Lambeth Council (202401762)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202401762
Lambeth Council
28 February 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. repairs to the resident’s property following a leak, and subsequent damp and mould.
b. the associated complaint.
Background
2. The resident is a secure tenant under an agreement dated June 2022. The landlord is a local authority. She lives in a 2-bedroom flat in a purpose-built block with her daughter. The resident has epilepsy and depression, and the landlord has noted that she has vulnerabilities.
3. The landlord recorded that there was mould in the resident’s hallway, bathroom and under the kitchen sink on 5 January 2024. The landlord notified its contractor the same day. On 12 January 2024 the resident asked the landlord to inspect the property. It is unclear when the landlord conducted an inspection, but its records from 22 January 2022 show that:
a. there was a leak going into the resident’s property from the flat above which it needed to locate.
b. the ceilings and walls in the hallway and bathroom required repair after the leak had stopped.
c. the back of a sink cupboard had to be replaced.
d. there was mould on the inside of some cupboards.
4. The landlord completed a mould wash of the kitchen cupboard on 2 February 2024. The landlord’s contractors went to the flat above on 25 January and 2 February 2024 to repair the leak but were unable to get access. The landlord’s records from 10 February 2024 show that it could not complete the repairs in the resident’s property until the leak in the flat above was repaired.
5. On 26 February 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said:
a. she had been trying for over 2 months to get the damp and mould resolved but nothing had been done.
b. a contractor had visited and said the whole kitchen would need to be replaced as it was old and rotting and the walls were crumbling due to the damp.
c. she wanted help to get the issues resolved as quickly as possible.
6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day and said it aimed to respond by 25 March 2024. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 17 May 2024. It said:
a. it acknowledged the importance of the issue, and it was sorry for the problems the resident had experienced regarding damp and mould.
b. a surveyor inspected the resident’s home on 11 March 2024 and instructed its contractor to remove the kitchen base unit and open the ducting in the bathroom to inspect for leaks.
c. it provided a dehumidifier, and it inspected for leaks between 13 March 2024 and 4 April 2024.
d. the leak was coming from another property, and it raised an additional job to fix that.
e. following the leak stopping there was an active job open to replaster and repaint the affected areas in the resident’s property.
f. it had made an appointment for 30 May 2024 for the bathroom electrics as the resident had raised concerns about them following the leak.
g. a surveyor visited the resident’s property on 16 May 2024 and inspected the work completed so far.
h. it had raised additional jobs to renew the drawer fronts and cupboard doors in the kitchen and install vinyl flooring and they were to be completed by 26 June 2024.
i. it had recommended that the repairs team increased its communication with residents to stop the issues the resident had experienced from happening again.
j. the resident’s complaint had been partly upheld due to the time taken to resolve the issue, although the full extent of the damage from the leak was not known at the time of occurring.
7. The resident escalated her complaint by email on 24 May 2024. She said that she had been told some of the jobs would be put on hold. She also said the repairs had been outstanding since December 2023 and were affecting her mental health.
8. On 4 July 2024 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s escalation request by 11 July 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 8 July 2024. It apologised for the resident being unhappy with the stage 1 response and said:
a. it completed work to replace the vinyl flooring on 19 June 2024.
b. work was outstanding to:
- renew all the drawer fronts and cupboard doors to the wall and base units to match.
- replaster and repaint damaged plasterwork to the ceiling and walls in the hallway and bathroom.
c. this work had been delayed as it was changing the contractor who provided the responsive repairs housing service.
d. the new contractor would take over the resident’s repairs from 1 August 2024 and appointments were being made.
e. it was sorry for the delays the resident had experienced, and the inconvenience caused.
9. In referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said she was seeking a kitchen refit and compensation for the distress and anxiety caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs. She said the leak was ongoing, and her ceilings were still wet, but the landlord kept changing the appointments to repair them. She said the landlord completed a mould wash in the kitchen in May 2024, but the mould had returned and there were other places with mould that had not been addressed.
10. The resident has since told us that the landlord had repaired the leak from the property above and it had completed some of the repairs however some of the repairs were still outstanding. The resident said she was seeking:
a. new kitchen base units as the current ones still have mould in them.
b. compensation as she has been unable to use the kitchen.
