London Borough of Tower Hamlets — case 202340811

Decision Case ID 202340811 Decision type Investigation Landlord London Borough of Tower Hamlets Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Leaseholder Date 30 April 2026 Background In November 2023 the resident complained about delays by the landlord in carrying out repairs to replace missing roof tiles. The resident said the landlord had not addressed damage to her home caused by water ingress, which she said arose from this incident and previous instances of roof disrepair in 2021 and 2022.

She also raised concerns that the landlord had not met its responsibilities for ongoing roof maintenance, which she said had led to repeat incidents. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: Response to reports of a roof leak. Complaint Handling. Our decision (determination) We have found: Service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of a leak. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Reports of a roof leak. Although the landlord attended promptly within its repair response times after the resident’s initial report of water ingress, it took over 2 months to complete the repair, which exceeded its repairs policy timescales. The ongoing delay over the winter period led to further leaks and impacted the resident. Complaint handling. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in line with the Code, but it failed to issue a timely stage 2 response, and it did not evidence it had notified the resident of an extension.

The landlord failed to acknowledge the delay in its final complaint response or offer appropriate redress. The landlord did not provide clear advice on referring the resident to its insurer to make a claim for damages. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 28 May 2026 3 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows: In addition to the sum of £50 already offered, £50 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by delayed repairs.

£50 to reflect the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the repairs. £100 to reflect its complaint handling failure. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. No later than 28 May 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations If it has not already done so, the landlord is to refer the resident to its liability insurance so she can make a claim if she wishes to for damage to her possessions following the recent occurrence in November 2023.

Alternatively, the landlord can assess the claim itself internally. If it assesses the claim itself it should write to the resident and explain the reasons for its decision, including a breakdown of any settlement. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 4 December 2023 The resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said: The landlord had admitted service failure following previous complaints about damage to her property in February and June 2021. The gutter above the resident’s property was broken causing damage to her front door in September 2022.

On 2 November 2023 the landlord identified the cause of water ingress due to missing roof tiles, but no work had been carried out. The resident said she was seeking compensation for all damages to her property and the stress caused following each incident because the landlord had neglected its repair obligations. 18 December 2023 The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It raised an emergency work order and attended on 2 November 2023 and identified missing roof tiles.

It raised a follow-on work order for scaffolding which it will put in place on 15 January 2024. It apologised for the delay in scaffold which it said was in part due to the weather and compounded by the festive closure. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident and offered £50 compensation to reflect this. It said it would monitor the repairs to completion. 19 December 2023 The resident escalated her complaint, which the landlord acknowledged on 21 December 2023.

The resident said it had not addressed the damage to her property on 3 occasions and asked for clarity about when its customer advisor made contact with her. 26 March 2024 The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It confirmed its customer advisor attempted to contact the resident on 8 December 2023 at approximately 5:13pm. It had previously dealt with the resident’s complaint about the first occasions of a leak caused by missing roof tiles on 24 June 2021, and damage to her door on 6 December 2022.

It responded to inspect the safety of the scaffold on 26 January 2024 following concerns raised by the resident on 22 January. It completed roofing works on 31 January 2024 and it removed scaffold on 4 March. It agreed the compensation offered at stage 1 of £50 was appropriate. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident initially contacted us on 12 February 2024 to state that she had not received a response to her complaint escalated on 18 December 2023. The resident contacted us again after the landlord’s final complaint response.

She expressed disappointment at the landlord’s response which she said did not address her complaints, and the delays in its complaint handling. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint Report of roof leak Finding Service failure What we have not investigated. The resident complained about damage to her property following similar repair requests to the roof in June 2021 and September 2022. In its final complaint response, the landlord said it had previously addressed those matters. It was reasonable for the landlord not to re-visit matters it had already addressed through its complaints process or that occurred more than 12 months before the resident made her complaint.

It is unclear whether the landlord provided the resident with details of how to make an insurance claim through its block policy or its liability insurer. It is not our role to determine negligence by the landlord, but we can consider whether it was appropriate for the landlord to have referred the matter to its insurer, and how it communicated if it did so with the resident. What we have investigated We have investigated the resident’s reports of a water ingress into her property caused by missing roof tiles on 2 November 2023 up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response on 26 March 2024.

The landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the block and common parts of the building. Its repairs policy states it will respond to an emergency repair within 2 hours to make safe, and 24 hours to complete additional works. It will respond to routine repairs in 20 working days, such as leaking roofs and minor roof repairs. The resident reported water ingress into her hallway on 2 November 2023. The landlord acted promptly by attending on the same day.

