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

London Borough of Islington (202326234)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326234

Islington Council

11 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 handling of the roof repair and the associated internal damage.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the second floor of a building. The landlord is a local authority and the freeholder of the building. The resident was subletting his property at the time of his complaint.
  2. The resident raised his complaint on 5 August 2023. He said:
    1. The landlord had not attended appointments for the roof repair.
    2. The property was occupied by a family with 2 young children who were concerned about mould growth.
    3. The internal mould growth was due to the landlord’s lack of action with the roof repair.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 August 2023. It said:
    1. It raised a works order following the resident’s report of a roof leak in January 2023.
    2. It had booked 2 appointments which were missed, the first for 8 February 2023 and then for 15 May 2023. It explained that its contractor was unwell and it had to change contractors. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and for not explaining this previously.
    3. Work was raised with another contractor on 15 May 2023 and it attempted to contact the resident on 18 May 2023 with no success. It noted the resident was on holiday for a month.
    4. On 17 August 2023, it spoke with its contractor who said a report was awaiting internal approval. Once approved its contractor would contact the resident.
    5. Its damp and mould team would contact the resident about mould within the property and inspect the issue. It explained leaseholders were responsible for internal work. It told the resident to contact his own home insurance.
    6. It upheld the complaint and offered £75 in compensation. This was made up of £50 for inconvenience and £25 for poor communication.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 4 September 2023. He said the compensation was not proportionate to the ongoing impact. He repeated how he felt the internal damage was a result of the external issues and the landlord’s response did not address this.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 October 2023. It repeated its stage 1 response and said it offered the resident an apology because it had not made him aware of contractor appointments. It said:
    1. It was sorry about the difficulties experienced with the roof repair and agreed the £75 compensation offered at stage 1 did not go far enough.
    2. Its stage 1 response did not address the resident’s concerns about the internal faults. It accepted that the internal damage was a result of the leak. It repeated how internal damage was a leaseholders responsibility and said such claims would need to be made via insurance.
    3. Its roofing team would contact the resident by 9 October 2023 to advise of the next steps for the repair.
    4. It upheld the complaint and offered the resident £485 in compensation. It said this was made up of:
      1. £200 for inconvenience.
      2. £210 for delays with repairs. It said this was £41.66 for each month between February to May 2023 (4 months) and a further £41.66 for 1 month (August and September 2023).
      3. £75 it offered at stage 1.
  6. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s compensation offer and asked this Service to consider his complaint further. In June 2025, the resident told this Service that the landlord completed repair work to the roof and its insurer compensated him for the costs of internal works. This Service has not been provided with further details of the insurance claim.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told this Service about internal damage caused to the property and internal items he says were due to the landlord’s handling of the roof repair. He has asked this Service to consider compensation for damage and the financial loss he has suffered due to his tenant leaving the property.
  2. It is important to explain that the Ombudsman can not make decisions on liability for damage to items or liability for rental losses in such circumstances. These matters should be covered by insurance. The resident has told this Service that he made a claim via the landlord’s insurer, this was an appropriate route for such claims. This report will not consider financial compensation for damage or a loss of income. However, this report has considered what the landlord did following reports of internal damage.
  3. The resident has also told this Service about the impact of the living conditions on his previous tenants. The Ombudsman can not consider the impact in such circumstances as the previous tenants did not have a landlord/tenant relationship with a member of our Scheme. The previous tenants relationship was with the resident, as their landlord. As such, the impact in these circumstances will not be considered within this report.

Handling of the roof repair and the associated internal damage

  1. The lease says the landlord is responsible for the structural parts of the building including the roof. It says the landlord should repair, clean, improve, redecorate and keep in good repair and condition the roof, amongst other things.
  2. The landlord’s housing repairs guide sets out its repairs and maintenance responsibilities for homes it manages. The guide explains that most responsibilities detailed were not for leaseholders. However, it sets out timeframes for repairs, including 20 working days for a routine repair.
  3. It is not disputed that the resident told the landlord about a roof leak on 11 January 2023. The landlord’s notes show it recorded the repair as a routine repair (20 working days). The landlord did not meet this timeframe. This was not appropriate.
  4. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it said its initial appointment for 8 February 2023 was missed due to its contractor’s availability. The evidence shows the initial target date for work was 8 February 2023, however, it is unclear if an appointment was scheduled at that time. Instead, the landlord raised work for the roof on 8 March 2023 and took until 14 March 2023 to make the roof safe. It is unclear why it took around 2 months to make the roof safe and to request an inspection of the roof. This timeframe was not appropriate.
  5. The landlord completed an inspection of the roof and the internal condition of the property in May 2023. Work to the roof was recommended at that time. However, it took the landlord until 22 November 2023 to complete the recommended work to the roof. This was not appropriate.
  6. The landlord exceeded its repairs timeframe by around 10 months. It took significant time to complete work it was responsible for (the roof). This timeframe was not appropriate.
  7. Within the resident’s complaint he told the landlord about the impact the outstanding roof repair had on the internal conditions of the property. He told it of mould on walls and ceilings. While the landlord’s complaint response accepted the mould was caused by the leak, it did not refer the resident to its insurer at that time (October 2023). Instead it told the resident that he was responsible for the internal condition of the property and to contact his own insurer. This was not appropriate.
  8. It took the landlord until December 2023 to provide the resident with details of its insurer and how to submit a claim. While the resident has said the claim was successful, the landlord missed opportunities to tell the resident of this sooner. This was not appropriate.
  9. Overall, the landlord exceeded its routine repair timeframe by around 10 months. During this time it failed to keep the resident updated and did not manage his expectations on when it would complete the work. The landlord would have been aware of the internal conditions of the property following its inspection in May 2023. However, despite it accepting the mould was caused by the roof leak, it took 2 months after its stage 2 response to provide information on how to submit a claim against its insurer.
  10. The landlord’s handling of the roof repair and the associated internal damage was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration.
  11. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it recognised the inconvenience the situation would have caused the resident and offered him £275 compensation. It also offered a further £210 for delays and calculated this as £41.66 per month for 5 months (February to May and for August to September). It is unclear how the landlord decided the delay was for 5 months.
  12. As the landlord has used £41.66 as the monthly delay amount, it would be reasonable for the Ombudsman to adopt the same calculation for delay. However, this Service’s investigation has found the delay was around 10 months instead of 5. As such, the Ombudsman considers it fair and reasonable to increase the compensation amount for the impact of delay to £420. This is to account for the 10 month delay in completing the roof repair work. The amount includes the £210 the landlord previously offered.
  13. The landlord’s stage 2 offer of £275 for the overall inconvenience has been considered alongside its delay in referring the resident to its insurer. It is noted it did eventually provide the resident with the insurer’s details and the claim was successful. As such a further payment for distress and inconvenience has not been made as the amount of £275 for distress and inconvenience was appropriate in these circumstances.
  14. It is noted that the resident may feel the compensation amount may not reflect his efforts in contacting the landlord about the repair. It is important to explain that the remedy ordered is made in attempts to recognise the impact of the landlord’s failings, and it may not meet the resident’s expectations. The total compensation amount of £695 falls between the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance. While the landlord delayed in completing work, it did eventually complete the work and also provided the resident with information about its insurer. The compensation of £695 is proportionate for the failings identified.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof repair and the associated internal damage.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange for a manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total compensation of £695 for the delay, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the roof repair and associated internal damage. This amount includes the £485 it previously offered if this has not been paid already.