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

London Borough of Lambeth (202311666)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311666

Lambeth Council

29 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. The landlord charging him rent for 2 properties in 2017.
    2. Rent arrears due to the landlord’s failure to pay him compensation from a disrepair claim.
    3. Damp and mould and outstanding repairs.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s related complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy for a 1-bedroom flat. The tenancy started in September 2017. The landlord is a local council. The resident resides at the property with his partner who is named as an occupant on the tenancy.
  2. The resident told us he has poor mental health and that a welfare check carried out by the landlord on 3 March 2023 confirmed he had vulnerabilities. It is unclear from the available evidence if the landlord has these vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on its systems.
  3. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported a collapsed sink on 8 December 2022 and a burst pipe in the bathroom on 17 March 2023.
  4. On 20 March 2023 the landlord raised a job for a damp inspection of the property which it carried out on 5 April 2023. During this inspection the landlord found water ingress coming into the living room from the flat above. On the same date, the landlord raised the following works:
    1. Locate the cause of the water ingress
    2. Plaster the living room
    3. Renew fans in kitchen and bathroom
    4. Renew sink base units
    5. Repair the external bedroom door
    6. Repoint the brickwork.
  5. The resident’s partner raised a formal complaint on the resident’s behalf on 16 April 2023 regarding the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and outstanding repairs. This requested that the landlord provide compensation to fix or renovate the property and to buy back belongings they had to throw away.
  6. On 11 May 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint. This stated:
    1. It had been actively engaging with the resident about outstanding repairs.
    2. A full damp inspection was carried out on 5 April 2023.
    3. It had raised jobs on 5 April 2023 to address the repairs it had identified and to locate the source of the water ingress. The target date for this work was 18 May 2023.
    4. For compensation to fix or renovate the property and replace discarded belongings, it recommended the resident initiate a claim through the resident’s own contents insurance.
    5. Alternatively, he could make a liability claim. The landlord provided a link for the resident to start a claim.
  7. On 16 June 2023 the resident requested escalation of his complaint to stage 2 of its process. Within his complaint the resident:
    1. Said his property had been in a state of disrepair for 2 years.
    2. Stated that none of the repairs the landlord promised would be completed by 18 May 2023 had been attempted.
    3. Said the landlord had confirmed during the welfare check on 3 March 2023 that he was a vulnerable person, yet no repairs had been completed. The first appointment had been confirmed for 22 June 2023.
    4. Stated that its housing officer had confirmed that his health and safety was in danger due to no fire alarm and them living in damp and mouldy conditions.
    5. Requested that the landlord ensure that the repairs to his property were completed as soon as possible.
  8. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord provided a stage 2 final response dated 6 October 2023. This stated:
    1. Its contractors had had issues with gaining access to his property when attending to carry out outstanding remedial works including on 29 June 2023, 12 July 2023, and 2 August 2023.
    2. Its contractors were happy to carry out the works raised under previous jobs (on 5 April 2023) if they were able get access to the property.
    3. Regarding the works to his property, this had been booked for 6 October 2023.
    4. Regarding the works to check guttering to the block and balcony of the flat above, an appointment had been made for its contractors to attend on 1 November 2023.
    5. It acknowledged the frustration caused by the length of time taken to address his concerns but hoped that the actions highlighted above had provided a resolution to his complaint.

Post the landlord’s final response

  1. On 2 June 2024 the resident told us that the landlord had not carried out the repairs promised, and that the property was in a state of disrepair. It had ignored their requests for help and had missed appointments.
  2. In response to our information request, on 28 April 2025 the landlord told us that:
    1. Due to the number of possessions within the property, contractors were unable to attend to the repairs during the complaint period.
    2. The remedial works raised on 5 April 2023 were completed on 16 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Outside of jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of it charging him rent for 2 properties in 2017 is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42.c of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
  3. In its final response, the landlord said that the resident was charged for 2 properties between September 2017 and November 2017 as he did not return the keys for his former address until approximately 2 months after the tenancy at his current address started. However, we base our decisions on evidence and due to the significant lapse of time, evidence may not be available, or the recollection of events may not be entirely reliable. Therefore, we are unable to investigate this complaint.
  4. Also, in accordance with paragraph 41.c of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of rent arrears due to the landlord’s failure to pay him compensation from a disrepair claim, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 41.c of the Scheme states that we cannot consider complaints, which in our opinion, concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given.
  5. In his complaint the resident stated that he has never received compensation from the landlord awarded by the court in a disrepair claim at his previous address (pre-2017), resulting in rent arrears. The resident also told us he continued to receive eviction notices despite keeping to a judgment made in 2018 following eviction proceedings brought by the landlord. The Ombudsman is unable to assess matters previously considered by the court or enforce any award made by the court. The resident has been advised he may need to seek legal advice about such matters.

