London Borough of Lambeth (202325251)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325251

Lambeth Council

29 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The decant process, including the resident’s request for a permanent move to an alternative property.
2. The resident’s request for a parking permit at the decant property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident’s permanent tenancy is a local council 2-bedroom flat. The resident has a secure tenancy. The tenancy started in July 2013.The landlord is not aware of any resident vulnerabilities. However, during the course of the complaint the resident told the landlord that her eldest child was neuro divergent.
Following disrepair at the resident’s permanent property the landlord offered the resident a temporary decant into an alternative property for the duration of the repairs. The decant property had 3 bedrooms and was on an estate which required residents to have a parking permit.
In a memorandum of agreement dated 10 February 2022 the landlord and resident agreed:
1. The landlord would complete the required works at the resident’s property by 31 December 2022.
2. The landlord would pay the resident’s costs to move back to her permanent property following completion of the works.
3. The landlord would allow the resident 14 days to move out of the decanted property upon completion of the works at her permanent property.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 28 June 2023. In her complaint she said:
1. The landlord had initially issued her a parking permit which expired in November 2022, but it did not automatically renew it. She said she subsequently received 2 parking fines. She said the landlord had told her it would authorise a parking permit and reimburse her for the parking fines. But it only authorised the permit for 1 month up until 3 April 2023, and it failed to reimburse her for the parking fines she had received. She said that as of 15 June the parking fines totalled £1206.
2. Despite the landlord carrying out works at her permanent property, she was concerned about the condition of it. Additionally, she said the landlord had removed an expensive carpet from the property without her permission. The resident also said her household had outgrown her permanent property. She explained that given the ages of her 3 children and because her eldest son was autistic her permanent property was no longer suitable for her family. She added that the property was also not large enough to accommodate her dog and cat.
3. She had seen an empty property that would be perfect for her family.
4. She wanted the landlord to find her more suitable permanent housing and for the landlord to compensate her for the stress caused by the issues complained about.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 29 July 2023. It set out its understanding of the complaint and told her apply for a housing transfer and request an extra bedroom on medical grounds. Additionally, it told her the ‘empty’ property she had referred to in her complaint was undergoing structural works and was tenanted. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and accepted that it should have communicated with the resident better.
The resident escalated her complaint on 26 September 2023. She said the landlord had failed to provide an adequate response to her complaint and she repeated her concerns. Additionally, she said despite the landlord acknowledging its failure to communicate with her, she had not received any further correspondence from the landlord about her housing situation since the landlord’s stage 1 response. She also said:
1. The landlord had failed to authorise a parking permit or contact her about the parking issue she was experiencing, and she had received further parking fines.
2. As suggested by the landlord she would complete a housing medical assessment to support her housing application, but did not think it would make a difference.
3. The issues complained about had caused her stress and anxiety and she repeated her request for a suitable permanent home.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 24 November 2023. It set out its understanding of the complaint and apologised for its delay responding to her complaint and its lack of communication with her. Additionally, it said:
1. It understood the resident had an active electronic parking permit valid for 1 year up until January 2024. But said if that was incorrect the resident should notify the landlord and it would request a permit.
2. The resident could claim for the parking fines through its disturbance allowance for unreasonable costs incurred under the landlord’s pre-action protocol for housing conditions. It also said it would agree to reimburse the resident for the fines as long as they were for failure to display a valid permit.
3. It completed works at the resident’s permanent property in March 2023. However, it said it had recommended a permanent decant for the resident and started the application process 2 years earlier so she could be permanently placed in a property more suited to her needs. It said the number of bedrooms would be based on its allocation scheme.
4. The officer dealing with the decant would contact her and provide an update on the decant and application status.

Post internal complaints process.

In February 2024 the landlord told the resident she would need to confirm when she was moving back to her permanent property. Additionally, it issued the resident with a notice seeking possession of the decant property and said if the resident did not vacate the decant property by 1 April 2024 it could get an order for possession.
The resident said she would not move back to her permanent property as it was not suitable for her household. She told the landlord that as well as her 3 children she was also going though a legal process to become a carer for another child.
On 1 May 2025 the landlord explained to the resident that the temporary decant was not available for letting on a secure tenancy as it was scheduled for regeneration. It also said “we’ve agreed that you can bid for another council housing with decant priority, which is about the highest priority we can award to anyone. When you return home, you can retain this priority and continue to bid.”
In recent communication with us the resident said she is still living at the temporary decant property as she does not consider her permanent property suitable for her family’s needs. She also said the landlord has failed to follow through on its agreement to reimburse her for the parking charges and provide a parking permit.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why aspects of a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 41.d of the Scheme states that we cannot consider complaints which concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their housing activities and specifically to the provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwelling which they own and let on a long lease.
The processing of parking permits and issuing of fines is managed by the council, but not in its capacity as a landlord. Accordingly, we cannot investigate this aspect of the complaint. It is therefore outside of our jurisdiction. Should the resident want to pursue this aspect of the complaint, she may wish to progress a complaint to the council and thereafter to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) should it not be resolved. While the complaint regarding parking permits is outside of our jurisdiction, the parties’ communications from this period in relation to this issue have been referred to in other sections of this report to provide relevant context.

