London Borough of Lambeth (202408323)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408323

Lambeth Council

15 May 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 response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the assessment.

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property which the complaint concerns. The property is a first floor studio flat. The landlord owns the property.
The resident’s tenancy commenced in November 2011.
The resident has confirmed that she has mental health conditions and is vulnerable.
On 23 February 2024 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its repairs service. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord had failed to repair damage to the property’s walls and floor caused by rain water.
2. The repair was reported on 23 September 2021. The landlord had raised a work order for the repair however had marked it as complete without doing the work.
3. The property was experiencing damp and mould as the water damage had not been remedied.
4. The situation was impacting on her “mental and physical health”.
5. She was due compensation for the length of time the repair had been outstanding.
On 21 March 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It had completed a mould wash in the property – date not given.
2. It had raised a work order to inspect the property for water damage. The surveyor would contact the resident directly to arrange a date for the inspection.
On 28 March 2024 the resident responded to the landlord. She stated that the mould wash which was completed was not in response to the water damage subject of the complaint. In separate correspondence on the same day the resident requested to escalate the complaint. She stated that the complaint remained “unresolved”.
On 9 April 2024 the landlord acknowledged the escalation request confirming that a response would be provided by 8 May 2024.
On 8 May 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2, final, response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the inconvenience caused by the “delay in resolution to the repair issue” in the property.
2. An inspection was scheduled for 28 May 2024 to investigate the mould and water ingress issues at the property.
The landlord concluded by confirming the resident may refer the complaint to us if she was not happy with its response.
On 22 May 2024 the resident contacted us for assistance as she was not happy with the landlord’s response to the complaint. She explained that she would like the landlord to fix the property and to pay her compensation. She stated that the landlord had had years to resolve the repair issues however had failed to do so.
On 8 December 2024 the resident provided an update to us on the complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. The property had experienced mould for 4 years and the landlord had not taken any action to address the problem.
2. The landlord had failed to complete “basic maintenance” at the property. This included cleaning the guttering. As a result rain water had penetrated the property.
3. Her living conditions were significantly impacting on her mental and physical health. She noted that she had been sectioned.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property