Scope of investigation

  1. In his communications to us, the resident said the situation with outstanding repairs had an adverse impact on his and his partner’s mental and physical health.
  2. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by the resident and the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As these claims are more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this element will not be investigated.
  3. In his complaint the resident says repairs had been outstanding for 2 years. Communications provided by the landlord show the resident had previously reported damp and mould in 2021 which the landlord dealt with as a member’s enquiry. However, the focus of this investigation will be from December 2022 until the date of the landlord’s final response on 6 October 2023. Prior to this, there is no evidence of the resident reporting repairs or damp and mould during the previous 12 months. This is within a reasonable timeframe of the resident’s formal complaint dated 16 April 2023.

Landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and outstanding repairs

  1. The resident’s complaint concerned the landlord’s response to damp and mould throughout the flat and various repairs which the resident said had been promised but were still outstanding.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident made reports in relation to his kitchen sink collapsing on 8 December 2022, a burst pipe in the bathroom on 17 March 2022, and damp and mould throughout the property on 28 February 2023.
  3. We would expect the landlord to demonstrate it responded to such reports appropriately within timescales stated in its policies or within reasonable timeframes depending on the circumstances. The landlord’s repair policy states it will respond to priority 1 repairs within 24 hours, priority 2 repairs within 2 working days, priority 3 repairs within 5 working days, priority 4 repairs within 30 working days and priority 5 repairs within 90 working days.
  4. Damp and mould is a category 1 hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Therefore, the landlord had a duty to ensure the property is free of damp and mould. This is echoed within the landlord’s ‘Damp charter’ which says it will arrange an inspection to diagnose the issue within 28 days, or sooner in emergency situations.
  5. The landlord raised a job on 8 December 2022 to repair the collapsed sink with a (priority 4) target date of 19 December 2022. However, there is no evidence of the landlord attending until 13 March 2023. This delay was inappropriate. Its records indicate the landlord carried out repairs during the 13 March 2023 appointment but raised follow on work on 5 April 2023 to “renew sink base unit and double base unit”. This had a target date of 18 May 2023, however this work was not completed until 31 July 2023.Therefore, the time taken to investigate and resolve this report indicates an inappropriate delay by the landlord.
  6. Regarding the burst pipe in the bathroom, the landlord’s repair records show its contractor attended the property within 3 days in accordance with the target date it set for this job. During this visit, it identified that the leak was coming from a fitting used for the overflow and that the ball valve in the water tank needed replacing. While this action was appropriate, the landlord did not return to fit the new ball valve until 8 June 2023 when its operative found that the water tank was defective and needed replacing. This work was carried out on 22 June 2023.
  7. Therefore, although the landlord initially responded to this report within an appropriate timescale, the subsequent 3 months taken to fully address this issue, was unreasonable.
  8. Regarding damp and mould, the landlord raised a job for a damp inspection on 20 March 2023 which took place on 5 April 2023. This indicates it took the landlord 35 days to inspect and diagnose the issue. This was outside the 28-day timescale stated in its Damp charter however as this was only by a few days, this constitutes a minor delay.
  9. During the inspection on 5 April 2023 the landlord found water ingress from the flat above which was affecting the resident’s living room. On the same day it raised a job to investigate the leak from the balcony of the flat above and various remedial works to address the damp found at the property. This action was appropriate, and repairs raised included to:
    1. plaster living room
    2. renew fans to bathroom and kitchen
    3. renew sink base unit and double base unit
    4. repair external door to bedroom
    5. repoint brickwork.
  10. The works had a target date of 18 May 2023. However, there is no evidence of the landlord making any attempt to complete them by this date. It is acknowledged that during the inspection on 5 April 2023 the landlord noted the high number of possessions in the resident’s flat. It is evident that the landlord had previously raised this issue with the resident on 23 March 2023 when it told him this issue needed to be addressed before it could start the repairs. The landlord made a safeguarding referral at this time. The landlord also told us this was the reason for not completing the repairs at this time. We recognise that this issue can affect the landlord’s ability to complete repairs due to it limiting access to areas within the flat.
  11. However, we note that the landlord did not mention this issue in its stage 1 response issued to the resident a few weeks later on 11 May 2023. In this response, the landlord confirmed the target date for the remedial works was 18 May 2023, therefore suggesting it still intended to complete them by this time. As the landlord did not advise of any adjustment to the 18 May 2023 date, the resident had a reasonable expectation that remedial works would be undertaken by this date. Therefore, we consider that the landlord’s failure to act within this timescale, was inappropriate.
  12. The landlord’s records show however that on 16 June 2023 it booked various contractors to undertake the works. We would expect the landlord at this stage to inform the resident of the revised timescale to complete the remedial works. This is in accordance with its damp charter which says it will agree and write an action plan with a resident to resolve the damp, that will include timescales. However, there is no evidence of it doing so which is indicative of poor communication on the part of the landlord and of it failing to adhere to its policies.
  13. It is clear from its repair records however that its contractors then attended on 3 occasions in June 2023 and 2 occasions in July 2023. It is evident works were progressed during these visits including to install a new extractor fan in the kitchen. It also took steps to address additional issues identified during these appointments including a cracked kitchen windowpane and rotten frame and a faulty heat alarm and carbon monoxide detector. Its records show it replaced the heat alarm and carbon monoxide detector in the kitchen (on 27 June 2023) and on 7 July 2023 measured up to replace and fit a new window, this action was reasonable.