Scope of the investigation

In her correspondence with both us and the landlord the resident explained that the issues complained about had a detrimental impact on her households mental well-being. Where we find failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, we cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option.
It is not within our authority to order a landlord to make an offer of alternative housing. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s request and whether its response was reasonable and in line with its policies.
The resident has told us that since May 2024 the landlord has charged her for use and occupation of the decant property. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 24 November 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before our involvement. The resident may want to raise a new complaint about the matters that occurred after the landlord’s final complaint response. The landlord should help the resident with this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the decant process, including the resident’s request for a permanent move to an alternative property.

The landlord’s decant policy in use at the time of the complaint set out the situations under which a temporary decant may be used, and tenants rights and responsibilities. It stated that a tenant (in this case the resident) may be moved temporarily to alternative accommodation in the event of disrepair at their permanent home.
Additionally, the policy sets out that moves are temporary and residents should always return to their permanent original property, regardless of their family circumstances. It also states that a temporary decant should not be used as a route to provide larger accommodation. It added that it must allocate permanent homes fairly and in line with the allocation scheme.
The policy also states that if a resident refuses to move back to their original accommodation the landlord will instigate possession proceedings.
In correspondence sent to the resident’s legal advocate in December 2021 the landlord confirmed that disrepair was not a reason to bypass the allocations policy. It explained that if the resident wanted a permanent move, she would have to apply on the housing register. It added that on completion of the repairs the resident would be required to move back to her permanent property. This was repeated in the memorandum of agreement between both parties on 10 February 2022.
In an email to the resident on 7 February 2023 the landlord told the resident it had completed the repairs at her permanent property but it would need to confirm with a surveyor if the works had been inspected. It said that as long as the repairs had been done satisfactorily it could arrange for the resident to move back to her permanent property. Additionally, it said it would provide the resident with an update once it had completed the post inspection survey.
This was a reasonable response. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm the works had been completed to a satisfactory standard before arranging for the resident to move back.
Despite the landlord requesting a post-completion inspection there is no evidence that one took place at that time and on 22 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the surveyor’s inspection. It was not appropriate that the landlord failed to carry out its inspection as it said it would. This did not support the landlord’s decant policy which said cases should be reviewed weekly to ensure temporary accommodation is not used any longer than is necessary.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on the situation again as part of her formal complaint on 28 June 2023, in which she also expressed concerns about the condition of the property following the repairs. Additionally, she told the landlord her circumstances had changed and she did not think the property met her household’s needs.
The resident repeated her concerns about the suitability of her permanent property in her escalated complaint on 26 September 2023.
The landlord failed to respond to her concerns until its stage 2 response on 24 November 2023. In its response it confirmed it had completed the repairs at her permanent property in March 2023.
It was not appropriate that in the 8 months between March 2023 when the landlord completed repairs until its stage 2 response on 24 November 2023, the landlord had not communicated with the resident about moving back to her permanent property. Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord completed a post–completion inspection at the resident’s permanent property, or that it kept the resident updated with its progress in respect of this. This was not appropriate. This further demonstrated the landlord’s failure to follow its decant policy which states it should have a clear plan, agreed with the resident, for moving back to the permanent property and it should review cases weekly.
The landlord was clear at the start of the decant process that it expected the resident to move back to her permanent property on completion of repairs. However, once it completed the repairs, it failed to effectively communicate with the resident and this caused confusion. This was not reasonable.
Additionally, in its stage 2 response it told the resident it had recommended a permanent decant to a new property which better suited her family’s needs. It added that it had started this application process 2 years earlier and said it would arrange for the officer dealing with her case to contact her on their return from annual leave to discuss her housing application for a new home, and to confirm the decant status. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident further about this until 13 February 2024. This was not reasonable and caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
Given the landlord’s stage 2 response it was reasonable for the resident to conclude that the landlord would allocate her an alternative property. The landlords stage 2 response was confusing and did not align with the information it had provided to the resident when she first moved into the decant property. This was unreasonable and unfair. The landlord failed to give clear information and failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations.
Following on from the stage 2 response, on 13 February 2024 the landlord told the resident she would need to confirm when she was moving back to her permanent property. Additionally, it said it “can offer a permanent transfer, but you (the resident) must return home first.” In later correspondence the landlord said if the resident were concerned with the condition of the repairs at her permanent property it would arrange for another inspection to be completed. It was reasonable that the landlord offered to complete another survey of the property. This demonstrated that the landlord had listened to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s decant policy is clear that regardless of family circumstances residents are expected to move back to their permanent property once the landlord completes repairs. Additionally, it is clear that permanent homes are allocated in line with the councils allocation scheme and a temporary decant is not a route to provide larger accommodation. It is therefore reasonable for the landlord to require the resident to move back to her permanent property.
However, on completion of the repairs the landlord failed to update the resident in respect of the post inspection survey, as it said it would. This was unreasonable. Additionally, its stage 2 response said it “recommended a permanent decant for you and started the application process two years ago, so you can be permanently placed in a new property that is more suited for you and your family’s needs; the number of bedrooms will be based upon our Allocation Scheme.” However, the landlord did not explicitly tell the resident it expected her to move back to her permanent property first. The landlord’s communication with the resident was unclear and caused confusion and inconvenience to the resident.
It is appropriate for the landlord to observe its decant policy and require the resident to move back to her permanent property. However, having carefully considered the evidence available we find maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the decant process, including the resident’s request for a move to alternative property. This is because the landlord failed to effectively communicate with the resident and not at the frequency set out in its decant policy.
Additionally, the landlord’s communication with the resident about her request for a move to an alternative permanent property was not clear and this caused the resident confusion.
In considering an offer of compensation we have referred to the landlord’s compensation policy which allows for compensation to remedy an adverse effect on a resident caused by a failing by the landlord. This includes where the landlord:
1. Has failed to follow its policies and procedures.
2. Provides inaccurate or misleading advice.
We have also considered our own remedies guidance. Having taken account of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to communicate effectively with the resident and to appropriately manage her expectations, we consider £400 a proportionate amount of compensation for the adverse impact on the resident of the failings highlighted. This exceeds the amount set out in the landlord’s compensation policy for time and trouble payment however we have also considered the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s misleading information, which subsequently meant the resident was uncertain about her housing situation.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

