London Borough of Lambeth (202228806)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228806

Lambeth Council

24 April 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. Repairs including external repairs to the building, indoor and outdoor communal areas, mould on interior walls in the resident’s individual property, condensation in the window units, and cracks in the ceiling.
2. Communal garden maintenance and window cleaning.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder with the landlord. The resident’s property is a ground floor flat in a block.
Between 2022 and 2023 the resident raised a number of repair issues to the landlord including damp and mould in his own property due to a broken downpipe and guttering, cleaning and decorating of communal areas, grounds maintenance and broken paving slabs and clothesline posts.
Sometime in 2022, the resident raised concerns in response to a communication from the landlord about insurance for the financial year 2022-2023. He said:
1. Sections of wood panelling on the façade of his block were damp and rotten. There was a danger of the flowerbeds attached to these panels coming loose. The top floor flat flowerbed had fallen off a few years ago and crashed into his property, breaking tiles.
2. There were exposed wires on the outside of his block.
3. The landlord had replaced broken paving slabs with ones of a different colour which looked terrible.
4. The doors to the communal sheds were warped and in need of replacing.
5. The leak from the downpipe had stained the exterior of his property.
6. The landlord’s painting of the interior communal walls was incomplete, and the exposed interior brickwork was in a poor condition.
7. Fences needed repairing.
8. The landlord was not maintaining the communal garden areas.
On 14 February 2022, the landlord responded to the resident. It said it had visited his block and noted that there was an issue with cleanliness. It had carried out a deep clean and had redecorated the walls in the communal areas. It said it would be happy to meet with him to address any further issues. It said it would not offer him any compensation as it said he had not suffered any actual costs or loss.
On 14 February 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. He said it had not:
1. Assessed whether the wooden panelling on the façade was safe.
2. Cleaned the exterior of his block after the leak.
3. Completed the decoration of the interior communal areas.
4. Cleaned the communal floors effectively.
5. Repaired the paving slabs around the clothesline posts it had removed. The slabs were warped and broken and he regularly tripped up on them.
6. Carried out any repairs to the communal sheds.
The landlord responded to the resident on 24 February 2022. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to him. It said:
1. It had arranged a survey of the flowerbeds attached to wooden panels on 22 February 2022. Once it had a copy of this survey, it would look into options to address any urgent matters and update him.
2. It was considering whether it could carry out a jetwash and a chemical clean of the exterior of the building. If these works were not possible, it would liaise with a specialist contractor and update the resident once works had been agreed.
3. It had carried out an inspection of the decoration of the communal areas and had found it to be of an acceptable standard. It had no plans to paint the exposed brickwork in the interior communal area, but it could put the resident’s request that it do so forward for consideration.
4. As the floor of the communal area was porous, it would be difficult for it to get it any cleaner.
5. It acknowledged the resident was unhappy with the quality of the works to remove the clothesline posts. It would jetwash the surrounding paving slabs and review the work once this was done.
6. It had no plans to improve the appearance of the sheds. However, it was due to assess the condition of the sheds in the coming weeks.
7. It would replace certain paving slabs with a raised flowerbed. It would renew the paving slabs around the downpipe on 10 March 2022.
8. It had served its garden maintenance contractor with a rectification notice to address outstanding works.
On 30 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord again. He said:
1. He reiterated his concerns about the condition of the exterior of the building.
2. The landlord had not replaced tiles on the outside of his property.
3. There was still exposed electric wiring going up to the property above his.
4. There was raw sewage waste coming down the outside of the block due to the broken downpipe. He said he had first reported this to the landlord 2 years ago.
5. He reiterated that the painting of the communal area inside the block was only half-finished.
6. The landlord had filled the holes where the clothesline posts had been, with cement instead of properly making good. It had damaged surrounding paving slabs.
7. He reiterated that the communal sheds were in a poor state of repair, and he had been told they contained asbestos.
8. The paving slabs outside the front of his block were poorly maintained.
9. There was mould on the interior walls of his property adjacent to the exterior walls.
10. There was condensation between the glazing in his window units.
11. There were cracks developing on one of his ceilings.
12. The landlord had not carried out any garden maintenance for over 6 months. It had promised this should be happening once a week.
13. The landlord had not carried out any exterior window cleaning since he had moved into the property nearly 9 years ago.
On 18 February 2023, the resident complained to the Ombudsman. He said he had raised complaints about the issues set out above for years and the landlord had ignored him. He said the landlord had replaced the flowerbeds on the façade of his block, but the wooden panelling still appeared unsafe.
The landlord’s records of 23 February 2023 state that the paving slabs to the front of the resident’s block needed renewing. This issue was raised again on 18 May 2023.
The landlord contacted the resident on 28 February 2023, following a meeting with him. It said:
1. It would investigate whether it could upgrade the tiles and wooden panelling at the front of the block.
2. It had raised works to clean the stain on the outside of the block with a chemical treatment.
3. It would not carry out further painting of the communal areas as this would result in an increased service charge for residents.
4. It could not match the replacement paving slabs with the existing ones.
5. It would repair external fences.
6. It would look into repairing the communal sheds.
7. Its garden maintenance included cutting the grass and trimming and pruning hedges, but it would not replant the communal garden.
8. It would treat weeds and pick up litter at the front and back of the resident’s block.
On 22 April 2023, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 23 May 2023. It said:
1. It had obtained a quote to replace the club tiles on the outside of the resident’s property. However, due to the costs of these works, it was required to seek 2 additional quotes and carry-out a Section 20 consultation with residents. In the meantime, it would arrange the cleaning of the brickwork in advance of this work.
2. It could not replace the old paving slabs as these had been discarded. It would maintain the grassed area, and trim and prune the hedges. It had cut the weeds between the paving slabs.
3. It would clear the garden area and remove tree debris on 25 May 2023. Once this had been done it would install a new chain link fence on 31 May 2023.

