London Borough of Lambeth (202428007)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428007

Lambeth Council

27 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of multiple repair issues, including leaks, damp and mould.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority, since May 2023. The property is a 2-bedroom first floor flat conversion in a low-rise building. The landlord has said it has no vulnerabilities noted for the household. However, during the course of the resident’s complaint she made it aware that one of her children is neurodiverse. She also informed the landlord that she was pregnant and considered to be at high risk.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 March 2024 to make a complaint. She said:
1. She had raised issues with the landlord about the condition of the property from the time she initially moved in.
2. The property had a wet room situated on the first floor which she did not require. The wet room leaked into the living room below, causing damage and damp patches.
3. There were plastering issues throughout the property, including in the back bedroom.
4. There were structural cracks in the communal areas of the building.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 April 2024. It said that an inspection was scheduled for 14 May 2024. While it said it was upholding the resident’s complaint, its response did not provide any further explanation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 June 2024, escalating her complaint. She said:
1. When she initially received her keys from the landlord on 26 April 2023, she asked the landlord whether any further work was being undertaken to the property (which was previously void). She was informed that no work would be done and that she was responsible for any further work to the unfinished – and, in some parts, unplastered – property, which she had since discovered was incorrect.
2. The wet room contained a chair and was in place for the previous disabled resident. This was not suitable for her, and the wet room was in a poor condition.
3. The single glazed windows in the property had draughts which were coming into the property, contributing to damp and mould in it.
4. She was heavily pregnant and was considered to be at high risk. The condition of the property was impacting on her health and leading to breathing problems.
5. While the landlord had provided her with refence numbers of jobs which were raised, none of these were completed by it.
6. The landlord’s surveyor initially attended in September 2023. Despite accepting that works needed to be raised, the surveyor did not raise them at the time. Instead, the surveyor only raised the jobs following a second visit in 2024 after she made her complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 August 2024. It said it understood the resident wanted a number of works undertaken. It added:
1. A surveyor had attended in April 2024 and raised a number of work orders. These were awaiting contactor/order approval.
2. The extensive nature of the works meant that a decant was needed.
3. The repairs were to be completed within 90 days of when the work orders were raised. This was in keeping with its repairs policy.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident subsequently referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. In her email to this Service on 14 October 2024 she said:
1. She had been promised repair dates which did not materialise.
2. Contractors had arrived unprepared and were unable to complete the jobs.
3. Despite repeated requests with the landlord for timelines and updates, she was either ignored or provided with vague responses.
4. She requested the work was carried out at a time when she was 7 months pregnant and her children were off school, during the summer holidays. She had since given birth and there was still no progress from the landlord.
5. Her daughter had been prescribed an inhaler by her GP for an ongoing cough. She linked this to the damp and mould in the property and to the fact her bedroom was unplastered.
The resident has told this Service that as the landlord did not plaster her daughter’s bedroom, she paid for the work to be done herself. She said she emailed the landlord with a copy of the invoice for the work but did not hear back from it.
The landlord confirmed to this Service in June 2025 that the resident’s repairs and decant had not been carried out. It added that although it understood the resident offered the option for the work to be carried out without a decant, the nature of the works meant a decant was still required.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has mentioned that her health, and that of her children, has been impacted by the damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns regarding her family’s health. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repair issues, including leaks, damp and mould

The resident has informed this Service that when she accepted the keys to the previously void property in April 2023, she was misled by the landlord into thinking that she, rather than it, would be responsible for further work to the property. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard. Therefore, landlords must consider what action it should take to resolve matters if any damp and mould problems in their properties amount to a hazard. The landlord acknowledges this responsibility in its repairs manual and its damp and mould self-assessment.
The landlord’s repairs and damp policy says:
1. It will prioritise the removal of mould with an initial wash and treatment within 7 days.
2. It will arrange an inspection to diagnose the issue within 28 days, or sooner in emergency situations.
3. It will arrange the necessary work and stay in touch with residents to offer ongoing support until it completes the work.
The landlord’s repairs manual outlines its response times to reported repairs. These are determined by how serious the repair need is. It categorises repairs as follows:
1. Urgent repairs, which are attended within 2 hours and fixed within 24 hours.
2. Emergency repairs, which are fixed within 1 working day.
3. Routine repairs, which are fixed within either 7 working days or 28 working days.
4. Planned repairs, which are completed within 90 days.
The landlord introduced a damp charter in 2022, outlining its commitments to residents affected by damp. In the charter it commits to resolving issues in partnership and communicating in a sympathetic way. Actions include arranging an inspection within 28 days to facilitate a quick diagnosis, followed by a written timebound action plan to resolve the damp. For cases involving persistent damp, the charter confirms the landlord will allocate a surveyor as the resident’s point of contact until completion of the work.
