Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Lambeth Council (202415881)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415881

Lambeth Council

12 March 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:

  1. reports of damage to the roof of the resident’s property and the associated repairs.
  2. the associated complaint.

Background

2.             The complaint was made by the leaseholder of the property, who is referred to in this report as ‘the resident’. The property, which was rented by tenants, is a 2 bed, ground floor flat conversion which the resident had owned since 18 March 1996. The landlord is a council and is the freeholder.

3.             On 10 January 2023 the resident informed the landlord that a large metal sheet had fallen from the roof of the property and landed in her garden. The resident asked the landlord to repair the roof where the sheet had come away and to remove the metal from her garden as it was dangerous. The evidence shows that the landlord raised a work order for the roof repair on 14 January 2023.

4.             On 21 March 2023 the landlord raised a second work order for the roof repair after a call from a tenant in the flat above the resident. The tenant said that the roof was leaking badly in multiple places. The landlord stated that a contractor had reported issues accessing the property. On 7 June 2023, after receiving no responses from the landlord regarding the roof repairs and metal sheet removal, the resident contacted her local councillor for support in the matter. The councillor replied on 28 June 2023 confirming the landlord had now removed the metal, however the resident stated the roof repairs were still outstanding.

5.             The landlord’s evidence shows that on 21 September 2023, the tenant in the flat above the resident reported that their property had been flooded. They said that the wet ceiling had collapsed a few months before, leaving a big gap and the sky visible. A contractor attended the property on 3 October 2023 to inspect the roof and completed the repairs on 29 October 2023.

6.             On 2 November 2023, the resident reported further leaks from the same place in her ceiling. The resident’s tenants handed in their notice on 6 November 2023 due to inadequacies of the property. Further roof repairs were completed on 4 January 2024.

7.             On 26 February 2024, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She was unhappy that due to the disrepair:

  1. she had been without tenants since 9 December 2023 and was having to pay a mortgage on an empty property.
  2. she had to pay her tenants £42 for damage to their carpet caused by the leak, for which the resident wanted a refund.
  3. water damage to her ceiling had caused her light fitting to fall and break for which she wanted a refund of £100.
  4. she had to pay £400 for an electrical test and reconnection which she also wanted refunded.

8.             On 4 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the situation and the inconvenience incurred and provided a website link for the resident to make a compensation claim against the council.

9.             On 20 March 2024 the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 stating that the stage 1 response had not addressed the following questions:

  1. had the landlord fixed the leak, and when?
  2. when would the landlord reinstate any electrics that were decommissioned for safety reasons due to water penetration?

10.        The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 6 June 2024. The landlord:

  1. apologised for the delay in its response.
  2. confirmed they had fixed the roof.
  3. stated that as the property was leasehold, it would not generally carry out internal repairs, which included reinstating the electrics.
  4. apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused by the water leak issues and the delays in resolving them.
  5. stated that the resident would be required to pay a mandatory excess for any insurance claims, however if it were proven that the leak was caused by council negligence, the resident could seek reimbursement for the excess paid through the public liability claim process (link sent).
  6. sent a link for compensation claims regarding any of the repair issues.
  7. advised it cannot offer compensation relating to insurance claims through the complaints process due to it being outside of its remit.

11.        On 17 July 2024 the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She was not satisfied with how the landlord handled the repairs to the roof or her requests for compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12.        The resident has requested compensation from the landlord for loss of rental income and damaged possessions. While the Ombudsman can consider the impact the issues reported have had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability, or award damages. These are matters better suited to an insurance claim or court.

13.        The resident may wish to pursue an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurance team should she feel that the landlord is liable for the damage to her belongings and loss of rental income. We have however, considered any distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the repairs.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the roof of the resident’s property and the associated repairs.

14.        The landlord’s Repairs policy states the following:

  1. It will ensure that current and historical repairs information (e.g. repairs raised, works completed) is accurately recorded to allow for a clear audit trail.
  2. It aims to have a broad range of contractors without companies having a monopoly, and alternatives available where contracts are not being delivered effectively.
  3. It aims to proactively monitor the journey of each repair and if it stalls, immediately put a solution in place to ensure it continues its journey before the resident has had cause to become dissatisfied or complain.