Assessment and findings
Scope of the investigation
11. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident referred to other issues she had raised with the landlord, including having her kitchen completely refitted. This matter did not form part of the original complaint brought to us. It is unclear whether the resident raised these issues as a separate complaint. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 response on 8 July 2024. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.
12. The Ombudsman recognises that the situation has caused the resident distress as she has experienced delays in the landlord’s response to her reports of repairs. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the living conditions have had on her health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property following a leak and subsequent damp and mould
13. The Housing Act 2004 ensures landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks within their rented homes. When assessing any such hazards and risks, the assessment should be considered in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which classes damp and mould as a category 1 hazard. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also requires the property to be free from hazards and to be fit for human habitation.
14. The landlord’s repairs policy states that:
a. an emergency repair is when the problem could cause serious health and safety problems or severe damage if not fixed or made safe quickly. The landlord will attend to urgent emergency repairs within 2 hours and fix within 24 hours.
b. the landlord will complete an emergency repair within 1 working day.
c. routine repairs are categorised as R1 and R2 and the landlord will complete R1 repairs within 1 and 3 days or 1 and 7 days depending on the issue. An example of a R1 repair is repairing a leaking bath.
d. the landlord will complete R2 routine repairs within 28 working days. An example of a R2 repair is repairing a resident’s ceiling.
e. the landlord will complete a planned repair within 90 days. An example of a planned repair is plastering work after a repair had been completed.
f. the landlord may not meet its timescales if it needs to access another property to fix a repair, such as water dripping into a resident’s home, but cannot get in. However, depending on the circumstances it can force its way into the property if necessary.
15. The resident said she reported damp and mould in the property in December 2023. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of when the resident raised the issue. The evidence provided by the landlord shows that it first recorded the issue on 5 January 2024. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) states that good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. Additionally, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs from March 2019 highlights the importance of landlord’s keeping clear, accurate and easily accessible records. Including when the resident raised the issue, when it completed any work and any action taken.
16. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021 states that landlords should treat damp and mould as a high priority. The landlord’s self-assessment which sets out its response to reports of damp and mould says:
a. it will arrange an inspection within 28 days or sooner depending on how serious the issue is.
b. it aims to carry out an initial mould wash and treatment within 7 days.
c. it will track and monitor cases and keep residents informed.
d. it will agree an action plan with each resident saying what will happen and when.
17. As the resident had reported damp and mould the landlord should have completed an inspection within 28 days. The landlord’s records show that it was in contact with the resident regarding an inspection on 12 January 2024. The landlord’s repair records show an inspection was completed by 22 January 2024, however it is unclear if this was the date of the inspection. Based on the documentary evidence available, the time taken for the landlord to respond to the resident’s report of damp and mould was appropriate. This is because it was within the timescales set out in its self-assessment.
18. The landlord’s records from 22 January 2024 show that:
a. there was mould inside of the cupboards.
b. the sink cupboard back required replacement.
c. a leak going into the resident’s property from the flat above needed to be located.
d. the ceilings and walls in the hallway and bathroom needed to be repaired after the leak was stopped.
19. The landlord’s records show that there was damp and mould in the resident’s property. However, there was no evidence that an action plan was agreed with the resident in line with the landlord’s self-assessment. This was not appropriate.
20. The landlord made appointments to complete mould washes in the property on 26 January 2024 and 5 February 2024. The timing of the first appointment was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s self-assessment, which states it would complete an initial mould wash within 7 days. However, the resident asked for both jobs to be completed together and a further appointment was made for 2 February 2024. The landlord’s contractor completed a mould wash in the kitchen cupboards on that day.
21. The landlord’s contractor went to the flat above the resident’s property on 25 January 2024 and 2 February 2024 but were unable to gain access. The contractor unsuccessfully attempted to call the resident in that property on both occasions. The first attempt to locate the leak was appropriate in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. However, the landlord has not provided any further evidence of its attempts to access the flat above the resident’s property. The contractor closed that job on 5 February 2024 and referred it to the landlord.
22. The landlord emailed the resident on 8 February 2024 and informed her of its attempts to source the leak. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been clearer in its communication about what steps it was taking to address this. The leak continued to go into the resident’s property and the outstanding repairs could not be completed until that was fixed.
23. The resident called the landlord on 12 February 2024 who noted that the resident in the flat above had passed away. The landlord raised further jobs to remove the cupboards, complete a mould wash and refix the cupboards.
