London Borough of Lambeth (202327193)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327193

Lambeth Council

30 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. A property inspection.
2. Follow up works to address outstanding issues with the resident’s:
  1. Kitchen, tiles and cabinets.
  2. Back door.
  3. Bathroom and extractor fan.
  4. Decoration.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 4 bedroom house. The resident has mobility issues.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 25 October 2021. The complaint was about a roof leak, damage to her kitchen units, and a rodent infestation. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 26 June 2022. Part of the resolution to the complaint was that a building surveyor would inspect the resident’s home on 29 June 2022 to identify any necessary repairs. The landlord’s handling of this complaint does not form part of this investigation. This is because there is no evidence to suggest the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. However, the inspection and the follow up works form the basis of this complaint.
A surveyor attended the resident’s property on 29 June 2022 but did not complete the planned inspection. The inspection was reallocated to a senior surveyor on 14 July 2022. A senior surveyor attended and completed the inspection on 20 July 2022. The landlord raised a number of works orders following the inspection.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 May 2023. She said the complaint was about ongoing issues and works not done to a good standard following the inspection and jobs raised by the senior surveyor.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 15 June 2023. It said its contractor had asked for more repairs to be authorised and it had chased its repairs team for a response. It said its records showed outstanding decorative works and it had requested appointment dates.
Following escalation to stage 2 on 19 September 2023, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 24 October 2023. It said it had put a job on hold due to a discrepancy in the agreed work. It said it had classed this as a failed appointment and it offered the resident £50 compensation.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord has only provided limited information. This has significantly affected our investigation. It has made it difficult to establish when reports were made, and what (if any) actions the landlord took.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of its record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.

Property inspection

The inspection, carried out by a senior surveyor, took place on 20 July 2022. This was part of a stage 1 resolution to the resident’s complaint. The stage 1 complaint response (dated 26 June 2022) said the landlord would arrange the inspection and it would discuss “any necessary repairs” during the inspection.
Within internal correspondence prior to the inspection, the surveyor said he was only prepared to discuss/inspect matters relating to the original complaint. This included a roof leak and damage to the resident’s kitchen units. This contradicted the agreement made in the stage 1 response.
The landlord has a legal obligation within the tenancy agreement and under s11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It must also keep in repair and working order the installations in the property such as boilers, pipes and electrics. Therefore, it was inappropriate of the landlord to only consider specific matters when completing the property inspection if other repairs were apparent at the time.
The landlord has been unable to provide detailed inspection notes. It is unclear from the evidence provided which areas of the property it inspected and which areas it considered to be in a satisfactory condition. The only information available is a note on the landlord’s system which says, “no major repairs defects found”. The note also says the resident’s main issue related to “what was alleged to have been agreed in terms of retiling the whole kitchen”.
The landlord’s records are not consistent with the information given to us by the resident. She told us she was concerned about the tiles in her kitchen and other matters detailed in this report. However, she also told us she was concerned with ongoing water ingress into the property from the roof/gutters, damp and mould, drainage issues, and a potentially hazardous step. There is no evidence to show the surveyor considered these issues during the inspection.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 May 2023. She said her complaint was about the ongoing issues following the inspection and jobs raised by the surveyor.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 15 June 2023. It said its contractor had contacted the resident on 9 June 2023 and they had asked for additional repairs to be authorised. It did not make any reference to the initial inspection or explain why additional repairs had to be authorised.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 19 September 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 24 October 2023. It did not recognise or acknowledge the failings relating to the initial inspection. It did not consider the inspection report or the surveyor’s failure to complete a full property inspection.
Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, and its lack of investigation through the complaint process, we are unable to conclude it acted in line with its obligations at the time of the inspection. It unreasonably contradicted its commitment to fully inspect all the issues at the property as per its previous stage 1 response. As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the property inspection.