15.        The timescales in the Repairs policy are:

  1. Urgent emergency: (E01) – attend in 2 hours, fix in 24 hours.
  2. Emergency: (E02) – fix within 1 working day.
  3. Routine: (R1) – fix within 7 days.
  4. Routine: (R2) – fix within 28 working days. (e.g. repairing a ceiling).
  5. Planned (R3) – complete within 90 days.

16.        The Repairs policy also states:

  1. Emergency repairs – The landlord may not meet its timescales if it needs access to another property to fix a repair but cannot get in (e.g., if water is dripping through a ceiling, we will need access to the flat above to fix the leak).
  2. Where appropriate, it will refer residents to their insurance provider as a means of supporting the resolution of a disrepair which is not the responsibility of the council to resolve.

17.        The landlord’s Compensation policy states that it should consider applying a remedy when it finds that a service failure has occurred that has had an adverse effect on the complainant. Service failures include:

  1. unjustified delays.
  2. failure to follow its policies, rules or procedures.

18.        The landlord’s Occupancy agreement states that the resident must permit the council, and all persons authorised by it, on giving not less than 3 days written notice (except in an emergency) to enter upon the demised premises to inspect and examine the state of repair.

19.        The landlord became aware of the damage to the roof on 10 January 2023 and raised a work order 4 days later to fix the roof tiles and slates. The repair was prioritised as routine (R2) which, according to the landlord’s policy, should have taken no more than 28 days to repair. There is no evidence to show that the landlord completed any repairs within that time. This is not appropriate as the landlord failed to adhere to its own policy.

20.        The landlord raised a second work order for the same roof repair on 21 March 2023. The landlord states that the contractors had difficulty accessing the property over this period and that the resident later provided a telephone number on 30 March 2023. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) says it is best practise for landlords to inform residents of appointments so that access can be provided. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it informed the resident about any appointments in advance, including times of any contractor visits and whether the resident would need to provide access.

21.        The evidence shows that the landlord had the resident’s telephone number on record when she called to report the roof damage on 10 January 2023. When the landlord became aware of the contractor’s access issues, it would have been reasonable to provide the contractor with the resident’s contact details so that they could arrange access to the property. This would likely have prevented further delays to the repairs. There is no evidence to show when the contractors informed the landlord of the access issues. In this regard, the landlord failed to apply its own policy of proactively monitoring the journey of each repair.

22.        The resident asked the landlord to remove the metal sheet from her garden on 10 January 2023. She chased the landlord for the removal on 22 May 2023. Finally, the resident sought intervention from a local councillor on 7 June 2023 to get the metal removed. This was 103 working days after the landlord became aware of the issue. The time taken for the landlord to remove the metal sheet was not reasonable as it failed to comply with its repair policy timescales and the delay presented an unnecessary safety risk to the resident.

23.        There is no evidence to show when the landlord removed the metal sheet from the garden, however an email from the councillor to the resident dated 28 June 2023 confirms that by then, the metal sheet was no longer there. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service as it assists in the monitoring outstanding and the provision of accurate information to residents. In this regard, the landlord failed to comply with its own policy of ensuring that the repairs information was accurately recorded.

24.        On 27 July 2023 the landlord’s repair log shows that the resident experienced a loss of electrics due to a water leak causing her light fitting to fall from her ceiling. The report mentions that the ceiling in the property above the resident had collapsed. On the same day, the resident sent the landlord an email with photos of her neighbour’s collapsed ceiling and stated she was upset that no repairs had been carried out and it was affecting her mental health.

25.        The repair raised for the loss of electrics was prioritised ‘EM0’. Although the priority code does not correspond exactly with the priorities in the landlord’s repairs policy, it is reasonable to conclude it was an ‘emergency’ repair. After a failed attempt to access the property that same day, the landlord made the electrics safe the following day, which was appropriate as it complied with its timescales for emergency repairs.

26.        The records show that the landlord instructed a contractor in January 2024 to complete the roof repairs, but by September the contractor for the repairs works had changed. There is no evidence to show why the job changed contractors, or any action the landlord took to monitor the progress of the repairs.

27.        The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Repairs states that if a landlord contracts out its repairs service, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services. The records show that the landlord completed the roof repairs on 29 October 2023. This was 201 days after the landlord raised the initial work order in January, and 155 days after the second work order in March. This was not appropriate.