24. The resident called the landlord again on 22 February 2024 to chase the works because the leak from the flat above had not been repaired. The landlord sent an email to the relevant department to allow access into that property. That was 32 days after the landlord first recorded that there was a leak going into the resident’s property. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord was unable to access the property the leak was coming from. However, it was unreasonable to leave the leak unresolved. This is because the evidence provided shows that the landlord was also the landlord of that property, and its repairs policy said it could force access to a property if necessary.
25. The landlord’s records show that it was unable to access the resident’s property on 4 March 2024 to provide a dehumidifier as there was no response. The landlord provided a dehumidifier to the resident on 14 March 2024 to address the ongoing damp. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide a dehumidifier to try and lessen the impact of the damp on the resident and her family. However, the leak that was causing the damp was still ongoing, which was 53 days after the landlord was first aware of it. This was not appropriate, given that the landlord was aware that the leak was coming from the flat above and that the occupier of the property had passed away.
26. The landlord made an appointment to remove the kitchen cupboards on 18 March 2024. This was 74 days after the landlord was aware of damp and mould in the resident’s cupboards. The landlord’s records from that 18 March 2024 show that:
a. the base units had mould, the doors were hanging off and needed replacing.
b. the sink needed to be removed, and the worktop put to 1 side to remove the old base units and replace them.
27. The resident continued to contact the landlord between 26 March 2024 and 19 June 2024 as the repairs had not been completed. During that period the landlord told the resident on 18 April 2024 that it had passed her enquiry to the team who dealt with empty properties. She repeated her concerns about the mould in the kitchen and said:
a. the issues were getting worse, and she could not cook in the kitchen.
b. the bathroom floor had been damaged by water and the walls were crumbling.
c. appointments had been missed.
d. she had been told some of the work would not be completed because the landlord was changing contractor.
28. By the time the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 July 2024, before it had changed contractor, the repairs had been outstanding for around 7 months. This was beyond the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy and was not appropriate.
29. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that it carried out works to inspect for leaks between 13 March 2024 and 4 April 2024, it was noted that the leak appeared to be coming from another property and an additional job was raised to address this. The landlord was already aware that the leak was from the property above at that point and it has not provided any record of work to look for leaks during this time. Additionally, the stage 1 response says that a surveyor had inspected the resident’s property on 11 March 2024 and 16 May 2024 and an appointment had been made for 30 May 2024 to look at the bathroom electrics. However, there is no record of those inspections in the evidence provided by the landlord.
30. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that it had completed work replace the vinyl flooring on 19 June 2024. Again, there is no record of that job being completed in the evidence provided by the landlord. It also said it was changing the contractor who provided its repairs service from 1 August 2024 and appointments were being scheduled for outstanding repairs. When the resident first approached the Ombudsman, she said that the leak was still ongoing, and her ceilings had not been repaired. The resident reported missed appointments to the Ombudsman on 14 and 20 August 2024 and as late as 13 November 2024 she asked for it to be noted that repairs were still outstanding. She has since said that the leak has been repaired, although it is unclear when, and the only outstanding issue is the mould inside the base units in the kitchen.
31. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs published in March 2019 states that the landlord and its contractor’s should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of disrepair, and its responses, including details of appointments, inspections, surveyors’ reports work carried out and completion dates. While the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on KIM recommended that landlords had a minimum standard for key data recording, to ensure quality records are available to support wider business processes. There was a clear failure in this case to demonstrate when inspections had been conducted and when contractors had attended the resident’s property. It is also unclear if appointments have been missed as the resident says. The landlord’s record keeping was not appropriate in this case.
Summary and conclusions
32. When a resident reports a repair, including damp and mould, the landlord is obligated through its policies and procedures to take prompt action and inspect the property within 28 days. It should then complete a mould wash within 7 days. The landlord should then have a process in place to follow up on any repairs that have been identified and carry out further investigative work if it is needed.
33. In summary:
a. the landlord failed to repair the leak from the flat above within a reasonable time.
b. the evidence shows that the leak contributed to an unreasonable delay to complete the repairs in the resident’s property, including her concerns about damp and mould. The landlord also failed to complete repairs by the date it stipulated in its stage 1 complaint response.
c. there is no evidence that the landlord agreed and wrote an action plan with the resident including timescales to resolve the issue or kept the resident informed of what action it would take.
d. it failed to maintain adequate records to demonstrate when the issue had been raised, inspections had been conducted, and work had been completed.