On 7 January 2023 the resident applied for a parking permit at the decant property. However, as the property was not the resident’s permanent address, she was unable to produce the relevant evidence required for the permit. The local council rejected her application and advised her to ask the landlord to authorise the permit, which she did on or around 7 February 2023.
The landlord responded immediately and told her it would help arrange a parking permit. This was a reasonable response.
On 3 March 2023 the landlord authorised a parking permit for the resident for 1 month until 3 April 2023. Additionally, it told the resident it would reimburse her the cost of the parking fines she had received. This was a reasonable response. Additionally, on 22 March 2023 it told the resident it was arranging for the parking fines to be rescinded and it would update the resident once it was done.
In the resident’s complaint she explained that despite the landlord telling her it would arrange for the parking fines to be rescinded they had increased to £1206. She said the issue was causing her distress and she was concerned about further enforcement action.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint about the parking issue. She consequently escalated the complaint and explained that the landlord had failed to update her with regard the parking complaint.
Additionally, she said she had received further parking fines and the local council had passed the penalty charge notices (PCN) to an enforcement agency.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it understood the resident had a parking permit valid for 1 year until January 2024. It told the resident to notify the landlord if this was not correct.
Additionally, it said it would rescind any outstanding PCNs, provided they were for failure to display a valid parking ticket. It also said it would agree to reimburse all the parking fines. This as a reasonable response and demonstrated the landlord was keen to reach a resolution.
However, the landlord did not say when it would do this. This was not reasonable. Furthermore, despite telling the resident she could claim for reasonable costs through a disturbance allowance payment, it did not explain to the resident how to do this.
On 29 April 2024 the resident told the landlord she did not have an active annual parking permit, as per its stage 2 response. She also said she still had outstanding parking fines.
The landlord failed to follow through on its commitment to rescind the PCNs and to reimburse her for the cost of the fines. This was not reasonable and caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord was aware from at least 3 February 2023 that the local council had rejected her request for an annual parking permit. This was highlighted by the fact that it arranged for a month-long permit in March 2023. Consequently its stage 2 response contained incorrect information which led to further detriment for the resident. Additionally, the landlord failed to reimburse her for the cost of the fines or rescind the PCNs.
At the time of the complaint the landlord had a 2 stage complaints process. It said it would provide a full response to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 25 working days.
The complaints policy in use at the time did not comply with our complaint handling code, which said landlord’s should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 28 June 2023 which the landlord responded to at stage 1 of its process on 29 July 2023. This was 23 working days after the resident submitted her complaint. This was outside of the prescribed timescale set out in the landlord’s policy and was not appropriate.
The complaint handling code in use at the time of the complaint was clear that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The landlord failed to respond to all points raised. This was not appropriate. The landlord failed to consider all the resident’s concerns and this caused the resident frustration.
Additionally, despite upholding the complaint and acknowledging it should have communicated better it failed to set out how it would put things right. The landlord failed to resolve issues at the earliest opportunity, which was detrimental to the resident who spent time pursuing a response to her complaint.
At stage 2 of the complaints process it took the landlord 12 working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. In its acknowledgement it told the resident it would respond by 31 October 2023. However, it took the landlord until 24 November 2023 to respond, this was 43 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This exceeded the timescale set out in the landlord’s policy and was not appropriate.
Nevertheless, as part of its response it apologised to the resident for its delay. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this failing.
Having considered the evidence available we find maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord failed to keep accurate records in relation to the resident’s parking complaint and failed to follow through on commitments it made. Additionally, the inadequacy of the landlord’s stage 1 response resulted in the resident escalating the complaint. Additionally, at both stages of the complaint process it failed to respond within its own timescales.
In considering compensation we have reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy and consider £300 a proportionate amount of compensation for the failings identified. This exceeds the amount set out in the landlord’s compensation policy for time and trouble payment however we have also considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to follow through on its commitments.
In addition to the compensation the landlord will be required to follow thorough on its agreement to reimburse the resident for the parking fines occurred at the decant property.
We are aware that the landlord has updated its complaints policy so that it aligns with the complaint handling code. We will therefore not make an order in respect of this.
In January 2024, the Housing Ombudsman investigated the landlord’s complaint handling. This investigation focussed on the landlord’s complaint handling between April 2022 and March 2023. That investigation found the similar failings identified in this report and the landlord provided a commitment to improving its complaint handling. As such, we have not made any learning orders which would duplicate the landlord’s commitment. A copy of the report can be found at the below address.