28.        Where the work was not being carried out effectively by the first contractor, the landlord failed to provide an alternative within a reasonable time. It also significantly failed to complete the repairs to the roof within its own policy timescales.

29.        On 2 November 2023, the resident reported further leaks from the same place in her ceiling. She also reported that her tenants handed in their notice on 6 November 2023 due to property inadequacies. The evidence shows that the landlord completed further repairs to the roof on 4 January 2024.

30.        In the stage 1 complaint response dated 4 March 2024, the landlord apologised for the situation and inconvenience and provided a link for the resident to make a claim for compensation against the council. The landlord should have provided an explanation for why it was not able to directly offer compensation for the loss of income and damaged items through the complaints process. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the delays to the roof repairs.

31.        The landlord offered an explanation regarding insurance claims in the stage 2 complaint response on 6 June 2024 and advised the resident to refer to the claims process to gain reimbursement for any lost monies. The landlord advised it would not generally carry out internal repairs on a leasehold property. This was a reasonable response and in line with the landlord’s policies.

32.        In the stage 2 response, the landlord apologised again for the inconvenience and distress caused by the water leak issues and the delays in resolving them. It then stated that it could not offer compensation relating to insurance claims through the complaints process due to it being outside of its remit. Although it was appropriate to direct the resident to make a claim for lost money through the insurance process, it would have been reasonable to offer compensation in recognition of the stress and inconvenience the delays had caused the resident. In this regard, the landlord failed to ‘put things right.’

33.        As a result of the landlord’s failure to comply with its own repairs policy, as well as the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of the delays, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the roof. After carefully considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order for the landlord to pay the resident £200 has been made.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

34.        The landlord’s Complaints policy states that a complaint must be raised when there is dissatisfaction expressed with the response to a service request. Residents do not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such.

35.        It also states that it operates a two-stage complaints process aimed at resolving complaints at the earliest opportunity:

  1. First stage (Local Resolution).
  2. Second stage (Final Review) – a written response will be sent to the resident within 20 working days.
  3. Where housing cases are particularly complex and the landlord cannot provide a full response in the standard timescale, the landlord will contact the resident within 20 working days to:
    1. advise why an extension is needed for the full response.
    2. advise the expected timescale for the full response.
  4. An extension must not be more than 20 working days without good reason.

36.        The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’) states that in its stage 1 complaint response, landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.

37.        The resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue in this complaint on 27 July 2023. That the landlord did not open a complaint at that time was unreasonable, and a failing in its complaint handling. The landlord’s policy and the ‘Code’ state that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, and does not need to include the word complaint. That it did not open a complaint investigation at that time is evidence that the landlord operated an unfair and hard to access complaints process. This inconvenienced the resident to get the landlord to open a stage 1 complaint on 26 February 2024.

38.        The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 March 2024, 6 working days after the resident raised her complaint. This was an appropriate response time and within the policy timescales.

39.        In its stage 1 response, the landlord provided a web link to enable the resident to make an insurance claim, however it did not provide any explanation or reasoning for why it was unable to provide compensation to the resident directly. The landlord therefore failed to clearly address the points raised in the complaint and provide reasons for its decisions. This was not a reasonable response and not in line with the ‘Code.’

40.        The resident escalated her complaint on 20 March 2024. According to its policy, the landlord should have sent a response within 20 working days, however the stage 2 response was issued on 6 June 2024, 53 working days later. There is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated with the resident during that time, to either acknowledge the delay or discuss an extension to its response time. In this regard, the landlord has failed to comply with its own complaints policy timescales as well as the ’Code.’

41.        In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding but did not offer any explanation for why it was unable to provide a response sooner.

42.        As a result of the landlord’s failures to act in accordance with its own policy which in turn adversely affected the resident, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. After carefully considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order for the landlord to pay the resident £150 has been made.

Determinations

43.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the reports of a leak into the resident’s property and its handling of the associated repairs.

44.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

45.        The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation for the failures identified in this report. This comprises of:

  1. £200 for failures in the handling of reports of damage to the roof of the resident’s property and the associated repairs.
  2. £150 for failures in the handling of the associated complaint.

46.        The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

47.        It is recommended that the landlord reviews its processes to ensure that the progress of repairs is monitored effectively and that all actions and reports (including those from contractors) are recorded accurately.