From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London Borough of Lambeth (202320737)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320737

Lambeth Council

20 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 decision regarding the repair and replacement of windows in the resident’s property. 

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord with the lease beginning in February 2017. The property is a 1–bedroom ground–floor flat, located in a block with 1 other flat on the first floor, both with separate entrances. The landlord is the freeholder of the building.
  2. The evidence shows that on 7 September 2022 the landlord completed a section 20 submission form in order to obtain tenders for the renewal of windows in the block due to these being “dilapidated” and “rotten”. A section 20 notice is a consultation notice that landlords have to serve on leaseholders for any works to be undertaken costing more than £250.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 16 December 2022. He said that the landlord had been saying it would renew the windows but “nothing had been done”. He explained that when the outside temperature was -6°C the maximum indoor temperature achieved was only 16°C. He went on to say it was an “unacceptable health and safety issue” and noted that the frames were rotten and had mould and fungus on them.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 30 December 2022. It said that:
    1. The resident had been advised that double glazed windows would be installed, and the delay was due to confusion over which repair team would be carrying out the works.
    2. It had highlighted the works as a priority and would monitor them through to completion.
    3. It apologised for any inconvenience caused.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 4 July 2023. He outlined a summary of events that he said took place. These included:
    1. Inspections were carried out on 9 and 21 January 2023 which determined the windows needed to be replaced, and measurements of them were taken.
    2. A section 20 notice was issued on 19 April 2023 which was subsequently revoked on 22 June 2023.
    3. He received a letter from the landlord on 29 June 2023 confirming the section 20 had been revoked and the window replacement had been transferred to its capital works team.
  6. On 13 July 2023, the resident provided additional information to the landlord in relation to his stage 2 complaint. He said that an inspection was carried out on 16 January 2023 where moisture readings were taken, and mould was evident on the walls. He said that he wanted this information considered in the decision making process regarding the replacement of the windows.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 8 August 2023. It outlined its understanding of the resident’s complaint. It said that its surveyor said the windows were “okay in [their] opinion except for the fact that they are single glazed and could do with draught excluders”. Furthermore, it said its surveyor had explained to the resident that the responsive repair team did not carry out improvement or upgrades, and therefore it would make a referral to the major works team for the windows to be included in the capital work programme. As a result, the decision was taken to stop the section 20 process as renewals were not required following its surveyor’s attendance.
  8. Following his complaint to this Service, the resident advised that he was concerned that the conditions in the property were affecting his health and that of his family. As an outcome, he said he would like the windows replaced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to concerns about the impact his living conditions may have had on his health and that of his family. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s concerns regarding the potential impact the damp and mould has had on him and his family. Unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused or worsened a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with through the courts or as a personal injury insurance claim.
  2. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether or not the resident’s windows required replacement. Rather, the role of this Service is to consider whether the landlord has taken appropriate steps, in line with relevant policies and procedures, to address the resident’s reports of problems with the windows.

The landlord’s decision regarding the repair and replacement of windows in the resident’s property

