From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202401696)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401696

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

12 May 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 a communal roof leak and associated damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property, which is a flat in the building owned by the landlord. She lives with her children.
  2. On 8 January 2023, the resident reported damp, mould, and condensation throughout her property to the landlord. It inspected the property on 24 January 2023 and identified required works. It completed works in April 2023 but found the roof works were outstanding.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 7 February 2024 as the mould issues remained. She reported an ongoing leak onto her windows and said the issues had been ongoing for over 8 years. She asked it to move her into a vacant property on a lower floor.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 22 February 2024. It apologised for needing a further inspection to find problems and said its contractor would contact her directly to arrange an appointment for the works to be completed. It explained that the property she requested was no longer available. It apologised and offered compensation of £450.
  5. On 11 March 2024, the resident requested escalation of her complaint. She was unhappy with the landlord’s recent survey of the property and said it was in breach of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. She requested a temporary or permanent move from the property.
  6. The landlord sent its final response to the resident on 11 April 2024. It provided a history of the complaint and apologised for earlier unsuccessful works. It said the issue did not meet the threshold for ‘a category 1 hazard under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985’. It provided a schedule of works and increased its compensation offer to £535.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response due to a lack of information about how it would deal with the ongoing damp. She felt its compensation offer was not enough to cover the cost of redecoration. Therefore, she brought her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told the landlord and the Ombudsman that the damp and mould has affected the health of her family. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights into the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court.
  2. The resident has told the landlord in correspondence that the issues in this case have been ongoing for up to 10 years. We are unable to investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. As such, this report will focus on matters from January 2023.

Handling of the roof leak

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in January 2023 by arranging a surveyor inspection. It arranged works including extractor fan replacements and moving the ventilation unit for completion by 14 April 2023 and offered her compensation of £300 in March 2023 for the delay in starting works.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines response times for varying categories of work. The works in this case vary between urgent and routine repairs with response times of 5 and 20 days, respectively. It had exceeded both at this time and therefore its offer of compensation was fair considering it made this outside of its complaints process.
  3. The landlord completed initial works to the roof on 27 March 2023 by sealing gaps in the stonework following a request on 9 March 2023. During this visit, it found faults to the window, UPVC surrounds, cladding panels and surrounding masonry. It noted that it needed further works to fully repair the roof. Its first response to this was prompt and it made efforts to reduce the issues by fixing what it could at the time. This was within its repairs policy timescales.
  4. There were discussions between the landlord and its contractor in late April 2023 over their capability to complete roofing works, but they agreed they could. The landlord instructed them to go ahead on 26 April 2023. It inspected on 4 May 2023 and confirmed that the roofing and decorating works were incomplete. It completed roofing works on 19 May 2023 and decorations on 17 July 2023. It completed the roofing works within the 90-day timescale for planned works set out in its repairs policy.
  5. There were no further reports after this until the resident complained to the landlord on 7 February 2024. As part of this complaint, she reported water leaking onto her windows and mould in the flat. Despite communicating with her on the same day, it did not raise any work for this until 20 February 2024. While its policy does not specify how long it will take to raise repairs, it has offered no explanation for why this took over a week.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response of 22 February 2024, the landlord referenced its inspection of the resident’s property from earlier that day. It found a leak through the living room and kitchen window. It said it would ask its contractor to attend to this urgently and that it had asked its gas team to complete a heat loss calculation survey in the property. It offered compensation of £450 and an apology. It did not explain how it calculated the amount.
  7. The landlord’s complaint response was fair and overall, well-explained. Its compensation policy allows for payments between £374.50 and £535 for issues with a high impact on a resident. Its offer of £450 was within this bracket and reasonably applied to the circumstances. It explained this to the resident in an email on 26 February 2024.
  8. The resident wrote a further email to the landlord on 6 March 2024, in which she made a request for emergency rehousing due to the ongoing leak and mould issues. She explained her concerns about the impact of this on her family’s health and asked it again to move them to a vacant property on a lower floor of the block. It replied on the same day and said its surveyor had made no recommendation for moving the family. It said it had previously sent applications for a move on medical grounds, which she was yet to complete.
  9. The landlord raised a request for a further survey of the property on 7 March 2024 due to the resident’s concerns about staying in the property. This was a considerate action, and it showed interest in her concerns. It booked this for 27 March 2024.
  10. Between 7 and 11 March 2024, the resident contacted the landlord a further 3 times. On 7 March, she said that it was in breach of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 for not reducing or removing hazards. She chased it for an update on works mentioned as part of its stage 1 response on 8 March 2024. On 11 March 2024, she requested it escalate her complaint.
  11. In her escalation request, the resident said the landlord had failed to account for all the information she had provided or provide a prompt plan of action to resolve the complaint. She said the conditions in the property amounted to a category 1 hazard. She requested a temporary or permanent move to a new property and a more substantial compensation offer.
  12. Following receipt of this, on 21 March 2024, the landlord asked the resident what she was looking for as an outcome to her complaint. It explained that it meant by way of works within the home as it was unable to provide a housing transfer as this was down to a specific department. This email was a good example of manging expectations, and it provided clarity to the resident.
  13. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 11 April 2024, it explained that following its survey and management visit to the resident’s home, it found that the mould was not severe enough for it to class it as a category 1 hazard. It also said that the conditions in the home were not enough to provide a permanent move, as it could address them with works. Ultimately, it is for a local authority to decide on whether a property is affected by a category 1 hazard under the Housing Act 2004. A local authority cannot investigate or inspect itself. However, we are satisfied the landlord considered the resident’s concerns about the property being affected by a category 1 hazard, and thus being unfit for human habitation, and responded based on a survey.
  14. The landlord provided an action plan to address the situation, alongside the other repairs that the resident raised. It said its contractor would be adjusting doors and replacing trickle vents in the windows to see them through until major works replaced them in 2025. Its roofing contractor would be attending on 12 April 2024 to complete exterior works. It increased its compensation offer to £535.
  15. The landlord’s complaint response was clear and factual. It offered solutions to the ongoing issues and apologised for not resolving matters to her satisfaction to date. Its decision to increase its compensation amount to the maximum amount in its policy was fair when considering the repair delays.
  16. The landlord’s contractor confirmed that they completed works to stop the leaks on 3 May 2024, within the policy timescale for planned works. It raised a further job to complete the internal repairs on 17 May 2024. While it would have been frustrating for the resident to wait longer for this, it was logical for the landlord to book these once it completed the external works. It completed decorations in the kitchen and lounge on 22 May 2024.
  17. A separate contractor alerted the landlord to two ‘no-access appointments’ for repairing the window trickle vents in late May 2024. They arranged with the resident to re-attend on 30 May 2024. On the same date, the landlord completed a heat loss calculation survey. It raised works to replace radiators with bigger models after this.
  18. In correspondence with this Service on 23 April 2025, the resident said the leak, mould and condensation had all returned. However, the landlord completed all promised works in May 2024. It may wish to revisit the property and assess the current situation.
  19. In conclusion, while the matter has been ongoing for a long time and this is understandably concerning for the resident, there is nothing to suggest the landlord has acted improperly in its handling of the roof leak during the period of this complaint. It acknowledged the resident’s distress over the leak returning despite its efforts in 2023 and completed further works. Its offer of compensation was appropriate for this and in line with its policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress. That is to say, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to our investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a communal roof leak and associated damp and mould.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to arrange a survey of the property to find and plan repairs for the source of the most recent leak.