London Borough of Lambeth (202315909)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315909

Lambeth Council

9 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 resident’s reports that the structure of the building was causing water ingress and damage to his property.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder of the property which is a 1–bedroom flat on the 5th floor of the building.
4. The resident submitted a formal complaint on 17 August 2023. He said it was related to the structure of the building which was allowing water ingress into his home. He said the landlord was aware of the problems and had ignored him. He said the humidity had caused the window mechanisms to stop working and become rotten. He said he would like the landlord to carry out the relevant repairs.
5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 September 2023. It said it had raised a works order on 27 March 2023 for the windows. However, as the resident was a leaseholder, he would need to repair the windows via his insurance. The landlord apologised if the information was not fedback to him directly. It said if the resident still believed that water ingress was the cause of the issues with his windows then he should raise another work order for it to investigate and inspect the communal areas of the building.
6. The resident escalated his complaint on 14 September 2023. He said the landlord was ignoring his reports that every time it rained water was filtering into his home. He said he had submitted numerous requests for repairs and the landlord had only looked at the latest order raised, while disregarding the others. The resident said external windows were part of the structure of the building and the mechanism to operate them is located between the external wall and frame of the window. He said the landlord should not argue that the mechanism is in a private dwelling. He said the mechanism was not working due to the humidity.
7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 October 2023. It stated the following:
   1. It raised a work order on 19 December 2022 for reports of brickwork letting water into the resident’s property. It said it attended on 16 January 2023 to carry out an inspection. The landlord found that there was no sign of damage to the brickwork.
   2. It raised a work order again on 1 February 2023 for reports of water entering the property through the roof, guttering or external brickwork. It said its roofing contractor attended on 14 April 2023 and found the property had damp and mould in all rooms. They said a new fan should be fitted in the kitchen and recommended thermal boarding.
   3. On 23 March 2023, it raised a work order for reports that the sash windows in the resident’s property were damaged and the sash cord was not working properly. It said it did not attend as the window fittings and mechanisms were the leaseholder’s responsibility. The landlord signposted the resident to its leaseholder responsibilities handbook.
   4. The landlord said it raised a work order on 25 August 2023 to unblock the gully outside of the block. It said it attended on 30 August 2023 and removed the blockage.
   5. The landlord apologised for sending the wrong team to the resident’s home and explained it was an allocation error. It asked the resident to provide photos of where the water was collecting and entering his home. It said it would then send the photos to its surveyor for further investigation. It provided the contact details for if the resident needed to report any issues with the guttering or structure of the building in future.
8. The landlord said it was not upholding the complaint as it had inspected the property in January and April 2023. It said the inspections found that no works were required to the roof or brickwork. It said recommendations were made to improve the conditions in his home but they were the resident’s responsibility.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the issue was ongoing and water was getting in through the front walls and ceilings, which were affecting the mechanisms of the windows. He said it was not condensation and it happened every time it rained. He said he had reported the issue repeatedly and the landlord misinterpreted his requests for repairs. The resident said he had pictures of the cracks and defects on the outside of the wall and videos from the inside which showed the water entering.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

10. In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident has stated that he had been complaining about the issues for years. However, there is no evidence the resident raised a complaint prior to the complaint referenced in this report on 17 August 2023. While we do not dispute the resident’s account, no evidence has been provided to show a formal complaint was raised within a reasonable timeframe, which is normally within 12 months of the matters arising. As such, the Ombudsman cannot investigate the historic reports.
11. For the avoidance of doubt, the Ombudsman’s investigation will focus on events from the earliest records provided by the landlord on 19 December 2022 until the date of the final response on 20 October 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the structure of the building was causing water ingress and damage to his property