Follow up works

Kitchen, tiles and cabinets

The landlord raised a work order on 20 July 2022 to renew a kitchen base unit, regrout tiles, and seal the gap between the worktop and wall. The job was booked in for 26 August 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 August 2022 as the operative had only been given 2 hours to do the work. The resident said the landlord needed to replace her tiles, not regrout them. She also said the operative had brought the wrong size base unit.
It is unclear from the evidence provided what happened, if anything, with the work to the kitchen between 26 August 2022 and the date of the formal complaint.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 May 2023. She said the landlord needed to replace her tiles, not regrout them. She said her kitchen cabinets still had the plastic covers on. She said the landlord needed to remove the cabinets, take the plastic covers off, then put them back. She said the landlord had not given the operative enough time to do the work, so he left without doing anything.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 15 June 2023. It said it understood its contractors contacted the resident on 9 June 2023. It said the contractor had asked for additional repairs to be authorised. It said it would update the resident the following day. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord updated the resident as promised.
The landlord raised follow on works on 19 June 2023 for the kitchen units to be removed and reinstated without the plastic attached to them.
The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property and carried out an inspection on or around 29 June 2023. The issues noted in the kitchen were:
1. Grouting not carried out and in a poor condition.
2. Sealant to sink and worktops in a poor condition.
3. Plastic covering on unit doors bubbling and needs removing.
4. Decoration in a poor condition.
The contractor asked the landlord to look at the specification and let them know what work they could complete. It is unclear from the evidence provided what work the landlord authorised.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 19 September 2023. She said:
1. Work had started on her kitchen on 1 September 2023 but the contractors left the job incomplete.
2. The contractors had moved her cooker but they had not put it back.
3. They had removed the sealant around the sink but not replaced it.
4. She was told the job would be finished on 4 September 2023, but the contractor did not return.
5. She tried to contact the contractor but they ignored her calls. She managed to speak to someone on 5 September 2023, who said they would attend on 19 September 2023. However, when they arrived, they said they were not told they were completing someone else’s job.
6. The landlord had said the job was on hold even though her kitchen was unfinished.
7. She told the landlord she lived with a disability and the stress of the delay was affecting her health.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 24 October 2023. It said there was an appointment booked for the tiling on 19 September 2023. It said it put the job on hold due to a discrepancy as to whether the tiles would be regrouted or renewed. It said it had agreed to renew the tiles and it had booked the work in for 27 October 2023. It offered the resident £50 compensation for a missed appointment and for the delay in completing the works.
Although the landlord offered compensation for the failed appointment on 19 September 2023, it did not consider as part of its response that this issue had been ongoing since 20 July 2022. This timescale is far beyond what could be described as a reasonable time to complete the works.
The landlord did not acknowledge or consider the overall delays and the miscommunication between it, its contractor and the resident. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete priority 4 repairs within 30 working days. It did not acknowledge that it had failed to complete the repairs in line with its repairs policy. It did not address the resident’s concerns that it had left her with an incomplete kitchen. It also did not acknowledge or consider the resident’s disability or health issues in relation to the ongoing delays. The offer of £50 compensation was not sufficient to provide reasonable redress for all of these failings.
The landlord’s records show it completed the work to the resident’s kitchen on 4 December 2023. This was 16 months after it raised the original job.

Back door

The landlord raised a work order on 27 July 2022 to repair/replace the back door lock as the resident was struggling to lock it. The notes on the order also said the door may be warped and too small for the frame.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to show when it attended to inspect the door. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether it completed any work to the door between July 2022 and the date of the formal complaint.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 May 2023. She said various operatives had taken measurements for a new door. However, she was still waiting for the landlord to fit it.
The landlord’s stage 1 response dated 15 June 2023 did not specifically mention the resident’s back door. It said it understood its contractor had contacted the resident on 9 June 2023. It said its contractor had asked for additional repairs to be authorised. It is unclear from the evidence provided as to whether this included the replacement of the back door.
The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on or around 29 June 2023. They noted the back door was misaligned and the sill was rotten. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord approved any works to the resident’s back door at this point.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 19 September 2023. She said the time scales for repairs had been very long and inconsistent. She said operatives often failed to attend appointments. She said the landlord’s contractor was ignoring her phone calls and emails. She asked the landlord for a clear action plan and dates when it would complete the work.
The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 24 October 2023 did not address the resident’s concerns relating to her back door. This was inappropriate and not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (April 2022) which says “on receipt of the escalation request, landlords must set out their understanding of issues outstanding and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties”. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord clarified the complaint definition with the resident prior to the stage 2 response.
The landlord also did not consider, as part of its communication with the resident, the issue had been ongoing since 20 July 2022. It did not acknowledge it had failed to complete the repairs within 30 working days, in line with its repairs policy. It did not acknowledge the miscommunication and the delays in providing updates to the resident. It also did not acknowledge the resident’s disability or health issues in relation to the ongoing delays.
The landlord raised a work order to overhaul, ease and adjust the back door on 6 December 2023. The evidence shows the landlord replaced the door on 18 December 2024. This was over 2 years from the date it first raised the order to repair/replace the back door.