On 20 March 2019 The Homes (Fitness of Human Habitation) Act 2018 came into force with the aim of ensuring that all rented accommodation is fit for human habitation. It requires landlords to make sure that its properties are safe, healthy and free from things that could cause serious harm. The Government’s guidance for tenants sets out that “damp and mould growth” must be considered. As the resident’s complaint concerned damp and mould the landlord was obliged to investigate and make good any issues identified.
The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records to demonstrate its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The evidence shows that prior to the complaint the resident contacted the landlord to report damp and mould. For example:
1. In March 2020 she reported water leaking from the guttering causing damp and mould inside the property.
2. In April 2020 she reported a leak coming from the flat roof affecting the interior of the property.
3. In August 2020 she reported that there was water leaking into the property causing dampness.
4. In January 2021 she reported “black and orange mould growing” inside the property.
5. In November 2022 she reported that a repair was required after a leak from the gutters had caused internal damage to the property.
We note that during the period March 2020 to December 2023 other residents within the building also reported issues with the guttering and downpipes causing leaks and overflowing water.
Each repair has a work “completed date” entered against it however no further details are given on the repair or work undertaken. The lack of detail has meant that the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it took, if any, to resolve the reported issues. From the repeated reports of leaks and issues with the guttering we can however conclude with reasonable confidence that any actions which the landlord took between 2020 and end of November 2022 were not effective in preventing water ingression into the property and the wider building. This is unsatisfactory. During this period the landlord should have inspected the property and building to diagnose the cause of the problem and to decide the work required for a permanent repair. There is no evidence that the landlord did this.
The evidence also shows that prior to the complaint and in autumn 2023 the resident made a legal disrepair claim to the small claims court. The resident stated that despite reporting a roof leak in 2020 causing mould and water damage in the property the landlord had not taken action to fix the issue. The resident’s claim was struck out in December 2023 as she did not file her directions by the deadline given by the court.
While the resident’s claim was not considered by the court, the landlord still had an obligation to investigate the repair concerns which she had. This is because the landlord had been given notice of a repair issue which it was responsible for.
The evidence shows that in response to the legal disrepair claim the landlord made arrangements to inspect the property on 18 September 2023 to “identify what disrepair [existed] in the property”. This was appropriate. Despite confirming the date to inspect the property the inspection did not go ahead. From the records, it is not clear why the inspection did not go ahead as no reason is documented. The evidence does not document any other intervention or investigation by the landlord in response to the resident’s report of disrepair at the property at that time. This is unsatisfactory and a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the situation at an earlier point.
In response to the complaint the landlord confirmed that it would inspect the property. This was appropriate in order to determine if there was an issue which required its attention and to plan any works needed. The inspection was arranged for 28 May 2024. This was approximately 3 months after committing to arranging the inspection. This was a protracted period of time. Despite setting a date to inspect the property there is no evidence the inspection went ahead. This is unsatisfactory including as it was an action the landlord had agreed in order to resolve the complaint.
In an update to us the landlord confirmed that it had arranged to inspect the property on 17 March 2025. This is a period of approximately 18 months since the resident made her disrepair claim and 12 months since the complaint was first registered. This is a significantly protracted period of time. From review of the chronology of the case it appears that the landlord was prompted to complete the inspection following notification that we would be investigating the complaint. This is unsatisfactory as a landlord’s actions should not be influenced by a referral to us. While the inspection was outstanding the resident will have felt that her concerns were not being taken seriously.
The landlord has confirmed that it attempted to inspect the property on 17 March 2025 however the inspection did not go ahead. It explained that the resident did not grant access as she said she had not been informed that an appointment had been made to inspect.
There was severe maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property. Despite the resident reporting damp and mould issues since the start of 2020 there is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate and address the repair issues which she raised. This demonstrates a lack of ownership and oversight by the landlord in respect of the repair service which it provided the resident. The landlord had multiple opportunities to resolve the situation which included when the resident made her claim to the court and during the complaint procedure. While the repairs have been outstanding the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property will have been heavily impacted including as the property is a studio flat.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord provided its stage 1 response 20 working days after the resident made the complaint. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 27 working days after the resident requested to escalate the complaint. Both responses were provided outside of the landlord’s service standards and those prescribed by the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the code); 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
In responding to the complaint the landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its responses. The landlord should have apologised for the delay in both responses and the impact on the resident. While the responses were outstanding it will have added to the resident’s concerns that her case was not being taken seriously.
The code sets out that in responding to a complaint landlords must address all points raised and provided clear reasons for any decisions. In responding to the complaint the landlord did not do this. The landlord’s complaint responses lacked detail and were vague. They did not provide any evidence of an investigation. While the landlord did acknowledge there had been a service failure it did not provide an explanation as to what had happened in the case, the nature of the service failure identified or the reasons behind it. This is unsatisfactory and will not have reassured the resident that her concerns were being taken seriously.
As part of her complaint the resident set out that the condition of the property was impacting on her health. There is no evidence to show that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns in this regard which is unsatisfactory. A landlord should carefully consider a resident’s reported circumstances or vulnerabilities when responding to a complaint to determine if any further support or assistance should be offered. The landlord did not do so in this case.
There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. This is because the landlord did not:
1. Acknowledge the delays in the provision of its stage 1 and 2 response.
2. Provide a comprehensive response to the complaint demonstrating a proper investigation of the matters raised.
3. Demonstrate that it had considered the resident’s concerns regarding her health in responding to the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman finds:
1. Severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the resident in respect of the failings identified by this investigation.
The landlord should pay the resident £2,300 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. This figures comprises:
1. £2,000 for not demonstrating that it took appropriate steps to address the damp and mould reported by the resident since March 2020 and therefore the inconvenience and distress she would have experienced.
2. £300 for poor complaint handling resulting in raised expectations by the resident in relation to when the issues subject of the complaint would be resolved.
The landlord should arrange an inspection of the property and wider building within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. The landlord should inform the resident of the date and time of the inspection in advance of the appointment to ensure that she will be available. The inspection should assess the overall condition of the property and building to identify if any repairs are needed which are its responsibility. Within 2 weeks of the inspection the landlord should write to the resident to confirm the outcome, providing a schedule for any works identified with provisional timescales. A copy of the letter should be provided to us.
The landlord should provide the resident with a single point of contact to liaise with regarding her repair concerns. The landlord should write to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to confirm who that officer will be. The letter should include details of how the officer may be contacted. A copy of the letter should be provided to us.
The landlord should contact the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to find out whether there is any support which it could offer her in light of the vulnerabilities which she has reported as part of the complaint. The landlord should record any vulnerabilities on its databases so that it has a record of this information.