  1. This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021, outlines that landlords should take a proactive, zero tolerance approach to damp and mould, ensuring that their responses to damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord provided this Service with a copy of its repairs and damp policy which was implemented in August 2023.
  2. The law requires that leaseholders paying variable service charges must be consulted before a landlord carries out qualifying works or enters into a long-term agreement for the provision of services. This is in accordance with section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, as amended by the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
  3. The lease agreement says that leaseholders are responsible for repairs relating to the glass in the windows of the flat, which does not include window frames. In addition, the homeowner’s handbook says that the landlord is responsible under the terms of the lease to keep the building in good repair, including the windows.
  4. The evidence shows that the landlord completed a section 20 submission form dated 7 September 2022 in order to obtain tenders to carry out window replacement at the property. This Service has not had sight of any inspection notes that confirm the condition of the windows; however, the submission form says that the windows were “dilapidated and rotten”. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the windows were in some form of disrepair during September 2022. Under the terms of the lease the landlord has a responsibility to keep the building in good repair, including the windows. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acted on this information or raised any necessary repair works, which was not appropriate and contrary to its responsibilities under the terms of the lease.
  5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 16 December 2022, saying nothing had been done in relation to the replacement of the windows. He said that the condition of the windows amounted to an “unacceptable health and safety issue”. He went on to say that the windows were rotten and had mould and fungus on them. The landlord responded at stage 1 noting there had been a delay in establishing which team would be carrying out the works. It confirmed that the responsive repair team would repair the windows, and it had raised this as a priority. It was appropriate for the landlord to share the reason for the delay with the resident and confirm the current position.
  6. The resident said that the windows were inspected on 9 January 2023. The inspection determined they needed replacing. He also said that an inspection was carried out on 16 January 2023 where meter readings were taken, and mould was evident on the walls. This was not disputed by the landlord, and we have not seen any inspection notes in relation to either visit. In the absence of any available evidence to the contrary, the Ombudsman has relied on the resident’s version of events.
  7. As part of our evidence gathering, we asked the landlord to provide information in relation to its handling of damp and mould at the property. On 22 May 2024, the landlord advised this Service that it had no information on file in relation to damp and mould reports from the resident or any internal correspondence concerning the reports. In addition, it said that its inspection related to the windows rather than to damp and mould. This is contrary to the resident’s version of events, that an inspection was carried out on 16 January where meter readings were taken. Furthermore, his stage 1 complaint said there were “mould and fungus spores” on the window frames, which the landlord was responsible for repairing. We therefore find the landlord should have carried out an inspection in relation to the mould the resident reported. It failed to follow the recommendations outlined in our spotlight report to take a proactive, zero tolerance approach to damp and mould, ensuring that its response was timely and reflected the urgency of the issue. This was not appropriate.
  8. In addition, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
  9. The resident said that he was issued with a section 20 notice on 19 April 2024. We have not had sight of this. It is concerning that despite being aware of the disrepair to the windows since September 2022, the landlord was not proactive in carrying out any necessary repairs during this period, and did not issue the section 20 notice until 6 months later.
  10. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 4 July 2023, saying he was unhappy with the decision to revoke the section 20 and that the windows were assessed on 9 January 2023 as “beyond repair”. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 8 August 2023. It said that its surveyor had said the windows were “okay … except for the fact that they were single glazed and could do with draught excluders”. This was contradictory to the 2 previous inspections that the resident said took place in January 2023. Despite not having had sight of the inspection notes, it is reasonable to conclude that the windows were in fact assessed as needing replacement, given that the section 20 submission said they were “dilapidated and rotten”, and that the landlord subsequently issued the resident with a section 20 notice. The landlord did not dispute that the section 20 notice was issued and confirmed it was revoked in its stage 2 response. This investigation has seen no satisfactory explanation about why these works were not carried out or not considered to be required. It is evident that the uncertainty over the works caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
  11. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that its surveyor had advised the resident that its responsive repair team did not carry out improvement works or upgrades, and therefore the window works would be carried out under a capital works programme. This again was contradictory, as the landlord had advised the resident in its stage 1 response of 30 December 2022 that the responsive repair team would be carrying out the works. The landlord’s failure to accurately identify what team would be carry out the works delayed a resolution for the resident, which was unfair. It had identified the need to replace the windows in September 2022 and by August 2023, 11 months later, had not carried out any works and changed its position on replacing the windows. While we cannot determine whether or not the resident’s windows required replacement, we would expect the landlord to provide the resident with the correct advice and properly explain its decision making process, which it has failed to demonstrate in this case. Where decisions and positions change, it is good practice for landlords to inform affected residents of this proactively and to consider any redress that may be due for the resulting confusion and/or uncertainty.
  12. In summary, the landlord provided the resident with contradictory information spanning 9 months between December 2022 and August 2023, during which no repairs were evidenced as being carried out. This was despite the resident explaining his concerns about his health and highlighting that there was mould and fungus on the window frames. The landlord did not fully explain the reason for its change of position; it simply said its surveyor said the windows were “okay”. It is evident from the resident’s communication that the uncertainty caused him distress and inconvenience over an extended period of time. Therefore, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s decision regarding the replacement of windows and doors and the associated repairs.
  13. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident for the delay in resolving the matter, £600 compensation has been awarded to him. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which says that where a service failure is found it should consider any anxiety, frustration, worry, uncertainty caused to the resident as a direct result of the failure. The amount should account for all circumstances including the severity of the distress and the length of time. These criteria do not provide guidance around award levels. Consequently, we have used our remedies guidance in relation to the level of award for maladministration where the failure adversely affected the resident over a long period of time.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s decision regarding the repair and replacement of windows in the resident’s property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders 

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £600 to reflect the distress and inconvenience he experienced.
    3. Arrange an inspection of the resident’s windows by an independent suitably qualified surveyor in order to establish their current condition. The resulting report should include the surveyor’s recommendations for a sustainable solution to address any issues identified. The landlord must send a copy of the surveyor’s report to the Ombudsman and the resident, and clearly set out:
      1. Its decision on the resident’s request for replacement windows in light of the surveyor’s report.
      2. Any interim action it proposes to take to remedy the current condition of the windows until they can be replaced.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review:
    1. Its processes for residents being informed about repairs in a timely and effective manner.
    2. How it communicates and manages expectations in respect of and following repair reports.