  14. However, its note of 27 June 2023 stated plastering could not be done in the living room until damp and mould had been treated. There is no evidence of the landlord then raising a job to apply damp and mould wash which would have been appropriate in the circumstances. There is also no evidence of it attending the upstairs flat to investigate the cause of the water ingress until 28 July 2023. In order resolve the water ingress, we would expect the landlord to prioritise identifying the source so it could take appropriate action to address this to mitigate the risk of further ingress or damage. Therefore, the 4-month delay in attending to investigate the cause of this, was inappropriate. Further, it appears from its records that the landlord closed this job on 28 July 2023 due the neighbour reporting they believed the water ingress had stopped.
  15. Following further contact from the resident, on 22 September 2023 the landlord re-raised the 2 jobs originally raised on 5 April 2024, for remedial works and to identify and resolve the water ingress. In its final response issued on 6 October 2023, the landlord confirmed to the resident that its contractors were attending that day to complete the outstanding remedial works. It also said that the target date to check the balcony and guttering for water ingress was 1 November 2023. This was reasonable in the circumstances. In its final response the landlord acknowledged the frustration caused by the delay in completing the works however said its contactors had not been able to gain access on 29 June 2023, 12 July 2023, and 2 August 2023. The landlord’s records confirm these visits were recorded as no access indicating it may not be responsible for the delay in these instances. However, it is unclear if the resident had been provided with reasonable notice of these visits, therefore we cannot determine responsibility for the delay caused by no access visits on these dates.
  16. In summary, during the timeframe investigated from December 2022 until the date of its final response on 6 October 2023, it is clear that the landlord raised multiple jobs to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould and outstanding repairs. However, in the main, the landlord missed targets it set to attend or carry out repairs it had identified were needed including to address damp and mould. Some repairs were completed during the timeframe investigated including in relation to the collapsed sink and burst pipe. However, most remedial works raised on 5 April 2023 had not been completed by the date of the landlord’s final response, neither had it located the cause of the water ingress. While we recognise that the landlord was not responsible for all the delays, it is clear it did not meet the majority of target timescales it set and overall the landlord did not take sufficient action to ensure the repairs were completed on time. This was unreasonable. The landlord did not offer the resident any redress for its failings. Therefore, these issues are indicative of maladministration by the landlord while handling the resident’s reports of damp and mould and outstanding repairs.
  17. We also expect landlords to demonstrate they have provided repairs or actions promised during the complaints process. There is no evidence in the landlord’s repair records to demonstrate it completed the remedial works at the property or located the source of the leak on the dates given in its final response or at any stage since.
  18. In response to our information request the landlord told us remedial works to the property were completed by 16 January 2024. As this is unclear from the evidence we have seen, it is reasonable to include an order below for the landlord to contact the resident and check if any repairs remain outstanding in relation to his reports of damp and mould and water ingress. The landlord should agree an action plan with the resident to remedy any outstanding issues.
  19. In the circumstances, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £750 for the stress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by failings while handling reports of damp and mould and outstanding repairs. This amount is in line with the level recommended in our remedies guidance where failings have had a significant impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 3-stage complaint handling process. Its policy did not specify a timeframe to respond under its stage 1 ‘early resolution’ stage but stated that the landlord should respond to complaints within 20 working days at stage 2 and within 20 working days at stage 3.
  2. We note that since this complaint the landlord has amended its complaints policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code), which sets out this Service’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that landlords should respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. Under our Code landlords may extend this timescale if required, however, any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and it must clearly explain the reason(s) to the resident.
  3. Following its stage 1 response dated 11 May 2023, the resident asked the landlord on 16 June 2023 to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord provided its stage 2 final response 80 working days later on 6 October 2023, after intervention from the Ombudsman. This was 60 working days later than the 20 working day timescale states in its policy. There is no evidence of the landlord explaining to the resident the reasons for the delay in escalating his complaint.
  4. This is unreasonable and evidence of it failing to follow its complaint process while handling the related complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge this in its final response and incorrectly referred to his complaint as being dated 1 September 2023. These issues are evidence of poor complaint handling and indicative of maladministration by the landlord while handling the related complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of rent arrears from rental charges for 2 properties in 2017 is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.e of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of rent arrears due to compensation owed to him from a disrepair claim at his previous address is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord while handling the resident’s reports of damp and mould and outstanding repairs.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord while handling the related complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 4 weeks:
    1. Provide an apology and pay the resident compensation of £900 made up of:
      1. £750 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings while handling the resident’s reports of damp and mould and outstanding repairs.
      2. £150 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble for failings while handling his related complaint.
    2. Contact the resident and check if any repairs remain outstanding in relation to the work orders raised on 5 April 2023 in response to his reports of damp and mould and outstanding repairs. This should include the further issues identified during works in relation to windows and the need for damp and mould treatment. The landlord should agree an action plan with the resident to remedy any outstanding issues.
    3. Review the failings identified in this report including its failure to deal with the damp and mould reports in line with its Damp charter. It should identify the learning from these failings.
    4. Provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contact the resident to check his vulnerabilities and ensure these are correctly recorded on its system.