12. The lease states that the resident is responsible for the glass in the windows and all fixtures and fittings in the property. It states that the landlord is responsible for all structural parts of the property including the window frames.
13. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it operates 5 types of repairs with different timescales. These repair types are:
    1. Urgent emergency which it will attend to within 2 hours and fix within 24 hours.
    2. Emergency repairs which it will fix within 1 working day.
    3. Routine repairs with a 7 day time for fixes (or 2 days for certain qualifying repairs under the Right to Repair regulations).
    4. Routine repairs with a 28 working day time frame.
    5. Planned repairs which it will complete within 90 days.
14. The landlord’s compensation policy says that is should consider applying a remedy when a service failure has occurred that has had an adverse effect on the complainant. It says this includes unjustified delays and failure to follow its policies, rules, or procedures.
15. The landlord has demonstrated that it reasonably investigated the resident’s concerns regarding the fabric of the building and the reported water ingress. It carried out an inspection in January 2023 following his reports and did not find any issues with the roof or brickwork. Upon reports of further water ingress into his property, it then carried out a further inspection in April 2023.
16. The landlord took 17 working days to carry out the first inspection and over 3 months to carry out the second inspection, the timeframes were not appropriate or in line with its repairs policy. As the resident had reported water ingress into his property from either the roof, guttering or brickwork, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have attended as an emergency repair and satisfied itself that the property was safe. In not doing so, this likely caused distress to the resident.
17. It appears some of the delay following the second report may be due to the landlord cancelling the repair and re-issuing it to its roofing contractors. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed all the reasons for the delays and apologised for them in its complaint responses. Without this information, we cannot determine that the landlord’s actions at the time were reasonable.
18. The landlord confirmed the inspections found that no works were required for the roof or brickwork. While the resident disputes this, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine the condition of the property. Our role is to consider whether the landlord acted in line with its responsibilities. The internal inspection noted damp and mould in the property and provided recommendations for remedying the issues. As there was no evidence of fault found with the structure of the building, the landlord was fair in stating that it was the resident’s responsibility to carry out the recommended works.
19. In his stage 2 escalation, the resident stated that the landlord was “ignoring the fact that each time it rains or water is collected in the ruff, it filters into my home”. He said the water was not just entering through the windows but the walls and ceilings too. The landlord’s stage 2 response appropriately outlined the investigations it had carried out so far. It is unclear what the resident is referring to in relation to the “ruff.” However, the landlord advised the resident to provide photos of where the water was collecting and entering the home so it could carry out further investigation. This was reasonable and showed a commitment to resolving the issue, where possible.
20. In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for if it did not feed back to the resident that the window repairs would be his responsibility. It is not clear what communication was provided to the resident at the time, if any, which would not have managed his expectations. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to apologise. It would also have been reasonable for it to have provided further detail regarding how it reached its decision as, as per the lease, it did have responsibilities for some parts of the windows, such as the frames. The stage 2 response was more detailed and appropriately evidenced the guidance on which it had relied.
21. In his complaints, the resident stated that his sash windows were damaged. He said it was caused by humidity from the water ingress. The landlord’s records stated that the sash cord was also not working properly. In his stage 2 escalation the resident disputed that the mechanism for the windows was his responsibility. As per the lease agreement, window fittings are the leaseholder’s responsibility. Therefore, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
22. It is unclear if any other area of the windows were damaged and if the landlord would have been responsible for those. The Ombudsman recommends that if the resident confirms damage elsewhere on the windows, the landlord should inspect them and clarify who is responsible for any repairs.
23. To summarise, the landlord evidenced that it inspected the property on 2 occasions following the resident’s reports. There was no evidence from the inspections to suggest that the landlord had any responsibility to remedy any damage within the resident’s property. The resident disputes the landlord’s findings and has told the Ombudsman he has photos and video evidence of the issue. As stated, the Ombudsman’s role is not to determine if there was an issue with the structure of the building. The landlord provided the opportunity to the resident to submit such evidence for further investigation.
24. The landlord appropriately apologised for its lack of clarification regarding the windows and the occasion where the wrong team attended the resident’s home. Although, it did not acknowledge or apologise for the delays in inspecting the property following the works orders raised. It also did not consider the likely impact caused to the resident as a result, which was a failing. As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the structure of the building was causing water ingress and damage to his property.
25. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider financial compensation where there have been unjustified delays against its service standards. As per its policy and the likely distress caused to the resident, the landlord must pay the resident £50 in compensation. This amount is in line with Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure which the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

26. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not fully address the resident’s complaint. This led the resident to escalate his complaint as he felt the landlord had ignored him and not fully investigated the issues reported. The resident’s initial complaint referred to concerns regarding the structure of the building letting water into his home. Therefore, it was not appropriate for the landlord to only respond to the issues with the windows. It also only referred to 1 works order which it raised on 27 March 2023, despite the other relevant reports and works orders which had taken place.
27. The complaints procedure is an opportunity for the landlord to address the resident’s concerns and put right any identified failings. It is a failing that it did not do this at stage 1.
28. The landlord’s stage 2 response provided more detail and addressed all the concerns raised by the resident. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have apologised for its previous response and failure to address all the concerns. It was not appropriate that it did not do so. This did not show consideration to resident’s reports that the landlord had ignored him or the likely time and trouble caused in having to raise the issues again.
29. Overall, as the landlord did not acknowledge the above failing in its complaint responses, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
30. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord must pay £50 for the failure to fully respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. The amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure which the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge or put right.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports that the structure of the building was causing water ingress and damage to his property.
    2. The complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Order

32. The landlord must pay the resident £100 in compensation which is broken down as:
    1. £50 for the delays in carrying out the inspection.
    2. £50 for the complaint handling failures.
33. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendation

34. If the resident confirms that there is damage elsewhere on the windows, other than the mechanisms and glass, the landlord should inspect them and clarify who is responsible for any identified repairs.