Events after the end of the complaints process

On 25 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord. He asked what date it would clean the stain from the outside of the block. He said scaffolding had been up for over a month, but the landlord had not carried out any work. He said no garden maintenance had taken place.
The landlord responded on 26 May 2023. It said it needed to arrange access to the electricity supply and water before it could arrange to clean the stain from the outside of his block. It said it was awaiting an explanation as to why the garden works had not been carried out.
The landlord told the Ombudsman it had repainted fencing and repaired the coping stones on the walls below these railings with concrete on 2 October 2023.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 26 March 2025, that the landlord had replaced the club tiles on the outside of his property with tiles of a different shape and colour and that he was worried this was letting in moisture. He confirmed that the landlord had repaired the leak to the downpipe and the loose electrical wiring. However, he said that the landlord scratched the outside of the block in its attempt to clean away the stain after the leak. He said the landlord had not painted over the plastered fixes where the fencing was attached to the slabs and that the job looked incomplete. He said his service charge was extortionate, and the landlord had not been able to provide clear evidence of the cost of repairs.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

The resident told the Ombudsman that he had been raising complaints with the landlord since 2019. Paragraph 42.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. It is not possible to assess the landlord’s actions dating back to 2019, given the length of time that has passed. Therefore, this assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the issues the resident raised in the 12-month period preceding his complaint of 30 January 2023. However, it is understood that these were longstanding issues, and the landlord was expected to take this into account in its response to the resident’s complaints.
On 14 February 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that its cleaning of the communal floors in his block had not been effective. The landlord responded on 24 February 2022. As this issue was not raised in the resident’s complaint of 30 January 2023, it will not form part of this assessment and is noted in the background for context only. This is because the Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, he can complain to the landlord.
On 26 March 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman that he considers the amount of his service charges to be extortionate. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident can seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) in relation to how to proceed with a case to the FTT if he wants to.

