London Borough of Lambeth (202331065)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331065

London Borough of Lambeth

28 July 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of planned works to the property’s ceiling.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

3. The resident occupies the property under an assured tenancy agreement, and they have done so since 1987. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette, and the landlord is a local authority.
4. In 2016 contractors identified that asbestos was present in ceiling tiles used in the property. Following this the landlord planned for works to safely remove the suspended ceiling tiles and to re-fit a new ceiling. The ceiling tiles were removed on 21 August 2023 by specialist asbestos contractors.
5. On 22 August 2023 contractors attended the property to install a new ceiling, but they were unable to complete the work as they did not have the appropriate equipment.
6. On 22 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. In their complaint the resident said:
   1. They were unhappy that the works had not gone ahead on 22 August 2023, as the appointment date was pre-arranged.
   2. They were unhappy that the landlord’s contractor had asked the resident if they could store equipment at the property.
7. In its stage one reply dated 4 October 2023 the landlord said:
   1. The repairs to the ceiling did not go ahead as the area was located above stairs within the property. This position meant the contractors needed to use specialist equipment to safely complete the repair, and they did not have this equipment with them on 22 August 2023.
   2. It had rescheduled the works to be completed on 9 November 2023 for 2 days. If an earlier appointment became available, the landlord said it would bring the repair forward.
   3. It understood the resident had concerns about the contractors who had attended on 22 August 2023. It said that it may not be possible to arrange for different personnel to complete the repair.
   4. It offered the resident £60 in compensation as a gesture of good will.
8. The resident escalated their complaint on 5 November 2023 as they felt the compensation offered was not appropriate.
9.  In its stage 2 response dated 9 November 2023 the landlord said:
   1. Contractors had attended the property on 22 August 2023, but they could not safely complete the repairs.
   2. It apologised that the repairs could not go ahead on 22 August 2023. The landlord said it had re-booked the repair for the next available appointment date.
   3. It expected contractors to bring materials with them on the day of appointments, and contractors should not be asking residents to store equipment on their behalf. 
   4. The contractors who attended the property were plasterers who covered the resident’s geographic area. It said if the resident wanted other plasterers to complete the works, this would likely delay the works to February 2024.
   5. It had booked an electrician to reinstate the resident’s hallway lighting on 13 November 2023.
   6. It had booked an appointment for a pest control company to attend the property on 13 November 2023 after the resident reported concerns of mice infestations.
   7. It offered the resident £315 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble they had experienced.
10. On 4 December 2023 the resident brought their complaint to this Service as they felt the landlord’s customer service around repairs is poor, and the compensation offered did not reflect their distress.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident has informed this Service that the repairs completed to the property’s ceiling are of poor quality, and the works have damaged wallpaper and decorations in the upstairs hallway.
12. The role of the Ombudsman is to assess a landlord’s response to a resident’s complaint. As such, the Ombudsman can only consider matters which a landlord has had the opportunity to address during its internal complaints procedures. As the resident has not formally complained to the landlord about the quality of the works this element of the resident’s complaint to this Service has not been considered. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the quality of the works, they may raise a complaint about the quality of the works with their landlord.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property’s ceiling

13. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will assess the priority of a repair, and this will inform how it responds to the issue. If the matter is an emergency, the landlord will attend within 24 hours. For non-emergency repairs it will aim to attend within 2 to 30 working days. For planned repairs and improvements, the landlord will provide the resident with a timescale for completion, or it will aim to complete the repairs within 90 days.
14. The landlord’s compensation policy outlines how the landlord will aim to put things right following a service failure. When calculating compensation the landlord will consider if the resident or their household are vulnerable, and how its actions have affected a resident. The landlord can offer compensation of £50 to £250 for a resident’s time and trouble.
15. In March 2023 the landlord began works to assess how it could safely remove the suspended ceiling tiles and re-fit a new ceiling. The landlord then arranged for a specialist asbestos contractor to survey the area and to remove the ceiling tiles on 21 August 2023.
16. The resident told this Service the landlord had planned for contractors to attend the property on 22 August 2023 to renew and replaster the ceiling area. The resident said the works were planned to occur the day after the ceiling was removed. This was appropriate, and it indicated the landlord was mindful of the disruption the works would cause to the resident and their family, as it aimed to mitigate this.
17. On 22 August 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the property to complete the ceiling works. The resident said the contractor told them the works could not be completed as it was a 2 person job. The contractor later told the landlord it could not complete the works as the ceiling was located above stairs, so specialist equipment was required to complete the repair.
18. The works being delayed would have caused the resident distress and annoyance. This distress could have been prevented if the landlord provided the contractors with sufficient information prior to the appointment. A recommendation has therefore been made that the landlord should provide its contractors with details of the location of a repair, and to outline if any specialist equipment should be used.
19. On 22 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord as they were dissatisfied with the works not going ahead. In its stage one response the landlord said it had rescheduled the works for 9 November 2023. It said this was the first available appointment date, and if an earlier date became available then it would reschedule the works. This was appropriate.
20. The rescheduled appointment was 80 days after the cancelled appointment. This timeframe was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy timescales for planned works. While the delay would have caused the resident distress and annoyance, the landlord had attempted to mitigate this distress by rescheduling the repair for the next available date. This was appropriate.
21. The resident said on 22 August 2023 the contractor asked them if they could store their tools and equipment at the property. The resident felt this was inappropriate as they considered this to be the contractor’s responsibility, and they did not want the equipment creating clutter in their home. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that the contractor should not have asked the resident to store their equipment, and it apologised for this. This was appropriate.
22. The resident has told this Service that the delays in completing the ceiling repairs caused them distress and inconvenience as:
    1. The lack of a proper ceiling over a cavity which had been sealed for many years caused a significant amount of dust to enter the property. This particularly affected the resident’s child who has asthma.
    2. The electrics in the hallway had to be switched off for the time in which the repair was outstanding.
23. During the period in which the ceiling repair was unresolved the resident raised concerns about there being no lighting in the upstairs hallway. The resident also reported concerns around mice. At stage 2 the landlord actioned the resident’s concerns and arranged for an electrician and a pest control company to attend the property on 13 November 2023. This was appropriate.
24. Altogether the resident did not have working lighting in their upstairs hallway for 84 days. This would have caused them inconvenience and annoyance. The lack of lighting was limited to one room which was the upstairs hallway. As such, the distress experienced would be less impactful than having no lighting in a bedroom, bathroom or living room, as hallways are typically used to briefly transit from one room to another.
25. At stage 2 the landlord offered the resident £315 in compensation for the time and trouble experienced, this was in addition to the £60 at stage one. The compensation offered was in excess of the figure outlined in the landlord’s compensation policy for time and trouble. The Ombudsman considers the compensation offered to be a fair and appropriate amount for the delays experienced.
26. On 9 February 2024 the landlord repainted the ceiling. This work took place 3 months after the ceiling was re-plastered. However, this work would have been low priority as it was decorative works, and the landlord needed to allow time for the plastering to fully dry.
27. The Ombudsman finds the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress after considering:
    1. The compensation offered was in line with the landlord’s policies.
    2. The lighting outage, while it was inconvenient, was limited to one area which was not a bedroom, living room or bathroom.
    3. It apologised to the resident that the repairs had not gone ahead as scheduled.
    4. It acknowledged it was incorrect for the contractors to ask to store tools in the resident’s property. 
    5. The rescheduled repairs date was in line with the landlord’s timescales for planned repairs.

The landlord’s complaints handling

28. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines the timescales in which it will respond to a complaint. The landlord commits to providing its stage one response within 20 working days of a complaint. If a resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response it can escalate the complaint to stage 2. The policy does not specify a timeframe for producing a response at stage 2. However, the landlord’s website says it will produce stage 2 responses within 20 working days.
29. The resident complained to the landlord on 22 August 2023, and the landlord provided its stage one response on 4 October 2023. This was 32 working days later, which was outside of the timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy.
30. The resident escalated their complaint on 5 October 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 November 2023, this was 26 working days after the escalation request. This was outside of the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy.
31. It was a failing that the landlord did not provide its stage one and stage 2 responses within the timeframes outlined in its complaints policy. The Ombudsman considers the failings outlined to be a service failure, and an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 in recognition of the inconvenience experienced.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint in respect of its handling of the ceiling works.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

34. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £50 in recognition of the inconvenience experienced by the landlord’s complaint handling delays.

Recommendations

35. The landlord should consider updating the records it provides its contractors to include details of the location of a repair, and if any specialist equipment is required.
36. The landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £375 previously offered if it has not already paid this amount.