisits this calculation.
In October 2023, the landlord’s roofing contractor carried out an inspection of the roof of the resident’s building. It confirmed that the damp in the building and disrepair of the roof was a direct result of the landlord’s repair regime. We understand that the roof has still yet to be replaced despite this inspection stating that urgent works were needed to make the building watertight. We have also been updated that the building has continued to suffer leaks. We appreciate that this will have had a negative impact on all residents within this building. Therefore, as part of this report, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation for the landlord to carry out the replacement of the roof within 16 weeks of the date of this report.
We will also make a recommendation that the landlord conducts a survey of the damp and mould throughout the whole building due to the significant delay in the building not being weatherproof. We have seen no evidence that the landlord has carried out a survey of the drains within the building. Therefore, we will also recommend that the landlord carries out a survey of the drains, gutters, and downpipes to the building. These further recommendations should be carried out within 28 days of the date of this report.
Our investigation has focused on the resident’s individual complaint and how the situation affected her when she was living in the property. If other residents feel they have been adversely affected by the resident’s handling of repairs they can raise their own complaints about this to the landlord, either individually or as a group.
For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property. This is because of the landlord’s overall excessive delays, its poor communication, the fact that the roof repairs remained outstanding until the resident moved out of the property in February 2024.
The landlord awarded the resident £500 compensation as part of its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response. It is positive that the landlord attempted to put things right, but we do not consider that the landlord went far enough.
We have considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors. We will increase the award to £1500. This is to take into consideration the overall significant impact caused to the resident until she left the property in February 2024. She spent a number of months being unable to use several rooms in her property due to the excessive leaks and that the distress and inconvenience caused to her had been made worse by her having to repeatedly report the issue, which the landlord has failed to address or take effective action.

The resident’s concerns about the cladding to the outside of the building.

On 12 September 2022 the resident asked the landlord when it would repair the cladding to the building as bits of it were falling off. The resident has explained that this included rusty nails falling on to the street below. The next day the landlord told the resident that the works to repair and replace the cladding would take place as part of its programme of works. It explained that the works would take a number of months due to the section 20 consultation process. It was appropriate that the landlord communicated this to the resident. This is because major repairs like this are subject to what can be lengthy processes that landlord’s need to follow.
On 6 January 2023 the resident told the landlord that she had been hit by a piece of cladding falling from the building, as she was returning home to her property. The landlord erected scaffolding around the resident’s building on 10 January 2023. It said this was a temporary measure to prevent further cladding falling from the building. It was right that the landlord did this. We also understand that it would have taken the landlord time to source the scaffolding.
However, it should not have taken the landlord 4 months to carry out this temporary measure. The landlord should have inspected the disrepair of the cladding to the building and taken reasonable steps to carry out any temporary repairs within 28 days of the resident’s initial report in November 2022, in line with its repairs policy.
We have also not seen any evidence that the landlord considered the risk to residents and members of the public, including children that parts of the building were falling onto a public street. Records reviewed show that the resident chased the landlord between September 2022 and January 2023 for it to take action around this. We understand the landlord’s delay in taking action increased the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident at that time. This is evidence of the landlord’s poor handling of its repairs processes.
We appreciate that the cladding falling on the resident in January 2023, must have been a very distressing incident for her. We have seen no evidence in the landlord’s communication that it asked the resident about the incident, or about her welfare after she said she had been hit by the falling cladding. We have also not seen any evidence that the landlord took action to investigate this incident. This was not reasonable as we would expect the landlord to have demonstrated compassion when communicating with the resident, whilst also carrying out a preliminary investigation into the incident. We would also expect the landlord to provide information to the resident about its liability insurance if, as in this case there are allegations of negligence so the resident could make a personal injury claim if she wished to. As explained above, we will not comment on the likely outcome of such a claim, but we have assessed the landlord’s communication about the matter. This landlord’s handling of this incident is evidence of poor communication.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her concerns about the cladding and associated repairs to the outside of the building. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses that it had taken a long time to address this repair. The landlord also accepted that it could have communicated better in its handling of the section 20 process. It was reasonable the landlord apologised. However we do not consider that the landlord went far enough in its own assessment of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its significant delays and poor communication.
On 31 October 2023 the landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s building in respect of the cladding. The contractor explained that the cladding needed urgent attention to make the resident’s property watertight. The contractor also said this was the cause of the damp in the walls, and that this on-going disrepair of the cladding was allowing water to penetrate into her property. It was right the landlord carried out this inspection.
However, we understand that these works remain outstanding, 28 months later. This is a significant delay which we would likely have caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. She has said this contributed to her overall reasons for deciding to sell the property in February 2024.
For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the cladding to the outside of the building. This is because of the landlord’s overall excessive delay, its poor communication, and that the works remained outstanding when the resident moved out of the property.
We have considered our own remedies guidance, as referred to above in respect of compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors. The landlord is to pay the resident £1000 compensation to take into consideration the overall significant impact caused to the resident, who had been living in a property that was not watertight and had items falling from the building including rusty nails and cladding until she left the property in February 2024.
We recommend that the landlord carries out the replacement of the cladding and associated repairs within 16 weeks of the date of this report. This is because, although the resident is no longer at the property, these repairs are likely to impact other residents within the building.