Bathroom and extractor fan

It is unclear from the evidence provided when the resident first raised an issue with her bathroom fan. She told us that she had been without a working bathroom fan for 18 months. She said the landlord had redecorated her bathroom after treating mould but the mould had eventually returned because she had no working fan.
The resident raised the issue of mould on her bathroom walls within her stage 1 complaint dated 17 May 2023. Following the resident’s complaint, the evidence shows the landlord raised an order for a mould wash to be carried out. There is no evidence to show whether it also raised any work to repair or replace the extractor fan.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, dated 15 June 2023, said it had asked for additional repairs to be authorised. It said its records showed that there were outstanding decorative works to the bathroom. It said it had requested the appointment dates and it would update the resident the following day. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord gave the resident an update.
The contractor attended the resident’s property on or around 29 June 2023. It noted the bathroom needed a mould wash and painting. The landlord raised a works order on 28 July 2023. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided when the work was due to be carried out.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 19 September 2023. She said when the landlord made appointments, it did not attend. She said the service was unacceptable and the landlord’s contractor was ignoring her telephone calls and emails. She asked the landlord when it would complete the outstanding work.
The landlord did not address the resident’s complaint in relation to her bathroom in the stage 2 complaint response. This was inappropriate and not in line with the Code. It did not acknowledge or consider the delays in carrying out the mould wash. It also failed to provide an update as to when it expected to complete the mould wash and decorative works to the bathroom.
The landlord raised a work order to repair the extractor fan on 23 November 2023. It also raised a further order on 16 January 2024 for a mould wash to the bathroom. A contractor attended to complete the work to the extractor fan on 20 February 2024, however, they could not complete the work. This was because it was not a refit of an existing fan, so they needed to complete additional work. The evidence shows the landlord fitted the new extractor fan on 26 November 2024. This was 18 months from the date of the resident’s stage 1 complaint and significantly outside of the landlord’s timeframe of 30 working days to complete priority 4 repairs.

Decoration

The evidence shows the landlord made internal enquiries on 26 August 2022 in relation to incomplete work orders. It referred to the outstanding decoration works to the resident’s living room and hallway. The landlord has not provided any further information in relation to the outstanding decoration prior to the resident’s formal complaint.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 17 May 2023. She said the landlord told her it would raise a recall for the sub-contractor to repaint her property. However, she had not received any updates. The resident asked the landlord to complete the outstanding work to an acceptable standard.
The evidence shows the landlord asked its planners to book the plastering and decoration works in for the hallway and living room on 9 June 2023 as it had an open order. It chased the appointment date for the works on 15 June 2023.
In its stage 1 complaint response dated 15 June 2023 the landlord acknowledged there were outstanding decorative works to the hallway and living room. It said it had requested an update and appointment dates and it would update the resident the following day. However, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord gave the resident an update.
The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on or around 29 June 2023. They noted the outstanding decoration to the hall, stairs and living room due to the previous contractor only applying 1 coat of paint. The landlord raised an order on 28 July 2023 for the work to be carried out. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided whether the contractor booked in the work with the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 19 September 2023. She said the landlord had failed to attend appointments. She said the service was unacceptable and the landlord’s contractor was ignoring her calls and emails. She asked the landlord to provide dates when the work would be carried out.
The landlord did not address the resident’s complaint in relation to the decorative works. This was inappropriate and not in line with the Code. It did not provide the resident with an appointment date for the work to take place and it did not acknowledge or consider that the work had been outstanding since at least 26 August 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 15 May 2024 to chase up the decorative works. The evidence shows the landlord asked for a review of the relevant work order and action where necessary. It said it would alert the resident to any amendments. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided if, or when, the landlord completed the decorative works.

Summary

There were significant delays by the landlord completing the follow up work, much of which was not completed within the timeframe set in its repairs policy. It did not comply with the Code when responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor throughout and she had to chase it for updates on the outstanding work. It did not show that it considered the resident’s disability and the detriment caused to the resident by the delays. It only offered compensation for the delays to the kitchen repairs due to a missed appointment. The level of compensation did not reflect the level of distress caused by the landlord’s failings and was insufficient.
As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the follow up works.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the property inspection.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the follow up works.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £800. This is made up of:
  1. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the property inspection.
  2. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the follow up works.
3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
4. Ensure a survey inspection is booked and takes place within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. The inspection must identify any outstanding repairs to the property. The landlord must ensure that the surveyor provides a full report, including photographs and a scope of works, within 10 working days of the date of the inspection. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the report within 5 working days of receipt.
5. Following receipt of the inspection report (survey), the landlord must ensure it begins the work within 28 days of the date it receives the report. The landlord must, within 9 weeks of the date of this determination, provide evidence that it has commenced the works or provide reasons and evidence as to why it has not/cannot start the work within these timescales, together with amended start times.
6. Allocate the resident a single point of contact (SPOC) who can liaise with the resident for the duration of the works. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with the name and contact details of the SPOC.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.