34. Although the landlord did acknowledge there had been delays and recommended increased communication between its repairs team and residents in its stage 1 complaint response. The Ombudsman has found there was maladministration for the reasons outlined above. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise how its failures impacted her.
35. The resident has explained the inconvenience the damp and mould caused her and the impact that had on her mental health alongside the other repairs for example when she first raised her complaint on 26 February 2024, asked to escalate her complaint on 26 May 2024 and when she emailed the landlord on 19 June 2024.
36. Having carefully considered the guidance on remedies a fair level of compensation would be £500. This appropriately recognises the distress inconvenience and upset caused by the landlord’s failures in its handling of repairs to the resident’s property and damp and mould.
37. The Ombudsman also orders the landlord to complete an inspection of the base units in the resident’s kitchen as this issue remains unresolved.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint
38. In accordance with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must ensure they:
a. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. The acknowledgment should set out the landlord’s understanding of the complaint.
b. respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1.
c. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
39. Since 1 April 2024 the landlord’s policy has been compliant with the provisions of the Code. However, when the resident first complained in February 2024 it was not. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within the required time but did not set out its understanding of the complaint in that acknowledgement. Although this was not a requirement of its policy at the time.
40. The resident raised her complaint on 26 February 2024 and the landlord acknowledged this the same day. In accordance with the Code at the time of the complaint, the landlord had until 11 March 2024 to provide its stage 1 response. However, the landlord’s complaints policy at the time allowed for 20 working days from the receipt of the complaint to provide its stage 1 response. Under this policy the landlord had until 25 March 2024.
41. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s stage 1 complaint was not appropriate. It did not send a stage 1 response to the resident until 17 May 2024, which was 58 working days after the complaint had been raised and acknowledged. During this time, the resident contacted the landlord several times for a response to her complaint. The landlord’s response was unreasonable as it did not apologise or provide an explanation for the delay. Additionally, it did not offer any compensation despite partially upholding the resident’s complaint.
42. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 24 May 2024. However, the landlord did not provide a response. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaint’s procedure. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 2 was not appropriate. The Code sets out that the landlord should be able to identify and respond to complaints without the involvement of the Ombudsman.
43. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 July 2024, which was 31 working days after the resident had escalated her complaint. The landlord’s response was unreasonable as it did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in providing it. Additionally, the landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures at stage 1 of the complaint process and again there was no offer of compensation.
44. The landlord has not produced any evidence to show that the delays were outside its control or necessary to answer the complaints. There is no evidence that it informed the resident that it would need an extension of time to respond to her. On this basis the landlord failed to comply with its own complaint policy and the Code.
45. The Code also sets out best practice for landlord to “put things right” where things have gone wrong. Any remedy offered by a landlord “must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result.” Therefore, the landlord’s decision not to award compensation at both stages of the complaint process despite acknowledging delays was unreasonable, in view of the impact the delays had on the resident.
46. The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord unreasonably delayed in providing its complaint responses, which delayed the resident in seeking redress through this Service.
47. Having carefully considered our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £150 to the resident. This recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Determination
48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property following a leak and subsequent damp and mould.
49. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
50. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
a. write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this investigation.
b. pay the resident £650, which must not be offset against rent arrears, consisting of:
- £500 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlords handling of repairs including the leak and the damp and mould.
- £150 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
c. arrange an inspection of the kitchen base units by a suitably qualified surveyor. Once the inspection is completed, the surveyor must produce a written report to the Ombudsman, the resident, and the landlord which must include:
- any outstanding repairs.
- comments on the extent the damp and mould had affected the base units.
- a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales to complete the repairs.
51. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the letter of apology and evidence of the payment being made within 28 days of the date of this determination.
52. The landlord must complete the inspection of the kitchen base units and provide its report to the Ombudsman within 42 days of the date of this determination.
Recommendations
53. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
a. undertake a review of this complaint to:
- identify lessons learnt.
- consider how it manages residents’ complaints in future.
b. undertake a review of how it records inspections and completed repairs and provide staff guidance on this including the importance of documenting an assessment of damp and mould.
c. undertake a review of how it accesses neighbouring properties in repairs cases such as this.