The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it on 24 May 2023, prior to moving into the property, to request repairs to the property. This concerned the wet room which contained a chair installed for showering for the previous occupant. The resident asked for the chair to be removed and for a bath to be installed instead. She has told this Service that she was informed a wet room should not normally be installed on any floor apart from the ground floor. While it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the resident’s request, as she continued with the tenancy (which began after this time), this suggested she accepted the layout and placement of the wet room as it was at the time. Nevertheless, the landlord was responsible for any repairs caused by the wet room. This included any leaks from it.
The landlord’s records show that it raised several jobs for the property. These included works orders for plastering, which were initially raised on 26 July 2023. The landlord has not provided any further details of the extent of this plastering. Although it has provided some evidence from the surveyor who attended the property on 31 August 2023 and again on 14 May 2024, it has not been able to provide to this Service with a copy of any inspection record before August 2023, including when the plastering work was raised. An inspection report is an important aspect of the landlord’s investigation into damp and mould. Inspection reports are vital records; they demonstrate the condition of the property and findings of the surveyor at that point in time. A report can also be used by the landlord to support requests for work or explain its decision not to undertake works. Its absence represents a significant failing, and one that has been raised in a previous determination by the Ombudsman for the landlord.
After the inspection, the landlord’s damp charter required a written action plan to be agreed with the resident that outlined the timescales for repair. There is no indication that this happened, which amounts to both a failure to comply with the requirements of the damp charter and further evidence of poor record keeping. When landlords create policies and procedures it is essential that they are embedded and that compliance with their requirements is followed and monitored. Not doing so can lead to indifference among staff and erode trust in the landlord and resident relationship.
Good record keeping is also vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. Failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repairs and complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out steps a landlord can take to improve in this area.
The resident has informed this Service that the surveyor informed her at the appointment on 31 August 2023 that it would raise a number of jobs, and that when the surveyor attended again in May 2024 they said they had forgotten to raise them following the earlier visit and only did so at this second visit. The landlord has not provided any evidence to this Service from the surveyor about the resident’s allegation following the initial visit in August 2023. This was a missed opportunity by it to address the matter and to attempt to rebuild the resident/landlord relationship.
The limited evidence provided to this Service shows that following the visit to the property on 31 August 2023, the surveyor emailed the landlord the next day confirming the appointment had been for a leak and the plaster works which were raised by the landlord but not yet completed. The surveyor’s photos at the time showed several issues around the skirting boards and underneath the stairs, as well as to window and door frames and to ceilings. These issues would have required additional work being raised in addition to plastering work. The surveyor also noted the resident wanted an update on when the works would be completed, as the landlord’s operative informed her that “someone would be in touch”. This was a failing by the landlord to ensure that it kept in touch with the resident in line with its repairs and damp policy.
The landlord has provided no evidence that it provided any further update to the resident until after she raised her complaint with it. It advised in its stage 1 response that it would undertake a further inspection on 14 May 2024. This was over 8 months after its previous contact with the resident. This was not appropriate, and there was no evidence that in the interim that it had resolved the outstanding repairs.
Following the inspection on 14 May 2024, the landlord raised a number of jobs. These included works to the door frames, replastering the whole hallway, stairway and bedroom, as well as addressing the hole in the wet room. A further set of jobs was raised by it under a separate reference on 14 June 2024. This included addressing the skirting and the staircase, changing the windows, and installing a new shower, hand wash basin and toilet. The landlord’s work orders noted the target date for the repairs was 24 July 2024. This was in keeping with its policy timescale for routine repairs.
The resident – who was approaching the end of her pregnancy at the time – asked whether the work would be completed over the summer holidays. She said this would mean the impact of the repairs on her children would be minimised. This was because she needed to be decanted due to the extent of the repairs. This was a reasonable question for her to ask the landlord. The landlord said that it explained the works needed to be authorised by it. Given the extent of the repairs, this was reasonable. The landlord has, however, provided no evidence that it chased up the issue of authorisation. This was a serious failing by it. This was despite it setting out in its stage 2 response that the planned works needed to be completed within 90 days.