Its contractor identified water ingress caused by broken missing slate tiles to the roof. The records show it requested follow-on works on the following day for scaffolding. However, it did not put scaffolding in place until 15 January 2024. The landlord completed the roofing works on 31 January. This was 62 working days after the first report and fell outside its repairs policy timeframe. In the landlord’s stage 1 response dated 18 December 2023 it apologised and offered compensation of £50 for the delay in the scaffold which it explained was in part due to weather conditions in the winter months and the upcoming festive closure.

The resident escalated her complaint because she said the landlord did not address damage to her property on this and her previous occasion in 2021 and 2022. The landlord’s policy for leaseholders sets out that it provides buildings insurance cover for the structure and communal areas of the property only and it encourages leaseholders to keep their own home contents insurance. Given the resident had complained about damage to property caused by the landlord’s negligence, it was reasonable for it to have referred the resident to its liability insurer to make a claim for damage to her personal possessions that may have been due to the delay in fixing the roof leak.

The records show the landlord’s contractor had recorded the water ingress was affecting the electrics and light fitting in the hallway. The landlord has a leaks procedure in which it sets out that it is required to isolate unsafe electrics due to water penetration into the property. It states it will advise the leaseholder to engage an electrician to check the electrics and reconnect them when it is safe to do so. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether the landlord acted to isolate the electrics or to consider and provide advice to the resident about potential ongoing risk during winter.

It is also unclear if the landlord sought to expedite the repair in view of this. The records show the resident chased the landlord for an update on the progress of the repair on several occasions throughout December 2023 and reported a further leak after heavy rainfall. The resident said the unresolved repair was causing her stress and anxiety. The records do not show the landlord communicated effectively to manage the resident’s expectations about the timeliness of the repair which is indicative of a failure to have sufficient oversight of the repair.

In conclusion, while a short delay due to the need for scaffolding would have been reasonable, the overall delay of over 2 months in progressing the roof repair exceeded the landlord’s repair timescale and from the evidence available it did not provide sufficient updates to the resident or an adequate explanation for the delay, which was unreasonable. In addition, the landlord did not provide the resident with clear advice about how to pursue a claim for damage to internal property or personal possessions, which resulted in uncertainty for the resident in relation to how to proceed and was not consistent with reasonable service standards.

We consider the landlord’s compensation offer of £50 did not go far enough to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its delay in progressing the roof repair. The landlord also did notsufficiently acknowledge the residents time and trouble in chasing the repair in its complaint responses. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to provide a financial remedy that fairly reflects the impact on the resident and aligns with the recommended amounts stated in our compensation guidance for distress, inconvenience time and trouble caused by a failure that has no permanent impact.

We have also made a recommendation for the landlord to consider referring the resident to its liability insurance. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Maladministration Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The resident made her complaint on 4 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 December 2023 and provided its stage 1 response on 18 December 2023. Therefore, it complied with the timescale set out in the Code which requires landlords to respond to a complaint within 10 working days of acknowledgment.

The resident requested an escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 18 December 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 acknowledgment on 21 December 2023. However, it provided its stage 2 response 69 working days later on 26 March 2024, and only following our intervention, which fell significantly beyond the timescales set out in its policy and the Code of 20 working days. The landlord has not shared evidence with us that suggested it had informed the resident of an extension as required by the Code.

Further, the landlord’s final complaint response omitted to provide clear advice to the resident about how she could make an insurance claim for damages to décor or personal possessions. The landlord provided information to us after its final complaint response which set out some mitigation for its delays in complaint handling due to staff resourcing issues. It set out the actions it had taken to improve its service delivery. While this provides some assurance that it has learnt from its poor complaint handling, we can only consider the appropriateness of remedies it has identified and communicated to the resident during its internal complaint handling.

In its final complaint response, the landlord failed to acknowledge the delay and made no attempt to put things right for the resident. Therefore, we have made orders for the landlord to apologise and to pay compensation to the resident which is reflective of the adverse impact on the resident as a result of the landlord’s delayed stage 2 complaint response. This aligns with our compensation guidance to recognise the landlord’s failure to provide the resident with a timely resolution of her complaints.

This was also compounded by its failure to provide adequate advice about how to make a claim through its block policy or liability insurance. Learning General learning The landlord should reflect on the guidance and training tools found in our Centre for Learning in relation to repairs oversight, effective communication, record keeping and risk management. The landlord could improve its complaint process by providing leaseholder residents with the relevant insurance details for how to make a claim for damage to personal property so it may address a resident’s concerns about liability early.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord did not demonstrate that it kept a record setting out the management of risk in relation to the impact of the water ingress on the resident in winter and the electrics within the property. The importance of record keeping is integral to ensuring prompt repairs can be expedited in these circumstances. Communication The landlord did not provide clear and proactive communication with the resident about the delayed repairs by providing regular updates to manage expectations.