The resident’s associated complaint.

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s stage 1 complaint within 5 working days. It will then provide its written response at stage one within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. The landlord will provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days. It will provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond to a resident’s complaint, at either stage. This will not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
On 16 August 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of leaks, damp, and mould, as well as her concerns about the cladding and associated repairs to the outside of the building. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day. This was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy which states it will acknowledge a resident’s complaint within 5 working days.

The landlord then provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 September 2023. This was 16 working days later. This was reasonable because the landlord had communicated to the resident that it needed extra time before it could provide its stage 1 written complaint response. We would expect a landlord to provide a stage one complaint response within 10 working days, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (which sets out our service’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling). However, where the landlord may need further time to respond to a resident’s complaint, this should not exceed a further 10 working days.
During this period the resident told the landlord that it was the third time she had to ask it to correct the spelling of her surname in its correspondence to her. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised and said it would update its records. However, it should not have taken the resident 3 attempts for the landlord to correct this. This is evidence of poor communication. We would encourage the landlord to ensure it has recorded the resident’s correct details on its system and in any future correspondence.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 11 September 2023. The landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint on 19 October 2023. This was 29 working days later. This was appropriate because the landlord had told the resident that it needed further time to respond to her complaint. This was also in line with the Code as referred to above.
The landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s complaint is considered to have been appropriate given regard to all the circumstances. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
2. Concerns about the cladding and associated repairs to the outside of the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

A senior member of staff at the landlord, at director level or above is to apologise to the resident in writing. This apology is to be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance that it acknowledges the severe maladministration and expresses a sincere regret for its handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
2. Concerns about the cladding to the outside of the building.
The landlord is to pay the resident a compensation payment of £2,500. The breakdown of this compensation is as follows:
1. £1,500 for its severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs within the property.
2. £1,000 for its severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the cladding to the outside of the building.
This amount of £2,500 includes the £500 the landlord awarded the resident in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses for distress and inconvenience. The landlord may deduct this £500 from the total amount if this has already been paid to the resident.
The landlord should communicate with the resident and carry out a further assessment of its award of £2,497.50 it said was for 50% of the resident’s submitted receipts for repairs carried out to her property. The landlord should also advise her how she can submit a liability claim to its insurer for the injury she says was caused to her by falling cladding.
The landlord is to share evidence with the Ombudsman confirming that it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should carry out the replacement of the roof to the building as it originally agreed to do in September 2022.
The landlord should carry out the works to replace the cladding to the building, making the building watertight as per the contractor’s inspection report on 31 October 2023, and per its agreement set out the year before, in September 2022.
The landlord should:
1. Carry out a survey of the drains in the building as it previously agreed unless it has already completed these works.
2. Consider a damp and mould survey to be carried out for all properties within the building.
These works should be completed within 28 days of this report. If follow up works are required it should set out a schedule of works, it is responsible for including estimated timescales, which it should share with its residents in writing.
The landlord should also consider conducting a full review of its handling of the section 20 process in respect of the replacement of the roof and cladding to the building and how this process will be improved. We recommend that this review be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to) an exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred in respect of the significant delays, and lack of action in carrying out the works to date.
1. Following the review, the landlord should consider producing a report setting out:
  1. Its findings and learning from the review.
  2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
  3. The number of other residents in the same building who have experienced a similar issue.
  4. Consider the steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. The landlord may consider compensation proportionate to the impact a particular resident has experienced due to a failing by the landlord.