https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/2024/01/11/report-urges-lambeth-council-to-tackle-cause-of-complaints/

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme we find maladministration for the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the decant process, including the resident’s request for a permanent move to an alternative property.
2. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 41.d of the scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a parking permit at the decant property is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failings highlighted by this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £700, which comprises of:
  1. £400 for the resident’s time and trouble, and the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to communicate effectively and for its misleading information in respect of a move to an alternative permanent property.
  2. £300 for the resident’s time and trouble pursuing a response to her complaint and the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to respond within its timescales. This also includes the detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to follow through on its commitments to reimburse the resident for the parking fines at the decant property.
3. Contact the resident about the parking fines and comply with the offer made in its stage 2 response. For the avoidance of doubt this was:
  1. Reimburse the resident for the parking fines provided they are for a failure to display a valid parking ticket.
  2. Arrange to rescind any outstanding PCNs.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report we order the landlord to arrange for a suitably qualified person to carry out a post-completion inspection of the resident’s permanent property and provide a copy to both us and the resident within the timescale stated.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must review the complaint, consider the failings identified in this investigation and consider any further specific learning the landlord can take, to inform service improvement. The landlord must provide a copy of the report to both us and the resident within the timescale stated.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report we recommend the landlord:
1. Reviews the resident’s housing application to confirm she has been given the correct banding based on the landlord’s correspondence to her on 1 May 2025. For the avoidance of doubt, the landlord told the resident it had awarded her a ‘decant’ priority which is the highest priority it can award. Additionally, it said she would retain this priority on her return to her permanent property. The landlord should confirm the banding to the resident and the future status of any priority in the event of her returning to her repaired home.
2. Contact the resident regarding the damaged belongings she reported during the complaint process. The landlord should explain to the resident how to claim for the damages on the landlord’s insurance, should she want to do so.
During the course of the complaint process, we identified failings with the landlord’s record-keeping. We therefore recommend that within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord reviews this case and identifies potential improvements in its record-keeping processes.