Policies and procedures

Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the resident’s property. This includes exterior walls, window frames, gutters, rainwater and soil pipes, electrical wiring and cables on the exterior of the building, boundary walls and fences. The lease states that the landlord is also responsible for the external decoration of the flat and the block it forms part of, in accordance with its cyclical redecoration programme. Under the terms of the lease the resident is responsible for repairs and decoration to the interior walls and ceilings, and the glass in the windows of the property. The resident is also responsible for cleaning the windows of the property.
The landlord’s repairs manual for residents states that it will carry-out routine repairs that it is responsible for, within 28 working days, and planned repairs within 90 days. The repairs manual states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to communal areas including paving and fencing, leaks to communal areas, gutters and downpipes.
The landlord’s cleaning schedule states that its responsible for cleaning communal windows. Its grounds maintenance agreement states that it will clean the inside of the communal windows 4 times a year.
Its grounds maintenance agreement states that the landlord will maintain grassed areas, shrubs, flowerbeds and hedges. The agreement does not set out how often it will weed paved areas. The agreement states that it will ensure a regular service every 3 weeks subject to weather conditions and area requirements.
The landlords repairs and damp policy states that when damp has been reported to it, it will arrange an inspection to diagnose the issue within 28 days.
Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, governs the process landlords must follow where repairs exceed a cost of more than £250 per tenant. Landlords should issue a notice of intention to leaseholders that describes the proposed works, explaining why they are necessary and should invite leaseholder comments during a consultation period of at least 30 days.
The landlord’s complaints policy in operation at the time of the resident’s complaint stated that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Code), in operation at the time of the resident’s complaint, set out our expectations for landlords’ complaints handling. The Code stated that the landlord 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. The Code also stated that the landlord must set out the complaint stage in its complaint responses and details of how to escalate the matter if the resident is not satisfied with its response.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs

The resident raised concerns in 2022, that the wooden panelling on the façade of his block was rotten and warped and that this was a potential safety issue, particularly as a flowerbed attached to a section of the panelling above his property had fallen off the building a number of years previously, causing damage. In its response to the resident of 24 February 2022, the landlord said it had carried out a survey of the flowerbeds and would update him as to whether there were any issues that needed addressing urgently. It did not provide an update to the resident. On 27 March 2025, the Ombudsman requested that the landlord provide a copy of any inspections of the wooden panelling. It has not done so. Where residents raise safety concerns, the landlord should carry out an inspection as a matter of urgency to establish whether there is a risk to safety and if so, what repairs are needed. The landlord’s failure to provide evidence that it inspected the wooden panels is a significant concern. The landlord is ordered to inspect the wooden panelling on the façade of the resident’s block to ensure that these panels and the flowerbeds attached to them are safe. If any repairs are necessary, it should complete these within its timescales for doing so, depending on the urgency of any identified issues.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 23 May 2023, the landlord told the resident, it would need to carry out a Section 20 consultation prior to replacing the damaged club tiles on the outside of his property. This was reasonable as landlords are obliged to consult with leaseholders in relation to any works which will cost each household more than £250. On 27 March 2025, we asked the landlord to provide us with a copy of this consultation. The landlord said it did not carry out a Section 20 consultation but replaced the tiles. The resident has told us that the landlord has replaced the tiles with ones of a different colour and different shape (square rather than u-shaped). He said he was concerned that the fact that the replacement tiles were a different shape had allowed moisture to come in behind them. The landlord is ordered to inspect the tiles it has replaced. If it identifies the shape of the tiles is allowing an ingress of moisture, it should take steps to remedy this issue in line with its timescales for carrying out routine repairs. The landlord should share the outcome of its inspection with the resident and the Ombudsman.
The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that the landlord has repaired the broken downpipe and the exposed wiring outside the property. However, he said that the landlord’s attempts to clean the stains left by the leak from the pipe have led to scratches on the outside of the block. It is recommended that the landlord inspect this area and considers whether it can take any steps to remedy these scratches.
Under the terms of the resident’s lease, the landlord is responsible for the painting of areas external to the resident’s property. This includes interior communal areas such as entrance hallways, corridors and stairwells. The landlord told the resident that it had inspected the decorating work and found it to be completed to an acceptable standard. However, the resident complained that the landlord left the painting of the communal areas half-finished. In its response to the resident of 24 February 2022, the landlord told him it had no plans to paint the interior brickwork in the communal area of his block. This was reasonable. There is no obligation for landlords to paint exposed brickwork in communal areas unless there is a concern that not doing so could lead to repair issues. The landlord told the resident it would put his request that it paint the brickwork, forward for consideration. On 28 February 2023, the landlord confirmed that it would not carry out the additional painting as this would result in an increased service charge for residents.
The resident complained to the landlord that the communal outdoor sheds were in a poor state of repair. He said he had been told the sheds contained asbestos. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that it carried out asbestos surveys on 31 March 2022, 21 April 2023 and 16 July 2024. However, it has not provided copies of these asbestos surveys, so we cannot establish whether these included the communal sheds. In its response of 24 February 2022, the landlord said it would carry out a condition survey of the sheds. We have not been provided with evidence to show that this survey took place. The landlord is ordered to inspect the sheds to confirm whether there is any asbestos in them, and whether any works are needed to ensure that these are safe for residents to use. If repairs are needed, these should be carried out within the landlord’s timescales for repairs.
The resident complained to the landlord that the repairs to make good the damage to paving slabs after the removal of the clothesline posts had been carried out to a poor standard. He said that the original paving slabs had been replaced with ones of a different colour. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that the original slabs had been discarded. When carrying out repairs to external paving, landlords should try to match the original slabs. However, as the resident had told the landlord the slabs represented a trip hazard, it was reasonable for the landlord to replace them with slabs of a different colour if it was unable to obtain similar ones.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that the landlord damaged the paving slabs round the metal fencing at the front of his block whilst repairing and painting the fence. He said the landlord has repaired the cracks in the paving with cement and has not repaired the slabs properly. It is recommended that the landlord inspect this area and considers whether it can take any steps to remedy these issues.
The resident complained to the landlord that there was mould on the interior walls of his property. Under the terms of his lease, the resident is responsible for repairs to the interior walls of his property. However, the landlord should have inspected the mould within 28 days, to identify whether it was being caused by a repair it was responsible for. The landlord is ordered to inspect the mould in the resident’s property to identify the cause of the issue. If it establishes that the mould is due to repairs it is responsible for, it should carry out these repairs within its timescales for doing so. Once the landlord carries out any necessary repairs, the resident is then responsible for remedying any mould on the interior walls.
Under the terms of the lease, the resident is responsible for repairs to the glazing in his windows and the landlord is responsible for repairs to the window frames. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to inspect the condensation between the glazing in the window units, to establish the cause of this. The landlord is ordered to carry out an inspection of the resident’s windows to establish whether the condensation is due to repairs needed to the glazing or the window frames and to set out its findings in writing to the resident. If the condensation is due to an issue with the window frames, the landlord should carry out repairs to these within an appropriate timescale for this type of repair.
The resident complained to the landlord that there were cracks on his ceiling. The resident has provided the Ombudsman with photos which appear to show small cracks. Under the terms of his lease, the resident is responsible for repairs to small or surface cracks to the ceiling. However, the landlord should have advised the resident of this in its complaint responses. The fact that it did not do so was a failing.
The repair records the landlord has provided to the Ombudsman are inadequate and unclear. Not all the records indicate clearly when issues were reported, nor give the dates work took place to remedy issues. This is a failing. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If the information the landlord provides is not clear, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its repairs policy. It is recommended that the landlord review its record-keeping systems so that it can satisfy itself that it has fulfilled its repair responsibilities, and it can provide dates and evidence relating to any works it carries out, when required to do so by the Ombudsman.
Overall, the landlord’s failures to adequately address the repairs raised by the resident amount to maladministration. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance states that where we identify maladministration £100-£600 compensation should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its errors in its handling of the repairs.