In its communication to this Service, the landlord said that the repair works were delayed due to the resident not allowing access to its contractors on a number of occasions. However, it has only provided evidence of a single occurrence of this on 27 June 2024, which was related to window repairs. This is in keeping with the resident’s recollection of times when she did not grant access. She told us this was concerning window repairs where the proposed repairs involved sealing the draughty windows shut. The landlord has also referred to the repairs being delayed as the resident did not want to be decanted. The resident said she offered this as an option to try to speed up the repairs, as the landlord had been unable to decant her to somewhere local that did not impact her children’s routine.
Overall, the landlord has not been able to adequately demonstrate that it was following up on the matter and regularly communicating with the resident to keep her informed. While it is clear that it provided her with job numbers for the repairs it raised, it failed to complete these repairs, and they still remain outstanding at the time of this investigation. This is in excess of 22 months since the surveyor first visited at the end of August 2023. We consider the length of this delay unreasonable.
The resident has said that as the landlord had not completed the repairs to her children’s bedroom, she paid for the room to be redecorated herself and submitted the cost of this to her housing officer. Although the Ombudsman understands that the resident believes that her children’s health was being impacted by the repairs not being carried out, she apparently did not provide medical evidence which confirmed this to be the case. She did not also put the landlord on alert prior to completing the redecoration herself. Given this, it would not be appropriate to expect the landlord to fully reimburse her for the costs, especially as under her tenancy agreement she is responsible for the internal decorations. However, this Service has taken the landlord’s delay in undertaking the repairs into account when determining the level of compensation due. We have also made a related recommendation.
In summary, the landlord repeatedly failed the resident from August 2023 onwards, demonstrating a failure to provide a service, and it repeatedly failed to acknowledge the resident’s vulnerabilities in its communications or demonstrate sympathy for her situation by providing any response to her requests for updates on the repairs. On that basis, a severe maladministration finding has been made.
To reflect the significant distress, inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays to date, an order has been made that the landlord pays £1,300 compensation. In the absence of any specific guidance for these circumstances in the landlord’s compensation policy schedule, this amount is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord operates a 2–stage complaints process. At stage 1 a complaint will be acknowledged within 5 days, and a response provided within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If an extension is needed, the landlord will agree this with the complainant within the timescales for its response and any extension should not be more than 10 working days. If the complainant requests an escalation to stage 2, an acknowledgement will be issued within 5 working days of the request. A response will be provided within 20 working days from acknowledging the escalated complaint. If an extension is required, this will be agreed with the resident, and it should not exceed a further 20 working days.
The resident made her complaint on 27 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day and said it would respond by 26 April 2024. This was 20 working days after the acknowledgement, which was not in keeping with either the landlord’s complaints policy at that time or the applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). The landlord then did not provide its response within this timescale, instead providing it 1 further working later on 29 April 2024. This was a total of 21 working days after it acknowledged the complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint on 27 June 2024. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it did not send her any acknowledgment to her escalation request. This was not in keeping with the complaints policy. It also did not provide its response until 7 August 2024, after 29 working days. While the landlord did email the resident on 5 August 2024 to apologise for the delay, this email was not sent until after 27 working days. This was outside of the timescales in its complaints policy.
In addition to the landlord not adhering to the timescales in its complaints policy, the stage 2 response contained incorrect details of the survey inspection. It referred to the inspection, which followed on from its stage 1 response, taking place in April 2024 and not in May 2024. This was a failing by it, and would have impacted the degree of trust the resident had in the landlord.
In summary, the landlord failed to adhere to its policy timescales at both stage 1 and stage 2. It also failed to send the resident any acknowledgement to her stage 2 request, which led her to chase the landlord up on the matter. This was the day before she was due to go to hospital for a scheduled caesarean section, which would have been stressful for her. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of maladministration.
The landlord’s compensation policy does not specifically refer to amounts of compensation for complaints handling. The Ombudsman considers that an award of £200 is appropriate in the circumstances. This award is in keeping with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances where there was a failure by the landlord in the service it provided but no permanent impact on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repair issues, including leaks, damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide an apology to the resident from its Chief Executive Officer for the significant failings set out in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,500 compensation, comprising:
  1. £1,300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to complete repairs at the property.
  2. £200 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Complete a survey of the property, noting any outstanding issues or repairs and preparing a timebound schedule of works setting out when it expects to be able to complete any works required. It should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of the survey report and schedule of works.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider making a contribution towards the resident’s costs of redecorating the bedroom of her children, subject to her providing details of these. The landlord should set out in writing to the resident and to this Service its decision on this issue.