The landlord’s handling of garden maintenance and window cleaning

As noted above, the landlord’s grounds maintenance policy states that it will maintain grassed areas, shrubs, flowerbeds and hedges. The agreement does not contain information about weeding paved areas. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide copies of its records relating to the maintenance of the communal gardens from 2022 onwards. The landlord said it has lost all records prior to July 2024. In the absence of this evidence, we cannot establish what garden maintenance the landlord carried out prior to this date. This is a failing which has left the resident without answers in relation to what garden maintenance the landlord carried out. The landlord is ordered to set out to the resident in writing, its schedule for garden maintenance for his block including how often it will maintain the grassed areas, the shrubs, the flowerbeds and the hedges. It should also set out how often it will weed the paved areas.
Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for the cleaning of communal windows. The resident is responsible for cleaning both the interior and exterior of the windows of his individual property. The landlord’s records show that it cleaned the communal windows of the resident’s block quarterly in 2022 and 2023 in line with its cleaning schedule. However, it is not clear whether this included the outside of the windows, as its schedule only refers to it cleaning the inside of communal windows. The landlord should have responded to this aspect of the resident’s complaint, explaining what its, and the resident’s responsibilities were in relation to window cleaning, and confirming the dates it had cleaned the communal windows. The landlord is ordered to confirm to the resident the date it is next due to clean the inside of the communal windows, how often it cleans the outside of the communal windows and the date this is next scheduled to take place.
The errors identified above amount to service failure. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where we find service failure, £50-£100 compensation should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors in the handling of the garden maintenance and window cleaning.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident submitted his complaint on 30 January 2023. The landlord responded to the resident on 28 February 2023. However, it did not set out to the resident whether this was a formal complaint response, nor did it provide information on how he could escalate his concerns should he wish to do so. On 23 May 2023, it issued a stage 2 complaint response after the Ombudsman asked it to do so. The landlord’s failure to clearly set out the complaint stage and information on how to escalate complaints, in its response of 28 February 2023 was a failing that will have likely caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience as he was kept waiting for a response to his concerns for longer than he should have been. He was further inconvenienced by needing to contact the Ombudsman for assistance in progressing the complaint.
As noted above, our remedies guidance states that where we find service failure, £50-£100 compensation should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the trouble and inconvenience caused by its errors in the handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs the resident raised.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the garden maintenance and window cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders:

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that the Ombudsman is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date:
1. Inspect the wooden panelling and the flowerbeds on the façade of the resident’s block to establish whether it is safe.
2. Inspect the tiles it replaced on the outside of the resident’s property to establish whether the shape of the tiles is allowing an ingress of moisture.
3. Inspect the sheds to confirm whether there is any asbestos in them, and whether any works are needed to ensure that these are safe for residents to use.
4. Inspect the mould in the resident’s property to identify the cause of the issue and to establish if the mould is due to repairs it is responsible for. Once the landlord has carried out any necessary repairs, the resident would then be responsible for remedying any mould on the interior walls.
5. Write to the resident and the Ombudsman following the inspections to confirm if it will carry out any repairs to these areas, including estimated timescales for any repairs.
6. Inspect the resident’s windows to check whether the condensation is due to repairs needed to the glazing or to the window frames and set out its findings in writing to the resident. If the condensation is due to an issue with the window frames, the landlord should write to the Ombudsman and the resident to confirm it will repair the frames and give an estimated timescale for this repair.
7. Confirm to the resident in writing, its garden maintenance schedule and what date it is next due to clean the inside and outside of the communal windows.
8. Pay the resident £200 compensation for the trouble and inconvenience caused by its errors in its handling of the repairs.
9. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the trouble and inconvenience caused by its errors in its handling of garden maintenance and window cleaning.
10. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the trouble and inconvenience caused by its errors in its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Inspects the scratches on the outside of the resident’s block and the paving slabs around the metal fencing and considers whether it can take any steps to remedy these.
2. Reviews its record-keeping systems so that it can satisfy itself that it has fulfilled its repair responsibilities by keeping detailed records of the dates it has carried out repairs and the work done on each visit.